content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction: the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess}
An excess of gamma rays from the Galactic Center (GC) has been detected in the Fermi-LAT data between roughly 0.1 and 10 GeV \cite{Fermi_collaboration,Hooper_Linden_excess,Gordon_Macias_excess,Abazajian_GeV_excess,Daylan_GeV_excess}. This excess has a spatial extension smaller than $10^\circ \times 10^\circ$, and is spherically symmetric. It was obtained by subtracting to the data known sources and a template for the background diffuse emission provided by the Fermi Collaboration. Although this background modelling procedure has been debated, the picture that has emerged seems to be robust. There is a variety of astrophysical explanations for the excess, but an interpretation in terms of dark matter (DM) is nevertheless possible.
The best fit to the excess quoted in the literature has been obtained for 30 GeV DM annihilating into $b\bar{b}$ (Fig.~\ref{prompt_fits}, top left panel), with a cross section of $2 \times 10^{-26}\ \rm cm^{3}\ s^{-1}$. The data also point to a density profile $\rho \propto r^{-1.2}$. A mixture of 90\% leptons and 10\% $b$ quarks gives a relatively good fit (Fig.~\ref{prompt_fits}, top right panel), while the fit is bad for a final state containing 100\% leptons (Fig.~\ref{prompt_fits}, bottom panel). Here the term ``leptons'' refers to democratic annihilation into leptons, i.e.~a combination of the $e^{+}e^{-}$, $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$, $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ final states, with 1/3 of the annihilations into each of these channels.
Consequently, final states of DM annihilation containing only leptons have not been considered viable when interpreting the GeV excess in terms of DM. However, these conclusions were obtained taking into account only the prompt gamma-ray emission, namely the final-state radiation (FSR) single-photon emission, and the immediate hadronization and decay of the DM annihilation products into photons. Nevertheless, electrons and positrons are also by-products of DM annihilations, and they produce gamma rays via inverse Compton (IC) scattering off photons of the interstellar radiation field and bremsstrahlung. It had been argued by the authors of Refs.~\cite{Fermi_IC,brems_Cirelli} that the contributions of these secondary emissions to the gamma-ray spectrum should not be neglected and should lead to corrections. On top of that, diffusion of electrons and positrons through the Galactic magnetic field must be taken into account when modelling these emissions. Here we show that these contributions do not just give corrections but they totally change the interpretation of the excess in terms of DM.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{NFW_1point2_prompt_only_best_fit_b.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{NFW_1point2_prompt_only_best_fit_l+b.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{NFW_1point2_prompt_only_best_fit_leptons.pdf}
\caption{Best fit to the spectrum of the residual extended emission in the $7^{\circ} \times 7^{\circ}$ region around the GC, for 30 GeV DM annihilating into 100\% $b$ quarks (top left panel), and 10 GeV DM annihilating into 90\% leptons and 10\% $b$ quarks (top right panel), and 100\% leptons (bottom panel). The best-fit cross section is $\sim 2 \times 10^{-26}\ \rm cm^{3}\ s^{-1}$. The data points are taken from \cite{Gordon_Macias_excess}.}
\label{prompt_fits}
\end{figure}
\section{Diffusion of electrons and positrons from DM}
In order to compute the gamma-ray spectrum from DM-induced electrons and positrons, we solve the diffusion-loss equation of cosmic rays. Assuming a steady state, the equation reads \cite{Itilde_Timur}
\begin{equation}
K \nabla^{2}\psi + \frac{\partial}{\partial E}(b_{\mathrm{tot}} \psi) + q = 0,
\end{equation}
where $ \psi(\vec{x},E) $ is the cosmic-ray spectrum after propagation, $ K $ is the diffusion coefficient: $ K(E) = K_{0} \left( E/E_{0} \right) ^{\delta} $ with $ E_{0} = 1 \ \rm GeV $, $ b_{\mathrm{tot}}(E) $ is the total energy loss rate (IC, synchrotron, bremsstrahlung) and $ q(\vec{x},E) $ is the source term for DM annihilations, proportional to $ \rho^{2} $. To solve the equation, we use the semi-analytic method described in Ref.~\cite{Itilde_Timur}. In this approach, the spectrum of electrons and positrons after diffusion is given by
\begin{equation}
\psi (\vec{x},E) = \frac{\kappa}{b_{\mathrm{tot}}(E)} \int_{E}^{\infty} \! \tilde{I}_{\vec{x}}(\lambda_{\mathrm {D}}(E,E_{S})) \frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}E}(E_{S}) \, \mathrm{d}E_{S},
\end{equation}
where $ \kappa = (1/2) \left\langle \sigma v \right\rangle (\rho_{\odot}/m_{\mathrm{DM}})^{2} $, with $\left\langle \sigma v \right\rangle$ the annihilation cross section, $\rho_{\odot}$ the DM density in the Solar neighborhood, and $m_{\mathrm{DM}}$ the DM mass. $ \tilde{I}_{\vec{x}} $ is the so-called halo function that contains all the information on diffusion, through the diffusion length $ \lambda_{\mathrm {D}}(E,E_{\mathrm{S}}) $ that depends on the injection energy $E_{\mathrm{S}}$ and the energy after propagation $E$. The halo function is convolved with the injection spectrum $\mathrm{d}n/\mathrm{d}E$. The most difficult step of the resolution is to compute the halo function in the context of a cuspy DM profile. For that we used the method relying on Green's functions. The halo function is thus given by the convolution over the diffusion zone (DZ) of the Green's function $G(\vec{x},E ; \vec{x}_{\mathrm{S}},E_{\mathrm{S}}) \equiv G(\vec{x},\vec{x}_{\mathrm{S}},\lambda_{\mathrm {D}}(E,E_{S}))$ of the diffusion-loss equation and the square of the DM density \cite{Itilde_Timur}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{I}_{\vec{x}}(\lambda_{\mathrm {D}}(E,E_{S})) = \int_{\mathrm{DZ}} \! \mathrm{d}\vec{x}_{\mathrm{S}} \, G(\vec{x},E ; \vec{x}_{\mathrm{S}},E_{\mathrm{S}}) \left( \frac{\rho(\vec{x}_{\mathrm{S}})}{\rho_{\odot}} \right) ^{2}.
\end{equation}
The difficulty with this integral is twofold. First of all, to deal with the steepness of the DM profile, we used logarithmic steps. Second, the halo function must boil down to $(\rho/\rho_{\odot})^{2}$ when diffusion becomes negligible, that is when $\lambda_{\mathrm {D}} \rightarrow 0$ (i.e.~$E \rightarrow E_{\mathrm{S}}$). The problem is that in this regime, $ G $ becomes infinitely peaked, and the sampling of the integral must be carefully chosen in order not to miss the peak. The solution is to define different regimes for $G$ depending on the ratio of $\lambda_{\mathrm {D}}$ and the distance to the GC, as described in detail in \cite{spike_my_paper}. Once $\tilde{I}$ has been computed with this dedicated treatment of diffusion on small scales, one can compute the IC and bremsstrahlung gamma-ray fluxes from electrons and positrons.
\section{Fitting the Fermi-LAT GeV excess with the leptonic channels}
We used fixed values for the quantities describing the interstellar medium (the magnetic field and the gas density) that correspond to average values for the losses in the GC region. In Fig.~\ref{leptons_3contributions} we show that for democratic annihilation into leptons, the contributions from prompt emission, IC and bremsstrahlung are of the same order of magnitude, and they combine to give an excellent fit to the excess, with a best-fit cross section of $\left\langle \sigma v \right\rangle = 0.86 \times 10^{-26}\ \rm cm^{3}\ s^{-1}$. This is a very important result, since it means that 30 GeV DM annihilating into $b\bar{b}$ is not the only possible annihilation set-up, and that DM can annihilate into leptons. This result is discussed in more detail in Ref.~\cite{GeV_excess_my_paper}. We also show in Fig.~\ref{best_fits} (left panel) that including the contributions from IC and bremsstrahlung does not significantly affect the spectrum for the $b\bar{b}$ channel, except at low energies.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{NFW_1point2_density3_leptons_neutral_3contributions.pdf}
\caption{\label{leptons_3contributions}Spectrum of the residual extended emission in the $7^{\circ} \times 7^{\circ}$ region around the GC. The data points are taken from \cite{Gordon_Macias_excess}. The prompt (black dashed), IC (green dashed-dotted) and bremsstrahlung (red dotted) emissions from $10\ \rm GeV$ DM democratically annihilating into leptons add up to give a very good fit to the data, as shown by the black solid line, with a best-fit cross section of $\left\langle \sigma v \right\rangle = 0.86 \times 10^{-26}\ \rm cm^{3}\ s^{-1}$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Therefore, the effect of including the IC and bremsstrahlung contributions is maximal for democratic annihilation into leptons. However, the authors of Ref.~\cite{Bringmann_constraints} used the AMS data to set constraints on the leptonic channels, which exclude annihilations into $e^{+}e^{-}$ and impose that the branching ratio into $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ should not exceed 25\%. We do not discuss the validity of these constraints here, but we show in Fig.~\ref{best_fits} (right panel) the best fit to the excess obtained with a final state of DM annihilation containing 25\% $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ and 75\% $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. With such branching ratios, the fit is marginally good, with an effect of the secondary contributions to the gamma-ray spectrum less significant than for democratic annihilation.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{NFW_1point2_IC_brem_best_fit_density3_b_neutral.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{NFW_1point2_IC_brem_best_fit_density3_point25_mu_tau_neutral.pdf}
\caption{\label{best_fits}Best fits to the Fermi residual with the gamma-ray spectrum from annihilations of $30\ \rm GeV$ DM particles into 100\% $b\bar{b}$ (left panel), and 10 GeV DM annihilating into 25\% $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ and 75\% $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ (right panel). The best-fit cross section is $\sim 2 \times 10^{-26}\ \rm cm^{3}\ s^{-1}$ for the left panel, and $\sim 1 \times 10^{-26}\ \rm cm^{3}\ s^{-1}$ for the right panel.}
\end{figure}
Finally, a very important test of the leptonic scenario is the morphology of the emission. Indeed, due to spatial diffusion, the IC and bremsstrahlung emissions are more extended than the prompt component, and their morphology depends on the observed energy. This may allow one to set constraints on the annihilation channel. Shown in Fig.~\ref{flux_vs_b} (left panel) is the gamma-ray flux plotted against latitude, for the best-fit parameters corresponding to the spectrum of Fig.~\ref{leptons_3contributions}, and $E_{\gamma} = 0.1\ \rm GeV$. Above a few degrees the morphology should be compatible with the one found in the literature, and corresponding to prompt emission. However, between ${\cal{O}}(0.1)$ and ${\cal{O}}(1)^{\circ}$, the flux profile is shallower than that of the prompt component, which might lead to a tension between the flux from the leptonic channels and the morphology from the literature. However, 0.1 GeV is below the lowest energy data point (around 0.3--0.4 GeV), and the secondary emissions dominate at low energy. It turns out that at 1 GeV, the tension between the total flux from the leptonic channels and the morphology of the prompt emission is much weaker, as shown in Fig.~\ref{flux_vs_b} (right panel).
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{NFW_1point2_leptons_neutral_point1GeV_latitude.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{NFW_1point2_leptons_neutral_1GeV_latitude.pdf}
\caption{\label{flux_vs_b}Gamma-ray flux from DM annihilating exclusively into leptons democratically, as a function of latitude $b$, for gamma-ray energies of 0.1 GeV (left panel) and 1 GeV (right panel).}
\end{figure*}
\section*{Conclusion}
The Fermi-LAT GeV excess is a strong case for DM, and annihilations of 30 GeV particles into $b\bar{b}$ provide the simplest set-up a priori. However, it is very important to take into account all relevant emission processes and spatial diffusion. Including all these processes drastically changes the interpretation of the excess in terms of DM. Therefore, we showed that $b\bar{b}$ is not the only possible channel and DM can in fact annihilate into leptons. Finally, the morphology below $\sim 1^{\circ}$ at low energies can help to discriminate between the leptonic and $b\bar{b}$ channels.
\begin{small}
\acknowledgments
I thank C\'{e}line B{\oe}hm and Joseph Silk for a fruitful collaboration on this project. This research has been supported at IAP by the ERC Project No.~267117 (DARK) hosted by Universit\'e Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) - Paris 6 and at JHU by NSF Grant No.~OIA-1124403. This work has been also supported by UPMC and STFC. Finally, this project has been carried out in the ILP LABEX (ANR-10-LABX-63) and has been supported by French state funds managed by the ANR, within the Investissements d'Avenir programme (ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02).
\end{small}
|
\section{Bayesian Selection of Candidate PMS Upper Scorpius Stars}
\label{bayesapp}
The Bayesian selection method we have employed to identify candidate Upper Scorpius members in the low-mass (K and M-type) regime is largely based upon the high-mass star selection of \citet{myfirstpaper}, with some significant changes to accommodate the particular data available for the low-mass stars.
As in \citet{myfirstpaper} we consider two models: (1) The Upper Scorpius group model ($M_g$) and (2) the field model describing ordinary field stars ($M_f$). These models both provide a variety of information, including position, distance and velocity distributions. For use with the low-mass stars, we also include a model isochrone;
\begin{equation}
M_{g,f}(l,C_x) = \{l,b,r,U,V,W,M_x\},
\label{models}
\end{equation}
where $l$ and $b$ are Galactic longitude and latitude, $r$ is distance, $U, V$ and $W$ are the three components of a star's Galactic velocity, $C_x$ represents various colours, and $M_x$ absolute magnitudes in corresponding filters. The model values of distance and velocity are dependent on the Galactic longitude of a candidate star, while the model absolute magnitude is dependent on the star's colour. For the application to PMS stars in the Sco-Cen subgroups, we have used Siess isochrones \citep{siess00} of 6\,Myr for US and 16\,Myr for UCL and LCC for the group models ($M_g$) and an older main-sequence isochrone for the field model ($M_f$).
For the kinematic models, we employ the same linear models in Galactic longitude for the group model, and the Galactic thin disk model of \citep{robin03}, as were used in \citet{myfirstpaper}.
We then calculate the model likelihood ratio for these two model for each stars according to equations 10 and 11 of \citep{myfirstpaper};
\begin{equation}
R = \frac{P(M_g|D)}{P(M_f|D)} = \frac{P(M_g)}{P(M_f)} \frac{\int P(D|\boldsymbol{\phi}_g,M_g)P(\boldsymbol{\phi}_g|M_g)\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{\phi}_g}{\int P(D|\boldsymbol{\phi}_f,M_f)P(\boldsymbol{\phi}_f|M_f)\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{\phi}_f},
\label{bfact_final}
\end{equation}
where again, $M_{g,f}$ represents the association and field models, and $\phi_{g,f}$ represents the set of parameters, or a parameter vector derived from the models, which can be directly compared to the data $D$. The data are compiled from positions and proper motions taken from the UCAC4 catalog \citep{ucac4} and any available radial velocities in the RAVE catalog \citep{ravedr1},and a photometric distance calculated from the APASS B and V band photometry \citep{apass} and 2MASS J,H and K photometry \citep{2mass}, using the model isochrones. Included in our distance estimate was a multiplicity photometric bias correction. This estimate was based on the expected multiplicity statistics of G, K and M-type stars, taken from \citet{kraus11}, which indicates $\sim$50\% of solar type stars have a companion. Combined with a standard initial mass function for the companion, this produces an average multiplicity bias of 0.2\,magnitudes. Our photometric distances are thus calculated by adjusting the measured photometry by 0.2 magnitudes and then calculating a distance based on an interpolated isochrone magnitude. We define the uncertainty on the photometric distance conservatively to be 20\%, or approximately $\pm$0.4 magnitudes. This calculation is done for every star in our sample for both the association and field models.
With the inclusion of the photometric distances, we then calculate the model likelihood ratio integrals in the same way as described in \citet{myfirstpaper} with a difference only present in how the distance and proper-motion integrals are treated. Equations \ref{prob_pars_mod}, \ref{groupdist} and \ref{prob_dat_pars} show the details of the terms in the integrals of equation \ref{bfact_final}. For the high-mass stars, for which relatively well-defined parallax measurements were available, we treated the distance and parallel proper motion (proper motion in the direction of the association movement) integrals separately. For the larger distance and proper motion uncertainties of the low-mass stars, the two dimensional probability distribution in proper motion-parallax space is not symmetrical. This means that separating the proper motion and parallax integrals would inadequately describe the true value of the two dimensional integral. We address this issue by first sampling from the model distance distribution and then comparing the sampled values to the photometric distance measures and proper motion. We take $10^5$ and $10^6$ random samples of $(U,V,W,r)_{g,f}$ for the group and field models respectively to calculate the integrals. More samples are required for adequate sampling of the field model due to the larger spread of possible values. The key difference here when compared to the high-mass selection of \citet{myfirstpaper} is that we also sample random distances from the distributions. The following equation describes the velocity distributions for both the field and the group models;
\begin{equation}
P(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{g,f}|M_{g,f}) \propto \exp{\left(-\frac{(U-U_{g,f}(l))^2}{2\sigma^2_{U_{g,f}}} \right) + \left(-\frac{(V-V_{g,f}(l))^2}{2\sigma^2_{V_{g,f}}} \right) + \left(-\frac{(W-W_{g,f}(l))^2}{2\sigma^2_{W_{g,f}}} \right)}.
\label{prob_pars_mod}
\end{equation}
where $U$, $V$, $W$ and $r$ represent the three components of the Galactic velocity and distance, with subscripts $g$ and $f$ indicating that the values are the corresponding expected values for the two models. The distance distribution for the group is also taken to be a normal distribution, as in \citet{myfirstpaper};
\begin{equation}
\exp{\left(- \frac{(r-r_{g,f}(l))^2}{2\sigma^2_{r_{g,f}}} \right)}
\label{groupdist}
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the sampled distance and $r_{g,f}$ is the expected distance. Note that the model distribution means are a function of the Galactic longitude of the star being examined. For the field model, the distance distribution is not as directly describable as that of the group model. Instead, we construct the field distribution by taking all the calculated photometric distances for the field model and then take the samples from this using rejection sampling. Figure \ref{field_dist_fig} shows the field distribution used in the sampling for the field model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fdplot.pdf}
\caption{Field photometric distance distribution, showing features of the input catalog magnitude and colour cuts, and the isochrone used in estimation of the distances.}
\label{field_dist_fig}
\end{figure}
The final term in equation \ref{bfact_final} is then given by;
\begin{equation}
P(D|\boldsymbol{\phi}_{g,f}) \propto \exp{\left(-\frac{\mu_\perp^2}{2\sigma^2_{\mu_{\perp}}}
-\frac{(\nu_r - \nu_{r_{g,f}})^2}{2\sigma^2_{\nu_r}}
-\frac{(\mu_\parallel - \frac{\mu_{\parallel_{g,f}}}{r} )^2}{2\sigma^2_{\mu_\parallel}}
-\frac{(\pi_{g,f}- \frac{1}{r})^2}{2\sigma^2_{\pi_{g,f}}}\right)},
\label{prob_dat_pars}
\end{equation}
where $\mu_\parallel$ and $\mu_\perp$ are the star proper motions in the direction parallel to and perpendicular to the expected direction of motion for a given set of $(U,V,W)$. For more information regarding this coordinate system, including procedures for transforming to and from equatorial coordinates, see \citet{zeeuw99} and \citet{myfirstpaper}. $\pi_{g,f}$ is the calculated photometric parallax for the group and field models respectively, and $\nu_r$ is the radial velocity, which in the vast majority of cases is unconstrained and does not influence the integrals. With the model likelihood ratio we then determine the probability of membership, given by $R/(R+1)$.
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The Scorpius-Centaurus-Lupus-Crux Association (Sco OB2, Sco-Cen) is the nearest location to the Sun with recent high-mass star formation \citep{zeeuw99}. Young OB associations, such as Sco-Cen, provide an incredible laboratory in the form of a primordial group of stars directly after formation, which can be exploited in the study of the output of star formation including searches for young exoplanets. The obvious prerequisite for such study is a level of completeness in the identification of association members that is currently not yet attained in Sco-Cen in any mass regime, other than the most massive B-type stars. Sco-Cen contains approximately 150 B-type stars \citep{myfirstpaper} which have been typically split into three subgroups: Upper Scorpius, Upper-Centaurus-Lupus (UCL) and Lower-Centaurus-Crux (LCC) with only the B, A and F-type membership of Sco-Cen being considered relatively complete, with some 800 members. Even in this high-mass regime, there is expected to be a $\sim$30\% contamination by interlopers in the kinematic membership selections, mainly due to the lack of precision radial velocity measurements for these objects \citep{myfirstpaper}. Additionally, in light of the upcoming high-precision GAIA proper motions and parallaxes, a well characterised spectroscopically confirmed Sco-Cen membership will be instrumental in illuminating the substructure of the association.
Unfortunately, Sco-Cen is poorly characterised for its proximity, the reason for which is the enormous area of sky the association inhabits at low Galactic latitudes ($\sim80^\circ\times25^\circ$ or $\sim150\times50$\,pc).
IMF extrapolation from the high-mass members implies, with any choice of IMF law, that Sco-Cen is expected to have $\sim 10^4$ PMS G, K and M-type members, most of which are, as yet, undiscovered. This implies that the vast majority of PMS ($<$20\,Myr) stars in the solar neighbourhood are in Sco-Cen \citep{preibisch02}, making Sco-Cen an ideal place to search for young, massive planetary companions. Although some work has been done in illuminating the lower-mass population of Sco-Cen (see \citet{preibisch08}), the late-type membership of Sco-Cen cannot be considered complete in any spectral-type or colour range. A more complete picture of the late-type membership of Sco-Cen is the primary requirement for determining the age spread, structure, and star formation history of the association, for illuminating the properties of star formation, and for embarking on further searches for young exoplanets to better define their population statistics.
The age of the Sco-Cen subgroups has been contentious. Upper Scorpius has long been considered to be $\sim$5\,Myr old, however recent work has shown that it may be as old as 11\,Myr \citep{geus92, pecaut12}. Similarly, B, A and F-type UCL and LCC members have main-sequence turn off/on ages of $\sim16-18$\,Myr, while studies of the incomplete sample of lithium-rich G, K and M-type members show a variety of mass-dependent age estimates. The HR-diagram age for the known K-type stars in UCL and LCC is $\sim$12\,Myr, the few known M-type stars indicate a significantly younger age of $\sim$4\,Myr, most likely due to a bias produced by a magnitude limited sample, and the G-type members have an age of $\sim$17\,Myr, which is consistent with the more massive stars \citep{preibisch08,song12}. There is also a positional trend in the age of the PMS stars of the older subgroups, with stars closer to the Galactic Plane appearing significantly younger than objects further north. This is almost certainly the result of as yet undiscovered and un-clarified substructure within the older subgroups, which may have a very complex star-formation history.
The above is clear motivation for the identification of the full population of the Sco-Cen association, a task that will require significant observational and computational effort to complete. In this paper, we describe a new search for PMS members of the Upper Scorpius region of the Sco-Cen association. We have used statistical methods to select a sample of likely Upper Scorpius members from all-sky data, and have conducted a spectroscopic survey to determine youth and membership in the Sco-Cen association using the Wide-Field Spectrograph instrument at the Australian National University 2.3\,m telescope.
\section{Selection of Candidate Members}
We have selected candidate Upper Scorpius members using kinematic and photometric data from UCAC4, 2MASS, USNO-B and APASS \citep{ucac4,2mass,usnob,apass}. A purely kinematic selection of the low-mass members of Sco-Cen is not sufficient to assign membership to G,K and M-type stars because the quality of the astrometric data available would produce an interloper contamination much higher than would be acceptable for future studies using Sco-Cen as an age benchmark. In order to clearly separate young Upper Scorpius members from field stars, spectroscopic follow-up is needed to identify stellar youth indicators. We employed two separate selection methods to prioritise targets based on kinematic and photometric data.
The first selection used was based on the Bayesian Sco-Cen membership selection of \citet{myfirstpaper}, which uses kinematic and spatial information to assign membership probabilities. We further developed this method to apply to K and M-type stars, in order to properly treat the absence of a parallax measurement. We took the proper-motions from the UCAC4 catalog \citep{ucac4} and photometry from 2MASS and APASS \citep{2mass,apass}, and used the photometry and a premain-sequence isochrone \citep{siess00} to estimate each candidate member's distance. We then treated the proper-motion and estimated distance together to calculate the membership probability. This selection was magnitude limited, and covered all stars in the UCAC4 catalog with 10$<$V$<$16, and comprised of $\sim$2000 candidate members with membership probability greater than 2\%. For a more complete explanation of the Bayesian selection, including information from \citep{myfirstpaper} and the changes adopted for use with the K and M-type star data see Appendix \ref{bayesapp}.
The second selection was based on the selection used for the Coma-Ber cluster in the study of \citet{kraushillenbrand_comaber}, and was designed to select targets for the Upper Scorpius field of the Kepler K2 campaign. Targets which were both placed above the main-sequence based on photometric distance estimates, and had proper-motions consistent with Upper Scorpius membership were deemed to be potential members and included in the observing sample. This selection spanned F to late M-type stars, with targets falling on Kepler silicon prioritized for spectroscopic follow-up. This selection is considerably more conservative than the Bayesian selection, and includes a much larger number of candidates. Where the two selections overlap, we have $>$90\% of the Bayesian selected stars included in the sample. Our final, combined sample was then drawn from both of the above selection; we include a candidate in the final target list if it was identified by either method. Figure \ref{selection_pm} displays the proper motions of the selected stars from both samples.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{sample_pm-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The proper motions of the candidate Upper Scorpius members selected by both the \citet{kraushillenbrand_comaber} selection method (black points) and the Bayesian method (purple circles).}
\label{selection_pm}
\end{figure}
In light of the currently ongoing Galactic Archeology Survey, using the HERMES spectrograph on the Anglo-Ausralian Telescope \citep{zuckerhermes2012}, which will obtain high-resolution optical spectra in the coming years for all stars in the Sco-Cen region of sky, down to V=14, we have decided to primarily observe targets in our sample fainter than this limit. While our selection methods identified candidate Upper Scorpius stars across the entire subgroups $(342^\circ<l<360^\circ, 10^\circ<b<30^\circ)$ in our observations we strongly favored candidate members which fell upon the Kepler K2 field 2 detector regions, which covers the majority of the centre of Upper-Scorpius with rectangular windows. As such, the spatial distribution of this sample will not reflect the true substructure of Upper Scorpius. We observed all the targets in our K2 sample with Kepler interpolated V magnitudes of $(\sim13.5<V_{jk}<15)$, as well as some further brighter targets. In total, we obtained optical spectra for 397 candidate Upper Scorpius K and M-type stars. The full list of observed candidate targets, including both those stars determined to be members and non-members, can be found in Table \ref{obstable_lowmass}, along with proper motions, computed Bayesian membership probability, integration time, and SNR in the continuum near H-$\alpha$.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Summary of WiFeS observations of candidate Upper-Scorpius
members; the V magnitude provided is either taken from APASS, where
available, or interpolated from J and K according to the Kepler K2
instructions. The full table is provided in the online material.}
\label{obstable_lowmass}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
\hline
R.A. & Decl. & & V & K & $\mu_\alpha$ &$\mu_\delta$ & & & T & & \\
(J2000.0) & (J2000.0) & MJD & (mag) & (mag) &(mas) & (mas) & Source & P$_{\mathrm{mem}}$ & (sec) & SNR & M? \\
\hline
15 39 06.96 & -26 46 32.1 & 56462 & 12.5 & 8.7 & -35.3 & -41.7 & a & 31 & 90& 131 & Y\\
15 37 42.74 & -25 26 15.8 & 56462 & 13.5 & 9.7 & -14.6 & -26.7 & a & 85 & 90 & 80 & \\
15 35 32.30 & -25 37 14.1 & 56462 & 11.7 & 8.4 & -9.0 & -22.9 & a & 69 & 90 & 116 & \\
15 41 31.21 & -25 20 36.3 & 56462 & 10.0 & 7.2 & -16.9 & -28.7 & a & 86 & 90 & 151 & Y\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Spectroscopy with WiFeS}
The Wide-Field Spectrograph (WIFES) instrument on the Australian National University 2.3m telescope is an integral field, or imaging, spectrograph, which provides a spectrum for a number of spatial pixels across the field of view using an image slicing configuration. The field of view of the instrument is 38$\times$25 arcseconds, and is made up of 25 slitlets which are each one arc second in width, and 38 arcseconds in length. The slitlets feed two 4096$\times$4096 pixel detectors, one for the blue part of the spectrum and the other for the red, providing a total wavelength coverage of 330 - 900\,$\mu$m, which is dependent on the specific gratings used for the spectroscopy. Each 15 micron pixel corresponds to 1$\times$0.5 arcseconds on sky.
There are a number of gratings offered to observers for use with WiFeS. For identification of Upper Scorpius members, we required intermediate-resolution spectra of our candidate members, with a minimum resolution of $\sim$3000 at the Li 6708\,\AA~ line, and so selected the R7000 grating for the red arm and the B3000 grating for the blue arm, which was used solely for spectral-typing. This provided $\lambda / \Delta\lambda\sim7000$ spectra covering the lithium 6708\AA~ and H-$\alpha$ spectroscopic youth indicators. A dichroic, which splits the red and blue light onto the two arms of the detector, can be position either at 4800\,\AA~or 5600\,\AA. For the first three successful observing nights we use the dichroic at 4800\,\AA~ which produced a single joined spectrum from 3600 to 7000\,AA. For the remaining 7 nights, we position the dichroic at 5600\,\AA~which produces two separate spectra, with the the blue arm covering 3600 to 4800\,\AA~ and the red arm covering 5300 to 7000\,\AA. This change was made to accommodate poor weather backup programs being simultaneously carried out, which will be the subject of future publications. To properly identify members, we required a $3\sigma$-detection of a 0.1\AA~ equivalent width Li line, which corresponds to a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 30 per pixel. In order to achieve this, we took exposures of 5 minutes for R=13 stars (approximately type M3 in Upper Scorpius), and binned by 2 pixels in the y-axis, to create 1$\times$1" spatial pixels and reduce overheads. With overheads we were able to observe 10 targets an hour in bright time, or $\sim$80-90 targets per completely clear night.
In total we obtained 18 nights of time using WiFeS, split over 2013 and 2014, however the majority of the 2013 nights were unusable due to weather. Our first two observing runs, in June 2013, and April 2014 yielded one half-night of observations each, and our final observing run yielded seven partially clear nights. During our first two nights, we positioned the dichroic at 5500\,\AA, and during the June 2014 observing run, positioned the dichroic at 4600\,\AA, which provides more of the red arm, because this mode was deemed better for obtaining radial velocities of B, A and F-type Sco-Cen stars, which we observed as backup targets during poor weather, and will be the subject of a future publication.
\section{Data Reduction}
The raw WiFeS data was initially reduced with a pre-existing Python data reduction software package called the ``WiFeS PyPeline'', which was provided to WiFeS observers. The purpose of the software is to transform the CCD image, which consists of a linear spectrum for each spatial pixel of the WiFeS field of view, into a data cube. This involves bias subtraction, flat-fielding, bad pixel and cosmic ray removal, sky subtraction, wavelength calibration, flux calibration, reformatting into the cube structure, and interpolation across each pixel to produce a single wavelength scale for the entire image. On each night, we observed at least one flux standard from \citet{bessellflux99}, which are included in the data reduction pipeline as flux calibrator objects. Once this process is complete, the user is left with a single cube for each object observed, with dimensions 25''$\times$38''$\times$3650 wavelength units. For the grating resolutions and angles used in our observations, we obtained spectral coverage from $3200-5500$\,\AA~in increments of 1.3\,\AA~in the blue arm, and $5400-7000$\,\AA~ in increments of 0.78\,\AA~in the red arm.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[\label{spect_example}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{130619_star3_-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[\label{subim_example}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{subim_examp_130619_star3-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption[WiFeS spectrum and spatial image of 1RXS J153910.3-264633, a high priority target in our observations sample]{(a) Example spectrum for object 1RXS J153910.3-264633, a high priority target in our observation sample, which shows signs of youth such as H-$\alpha$ emission and Li 6708\AA~absorption. The region of the continuum used for the initial PSF fitting is bounded by blue lines. (b) Spatial image created for 1RXS J153910.3-264633 by adding the images at each wavelength of the PSF fitting region of the continuum.}
\label{red_examle}
\end{figure}
Following the standard WiFeS reduction procedure, we continued with a further custom reduction, the aim of which was to measure the centroid position of the target object in each wavelength, such that the presence of H-$\alpha$ emitting low-mass stellar companions, outflows, and H-$\alpha$-bright planetary mass companion could be detected by the measurement of a wavelength-dependent centroid shift. This consisted of determining a best fit point spread function (PSF) model for the spatial image in a clean section of the spectrum, and then measuring the centroid shift of this PSF at each wavelength along the spectrum. An additional benefit of this is a more accurate sky subtraction, and an integrated spectrum of each object, which can be used to measure equivalent widths of key spectral lines. The results of the centroid measurements and any detected companions will be reported in a further publication.
We first cut out a 10'' by 10'' wide window (10$\times$10 pixels), centered on the target. The vast majority of the stellar flux is contained within the central 3'' by 3'' region of the windowed image, and so the adopted width of 10'' allows a clear region of background around the target; Figure \ref{subim_example} provides an illustration of the data. We then fit a Moffat point spread function \citep{racine96} to a region of the spectral continuum which does not include any spectral features, but is close to the H-$\alpha$ line. This region consisted of 400 spectral units, spanning $6368-6544$\,\AA. Figure \ref{spect_example} displays the spectral region used for the initial PSF fit, as well as the H-$\alpha$ and Li 6708\,\AA~lines for one target in our sample, 1RXS J153910.3-264633, which shows strong indications of youth.
The particular model that we fit to the spatial image is given by;
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{PSF} = \mathrm{S} + \mathrm{F} \frac{(2^{\frac{1}{\beta}}-1)(\beta-1)}{\pi w^2(1 + (2^{\frac{1}{\beta}}-1)(\theta/w)^2)^{\beta}},
\label{moffat}
\end{equation}
where S indicates the sky contribution to the flux, $\beta$ is an integer parameter that determines the strength of the wings of the Moffat PSF, $\theta$ is the distance from the centre of the profile, $w$ is the half width of the Moffat PSF, and F is the stellar flux. Given that we have a two dimensional PSF, and that each dimension has a different Moffat function half width, we require two different values of $w$. We create this two dimensional Moffat profile by scaling $\theta$ appropriately;
\begin{equation}
\theta = w_x^2(x-x_0)^2 + w_y^2(y-y_0)^2,
\label{moff_scale}
\end{equation}
where $w_x$ and $w_y$ are the PSF width parameters in each dimension, $(x,y)$ is the position of a given point on the image, and $(x_0,y_0)$ is the image centroid. Inputting this value of $\theta$ into a Moffat function with width $w=1$ will thus produce the desired asymmetric two dimensional profile.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fullspec_examples-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The full WiFeS integrated spectrum produced by first processing with the WiFeS Pypeline, and then our spectro-astrometric analysis for the stars USco 48, a known member of the Upper Scorpius subgroup, and 2MASS J16232454-1717270, high probability candidate, and a new member in identified in our survey. The USco 48 spectrum is an example of the data from the 4800\,\AA~dichroic setup, and the 2MASS J16232454-1717270 spectrum an example of the 5600\,\AA~dichroic setup.}
\label{fullspec_example}
\end{figure}
We found that $\beta=4$, a value which describes most telescope PSFs, yielded the closest fit to our data. We also attempted to fit a Gaussian profile to the spatial images, in the same format as the Moffat profile described in equation \ref{moffat}; however the Gaussian model produced consistently poorer fits to the data than the Moffat model, particularly in the wings of the PSF, with typical values of $\chi^2_r\sim 4$ for the Gaussian model fit and $\chi^2_r\sim 2$ for the Moffat model. On the basis of the goodness of fit difference, we adopted the Moffat model exclusively in our analysis. For each target observed, we used the continuum spectral region between $6368-6544$\,\AA~to determine the parameters of the Moffat PSF that most closely reproduced the spatial images. We then fixed the half width parameters in each dimension, and fit our PSF model to each individual wavelength element image along the spectrum to determine $S$, $F$ and the centroid position for each wavelength. This process provides two useful characteristics, the first of which is the integrated spectrum $(F)$ of the target (see Figure \ref{fullspec_example}), with the sky component $(S)$ subtracted out. Using the cleaned output spectra, we then computed equivalent widths of both the Li 6708\,\AA~ and H-$\alpha$ lines for each observed star. The second useful characteristic is the centroid position of the star image at each wavelength interval in the spectrum. This can be used to detect accreting stellar and substellar companions by the measurement of a centroid shift in the H-$\alpha$ line image. An analysis of the centroid positions will be presented in a future publication.
\begin{figure*}
\subfloat[\label{newmems_pos}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{newmems_pos-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[\label{pm_all}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{newmems_pm-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{(a) On-sky positions of the new members (red circles), relative to the B, A and F-type members (blue stars) from \citet{myfirstpaper}. Lines of constant Galactic latitude are shown in grey in steps of 10$^\circ$, the centre line is $b=20^\circ$. Note that the apparent substructure seen in the new members is artificially created because we strongly prioritized the Kepler K2 Field 2 detector regions in our survey. (b) The proper motions of the new members (black) and the Hipparcos Upper Scorpius members from \citet{myfirstpaper} (blue crosses), the typical proper motion uncertainty for our new members is 2-3\,mas/yr. There is one new member off-scale at (-35.3,-41.7)\,mas/yr. Our new members occupy the same region of proper motion space as the established high-mass members.}
\label{newmems_pos}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Spectral Typing}
We spectral type the reduced spectra created by the centroid-fitting procedure using spectral template libraries as reference. It is also important to incorporate extinction into the spectral-typing procedure for Upper Scorpius, given the typical values of $0.5<$A$_V<2.0$. If an extinction correction is omitted, spectral typing will produce systematically later spectral types for the members. A combination of two template libraries was chosen for the spectral typing, with spectral types earlier than M0 taken from the \citet{pickles98} spectral template library, and the M-type templates taken from the more recent \citet{bochanski_templates}.
To carry out the spectral typing, we first computed reduced $\chi^2$ values for each data spectrum on a two-dimensional grid of interpolated template spectra and extinction, with spacing of half a spectral sub-type and 0.1 magnitudes in $E(B-V)$. This was done by first interpolating the template spectra onto the wavelength scale of the data, and then applying the particular amount of extinction according to the \citet{savage_mathis79} extinction law. We also removed the H-$\alpha$ region in the data spectra, because the prevalence of significantly larger H-$\alpha$ emission in young stars will not be adequately reproduced by the templates. The spectral type - extinction point on the grid with the smallest reduced $\chi^2$ was then used as a starting point for least squared fitting with the IDL fitting package MPFIT. The fitting procedure used the same methodology as the grid calculations, with the addition of interpolation between template spectra to produce spectral sub-type models for use in the fitting.
We find the limiting factor in spectral-typing our young Sco-Cen stars to be the fact that the spectral template libraries are built from field stars, and so are not ideal for fitting young, active stars. Hence, while we typically have spectral type fits better than half a spectral sub-type, we report spectral types to the nearest half sub-type, and values of A$_V$ with typical uncertainties of 0.2 magnitudes.
\section{The New Members}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfloat[\label{ewli_all}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{mem_spt_ewli-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[\label{ewli_zoom}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{mem_spt_ewli_zoom-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{$\mathrm{EW}(\mathrm{Li})$ for the new members. The left panel shows the full K to late M-spread, while the right panel focusses on the M-type range, which shows the largest spread in EW(Li) for a given spectral type.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Properties of the Upper Scorpius members identified in our survey. The first column lists our adopted naming system for these new members and the second column lists the 2MASS designation for each of our targets. We also list the the fitted spectral type and visual extinction, and the equivalent widths of the Li 6708\AA~and H$\alpha$ lines (EW(Li) and EW(H$\alpha$)). The full table is provided in the online material.}
\label{obs_res_tab}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c}
\hline
& & R.A. & Decl. & EW(Li) & $\sigma_{EW(Li)}$& EW(H$\alpha$) &$\sigma_{\mathrm{EW(H_{\alpha})}}$ & & A$_{\mathrm{V}}$ \\
Name &2MASS & (J2000.0) & (J2000.0) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) & SpT & (mag) \\
\hline
RIK-1 & J15390696-2646320 & 15 39 06.96 & -26 46 32.1 & 0.46 & 0.02 & -1.22 & 0.03 & M0.5 & 0.2\\% UCAC4-365072173
RIK-2 & J15413121-2520363 & 15 41 31.21 & -25 20 36.3 & 0.40 & 0.01 & -2.70 & 0.04 & K2.5 & 0.1\\% UCAC4-408484365
RIK-3 & J15422621-2247458 & 15 42 26.21 & -22 47 46.0 & 0.46 & 0.04 & -3.08 & 0.07 & M1.5 & 0.3\\% UCAC4-1312371465
RIK-4 & J15450970-2512430 & 15 45 09.71 & -25 12 43.0 & 0.61 & 0.02 & -2.02 & 0.04 & M1.5 & 0.4\\% UCAC4-408606874
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Table \ref{obs_res_tab} lists both the Li 6708\,\AA~ and H$\alpha$ equivalent widths, and the estimated spectral types and extinction for the new Upper Sco members, and figure \ref{newmems_pos} shows the spatial positions of the new members. We have defined a star as an Upper Scorpius member if the measured equivalent width of the Li 6708\,\AA~ line was more than $1-\sigma$ above 0.1\,\AA. While this Li threshold is low, it is significantly larger than the field Li absorption, and is in general keeping with previous surveys. The use of this threshold is further justified given the effects of episodic accretion on Li depletion in the latest models \citep{baraffe10}. In general, the vast majority of the identified members have Li 6708\,\AA~ equivalent width significantly larger than 0.2\,\AA~and so are bonafide young stars. In total we identify 257 stars as members based on their Li 6708\,\AA~ absorption, 237 of which are new.
The proper-motions of the new members, which were calculated from various all-sky catalogs, or taken from the UCAC4 catalog are shown in Figure \ref{pm_all}. The members have proper motions that overlap the Upper Scorpius B, A and F-type members proper motions (blue crosses), although a significantly large spread is seen. This is consistent with the average uncertainty of $\sim$2-3\,mas/yr for the K and M-type proper motions.
Figure \ref{ewli_all} displays the Lithium equivalent widths for the identified members as a function of spectral type. The majority of our members are M-type, and we see a sequence of equivalent width with a peak at spectral type M0, and a systematically smaller equivalent width in the M2-M3 range compared to earlier or later M-type members. This is expected as the mid-M range is modelled to show faster Lithium depletion timescale \citep{dantona94}.
Interestingly, we also observe a clear spread in the equivalent width of the Lithium 6708\AA~ line. Figure \ref{ewli_zoom} shows the just the M0 to M5 spectral type range. At each spectral type we see a typical spread of $\sim$0.4\,\AA~in Li equivalent width, and a median uncertainty in the equivalent width measurements of $\sim$0.03\,\AA. This implies a $\sim$10-sigma spread in EW(Li) at each spectral type. Wether or not this spread is caused by an age spread in Upper Scorpius is difficult to determine: we have examined the behaviour of EW(Li) as a function of spatial position, both in equatorial and Galactic coordinate frames and found no significant trend. We note that a similar spread of EW(Li) for M-type Upper Scorpius members was observed by \citet{preibisch01}. Given the lack of correlation with spatial position, if the EW(Li) spread is caused by an age spread among the members, then the different age populations are overlapping spatially and may not be resolvable without sub-milliarcsecond parallaxes.
In Figure \ref{ewha_all}, we display the measured H-$\alpha$ equivalent widths for the members. The majority of the PMS members show some level, of H-$\alpha$ emission, with a clear sequence of increasing emission with spectral type. In combination with the presence of Lithium, this is a further indicator of the youth of these objects. Of our 257 members, $\sim$95\% show H-$\alpha$ emission with (1\,\AA$<$EW(H-$\alpha$)$<$10\,\AA), and only 11 of the members do not show emission in H-$\alpha$. All of these 11 members without H-alpha emission are earlier than M0 spectral-type. There are also 35 non-members with H-$\alpha$ emission.
Given the values of EW(H$\alpha$) for the M-type members we have identified, the majority of them appear to be weak lined T-Tauri stars and $\sim$10\% are Classical T-Tauri stars (CTTS) with EW(H$\alpha$) $>$ 10\,\AA. This proportion agrees with previous studies of Upper-Scorpius members \citep{walter94,PZ99,preibisch01}, which find a CTTS fraction of between 4 and 10\% for K and M-type Upper-Scorpius stars.
\section{The Efficiency of the Bayesian Selection Algorithm}
The selection methods we have used to create our target list provide a significant improvement of member detection rate when compared to what can be achieved from simple color-magnitude cuts. We see a large overall identification rate of $\sim$65\% for our sample of observed stars. Using the membership probabilities computed for the stars we have observed, we expected that 73$\pm$7\% of the observed stars would be members, which agrees with the observed members fraction of 68\%. We also find that as a function of computed membership probability, the fraction of members identified among the sample behaves as expected. Figure \ref{bayes_hist} displayed the membership fraction as a function of probability.
Given that our probabilities have been empirically verified to provide a reasonable picture of Upper Scorpius membership, we can derive an estimate for the expected number of M-type members in the subgroup by summation of the probabilities. We find that the total expected number of Upper Scorpius members in the $\sim$0.2 to 1.0\,M$_{\odot}$~ range, or late-K to $\sim$M5 spectral type range, is $\sim$2100$\pm$100 members. This agrees with initial mass function estimates which indicate that there are $\sim$1900 members with masses smaller than 0.6\,M$_{\odot}$~ in Upper Scorpius \citep{preibisch02}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{EWHA_all_linear-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{$\mathrm{EW}(\mathrm{H-}\alpha)$ for the new members (black) and the non-members (red). The members follow a clear sequence with H-$\alpha$ increasing with spectral-type. In the K spectal types, we see that non-members show H-$\alpha$ absorption which is generally stronger than that seen in the members, some of which show weak emission.}
\label{ewha_all}
\end{figure}
\section{The HR-Diagram of the Members}
With the spectral types and extinctions we have determined for the members using the \citet{bochanski_templates} and \citet{pickles98} spectral libraries, we can place them on a HR-diagram in the model parameter space. There is significant variability in synthesized photometry between different models for PMS stars, making comparison in the color-magnitude space difficult. Furthermore, the most reliable magnitudes for M-type stars are the near-IR 2MASS photometry, which show minimal variation in the M-type regime where the PMS is near vertical. Instead, we use the spectral types and the empirical temperature scale and J-band bolometric corrections for 5-30\,Myr stars produced by \citet{pecaut13} and we further correct for extinction using our fitted values of A$_V$ from the spectral typing process, and the \citet{savage_mathis79} extinction law. The resulting HR diagram can be seen in Figure \ref{cmd_all}. We have also superimposed five BT-Settl \citep{btsettl} isochrones of ages 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20\,Myr onto the HR-diagram at the typical Upper Scorpius distance of 140\,pc \citep{myfirstpaper}. These particular models were chosen because they were used by \citet{pecaut13} in the generation of their temperature scale, and so any relative systematic differences between the models and the temperature scale will most likely be minimized.
Upon initial inspection, it appears that for a given temperature range, the Upper Scorpius members inhabit a significant spread of bolometric magnitudes. This is most likely highly dominated by the distance spread of the Upper Scorpius subgroup, which has members at distances between 100 and 200\,pc, corresponding to a spread in bolometric magnitude of $\sim$1.5\,mag between the nearest and furthers reaches of Upper Scorpius. Using the distance distribution of the \citet{myfirstpaper} high-mass membership for Upper Scorpius, we find that the expected spread in bolometric magnitude due to distance which encompasses 68\% of members is approximately $+0.33$ and $-0.54$ magnitudes. Similarly, unresolved multiple systems can bias the sample towards appearing younger by an increase in bolometric magnitude of up to $\sim$0.7\,mags for individual stars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{bayes_results_hist-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Fraction of stars identified as members plotted against membership probability computed with our Bayesian selection algorithm. The red line represents the ideal fraction of detected members. We see a very close agreement between the computed membership probability and the fraction of stars which were confirmed as members.}
\label{bayes_hist}
\end{figure}
In the later spectral types, beyond $\log{T_{\mathrm{eft}}}=3.52$ we also begin to see the effects of the magnitude limit of our survey, which operated primarily in the range $13.5<$V$<15$ and so only the brightest, and hence nearest and potentially youngest late M-type members in our original target list were identified, although significant Li depletion at these temperatures is not expected to occur until ages beyond 50\,Myr. Even with distance spread blurring the PMS in Upper Scorpius, we can see that most of the members appear to be centered around the 5-10\,Myr age range in the earlier M-type members.
We have also indicated the measured EW(Li) values for the members on the HR-diagram as a color gradient, with darker color indicating a smaller EW(Li). The scale encompasses a range of $0.3<$EW(Li)$<0.7$\,\AA, with values outside this range set to the corresponding extreme color. There is a marginal positional dependence of HR-diagram position with EW(Li): we see that, in particular for the earlier M-type members, the larger values of EW(Li) (light orange) are more clustered around the 3-5\,Myr position, while the smaller values of EW(Li) (dark red) are clustered closer to 5-10\,Myr. This could indicate the presence of a spread of ages, or populations of different age in the Upper Scorpius subgroup.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{mems_hrd-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{HR diagram for the Upper Scorpius members we have identified, with bolometric corrections and effective temperatures taken from the \citet{pecaut13} young star temperature-color scale. The blue lines are the BT-Settl isochrones \citep{btsettl} of ages 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20\,Myr placed at the typical distance to Upper Scorpius of 140\,pc. The color of each point indicates the measured EW(Li) for the star, with darker color indicating a lower EW(Li). The color range spans $0.3<$EW(Li)$<0.7$ linearly, with values outside this range set to the corresponding extreme color. The uncertainties are determined by the accuracy of our spectral typing methods, which is typical half a spectral sub-type.}
\label{cmd_all}
\end{figure}
There is some other evidence of different age populations in the Upper Scorpius subgroup: The existence of very young B-type stars, such as $\tau$-Sco, and $\omega$-Sco which have well measured temperatures and luminosities that indicate an age of $\sim$2-5\,Myr \citep{simondiaz06} support a young population in Upper Scorpius.
The B0.5 binary star $\delta$-Sco is also likely to be quite young ($\sim$5\,Myr) \citep{code76}. \citet{pecaut12} place it on the HR diagram at and age of $\sim$10\,Myr, however, due to the rapid rotation and possible oblate spheroid nature of the primary, the photometric prescriptions for determining the effective temperature and reddening of the primary used by \citet{pecaut12} are likely to fail for this object. The spectral type is more consistent with a temperature of $\sim$30000\,K.
Additionally, the presence of other evolved B-type stars is evidence for an older population \citep{pecaut12}. Furthermore, the recent age estimate of 13\,Myr for the F-type members of Upper Scorpius by \citet{pecaut12} further supports an older population in the subgroup. If the HR diagram position on EW(Li) that we observe among our members is real than this also supports multiple age population in Upper Scorpius.
\begin{figure}
\subfloat[\label{wjkw2}]{\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{wjk_w2_lmsamp-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[\label{wjkw3}]{\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{wjk_w3_lmsamp-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[\label{wjkw4}]{\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{wjk_w4_lmsamp-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{Near IR and WISE band color-color diagrams for both the newly identified members (blue diamonds) and non-members (red triangles) from our spectroscopic survey for $(J-K, K-W2)$, $(J-K, K-W3)$, and $(J-K, K-W4)$. We have omitted objects in each WISE band that were flagged as having poor or contaminated photometry in the catalog. The dashed lines indicate the position of the upper boundary of the photospheric sequence. If a star is above this threshold we designate it as displaying an excess in the particular band.}
\label{excess_figs}
\end{figure}
\section{Disk Candidates}
We have also obtained the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) infrared photometry \citep{wise10}, from the ALLWISE version of the catalog, for the observed candidate members in order to determine the prevalence of circumstellar disks among our new members. The identification of new populations of stars bearing disks is valuable because it provides extension to the current samples used in the study of disk property measurements and disk evolution. The AllWISE catalog provides photometry in four bands W1, W2, W3 and W4, with effective wavelengths of 3, 4.5, 12 and 22\,$\mu$m respectively. The W2 and W3 photometry is effective for tracing the presence of an inner disk, while excess in the W4 band photometry can indicate the presence of a colder, outer disk or transitional disk.
We queried the ALLWISE catalog for the positions of the 397 stars we observed from our sample, including 237 new members, with a search radius of 5". The search returned 395 matches with varying levels of photometric quality. We then placed each star on three spectral type-color diagrams incorporating 2MASS \citep{2mass} K-band photometry, these were K-W2, K-W3, and K-W4. Past studies have used both K, and W1 as the base photometry for building color-color diagrams \citep{carpenter06,carpenter09, rizzuto12, luhman10, luhman2012_disk}. Typically, the presence of a disk within $\sim3$\,AU of a host star increases the brightness in the IR wavelengths, with $\sim$5\,$\mu$m being the approximate wavelength where the disk dominates in brightness. Both the W1 and K magnitudes are long enough such that reddening is not a significant issue, but also shorter than the expected point of disk domination. We found that examining the WISE bands relative to the K magnitude produced a better separation of disk bearing stars from photospheric emission, and so we report the analysis in terms of this methodology.
Figure \ref{excess_figs} displays the three spectral type-color diagrams. We excluded any WISE photometry in a given band that was flagged as having a signal to noise ratio of $<4$, as a non-detection, or flagged as being contaminated by any type of image artifact in the catalog. This resulted in the exclusion of 56, 10 and 312 objects in the W2, W3, and W4 bands respectively. The primary source of the exclusions for the W4 band was non-detection or low signal to noise at 22\,$\mu$m, and most of the exclusions in the W2 and W3 bands were due to contamination by image artifacts. To reduce contamination by extended sources we also excluded any object flagged as being nearby a known extended source or with significantly poor photometry fits, there were eight such objects. The WISE band images for these stars were then inspected visually to gauge the extent of contamination. We found the three of the objects were not significantly effected by the nearby extended source, and so included them in the analysis. After excluding these objects we were left with 333, 379 and 77 objects with photometry of sufficient quality in the W2, W3 and W4 bands respectively.
Due to the age of Upper Scorpius of $\sim$10\,Myr, the majority of members no longer possess a disk, providing sufficient numbers of stars to clearly identify photospheric emission. Hence the photosphere color can be determined from the clustered sequence in the spectral type-color diagrams. We fit a straight lines in the K-W3 and K-W4 WISE band colors, and a disjointed line in K-W2, and then place a boundary where the photospheric sequence ends. For K-W3 the boundary line is given by the points (K0,0.27) and (M5,0.8) and for K-W4 the points (K0,0.56) and (M5,1.6).The sloped part of the boundary line for K-W2 is defined by the points (M0,0.21) and (M5,0.46), and the flat section by K-W2 $=0.21$, for spectral types earlier than M0. These boundaries are shown as black lines in Figures \ref{excess_figs}. Stars with color redder than these boundaries we deem to display an excess in the particular WISE band. Upon inspection, we find that our placement of the end of the photospheric sequence is closely consistent with that of \citep{luhman2012_disk}. In the K-W4 color, we find that for stars of spectral type later than $\sim$M2, the photospheric emission in W4 is undetectable by WISE.
For those stars which displayed excesses in any combination of WISE bands, we visually inspected the images to exclude the possibility that the excesses could have been caused by the presence of close companions or nebulosity. We also found that in a few cases background structure in the W4 image could cause the appearance of an excess, although this effect was largely mitigated by our signal-to-noise cutoff. We rejected 23 of the excess detections after inspection, 12 of which were caused by background structure or nearby nebulosity, and 11 of which were due to blending with nearby stars. We further excluded any object which shows an excess in only the K-W2 color as likely being produced by unresolved multiplicity. After these rejections, 27 stars remained with reliable excess detections. Additionally, a single object, 2MASS J16194711-2203112 , displayed an excess in K-W3, but had a W4 detection with signal-to-noise of 3.5. Upon inspection of the corresponding W4 band image, we included it as exhibiting an excess in K-W4.
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
& R.A. & Decl. & & & & & & \\
2MASS & (J2000.0) & (J2000.0) & M & E & D & W2 & W3 & W4 \\
\hline
\input{lmsamp_wise_excess.tex}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{List of stars in our sample with observed IR excesses in the WISE bands. (M) indicates the membership status of the star, (E) list the detection of IR excesses in the three WISE bands, (D) labels the candidate disk classification where F, E, T and D/ET mean full, evolved, transition, and debris or evolved transition respectively. The final three columns list the availability of photometry in the three longest WISE bands. The question mark (?) indicates the star HD-145778, which is likely to be an F-type members of Upper Scorpius.}
\label{excess_table}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\subfloat[\label{wk4wk2}]{\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{wk4_wk2-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[\label{wk4wk3}]{\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{wk4_wk3-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{Excesses in K-W2 vs. K-W4 and K-W3 vs. K-W4 for the members observed in our survey. The plots includes members with out excess (black circles), with excesses in W2, W3 and W4 (blue diamonds), with excesses in the two longest WISE bands with and without reliable W2 photometry (green triangles and circles respectively), and members with an excess in only the W4 band (red plusses). We also include three members with just W3 excesses, which were detected in W4, but without excesses which clearly sit above the diskless sequence (purple squares). The black lines indicate adopted boundaries for different disk classifications.}
\label{wk4wk}
\end{figure}
We can classify the disk types by the amount of excess displayed in different colors compared to the photosphere. We adopt disk type criteria in the E(K-W4), E(K-W3) space consistent with those described in \citet{luhman10} and \citet{luhman2012_disk}, which identify four different categories of disk: Full or primordial disks, transition disks, evolved disks, and debris or evolved transition disks. Primordial or full disks exhibit strong emission across the entire IR spectral range. Transition disks are structurally different in that they have a significant cleared inner hole, which is visible as a weaker emission at the shorter IR wavelengths, but still relatively bright in the longer IR wavelengths. Evolved disks do not show a gap in IR emission, but have started to become thinned and appear fainter at all IR wavelengths than unevolved full disks, with a steady decline in IR excess with age \citep{carpenter09}. Debris disk and evolved transition disk have similar IR SED's, showing only weak excesses at the longer IR wavelengths. Figure \ref{wk4wk3} show both E(K-W4) and E(K-W3) for the stars identified as having displaying an excess. The lines in Figure \ref{wk4wk3} bound the different regions populated by the various disk types. We classify all objects with excesses in W3 and W4 beneath the dashed line to be debris or evolved transition disks candidates, and the objects above the solid line to be full disks. Stars with excess between these two lines we classify as evolved disk candidates. Finally, we identify the two objects with a large W4 excess, but W3 excesses too small to be classified as full disks, as transition disk candidates. Table \ref{excess_table} lists the excess status for the stars with detected excesses.
In total, we identify 26 of the Upper Scorpius members as displaying a disk-indicating excess with spectral types later than K0, and one star without significant Lithium absorption that also displays an excess. This latter object is an F4.5 spectral type object,, HD-145778, with $EW(Li)=0.09\pm0.2$. The presence of some Lithium absorption, combined with the disk presence mean that this object can be considered to be a member of Upper Scorpius. We have included it as a member at the end of Table \ref{obs_res_tab}. HD-145778 is not in this HIPPARCOS catalog \citep{lindegren97}, potentially explaining why it was not included in past memberships.
Due to the WISE detection limit in the W4 band, we are almost certainly not able to identify the vast majority of the evolved transitional and debris disks, which show only a small color excess in K-W4. Indeed, we only detect two such disks in our sample, one of which, USco 41, was previously identified with Spitzer photometry \citep{carpenter09}, when significantly more are expected from previous statistics \citep{carpenter09, luhman2012_disk}. Furthermore, it is likely that a number of evolved disks around stars of spectral type later than $\sim$M3 are not detected here. For this reason it is difficult to meaningfully estimate the disk or excess fraction for our entire sample. In the M0 to M2 spectral type range, where we expect the majority of the full, evolved and transitional disks to be detectable by WISE, we have 11 disks, 6 of which are full, 4 evolved and 1 transitional. Excluding all those members flagged for extended emission, confusion with image artifacts, or unreliable excesses, we find and excess fraction of 11.2$\pm$3.4\%. \citet{carpenter09} found a primordial disk fraction for M-type Upper Scorpius members of $\sim$17\%, and \citet{luhman2012_disk} find excess fractions of 12\% and 21\% for K-type and M0 to M4-type members respectively. Given the strong increase in excess fraction towards the late M-type members and the potential for some missed evolved disks due to the WISE detection limits, we find that our excess fraction estimate is consistent with these past results.
\section{Conclusions}
We have conducted a spectroscopic survey of 397 candidate Upper Scorpius association K and M-type members chosen through statistical methods, and revealed 237 new PMS members among the sample based on the presence of Li absorption. We also identify 25 members in our sample with WISE near-infrared excesses indicative of the presence of a circumstellar disk, and classify these disk on the basis of their color excess in different WISE bands. We find that the members show a significant spread in EW(Li), and upon placing the members on a HR diagram, we find that there is a potential age spread, with a small correlation between EW(Li) and HR-diagram position. This could indicate the presence of a distribution of ages, or multiple populations of different age in Upper Scorpius.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, chaotic Boltzmann machines \cite{Suzuki2013cbm}
were proposed as a deterministic implementation of Boltzmann machines.
The apparently stochastic behavior of chaotic Boltzmann machines
is achieved, without any use of random numbers, by chaotic dynamics
that emerges from pseudo-billiard dynamics.
It was shown numerically that the chaotic billiard dynamics of
chaotic Boltzmann machines can be used for generating sample sequences
from the probabilistic distribution of Boltzmann machines,
and it was successfully applied to other spin models
such as the Ising model and the Potts model \cite{Suzuki2013mc}.
Despite these numerical evidences,
there have been no theoretical proof that chaotic Boltzmann machines
yield samples from the probabilistic distribution of the corresponding
Boltzmann machines.
In this brief note,
as a first step of theoretical approach,
we investigate the simplest system.
Namely, we show that chaotic Boltzmann machines
truly yield samples for the corresponding Boltzmann machines
if they are composed of only two elements.
Although our approach cannot be applied to larger chaotic Boltzmann machines
with more than two elements, we expect that it gives some insights
into the dynamics of larger chaotic Boltzmann machines.
Since the proof is not entirely trivial,
it is considered worth making available on arXiv.
This note is an English translation (with slight modifications)
of the article \cite{Suzuki2014} originally written in Japanese.
\section{Chaotic Boltzmann Machines with Two Elements}
Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be random variables that take values on $\{0,1\}$.
We assume that the probabilistic model $P[S_1, S_2]$ is given in the form of
conditional probabilities $P[S_1 \mid S_2]$ and $P[S_2 \mid S_1]$,
which is common in Boltzmann machines and many other spin models
in statistical physics.
Let us consider a chaotic Boltzmann machine for the probabilistic model.
In addition to the states $s_1$ and $s_2\in \{0,1\}$ of the elements,
we introduce internal states $x_1$ and $x_2\in [0,1]$ of the elements.
Therefore, the state space of the chaotic Boltzmann machine is
$\{0,1\}^2\times[0,1]^2$.
The internal states $x_1$ and $x_2$ evolve
according to the following differential equations:
\begin{align}
\frac{dx_1}{dt} &= (1-2s_1) C_1(s_2) P[s_1\mid s_2]^{-1}, \label{eq:dx1}\\
\frac{dx_2}{dt} &= (1-2s_2) C_2(s_1) P[s_2\mid s_1]^{-1}, \label{eq:dx2}
\end{align}
where $C_i(\cdot)>0$ represents arbitrary positive constants
defined for each state of the other element.
When the internal state $x_i$ reaches $0$ or $1$,
the state $s_i$ of the element changes as follows:
\begin{align}
&s_i \longleftarrow 1 \qquad \text{when} \qquad x_i = 1, \label{eq:ds1}\\
&s_i \longleftarrow 0 \qquad \text{when} \qquad x_i = 0. \label{eq:ds0}
\end{align}
The internal state $(x_1,x_2)$ moves straight inside the unit square $[0,1]^2$,
and changes its direction when it hits a side of the square.
Therefore, this system can be understood as a pseudo-billiard
in the billiard table $[0,1]^2$.
What we expect here is that the state variables $s_1$ and $s_2$ observed from
this system follow the distribution $P[S_1,S_2]$.
Namely, our goal in this note is to show the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
For any initial values
$(s_1(0), s_2(0), x_1(0), x_2(0))\in\{0,1\}^2\times[0,1]^2$,
the chaotic Boltzmann machine defined by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dx1})---(\ref{eq:ds0})
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_0^{T}
\delta(s_1(t),s'_1)\,\delta(s_2(t),s'_2)\,dt
= P[s'_1,s'_2]
\label{eq:pss}
\end{equation}
for $(s'_1,s'_2)\in \{0,1\}^2$,
provided that $\displaystyle\frac{R_2(0)+R_2(1)}{R_1(0)+R_1(1)\mathstrut}$ is irrational.
Here, $\delta(\cdot,\cdot)$ is Kronecker's delta function,
and $R_i(s_i)=C_{3-i}(s_i) P[s_i]$.
\end{prop}
\section{Proof: Quasi-Periodic Dynamics}
To show this proposition, we rewrite
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dx1}) and (\ref{eq:dx2})
of the chaotic Boltzmann machine.
Specifically, instead of the state $(s_i,x_i)$ of each element,
we introduce a new state variable $y_i=H_i(s_i,x_i)$ using the map
\begin{equation}
H_i(s_i,x_i) = (1-2s_i) R_i(s_i) x_i.
\end{equation}
Then the state space $\{0,1\}^2\times[0,1]^2$ of the chaotic Boltzmann machine
is mapped to the rectangular
$[-R_1(1),R_1(0)]\times[-R_2(1),R_2(0)]$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:sspace}).
On this state space, the dynamics of the chaotic Boltzmann machine
(Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dx1})--(\ref{eq:ds0}))
is rewritten as follows:
\begin{align}
\frac{dy_1}{dt} &= R_1(s_1) C_1(s_2) P[s_1|s_2]^{-1}
= \frac{R_1(s_1)R_2(s_2)}{P[s_1,s_2]}, \label{eq:dy1} \\
\frac{dy_2}{dt} &= R_2(s_2) C_2(s_1) P[s_2|s_1]^{-1}
= \frac{R_1(s_1)R_2(s_2)}{P[s_1,s_2]}, \label{eq:dy2}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&y_i \longleftarrow -R_1(1) \qquad \text{when} \qquad y_i = R_1(0),\\
&y_i \longleftarrow -R_2(1) \qquad \text{when} \qquad y_i = R_2(0),
\end{align}
where the state $s_i$ can be determined from $y_i$ as
$s_i(y_i)=0$ when $y_i\ge0$, and $s_i(y_i)=1$ when $y_i<0$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{2cbm.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:sspace}
The state space for $(y_1,y_2)$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The differential equations (\ref{eq:dy1}) and (\ref{eq:dy2})
always satisfy $\displaystyle\frac{dy_1\mathstrut}{dt\mathstrut}=\frac{dy_2}{dt}$.
Hence, the state $(y_1,y_2)$ moves in the direction of $(1,1)$
in the rectangular state space.
Here we introduce $(z_1,z_2)$ which moves along the orbit of
$(y_1,y_2)$ at a constant velocity
$\displaystyle\frac{dz_1\mathstrut}{dt\mathstrut}=\frac{dz_2}{dt}=1$.
Then the orbit of $(z_1,z_2)$ is equidistributed in the state space
in the following sense.
Let us consider the Poincar\'e section on $z_1=-R_1(1)$.
While the value of $z_1$ changes by $(R_1(0)+R_1(1))$,
the value of $z_2$ changes by the same amount.
Therefore, the Poincar\'e map on $z_1=-R_1(1)$ is a rigid rotation
with rotation number $(R_2(0)+R_2(1))/(R_1(0)+R_1(1)) \bmod 1$.
If the rotation number is irrational, the Poincar\'e map is ergodic
with respect to the uniform distribution.
Then the orbit is also equidistributed in the state space,
and we have
\begin{equation}
\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_0^{T}
\delta(s_1(z_1(t)),s'_1)\,\delta(s_2(z_2(t)),s'_2)\,dt
\propto R_1(s'_1)R_2(s'_2).
\end{equation}
Since $(y_1,y_2)$ moves along the same orbit as $(z_1,z_2)$
with the velocity described in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dy1}) and (\ref{eq:dy2}),
we have
\begin{equation}
\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_0^{T}
\delta(s_1(y_1(t)),s'_1)\,\delta(s_2(y_2(t)),s'_2)\,dt
= P[s'_1,s'_2],
\end{equation}
which completes the proof.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
In this brief note, we have shown that chaotic Boltzmann machines
with two elements have quasi-periodic dynamics and
yield samples from the probabilistic distribution
of the corresponding Boltzmann machines,
provided that the rotation number is irrational.
The set of parameter values $C_i(\cdot)$
that make rotation numbers rational has Lebesgue measure zero.
This is analogous to probabilistic Monte Carlo sampling,
which does not work with probability (measure) zero.
However, when we design chaotic Boltzmann machines artificially,
it may be possible that the rotation number easily becomes rational.
In such a case, we have to adjust $C_i(\cdot)$ by multiplying some constants
to make the rotation number irrational.
The performance as an sampling algorithm
depends on the characteristics of the rotation number.
At least, a chaotic Boltzmann machine with a good rotation number
that yields a low-discrepancy sequence is expected to exhibit
better performance than the corresponding Boltzmann machine.
Our approach in this note cannot be applied
to larger chaotic Boltzmann machines with more than two elements,
which exhibit chaotic behavior.
However, some aspects are expected to be shared with larger systems;
for example, our preliminary numerical study shows that irrationality is
important, for chaotic Boltzmann machines
composed of not many but more than two elements,
to generate faithful sample sequences.
Therefore, we expect that our approach gives some insights
into the dynamics of larger chaotic Boltzmann machines.
|
\section{Introduction}
Of order 10\% of main sequence A and B stars are magnetic. For the majority of these stars, their magnetic properties are studied using circular polarisation spectra, which provide a measure of the mean magnetic field projected along the line-of-sight (\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}). A fraction of these stars rotate slowly and/or have strong enough magnetic fields that Zeeman splitting is observed in individual lines of the intensity (Stokes I) spectra \citep[see][and references therein]{Bailey2014}. The magnitude of this splitting provides a measure of the mean magnetic field modulus at the stellar surface (\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}). These magnetic A and B stars exhibit anomalous atmospheric abundances and are referred to as the chemically peculiar A-- type (Ap) stars. These stars often have \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ in excess of about 1~kG and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ of order several thousands to tens of thousands of gauss \citep[e.g.][]{DL2009}.
The chemical peculiarities of Ap stars can be quite striking. For example, the Fe-peak element Cr may be as much as 10$^2$ times overabundant compared to the Sun. Still more impressive are the abundances of rare-earth elements, which are commonly in excess of solar values by as much as 10$^4$ times.
Ap stars may be highly variable, with their magnetic field strengths and spectral line strengths and shapes varying with the rotation period of the star. This variability is best explained via the rigid rotator model \citep[see][]{Stibbs1950}. In this model, the line-of-sight and magnetic axis are at angles $i$ and $\beta$ to the rotation axis, respectively. Therefore, different magnetic field measurements throughout the rotation cycle of the star are the result of observing the field at different orientations and since chemical elements are distributed non-uniformly and non-axisymmetrically over the stellar surface, spectrum variability is also observed \citep{Ryab1991}.
HD~94660 ( = HR~4263) is a bright ($V =$ 6.11) chemically peculiar
magnetic Ap star that is commonly used as a magnetic standard to test polarimetric systems in the southern hemisphere. The field was first discovered by \citet{BL1975} using an H$\alpha$ magnetograph; they reported a value for the line-of-sight magnetic field of \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ $= -3300 \pm 510$~G. HD~94660 is a sharp-lined star with clearly resolved Zeeman splitting in several spectra lines \citep{Mathys1990}. \citet{BLT1993} report a projected rotational velocity of $v \sin i$\ $<$ 6~km\,s$^{-1}$ and a roughly constant line-of-sight magnetic field strength of \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ $= -2520$~G, based on measurements using H$\beta$. A period of rotation of order 2700~d was first proposed by \citet{Hensberge1993} and later discussed by \citet{Mathys1997} with respect to \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ data. More recently, \citet{LBF2014} studied the field variations of HD~94660 from 17 FORS1 observations taken over a 6 year period from 2002 to 2008. They find a peak-to-peak variation in \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ of about 800~G, ranging from about $-2700$ and $-1900$~G. From these variations, a rotation period of 2800 $\pm$ 250~d is deduced, which agrees with previous determinations.
\citet{LM2000} were the first to report clear \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ variations (between about $-1800$ and $-2100$~G) which, together with \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ data from \citet{Mathys+Hubrig1997}, enabled them to model the magnetic field of this star using a colinear multipole expansion.
They adopted a model that consists of dipole, quadrupole and octupole
components with surface polar field strengths of $-8400$, $2700$ and $6900$~G, respectively. As seen
above, the value of \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ is always negative, indicating that $i +
\beta \ltsimeq 90^{\circ}$ i.e. only the negative magnetic pole
is observed. This is confirmed by this model where the determined
values for $i$ and $\beta$ are 5$^{\circ}$ and 47$^{\circ}$. We point
out that, in general, this model does provide a rough first
approximation to the field variations.
In this paper, we discuss efforts to model the magnetic field and chemical abundances of many elements based on high-dispersion, polarimetric spectra. The following section discusses the observations. Sect.~3 outlines the derived physical parameters; Sect.~4 discusses the magnetic field measurements and model; Sect.~5 and 6 describe the modelling technique and abundance analysis, respectively; Sect.~7 reports detected radial velocity variations; and Sect.~8 summarises the results of the paper.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Summary of the stellar and magnetic properties of HD~94660.}
\begin{tabular}{lrl}
\hline
Spectral type & A0p EuSiCr & \citealp{Rensonetal1991} \\
$T_{\rm eff}$ (K) & 11300 $\pm$ 400 & This paper\\
log $g$ (cgs) & 4.18 $\pm$ 0.20 & This paper \\
R (R$_\odot$) & 2.53 $\pm$ 0.37 & This paper\\
$v\sin i$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $<$2 & This paper \\
P (d) & 2800 $\pm$ 250 & \citealp{LBF2014}\\
$\log (L_\star/L_\odot)$ & 2.02 $\pm$ 0.10 & This paper\\
$M$ ($M_{\odot}$) & 3.0 $\pm$ 0.20 & This paper\\
$\pi$ (milliarcsec) & 6.67 $\pm$ 0.80 & van Leeuwen 2007\\
\hline
$B_{\rm d}$ (G) & $-7500$ & This paper\\
$B_{\rm q}$ (G) & $-2000$ & This paper\\
$B_{\rm oct}$ (G) & $7500$ & This paper\\
$i$ ($\degr$) & 16 & This paper\\
$\beta$ ($\degr$) & 30 & This paper\\
\hline\hline
\label{params}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Observations}
We have acquired one spectropolarimetric observation of HD~94660 and have retrieved an additional seven archival spectra that were utilised in this study, all of which were taken with HARPSpol. This is a high-resolution ($R \simeq 115~000$), cross-dispersed echelle spectropolarimeter that covers a spectral range between 3780 -- 6910~\AA\ and is mounted on the European Southern Observatory (ESO) 3.6-m telescope located at La Silla. The high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) observations consist of 6 circularly polarised Stokes $V$ spectra (with the 01-04-2012 observation also including linear polarisation in both Stokes $Q$ and $U$), and two unpolarised Stokes $I$ spectra, all acquired between May 2009 and April 2014. Each polarimetric observation (except for the observation taken on 31-05-2009) was obtained by acquiring four successive individual spectra with the quarter-wave plate rotated in such a way to acquire the desired Stokes spectrum \citep[see e.g.][ for further details]{rusomarov13}.
The HARPSpol spectra were reduced using a modified version of the {\sc reduce} package \citep{piskunov02, makaganiuk11}. Wavelength calibration was performed using the spectrum of a ThAr calibration lamp and then corrected to the heliocentric rest frame. Normalisation of the spectra was achieved by first dividing the spectra by the optimally-extracted spectrum of the flat-field to correct for the blaze shape and fringing. The resulting spectra were then corrected by the response function derived from observations of the Sun. The last step involved fitting a smooth, slowly-varying function to the envelope of the entire spectrum. The final output is a set of continuum-normalised Stokes $I$ spectra, the Stokes parameter of interest ($V, Q, U$) and a diagnostic null spectrum that is calculated in such a way that the polarisation cancels out, which often allows us to identify spurious signals that are present in the processed data. The spectrum that was acquired on 31-05-2009 only completed half of the full polarimetric sequence, which enables the cancellation of first order (linear) wavelength drift, but does not correct for second order (quadratic) drift and does not allow the computation of a diagnostic null spectrum. We also note that the retarder angles listed in the observations obtained on 05-01-2010 were inconsistent with the usually adopted values for obtaining Stokes $V$ measurements and are likely erroneous. We therefore proceeded to reduce the data assuming the usual retarder angles for the sequence of observations, and then verified that the resulting polarised and unpolarised spectra were in good agreement with the other observations.
In addition to the HARPSpol observations, we identified another archival, circularly polarised, high-resolution ($R \simeq 65~000$) spectropolarimetric observation acquired with ESPaDOnS on January 9, 2006. ESPaDOnS, which is mounted at the 3.6~m Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT), is also a bench-mounted, cross-dispersed echelle spectropolarimeter, which covers a broader spectral range compared to HARPSpol of 3690 -- 10 481~\AA. The polarimetric observation was obtained by taking a sequence of four sub-exposures with different positions of the Fresnel Rhomb to acquire a single Stokes $V$ spectrum, according to the procedure described by \citet{donati97}. The ESPaDOnS spectra were processed using the automated reduction package {\sc libre-esprit}, following the double-ratio procedure \citep{donati97}.
Lastly, we also found three nights of archival UVES data consisting of a total of 11 spectra. UVES is a cross-dispersed spectrograph mounted on the ESO 8.2-m Very Large Telescope (VLT) located at Paranal. It has both a blue and red arm offering different spectral resolutions and wavelength coverage. The blue arm offers $R$ up to about 80\,000 and a spectral range of 3100 -- 4900~\AA, whereas the red arm covers 4800 -- $10\,200$~\AA\ with $R$ up to about 110\,000. Table~\ref{speclog} summarises our entire collection of spectra for HD~94660.
\begin{center}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Log of available spectra for HD~94660. Successive columns list the instrument, date and JD of observation, exposure time, estimated signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per 1.8~km\,s$^{-1}$\ velocity bin at 5000~\AA, spectral resolution ($R$) and wavelength coverage. }
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccrrrr}
\hline\hline
Instrument & Date & JD & $t_{\rm exp}$ (s) & $SNR$ & $R$ & $\lambda$~(\AA) \\
& (DD-MM-YYYY) & (2450000+) & & & & \\
\hline
UVES & 01-05-2001 & 2031.464 & 145 & 254 & 65~030 & 3043 -- 3916 \\
& & 2032.464 & 70 & 252 & 74~450 & 4726 -- 6808 \\
& & 2031.466 & 70 & 266 & 74~450 & 4726 -- 6808 \\
UVES & 01-08-2001 & 2038.441 & 100 & 379 & 65~030 & 3731 -- 4999 \\
& & 2038.443 & 100 & 383 & 65~030 & 3731 -- 4999 \\
& & 2038.441 & 100 & 101 & 74~450 & 6650 -- 10~426\\
& & 2038.443 & 100 & 101 & 74~450 & 6650 -- 10~426 \\
UVES & 03-12-2005 & 3707.846 & 200 & 233 & 71~050 & 3044 -- 3917 \\
& & 3707.841 & 200 & 316 & 71~050 & 3281 -- 4563 \\
& & 3707.846 & 200 & 675 & 107~200 & 4726 -- 6835 \\
& & 3707.841 & 200 & 283 & 107~200 & 5708 -- 9464 \\
ESPaDOnS & 09-01-2006 & 3745.167 & 1200 & 270 & 65~000 & 3690 -- 10~481\\
HARPSpol & 24-05-2009 & 4975.546 & 600 & 311 & 115~000 & 3780 -- 6910\\
HARPSpol & 25-05-2009 & 4976.536 & 1200 & 398 & 115~000 & 3780 -- 6910\\
HARPSpol & 31-05-2009 & 4982.605 & 1200 & 476 & 115~000 & 3780 -- 6910\\
HARPSpol & 05-01-2010 & 5201.833 & 808 & 397 & 115~000 & 3780 -- 6910\\
HARPSpol & 19-05-2011 & 5701.450 & 800 & 392 & 115~000 & 3780 -- 6910\\
HARPSpol & 20-05-2011 & 5702.449 & 800 & 427 & 115~000 & 3780 -- 6910\\
HARPSpol & 01-04-2012 & 6018.559 & 1000 & 670 & 115~000 & 3780 -- 6910\\
HARPSpol & 28-04-2014 & 6775.610 & 360 & 320 & 115~000 & 3780 -- 6910\\
\hline\hline
\label{speclog}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{center}
\section{Physical Parameters}
\subsection{Effective Temperature and Gravity}
Geneva and Str\"{o}mgren $uvby\beta$ photometry are available for
HD~94660 and both were utilised to determine the effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$\ and gravity $\log\,{g}$\ for the star. For the Geneva photometry, we used the {\sc fortran} code developed by \citet{geneva}. A modified version of the \citet{NSW} code, that corrects the effective temperature to the Ap temperature scale \citep[see][for a complete discussion]{paper2}, was used for the Str\"{o}mgren photometry.
From the Geneva and Str\"{o}mgren photometric systems, we found
$T_{\rm eff}$\ = 11500~K, $\log\,{g}$\ = 4.10 and $T_{\rm eff}$\ = 11100~K, $\log\,{g}$\ = 4.26
respectively. We adopt the mean of these two sets of values for our
analysis with $T_{\rm eff}$\ = 11300 $\pm$ 400~K and $\log\,{g}$\ = 4.18 $\pm$ 0.2,
with the uncertainties estimated from the scatter between the
measurements, and by taking into account the intrinsic uncertainties in
computing these parameters for Ap stars. These parameters are used
for our abundance analysis (see Sect.~6).
\subsection{Luminosity, Stellar Radius and Mass}
\citet{vanLee2007} reports a Hipparcos parallax of 6.67 $\pm$ 0.80
milliarcseconds. From this value, a distance to HD~94660 of about
150~pc is deduced. With a well determined distance, an appropriate
bolometric correction for Ap stars can be used to determine the stellar
luminosity \citep[see][]{paper2}, which is found to be $\log
L/L_{\odot} = 1.97 \pm 0.25$ with uncertainties propagated in the
usual way.
Based on the $T_{\rm eff}$\ and luminosity determinations, it is straightforward
to compute a stellar radius of $R = 2.53 \pm 0.37$~R$_{\odot}$. By
further comparing the position of HD~94660 to theoretical evolutionary
tracks \citep{Girardi2000} in an HR diagram, we are able to estimate
the star's evolutionary mass. Using the adopted uncertainties in $T_{\rm eff}$\
and $L$, we proceed by comparing the star's position to multiple
evolutionary tracks of varying masses. In this manner, we estimate
that HD~94660 has a mass of about 3.0 $\pm$ 0.20~M$_{\odot}$. This is
in agreement to the mass of 3.51 $\pm$ 0.64~M$_{\odot}$ that we can estimate from the stellar radius and photometrically determined $\log\,{g}$. Further, the position in the HR diagram suggests that HD~94660 has completed less than half of its main sequence lifetime. This is consistent with \citet{paper3}, who find strong magnetic fields only in young Ap stars.
\section{Magnetic Field}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[angle=-90,width=0.45\textwidth]{hd94660_Bz_v3.eps}
\includegraphics*[angle=-90,width=0.45\textwidth]{hd94660_Bs_v3.eps}
\caption{\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ variations of HD~94660. The solid black lines are the adopted magnetic field model variations from Sect.~4.3. {\bf Top:} \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ LSD measurements using the full mask (black circles) and Nd mask (green triangles). Note that the open and filled symbols denote measurements from the ESPaDOnS spectrum and HARPSpol spectra, respectively. Balmer line measurements from \citet{LBF2014} are the filled red squares. {\bf Bottom:} Phased \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ measurements from Fe~{\sc ii} 6149 (blue squares), Cr~{\sc ii} 6833 (red triangles) and Nd~{\sc iii} 6145 (green circles). The dotted green line is the best-fit sinusoidal variations to the Nd measurements.}
\label{magfield}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\subsection{Longitudinal Magnetic Field Measurements}
For each of the Stokes $V$ spectra we measured the mean, surface-averaged longitudinal magnetic field (\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}) from line-averaged Least-Squares Deconvolved \citep[LSD; ][]{donati97} line profiles. The technique involves obtaining mean line profiles by combining all spectral lines in a given line list (normally metallic and He lines). The result is a much higher SNR with the ability to detect weaker Zeeman signatures due to magnetic fields. \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ was measured using the first-order moment method discussed by \citet{rees79}, and as implemented by \citet{donati97} and \citet{wade00} according to the equation:
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle = \frac{-2.14 \times 10^{11}}{\lambda z c }\frac{\int{(v - v_0)V(v){\rm d}v}}{\int{[1-I(v)]{\rm d}v}}.
\label{b_eq}
\end{equation}
In this equation, $v$ is the velocity within the LSD profile, $V(v)$ is the continuum-normalised Stokes $I$ profile and $I(v)$ is the continuum-normalised intensity profile. The wavelength $\lambda$ (in nm) and Land\'{e} factor $z$ correspond to the weighting factors used in the calculation of the LSD profiles (500-nm and 1.2, respectively).
The LSD profiles were extracted using the iLSD code of \citet{kochukhov10}. As input the code requires a line mask that was extracted from the Vienna Atomic Line Database \citep[VALD;][]{vald1,vald2,vald3,vald4} for the spectral range covered by HARPS, using the mean abundances determined in this work and discussed in Sect.~\ref{abund_sect}. This linelist was used for both the HARPS and ESPaDOnS spectra to provide a consistent \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ measurement between the two datasets. We then proceeded to remove all lines that were blended with lines not used in this analysis, such as broad hydrogen lines or lines blended with strong telluric absorption bands. As a final step we then automatically adjust the line depths from their theoretical predictions to provide a best fit to the observed Stokes $I$ spectrum, while also removing lines that are poorly fit (such as those lines that show very strong Zeeman splitting). This final mask was then used to extract mean line profiles for all spectra that we label as `full mask'. We also extracted mean line profiles of individual elements for Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, and Nd, using the multi-profile capabilities of iLSD. In each case we provided two input masks based on our final full mask, one made entirely of the element of interest and the other containing all other lines. Both masks are used simultaneously as input and allow us to extract a representative mean, unblended profile of the element of interest. All LSD profiles were extracted onto a 1.8\,km\,s$^{-1}$\ velocity grid and uncertainties were computed by propagating the uncertainties in the final LSD profiles.
Our final measurements are listed in
Table~\ref{bzmeas}. The top panel of Figure~\ref{magfield} plots the \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ measurements
against rotational phase for the full metallic and Nd masks as well as
the magnetic field model derived in Sect.~4.3. Also shown are the
Balmer line measurements of \citet{LBF2014}. Although the HARPSpol and ESPaDOnS magnetic data have not been intercalibrated for this star, we note that the consistency between the ESPaDOnS and HARPSpol measurements is satisfactory. Furthermore, previous studies have shown a good agreement between the polarimetric spectra acquired with ESPaDOnS and HARPSpol \citep{piskunov11}.
\subsubsection{Measurements from individual spectral lines}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{EQW_meas_all_together_obs_new2.eps}
\caption{The variations in magnetic field strength \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ versus EQW for individual spectral lines. Different symbols denote different elements, while different colours are used to represent different Land\'{e} factor ranges. Note that the absolute value of the field strength is shown and each measurement has been normalised as discussed in the text. The dashed line is a linear fit to the data.}
\label{eqw}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
The extremely sharp lines and strong magnetic field result in clean, strong Stokes $V$ signatures for individual spectral lines. This allows us to test the multi-line technique of LSD (see Sect.~4.1) by measuring \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ from individual lines of elements. We performed these measurements for a total of about 80 unblended lines which included the elements Si, Ti, Cr, Fe and Nd (the same elements for which we performed LSD to compute the field from individual elements). In general, the measurements agree with the values we derive and present in Table~\ref{bzmeas}, but with large scatter between different lines of an individual element. In an attempt to understand this scatter, we plot the measured \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ value against the equivalent width (EQW) for all the spectral lines (see Fig.~\ref{eqw}). To account for any variation in the field measurements due to the different phases, all values have been normalised by the \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and EQW value for the Fe~{\sc i} 4982 line obtained for a given night. Note that the absolute value of the field strength is shown for clarity.
The results show a clear trend, namely a stronger field strength
for lines with smaller EQW and a weaker field strength for lines with
larger EQW. We note that almost all of the outliers from this trend were
lines with very small Land\'{e} factors. These results are difficult to
interpret. On one hand, this result could reflect differential
desaturation i.e. that strong lines should be more sensitive to the
desaturation of the line due to magnetic splitting and so the relative
change in the EQW of that line should be greater than for a weak line in
the presence of a strong magnetic field. We attempted to test this
hypothesis by producing a synthetic spectrum using {\sc zeeman} (see Sect.~5), which
includes all of the measured spectral lines. Because the field strength
is kept constant for a given phase in {\sc zeeman} for all lines, any
systematic change in the measured \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ value as a function of the EQW
can be attributed to differential saturation. Unfortunately, the results
we derived from this test are also difficult to interpret, but it appears
that the general trend of the synthetic tests do not agree with the
results from the observations. Another possible explanation caused by
differential saturation is that this result could simply reflect small
systematic changes in the measured centre-of-gravity of Stokes $V$ (the
numerator in Eqn.~\ref{b_eq}). This would predominantly affect strong
lines with complex splitting patterns, resulting in a blended profile
that does not have the same centre-of-gravity as the unsaturated line
with the same splitting pattern.
On the other hand, this result could be
unrelated to saturation effects and could be a measure of the change of
the decreasing field strength with increasing vertical height in the
atmosphere: the cores of weak lines are formed deeper in the atmosphere
and should have intrinsically stronger fields relative to strong lines
with cores formed higher. Using our {\sc zeeman} model to
estimate the depth of the atmosphere ($\sim$0.6\% of the stellar
radius), we compute an expected change of the order of $\sim$4\% between
the measured field strength of lines formed at the top and bottom of the
atmosphere. Fig.~\ref{eqw} shows a typical variation in the strength of the magnetic field of order 30\% from weak to strong lines (closer to 50\% if you consider the extreme values). Therefore, it seems unlikely that this effect is important and the nature of this trend is still unclear.
\begin{center}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Log of the line-of-sight surface field, \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}, measurements of
HD~94660. Listed are the instrument, date and JD of observations, phase and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\
measurements from the full stellar mask and only lines of Si, Ti,
Cr, Fe and Nd.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
\hline\hline
Instrument & Date & JD & Phase & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ (G)}\\
& (DD-MM-YYYY) & (2450000+) & & Full Mask & Si & Ti & Cr & Fe & Nd\\
\hline
ESPaDOnS & 09-01-2006 & 3745.167 & 0.051 & $-2223 \pm 17$ & $-2343 \pm 77$ & $-1963 \pm 61$ & $-2174 \pm 25$ & $-2217 \pm 19$ & $-2601 \pm 70$\\
HARPSpol & 31-05-2009 & 4982.605 & 0.493 & $-2287 \pm 14$ & $-2231 \pm 71$ & $-2341 \pm 51$ & $-2114 \pm 22$ & $-2329 \pm 16$ & $-2381 \pm 64$\\
HARPSpol & 05-01-2010 & 5201.833 & 0.571 & $-2413 \pm 14$ & $-2460 \pm 70$ & $-2444 \pm 50$ & $-2273 \pm 23$ & $-2480 \pm 17$ & $-2628 \pm 58$\\
HARPSpol & 19-05-2011 & 5701.450 & 0.750 & $-2304 \pm 14$ & $-2515 \pm 68$ & $-2281 \pm 51$ & $-2106 \pm 22$ & $-2348 \pm 17$ & $-2739 \pm 53$\\
HARPSpol & 20-05-2011 & 5702.449 & 0.750 & $-2303 \pm 14$ & $-2502 \pm 68$ & $-2276 \pm 51$ & $-2092 \pm 22$ & $-2351 \pm 17$ & $-2726 \pm 52$\\
HARPSpol & 01-04-2012 & 6018.559 & 0.863 & $-2252 \pm 13$ & $-2399 \pm 65$ & $-2352 \pm 48$ & $-2151 \pm 22$ & $-2280 \pm 16$ & $-2625 \pm 49$\\
HARPSpol & 28-04-2014 & 6775.610 & 0.133 & $-2151 \pm 14$ & $-2305 \pm 71$ & $-1643 \pm 48$ & $-2149 \pm 21$ & $-2200 \pm 17$ & $-2372 \pm 61$\\
\hline\hline
\label{bzmeas}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{center}
\subsection{Surface Magnetic Field Measurements}
\begin{center}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Log of surface field, \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}, measurements of HD~94660. For each spectra, the instrument, date and JD of observation, phase and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ measurements from Nd~{\sc iii} $\lambda$6145, Fe~{\sc ii} $\lambda$6149 and Cr~{\sc ii} $\lambda$6833 are listed.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccrrr}
\hline\hline
Instrument & Date & JD & Phase & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ (G)} \\
&(DD-MM-YYYY) & (2450000+) & & Nd~{\sc iii} $\lambda$6145 & Fe~{\sc ii}
$\lambda$6149 & Cr~{\sc ii} $\lambda$6833 \\
\hline
UVES & 01-05-2001 & 2031.464 & 0.439 & 6124 $\pm$ 184 & 6292 $\pm$ 94 & --* \\
UVES & 01-08-2001 & 2038.441 & 0.441 & --* & --* & 6253 $\pm$ 120 \\
UVES & 03-12-2005 & 3707.841 & 0.038 & 5954 $\pm$ 179 & 6711 $\pm$ 105 & 6253 $\pm$ 80 \\
ESPaDOnS & 09-01-2006 & 3745.167 & 0.051 & -- & 6460 $\pm$ 84 & 6315 $\pm$ 102 \\
HARPSpol & 24-05-2009 & 4975.546 & 0.490 & 5877 $\pm$ 129 & 6123 $\pm$ 60 & 6208
$\pm$ 117 \\
HARPSpol & 25-05-2009 & 4976.536 & 0.490 & 5868 $\pm$ 141 & 6176 $\pm$ 63 & 6191 $\pm$ 77 \\
HARPSpol & 31-05-2009 & 4982.605 & 0.493 & 5900 $\pm$ 113 & 6122 $\pm$ 98 & 6221 $\pm$ 119 \\
HARPSpol & 05-01-2010 & 5201.833 & 0.571 & 5881 $\pm$ 114 & 6093 $\pm$ 84 & 6194 $\pm$ 147 \\
HARPSpol & 19-05-2011 & 5701.450 & 0.750 & 5395 $\pm$ 71 & 6085 $\pm$ 64 & 6044 $\pm$ 89\\
HARPSpol & 20-05-2011 & 5702.449 & 0.750 & 5549 $\pm$ 93 & 6039 $\pm$ 60 & 5993 $\pm$ 88\\
HARPSpol & 01-04-2012 & 6018.559 & 0.863 & 5708 $\pm$ 83 & 6220 $\pm$ 51 & 6244 $\pm$ 78 \\
HARPSpol & 28-04-2014 & 6775.610 & 0.133 & 6209 $\pm$ 85 & 6418 $\pm$ 43 & 6426 $\pm$ 60 \\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{6}{p{0.5\textwidth}}{{\sc Notes.} (*) UVES spectra do not include these spectral lines (see Table~\ref{speclog})}\\
\label{bsmeas}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{center}
The sharp-lined features and high resolving powers of the HARPSpol, UVES and
ESPaDOnS instruments allowed us to make measurements of the mean field
moduli (\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}) from observed Zeeman splitting in the lines of Nd~{\sc
iii}~$\lambda$6145, Fe~{\sc ii}~$\lambda$6149 and Cr~{\sc
ii}~$\lambda$6833. Notable exceptions are for the one ESPaDOnS
spectrum and two nights of UVES spectra. The lower resolving power of ESPaDOnS compared to HARPSpol did
not allow us to see sufficient splitting in Nd~{\sc iii}, whereas insufficient wavelength coverage for the UVES spectra did not allow for measurements of splitting in Cr~{\sc ii} (on 01-05-2011) or Nd~{\sc iii} and Fe~{\sc ii} (on 01-08-2011) .
To obtain values of \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}, the atomic data from the VALD database was used and the field strength calculated from the equation
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ = \frac{\Delta\lambda}{4.67\times 10^{-13}\lambda_{o}^{2}z},
\label{Bs-eqn}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\lambda$ denotes the shift of the $\sigma$ components
from the zero field wavelength, $\lambda_{o}$ is the rest wavelength in \AA\
and $z$ is the effective Land\'{e} factor of the line (1.00, 1.34 and
1.33 for $\lambda$6145, 6149 and 6833, respectively). The separation
of the elements of the Zeeman split lines that determine $\Delta\lambda$ was measured by fitting
Gaussians to each component using the {\it splot} function in
IRAF. The uncertainties were estimated by considering the dispersion
between a series of measurements of \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ from multiple Gaussian fits to
each component. \citet{Baileyetal2011} note that measurements of \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\
from Eqn.~\ref{Bs-eqn} are very sensitive to small changes in
$\Delta\lambda$. Because of the high resolution and essentially zero rotation
rate of HD~94660, the dispersion in our measurements of $\Delta\lambda$
is less than about 0.005~\AA\ in most cases. Table~\ref{bsmeas}
summarises these \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ measurements and the bottom panel of
Fig.~\ref{magfield} show the phased rotational variations of the
surface fields from the three elements.
The scatter of \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ values around the mean curve confirms that our uncertainty estimates are reasonable.
The consistency of measurements from each individual element taken on successive nights (24-05-2009
and 25-05-2009) and the agreement, within estimated uncertainties,
between \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ measurements of the Fe-peak elements Cr~{\sc ii} and
Fe~{\sc ii} (except for a single measurement) further suggests that the quoted uncertainties are realistic. The
surface field appears to vary sinusoidally; however, the
average surface field from the Fe-peak elements is of order 400~G
larger than that of Nd~{\sc iii}. Further, the peak-to-peak amplitude of the
variations is twice as large for Nd~{\sc iii} (of order 800~G) compared to the
Fe-peak elements (of order 400~G). The fact that different elements
sample the field in significantly different ways suggest that the abundance distributions of different elements, in addition to the field structure, are inhomogeneous
over the stellar surface. This is further supported by the discrepant
\ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ measurements of different elements discussed above and listed in Table~\ref{bzmeas}.
\subsection{Magnetic Field Model}
Given the long rotation period of HD~94660, we are fortunate to have
sufficient phase coverage for both \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ in order to derive a
simple magnetic field model. In general, the FORS1 data show that the Balmer line and metallic line \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ measurements agree closely, except for one discrepant metal \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ value \citep{LBF2014}. However, a large discrepancy exists between all FORS1 measurements and those from high-resolution spectra. In particular, the FORS1 data show a much larger range in \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}. This can be seen in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{magfield} where the FORS1 Balmer line measurements vary by order 800~G whereas the full LSD mask from the high resolution spectra vary by about 300~G. We opt for using the Balmer line \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ variations as discussed by \citet{LBF2014} to derive a field geometry. We point out that this is the main reason for the discrepancy between our field structure (see below) and the one derived by \citet{LM2000}.
The {\sc fortran} program {\sc fldsrch.f} \citep{LM2000}
derives a magnetic field geometry based on the observed \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ variations. It produces a simple co-axial multipole expansion that consists of
dipole ($B_{\rm d}$) , quadrupole ($B_{\rm q}$) and octupole ($B_{\rm oct}$) components with the angles between the
line-of-sight and rotation axis ($i$) and the magnetic field and
rotation axes ($\beta$), specified. For HD~94660, a new
field geometry with $i = 16^{\degr}$, $\beta = 30^{\degr}$, $B_{\rm d}
= -7500$~G, $B_{\rm q} = -2000~G$, and $B_{\rm oct} = 7500$~G is
found. The phased \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ variations using our adopted geometry are
shown in Fig.~\ref{magfield} and are in good agreement with the
longitudinal field variations measured by \citet{LBF2014} from FORS1, as well as the measured Fe-peak surface field variations.
Although our magnetic field model is based on the fit to the large amplitude \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ FORS1 data, it is nevertheless useful to compare our geometry to the one from \citet{LM2000} because it is not entirely clear which, if either, is better to use. In general, our adopted field geometry is not drastically different than the one proposed by \citet{LM2000} (see Sect. 1). The angles $i + \beta$ are roughly the
same, although the individual values of these angles differ (recall
that $i$ and $\beta$ can be interchanged). The values of $B_{\rm d}$ and $B_{\rm oct}$ are similar; however, the relatively small $B_{\rm q}$, although comparable in magnitude, is negative in our derived geometry and positive in the geometry of \citet{LM2000}. The circular polarisation signatures in Stokes $V$ are also well produced with both
geometries. Fig.~\ref{model} compares the observed and synthetic Stokes
$I$ and $V$ profiles, using both models, for Nd~{\sc iii}
$\lambda$6145 (note that only one phase is shown but the splitting is equally well reproduced at all phases). It is obvious from this figure that both fields do an
adequate job at reproducing the observed magnetic properties in the
spectrum of HD~94660. Based on Figures~\ref{model}, it is unclear which model is best and both models are too coarse to describe the complex field variations over the visible stellar surface. Although our field model is preferred, we perform an abundance analysis using both geometries (see Sect.~5).
\citet{LM2000} suggest that $\beta$ is likely smaller than $i$ for a very large fraction of slow rotators, arguing that for long period stars ($P \ge 25$~d) it is equally likely for the rotation pole to be positioned anywhere on the visible hemisphere. For this reason, smaller values of $i$ are statistically unlikely, since it would require $i$ to be within a small region of the visible hemisphere. However, their geometries are based only on intensity and circular polarisation spectra which makes it difficult to distinguish $i$ and $\beta$. Fortunately, we have available two observations of the linear polarisation (Stokes $Q$ and $U$) spectra of HD~94660 taken with the HARPSpol instrument on 01-04-2012 (see Sect.~2). The linear polarisation data will allow us to distinguish which of the two angles is larger. Figure~\ref{linpol} compares the Stokes $Q$ signature for our adopted magnetic field model, assuming that $i > \beta$ (top panel) and $i < \beta$ (bottom panel). For $i > \beta$, the model clearly predicts a Stokes $Q$ signature that is too large compared to the observations. Alternatively, for $i < \beta$, the model predicts a much more modest signature, in relative agreement to what is observed, although we admit that the model does not accurately represent the true variations in linear polarisation for this star (we note that similar results are also seen with Stokes $U$ and with the \citet{LM2000} model). This figure strongly suggests that, contrary to the assumption of \citet{LM2000}, for HD~94660 $\beta$ is the larger of these two angles for both models.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{hd94660_fldcompare.eps}
\caption{A comparison of magnetic field models. In black are the
observed Stokes $I$ (top) and $V$ (bottom) profiles for Nd~{\sc iii}
$\lambda$6145 for the 28-08-2014 HARPSpol spectrum. We overplot the computed line profiles for our adopted magnetic field geometry (red dashed line) and the magnetic field geometry of \citet{LM2000} (blue dotted line).}
\label{model}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{stokesq-compare.eps}
\caption{A comparison of the Stokes Q signatures of synthetic models to the HARPSpol observation on 01-04-2012. In black is the
observed Stokes $Q$ spectrum. Overplotted is our adopted magnetic field model (red dashed line). The top panel assumes $i > \beta$, whereas the bottom assumes $i < \beta$.}
\label{linpol}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\section{Spectrum Synthesis Program}
\subsection{{\sc zeeman.f}}
The {\sc fortran} program {\sc zeeman.f} is a spectrum synthesis
program developed by \citet{Landstreet1988}. {\sc
zeeman.f} performs line formation and radiative transfer in a
magnetic field. The input magnetic field geometry consists of the axisymmetric superposition of a dipole, quadrupole and octupole with specified values of the angles
$i$ and $\beta$. {\sc zeeman.f} interpolates an appropriate atmospheric model from
a grid of solar abundance ATLAS9 models based upon the $T_{\rm eff}$\ and $\log\,{g}$\
supplied. The atomic data needed for line synthesis are taken from the VALD database. {\sc
zeeman.f} assumes a homogeneous abundance distribution vertically throughout the
stellar atmosphere and computes all four Stokes parameters. {\sc zeeman.f} allows up to six abundance rings that are symmetric about the magnetic axis to be specified on the stellar surface, with each ring having equal extent in colatitude. Within each ring, a uniform abundance is assumed. For each modelled spectrum, a best-fit $v \sin i$\ and radial velocity $v_{\rm R}$ are calculated.
\subsection{Choice of magnetic field model}
One of the major difficulties in performing the abundance analysis of
a magnetic star is the inclusion of the effects of the magnetic
field on spectral line formation. This is, in part, due to the limited
number of tools that include this physics, but also because of the
inherent ambiguity in selecting an appropriate magnetic field
model. Section~4 highlighted this discrepancy with two apparently
adequate field models to explain the observed Stokes $I$ and $V$
profiles of HD~94660. Therefore, we compared the abundances derived from these two magnetic field geometries. We also tested the abundances with {\bf a} simple dipolar model in which the value of $B_{\rm d}$ was chosen to be approximately three times the largest observed \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ value (this leads to roughly the same extrema in the observed \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ values).
We note that the agreement between the different models is impressive. For any given set of fundamental parameters (i.e. $T_{\rm eff}$\ and $\log\,{g}$), the difference in the derived abundances between the three models are generally less than about 0.1~dex and no worse than about 0.2~dex. It is encouraging that the choice of model does not
drastically influence the final abundances. In fact, a very coarse model, consisting only of a dipole, can give accurate abundances, which suggests that the final abundances may not be very sensitive to the difference between these simple models and the real field distribution. Apparently, the inclusion
a magnetic field model that roughly explains the \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\
variations is sufficient to provide an accurate analysis. This lends support to studies such as the one by \citet{BLB2014} for which simple dipolar models are used to quantify the evolution of atmospheric abundances in Ap stars. Since the abundances depend little on the magnetic field model, the following section reports only on abundances found using the field geometry we present in Sect.~4.3.
\section{Elemental Abundances}\label{abund_sect}
\begin{table}
\caption{The abundances are measured with respect to H, and are tabulated with their associated uncertainties. For reference, the solar abundance ratio and the number of spectral lines modelled are also shown. }
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lr|rr}
\hline\hline
Element & $\log (N_{\rm X}/N_{\rm H})$ & Solar & \# Lines \\
\hline
He & $<-2.20$ & $-1.07$ & 2\\
O & $-3.77 \pm 0.20$ & $-3.31$ & 3\\
Mg & $-5.03 \pm 0.15$ & $-4.40$ & 1\\
Si & $-3.21 \pm 0.30$ & $-4.49$ & 5\\
Ca & $-6.19 \pm 0.33$ & $-5.66$ & 1\\
Ti & $-5.55 \pm 0.50$ & $-7.05$ & 7\\
Cr & $-3.86 \pm 0.30$ & $-6.36$ & 30\\
Mn & $-5.67 \pm 0.20$ & $-6.57$ & 2\\
Fe & $-3.10 \pm 0.50$ & $-4.50$ & 28\\
Co & $-4.51 \pm 0.25$ & $-7.01$ & 8 \\
Ni & $-5.24 \pm 0.20$ & $-5.78$ & 1\\
Sr & $-7.78 \pm 0.40$ & $-9.13$ & 2\\
La & $-7.68 \pm 0.16$ & $-10.9$ & 2 \\
Ce & $-6.86 \pm 0.20$& $-10.42$ & 3\\
Pr & $-6.80 \pm 0.25$ & $-11.28$ & 4\\
Nd & $-6.54 \pm 0.30$ & $-10.58$ & 9\\
Eu & $-7.49 \pm 0.20$ & $-11.48$ & 3 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{abund}
\end{table}
Insignificant variability in the strengths and shapes of most spectral lines is observed among the twelve spectra available to model for HD~94660. For lines that exhibit strong Zeeman signatures (for example Nd~{\sc iii} at 6145~\AA) differences can be seen in the line structure (i.e. relative strengths of the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ components) and, in some cases, marginal changes in the line strength. However, line depth changes are limited to less than about 0.05 in intensity. Therefore, although all spectra are modelled, we report only a mean abundance for each element. Uncertainties are determined in two ways,
depending upon the number of spectral lines available to model. For
elements with multiple lines, the uncertainties are estimated from the
observed scatter between the best-fit abundances. When only one (or
few) lines are available to model, we estimate uncertainties by changing the
best-fit abundance for each element until the reduced $\chi^{2}$
deviates from best-fit models by about 1 (i.e. $\chi^{2} = \chi_{\rm
best}^{2} + 1$). The uncertainty is then the difference between the
two abundances and corresponds approximately to a 1~$\sigma$
uncertainty. Table~\ref{abund} lists the abundances of each element, as well as the total number of lines modelled for each element. For reference, the solar abundance ratios are provided \citep{Asplund2009}. Fig.~\ref{model-fit} provides an example of the
quality of fit for three spectral windows for the HARPSpol observation taken on April 28, 2014. Below, each element is discussed individually.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{hd94660_synthspec_v4.eps}\\
\includegraphics*[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{hd94660_synthspec_win2_v2.eps}
\caption{Example of three synthesised spectral windows for the 28-04-2014 HARPSpol
spectrum of HD~94660. The observed spectrum is in black (solid line) and the model is in red (dashed line). The bottom panel illustrates the vertical stratification of Fe in the atmosphere of HD~94660, where strong lines of Fe~{\sc ii} and weak lines of Fe~{\sc i} are fit well with the abundance of Table~\ref{abund}, but the weaker lines of Fe~{\sc ii} require an enhanced abundance to be well modelled.}
\label{model-fit}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\subsection{Helium}
Many lines of helium exist to derive an abundance. He~{\sc i} $\lambda$4471 and
$\lambda$5876 are predicted to be the strongest helium lines in the spectrum, but they are not detected in the available
spectra. An upper limit for helium is derived from these
regions that is at least a factor of 12 below the solar abundance. As
expected of a magnetic Ap star, HD~94660 is He-weak.
\subsection{Oxygen}
The O~{\sc i} multiplet at 6155-56-58~\AA\ is present
in all spectra and is used to derive a mean abundance. The ESPaDOnS spectrum also includes the O~{\sc i} lines at 7771-74-75~\AA,
however, this triplet suffers from non-LTE effects and is therefore
not considered. The adopted abundance is about 2.5 times less than in the Sun.
\subsection{Magnesium}
The only line suitable for modelling is Mg~{\sc ii} at 4481~\AA. At
all phases, this line is reasonably well fit with an abundance that is
a factor of 4 below the solar ratio.
\subsection{Silicon}
Several clean lines of Si~{\sc ii} exist throughout the spectrum
including strong lines at 5041 and 5055-56~\AA, as well as the
weaker line at 4621~\AA. When fit simultaneously, $\lambda$5041,
5055-56 require an abundance that is about 0.5~dex less than that of
$\lambda$4621. Table~\ref{abund} reports the average of these
abundances.
We also found a line of Si~{\sc iii} at 4552~\AA. This line requires an abundance that is more
than 10 times that of the mean abundance from the Si~{\sc ii}
lines. This is exactly what was reported for a sample of mid to late B-type stars by \citet{BaileyLand2013},
who argue that the discrepancy between the abundances derived
from the first and second ionisation states of silicon is likely the
result of strong vertical stratification in the stellar
atmosphere. The different abundance values found using stronger and
weaker lines of Si~{\sc ii}, and the line of Si~{\sc iii}, indicate
that stratification is also likely in HD~94660.
\subsection{Calcium}
Possible useful lines of calcium at 8498, 8542 and
8662~\AA\ are present in the ESPaDOnS spectrum, however, these are
blended with the Paschen lines, which cannot be calculated correctly with Zeeman at present. Therefore, only Ca~{\sc ii} at
3933~\AA\ was used to derive the final abundance of calcium. We note
that distinctly different abundances are required to adequately fit
the wings and core of this line \citep[see][where this effect is first explained for Ca]{Babel1992}. An abundance derived from the wings
of this line, which are formed deeper in the atmosphere, suggest an
abundance that is approximately solar. On the other hand, the core
(formed higher up in the atmosphere) requires an abundance that is of order 0.8~dex
below the solar abundance. This is a symptom of vertical
stratification and it would appear calcium is
strongly stratified throughout the atmosphere of HD~94660. The mean
abundance of calcium is reported in Table~\ref{abund}.
\subsection{Titanium}
For deriving the mean abundance of titanium, there are several lines
to choose throughout the blue spectrum. We have modelled the lines of
Ti~{\sc ii} at 4533, 4549, 4563, 4568 and 4571~\AA, and also at 4798 and 4805~\AA. Each
set of lines is synthesised separately and within each set the lines
are modelled simultaneously. The final abundance is the mean of these
two values (see Table~\ref{abund})
The abundance that fits well the weaker
lines of $\lambda$4568 and 4798, as well as the weak lines that are
blended with other Fe-peak elements at $\lambda$4533 and 4549, is
systematically too large for the stronger lines at $\lambda$4563,
4571 and 4805. This is a symptom of vertical stratification \citep[][]{Bagnuloetal2001}. Nevertheless, Ti is clearly overabundant compared to the Sun by about a factor of 30.
\subsection{Chromium}
Unlike the other Fe-peak elements, the abundance derived for Cr
is not as drastically dependent upon the lines modelled, which
suggests that Cr may not be significantly stratified throughout the stellar
atmosphere. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{model-fit} where most
lines of Cr~{\sc ii} (both strong and weak), as well as two lines of
Cr~{\sc i}, are fit well with the same uniform abundance. Note that HD~94660 is relatively hot for the presence of neutral atoms, however, these lines are unambiguously detected in all modelled spectra and are predicted to be visible by {\sc zeeman.f}. Furthermore, tests of the depth of core formation for these lines indicate that they are formed in the upper part of the stellar atmosphere, where the temperature is necessarily cooler and consistent with the presence of neutral chromium. However,
over 30 lines of Cr~{\sc ii} were tested throughout the spectrum with this uniform abundance,
and a notable fraction of weaker lines require a larger abundance
than is recorded in Table~\ref{abund} to be adequately modelled. Although apparently not as
significant as other elements, stratification may still be present for
Cr. The final abundance of Cr was found by simultaneously fitting Cr~{\sc ii} lines
at 4531, 4539, 4555, 4558, 4565, 4587,4588, 4590 and 4592~\AA. At all
phases, Cr is modelled well with an abundance that is of order 300
times larger than the solar ratio.
\subsection{Manganese}
The abundance of Mn was derived from the pair of Mn~{\sc ii} lines at
6122~\AA. The lines are well modelled at all phases with a uniform
abundance that is of order 8 times larger than the solar abundance.
\subsection{Iron}
One mean abundance is not adequate to satisfactorily model all the
spectral lines of Fe. It is clear from Fig.~\ref{model-fit} that the
adopted abundance fits the weaker lines well, but is systematically
too large for the stronger Fe~{\sc ii} lines. This is evident
throughout the spectrum, with well over 20 Fe lines modelled with the
uniform abundance listed in Table~\ref{abund}. This is symptomatic of
vertical stratification in the atmosphere. Multiple lines of Fe~{\sc
ii} are used to compute the mean abundance {\bf of} iron and the larger
estimated uncertainty is indicative of the discrepancies found when
modelling each line. The weaker Fe~{\sc ii} lines at 5029, 5031, 5032,
5034, 5035 and 5036 were fit simultaneously, and required an abundance larger by 0.6-0.7~dex than that deduced using strong lines such as 4583
and 5018~\AA. Three lines of Fe~{\sc i} at 5014, 6136 and 6137~\AA\ were also
modelled and required a similar abundance to what is required to fit the
stronger Fe~{\sc ii} lines. It is clear that Fe is at
least of order 30 times more abundant than in the Sun.
\subsection{Cobalt}
The spectrum appears extraordinarily rich in Co~{\sc ii}. Several lines of Co~{\sc ii} are scattered throughout the spectrum. A total of eight lines were modelled: 5016, 5017, 5023, 5025, 5027, 5129, 5135, 5131~\AA. All lines of Co~{\sc ii} are reasonably well modelled with a uniform abundance and suggest an abundance that is at least 300 times greater than that of the Sun.
The detection of cobalt in the spectrum of a hot Ap star is rare \citep[we note that it is more common in the cooler roAp stars such as 10~Aquilae;][]{Nesvacil2013}. We are only aware of two other Co-strong hot magnetic Ap stars \citep[HR~1094 and HR~5049;][]{Nielsen2000,Dwo1980}. The abundances for both these Co-strong stars were derived without including the effects of the magnetic field and suggest abundances of this element greater than 1000 times that of the Sun. It is unclear how prevalent Co is in the atmospheres of magnetic Ap stars, which emphasises the importance of further detailed analyses of other magnetic Ap stars.
\subsection{Nickel}
Ni~{\sc ii} at 4067~\AA\ was used to derive the mean abundance. The
line is reasonably well modelled in all the spectra and Ni is apparently
overabundant compared to the solar abundance ratio by a factor of
about 3.
\subsection{Strontium}
Sr~{\sc ii} lines at 4077 and 4215~\AA\ are present in the blue spectrum at
all phases. The accurate modelling of these lines depends strongly on
the adopted abundance of Cr~{\sc ii} with which the two Sr lines are blended.
Since the blending Cr lines are weak lines in the wings of the Sr lines, we use a somewhat
larger abundance for Cr than the value listed in Table~\ref{abund} when
modelling the lines of strontium. In this way, we get more concordant
results between these two lines of Sr~{\sc ii}, but the overall agreement is still poor. Nevertheless, it is clear that Sr is overabundant, probably by a factor of about 25 compared to the Sun.
\subsection{Lanthanum}
Two lines of La~{\sc ii} that are suitable for modelling were found in the spectrum at 4605
and 6126~\AA. The abundance was derived from the former and tested
using the latter. This rare-earth element is over 2000 times more
abundant than in the Sun.
\subsection{Cerium}
Several lines of Ce~{\sc ii} are available to model throughout the
spectrum including 4560, 4562 and 4628~\AA. The final abundance was
found from modelling $\lambda$4628, which satisfactorily fits the
other lines of Ce. The models suggest that this rare-earth element is more
than 3000 times the solar abundance ratio.
Interestingly, unlike what was found by \citet{Bail2013} for HD~147010, there is no
discrepancy between the abundances derived from 4560-62~\AA\
compared to 4628~\AA\ and suggests that perhaps the discrepancy they
report between these lines for that star may not be due to inaccurate $gf$
values, but instead possibly due to an unrecognised blend or
blends in this more rapidly rotating magnetic star (which has a $v \sin i$\ of about 15~km\,s$^{-1}$).
\subsection{Praseodymium}
Lines of Pr~{\sc iii} at 4625, 6160 and 6161~\AA\ are available to
model in all spectra. For the ESPaDOnS spectrum, we were
also able to model Pr~{\sc iii} at 7781~\AA. Little to no variation
is observed in the strength of these spectral lines and a uniform abundance models the
observed spectrum well at all phases. Similarly to the other
rare-earth elements, Pr is dramatically more abundant than in the Sun,
by a factor of order 3000.
\subsection{Neodymium}
Nd has the richest spectrum of all the rare-earth elements with
multiple lines of Nd~{\sc iii} available for modelling: 4570, 4625,
4627, 4911, 4912, 4914, 5050, 5127 and 6145~\AA. In general, abundances
derived from each line agree well with one another and are reasonably well
modelled at all phases. Nd has the highest abundance of any rare-earth element studied here, being of order 10$^{4}$ times the solar value.
\subsection{Europium}
Two suitable lines of Eu~{\sc ii} are present for modelling: 4129 and 6645~\AA. One line of Eu~{\sc iii} is also available at 6666~\AA, however, this line is badly blended with Fe-peak elements. This rare-earth element is about 1000 times more abundant than in the Sun.
\section{Radial Velocity Variations}\label{rv_sect}
In the process of performing our spectroscopic analysis, it became evident
that HD~94660 exhibits significant radial velocity variations. We thus report substantial radial velocity (RV) variations in the magnetic standard star HD~94660, with a range in velocities of order 35~km\,s$^{-1}$. These variations were first reported by \citet{Mathys1997}, who noted that the orbital period should not be more than about 2 years, significantly shorter than the rotation period. Some years later, \citet{Mathys2013} determined a value of the orbital period for HD~94660 of 848.96~days. Our search for the best-fit period of these radial velocity variations was carried out using the Lomb-Scargle method \citep{press92}. The most significant frequencies in the periodogram are located at periods $\sim$0.5\,d and $\sim$840\,d, as shown in Fig.~\ref{periodogram}. The time series of observations is insufficient to provide a unique period and more observations are required in order to better constrain any periodic behaviour; however, we verify that the measurements phase well with these periods, and do not appear to vary in a coherent way when phased with other periods corresponding to lower peaks in the periodogram.
Due to the limited temporal sampling of our dataset and the precision of our measurements, it is difficult to directly measure the expected radial velocity differences from spectra taken on the same night. Therefore, it is not possible to verify the plausibility of the $\sim$0.5\,d period solution. However, as shown by \citet{neiner12}, rapid radial velocity variations that occur over the timescale of a single polarimetric sequence can induce detectable signatures in the diagnostic null profiles. These signatures result from residual polarisation signals that were not properly cancelled during processing because of the radial velocity shifts. Therefore, the polarimetric spectra afford us the opportunity to test for the presence of short-period variations. To do so, we compared a synthetic model\footnote{This model is constructed by producing a sequence of individual synthetic sub-exposures with different radial velocities and treating them in the same fashion as the observations using the double-ratio method \citep{donati97}.}, which takes into account the predicted radial velocity variations according to the $\sim$0.5\,d period solution, to the mean LSD profiles extracted from the ESPaDOnS spectrum to test if null signatures should be present. The ESPaDOnS spectrum was obtained with the longest exposure time, and therefore should show the largest effect due to velocity shifts. Because of the strong polarisation signal, our results show that when radial velocity shifts are added to each individual sub-exposure (in agreement with the expected variation suggested by short-period variations), the resulting null profile should also show a strong signature, which is easily detectable in the mean LSD profile. While this test cannot definitively rule out the possibility of short-term radial velocity variations, it does provide compelling evidence against it. This result suggests that the $\sim$0.5\,d period is probably an alias of the correct period. We tested the plausibility of this hypothesis by subtracting a sinusoidal fit to the RV variations corresponding to the $\sim$840\,d period plus its first harmonic, and recomputed the periodogram on the residuals. The resulting periodogram no longer shows any significant power about 0.5\,d, demonstrating it to be an alias of the $\sim$840\,d period.
If the radial velocities do vary with the $\sim$840\,d period, it is our conclusion that these variations are likely the result of binarity. If these variations were due to shifts in the centre-of-gravity of the line profile due to the inhomogeneous surface distribution (e.g. spots) that is common among Ap/Bp stars, then we would expect much smaller radial velocity shifts, which reflect the line distortion, with a maximum velocity range of the order of the line width. As well, we would expect periodicity consistent with the rotational period or one of its harmonics.
If we adopt this period as the orbital period then we obtain the orbital solution given in Table~\ref{orb_params} using version 1.0.2 of the program {\sc losp} \citep[Li{\` e}ge Orbital Solution Package;][]{rauw00}. Figure~\ref{rvorbit} displays the RV orbital curve for this long period. Of particular interest, this solution suggests a high eccentricity $\sim$0.4 and a high mass-function $f(m) = m^3\sin^3 i/(M + m)^2 \sim0.4$ (where $M$ is the mass of the observed star, $m$ is the mass of the unseen companion and $i$ is the orbital inclination). Using the 1$\sigma$ limits of our estimated mass of HD~94660, this mass-function implies a lower mass limit for the companion of $\gtrsim$2~$M_\odot$. However, after co-aligning our spectra we find no evidence to suggest the presence of any additional spectral features that are not associated with HD~94660, which should be visible if HD~94660 hosted a $\sim$2~$M_\odot$\ MS companion.
Given the relatively high mass-function permitted by our preliminary orbital solution, the most likely candidate is a high-mass neutron star or black hole; however, further data is required to constrain the period and verify the orbital solution before any definitive conclusions can be made. Furthermore, our solution does not rule out the possibility of a hierarchical system, where the companion is a combination of several objects with a total combined mass of $\gtrsim$2~$M_\odot$\ (such as two white dwarfs).
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_reduced.eps}
\caption{Lomb-Scargle periodogram from the radial velocity variations of HD~94660.}
\label{periodogram}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{sb1_nofors_phase_orb_fits.eps}
\caption{Radial velocity orbital solution for the long 840~d period (dashed red line). Shown are the RV measurements for the HARPSpol (red squares), UVES (blue triangles) and ESPaDOnS (black dot) spectra.}
\label{rvorbit}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{table}
\caption{Log of radial velocity variations of HD~94660. Recorded are
the Date and JD of the observations and RVs. The
uncertainty in the measurements of RV are less than about $\pm$1~km\,s$^{-1}$. }
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llc}
\hline\hline
Date & JD & RV\\
(DD-MM-YYYY) & (2450000+) & (km\,s$^{-1}$)\\
\hline
01-05-2001 & 2031.464 & 16.8\\
01-08-2001 & 2038.441 & 16.9 \\
03-12-2005 & 3707.841 & 18.1 \\
09-01-2006 & 3745.167 & 16.6 \\
24-05-2009 & 4975.546 & 19.4 \\
25-05-2009 & 4976.536 & 19.8 \\
31-05-2009 & 4982.605 & 21.8\\
05-01-2010 & 5201.833 & 30.2\\
19-05-2011 & 5701.450 & 0.4\\
20-05-2011 & 5702.449 & 0.4\\
01-04-2012 & 6018.559 & 32.2\\
28-04-2014 & 6775.610 & 35.6\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{rv-var}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Preliminary orbital parameters for HD~94660. Included are the orbital period ($P$), the time of periastron ($T_0$; 2450000+), the centre-of-mass velocity ($\gamma$), the eccentricity ($e$), the velocity semi-amplitude ($K$), the angle of the line of nodes ($\omega$), the projected semi-major axis ($a\sin i$), the mass-function ($f(m)$) and the standard deviation fit ($\sigma$).}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline\hline
Parameter & Best-fit\\
\hline
$P$ (d) & 840* \\
$T_0$ & $1611\pm3$\\
$\gamma$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $18\pm0.1$\\
$e$ & $0.38\pm0.03$\\
$K$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $17.7\pm0.3$\\
$\omega$ (deg) & $271\pm2$ \\
$a\sin i$ (R$_\odot$) & $272\pm6$\\
$f(m)$ ($M_{\odot}$) & $0.39\pm0.02$ \\
$\sigma$ & 0.41\\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{* - fixed}\\
\end{tabular}
\label{orb_params}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
HD~94660 is an Ap star commonly used as a magnetic standard for polarimetric observations in the southern hemisphere. It has an effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$\ = 11\,300~K with $ \log L/L_{\odot} =$ 2.02 and mass $M/M_{\odot} =$ 3.0. The rotation period is approximately 2800~d and $v \sin i$\ is less than about 2~km\,s$^{-1}$. The surface magnetic field strength is of order 6~kG globally.
The aim of this project is to establish a preliminary magnetic field model of HD~94660 to use to estimate the atmospheric abundances of several chemical elements. The magnetic field model adopted is a simple, low-order axisymmetric multipole expansion whose parameters are established by fitting the observed periodic variations in \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ to computed models. This model is produced in the framework of the oblique rotator model and reasonably reproduces the observed variations in \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ and \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B} \rangle}\ with rotational phase (Fig.~\ref{magfield}). The model is only a coarse approximation to the true field geometry of HD~94660, but is able to reproduce the observed Zeeman splitting and Stokes $V$ signatures with rotational phase reasonably well (Fig.~\ref{model}). This simple magnetic model is adequate to make it possible to determine a first approximation of the atmospheric abundances of this star. The actual parameters of this model are discussed in Sect.~4.3 and presented in Table~1.
We have used a dozen high-dispersion $I$ spectra, well distributed in phase over the rotation cycle of the star, for a preliminary investigation of the surface chemistry and a characterisation of how the derived abundances may vary over the stellar surface. From the magnetic field model, the fact that $i$ plus $\beta$ is small ($\ltsimeq 50^{\degr}$) indicates that we are mainly observing one magnetic hemisphere, with limited information about the opposite magnetic hemisphere. Although more than half of the stellar surface is seen, our investigations indicate very little abundance variations with rotational phase. For all elements studied, a single abundance fits well all available spectra and therefore a model with a uniform abundance distribution over the stellar surface is adopted.
As is expected for magnetic Ap stars, most elements studied have non-solar abundances. The abundances of O, Mg and Ca are all slightly below solar abundance ratios. Only an upper limit for He is possible which clearly classifies HD~94660 as He-weak, with a value at least 10 times less than the solar abundance. All other elements studied are more abundant than in the Sun. Most drastically, the rare-earth elements La, Ce, Pr and Nd are all between about 10$^{3}$ to 10$^{4}$ times more abundant than in the Sun. The abundances of Si, Sr and the Fe-peak elements Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co and Ni are also larger than the solar abundance ratios (by factors of order 10$^{3}$ or less). Although no significant variations with co-latitude are observed in the stellar spectra, within a single spectrum the Fe-peak elements, calcium and silicon exhibit strong evidence of vertical stratification. This is most notable for Fe, where abundances derived from weak and strong lines of Fe~{\sc ii} (as well as weaker neutral Fe lines) differ by factors of order 10. Furthermore, the discrepant abundances derived from lines of Si~{\sc ii} and Si~{\sc iii} reported by \citet{BaileyLand2013} are also present in HD~94660. A more detailed analysis of abundance stratification in this star is clearly warranted. The discovery of Co in HD~94660 was surprising and further detailed studies of other hot magnetic Ap stars are recommended to ascertain the overabundance of this element in the atmospheres of these stars.
\citet{LBF2014} highlight the fact that HD~94660 is a star where there is poor agreement between the \ensuremath{\langle \mathit{B}_z \rangle}\ measurements made from instruments with lower and higher resolutions. This is evident in Fig.~\ref{magfield} where the field strengths extracted from the HARPSpol and ESPaDOnS spectra using the entire metallic spectrum disagree with the FORS1 measurements. This phenomenon is also present in other stars such as HD~318107 \citep[see][]{Baileyetal2011}, NGC~2169-12, NGC~2244-334 and HD~149277 \citep[see][]{paper1}. The disagreement between field measurements, using LSD, of different elements found in HD~94660 is also not uncommon (e.g. \citet[][]{MM2000,Baileyetal2011} for HD~318107 and \citet[][]{Baileyetal2012} for HD~133880). These types of discrepancies are generally considered an indication of the inhomogeneous field distributions and large horizontal abundance variations (``spots'') on the stellar surface. This hypothesis is supported by more detailed maps of Ap stars using magnetic Doppler imaging (MDI) in which clear, complex field distributions and anomalous abundance spots are observed on the stellar surface \citep[e.g.][]{Kochetal2004}.
The RV variations measured in HD~94660 arise from orbital motion. Because of the long period currently favoured by the measurements ($\sim$840~d), this would suggest a massive compact companion such as a high-mass neutron star or black hole, or possibly a hierarchical system, where the companion is a combination of several objects with a total combined mass of $\gtrsim$2~$M_\odot$. It is rare for an A--type star to host a massive compact companion \citep[see][]{Kaper2006} and further monitoring is warranted to better constrain the properties of the companion. This system could help to establish the role that binarity may play in the origin of magnetism in stars with radiative envelopes \citep[e.g.][ and references therein]{grunhut14}.
HD~94660 is a star that warrants further investigation and highlights the need to study more sharp-lined magnetic stars in detail. Such studies are crucial to further understand the interplay between the magnetic field and the formation of vertical stratification in the atmospheres of Ap stars. They also provide important laboratories to test our multi-line techniques for measuring magnetic fields, such as LSD, by allowing measurement of magnetic field strengths from individual lines, a task that is not possible for stars that are fast rotators. At present, it is unclear what the discrepant field measurements for different lines of the same element are telling us about the chemical or magnetic structure of Ap stars, and therefore further analysis is required. Long term monitoring is also clearly indicated to firmly establish the nature of the RV variations observed in HD~94660.
\begin{acknowledgements}
{The authors thank Dr. Stephan Geier of ESO for helpful discussions. The authors also thank R.H.D. Townsend for the Lomb-Scargle code. JDL acknowledges financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The authors also thank the referee Gautier Mathys for his comments that helped improve the manuscript. }
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{section:Introduction}
Ramsey theory deals with the problem of finding structured configurations in suitably large but possibly disordered sets.
The nature of the desired configurations can range from complete subgraphs of a graph to arithmetic progressions in $\mathbf{Z}$ to solutions of equations, such as $x+y=z$, in a countable commutative semigroup.
In this paper we deal with configurations consisting of finitely many collinear points in $\mathbf{Z}^d$.
The following theorem, which deals with this type of configurations, was obtained by L. T. Ramsey in 1977:
\begin{Theorem}[{\cite[Lemma 1]{Ramsey77}}]
\label{theorem:LTRamsey}
Let $M\in\mathbf{N}$ and suppose $\v u_1,\v u_2,\ldots\in\mathbf{Z}^2$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{equation:bdd-gaps}
\|\v u_{i+1}-\v u_i\|_2 \leq M\qquad\forall i\in\mathbf{N}.
\end{equation}
Then the sequence $\v u_1, \v u_2,\ldots$ contains arbitrarily many
collinear points. More precisely, for each $k\in\mathbf{N}$ there exists a set $X\subset\mathbf{N}$ with cardinality $|X|=k$ such that the set $\{\v u_i:i\in X\}$ is contained in a single line.
\end{Theorem}
A sequence that satisfies \eqref{equation:bdd-gaps} is said to have
\define{bounded gaps}.
The above theorem can be interpreted as an analogue of
van der Waerden's theorem on arithmetic progressions \cite{vdWaerden27}, which, in one of its many forms, states
that any sequence $u_1, u_2,\ldots \in \mathbf{Z}$ with bounded gaps
contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions.
The fact that a sequence in $\mathbf{Z}^2$ with bounded gaps may not contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions is a non-trivial result first obtained by J. Justin \cite{Justin72}.
When properly interpreted, Justin's construction gives a sequence with bounded gaps in $\mathbf{Z}^2$ without a five term arithmetic progression.
This construction was later improved by F. M. Dekking, who built a sequence $\v u_1,\v u_2,\ldots\in\mathbf{Z}^2$ with $\|\v u_{i+1}-\v u_i\|_2\leq 1$ that does not contain a four term arithmetic progression \cite{Dekking79}.
It is natural to ask whether a result similar to \TheoremRef{LTRamsey} holds in higher dimensions.
It follows, as an easy corollary, that any sequence in $\mathbf{Z}^d$ with bounded gaps will contain arbitrarily many points in the same $(d-1)$-dimensional hyperplane.
To see this, simply project any given sequence in $\mathbf{Z}^d$
onto $\mathbf{Z}^2$ and take the preimage under this projection of the set of collinear points guaranteed by \TheoremRef{LTRamsey}.
One could naively attempt to extend \TheoremRef{LTRamsey} by asking whether a sequence with bounded gaps in higher dimensional lattices contains arbitrarily many collinear points.
However, J. L. Gerver and L. T. Ramsey constructed a sequence in $\mathbf{Z}^3$ with bounded gaps (actually with gaps bounded by $1$) with no more than $5^{11}$ points contained in a single line \cite{Gerver_Ramsey79}.
This example shows that one needs to change the framework to obtain non-trivial generalizations of \TheoremRef{LTRamsey} to higher dimensions.
A sequence in $\mathbf{Z}^2$ with bounded gaps can be viewed as a Lipschitz function $f:\mathbf{Z}\rightarrow\mathbf{Z}^2$. Using this language, \TheoremRef{LTRamsey} asserts that the image of any such Lipschitz function contains arbitrarily many collinear points.
In order to increase the dimension of the range from $\mathbf{Z}^2$ to a higher dimensional space $\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ one must also increase the dimension of the domain from $\mathbf{Z}$ to $\mathbf{Z}^d$ in order to get similar qualitative results.
We will prove the following:
\begin{Maintheorem}\label{theorem:maincoloring}
Let $d\in\mathbf{N}$ and let $f:\mathbf{Z}^d\to\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ be a Lipschitz map.
Then there are arbitrarily many collinear points in the image of $f$.
More precisely for any $k\in\mathbf{N}$ there exists a set $X\subset\mathbf{Z}^d$ with $|X|=k$ such that $f(X)$ is contained in a single line.
\end{Maintheorem}
Observe that \TheoremRef{LTRamsey} can be derived from \TheoremRef{maincoloring} by setting $d=1$.
One can intuitively interpret \TheoremRef{maincoloring} as stating that any discrete hypersurface in $\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ contains arbitrarily many collinear points; this interpretation becomes rigorous if one defines a discrete hypersurface as a set quasi-isometric\footnote{A map $f:X\to Y$ between metric spaces is a quasi-isometry if there exist $C,M\geq1$ such that $1/Md(x,y)-C<d\big(f(x),f(y)\big)<Md(x,y)+C$ and for every $y\in Y$ there exists $x\in X$ such that $d\big(f(x),y\big)<C$.} to $\mathbf{Z}^d$.
A density version of van der Waerden's theorem, known as
Szemer{\'e}di's theorem, was obtained in
\cite{Szemeredi75}.
\begin{TheoremSzemeredi}
Let $A\subset\mathbf{Z}$ have positive upper Banach density, i.e.,
$$d^*(A):=\limsup_{L\to\infty}~\sup\left\{\left.\frac{|A\cap[N,N+L]|}L\ \right|N\in\mathbf{Z}\right\}>0.$$
Then $A$ contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions.
\end{TheoremSzemeredi}
It is not hard to see that Szemer{\'e}di's theorem is equivalent to the statement that
any sequence $u_1, u_2,\ldots \in \mathbf{Z}$ with gaps bounded
on average, i.e.,
any sequence with
$$\frac1m\sum_{i=1}^m |u_{i+1}-u_i | \leq M$$
for infinitely many $m\in\mathbf{N}$, contains
arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions.
In 1978, in analogy with Szemer{\'e}di's theorem,
C. Pomerance presented a proof of the following density version of
\TheoremRef{LTRamsey}:
\begin{Theorem}[\cite{Pomerance80}]
\label{theorem:Pomerance}
Let $M\in\mathbf{N}$ and suppose the sequence $\v u_1,\v u_2,\ldots\in\mathbf{Z}^2$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:bdd-gaps-in-average}
\frac1m\sum_{i=1}^m\|\v u_{i+1}-\v u_i\|_2 \leq M
\end{equation}
for infinitely many $m\in\mathbf{N}$.
Then the sequence $\v u_1, \v u_2,\ldots$ contains arbitrarily many
collinear points.
\end{Theorem}
It is a corollary of Pomerance's theorem that if a sequence $u_1,u_2,\ldots\in\mathbf{Z}$ has gaps bounded on average, then the sequence defined by $\v u_i=(i,u_i)\in\mathbf{Z}^2$, $i\in\mathbf{N}$, contains arbitrarily many collinear points.
It turns out that an extension of Pomerance's theorem to higher dimensions along the lines of \TheoremRef{maincoloring}
holds as well.
Our main theorem is then the common generalization of Theorems \ref{theorem:maincoloring} and \ref{theorem:Pomerance}.
\begin{Maintheorem}\label{theorem:A}
Suppose $f:\mathbf{Z}^d\rightarrow \mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ is a Lipschitz
map and $A\subset\mathbf{Z}^d$ has positive upper Banach density (defined in \eqref{equation:Banach-density}).
Then given any positive integer $k$, there exists $X\subset A$
with $|X|=k$ such that $f(X)$ is contained in a line.
\end{Maintheorem}
Although not apparent at first, \TheoremRef{Pomerance} and the special case $d=1$ of \TheoremRef{A} are equivalent. We give a proof of this fact in \SectionRef{two}.
An intuitive interpretation of \TheoremRef{A} is that large subsets of discrete hypersurfaces contain arbitrarily many collinear points.
The paper is organized as follows: In \SectionRef{two} we explore some equivalent and related statements to our main theorem. In \SectionRef{outline} we outline the proof and state our main technical result, which is \LemmaRef{XZ}. In \SectionRef{ContinuousVersion} we prove \LemmaRef{XZ} by reducing it to a statement about Lipschitz functions on $\mathbf{R}^n$. Finally, \SectionRef{Conclusion} finishes the proof of \TheoremRef{A}.
\paragraph{\textbf{Acknowledgements}}
The authors wish to thank Vitaly Bergelson for helpful comments and remarks, as well as
the anonymous referees for their many pertinent suggestions.
\section{Equivalent Formulations and Corollaries of the Main Theorems}\label{section:two}
For the remainder of this paper we fix a dimension $d\in\mathbf{N}$.
For $p\in \{1,2\}$ we define
$$\|\v{x}-\v{y}\|_p^p= \sum_{i=1}^d |x_i-y_i|^p.$$
The \define{upper Banach density} $d^\ast$ of a set
$A\subset \mathbf{Z}^d$
is defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{equation:Banach-density}
d^\ast(A):=
\limsup_{L\to\infty}~\sup\left\{\left.\frac{\big|A\cap\prod[N_i,N_i+L]\big|}{L^d}\ \right|\ N_1,\dots,N_d\in\mathbf{Z}\right\}.
\end{equation}
Whenever $f$ is a function and $X$ is a subset of its domain, we denote by $f(X)$ the set $\{f(x):x\in X\}$.
For $a\in\mathbf{N}$ we denote by $[a]$ the set $\{1,\dots,a\}$.
For a finite set $X$ we let $|X|$ be its cardinality.
For $x\in\mathbf{R}$ let $\lfloor x\rfloor\in\mathbf{Z}$ be defined as the largest integer no bigger than $x$ and for $\v x=(x_1,\dots,x_d)\in\mathbf{R}^d$ let $\lfloor\v x\rfloor$
be defined as the vector
$(\lfloor x_1\rfloor,\dots,\lfloor x_d\rfloor)\in\mathbf{Z}^d$.
We denote by $S^d\subset\mathbf{R}^{d+1}$ the unit sphere, $S^d=\{\v x\in\mathbf{R}^{d+1}:\|x\|_2=1\}$.
Given $d,h\in\mathbf{N}$, $M>0$ and a set $Z\subset\mathbf{R}^d$, a function $f:Z\to\mathbf{R}^h$ is \define{Lipschitz} with \define{Lipschitz constant $M$} if $\|f(\v x)-f(\v y)\|_2\leq M\|\v x-\v y\|_2$ for all $\v x,\v y\in Z$.
First let us formulate a seemingly more general, but, in fact, equivalent version of \TheoremRef{A}.
\begin{Theorem}\label{theorem:B}
Let $d,h\in\mathbf{N}$.
Suppose $f:\mathbf{Z}^d\rightarrow \mathbf{Z}^{d+h}$ is a Lipschitz
map and $A\subset\mathbf{Z}^d$ has positive upper Banach density.
Then given any positive integer $k$, there exists $X\subset A$
with cardinality $|X|=k$ such that $f(X)$ is contained in a $h$-dimensional
hyperplane of $\mathbf{Z}^{d+h}$.
\end{Theorem}
When $h=1$, \TheoremRef{B} reduces to \TheoremRef{A}.
To deduce \TheoremRef{B} from \TheoremRef{A}, compose $f$ with the projection $\pi:\mathbf{Z}^{d+h}\to\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$, find a line in $\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ which contains $\pi(f(X))$ and notice that the pre-image of a line under $\pi$ is an $h$-dimensional affine subspace in $\mathbf{Z}^{d+h}$.
As is usual with Ramsey theory results, there is an equivalent formulation of \TheoremRef{A} in finitistic terms:
\begin{Theorem}\label{theorem:mainfinitistic}
Let $d,k\in\mathbf{N}$ and let $\delta,M>0$.
There exists $L=L(d,k,\delta,M)\in\mathbf{N}$ such that for any Lipschitz function $f:\mathbf{Z}^d\to\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ with Lipschitz constant $M$ and any $A\subset[L]^d$ with cardinality $|A|>\delta L^d$ one can find a subset $X\subset A$ with $|X|=k$ such that $f(X)$ is contained in a line.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Proposition}\label{proposition:finitistic}
\TheoremRef{mainfinitistic} and \TheoremRef{A} are equivalent.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}It is trivial to see that \TheoremRef{mainfinitistic} implies \TheoremRef{A}.
To prove the converse suppose, for the sake of a contradiction, that \TheoremRef{mainfinitistic} is false.
Thus there are $d,k,\delta,M$ such that for every $L\in\mathbf{N}$ one can find a set $A_L\subset[L]^d$ with $|A_L|>\delta L^d$ and a Lipschitz function $f_L:[L]^d\rightarrow\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ with Lipschitz constant $M$ such that for any $X\subset A_L$ with $|X|=k$, the image $f_L(X)$ is not contained in a single line.
Let the sequence $(\v N_L)_{L=1}^\infty$ in $\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ be defined recursively by letting $\v N_1=\v 0$ and, for each $L>1$,
by choosing $\v N_L\in\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ such that $\v N_L+f_L([L]^d)$ is disjoint from all the lines which contain at least two points of the union $\bigcup_{j=1}^{L-1}\v N_j+f_L([j]^d)$.
Next let $(\v M_L)_{L=1}^\infty$ be a sequence in $\mathbf{Z}^d$ such that the $\|.\|_1$-distance between $\v M_L+[L]^d$ and the union $\bigcup_{j=1}^{L-1}\v M_j+[j]^d$ is at least $\|\v N_L\|_1$.
Let $A$ be the union of $\v M_L+A_L$ over all $L\in\mathbf{N}$; it is clear that $d^\ast(A)\geq\delta$.
Finally, define $g:\mathbf{Z}^d\to\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ to be a Lipschitz function with Lipschitz constant $M$ such that for every $L\in\mathbf{N}$ and $\v x\in\v M_L+[L]^d$ we have $g(\v x)=\v N_L+f_L(\v x-\v M_L)$.
According to \TheoremRef{A} one can find $X\subset A$ with $|X|=k+1$ such that $g(X)$ is contained in a line.
Find the maximal $L\in\mathbf{N}$ for which there exists some $\v x\in X$ with $\v x\in\v M_L+[L]^d$.
Observe that $g(\v x)\in\v N_L+f_L([L]^d)$, so the line which contains $g(X)$ cannot contain more than one point from $\bigcup_{j=1}^{L-1}\v N_j+f_L([j]^d)$.
Therefore, there is a subset $Y\subset X$ with $|Y|=k$ such that $Y\subset\v M_L+[L]^d$.
Since $g(Y)$ is still contained in a single line and $g(Y)=\v N_L+f_L(Y-\v M_L)$, the set $\tilde Y=Y-\v M_L$ is a subset of $A_L$, with cardinality $k$ such that $f(\tilde Y)$ is contained in a line, thus contradicting the construction.
This contradiction finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
Pomerance's original formulation of \TheoremRef{Pomerance} in \cite{Pomerance80} was in finitistic terms.
More precisely, he showed that for every $k,M\in\mathbf{N}$ there exists $n=n(k,M)\in\mathbf{N}$ such that whenever $\v u_0,\ldots,\v u_n\in\mathbf{Z}^2$ satisfy $\sum_{i=1}^n\|\v u_i-\v u_{i-1}\|_2\leq nM$, there are $k$ collinear points among $\v u_1,\ldots,\v u_n$.
This statement clearly implies \TheoremRef{Pomerance}; the reverse implication can be deduced similarly to the proof of \PropositionRef{finitistic}.
As mentioned in the Introduction, the case $d=1$ of \TheoremRef{A} is equivalent to \TheoremRef{Pomerance}.
To see how Pomerance's theorem implies the case $d=1$ of \TheoremRef{A}, we will use the finitistic versions of both theorems.
Let $k,\delta,M$ be as in \TheoremRef{mainfinitistic} and let $f:\mathbf{Z}\to\mathbf{Z}^{2}$ be a Lipschitz function with constant $M$.
Let $L=M/\delta$ and let $n=n(k,L)$ be given by Pomerance's theorem.
Finally let $N\geq n/\delta$.
Take any $A\subset[N]$ with $|A|>\delta N\geq n$ and order it,
$A=\{a_1<\cdots<a_n\}$.
Let $\v u_i=f(a_i)$.
It now suffices to show that the average gap of the sequence $\v u_1,\ldots,\v u_n$ is at most $L$ and the result will follow by Pomerance's theorem.
Indeed we have
$$\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\|\v u_{i+1}-\v u_i\|_2=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\|f(a_{i+1})-f(a_i)\|_2\leq M\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}a_{i+1}-a_i=M(a_n-a_1)\leq nL.$$
To prove the converse direction (i.e., that \TheoremRef{A} with $d=1$ implies \TheoremRef{Pomerance}), let $\v u_1,\v u_2,\ldots$ be a sequence in $\mathbf{Z}^2$ with gaps bounded on average by $M$.
For each consecutive pair
$\v u_i,\v u_{i+1}$ consider a path of minimal $\|\cdot\|_1$ length connecting
$\v u_i$ with $\v u_{i+1}$.
Each such path will have length
$\|\v u_{i+1}-\v u_i\|_1$ and stringing them together defines a
Lipschitz function $f:\mathbf{Z}\rightarrow \mathbf{Z}^2$.
Next construct the set
$A=\{a_i\}_{i\in\mathbf{N}}$ recursively by setting $a_1=1$ and
$a_{i+1} = a_i + \|\v u_{i+1}-\v u_i\|_1$.
It is then easy to check that $A$ has density bounded
from below by $1/M$ and that $f(a_i)=\v u_i$. Thus by applying
\TheoremRef{A} we can find $X\subset A$ with $|X|=k$ such that
$f(X)\subset\{\v u_1, \v u_2,\ldots\}$ is collinear.
As a Corollary of \TheoremRef{B} we immediately obtain the
following ``coloring'' version of our main theorem:
\begin{Corollary}\label{Corollary:B}
Let $n,h,M\in\mathbf{N}$, let $f:\mathbf{Z}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbf{Z}^{n+h}$ be a Lipschitz
map and suppose $\mathbf{Z}^{n+h}$ has been colored with finitely many colors.
Then given any positive integer $k$, there exists a subset
$X\subset \mathbf{Z}^n$ of size $k$ with
$f(X)$ monochromatic and contained in a
$n$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbf{Z}^{n+h}$.
\end{Corollary}
Similarly to \PropositionRef{finitistic}, the case $h=1$ of this corollary is equivalent to \TheoremRef{maincoloring}.
\section{Outlining the proof of \TheoremRef{A}}
\label{section:outline}
Throughout the rest of this paper, let $d,k\in\mathbf{N}$, $M\in\mathbf{R}^+$ and
$A\subset\mathbf{Z}^d$ with $d^\ast(A)>0$ be arbitrary but fixed.
In the following, these four
parameters will be invisible
in the notation to reduce the amount of subscripts.
Let $\LipZ$ denote the set of all Lipschitz functions
$f: \mathbf{Z}^d \rightarrow \mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ with Lipschitz constant $M$, and with the property that there
exists no set $X\subset A$ with $|X|\geq k$ such that $f(X)$ is
collinear. Thus \TheoremRef{A} is proven if we can show that
$\LipZ$ is in fact the empty set for all $d,k,M,A$.
\begin{Definition}
A \define{generalized line segment} is a function
$\ell: [0,1]\rightarrow \mathbf{Z}^d$ of the form
\[
\ell(t)=\lfloor(1-t)\v x+ t\v y \rfloor
\]
for some $\v x,\v y\in\mathbf{R}^d$.
Given a generalized line segment $\ell$ we denote by
\define{$m_\ell$} the distance $m_\ell=\|\ell(1)-\ell(0)\|_2$.
\end{Definition}
The underlying argument of the proof goes back to Ramsey's paper \cite{Ramsey77}, and was adapted by Pomerance in \cite{Pomerance80}.
The basic idea is to find a long, narrow cylinder in $\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ which contains ``many'' points from $f(A)$.
We can then cover this cylinder with not too many lines that are almost parallel to the axis of the cylinder, which allows us to find some line containing at least $k$ points.
However, our methods to find such a cylinder differ significantly from both Ramsey and Pomerance, mainly due to our appeal to the classical Rademacher's theorem:
\begin{Theorem}[Rademacher's Theorem, cf. {\cite[Theorem 3.1]{Heinonen05}}]
Let $d,h\in\mathbf{N}$ be arbitrary dimensions, let $U\subset\mathbf{R}^d$ and let $f:U\to\mathbf{R}^h$ be Lipschitz.
Then $f$ is differentiable at (Lebesgue) almost every point $\v x\in U$.
\end{Theorem}
Rademacher's theorem tells us that a Lipschitz function is almost everywhere locally `flat' in a certain sense.
We will use this property to find the cylinder with the desired properties.
\begin{Definition}\label{definition:XZ}
Assume $\LipZ$ is non-empty. Given $f\in\LipZ$, $\epsilon,\delta>0$ and
$\v w=(w_1,\dots,w_{d+1})\in S^d\subset\mathbf{R}^{d+1}$
we define \define{$\XZ{f}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}$} to be the
collection of all
generalized line segments $\ell:[0,1]\to\mathbf{Z}^d$ with $\epsilon m_\ell>14\sqrt{d}$ and satisfying the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
[label=(z-\roman{enumi})~~~~,ref=(z-\roman{enumi}),leftmargin=*]
\item
\label{item:z-i}
$\left\|\v v_\ell-\v w\right\|_2<\epsilon,$
where $\v v_\ell$ denotes the `mean slope' of $(f\circ\ell)$,
$$
\v v_\ell=
\frac{(f\circ\ell)(1)-(f\circ\ell)(0)}
{\big\|(f\circ\ell)(1)-(f\circ\ell)(0)\big\|_2}.
$$
\item
\label{item:z-ii}
For every $t\in [0,1]$,
$$\left\|(f\circ\ell)(t)-\big[(1-t)(f\circ\ell)(0)+
t(f\circ\ell)(1)\big]\right\|_2<\epsilon Mm_\ell.$$
Roughly speaking, this condition states that the image of the generalized line segment
$\ell$ under $f$ remains relatively close to a line.
\item
\label{item:z-iii}
If we let ${K_\Z}={K_\Z}(\epsilon,\ell)$ be the cylinder defined by
$$
{K_\Z}=\big\{\v z \in \mathbf{Z}^d:\min_{t\in [0,1]}\|\v z-
\ell(t)\|_2\leq\epsilonm_\ell\big\}
$$ then
$\big|A\cap{K_\Z}\big|>\delta|{K_\Z}|.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Lemma}\label{lemma:XZ}
Suppose $\LipZ$ is non-empty. Then for every $f\in\LipZ$ there exists $\delta>0$ and $\v w\in S^d$ such that the set
$\XZ{f}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}$ is non-empty for all sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$.
\end{Lemma}
It is our goal to use Rademacher's theorem to deduce \LemmaRef{XZ}.
In order do this, we need first to convert \LemmaRef{XZ} into a continuous version; this is done by \TheoremRef{continuous} in \SectionRef{ContinuousVersion}.
In \SectionRef{Conclusion} we use \LemmaRef{XZ} together with the methods developed by Ramsey and Pomerance to finish the proof.
\section{Deducing \LemmaRef{XZ} from a Continuous Version}
\label{section:ContinuousVersion}
We use $\lambda$ to represent the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbf{R}^d$ and
define the ball $B_\mathbf{R}(\v x,r)=\{\v y\in\mathbf{R}^d : \|\v x-\v y\|_2\leq r\}$ for any $\v x\in\mathbf{R}^d$ and $r>0$.
\begin{Definition}\label{definition:XR}
Let $T:[-1,1]^d\to[-1,1]^{d+1}$ be a Lipschitz function with Lipschitz constant $1$,
let $\phi: [-1,1]^d\rightarrow [0,1]$ be Lebesgue measurable,
let $\v x\in[-1,1]^d$ and
let $\v w\in S^d\subset\mathbf{R}^{d+1}$.
For each $\epsilon,\delta>0$ we define the set
\define{$\XR{T}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}{\v x}$} as the set of all
$\v y\in[-1,1]^d$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
[label=(r-\roman*)~~~~,ref=(r-\roman*)]
\item
$$
\left\|\frac{T(\v y)-T(\v x)}{\big\|T(\v y)-T(\v x)\big\|_2}-
\v w\right\|_2<\epsilon.
$$
This asserts that the direction of the line segment
connecting $T(\v x)$ and $T(\v y)$ is approximately equal to $\v w$.
\item
For every $t\in[0,1]$,
$$
\Big\|T\big((1-t)\v x+t\v y\big)-
\big[(1-t)T(\v x)+tT(\v y)\big]\Big\|_2<\epsilon\|y-x\|_2.
$$
Similar to condition \ref{item:z-ii}, this condition states that the image under $T$ of
the line segment connecting $\v x$ and $\v y$
remains relatively close to a line.
\item
If we let
$$
{K_\R}={K_\R}(\epsilon, \v x, \v y)=
\{(1-t)\v x+t\v y: t\in[0,1]\}+B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,\epsilon\|\v y-\v x\|_2)
$$ then
$$
\frac{1}{\lambda({K_\R})}\int_{K_\R}\phi~d\lambda>\delta.
$$
In other words, $\phi$ gives enough mass to a thin cylinder around the
segment connecting $\v x$ and $\v y$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Definition}
We denote by $\textit{L}_\R$ the set of Lipschitz functions
$T:[-1,1]^d\to[-1,1]^{d+1}$
with Lipschitz constant $1$ and
with the property that for any
point $\v x\in(-1,1)^d$ where $T$ is differentiable, the
derivative is nonzero (i.e., some partial derivative is nonzero).
\begin{Theorem}\label{theorem:continuous}
Let $T\in\textit{L}_\R$ and let $\phi\in L^\infty\big([-1,1]^d\big)$ be
non-negative with $\int\phi d\lambda>0$.
Then there exist $\delta>0$, $\v x\in[-1,1]^d$ and
$\v w\in S^d$ such that for every sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$ the set
$\XR{T}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}{\v x}$ is non-empty.
\end{Theorem}
In order to prove \TheoremRef{continuous} we will need
the following Lemma.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lemma:partition}
Let $R=\{r_n:n\in\mathbf{N}\}$ be an infinite subset of $\mathbf{R}^+$, let
$\phi\in L^\infty\big([-1,1]^d\big)$ be a non-negative function and let $\constantsix>0$. Assume that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:lemma_partition_condition}
\frac{1}{\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r))}
\int_{B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r)}\phi~d\lambda\geq\constantsix\qquad\forall r\in R.\end{equation}
Let $\mu$ denote the $(d-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure
on $\mathbf{R}^d$.
Then there exists some constant $c_1>0$ that only depends on
the dimension $d$ and a set $P\subset S^{d-1}$ with $\mu(P)>0$ and such that for any $\v z\in P$ there exists an infinite
subset $R'(\v z)\subset R$ such that
\[
\liminf_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\frac1
{\lambda(r{K_\R})}\int_{r{K_\R}}
\phi~d\lambda\geq c_1\constantsix ,\qquad\forall r\in R'(\v z)
\]
where
${K_\R}={K_\R}(\epsilon,\v 0, \v z)$ is as in \DefinitionRef{XR}.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we assume that $\|\phi\|_\infty\leq1$.
For each $r>0$, the measure space $(B_\mathbf{R}(\v0,r),\lambda)$ can be decomposed as the product of the measure spaces $(S^{d-1},\mu)$ and $([0,r],t^{d-1}dt)$.
Letting
\[
\psi_r(\v z)= \int_{[0,r]}
\phi(t\v z) t^{d-1}dt,
\]
we deduce from \EquationRef{lemma_partition_condition} that for every $r\in R$ we have
\[
\constantsix\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r))\leq\int_{S^{d-1}} \psi_r(\v z) d\mu(\v z).
\]
Let $A_r$ be the set of those
$\vec z\in S^{d-1}$ for which
\begin{equation}\label{eq_psi}
\psi_r(\v z)> \frac{\constantsix\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r))}{2\mu(S^{d-1})}.
\end{equation}
Observe that $|\psi_r(\v z)|\leq r^d/d$, and hence
$$\constantsix\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r))\leq \frac{r^d}d\mu(A_r)+\frac{\constantsix\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r))}{2\mu(S^{d-1})}\mu(S^{d-1}).$$
It follows that $\mu(A_r)\geq c_0\constantsix/2$ for some constant $c_0$ which only depends on the dimension $d$.
Next we apply Lebesgue's differentiation theorem to
find a set $B_r\subset A_r$ with
$\mu(A_r)=\mu(B_r)$ and such that for every
$\vec z\in B_r$
\[
\psi_r(\v z)=\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}
\frac{1}{\mu(D_\epsilon(\v z))}
\int_{D_\epsilon(\v z)} \psi_r d\mu
\]
where $D_\epsilon(\v z)= B_\mathbf{R}(\v z,\epsilon)\cap S^{d-1}$.
It follows from (reverse) Fatou's lemma that the set
$$P=\limsup B_{r_m} =\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty\bigcup_{m=n}^\infty B_{r_m}$$
has measure $\mu(P)\geq c_0\constantsix/2>0$.
By construction, for every $\v z\in P$
there exists an infinite subset $R'\subset R$ such that
\[
\v z\in\bigcap_{r\in R'} B_r.
\]
This implies that for every $r\in R'$ and sufficiently small
$\epsilon$ we
can assume that
\[
\int_{D_\epsilon(\v z)}\psi_r~d\mu\geq
\frac{\constantsix\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r))}{3\mu(S^{d-1})}\mu(D_\epsilon(\v z)).
\]
Let $C_r=\{t \v u : t\in[0,r],~\v u\in D_\epsilon(\v z)\}$. Then for $r\in R'$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{C_r}\phi~d\lambda
&=&
\int_{D_\epsilon(\v z)}
\int_{[0,r]}\phi(t\v u)t^{d-1}~dt~d\mu(\v u)
\\
&=&
\int_{D_\epsilon(\v z)} \psi_r(\v u) d\mu(\v u)
\\
&\geq &
\frac{\constantsix\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r))}{3{\mu(S^{d-1})}}\mu(D_\epsilon(\v z)).
\end{eqnarray*}
Finally we note that the cylinder
$r{K_\R}={K_\R}(\epsilon, \v 0, r\v z)$
contains the cone $C_r$ and that for fixed $d$ the quotient
\[
\frac{\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v 0,r))\mu(D_\epsilon(\v z))}
{3\lambda(r{K_\R})\mu(S^{d-1})}
\]
is constant. From this the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
Observe that condition (\ref{equation:lemma_partition_condition}) in \LemmaRef{partition} can be replaced with
$$\frac{1}{\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v x,r))}
\int_{B_\mathbf{R}(\v x,r)}\phi~d\lambda\geq
\constantsix$$
for an arbitrary point $\v x\in[-1,1]^d$.
In this case, the cylinder ${K_\R}$ in the conclusion becomes ${K_\R}={K_\R}(\epsilon,\v x, \v z)$.
To see this one can apply \LemmaRef{partition} to the function $\tilde\phi(\v y)=\phi(\v y-\v x)$.
\end{Remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \TheoremRef{continuous}]
First let us invoke Lebesgue's differentiation theorem as well as
Rademacher's Theorem to find a set $X\subset [-1,1]^d$ with full Lebesgue measure
such that for every $\v x\in X$ the map $T$ is differentiable
at $\v x$ and
\[
\phi(\v x)=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\lambda(B_\mathbf{R}(\v x,r))}
\int_{B_\mathbf{R}(\v x,r)} \phi~d\lambda.
\]
Pick any point $\v x\in X$ such that $\phi(\v x)>0$. Then,
since $T$ is differentiable at $\v x$, there exists a linear map
$J:\mathbf{R}^d\to\mathbf{R}^{d+1}$, the Jacobian of $T$ at $\v x$, such that
$T(\v y)$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{equation:continuous}
T(\v y)=T(\v x)+ J\cdot(\v y - \v x)+ e(\v y-\v x) \|\v y-\v x\|_2,
\end{equation}
where the error term $e(\v z)$ is continuous and satisfies
$e(\v 0)=0$.
Since $T\in\textit{L}_\R$, $J\neq0$.
Next take $R=\{\frac1n\}_{n\geq n_0}$.
For $n_0$ large enough we can apply \LemmaRef{partition} to $R$, $\phi$ and $\v x$.
Let $P\subset S^{d-1}$ be the set obtained this way.
Since $P$ has positive measure, it spans $\mathbf{R}^d$, and because
$J$ is a non-zero linear map, there exists some $\v z\in P$
for which $J\cdot\v z\neq0$. Since $\v z \in P$ we can find an infinite set
$R'\subset R$ such that
\[
\liminf_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\lambda(r{K_\R})}
\int_{r{K_\R}} \phi~d\lambda\geq c_1 \phi(\v x),
\qquad\forall r\in R'.
\]
where ${K_\R}={K_\R}(\epsilon,\v x, \v z)$ is as in \DefinitionRef{XR}.
Set $\delta= \frac{c_1 \phi(x)}{2}$ and set
$\v w = \tfrac{J \v z}{\|J\v z\|_2}\in S^d$.
We claim that with this choice of $\delta$ and $\v w$
the set
$\XR{T}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}{\v x}$ is non-empty
for all sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$. To show this,
take $r\in R'$ sufficiently
small such that
$e(\v u)< \min(\epsilon/2,\|J\cdot z\|_2\epsilon/3)$ for all $\v u$ with
$\|\v u\|_2\leq r$. Thereafter set
$\v y = \v x + r \v z$. It follows from
\EquationRef{continuous} that
$$\left\|\frac{T(\v y)-T(\v x)}{\big\|T(\v y)-T(\v x)\big\|_2}-
\v w\right\|_2<\epsilon.$$
Also, provided that $\epsilon$ was chosen sufficiently small,
we have
\[
\int_{{K_\R}(\epsilon,\v x,\v y)} \phi~d\lambda\geq \delta \lambda\big({K_\R}(\epsilon,\v x,\v y)\big).
\]
At last, note that the distance between
$T\big(t\v x + (1-t)\v y\big)$ and
$t T\big(\v x\big) + (1-t)T\big(\v y\big)$ is equal to
$(1-t)r$ times the distance between
$e\big((1-t)r(\v z)\big)$ and
$e\big(r\v z\big)$, which indeed
is smaller than $\epsilon \|\v y-\v x\|_2=\epsilon r$.
\end{proof}
The rest of this section is dedicated to deriving
\LemmaRef{XZ} from \TheoremRef{continuous}.
Assume $\LipZ$ is non-empty and let $f\in\LipZ$.
Recall that every $f$ in $\LipZ$ has Lipschitz constant $M$.
By definition (see \EquationRef{Banach-density})
one can find a sequence $(\v z_r)_{r\in\mathbf{N}}$ in $\mathbf{Z}^d$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:density}\limsup_{r\to\infty}
\frac{\Big|A\cap\big([-r,r)^d+\v z_r\big)\Big|}{(2r)^d}=
d^*(A).\end{equation}
One can rarefy the sequence $\big(r\big)_{r\in\mathbf{N}}$, to say $(r(i))_{i\in\mathbf{N}}$, so that the $\limsup$ in \EquationRef{density} is replaced by $\lim$.
For each $i$ let $V_i:[-1,1]^d\to[-1,1]^{d+1}$ be the map
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:Ref8}
V_i(\v x)=\frac1{Mr(i)}
\Big[f\big(\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}\big)-f(\v z_{r(i)})\Big].
\end{equation}
One can further rarefy the sequence $(r(i))_{i\in\mathbf{N}}$, so that
$$T(\v x):=\lim_{i\to\infty}V_i(\v x)$$
exists for every $\v x\in [-1,1]^d\cap\mathbf{Q}^d$.
One can easily deduce that for any $\v x,\v y\in [-1,1]^d\cap\mathbf{Q}^d$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\big\|T(\v x)-T(\v y)\big\|_2\leq \|\v x-\v y\|_2.
\end{equation*}
\iffalse
\begin{proof}
Let $\v x=(x_1,\dots,x_d)$ and $\v y=(y_1,\dots,y_d)$.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}\big\|T(\v x)-T(\v y)\big\|_2
&=&
\left\|\lim_{i\to\infty}\big(V_i(\v x)-V_i(\v y)\big)\right\|_2 \\
&=&
\lim_{i\to\infty}\frac1{Mr(i)}
\Big\|f\big(\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}\big)-
f\big(\lfloor r(i)\v y\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}\big)\Big\|_2\\
&\leq&
\lim_{i\to\infty}\frac 1{r(i)}
\big\|\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor-\lfloor r(i)\v y\rfloor\big\|_2\\
&\leq&
\lim_{i\to\infty}\frac 1{r(i)}\big(d+r(i)\|\v x-\v y\|_2\big)
=
\|\v x-\v y\|_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\fi
This implies that $T$ can be extended to
$[-1,1]^d$ as a Lipschitz function with Lipschitz constant $1$.
Since $\mathbf{Q}^d$ is dense in $\mathbf{R}^d$
(and Lipschitz functions are continuous),
this extension is unique.
\begin{Lemma}
\label{lemma:Tuniformconvergence}
$V_i\to T$ uniformly on $[-1,1]^d$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\epsilon>0$.
One can find a finite set $F\subset[-1,1]^d$
such that any $\v x\in[-1,1]^d$ satisfies
$\|\v x-\v y\|_2<\epsilon/4$ for some
$\v y=\v y(\v x)\in F$.
Let $i\in\mathbf{N}$ be large enough so that
$\|V_j(\v y)-T(\v y)\|_2<\epsilon/4$
for all $j\geq i$ and $\v y\in F$,
and such that $d/r(i)<\epsilon/4$.
Let $\v x\in[-1,1]^d$ be arbitrary,
let $\v y\in F$ be such that
$\|\v x-\v y\|_2<\epsilon/4M$ and let $j\geq i$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}\|T(\v x)-V_j(\v x)\|_2
&\leq&
\|T(\v x)-T(\v y)\|_2+\|T(\v y)-V_j(\v y)\|_2+\|V_j(\v y)-V_j(\v x)\|_2
\\&\leq&
\|\v x-\v y\|_2+\frac\epsilon4+\|\v x-\v y\|_2+\frac d{r(j)}\\
&\leq&\epsilon.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Next consider the sequence
$(\phi_i)_{i\in\mathbf{N}}$ in $L^2\big([-1,1]^d\big)$
defined by
$$
\phi_i(\v x)=
1_A\big(\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}\big).
$$
Observe that
$$
\int\phi_id\lambda=
\frac{\bigg|A\cap\Big(\big[-r(i),r(i)\big)^d+\v z_{r(i)}\Big)\bigg|}{r(i)^d}
$$
and hence, using \EquationRef{density},
$$
\lim_{i\to\infty}\int\phi_id\lambda=
2^d d^\ast(A).
$$
Rarifying $\big(r(i)\big)_{i\in\mathbf{N}}$ further, if necessary,
we can assume that $\phi=\lim\phi_i$ exists
in the weak topology of $L^2$.
Then we have
$$
\int\phi d\lambda=2^d d^\ast (A).
$$
Observe that, since $\langle\phi_i,1_B\rangle\leq\mu(B)$
where $B=\{x:\phi(x)>1+\epsilon\}$ it follows that $\phi$
takes values in $[0,1]$.
The goal is to derive \LemmaRef{XZ} for
$f\in\LipZ$ (assuming $\LipZ\neq \emptyset$)
by applying \TheoremRef{continuous}
to $T\in\textit{L}_\R$.
Before we can do this, we need to check that $T\in\textit{L}_\R$.
\begin{Lemma}
Assume $\LipZ$ is non-empty and let $f\in\LipZ$. Let $T$ be defined by the construction above.
If $T$ is differentiable at a point
$\v x\in[-1,1]^d$, then the derivative is nonzero.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume, for the sake of a contradiction,
that $T$ is differentiable at a point
$\v x\in[-1,1]^d$ and that the derivative is $0$.
Let $\epsilon>0$ to be determined later and
find $\delta>0$ such that whenever
$\|\v y-\v x\|_2<\delta$ we have
$\|T(\v y)-T(\v x)\|_2<\epsilon\|\v y-\v x\|_2
\leq\epsilon\delta$.
Choose $i$ large enough so that
$\|V_i(\v y)-T(\v y)\|_2<\epsilon\delta$
for any $\v y\in[-1,1]^d$ and let
$$
\v u:=Mr(i)V_i(\v x)+f(\v z_{r(i)})=
f\big(\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}\big)\in\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}
$$
Now take
$\v v\in\v z_{r(i)}+r(i)B_\mathbf{R}(\v x,\delta)\cap\mathbf{Z}^d$
and let $\v y=(\v v-\v z_{r(i)})/r(i)$.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|f(\v v)-\v u\|_2&=&Mr(i)\|V_i(\v y)-V_i(\v x)\|_2\\
&\leq&
Mr(i)\Big(\|T(\v y)-T(\v x)\|_2+\|V_i(\v y)-T(\v y)\|_2+\|T(x)-V_i(\v x)\|_2\Big)\\
&\leq&
Mr(i)(\epsilon\delta+2\epsilon\delta)=3Mr(i)\epsilon\delta.
\end{eqnarray*}
We just showed that
$f\big(\v z_{r(i)}+r(i)B_\mathbf{R}(\v x,\delta)\cap\mathbf{Z}^d\big)
\subset B_\mathbf{Z}\big(\v u,3Mr(i)\epsilon\delta\big)$.
On the one hand,
$$
\big|\v z_{r(i)}+r(i)B_\mathbf{R}(\v x,\delta)\cap\mathbf{Z}^d\big|
\geq C_1 \big(\delta r(i)\big)^d
$$
for some $C_1>0$ that only
depends on the dimension $d$.
On the other hand, the ball
$B_\mathbf{Z}\big(\v u,3Mr(i)\epsilon\delta\big)$ can be
covered with no more than
$C_2\big(3Mr(i)\epsilon\delta\big)^d$
vertical lines, for some other constant
$C_2>0$ that only depends on the dimension $d$.
Since each line in $\mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ contains the image
(under $f$) of at most $k$ points, we deduce that
$$
C_1\big(\delta r(i)\big)^d
\leq kC_2\big(3Mr(i)\epsilon\delta\big)^d.
$$
Rearranging, we get
$\epsilon\geq\sqrt[d]{C_1/(3^dM^dkC_2)}$, so, by choosing $\epsilon$
small enough (depending only on $k$, $M$ and $d$),
we obtain the desired contradiction.\end{proof}
Now, we can apply \TheoremRef{continuous} to $T=\lim V_i$
and $\phi=\lim\phi_i$ in order to find
$\delta'>0$, $\v x\in[-1,1]^d$ and $\v w\in S^d$ such
that for every sufficiently small $\epsilon'>0$ the set
$\XR{T}{\epsilon'}{\delta'}{\v w}{\v x}$ is nonempty.
We will show that $\XZ{f}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}$
is non-empty for $\delta:=\frac{\delta'}{4^d}$ and
$\epsilon:=\epsilon'/2$. To prove this claim, take any $\v y\in\XR{T}{\epsilon'}{\delta'}{\v w}{\v x}$ and
put $\eta:=\epsilon\|\v x-\v y\|_2/16$.
In view of \LemmaRef{Tuniformconvergence} we can find
$i\in\mathbf{N}$ large enough so that the following three conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
[label=(i-\arabic*)~~~~,ref=(i-\arabic*)]
\item\label{item:i1}
$\left\|\frac{V_i(\v x)-V_i(\v y)}{\left\|V_i(\v x)-V_i(\v y)\right\|_2}-\frac{T(\v x)-T(\v y)}{\left\|T(\v x)-T(\v y)\right\|_2}\right\|_2<\frac\epsilon2$;
\item\label{item:i2}
$\|V_i(\v z)-T(\v z)\|_2<\eta, \qquad\forall\v z\in[-1,1]^d$;
\item\label{item:i3}
$r(i)>\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\eta}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\ell$ be the generalized line segment defined by
$\ell(0)=\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}$ and
$\ell(1)=\lfloor r(i)\v y\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}$.
The proof of \LemmaRef{XZ} will be completed with the following lemma.
\begin{Lemma}
$\ell\in\XZ{f}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
First notice that $m_\ell=\big\|\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor-\lfloor r(i)\v y\rfloor\big\|_2\geq r(i)\|\v x-\v y\|_2-2\sqrt{d}$, and hence by condition \ref{item:i3} we have $\epsilon m_\ell>16\sqrt{d}-2\epsilon\sqrt{d}\geq14\sqrt{d}$.
By equation \EquationRef{Ref8} we have $(f\circ\ell)(0)=r(i)MV_i(\v x)+f(\v z_{r(i)})$ and
$(f\circ\ell)(1)=r(i)MV_i(\v y)+f(\v z_{r(i)})$.
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|\frac{(f\circ\ell)(1)-(f\circ\ell)(0)}{\Big\|(f\circ\ell)(1)-(f\circ\ell)(0)\Big\|_2}-\v w\right\|_2
&=&
\left\|\frac{r(i)MV_i(\v x)-r(i)MV_i(\v y)}{\Big\|r(i)MV_i(\v x)-r(i)MV_i(\v y)\Big\|_2}-\v w\right\|_2\\
&=&
\left\|\frac{V_i(\v x)-V_i(\v y)}{\Big\|V_i(\v x)-V_i(\v y)\Big\|_2}-\v w\right\|_2\\
&\leq&
\frac\epsilon2+\left\|\frac{T(\v x)-T(\v y)}{\Big\|T(\v x)-T(\v y)\Big\|_2}-\v w\right\|_2\\
&\leq&\epsilon,
\end{eqnarray*}
where the first inequality follows from \ref{item:i1}.
This proves \ref{item:z-i}. For the second condition, \ref{item:z-ii},
let $t\in[0,1]$ and observe that
on the one hand
$$\ell(t)=\lfloor(1-t)\ell(0)+t\ell(1)\rfloor=
\big\lfloor(1-t)\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor+t\lfloor r(i)\v y\rfloor\big\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}$$
which implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
(f\circ\ell)(t)&=&r(i)MV_i\left(\frac{(1-t)\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor+t\lfloor r(i)\v y\rfloor}{r(i)}\right)
+f(\v z_{r(i)})\\&=&r(i)MV_i\big((1-t)\v x+t\v y\big)+f(\v z_{r(i)})+\v e
\end{eqnarray*}
for some $\v e$ with $\|\v e\|_\infty\leq2M\sqrt{d}$.
On the other hand,
$$(1-t)(f\circ\ell)(0)+t(f\circ\ell)(1)=(1-t)r(i)MV_i(\v x)+tr(i)MV_i(\v y)+f(\v z_{r(i)})$$
By combining both (and by using \ref{item:i2} and \ref{item:i3})
we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left\|(f\circ\ell)(t)-\Big[(1-t)(f\circ\ell)(0)+t(f\circ\ell)(1)\Big]\right\|_2\\
&=&
r(i)M\left\|V_i\big((1-t)\v x+t\v y\big)-\big[(1-t)V_i(\v x)+
tV_i(\v y)\big]+\frac{\v e}{r(i)M}\right\|_2\\
&\leq&
r(i)M\left(\Big\|T\big((1-t)\v x+t\v y\big)-\big[(1-t)T(\v x)+tT(\v y)\big]\Big\|_2+2\eta+\frac{2\sqrt{d}}{r(i)}\right)
\\&\leq&r(i)M\big(\epsilon'\|\v x-\v y\|_2+2\eta+2\sqrt{d}/r(i)\big)\leq\epsilon M\frac34 r(i)\|\v x-\v y\|_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Also
$$
m_\ell=\|\ell(1)-\ell(0)\|_2=
\big\|\lfloor r(i)\v y\rfloor-\lfloor r(i)\v x\rfloor\big\|_2\geq
r(i)\|\v x-\v y\|_2-\sqrt{d}>\frac34 r(i)\|\v x-\v y\|_2
$$
and this finishes the proof of the second condition.
Finally, we prove the third condition, \ref{item:z-iii}.
Let $g_i:\v u\mapsto\lfloor r(i)\v u\rfloor+\v z_{r(i)}$.
For a set $U\subset g_i([-1,1]^d)$ we have
$$|U|=r(i)^d\lambda(g_i^{-1}(U))\quad\text{ and }\quad |A\cap U|=r(i)^d \int_{g_i^{-1}(U)}\phi_id\lambda.$$
We wish to apply these two facts to $U={K_\Z}={K_\Z}(\epsilon,\ell)$ (as in \DefinitionRef{XZ}).
The idea is to approximate $g_i^{-1}({K_\Z})$ with ${K_\R}(\epsilon,\v x,\v y)$.
Now let ${K_\Z}={K_\Z}(\epsilon,\ell)$ and ${K_\R}={K_\R}(\epsilon',\v x,\v y)$ be as in and \DefinitionRef{XR}.
For any $\v u\in{K_\R}$ there is some $t\in[0,1]$ such that
$$\left\|\v u-(1-t)\v x-t\v y\right\|_2\leq\epsilon'\|\v x-\v y\|_2.$$
It follows from \ref{item:i2} that
$$\Big\|g_i(\v u)-\big\lfloor(1-t)g_i(\v x)+tg_i(\v y)\big\rfloor\Big\|_2\leq r(i)\epsilon'\|\v x-\v y\|_2+2\sqrt{d}\leq\epsilon m_\ell$$
This implies that ${K_\R}\subset g_i^{-1}({K_\Z})$.
Similarly, one can show that $g_i^{-1}\big({K_\Z}(\epsilon,\ell)\big)\subset{K_\R}(4\epsilon',\v x,\v y)$.
Therefore we conclude that
$$\frac{|A\cap{K_\Z}|}{|{K_\Z}|}\geq
\frac{r(i)^d \int_{K_\R} \phi_i d\lambda }{\lambda({K_\R}\big(4\epsilon',\v x,\v y)\big)r(i)^d}>
\frac{\delta'}{4^d}=\delta.$$
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of \TheoremRef{A} using \LemmaRef{XZ}}\label{section:Conclusion}
Assume $\LipZ\neq \emptyset$ and let $f\in\LipZ$. Let $\delta>0$ and $\v w\in S^d$ be given by \LemmaRef{XZ}.
We will assume without loss of generality that the first coordinate $w_1$ of $\v w$ has the highest absolute value. Since $\|\v w\|_2=1$, this implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:lowerboundw1}
|w_1|\geq d^{-1/2}.
\end{equation}
We will need the following form of Dirichlet's approximation theorem.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lemma:dirichlet}
Let $(u_2,u_3,\dots,u_{d+1})\in\mathbf{R}^d$ and let $N\in\mathbf{N}$.
Then there exists a positive integer $b\leq N^d$ and
$a_2,a_3,\dots,a_{d+1}\in\mathbf{Z}$ such that
$$\left|u_l-\frac{a_l}b\right|\leq\frac1{bN}\qquad\forall l\in\{2,3,\dots,d+1\}.$$
\end{Lemma}
\iffalse\begin{proof}Let $\T=\mathbf{R}/\mathbf{Z}$ and let $\pi:\mathbf{R}^d\to\T^d$ be the canonical projection.
Let $\alpha=\pi(u_2,u_3,\dots,u_{d+1})$.
We can partition $\T^d$ into $N^d$ shifts of the cube $[0,1/N)^d$.
Thus the pigeonhole principle implies that among the set
$\{0,\alpha,2\alpha,\dots,N^d\alpha\}$ there are two points in the
same shift of $[0,1/N)^d$, say $i\alpha$ and $j\alpha$.
Let $b=|i-j|\leq N^d$ and let $a_l=\lfloor bu_l\rfloor$ for each $l\in\{2,3,\dots,d+1\}$.
This choice is easily seen to satisfy the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\fi
For the remainder of this section let $N$ be any positive integer satisfying $N>kc_2/(\delta c_3)$, where $c_2$ is the constant appearing on Lemma \ref{lemma:Enorm} and $c_3$ is the constant appearing in Lemma
\ref{lem:2ndrev}, both depending only on the fixed parameters $d$ and $M$. Also, assume that
$N$ is large enough such that $\XZ{f,A}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}\neq\emptyset$ for all $\epsilon\leq\frac1N$,
as guaranteed by \LemmaRef{XZ}.
Apply
\LemmaRef{dirichlet} to find $b,a_2,\dots,a_{d+1}\in\mathbf{Z}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:conclusion3}
\left|\frac{w_l}{w_1}-\frac{a_l}b\right|\leq\frac1{bN}\qquad\forall\,l\in\{2,3,\dots,d+1\}.
\end{equation}
Finally let $\epsilon=\frac1{bN}$ and take some generalized line
segment $\ell\in\XZ{f,A}{\epsilon}{\delta}{\v w}$.
We need a lower bound on the cardinality of ${K_\Z}$.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lem:2ndrev}
There exists a constant $\constantseven$ that only depends on the dimension $d$ such that for any generalized line segment $\ell$ and any $\epsilon>0$ satisfying $\epsilon m_\ell>14\sqrt{d}$, the cylinder ${K_\Z}$ has cardinality
$|{K_\Z}|\geq \constantseven \epsilon^{d-1} m_\ell^d$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define $\tilde{{K_\Z}}:=\{\vec z \in\mathbf{R}^d: \lfloor{\vec z}\rfloor\in{K_\Z}\}$. Observe that $\lambda(\tilde{{K_\Z}})=|{K_\Z}|$,
hence it suffices to show that $\lambda(\tilde{{K_\Z}})\geq \constantseven \epsilon^{d-1} m_\ell^d$.
Let $$\gamma(t):=(1-t)\ell(0)+t\ell(1),\qquad\forall t\in[0,1].$$
If $\vec z\in\mathbf{R}^d$ satisfies $\min_{t\in[0,1]}\|\vec z - \gamma(t)\|\leq \epsilon m_\ell-2\sqrt{d}$,
then a simple application of the triangle inequality implies that
$\min_{t\in[0,1]}\|\lfloor\vec z\rfloor - \ell(t)\|\leq \epsilon m_\ell$. In other words this shows that $\tilde{{K_\Z}}$
contains the cylinder with axes $\gamma(t)$ and radius $\epsilon m_\ell-2\sqrt{d}$. Since we assume that
$\epsilon m_\ell>14\sqrt{d}$ it is guaranteed that $\epsilon m_\ell-2\sqrt{d}>0$. This allows us to bound the size of
$\lambda(\tilde{{K_\Z}})$ from below by a constant multiple of $(\epsilon m_\ell-2\sqrt{d})^{d-1}m_\ell\leq\big(\frac{\epsilon m_\ell}{2}\big)^{d-1}m_\ell$. Thus,
$$
\lambda(\tilde{{K_\Z}})\geq \constantseven \epsilon^{d-1} m_\ell^d
$$
for some $\constantseven$ that only depends on $d$.
\end{proof}
The idea is to cover $f({K_\Z})$ with at most $\delta |{K_\Z}| /k$ lines, where
${K_\Z}={K_\Z}(\epsilon,\ell)$ is as in \DefinitionRef{XZ}.
Due to
\ref{item:z-iii} we have that $|{K_\Z}\cap A|/|{K_\Z}|>\delta$, therefore this will imply that there exists $X\subset{K_\Z}\cap A$ with $|X|=k$ and such that the image $f(X)$ is contained in a line.
We can assume without loss of generality that
$(f\circ\ell)(0)=0$, as otherwise we can instead cover
the set $f({K_\Z})-(f\circ\ell)(0)$ with less than $\delta |{K_\Z}| /k$ lines and
this would then yield a covering of $f({K_\Z})$ with the same number of lines.
Define $\v s=(b,a_2,a_3,\ldots,a_{d+1})\in \mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$ and let $E$ be the set of all lines in $\mathbf{R}^{d+1}$ of the form
$\{\v x-t \v s:t\in\mathbf{R}\}$ for some $\v x\in f({K_\Z})$.
Thus the set $E$ covers all points in $f({K_\Z})$.
\begin{Lemma}
\label{lemma:Enorm}
There exists a constant $c_2$, depending only on the dimension $d$ and on the Lipschitz constant $M$, such that
$$|E|\leq c_2\frac{m_\ell^d}{b^{d-1}N^d}.$$
\end{Lemma}
Before we embark on the proof of this lemma let us first show how it implies \TheoremRef{A}:
On the one hand, it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:2ndrev}, condition \ref{item:z-iii} and the choice of $\epsilon$ that $|A\cap{K_\Z}|>\delta\constantseven m_\ell^d/(bN)^{d-1}$.
On the other hand, \LemmaRef{Enorm} tells us that we can cover the image of ${K_\Z}$ under $f$ with no more than $c_2\big(m_\ell\big)^d/(b^{d-1}N^d)$ lines.
It follows from the pigeonhole principle that some line in $E$ contains the image, under $f$, of at least
$$\frac{|A\cap{K_\Z}|}{|E|}\geq\delta
\left(\constantseven\frac{m_\ell^d}{b^{d-1}N^{d-1}}\right)\Big/
\left(c_2\frac{m_\ell^d}{b^{d-1}N^d}\right)=
\frac{\delta \constantseven}{c_2}N$$
points from $A$.
By choosing $N$ sufficiently large, depending only on $d,k,M$ and $\delta$, we deduce that some
line in $E$ must contain the image of at least $k$ points from $A$.
This contradicts the fact that $f\in\LipZ$, and this contradiction finishes the proof of \TheoremRef{A}.
Now, all that remains to show is \LemmaRef{Enorm}.
Since all lines in $E$ are parallel,
in order to count them, we can simply look at their intersection
with the hyperplane $H=\{0\}\times\mathbf{R}^d$.
With this in mind, for a vector $\v u=(u_1,\dots,u_{d+1})$ with $u_1\neq0$,
we define the projection $P_{\v u}:\mathbf{R}^{d+1}\to\mathbf{R}^d$ by
$$P_{\v u}(x_1,\dots,x_{d+1})=(x_2,\dots,x_{d+1})-
\tfrac{x_1}{u_1}(u_2,\dots,u_{d+1}).$$
Note that $\big(0,P_{\v u}(\v x)\big)\in\mathbf{R}^{d+1}$ is the intersection
of the line $\{\v x-t \v u:t\in\mathbf{R}\}$ with $H$.
Thus $E_0:=P_{\v s}(f({K_\Z}))$ is the set of intersections of lines in
$E$ with $H$, and hence $|E_0|=|E|$.
A simple calculation shows that if $\v x,\v y\in \mathbf{Z}^{d+1}$
are such that the first coordinate of $\v x$ and the first
coordinate of $\v y$ differ by a multiple of $b$, then
$P_{\v s}(\v x)-P_{\v s}(\v y)\in\mathbf{Z}^d$. This implies
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:E0lattice}
E_0\subset \bigcup_{l\in[0,b-1]}\left(\v P_{\v s}(l,0,\dots,0)+\mathbf{Z}^d\right).
\end{equation}
Next we want to enclose $E_0=P_{\v s}(f({K_\Z}))$ inside a convex
set $D\subset\mathbf{R}^d$.
It follows from \eqref{equation:lowerboundw1} that the operator norm of $P_{\v s}$ is smaller than a constant $\constanteight$ which only depends on $d$.
Let $c_5=2\constanteight M$, let $\v u=P_{\v s}\big((f\circ\ell)(1)\big)\in\mathbf{R}^d$ and define
$$D=\{t\v u:t\in[0,1]\}+B_\mathbf{R}\big(0,c_5\epsilon m_\ell\big).$$
To see that $E_0\subset D$, let $\v x\in E_0$ be arbitrary.
From the above construction we have $\v x=P_{\v s}\big(f(\v z)\big)$ for some $\v z\in{K_\Z}$.
Therefore there exists some $t\in[0,1]$ such that $\|\v z-\ell(t)\|_2\leq\epsilon m_\ell$ and hence $\|f(\v z)-(f\circ\ell)(t)\|_2\leq\epsilon Mm_\ell$.
Using \ref{item:z-ii} we deduce that $\|f(\v z)-t(f\circ\ell)(1)\|_2\leq 2\epsilon Mm_\ell$.
Thus
$$\|\v x-t\v u\|_2=\Big\|P_{\v s}\big(f(\v z)\big)-P_{\v s}\big(t(f\circ\ell)(1)\big)\Big\|_2\leq2\constanteight\epsilon Mm_\ell.$$
This shows $\v x\in D$ as desired.
Putting together the inclusion $E_0\subset D$ with \EquationRef{E0lattice} we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:e0D}|E_0|\leq c_6b\lambda(D)
\end{equation} for some constant $c_6$ that only depends on $d$.
Moreover $\lambda(D)$ can be bounded by
\begin{equation}\label{equation:lambdaestimate}\lambda(D)\leq\constantnine\left(c_5\epsilon m_\ell\right)^{d-1}\cdot\left(\|u\|_2+2c_5\epsilon m_\ell\right)\end{equation}
where $\constantnine$ is the volume of the unit ball in $\mathbf{R}^{d-1}$.
Finally we need to estimate $\|\v u\|_2$.
Let
$$
\v v=\big(v_1,\dots,v_{d+1}\big)= \frac{(f\circ\ell)(1)-
(f\circ\ell)(0)}{\big\|(f\circ\ell)(1)-(f\circ\ell)(0)\big\|_2}
= \frac{(f\circ\ell)(1)}{\big\|(f\circ\ell)(1)\big\|_2}
$$
and define
$\tilde s=(a_2,\dots,a_{d+1})$ and $\tilde v=\big(v_2,\dots,v_{d+1}\big)$.
We claim that there exists a constant $c_8$ which only depends on $d$ such that for all $\v x\in\mathbf{R}^{d+1}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:Pnorm}\left\|P_{\v s}(\v x)-P_{\v v}(\v x)\right\|_2\leq c_8\epsilon\|\v x\|_2.
\end{equation}
To prove this claim, first observe that for $\v x\in\mathbf{R}^{d+1}$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:conclusion4}
\left\|P_{\v s}(\v x)-P_{\v v}(\v x)\right\|_2=
\left\|\frac{x_1}{v_1}\tilde v-\frac{x_1}b\tilde s\right\|_2
\leq\|\v x\|_2\left\|\frac{\tilde v}{v_1}-
\frac{\tilde s}b\right\|_2.
\end{equation}
Next, take an arbitrary $i\in\{2,3,\dots,d+1\}$; it follows from \EquationRef{conclusion3} that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:conclusionclaimbound}\left|\frac{v_i}{v_1}-\frac{a_i}b\right|\leq\epsilon+\left|\frac{v_i}{v_1}-\frac{w_i}{w_1}\right|.\end{equation}
From \ref{item:z-i} we get that $\|\v w-\v v\|_2\leq\epsilon$, and so, in particular, $|w_j-v_j|<\epsilon$ for each $j\in\{1,\dots,d+1\}$.
Recall that $\epsilon<d^{-1/2}/2$, $w_1\geq d^{-1/2}$ and $|w_1|,|w_i|\leq1$.
We deduce that
$$\left|\frac{v_i}{v_1}-\frac{w_i}{w_1}\right|=\left|\frac{v_iw_1-v_1w_i}{w_1v_1}\right|=\left|\frac{(v_i-w_i)w_1-(v_1-w_1)w_i}{w_1v_1}\right|\leq\frac{2\epsilon}{1/(2d)}=4d\epsilon.$$
Putting this together with \EquationRef{conclusionclaimbound} and \EquationRef{conclusion4} we get \EquationRef{Pnorm} and this proves the claim.
Using \EquationRef{Pnorm} with $\v x=(f\circ\ell)(1)$ and observing that $P_{\v v}((f\circ\ell)(1))=0$ we deduce that
$$\|\v u\|_2=\|P_{\v s}(f\circ\ell)(1)\|_2\leqc_8\epsilon\|(f\circ\ell)(1)\|_2\leqc_8\epsilon Mm_\ell.$$
Putting this together with \EquationRef{lambdaestimate} and \EquationRef{e0D} we conclude that
$$|E|=|E_0|\leq c_6b\lambda(D)\leq c_2\frac{m_\ell^d}{b^{d-1}N^d}$$
with $c_2=c_6c_7c_5^{d-1}(c_8M+2c_5)$.
This finishes the proof of \LemmaRef{Enorm} and hence the proof of \TheoremRef{A}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{thm}{0}\setcounter{Corol}{0}\setcounter{lemma}{0}\setcounter{pron}{0}
\setcounter{remark}{0}\setcounter{exam}{0}\setcounter{property}{0}
We assume $F$ to be a distribution on the real line,
with the (right) tail distribution function $\overline F (x)=1-F(x)$.
The notation $F_1*F_2$ is reserved for the convolution of two
distributions $F_1$ and $F_2$; further $F^{*n}=F* \ldots *F$ denotes the $n$-fold
convolution of $F$ with itself for $n\ge2$, and $F^{*1}=F$ and $F^{*0}$ denotes the distribution
degenerate
at zero.
All limits are taken as $x$ tends to infinity. For two positive
functions $f$ and $g$, the notation
$f(x)\sim g(x)$ means that $\lim f(x)/g(x)=1$; the notation $f(x)=o(g(x))$
means that $\lim f(x)/g(x)=0$; and $f(x)=O(g(x))$ means that $\limsup
f(x)/g(x)<\infty$. The indicator function $\textbf{I}(A)$ of an event $A$
takes the value $1$ if the event occurs and the value
$0$
otherwise.
Recall that a distribution $F$ on the real line is {\it heavy-tailed}
if $\int_0^{\infty} e^{\beta y}F(dy)=\infty$ for all $\beta>0$, otherwise $F$ is
{\it light-tailed}.
A distribution $F$ is {\it long-tailed}, denoted by $F\in {\mathcal L}$, if
$\overline{F}(x+1)\sim\overline{F}(x)$. A distribution $F$ {\it
on the positive half-line} is {\it subexponential}, denoted by $F\in {\mathcal S}$, if
$\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\sim2\overline{F}(x)$.
A distribution $F$ {\it on the whole real line} is
subexponential if the distribution $F_+$ is subexponential, where $F_+(x) = F(x)\cdot
{\bf I} (x\ge 0)$ for all $x$, or, equivalently, if $F\in\mathcal{L}$ and if $\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\sim2\overline{F}(x)$. Note that both subexponentiality and long-tailedness are the
{\it tail properties}: if a distribution $F$ has such a property and
$\overline{F}(x)\sim \overline{G}(x)$, then $G$ also has this property.
It is known that any subexponential distribution is long-tailed and any long-tailed distribution is heavy-tailed.
More generally, let $\gamma\ge 0$ be fixed. A distribution $F$
on the whole real line
{\it belongs to the distribution class}
$\mathcal{L}(\gamma)$ if, for any fixed $c>0$,
$$\overline F(x-c)\sim \overline F(x)e^{\gamma c}.$$
A distribution $F$ {\it belongs to the class} $\mathcal{S}(\gamma)$
if $\int_0^{\infty}e^{\gamma y}F(dy)<\infty,\ F\in\mathcal{L}(\gamma)$ and if
$$
\overline {F^{*2}}(x)\sim 2\overline F(x)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{\gamma
y}F(dy).
$$
In particular,
${\mathcal L}= \mathcal{L}(0)$
and
$\mathcal{S} = \mathcal{S}(0)$.
Clearly, distributions from the class $\mathcal{L}(\gamma )$ are light-tailed if $\gamma >0$.
For all $\gamma\ge0$, the class
$\mathcal{L}(\gamma )\setminus \mathcal{S}(\gamma)$ is non-empty,
see, e.g.,
Pitman \cite{Pit1980}, Leslie \cite{Les1989}, Murphree \cite{Mur1989},
Kl\"{u}ppelberg and Villasenor \cite{KluVil1991}
and
Lin and Wang \cite{LinWan2012}
for examples and further analysis. Some systems
research and application on the above mentioned distribution classes, please refer to
Embrechts et al. \cite{EmbKluMik1997}, Asmussen and Albrecher \cite{AsmAlb2010}, Foss et al. \cite{FosKorZac2013}, and so on.
Recall that the classes $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ were introduced by Chistyakov \cite{Chi1964} and, for $\gamma>0$, the class $\mathcal{S}(\gamma)$ of distributions supported by the positive half-line
was introduced and analysed by Chover et al. \cite{ChoNeyWai1973a, ChoNeyWai1973b}.
The class ${\cal L}$ is closely linked to slow variation ($F\in \mathcal{L}$ iff
$\overline{F} (\log x)$ is slowly varying). For $\gamma>0$, the
class $\cal{L}(\gamma )$ was introduced
by Embrechts and Goldie \cite{EmbGol1980} and is linked to
regular variation.
It is known that if $F\in {\mathcal L}$ (or if $F\in {\mathcal S}$), then $F^{*n}\in {\mathcal L}$
(correspondingly $F^{*n} \in {\mathcal S}$), for any $n\ge 2$.
These results continue to hold when $F^{*n}$ is replaced by the
{\it compound distribution}
$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} p_n F^{*n}$ where $0\le p_n\le1$
for $n=0,1,\ldots$, $p_0<1$, $\sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n=1$, given than
$p_n$ decay to zero sufficiently fast as $n\to\infty$.
In the case of subexponential distributions this is a classical result
(based
on ``Kesten's lemma''; see also \cite{DenFosKor2010} and the references therein
for modern results in this direction),
while the result for long-tailed distributions is
quite recent (\cite{Alb2008, LeiSia2012}).
Similar results hold for the class $\mathcal{S}(\gamma )$ for any $\gamma>0$.
Therefore, we may say that all these distribution classes are {\it closed under convolution}.
Embrechts et al. \cite{EmbGolVer1979} (see also \cite{EmbGol1981}) proved the converse result for subexponential distributions: if $F^{*n}\in {\mathcal S}$ for some $n\ge 2$, then $F\in {\mathcal S}$ (and, in turn, $F^{*m}\in {\mathcal S}$, for all $m
\ge 2$). They also proved an analogous result related to the
compound distribution,
and then similar
results for the class
$\mathcal{S}(\gamma )$ for any $\gamma >0$. In short, one can say
that, for any $\gamma\ge0$, the class $\mathcal{S}(\gamma )$
is {\it closed under convolution roots}.
Embrechts and Goldie (see \cite{EmbGol1980}, page 245 and \cite{EmbGol1982}, page 270) formulated the conjecture that a similar converse result may hold for long-tailed distributions and, more generally,
for any class $\mathcal{L}(\gamma )$, $\gamma \ge 0$.
{\bf Conjecture 1}
Let $\gamma\ge 0$. If there is $n\ge 2$ such that $F^{*n}\in \mathcal{L}(\gamma )$,
then also $F\in \mathcal{L}(\gamma )$.
The following two closely related
conjectures may be viewed as natural extensions of Conjecture~1
onto compound distributions and infinitely divisible distributions.
{\bf Conjecture 2.} Let $\gamma\ge0$ and $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} p_n =1$, with $p_n\ge 0$ for all $n$ and $p_0+p_1<1$. If a compound distribution $\sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n F^{*n}$ belongs to the
class $\mathcal{L}(\gamma )$,
then also $F\in \mathcal{L} (\gamma )$.
{\bf Conjecture 3.} Let $\gamma\ge0$. If an infinitely divisible distribution $H$ belongs to the class
$\mathcal{L}(\gamma )$, then the
distribution generated by its L$\acute{e}$vy spectral measure belongs to the class $\mathcal{L} (\gamma )$ too.
In this paper, we restrict our attention to the study of the class of long-tailed
distributions, and also of its subclass consisting of the so-called
\emph{generalised subexponential} distributions.
A distribution $F$ is {\em generalised subexponential}, denoted
by $F\in{\mathcal{OS}}$, if $\overline{F}(x)>0$ for all $x$ and if
\begin{eqnarray*}
C^*(F)=\limsup\overline{F^{*2}}(x)/\overline{F}(x)<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that (a) for any heavy-tailed distribution $F$ on the whole real line,
$C^*(F) \ge 2$ (see Theorem 1.2 in \cite{YWC2010} for this and further results);
(b) clearly, $C^*(F) \ge \liminf \overline{F^{*2}}(x)/\overline{F}(x) \ge 2$ for any
distribution on the positive half-line.
The class $\mathcal{OS}$ was first introduced
by Kl\"{u}ppelberg \cite{Klu1990} for distributions on the positive
half-line and was called ``weakly idempotent''.
Later Shimura and Watanabe \cite{ShiWat2005} called it
``O-subexponential'', or ``generalised subexponential'', by analogy to``O-regularly varying'' in the terminology
of Bingham et al.~\cite{BGT1987}. The definition of the
class $\mathcal{OS}$ was extended in \cite{W2008}
to the whole
real line.
In this paper, we prove a number of novel properties of long-tailed distributions
(see Theorem \ref{th1}) that, in particular, allow us to
provide a number of counter-examples to Conjectures 1-3 (see Theorem \ref{th2} and Proposition
\ref{classF2})
where the class $\mathcal{L}$ is replaced by the class $\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$.
We also provide a simple sufficient condition for the equivalence ``$F\in {\cal L}$ if and only if
$F^{*2}\in {\cal L}$'' to hold, see Proposition \ref{pron1}.
Similar problems for light-tailed distributions (with counterexamples to Conjectures 2-3)
will be analysed in a companion paper.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we formulate
and discuss our
main results and their corollaries.
In
Section 3 we prove Theorem \ref{th1} and Corollary \ref{cor001}.
The proofs of Theorem \ref{th2}, Proposition \ref{pron1} and Lemma \ref{gengen}
are given in Section 4.
Finally, the appendix includes comments related to the condition \eqref{thm101}
and a sketch of the proof of Proposition \ref{classF2}.
\section{Main results and
related discussions}
\setcounter{thm}{0}\setcounter{Corol}{0}\setcounter{lemma}{0}\setcounter{pron}{0}
\setcounter{remark}{0}\setcounter{exam}{0}\setcounter{property}{0}
To formulate our first result, we need further notation.
For a distribution $F$
and any constants $a\le b$, we let $F(a,b] = F(b)-F(a) =
\overline{F}(a)-\overline{F}(b)$.
Let $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ be independent (not necessarily identically distributed) random variables with corresponding distributions
$F_1,F_2,\ldots$. For $n=0,1,\ldots$, let $S_n=\sum_{i=1}^n X_i$ be the partial sum
with distribution $H_n=F_1*\cdots *F_n$, where $H_0$
degenerates at $0$. Let $\tau$ be an independent
counting random variable with distribution function $G(x) = \sum_{n\le x} p_n$ where
$p_n={\mathbf P} (\tau =n)$, $n=0,1,\ldots$. We denote by $H_{\tau}$ the
distribution
of the random sum $S_{\tau}=\sum_{i=1}^{\tau} X_i$. Clearly,
$H_{\tau}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} p_nH_n$.
In the particular case where $\{X_i,i\ge1\}$ are i.i.d. with common distribution $F$,
we have $H_n=F^{*n}$ for $n=0,1,\ldots$ and we also use notation $F^{*\tau}$
for
$H_{\tau}= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} p_n F^{*n}$.
\begin{thm}\label{th1} (1) Let $n\ge 2$. \\
(1a) If $H_n\in\mathcal{L}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{1011}
F_i(x-c,x+c] = o(\overline{H_n}(x))
\quad \mbox{and}
\quad
H_i(x-c,x+c] = o(\overline{H_n}(x)),
\end{equation}
for any $c>0$ and
all $i=1,\ldots, n$.\\
(1b) Assume $H_m\in\mathcal{L}$ for some $1\le m\le n$ and
\begin{equation}\label{101}
F_i(x-c,x+c]
= o(\overline{H_m}(x)),
\end{equation}
for some $c>0$ and all $i=m+1,\ldots, n$. Then
$H_n\in\mathcal{L}$. \\
(2) Let $\tau$ be an independent counting random variable with bounded support:
$\sum_{k=0}^n p_k=1$ and $p_n>0$, for some $n\ge 1$.
Then $H_{\tau}\in\mathcal{L}$ if and only if $H_n\in \mathcal{L}$.\\
(3) Assume that ${\mathbf P}(\tau \ge n)>0$ for some $n\ge 1$ and
$H_{k}\in\mathcal{L}$ for all $k\ge n$. Assume further that there exists a positive constant
$C$ such that,
for every $n=1,2,\ldots$,
the following concentration inequality holds:
\begin{equation}\label{concentration}
\sup_x H_n(x-1,x]\le C/\sqrt{n}
\end{equation}
and that, for any $\varepsilon >0$, there exists $x_0>1$ such that, for all
$k\ge n$,
\begin{equation}\label{tail}
\sup_{x\ge k(x_0-1)+x_0}
\overline{H}_k(x-1)/\overline{H}_k(x)\le 1+ \varepsilon.
\end{equation}
If, in addition, for any $a>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{102}
\overline{G}(ax) = o\left(x^{1/2}\overline{H_{n}}(x)\right),
\end{equation}
then $H_{\tau}\in \mathcal{L}$.\\
(4) Let
$F_1,F_2$ and $L_2$ be three distributions
such that $\overline{F}_2(x)\sim
\overline{L_2}(x)$ and $F_1*F_2\in\mathcal{L}$. Then
$\overline{F_1*L_2}(x)\sim
\overline{F_1*F_2}(x)$ and, therefore, $F_1*L_2\in\mathcal{L}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}\label{eq-eq}
Statement (1b) of Theorem \ref{th1} is equivalent to the following:\\
Assume $F_n\in\mathcal{L}$ for some $n\ge2$ and
$$
F_i(x-c,x+c] = o\big(\overline{F_n}(x)\big),
$$
for some $c>0$ and all $i=1,\ldots, n$. Then
$H_n\in\mathcal{L}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem2000}
Condition \eqref{concentration} is very general. It holds if random variables
$X_i,\ i\ge1,$ are i.i.d. with any non-degenerate distribution (see, e.g.,
\cite{Pet1995}, Theorem 2.22). More generally, \eqref{concentration} holds
if random variables $X_i$ are assumed to be independent, but not necessarily
identically distributed, and
there exists $c>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{suff}
\inf_{i\ge1} {\mathbf P} (X_i\in [-c,c])>0 \quad
\mbox{and}
\quad
\inf_{i\ge1} {\mathbf Var} (X_i \ | \ X_i\in [-c,c]) >0,
\end{equation}
see e.g. \cite{FosKor2000}, Lemma 4.1. Moreover, it is enough to assume
that \eqref{suff}
holds only for a positive proportion of the summands: if $c_n$ is the number of
$X_i$, $i\le n$ that satisfy \eqref{suff}, then $c_n/n \ge c>0$ for some $c>0$
and for all sufficiently large $n$.
Some other conditions for the concentration inequality can be found in theorems
that precede Theorem 2.22 of the book \cite{Pet1995} (e.g., Theorems 2.17 and 2.18).
\end{remark}
In the case of i.i.d. summands, Theorem \ref{th1} leads to the following corollary.
\begin{Corol}\label{cor001}
(1) Assume a distribution $F$ to be such that $F^{*n}\in \mathcal{L}$, for some $n\ge 1$.
Then $F^{*k}\in \mathcal{L}$, for all $k\ge n$.\\
(2) Let $\tau$ be a counting random variable with bounded support:
$\sum_{k=0}^n p_k=1$ and $p_n>0$, for some $n\ge 1$.
Then $F^{*\tau}\in\mathcal{L}$ if and only if $F^{*n}\in \mathcal{L}$.\\
(3) If, for some $n\ge 1$, ${\mathbf P}(\tau \ge n)>0$ and $F^{*n}\in\mathcal{L}$, and
if
\begin{equation}\label{1102}
\overline{G}(ax) = o\left(x^{1/2}\overline{F^{*n}}(x)\right)
\end{equation}
for any $a>0$,
then $F^{*\tau}\in \mathcal{L}$.\\
(4) Let $F$ and $L$ be two distributions
such that $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$ and $\overline{F}(x)\sim \overline{L}(x)$. Then $\overline{L^{*2}}(x)\sim
\overline{F^{*2}}(x)$ and, therefore, $L^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$.
\end{Corol}
In order to illustrate the above results and to formulate the new ones,
we need further notion and notation.
Recall that a distribution $F$ is {\em dominatedly-varying-tailed}, denoted by $F\in\mathcal{D}$, if for some (or
equivalently, for all) $c\in(0, 1)$,
$$\limsup \overline{F}(cx)/\overline{F}(x)<\infty.$$
A distribution $F$ belongs to the {\em generalised long-tailed} distribution class $\mathcal{OL}$, if
$\overline{F}(x)>0$ for all $x$ and if,
for any $c>0$,
$$C(F,c)=\limsup\overline {F}(x-c)/\overline {F}(x)<\infty.$$
The class $\mathcal{OL}$ is significantly broader than the class $\mathcal{L}$ and,
in particular, the class $\mathcal{OL}$
covers all classes $\mathcal{L} (\gamma )$, $\gamma \ge 0$.
The classes $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{OL}$ were introduced by \cite{F1969} and \cite{ShiWat2005}, respectively. Note that $\mathcal{OS}$ is a proper subclass of the class $\mathcal{OL}$, see e.g. \cite{ShiWat2005} or \cite{W2008}.
\begin{remark}\label{rem101}
Statement (1a) of Theorem \ref{th1} is quite general --
in particular, it may be applied in the case where $n=2$,
and $F_1$ is not long-tailed itself. We present two examples in the Appendix below. In Example \ref{exam501}, there are two distributions $F_1\in\mathcal{OL}$ and $F_2$ such that $\overline{F_2}(x)=o(\overline{F_1}(x))$; and in Example \ref{exam503}, there are two distributions $F_1\notin\mathcal{OL}$ and $F_2$ such that $\liminf\overline{F_2}(x)/\overline{F_1}(x)=0$ and $\limsup\overline{F_2}(x)/\overline{F_1}(x)=\infty$.
In both examples, $F_1\notin\mathcal{L}\cup\mathcal{D}$ and $F_1*F_2\in\mathcal{L}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem102}
In Corollary \ref{cor001}, parts (1) and (3), if $n\ge 2$, then distributions $F^{*k}$ may be not
long-tailed for $1\le k\le n-1$, in general -- see, e.g., families of distributions
$\mathcal{F}_i(0), i=1,2$ that are introduced below.
Therefore this result is a reasonable generalisation of Theorem 6 of
Leipus and \v{S}iaulys \cite{LeiSia2012}. Also,
Leipus and \v{S}iaulys \cite{LeiSia2012} require condition \eqref{1102}
with $n=1$ that is stronger than our condition if $F$ does not belong to the
class $\mathcal{OS}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem1020}
The results of part (1) of Theorem \ref{th1}
may be generalised onto the case of weakly dependent random variables.
Here is an example for $n = 2$, with a particular choice of a weak dependence structure of random variables. Let $X_i$ be a random variable with the distribution $F_i$ supported on whole real line, $i=1,2$. Assume that a random vector $(X_1,X_2)$ has the two-dimensional Farlie-Gumbel-Morgenstern (FGM) joint distribution:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{503}
{\mathbf P}\Big(\bigcap_{i=1}^{2}\{X_i\le x_i\}\Big)=\prod_{i=1}^{2}F_i(x_i)(1+\theta_{12}\overline{F_1}(x_1)\overline{F_2}(x_2)),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_{12}\ne 0$ is a constant such that $a=\mid\theta_{12}\mid\le1$.
For any $0<T_i\le\infty,i=1,2$, direct calculations show that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{504}
&&{\mathbf P}\Big(\bigcap_{i=1}^{2}\{X_i\in (x_i,x_i+T_i]\}\Big)=
\prod_{i=1}^{2}F_i(x_i,x_i+T_i]
\big(1+\theta_{12}\prod_{i=1}^{2}(1-\overline{F_i}(x_i+T_i)-\overline{F_i}(x_i))\big).
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by \eqref{504}, we have for $1\le i\neq j\le2$ and all $x_i,x_j$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{505}
&&{\mathbf P}(X_i\in (x_i,x_i+T_i]|X_j=x_j)=F_i(x_i,x_i+T_i]\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \cdot\big(1+\theta_{12}(1-\overline{F_i}(x_i+T_i)-\overline{F_i}(x_i))(1-2\overline{F_j}(x_j))\big).
\end{eqnarray}
Take $a<1$. One may show that the
statements (1a) and (1b) of Theorem \ref{th1}
still hold under new assumptions by simply following their proofs, with a suitable
use of
equalities \eqref{503} and \eqref{505}.
\end{remark}
\vspace{0.5cm}
Now we discuss the closedness property under convolution roots related to the class
$\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$.
We show that all three Conjectures 1-3 do not take place in the class $\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$. We provide precise examples and the intuition behind. All our examples involve
absolutely continuous distributions. In more detail, we introduce below two families of distributions,
$\mathcal{F}_1(0)$ and $\mathcal{F}_2(0)$, that have different properties and
are built up around random variables of the form
\begin{equation}\label{etau}
\xi = \eta (1+U)
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ has a discrete and heavy-tailed distribution and $U$ is an independent random
variable with a smooth distribution with bounded support. For simplicity, we assume $U$ to be uniformly distributed, but its
distribution may be taken from a larger class. Further,
classes $\mathcal{F}_1(0)$ and $\mathcal{F}_2(0)$ may be extended, thanks to part (4)
of Corollary \ref{cor001} on the tail-equivalence.
\begin{defin}\label{defin101}
Class $\mathcal{F}_1(0)$ is a 4-parametric family of distributions
$F=F(\alpha,b,t,A)$ of random variables
\be \label{exam201-1}
\xi=\eta(1+U^{1/b})^t
\ee
with density $f=f(\alpha,b,t,A)$. Here $\alpha \in [1/2,1)$, $b>0$ and $t\ge 1$ are constants.
Further, $\eta$ is a
discrete random variable with distribution ${\mathbf P}(\eta=a_n)=Ca_n^{-\alpha}$, where
$C=(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n^{-\alpha})^{-1}$ is the normalising constant and
a sequence $A=\{a_n\}$ is defined as follows. Let $r=1+1/\alpha >2$ and a constant $a>1$
be so large that $a^{r} > 2^{t+2}a$, then
$a_n =
a^{r^{n}}$ for $n= 0,1,\ldots.$
Finally, $U$ is a random variable having uniform distribution in the
interval $(0,1)$, and $U$ and $\eta$ are mutually independent.
\end{defin}
A number of ``good'' properties of the
class $\mathcal{F}_1(0)$ is given in the following theorem.
In particular, the theorem provides a negative answer
to Conjectures 1-3 related to the class $\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$.
\begin{thm}\label{th2} For any distribution $F\in \mathcal{F}_1(0)$, the following conclusions hold.\\
(1) $F$ is neither long-tailed nor generalised subexponential, while $F\in\mathcal{OL}$ and $F^{*n}\in \mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}\setminus \mathcal{S}$, for all $n\ge 2$.\\
(2) $F^{*\tau}\in \mathcal{L}\setminus \mathcal{S}$, for any counting random variable $\tau$ with distribution $G$ such that
${\mathbf P} (\tau \ge 2)>0$ and for any $a>0$
\be \label{thm101}
\overline{G}(ax) = o\big(x^{1/2}\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\big).
\ee
(2a) Further, if condition (\ref{thm101}) is replaced by the following: for any $0<\varepsilon<1$, there is an integer $M=M(\varepsilon)\ge2$ large enough such that
\be \label{thm102}
\sum_{n=M}^\infty p_n\overline{F^{*n}}(x)\le\varepsilon\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x),\ for\ all\ x\ge0,
\ee
then $F^{*\tau}\in \mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$.\\
(2b) Assume now that ${\mathbf E}\tau<\infty$. Then \eqref{thm102} implies that
\be \label{thm1020}
\liminf\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x)/\overline{F}(x)
=
{\mathbf E}\tau
\ge
2\liminf\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)
\ge
2\sum_{m=1}^\infty(p_{2m}+p_{2m+1})m.
\ee
Further, if condition
\begin{equation}\label{rem1040}
\sum_{m=1}^\infty\Big(\sum_{k=2(m-1)+1}^{2m}p_k\Big)\big(C^*(F^{*2})-1+\varepsilon_0\big)^m<\infty
\end{equation}
holds
for some $\varepsilon_0>0$, then
\be \label{thm1021}
2\limsup\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\le
2\sum_{m=1}^\infty m(p_{2m-1}+p_{2m})(C^*(F^{*2})-1)^{m-1}
<\infty
\ee
while $\limsup\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x)/\overline{F}(x)=\infty$.
(3) For any distribution $F\in\mathcal{F}_1(0)$, there is an infinitely divisible distribution $H$ such that $F$ is generated by its L$\acute{e}$vy measure and the following holds: $H\i
(\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS})\setminus\mathcal{S}$, while $F$ is neither
long-tailed nor generalised subexponential.
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}
Assume a random variable $\tau$ has a Poisson distribution with parameter
$\mu ={\mathbf E} \tau$. Let $r=(C^*(F^{*2})-1)^{1/2}$.
Direct computations show
that the lower bound in \eqref{thm1020} is equal to
$$
\mu + (1-e^{-2\mu})/2,
$$
and the upper bound in \eqref{thm1021} is equal to
$$
\frac{\mu+1}{2r}\left( e^{\mu (r-1)}-e^{-\mu (r+1)}\right)
+\frac{\mu}{2} \left(e^{\mu (r-1)} + e^{-\mu (r+1)}\right).
$$
The same (lower and upper)
bounds hold for the lower and upper limits of $2\overline{H}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)$
in
part (3) of Theorem \ref{th2}. In this case, $\mu$ is precisely given in the proof, see Section 3.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{gengen}
The following
condition
implies \eqref{thm1020}: there exist $n\ge 1$ and $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{rem104}
\sum_{m=1}^\infty\Big(\sum_{k=(m-1)n+1}^{mn}p_k\Big)\big(C^*(F^{*n})-1+\varepsilon_0\big)^m<\infty.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
One can see that condition \eqref{rem1040} is a particular case of
condition \eqref{rem104}, with $n=2$.
\begin{remark}\label{rem103}
Condition \eqref{rem104} holds if a distribution $G$ is either
Poisson ($p_k=\lambda^k e^{-\lambda}/(k!),\ k=0,1,\ldots$)
or Geometric
($p_k=qp^k,\ k=0,1,\ldots$, with $p <1/(C^*(F^{*n})-1+\varepsilon_0)$, for
some $\varepsilon_0>0$).
Note that \eqref{rem104} is a natural generalisation of
the classical sufficient condition for subexponentiality of a random sum
(where $n=1$ and $C^*(F)=2$), see e.g.
Theorem 4 in \cite{ChoNeyWai1973a} or Theorem 3 and its Remark in \cite{EmbGolVer1979}.
Clearly, a distribution $G$ satisfying \eqref{rem104} is light-tailed.
\end{remark}
Here is an example
of
a heavy-tailed distribution $G$ that satisfies condition \eqref{thm102}.
\begin{exam}\label{exam505} Let $n=1$. Assume $F\in\mathcal{D}$,
then by Theorem 3 of Daley et al. \cite{DOV2007}, there are two positive constants $C$ and $\alpha$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{509}
\sup_{x\ge0}\overline{F^{*k}}(x)/\overline{F}(x)\le Ck^{\alpha},\ for\ all\ k\ge1.
\end{eqnarray}
Take a counting random variable $\tau$ with distribution $G$ given by
${\mathbf P} (\tau=k)
p_k=Kk^{-\beta}$ for some $\beta>\alpha+2$, where
$K=\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k^{-\beta}\right)^{-1}$ is the normalising constant.
Clearly, condition (\ref{thm102}) takes place and $G$ is a heavy-tailed distribution. However, condition (\ref{rem104}) in Remark \ref{rem103}
does not hold.
\end{exam}
\begin{remark}\label{rem1030}
Note that all distributions $F$ considered in Theorem \ref{th2} are generalised
long-tailed,
that is
$\mathcal{F}_1(0)\subset\mathcal{OL}$. One may guess that such a
condition may be essential for $F^{*2}$ to be long-tailed. However, this is not
the case: we introduce below another family $\mathcal{F}_2(0)$ of heavy-tailed distributions $F$ such that $F\notin\mathcal{OL}$ while $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$
and, moreover, $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{OS}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{defin}\label{defin102}
Class $\mathcal{F}_2(0)$ is a 3-parametric family of heavy-tailed distributions
$F=F(\alpha,t,A)$ of random variables
\be \label{def201-1}
\xi=\eta^{1/t}(1+U)^{1/t}
\ee
with density $f=f(\alpha,t,A)$.
Here $t\in (1,2)$, $\alpha \in ((1-t)/t,1/t)$ and the sequence $A=\{a_n\}$ and
random variables $\eta$ and $U$ are defined
as in Definition \ref{defin101}.
\end{defin}
Properties of the class $\mathcal{F}_2(0)$ are summarised in the following proposition.
\begin{pron}\label{classF2}
Let $F\in \mathcal{F}_2(0)$, then
$F^{*n}\in \mathcal{L}\setminus \mathcal{S}$,
for all $n\ge 2$.
Further, for any $n\ge 2$, $F^{*n}\in\mathcal{OS}$ when $\alpha\in[1/2,1/t)$ and
$F^{*n}\notin\mathcal{OS}$ when $\alpha\in((t-1)/t,1/2)$, while $F\notin\mathcal{OL}$,
and therefore $F\notin\mathcal{L}\cup\mathcal{D}$.
\end{pron}
\begin{remark}
In addition, for the class $\mathcal{F}_2(0)$ with $\alpha\in[1/2,1/t)$, the natural analogues of statements (2) and (3) of Theorem \ref{th2} do hold.
\end{remark}
The {\bf proof of Proposition \ref{classF2}} is quite similar to that of Theorem \ref{th2}.
For the sake of completeness, we decided to give it in Subsection 4.2 of Appendix.
Theorem \ref{th2} and Proposition \ref{classF2} provide a good number of new examples of distributions
from the classes ${\mathcal L}\setminus {\mathcal S}$
and $(\mathcal {L}\cap\mathcal{OS})\setminus {\mathcal S}$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{remark}\label{Watanabe}
Watanabe and Yamamuro \cite{WY2010} commented in
Remark 2.3 that Shimura and Watanabe \cite{ShiWat2005b}
provided a counter-example to Conjecture 1.
Also, \cite{WY2010} pointed out that \cite{ShiWat2005b} did not find an answer to the corresponding Conjectures 2-3 related to
distributions of random sums (compound distribution or random convolution) and infinitely divisible distribution.
In addition, \cite{WY2010} stated that the class $\mathcal{OS}$ is not closed under
convolution roots, but we did not find any corresponding result for the intersection of the classes $\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$.
Recently we were in touch with Dr Shimura who has sent
us privately an unpublished English translation of Research
Report \cite{ShiWat2005b}. We have found that the counter-example there
seems to be correct, but is described implicitly, so it is difficult to follow. Also, the example
relates to a distribution that is neither absolutely continuous
nor discrete.
\end{remark}
Finally, we show that
the long-tailedness property is preserved under
convolution roots within the class $\mathcal{OS}$. Namely, the following result holds.
\begin{pron}\label{pron1}
If $F\in\mathcal{OS}$, then $F\in\mathcal{L}$ if and only if $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$.
\end{pron}
\section{Proofs of Theorem \ref{th1} and Corollary \ref{cor001}}
\setcounter{thm}{0}\setcounter{Corol}{0}\setcounter{lemma}{0}\setcounter{pron}{0}
\setcounter{remark}{0}\setcounter{exam}{0}\setcounter{equation}{0}\setcounter{property}{0}
In order to prove Theorem \ref{th1}, we first recall a number of known properties of long-tailed distributions. We consider here distributions on the whole real line.
The definition of the class $\mathcal{L}$ and the diagonal argument lead to the following result.
\begin{property}\label{property201}
Distribution $F$ is long-tailed if and only if there exists
a monotone increasing function $h(x)\uparrow\infty$ such that $h(x)<x$ and
$F(x-h(x),x+h(x)] = o(\overline{F}(x))$ (then we say that $\overline{F}$ is
$h$-{\it insensitive}).
\end{property}
See, e.g., \cite{FosKorZac2013}, Chapter 2 for Property 1 and for
$h$-insensitivity and other properties of class $\mathcal{L}$. Further, \cite{EmbGol1980} and \cite{EmbGol1982} show that the class $\mathcal{L}$ is closed under convolution and mixture.
\begin{property}\label{property202}
Let $F_1$ and $F_2$ be two distributions.\\
(1) Assume $F_1\in\mathcal{L}$. Then $F_1*F_2\in \mathcal{L}$
if either (a) $F_2\in\mathcal{L}$ or (b) $\overline{F_2}(x)=o(\overline{F_1}(x))$.
In the latter case, $\overline{F}_1(x) \sim \overline{F_1*F_2}(x)$.\\
(2) If $F_1,F_2\in\mathcal{L}$, then $pF_1+(1-p)F_2\in\mathcal{L}$, for any $p\in [0,1]$.
\end{property}
Albin \cite{Alb2008} and then Leipus and \v{S}iaulys \cite{LeiSia2012} extended
Property 2 (1) onto random convolutions.
\begin{property}\label{property203}
If $F\in\mathcal{L}$ and if
\eqref{1102}
holds for $n=1$ and for all $a>0$,
then $F^\tau\in \mathcal{L}$.
\end{property}
We proceed now with the
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{th1}.}
{\bf Proof of (1a).} First, we prove (\ref{1011}) for $i=1$.
By $H_n\in\mathcal{L}$,
we may choose $h(x)\uparrow\infty$ such that $\overline{H}_n$ is
$nh$-insensitive.
Then, by Property 1,
$$
{\mathbf P} \big(S_n\in (x-nh(x), x+nh(x)]\big) = o\big(\overline{H_n}(x)\big).
$$
Note that
$$
{\mathbf P}\big (S_n\in (x-nh(x), x+nh(x)]\big)\ge
{\mathbf P} \big(X_1\in (x-h(x), x+h(x)]\big)\cdot \prod_{j=2}^n
{\mathbf P} \big(X_j \in (-h(x), h(x)]\big)
$$
and
$${\mathbf P} \big(-h(x)< X_j \le h(x)\big)\to 1, \quad j=2,\ldots,n.$$
Then the first part of \eqref{1011} follows.
Since $H_1=F_1$, the second part follows too.
If $i>1$, then the proof of the first part of \eqref{1011} is the same.
For the second part, we may represent $S_n$ as a sum of mutually independent random
variables $S_n = S_i+X_{i+1}+\ldots + X_n$ and apply the arguments from
above.
\hfill$\Box$
{\bf Proof of (1b).} It is enough to prove the result for $m=1$ and $n=2$, and then use the
induction argument.
First, by monotonicity of distribution functions and since $F_1$ is
long-tailed, we
may obtain that $F_2(x-c,x+c] = o(\overline{F_1}(x))$ for any
$c>0$ and, therefore,
$$
\alpha_c (x)=: \sup_{y\ge x}\Big(F_2(x-c,x+c]/\overline{F_1}(y)\Big) \downarrow 0.
$$
Then one can use the diagonal argument to conclude that there
exists a positive function $h_1(x)\uparrow\infty$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{2h1}
F_2(x-2h_1(x),x+2h_1(x)]
= o(\overline{F_1}(x)).
\end{equation}
Further, since $F_1$
is long-tailed, one can find a function $h_2(x)\uparrow\infty$ such that $\overline{F_1}$
is $2h_2$-insensitive. Let $h(x)=\min (h_1(x),h_2(x))$. Then $\overline{F_1}$
is $2h$-insensitive and \eqref{2h1} holds with $h$ in place of $h_1$.
Let $X_1,X_2$ be two independent random variables where $X_1$ has distribution $F_1$ and
$X_2$ has distribution $F_2$. Then, for any $c>0$ and for $x$ such that $h(x)>c$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&F_1*F_2 (x-c,x+c] =
{\mathbf P} (X_1+X_2 \in (x-c, x+c]) \\
&\le &
F_2(x-2h(x), x] + \Big(
\int_{-\infty}^{x-2h(x)} + \int_{x}^{\infty}
\Big)
F_2(dy)F_1
(x-y-c, x-y+c].
\end{eqnarray*}
There are three terms on the right-hand side.
The first term is $o(\overline{F_1}(x))$, by condition \eqref{2h1}.
It is also $o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x))$ since
$\overline{F_1*F_2}(x) \ge \overline{F_1}(x_0)\overline{F_§}(x-x_0) \sim
\overline{F_1}(x_0)\overline{F_1}(x)$, where $x_0$ is any number such that
$\overline{F_2}(x_0)>0$.
Then the second term is not bigger than
$$
\alpha_c (2h(x)-c) \int_{-\infty}^{x-2h(x)}F_2(dy) \overline{F_1
(x-y)} \le \alpha_c (2h(x)-c) \overline{F_1*F_2}(x) = o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x)).
$$
Finally, the last term is not bigger than
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} F_2(x+kc, x+(k+1)c]
F_1(-(k+2)c, -(k-1)c] \\
&\le & 3 \sup_{y\ge x} F_2(y,y+c]F_1(c)\\
&=& o(\overline{F_1}(x))=o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x)).
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus $F_1*F_2\in\mathcal{L}$. \hfill$\Box$
{\bf Proof of (2).}
Assume first that $H_n\in\mathcal{L}$. Then, by property (1a),
${H_k}(x-c,x+c]=o(\overline{H_n}(x))$,
for all $k=1,\ldots,n$ and for any fixed $c>0$. Then
$$ H_{\tau}(x-c,x+c]
=
\sum_{k=1}^n p_k H_k(x-c,x+c]
= o(\overline{H_n}(x)),
$$
and $H_{\tau}\in \mathcal{L}$ follows.
Vice versa, if $H_{\tau}\in\mathcal{L}$, then
$$H_k(x-c,x+c]
\le {H}_{\tau}(x-c,x+c])/p_k =o(\overline{H}_{\tau}(x))
$$
for each $k$ such that $p_k>0$ and, in particular, for $k=n$. Let $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ be positive numbers
such that $\overline{F}_i(x_i)>0$.
Clearly,
$\overline{H}_{n}(x)\ge\overline{H_k}(x-\sum_{i=k+1}^n x_i)\prod_{i=k+1}^n\overline{F_i}(x_i),$
for all $k=1,\ldots,n-1$ and then
$$
\overline{H}_{\tau}(x) \le \sum_{k=1}^n p_k \overline{H_k}\Big(x-\sum_{i=k+1}^n x_i\Big)
\le
\overline{H_{n}}(x)/\Big(\prod_{i=1}^n\overline{F_i}(x_i)\Big).$$
Thus $H_n\in\mathcal{L}$ follows from
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_n (x-c,x+c]
=o(\overline{H}_{\tau}(x))= o(\overline{H_n}(x)).
\end{eqnarray*}
\hfill$\Box$
{\bf Proof of (3).} We may assume, without loss of generality, that $p_n={\mathbf P} (\tau =n)>0$.
Further, we may assume that ${\mathbf P}(\tau >n)>0$ -- otherwise
the result follows from the previous statement.
Let $P_n= {\mathbf P} (\tau \le n)=\sum_{k=0}^np_k$ and
$Q_n={\mathbf P} (\tau >n)=\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}p_k$.
Further, let $H^{(1)}(x)=\sum_{k=1}^n p_k H_k(x)/P_n$
and $H^{(2)}(x)=\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty} p_k H_k(x)/Q_n$. Since $H=P_nH^{(1)}+Q_nH^{(2)}$,
it is enough to show that both $H^{(1)}$ and $H^{(2)}$ are long-tailed -- see Property 2 (2).
By the previous statement (2), we have $H^{(1)}\in\mathcal{L}$. Then the argument from
\cite{LeiSia2012} implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{H^{(2)}}(x-1)
&=& \sum_{n+1\le k \le (x-x_0)/(x_0-1)} p_k\overline{H_{k}}(x-1)/Q_n
+\sum_{k > (x-x_0)/(x_0-1)} p_k\overline{H_{k}}(x-1)/Q_n\\
&\le & (1+\varepsilon )\overline{H^{(2)}}(x) +
\sum_{k > (x-x_0)/(x_0-1)} p_k{H_{k}}((x-1,x])/Q_n\\
&\le &
(1+\varepsilon )\overline{H^{(2)}}(x) +
\frac{\overline{G}((x-x_0)/(x_0-1))}{Q_n\sqrt{(x-x_0)/(x_0-1)}} \\
&=&
(1+\varepsilon )\overline{H^{(2)}}(x) +
o(\overline{H^{(2)}}(x)).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\varepsilon >0$ is arbitrary, the distribution $H^{(2)}$ is long-tailed.\hfill$\Box$
{\bf Proof of (4)}.
By part (1) of the theorem, there exists a function $h(x)\uparrow \infty$ such that
$\overline{F_1*F_2}$ is $h$-insensitive and
$\overline{F_1}(x-h(x))-\overline{F_1}(x)=o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x))$.
Then
$$
\int_{x-h(x)}^x F_1(dy) \overline{F}_2(x-y)
\le F_1(x-h(x),x]
=o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x))
$$
and, similarly, $\int_{x-h(x)}^x F_1(dy) \overline{L_2}(x-y)
= o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x))$.\\
Next,
$$
\overline{F_1*F_2}(x)/\overline{F}_1(x)\sim
\overline{F_1*F_2}(x-h(x))/\overline{F}_1(x)
\ge \overline{F}_1(x)\overline{F}_2(-h(x)) /\overline{F}_1(x) = 1-o(1)
$$
and then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{F}_1(x) &\ge& \left(
\int_x^{x+h(x)} + \int_{x+h(x)}^{\infty} \right)
F_1(dy) \overline{F}_2(x-y)\\
&\ge& o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x)) +\int_{x+h(x)}^{\infty}F_1(dy)\overline{F}_2(-h(x))\\
&=& o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x)) + (\overline{F}_1(x+h(x))
-\overline{F}_1(x)) (1+o(1))+\overline{F}_1(x)(1+o(1))
\\
&=& o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x))+ \overline{F}_1(x).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, $\int_x^{\infty} F_1(dy)\overline{F}_2(x-y) =
\overline{F}_1(x) + o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x))$ and the same holds with
$L_2$ in place of $F_2$ in the left-hand side of the latter
equality.
Further, due to the monotonicity of distribution functions,
$\overline{F}_2(x-y)\sim \overline{L_2}(x-y)$ uniformly in
${x-y}\ge h(x)$. Therefore
$$
\int_{-\infty}^{x-h(x)}F_1(dy)\overline{F}_2(x-y) \sim
\int_{-\infty}^{x-h(x)}F_1(dy)\overline{L_2}(x-y).
$$
Finally,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{F_1*L_2}(x) &=&
\int_x^{\infty} F_1(dy)\overline{L_2}(x-y) +\int_{-\infty}^{x-h(x)} F_1(dy)
\overline{L_2}(x-y) +
\int_{x-h(x)}^x F_1(dy) \overline{L_2}(x-y)\\
&\sim&
\int_x^{\infty} F_1(dy)\overline{F}_2(x-y)
+ \int_{-\infty}^{x-h(x)}F_1(dy) \overline{F}_2(x-y)
+o(\overline{F_1*F_2}(x))\\
&\sim &
\overline{F_1*F_2}(x),
\end{eqnarray*}
and therefore $F_1*L_2\in\mathcal{L}$.\hfill$\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Corollary \ref{cor001}.}
We need to prove statements (1), (3) and (4) only.
{\bf Proof of (1).} If $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$, then by statement (1a) of Theorem \ref{th1}, $\overline{F}(x-t)-\overline{F}(x+t)
= o(\overline{F^{*2}}(x))$ for any $t>0$. Further, by statement (1b) of
Theorem \ref{th1}, we have $F^{*3}= F^{*2}*F \in \mathcal{L}$. Then Property 2 and
the induction argument complete the proof. \hfill$\Box$\\
{\bf Proof of (3).} Condition \eqref{concentration} follows from \cite{Pet1995}, Theorem 2.22.
So we have to verify \eqref{tail} only.
Due to Lemma 2.1 from \cite{Alb2008} or Lemma 4 from \cite{LeiSia2012}, for any long-tailed distribution $V$
and for any $\varepsilon >0$,
there is
$x_0>1$ such that, for all
$i\ge1$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{304}
\sup_{x\ge
n(x_0-1)+x_0}\overline{V^{*n}}(x-1)/\overline{V^{*n}}(x)\le
1+\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, if there are, say, $m$ long-tailed distributions $V_1,\ldots,V_m$, then
\eqref{304} holds again for some $x_0>1$ and for any $V_i$ in place of $V$. Using similar
arguments, one can also show that , for any $i\ge 1$, inequalities \eqref{304}
hold for $U_n$ in place of $V^{*n}$ where $U_n$ is any convolution of $n$ distribution
functions taken from the set $\{V_1,\ldots, V_m\}$ -- namely, $U_n=V_1^{*j_1}*\ldots
*V_m^{*j_m}$ where $j_1+\ldots +j_m=n$. As the corollary, we may take $m=n$ and then
$V_l=F^{*(n+l)}$, for $l=1,\ldots,n$, to conclude that inequalities \eqref{304}
continue to hold for $i\ge n$, with $F^{*n}$ in place of $V^{*n}$.\hfill$\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
{\bf Proof of (4).} We have to apply part (4) of Theorem \ref{th1} twice, first to move
from
$F^{*2}$ to $F*L$ and then from $F*L$ to $L^{*2}$.
\hfill$\Box$
\section{Proofs of Theorem \ref{th2}, Proposition \ref{pron1} and Lemma \ref{gengen}}
\setcounter{thm}{0}\setcounter{Corol}{0}\setcounter{lemma}{0}\setcounter{pron}{0}
\setcounter{remark}{0}\setcounter{exam}{0}\setcounter{equation}{0}\setcounter{property}{0}
We start with a simple auxiliary result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem301}
Assume that a distribution $F$ is absolutely continuous with density $f$. If
\begin{equation}\label{301}
f(x) = o(\overline{F}(x))\ a.e.,
\end{equation}
then $F$ is long-tailed.\hfill$\Box$
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Indeed, let $\varepsilon(x) = \sup_{y\ge x} f(y)/
\overline F(y)$. Since $\varepsilon(x)\downarrow 0$, we have
$$\overline F(x+1)\leq\overline F(x)=\overline {F}(x+1)+\int_{x}^{x+1}f(y)dy
\leq\overline F(x+1)+\varepsilon(x)\overline F(x),$$
and the result follows. \hfill$\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{th2}.} Start with {\bf Proof of (1).} Recall that $F\notin\mathcal{L}$ implies
with necessity that $F^{*n}\notin\mathcal{S}$ for all $n\ge2$.
Then, by Corollary \ref{cor001} of the present paper and Proposition 2.6 from [25], we only need to prove
that $F\notin\mathcal{L}\cup\mathcal{OS}$, $F\in\mathcal{OL}$ and $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$.
First, we find closed-form representations for distribution $F$ and its density $f$.
Clearly, $\eta\leq\xi\leq2^{t}\eta$. Since
\be
\label{exam201-2}\textbf{E}\eta^{s}=C\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n^{s-\alpha}<\infty
\ee
if and only if $s<\alpha$, the same holds for $\xi$, and distribution $F$ is
heavy-tailed with infinite mean. Further, by \eqref{exam201-1} we have,
for $n\ge1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&F(a_n,x]\textbf{I}(x\in [a_n,a_{n+1}))\\
&=&
\textbf{P}(\eta=a_n)\textbf{P}(1<(1+U^{1/b})^t\le x/a_n)
\Big(\textbf{I}(x\in[a_n,2^ta_n))+\textbf{I}(x\in[2^ta_n,a_{n+1}))\Big)\\
&=&
Ca_n^{-\alpha}\Big((a_n^{-1}x)^{1/t}-1\Big)^{b}\textbf{I}(x\in[a_n,2^ta_n))
+C a_n^{-\alpha}\textbf{I}(x\in[2^ta_n,a_{n+1})).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{exam201-4}
f(x)=Cbt^{-1}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}x^{1/t-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1/t}
\Big((xa_n^{-1})^{1/t}-1\Big)^{b-1}\textbf{I}(x\in [a_n,2^ta_n))
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{exam201-5}
\overline{F}(x)&=&\textbf{I}(x<
a_0)+\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\Big(\textbf{P}(\xi\in(a_n,a_{n+1}])-\textbf{P}(\xi\in(a_n,x])
+\textbf{P}(\xi>a_{n+1})\Big)\textbf{I}(x\in[a_n,2^ta_n))\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \
+\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\Big(\textbf{P}(\xi\in(2^ta_n,a_{n+1}])-\textbf{P}(\xi\in(2^ta_n,x])
+\textbf{P}(\xi>a_{n+1})\Big)\textbf{I}(x\in[2^ta_n,a_{n+1}))\nonumber\\
&=&\textbf{I}(x<
a_0)+\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\Bigg(\bigg(\sum\limits_{i=n}^{\infty}
Ca_i^{-\alpha}-Ca_n^{-\alpha}\Big((x/a_n)^{1/t}-1\Big)^{b}\bigg)
\textbf{I}(x\in[a_n,2^ta_n))\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \
+\sum\limits_{i=n+1}^{\infty}Ca_i^{-\alpha}\textbf{I}(x\in[2^ta_n,
a_{n+1}))\Bigg),\ \ \ x\in(-\infty,\infty).
\end{eqnarray}
Now, we prove that $F\in\mathcal{OL}\backslash\mathcal{L}$. Note that
$a_{n+1}a_n^{-2}\to\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, so for any $K>0$,
\be\label{exam201-6}\sum_{n\geq N}a_n^{-K}\sim a_N^{-K},
\ \ \overline F(a_n)\sim \textbf{P}(\eta=a_n)\ \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\textbf{P}(\eta>a_n)=o(\textbf{P}^2(\eta=a_n)).\ee
From (\ref{exam201-5}) and (\ref{exam201-6}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline F(2^ta_n)\sim
\textbf{P}(\eta=a_{n+1})=Ca_{n+1}^{-\alpha}=Ca_n^{-1-\alpha}
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline F(2^ta_n-1)-\overline F(2^ta_n)=
Ca_n^{-\alpha}\lo(1-\lo((2^t-a_n^{-1})^{1/t}-1\ro)^b\ro)
\sim Cbt^{-1}2^{-t+1}a_n^{-\alpha-1},
\end{eqnarray*}
as $n\to\infty$. Therefore
\be\label{exam201-7}
\limsup_{x\to\infty} \overline F(x-1)/\overline F(x)=bt^{-1}2^{-t+1}+1,
\ee
so $F\notin\mathcal{L}$, but $F\in\mathcal{OL}$.
Next, we prove that $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$.
Let $(\eta_i,U_i)$, $i = 1,2$ be two independent
copies of $(\eta,U)$, and let $\xi_i = \eta_i(1+{U_i}^{1/b})^t$ and $S_2= \xi_1
+ \xi_2$. The random variable $S_2$ has an absolutely continuous
distribution, say, $H = F^{*2}$ with density function
\begin{eqnarray}\label{exam201-8}
h(x)=\int_{0}^{x}f(y)f(x-y)dy=2\int_{x/2}^{x}f(y)f(x-y)dy,\
x\in(-\infty,\infty).
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, $h(x) > 0$ if and only if $a_n+a_0 < x < 2^{t+1}a_n$, for $n =
0,1,\ldots$.
According to Lemma \ref{lem301}, it is enough to show that
\be
\label{exam201-9}h(x)=o(\overline H(x)).
\ee
We consider two cases: (i) $
x\in J_{n,1}=[a_n+a_0,3\cdot2^{t-1}a_n)$ and (ii) $ x\in
J_{n,2}=[3\cdot2^{t-1}a_n,2^{t+1}a_n)$
for $n = 0,1,\ldots$.
In the case (i), representations (\ref{exam201-4}) and (\ref{exam201-8})
lead to
\begin{eqnarray*}
h(x)&\le&2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1/t}\int_{a_n}^{2^{t}a_n}y^{1/t-1}
\Big((ya_n^{-1})^{1/t}-1\Big)^{b-1}f(x-y)dy
\\
&\le&2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1}\int_{a_n}^{2^{t}a_n}f(x-y)dy\le2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1},
\end{eqnarray*}
while by (\ref{exam201-5})
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline H(x)\ge\overline F^2(x/2)\ge\overline F^2(3\cdot2^{t-2}a_n)\ge
C^2a_n^{-2\alpha}\bigg(1-\Big(2\cdot(3\cdot4^{-1})^{1/t}-1\Big)^b\bigg)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\alpha < 1$, $\sup_{x\in J_{n,1}}h(x)/H(x) \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
In the case (ii), representations (\ref{exam201-4}) and (\ref{exam201-8})
imply that
\begin{eqnarray*}
h(x)&=&2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1/t}\int_{2^{-1}x}^{2^ta_n}
y^{1/t-1}\Big((ya_n^{-1})^{1/t}-1\Big)^{b-1}f(x-y)dy
\\
&\le&2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1}\int_{x-2^ta_n}^{x/2}f(y)dy \\
&\le&2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1}\overline
F(2^{t-1}a_n)\le2C^2bt^{-1}a_n^{-2\alpha-1},
\end{eqnarray*}
and by (\ref{exam201-5}) we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline H(x)\ge\overline F(x)\ge Ca_n^{-\alpha-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then again $\sup_{x\in J_{n,2}}h(x)/H(x) \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
We may conclude that $(\ref{exam201-9})$ holds, therefore
$F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$.
In order to prove $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{OS}$, we only need to show that
\be\label{309}
T(x)=\int_{x/2}^{x}\overline{H}(x-y)h(y)dy=O(\overline H(x)).
\ee
It is clear that $T(x)>0$ if and only if $a_n+a_0 < x < 2^{t+2}a_n$, for $n =
0,1,\cdot\cdot\cdot$.
By (\ref{exam201-4}) and (\ref{exam201-8}), it is easy to see that,
for $n=0,1,\ldots$ , if $x\in [a_n+a_0,2^{t}a_n)$, then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{exam501-2}
h(x)=
2\int_{a_n}^{x}f(x-y)f(y)dy\le2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1},
\end{eqnarray}
and if $x\in [2^{t}a_n,2^{t+1}a_n)$, then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{exam501-3}
h(x)=
2\int_{x/2}^{2^{t}a_n}f(x-y)f(y)dy\leq2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1}\overline F(x-2^{t}a_n).
\end{eqnarray}
Then we estimate $T(x)$ separately in three cases: (i) $
x\in [a_n+a_0,3\cdot2^{t-1}a_n)$, (ii) $ x\in [3\cdot2^{t-1}a_n,2^{t+1}a_n)$ and (iii) $ x\in [2^{t+1}a_n,2^{t+2}a_n)$ for $n = 0,1,\ldots$.
In the case (i), representations (\ref{exam201-5}), (\ref{exam501-2}) and (\ref{exam501-3})
lead to
\begin{eqnarray*}
T(x)/\overline{H}(x)&\le&\max_{y\in[x/2,x]}\{h(y)\}\int_{x/2}^{x}\overline{H}(x-y)dy/
\overline{F}^2(2^{-1}x)\nonumber\\
&\le&2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1}\int_{0}^{3\cdot2^{t-2}a_n}\overline{H}(y)dy/\overline{F}^2(3\cdot2^{t-2}a_n)
<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
In the case (ii), representations (\ref{exam201-5}), (\ref{exam501-2}) and (\ref{exam501-3}) imply that
\begin{eqnarray*}
T(x)/\overline{H}(x)&\le&\Big(\int_{x/2}^{2^{t}a_n}
+\int_{2^{t}a_n}^{x}\Big)\overline{H}(x-y)h(y)dy/
\Big(\overline{F}(x)+\int_{x/2}^{x}\overline{F}(x-y)F(dy)\Big)\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&2bt^{-1}\int_{x/2}^{2^{t}a_n}\overline{H}(x-y)dy/
\Big(1+\int_{x/2}^{2^{t}a_n}\overline{F}(x-y)dy\Big)\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ +2bt^{-1}\int_{2^{t}a_n}^{x}\overline{H}(x-y)\overline{F}(y-2^{t}a_n)dy\nonumber\\
&\leq&4bt^{-1}\int_{x-2^{t}a_n}^{x/2}\Big(\overline{F}(y)+\int_{y/2}^{y}\overline{F}(y-z)F(dz)\Big)dy/
\Big(1+\int_{x-2^{t}a_n}^{x/2}\overline{F}(y)dy\Big)\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ +2bt^{-1}\Big(\int_{0}^{x/2-2^{t-1}a_n}+
\int_{x/2-2^{t-1}a_n}^{x-2^{t}a_n}\Big)\overline{H}(y)\overline{F}(x-2^{t}a_n-y)dy\nonumber\\
&\leq&4bt^{-1}\Big(1+2Cbt^{-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1}(2^{t}a_n-2^{-1}x)
\int_{0}^{4^{-1}x}\overline{F}(z)dz\Big)
\nonumber\\& &\ \ \ \ \ \ +2bt^{-1}\Big(\overline{F}(2^{t-2}a_n)\int_{0}^{2^{t-1}a_n}\overline{H}(y)dy+
\overline{H}(2^{t-2}a_n)\int_{0}^{2^{t-1}a_n}\overline{F}(y)dy\Big)\nonumber\\
&\leq&4bt^{-1}+O(a_n^{2\alpha-1})<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
Recall that, for two positive functions $f$ and $g$, notation $f(x) \lesssim g(x)$ means that $\limsup_{x\to\infty} f(x)/g(x) \le 1$.
In the case (iii), representations (\ref{exam201-5}) and (\ref{exam501-3}) show that
\begin{eqnarray*}
T(x)/\overline{H}(x)&=&\int_{x/2}^{2^{t+1}a_n}\overline{H}(x-y)h(y)dy/\overline{H}(x)\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&bt^{-1}\int_{2^{t}a_n}^{2^{t+1}a_n}\overline{H}(2^{t+1}a_n-y)\overline F(y-2^{t}a_n)dy
\nonumber\\&=&bt^{-1}\Big(\int_{0}^{2^{t-1}a_n}+\int_{2^{t-1}a_n}^{2^{t}a_n}\Big)\overline{H}(y)\overline F(2^{t}a_n-y)dy\nonumber\\&\leq&bt^{-1}\overline F(2^{t-1}a_n)\int_{0}^{2^{t-1}a_n}\overline{H}(y)dy
+bt^{-1}\overline{H}(2^{t-1}a_n)\int_{0}^{2^{t-1}a_n}\overline F(y)dy\nonumber\\
&=&O(a_n^{2\alpha-1})<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
We may conclude that (\ref{309}) holds, therefore $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{OS}$.
Finally, since
$F\notin\mathcal{L}$ and $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$, Proposition \ref{pron1} leads
to the conclusion that $F\notin\mathcal{OS}$.
\hfill$\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
{\bf Proof of (2).} Since $F\notin\mathcal{L}$, we have $F^{*\tau}\notin\mathcal{S}$,
by \cite{EmbGolVer1979}.
Under condition (\ref{thm101}), $F^{*\tau}\in\mathcal{L}$ follows from $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$ and part (3) of Theorem \ref{th1}.
Under condition (\ref{thm102}) with any fixed $0<\varepsilon<1$ and $M=M(\varepsilon)\ge n$ large enough, Corollary \ref{cor001} implies that
$$(1-\varepsilon)\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x-1)\le\sum_{n=1}^M p_n\overline{F^{*n}}(x-1)\le(1+\varepsilon)\sum_{n=1}^M p_n\overline{F^{*n}}(x)\le(1+\varepsilon)\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x),$$
for $x$ large enough. Since $\varepsilon >0$ is arbitrary, we get
$F^{*\tau}\in\mathcal{L}$.
Further, we prove that $F^{*\tau}\in\mathcal{OS}$ under condition (\ref{thm102}). Without loss of generality, we may assume that $p_M>0$. By $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{OS}$ and Proposition 2.6 in \cite{ShiWat2005}, we have $F^{*M}\in\mathcal{OS}$. Further, by (\ref{thm102}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
(1-\varepsilon)\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x)&\le&\sum_{i=1}^Mp_i\overline{F^{*i}}(x)=O(\overline{F^{*M}}(x)).
\end{eqnarray*}
On the other hand, relation $\overline{F^{*M}}(x)=O(\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x))$ is clear.
Therefore, $F^{*\tau}\in\mathcal{OS}$ follows from $F^{*M}\in\mathcal{OS}$.
Next, we prove (\ref{thm1020}). Recall that all distributions from the class
$\mathcal{F}_1(0)$ are supported by the positive half-line.
Since ${\mathbf E}X_1=\infty$ and
${\mathbf E}\tau<\infty$, Theorem 1 of Denisov et al. \cite{DenFosKor2008} implies the first equality in \eqref{thm1020} (see also \cite{Rud1973}, for a particular case of power
tails). Then the first inequality in \eqref{thm1020}
follows, say, by \cite{FosKor2007}. Further, since $\tau \ge 2 [\tau /2]$ a.s.
(here $[x]$ is the integer part of $x$),
the second inequality is straightforward:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\liminf\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)
&\ge &
\liminf\overline{F^{*2[\tau /2]}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\\
&= &
\liminf\sum_{m=1}^\infty(p_{2m}+p_{2m+1})\overline{F^{*2m}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\\
&\ge &
\sum_{m=1}^\infty(p_{2m}+p_{2m+1})\liminf \overline{F^{*2m}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)
=\sum_{m=1}^\infty(p_{2m}+p_{2m+1})m,
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last equality follows again by \cite{DenFosKor2008}.
Finally, we prove (\ref{thm1021}). Since $F\notin\cal{OS}$ and $F$ is supported by the
positive half-line, the last equality in
\eqref{thm1021} follows. By $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$ and the
corresponding Kesten$^{,}$s type inequality, see Lemma 5 in \cite{YW2014}, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there is a constant $K=K(\varepsilon)>0$ such that, for all $n\ge1$ and $x\ge0$,
$$\overline{F^{*2m}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\le
K(C^*(F^{*2})-1+\varepsilon )^m.$$
Further, by Lemma 4 or Remark 2 in \cite{YW2014}, for all $m\ge1$,
$$\limsup\overline{F^{*2m}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\le m(C^*(F^{*2})-1)^{m-1}.$$
Thus, by condition (\ref{rem104}) with $n=2$ and the dominated convergence theorem, we obtain the first inequality in (\ref{thm1021}):
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)
&\le& \limsup\overline{F^{*2[(\tau +1)/2]}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\\
&=&\limsup\sum_{m=1}^\infty(p_{2m-1}+p_{2m})\overline{F^{*2m}}(x)/\overline{F^{*2}}(x)\nonumber\\
&\le&\sum_{m=1}^\infty m(p_{2m-1}+p_{2m})(C^*(F^{*2})-1)^{m-1}<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\hfill$\Box$
{\bf Proof of (3).} Let $H$ be an infinitely divisible distribution on the positive half-line.
The Laplace transform of $H$ is given by
$$
\int_0^\infty \exp\{-\lambda
y\}H(dy)=\exp\{-a\lambda-\int_0^\infty(1-e^{\lambda y})\upsilon(dy)\}
$$
where $a\ge0$ is a constant and the L$\acute{e}$vy
measure $\upsilon$ is a Borel measure supported by $(0,\infty)$ with the
properties $\mu=\upsilon((1,\infty))<\infty$ and $\int_0^1y\upsilon(dy)
<\infty$ -- see, for example, Feller \cite{Fel1971}, page 450. Let
$F(x)=\mu^{-1}\upsilon(x)=\mu^{-1}\upsilon((0,x])$ for $x>0$.
It is well-known that the distribution $H$ admits the
representation $H=H^{(1)}*H^{(2)}$, where
$\overline {H^{(1)}}(x)=O(e^{-\beta x})$ for
some $\beta>0$ and
$$
H^{(2)}(x)=e^{-\mu}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{\mu^n}{n!}F^{*n}(x).
$$
Let a random variable $\tau$ have a Poisson distribution,
$p_n=e^{-\mu}\frac{\mu^n}{n!}$ for $n=0,1,\cdots$.
Take a distribution
$F\in\mathcal{F}_1(0)$.
Since a Poisson distribution has unbounded support
and is light-tailed, condition (\ref{rem104}) is fulfilled and
$H^2\in\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$, by part (2) of Theorem \ref{th1}.
Since $H^{(1)}$ is light-tailed, we have $\overline{H}(x)\sim \overline{H^{(2)}}(x)$,
by Property \ref{property202}. Then, clearly, $H\in\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$.
Since distribution $G$ is Poisson, condition \eqref{thm1021} holds.
Finally, since $F\notin\mathcal{S}$,
Theorem 1 of Embrechts et al. \cite{EmbGolVer1979} leads to $H\notin\mathcal{S}$
\hfill$\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Proposition \ref{pron1}.} By Theorem 3.1 (b) of Embrechts and Goldie \cite{EmbGolVer1979}, we
need to prove the implication $\Leftarrow$ only.
By $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$ and Corollary \ref{cor001} (2),
we know that $G_2=:pF+qF^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$ for any $p+q=1$ and $0<q<1$. Further,
since $F\in\mathcal{OS}$, we have $\overline{G_2}(x)=O(\overline{F}(x))$.
Therefore, $F\in\mathcal{L}$ follows from Lemma 2.4 of Yu et al. \cite{YWY2010}.\hfill$\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Lemma \ref{gengen}.}
By $F^{*n}\in\mathcal{L}\cap\mathcal{OS}$ and Lemma 5 of Yu and Wang \cite{YW2014}, for any $0<\varepsilon_0<1$, there exists a constant $K=K(\varepsilon_0)>0$ such that, for all $x>0$ ang $m\ge1$,
$$
\overline{F^{*mn}}(x)\le K(C^*(F^{*n})-1+\varepsilon_0)^m\overline{F^{*n}}(x).
$$
Then, by (\ref{rem104}), for any $0<\varepsilon<1$, there exists an integer $M_0=M_0(\varepsilon)>1$ large enough such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=(M_0-1)n}^\infty p_k\overline{F^{*k}}(x)\le\sum_{m=M}^\infty \Big(\sum_{k=(m-1)n+1}^{mn}p_k\Big)\overline{F^{*mn}}(x)\le\varepsilon\overline{F^{*\tau}}(x).
\end{eqnarray*}
Take $M=(M_0-1)n$, then (\ref{thm102}) holds.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\hfill$\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
{\bf Acknowledgement.}
The authors thank Dima Korshunov for bringing
our attention to the Embrechts-Goldie's conjecture and to the related problem for
infinitely divisible distributions, and for influential comments.
We thank Paul Embrechts for a number of useful remarks and for the additional bibliographical data. We also thank Takaaki Shimura for his translation and sending to us the English version of Report \cite{ShiWat2005b}, and Stan Zachary for his comments on the Introductory part of the paper.
Finally, the authors are most grateful to two referees for
their valuable comments and suggestions.
\section{Appendix}
\setcounter{thm}{0}\setcounter{Corol}{0}\setcounter{lemma}{0}\setcounter{pron}{0}
\setcounter{remark}{0}\setcounter{exam}{0}\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{On condition (\ref{101})}
The following two examples show the feasibility of condition (\ref{101}).
\begin{exam}\label{exam501}
Take a distribution $G_1$ given by
$$\overline{G_1}(x)=\textbf{\emph{I}}(x<0)+e^{-\sqrt{x}}\textbf{\emph{I}}(x\ge0).$$
Xu et al. \cite{XSWC2014} in their Example 2.1 introduce
a distribution $F_1$ on the positive half-line
such that, for $x\in(-\infty,\infty)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{F_1}(x)&=&\overline{G}_1(x)\textbf{\emph{I}}(x<x_1)+
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\Big(\overline{G}_1(x_n)\textbf{\emph{I}}(x_n\le x<y_n)+\overline{G}_1(x)\textbf{\emph{I}}(y_n\le x<x_{n+1})\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\{x_n,n\ge1\}$ and $\{y_n, n\ge 1\}$ are two sequences of positive constants satisfying $x_n<y_n<x_{n+1}$ and $\overline{G}_1(x_n)=2\overline{G}_1(y_n),\ n\ge1$. One
can easily verify that
$F_1\in\mathcal{OL}\setminus\mathcal{L}$ and $\overline{F_1}(x)\asymp\overline{G_1}(x)$,
that is $0< \liminf \overline{G}_1(x)/\overline{F}_1(x)
\le \limsup \overline{G}_1(x)/\overline{F}_1(x)<\infty.$
Further, take a distribution $F_2$ such that
$$
\overline{F_2}(x)=\textbf{\emph{I}}(x<0)+\overline{G_1}(x)\textbf{\emph{I}}(x\ge0)/\log(x+2).
$$
Clearly, $F_2\in\mathcal{S}\subset\mathcal{L}$, $\overline{F_2}(x)=o(\overline{F_1}(x))$ and condition (\ref{101}) holds. Then Remark \ref{eq-eq} or, equivalently, part (1b)
of Theorem \ref{th1} imply that
$F_1*F_2\in\mathcal{L}$.\hfill$\Box$
\end{exam}
\begin{exam}\label{exam503}
Assume $\overline{F_2}(x)=x^{-\alpha}$ for $x\ge 1$, where
$\alpha >0$. Let $1> \varepsilon_n\downarrow 0$ be any decreasing sequence. Given
two sequences $\{a_n,n\ge1\}$ and $\{b_n,n\ge1\}$ such that
$$
1=a_1<b_1<\ldots< a_n<b_n<a_{n+1}<b_{n+1}<\ldots,
$$
we let
$$
\overline{F_1}(x)=\textbf{\emph{I}}(x<a_1)+\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}c_n
\textbf{\emph{I}}(x\in[a_n,b_n])
+\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}d_nx^{-2\alpha}\textbf{\emph{I}}(x\in(b_n,
a_{n+1})).
$$
Here $c_1=1$, $d_n=c_nb_n^{2\alpha}$ and $c_{n+1}=d_na_{n+1}^{-2\alpha}\varepsilon_{n}.$
Then we may determine sequences $\{a_n,n\ge1\}$ and $\{b_n,n\ge1\}$ recursively in such a way that
\begin{equation}\label{anbn}
\frac{\overline{F_1}(b_n)}{\overline{F_2}(b_n)}=c_nb_n^{\alpha}=2^n\rightarrow\infty \quad \mbox{and}
\quad
\frac{\overline{F_1}(a_n-0)}{\overline{F_2}(a_n)}=d_{n-1}a_n^{-\alpha}=2^{-n+1}\rightarrow0, \quad\ \ as\ \ n\to\infty.
\end{equation}
Informally, we proceed as follows. Let $a_1=c_1=1$ and choose $b_1$ such that
$\overline{F_2}(b_1)=1/2$, then $d_1=b_1^{2\alpha}$. Then choose $a_2$ such that
$d_1a_2^{-2\alpha}=2^{-1}a_2^{-\alpha}$ and then
$c_{2}=d_1a_2^{-2\alpha}\varepsilon_1$. By the induction argument, given
$a_n$ and $c_n$, we keep $F_1(x)$ constant in the interval $[a_n,b_n]$. Since
$\overline{G}$ decreases to 0 continuously, we may choose $b_n$ so large
that the first equation in \eqref{anbn} holds. Then, by the symmetric argument,
we may choose $a_{n+1}$ so large that the second equation in \eqref{anbn} holds,
with $a_{n+1}$ in place of $a_n$.
One can see that $F_1\notin \mathcal{OL}$. However, condition (\ref{101}) is satisfied, thus $F=F_1*F_2\in\mathcal{L}$, by
Remark \ref{eq-eq} or
part (1b) of Theorem \ref{th1}.
\hfill$\Box$
\end{exam}
\subsection{Sketch of the Proof of Proposition \ref{classF2}}
The proof mostly follows the lines of the proof of Theorem \ref{th2}, so we provide
its sketch only, and also a complete proof of the last new statement.
We first analyse the distribution $F$ of the random variable $\xi$ and its density $f$.
Clearly, $\eta^{1/t}\leq\xi\leq(2\eta)^{1/t}$. Since
$$
\textbf{E}\eta^{s/t}=C\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n^{s/t-\alpha}<\infty
$$
if and only if $s < t\alpha$, the same holds for $\xi$, and the distribution
$F$ is heavy-tailed with infinite mean.
Next, for all $x$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\textbf{P}(a_n^{1/t}<\xi\le
x)\textbf{I}(x\in[a_n^{1/t},a_{n+1}^{1/t}))\\
&=&C
a_n^{-\alpha}\lo(a_n^{-1}x^{t}-1\ro)\textbf{I}(x\in[a_n^{1/t},(2a_n)^{1/t}))
+C a_n^{-\alpha}\textbf{I}(x\in[(2a_n)^{1/t},a_{n+1}^{1/t})),
\end{eqnarray*}
then
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(x)=Ct \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}x^{t-1}a_n^{-\alpha-1}\textbf{I}(x\in
[a_n^{1/t},(2a_n)^{1/t}))
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{F}(x)&=&\textbf{I}(x< a_0)
+C\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\Big(\big(\sum\limits_{i=n}^{\infty}
a_i^{-\alpha}-a_n^{-\alpha}(a_n^{-1} x^t-1)\big)\textbf{I}(x\in
[a_n^{t^{-1}},(2a_n)^{t^{-1}}))\nonumber\\
&&+\sum\limits_{i=n+1}^{\infty}a_i^{-\alpha}\textbf{I}(x\in[(2a_n)^{1/t},a_{n+1}^{1/t}))\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we follow the lines of the proof of Theorem \ref{th2} to show that
$F\notin\mathcal{OL}$ and that $F^{*2}\in\mathcal{L}$, by considering again
the three cases.
Then we come to the proof of the two last statements:
$F^{*2}\in\mathcal{OS}$ if $\alpha\in[1/2,1/t)$, and
$F^{*2}\notin\mathcal{OS}$ if $\alpha\in(1-1/t,1/2)$.
The proof in the case
$\alpha\in[1/2,1/t)$ is again analogous to the corresponding part of the proof
of Theorem \ref{th2},
so we turn to the proof of the latter result.
Let again $H=F^{*2}$, $h$ be the density of $H$, and $
T(x)=\int_{x/2}^x \overline{H}(x-y)h(y)dy$. For $\alpha\in(1-1/t,1/2)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&T(2(2a_n)^{1/t})/\overline{H}(2(2a_n)^{1/t})\nonumber\\
&\geq&\int_{(2^{1/t}+1)a_n^{1/t}}^{2(2a_n)^{1/t}}2\overline{H}(2(2a_n)^{1/t}-y)
\int_{y/2}^{(2a_n)^{1/t}}f(y-z)f(z)dzdy/\overline{H}(2(2a_n)^{1/t})\nonumber\\
&\gtrsim&ta_n^{1-1/t}\int_{(2^{1/t}+1)a_n^{1/t}}^{2(2a_n)^{1/t}}\overline{H}(2(2a_n)^{1/t}-y)(\overline F(y-(2a_n)^{1/t})-\overline F(y/2))dy\nonumber\\
&\geq&Cta_n^{-\alpha-1/t}\int_{(2^{1/t}+1)a_n^{1/t}}^{2(2a_n)^{1/t}}\overline{H}(2(2a_n)^{1/t}-y)
((2a_n)^{1/t}-y/2)(y/2)^{t-1}dy\nonumber\\
&\geq&C2^{-1}ta_n^{1-\alpha-2/t}\int_{0}^{(2^{1/t}-1)a_n^{1/t}}\overline{H}(y)ydy\to\infty,~~~n\to\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here notation $f(x)\gtrsim g(x)$
is equivalent to $g(x)\lesssim f(x)$ and means that $\liminf_{x\to\infty} f(x)/g(x)\ge 1$.
Thus, $F^{*2}\notin\mathcal{OS}$.
\vspace{0.5cm}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
The dynamics of shallow water waves that is observed along lake shores and beaches has been a research area for the past few decades in the area of
oceanography (see \cite{AB,ZZZC}). There are several models proposed in this context: Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation, Boussinesq equation, Peregrine equation, regularized long wave (RLW) equation, Kawahara equation, Benjamin-Bona-Mahoney equation, Bona-Chen equation and several others. These models are
derived from first principles under various different hypothesis and approximations. They are all well studied and very well understood.
The dynamics of dispersive shallow water waves, on the other hand, is captured with slightly different models like Rosenau-
Kawahara, Rosenau-KdV, and Rosenau-KdV-RLW equations \cite{BTL,EMTYB,HXH,LB,RAB}.
In particular, the Rosenau-KdV-RLW equation is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RKV-1}
\partial_t u +a\partial_x u +k\partial_x u^{n}+b_1\partial_{xxx}^3 u +b_2\partial_{txx}^3 u + c\partial_{txxxx}^5 u=0,\quad a,\,k,\,b_1,\,b_2,\,c\in{\mathbb{R}}.
\end{equation}
Here $u(t,x)$ is the nonlinear wave profile. The first term is the linear evolution one, while $a$ is the advection (or drifting) coefficient. The two dispersion coefficients are $b_1$ and $b_2$ . The higher order dispersion coefficient is $c$, while the coefficient of nonlinearity is $k$ where $n$ is the nonlinearity parameter. These are all known and given parameters.
In \cite{RAB}, the authors analyzed \eqref{eq:RKV-1}. They got solitary waves, shock waves and singular solitons along with conservation laws.
In the case $n=2,\, a=0,\, k=1,\, b_1=1,\, b_2=-1,\, c=1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RKV-23}
\partial_t u +\partial_x u^2 +\partial_{xxx}^3 u -\partial_{txx}^3 u +\partial_{txxxx}^5 u=0.
\end{equation}
Choosing $n=2,\, a=0,\, k=1,\, b_2=b_1=0,\, c=1$, \eqref{eq:RKV-1} reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RKV-2}
\partial_t u + \partial_x u^{2} + \partial_{txxxx}^5 u=0,
\end{equation}
which is known as Rosenau equation (see \cite{Ro1,Ro2}). Existence and uniqueness of solutions for \eqref{eq:RKV-2} has been proved in \cite{P}.
Finally, if $n=2,\, a=0,\, k=1,\, b_1=1,\, b_2=0,\, c=1$, \eqref{eq:RKV-1} reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RKV-3}
\partial_t u +\partial_x u^{2}+\partial_{xxx}^3 u + \partial_{txxxx}^5 u=0,
\end{equation}
which is known as Rosenau-KdV equation.
In \cite{Z}, the author discussed the solitary wave solutions and \eqref{eq:RKV-3}. In \cite{HXH}, a conservative linear finite difference scheme for the numerical solution for an initial-boundary value problem of Rosenau-KdV equation was considered.
In \cite{E,RTB}, the authors discussed the solitary solutions for \eqref{eq:RKV-3} with solitary ansatz method. The authors also gave two invariants for \eqref{eq:RKV-3}. In particular, in \cite{RTB}, the authors studied the two types of soliton solutions, one is a solitary wave and the other is a singular soliton. In \cite{ZZ}, the authors proposed an average linear finite difference scheme for the numerical solution of the initial-boundary value problem for \eqref{eq:RKV-3}.
If $n=2, \, a=0,\, k=1,\, b_1=0,\, b_2=-1,\, c=1$, \eqref{eq:RKV-1} reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RKV-30}
\partial_t u +\partial_x u^2 -\partial_{txx}^3 u +\partial_{txxxx}^5 u=0,
\end{equation}
which is the Rosenau-RLW equation.
In this paper, we analyze \eqref{eq:RKV-23} and \eqref{eq:RKV-30}. Arguing as \cite{CdREM}, we re-scale the equations as follows
\begin{align}
\label{eq:RKV}
\partial_t u+ \partial_x u^2+\beta\partial_{xxx}^3 u - \beta\partial_{txx}^3 u +\beta^2\partial_{txxxx}^5 u=&0, \\
\label{eq:RKV34}
\partial_t u+ \partial_x u^2 -\beta\partial_{txx}^3 u +\beta^2\partial_{txxxx}^5 u=&0,
\end{align}
where $\beta$ is the diffusion parameter.
We are interested in the no high frequency limit, we send $\beta\to 0$ in \eqref{eq:RKV} and \eqref{eq:RKV34}. In this way we pass from \eqref{eq:RKV} and \eqref{eq:RKV34} to the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:BU}
\partial_t u+\partial_x u^2=0
\end{equation}
which is a scalar conservation law.
We prove that, when $\beta\to0$, the solutions of \eqref{eq:RKV} and \eqref{eq:RKV34} converge to the unique entropy solution \eqref{eq:BU}.
The paper is organized in three sections. In Section \ref{sec:vv}, we prove the convergence of \eqref{eq:RKV} to \eqref{eq:BU}, while in Section \ref{sec:Ro1}, we show how to modify
the argument of Section \ref{sec:vv} and prove the convergence of \eqref{eq:RKV34} to \eqref{eq:BU}.
\section{The Rosenau-KdV-RLW equation.}\label{sec:vv}
In this section, we consider \eqref{eq:RKV} and augment it with the initial condition
\begin{equation}
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x),
\end{equation}
on which we assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:assinit}
u_0\in L^2({\mathbb{R}})\cap L^4({\mathbb{R}}).
\end{equation}
We study the dispersion-diffusion limit for \eqref{eq:RKV}. Therefore, we consider the following fifth order approximation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RKV-eps-beta}
\begin{cases}
\ptu_\eb+ \partial_x u_\eb^2 + \beta\partial_{xxx}^3 u_\eb - \beta\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb\\
\qquad\quad\qquad\quad +\beta^2\ptxxxxu_\eb=\varepsilon\pxxu_\eb, &\qquad t>0, \ x\in{\mathbb{R}} ,\\
u_\eb(0,x)=u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}(x), &\qquad x\in{\mathbb{R}},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}$ is a $C^\infty$ approximation of $u_{0}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:u0eps}
&u_{\varepsilon,\,\beta,\,0} \to u_{0} \quad \textrm{in $L^{p}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$, $1\le p < 4$, as $\varepsilon,\,\beta \to 0$,}\\
&\norm{u_{\varepsilon,\beta, 0}}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\norm{u_{\varepsilon,\beta, 0}}^4_{L^4({\mathbb{R}})}+(\beta+ \varepsilon^2) \norm{\partial_x u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le C_0,\quad \varepsilon,\beta >0, \\
&(\beta\varepsilon + \beta\varepsilon^2 +\beta^2)\norm{\partial_{xx}^2 u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+(\beta^2\varepsilon^2+\beta^3)\norm{\partial_{xxx}^3 u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} \le C_{0}, \quad \varepsilon,\beta >0,\\
&\beta^4\norm{\partial_{xxxx}^4 u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le C_{0}, \quad \varepsilon,\beta >0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and $C_0$ is a constant independent on $\varepsilon$ and $\beta$.
The main result of this section is the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:main}
Assume that \eqref{eq:assinit} and \eqref{eq:u0eps} hold.
If
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beta-eps}
\beta=\mathbf{\mathcal{O}}(\varepsilon^{4}),
\end{equation}
then, there exist two sequences $\{\varepsilon_{n}\}_{n\in{\cal N}}$, $\{\beta_{n}\}_{n\in{\cal N}}$, with $\varepsilon_n, \beta_n \to 0$, and a limit function
\begin{equation*}
u\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}; L^2({\mathbb{R}})\cap L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})),
\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:con-u}
&u_{\varepsilon_n, \beta_n}\to u \quad \text{strongly in $L^{p}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})$, for each $1\le p <4$};\\
\label{eq:entropy1}
&u \quad\text{is the unique entropy solution of \eqref{eq:BU}}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Let us prove some a priori estimates on $u_\eb$, denoting with $C_0$ the constants which depend only on the initial data.
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:l-2}
For each $t>0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:l-2}
\begin{split}
\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}&+\beta\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&+\beta^2\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+2\varepsilon\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\pxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le C_{0}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In particular, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:u-l-infty}
\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\le& C_{0}\beta^{-\frac{1}{4}},\\
\label{eq:ux-l-infty}
\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\le& C_{0}\beta^{-\frac{3}{4}}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Multiplying \eqref{eq:RKV-eps-beta} by $u_\eb$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ks4}
\begin{split}
u_\eb\ptu_\eb &+ 2u_\eb^2\partial_x u_\eb+ \betau_\eb\partial_{xxx}^3 u_\eb\\
&-\betau_\eb\ptxxu_\eb+\beta^2u_\eb\ptxxxxu_\eb=\varepsilonu_\eb\pxxu_\eb.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\ptu_\eb dx=&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})},\\
2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb dx=&0,\\
\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\partial_{xxx}^3 u_\eb dx= &\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx=0,\\
-\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\ptxxu_\eb dx=&\frac{\beta}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})},\\
\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\ptxxxxu_\eb dx=& -\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb dx \\
=& \frac{\beta^2}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})},\\
\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx=& -\varepsilon\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{align*}
Integrating \eqref{eq:ks4} on ${\mathbb{R}}$, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ks6}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dt}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} &+ \beta\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&+ \beta^2\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} +2\varepsilon\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} =0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\eqref{eq:l-2} follows from \eqref{eq:u0eps}, \eqref{eq:ks6} and an integration on $(0,t)$.
We prove \eqref{eq:u-l-infty}. Due to \eqref{eq:l-2} and the H\"older inequality,
\begin{align*}
u_\eb^2(t,x)=&2\int_{-\infty}^x u_\eb\pxu_\eb dx \le 2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert u_\eb\vert \vert \pxu_\eb\vert dx\\
\le&2\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le C_{0}\beta^{-\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\vert u_\eb(t,x)\vert \le C_{0}\beta^{-\frac{1}{4}},
\end{equation*}
which gives \eqref{eq:u-l-infty}.
Finally, we prove \eqref{eq:ux-l-infty}. Thanks to \eqref{eq:l-2} and the H\"older inequality,
\begin{align*}
\pxu_\eb^2(t,x)=&2\int_{-\infty}^x \pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx \le 2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert \pxu_\eb\vert \vert \pxxu_\eb\vert dx\\
\le&2\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le C_{0}\beta^{-\frac{1}{2}}C_{0}\beta^{-1}\le C_{0}\beta^{-\frac{3}{2}}.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})} \le C_{0}\beta^{-\frac{3}{4}},
\end{equation*}
that is \eqref{eq:ux-l-infty}.
\end{proof}
Following \cite[Lemma $2.2$]{Cd}, or \cite[Lemma $2.2$]{CdREM}, or \cite[Lemma $4.2$]{CK}, we prove the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:ux-l-2}
Assume \eqref{eq:beta-eps}. For each $t>0$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i)$] the family $\{u_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta}$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+};L^{4}({\mathbb{R}}))$;
\item[$ii)$]the families $\{\varepsilon\pxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},\, \{\sqrt{\beta\varepsilon}\pxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta}, \, \{\varepsilon\sqrt{\beta}\pxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},\,\{\varepsilon\beta\pxxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta}$,\\
$\{\beta\sqrt{\beta}\pxxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},\,\{\beta\pxxxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta}$ are bounded in $L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+};L^2({\mathbb{R}}))$;
\item[$iii)$] the families $\{\sqrt{\beta\varepsilon}\ptxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},\,\{\beta\sqrt{\varepsilon}\ptxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},\,\{\beta\sqrt{\beta\varepsilon}\ptxxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},$\\
$\{\varepsilon\beta\sqrt{\beta}\pxxxu_\eb \}_{\varepsilon,\beta},\,\{\sqrt{\varepsilon}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta}, \, \{\varepsilon\sqrt{\varepsilon}\pxxu_\eb \}_{\varepsilon,\beta} $ are bounded in\\ $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ux-uxx}
\beta\int_0^t\norm{\pxu_\eb(s,\cdot)\pxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}_{L^1({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le& C_0\varepsilon^2, \quad t>0,\\
\label{eq:uxx-l-2}
\beta^2\int_{0}^t\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds \le &C_0\varepsilon^5, \quad t>0.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A,\,B,\,C$ be some positive constants which will be specified later. Multiplying \eqref{eq:RKV-eps-beta} by
\begin{equation*}
u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb,
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KSmp}
\begin{split}
&\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\ptu_\eb\\
&\qquad\quad +2\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right) u_\eb\pxu_\eb\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\pxxxu_\eb\\
&\qquad\quad -\beta\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\ptxxu_\eb\\
&\qquad\quad+\beta^2\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\ptxxxxu_\eb\\
&\qquad=\varepsilon\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\pxxu_\eb.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We observe that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p110}
\begin{split}
&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\ptu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad= \frac{1}{4}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})} +A\beta\varepsilon\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \quad +\frac{B\varepsilon^2}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{C\beta^2}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p-100}
\begin{split}
&2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right) u_\eb\pxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad =-2A\beta\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} u_\eb\pxu_\eb\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb dx -2B\varepsilon^2 \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx \\
&\qquad\quad -2C\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxu_\eb)^2\pxxxu_\eb dx -2C\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} u_\eb\pxxu_\eb\pxxxu_\eb dx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p101}
\begin{split}
-2C\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxu_\eb)^2\pxxxu_\eb &-2C\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxxu_\eb\pxxxu_\eb dx\\
=&5C\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxxu_\eb)^2\pxu_\eb dx\\
=&-\frac{5\beta^2}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxu_\eb)^2\pxxxu_\eb dx,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
it follows from \eqref{eq:p-100} and \eqref{eq:p101} that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p102}
\begin{split}
&2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right) u_\eb\pxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad =-2A\beta\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} u_\eb\pxu_\eb\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb dx -2B\varepsilon^2 \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx \\
&\qquad\quad -\frac{5C\beta^2}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxu_\eb)^2\pxxxu_\eb dx\\.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We observe
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p111}
\begin{split}
&\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\pxxxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad\quad= -3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx -A\beta^2\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\pxxxu_\eb\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb dx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p112}
\begin{split}
&-\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\ptxxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad=3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\ptxu_\eb dx +A\beta^2\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad+\frac{B\beta\varepsilon^2}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{C\beta^3}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p113}
\begin{split}
&\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\ptxxxxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad= -3\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb dx +A\beta^3\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{B\beta^2\varepsilon^2}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{C\beta^4}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p114}
\begin{split}
&\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb -B\varepsilon^2\pxxu_\eb+C\beta^2\pxxxxu_\eb\right)\pxxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad= -3\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} -\frac{A\beta\varepsilon}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \quad -\varepsilon^3B\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}-\beta^2\varepsilon C\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{eq:p110}, \eqref{eq:p102}, \eqref{eq:p111}, \eqref{eq:p112}, \eqref{eq:p113}, \eqref{eq:p114}, and an integration of \eqref{eq:KSmp} on ${\mathbb{R}}$ that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p120}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})} +\frac{\left(A\beta\varepsilon+B\beta\varepsilon^2+C\beta^2\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} \right)\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{B\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{\left(B\beta^2\varepsilon^2+C\beta^3\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\right)\\ &\qquad\quad +\frac{C\beta^4}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+A\beta\varepsilon\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +A\beta^2\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+A\beta^3\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +3\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\varepsilon^3B\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta^2\varepsilon C\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad = 2A\beta\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\ptxxu_\eb dx +2B\varepsilon^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad\quad \frac{5C\beta^2}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxu_\eb)^2\pxxxu_\eb dx -3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad\quad +A\beta^2\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\pxxxu_\eb\ptxxu_\eb - 3\beta \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\ptxu_\eb dx\\
&\qquad\quad +3\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb dx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Due to the Young inequality,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:You23}
\begin{split}
&2A\beta\varepsilon\left\vert \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\ptxxu_\eb dx \right\vert\le A\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left\vert 2 u_\eb\pxu_\eb \right\vert \vert \beta \ptxxu_\eb\vert dx\\
&\qquad\le 2A\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{A\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})},\\
&2B\varepsilon^2\left\vert\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb dx\right\vert \le \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left\vert \varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\right\vert \left\vert\varepsilon^{\frac{3}{2}} 2B\pxxu_\eb\right\vert dx\\
&\qquad \le \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} +2B^2\varepsilon^3 \norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Hence, from \eqref{eq:p120},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:237}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})} +\frac{\left(A\beta\varepsilon+B\beta\varepsilon^2+C\beta^2\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} \right)\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{B\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{\left(B\beta^2\varepsilon^2+C\beta^3\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\right)\\ &\qquad\quad +\frac{C\beta^4}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+A\beta\varepsilon\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{A\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+A\beta^3\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\left(\frac{5}{2} -2A\right)\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\beta^2\varepsilon C\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\left(B-2B^2\right)\varepsilon^3\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le \frac{5C\beta^2}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxu_\eb)^2\vert\pxxxu_\eb\vert dx +3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} u_\eb^2\vert\pxu_\eb\vert\pxxu_\eb\vert dx\\
&\qquad\quad +A \beta^2\varepsilon \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\pxxxu_\eb\vert\vert\partial_{txx}^3\vert dx +3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\vert\pxu_\eb\vert\vert\ptxu_\eb\vert dx\\
&\qquad\quad +3\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} u_\eb^2 \vert \pxu_\eb\vert \vert\ptxxxu_\eb\vert dx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq:beta-eps}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beta-eps-1}
\beta\le D^2\varepsilon^4,
\end{equation}
where $D$ is a positive constant which will be specified later. It follows from \eqref{eq:ux-l-infty}, \eqref{eq:beta-eps-1} and the Young inequality that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p255}
\begin{split}
&\frac{5C\beta^2}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxu_\eb)^2\vert\pxxxu_\eb\vert dx= \beta^2C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{5}{2\varepsilon^\frac{1}{2}}(\pxu_\eb)^2\left\vert \varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}\pxxxu_\eb\right\vert\\
&\qquad \le \frac{25C\beta^2}{8\varepsilon}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\pxu_\eb)^4 dx + \frac{C\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le \frac{25C}{8\varepsilon}\beta^2\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} + \frac{C\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le \frac{C_{0}\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\varepsilon}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} + \frac{C\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le C_0D\varepsilon \norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} + \frac{C\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Due to \eqref{eq:u-l-infty}, \eqref{eq:beta-eps-1} and the Young inequality,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p256}
\begin{split}
&3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} u_\eb^2\vert\pxu_\eb\vert\pxxu_\eb\vert dx\le 3\beta \norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\pxu_\eb\vert\pxxu_\eb\vert dx\\
&\qquad\le C_{0}\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\pxu_\eb\vert\vert\pxxu_\eb\vert dx\le\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left\vert \varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}\pxu_\eb\right\vert\left\vert C_0 D\varepsilon^{\frac{3}{2}}\pxxu_\eb\right\vert dx\\
&\qquad \le \varepsilon \norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} +D^2C^2_{0}\varepsilon^3\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thanks to the Young inequality,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p257}
\begin{split}
&A \beta^2\varepsilon \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\pxxxu_\eb\vert\vert\ptxxu_\eb\vert dx=A \beta^2\varepsilon \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left\vert 2\pxxxu_\eb\right\vert\left\vert\frac{1}{2}\ptxxu_\eb\right\vert dx\\
&\qquad\le 2A\beta^2\varepsilon\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{A\beta^2\varepsilon}{8}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{eq:u-l-infty}, \eqref{eq:beta-eps-1} and the Young inequality that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p289}
\begin{split}
&3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\vert\pxu_\eb\vert\vert\ptxu_\eb\vert dx = \beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left\vert\frac{3u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb}{\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}A^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right\vert\left\vert\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}A^{\frac{1}{2}}\ptxu_\eb\right\vert dx\\
&\qquad\le\frac{9\beta}{2\varepsilon A}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^4(\pxu_\eb)^2 dx + \frac{\beta\varepsilon A}{2}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\le \frac{9}{2\varepsilon A}\beta\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad + \frac{\beta\varepsilon A}{2}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le\frac{C_{0}\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\varepsilon A}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{\beta\varepsilon A}{2}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\ &\qquad \le \frac{C_0 D}{A}\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{\beta\varepsilon A}{2}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Again by \eqref{eq:u-l-infty}, \eqref{eq:beta-eps-1} and the Young inequality,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:290}
\begin{split}
&3\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} u_\eb^2 \vert \pxu_\eb\vert \vert\ptxxxu_\eb\vert dx =\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left\vert\frac{3\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb}{\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}A^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right\vert \left \vert\beta^{\frac{3}{2}}\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}A^{\frac{1}{2}}\ptxxxu_\eb\right\vert dx\\
&\qquad \le \frac{9\beta}{2\varepsilon A}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^4(\pxu_\eb)^2 dx + \frac{\beta^3\varepsilon A}{2} \norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le \frac{9}{2\varepsilon A}\beta\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{\beta^3\varepsilon A}{2} \norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le \frac{C_{0}\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\varepsilon A}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{\beta^3\varepsilon A}{2} \norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le \frac{C_{0}D}{A}\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{\beta^3\varepsilon A}{2} \norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq:237}, \eqref{eq:p255}, \eqref{eq:p256}, \eqref{eq:p257}, \eqref{eq:p289} and \eqref{eq:290}, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p300}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})} +\frac{\left(A\beta\varepsilon+B\beta\varepsilon^2+C\beta^2\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} \right)\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{B\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{\left(B\beta^2\varepsilon^2+C\beta^3\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\right)\\ &\qquad\quad +\frac{C\beta^4}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{\beta\varepsilon A}{2}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad + \frac{3A\beta^2\varepsilon}{8}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{A\beta^3\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta^2\varepsilon\left(\frac{C}{2} -2A\right)\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\left(\frac{5}{2} -2A-\frac{C_{0}D}{A} \right)\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\left(B-2B^2-D^2C^2_{0}\right)\varepsilon^3\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le C_{0}\varepsilon\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We search $A,\,B,\, C$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \frac{5}{2} -2A- \frac{C_0D}{A} >0,\\
\displaystyle B-2B^2 -D^2C^2_{0} >0,\\
\displaystyle \frac{C}{2} -2A>0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
that is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p302}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle 4A^2 - 5A +2C_{0} D<0,\\
\displaystyle 2B^2 -B -D^2C_{0}^2<0,\\
\displaystyle C>4A.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We choose
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scet-C}
C=6A.
\end{equation}
The first inequality of \eqref{eq:p302} admits a solution, if
\begin{equation*}
25-32C_{0}D>0,
\end{equation*}
that is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cond-1}
D<\frac{25}{32C_0}.
\end{equation}
The second inequality of \eqref{eq:p302} admits a solution, if
\begin{equation*}
1-8D^2C^2_{0} >0,
\end{equation*}
that is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cond-2}
D<\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4C_{0}}.
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{eq:cond-1} and \eqref{eq:cond-2} that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sce-D}
D<\min\left\{\frac{25}{32C_0},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4C_{0}}\right\}= \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4C_{0}}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, from \eqref{eq:p302}, \eqref{eq:scet-C} and \eqref{eq:sce-D}, we have that there exist $0<A_1<A_2$ and $0<B_1<B_2$, such that choosing
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:con-A-B-C}
A_1<A<A_2,\quad B_1<B<B_2,\quad C=6A,
\end{equation}
\eqref{eq:p302} holds.
\eqref{eq:p300} and \eqref{eq:p302} give
\begin{align*}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})} +\frac{\left(A\beta\varepsilon+B\beta\varepsilon^2+6A\beta^2\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} \right)\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{B\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{\left(B\beta^2\varepsilon^2+6A\beta^3\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\right)\\ &\qquad\quad +3A\beta^4\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{\beta\varepsilon A}{2}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad + \frac{3A\beta^2\varepsilon}{8}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{A\beta^3\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta^2\varepsilon A\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} +\varepsilon K_1\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\varepsilon^3 K\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le C_{0}\varepsilon\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})},
\end{align*}
for some $K_1,\,K_2>0$.
\eqref{eq:u0eps}, \eqref{eq:l-2} and an integration on $(0,t)$ give
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{\left(A\beta\varepsilon+B\beta\varepsilon^2+6A\beta^2\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{B\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{\left(B\beta^2\varepsilon^2+6A\beta^3\right)}{2}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +3A\beta^4\norm{\pxxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{\beta\varepsilon A}{2}\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\\
&\qquad\quad + \frac{3A\beta^2\varepsilon}{8}\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds+\frac{A\beta^3\varepsilon}{2}\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta^2\varepsilon A\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds +\varepsilon K_1\int_{0}^{t}\norm{u_\eb(s,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\\
&\qquad\quad +\varepsilon^3 K_2\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\\
&\qquad \le C_{0} +C_{0}\varepsilon\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\pxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le C_0.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})}\le &C_{0}, \\
\varepsilon\norm{\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le &C_{0},\\
\sqrt{\beta\varepsilon}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le & C_{0},\\
\varepsilon\sqrt{\beta}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le & C_{0},\\
\beta\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le & C_{0},\\
\beta\varepsilon\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le & C_{0},\\
\beta\sqrt{\beta}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le & C_{0},\\
\beta\norm{\pxxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le & C_{0},\\
\beta\varepsilon \int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds \le&C_{0},\\
\beta^2\varepsilon \int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le&C_{0},\\
\beta^3\varepsilon\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le&C_{0},\\
\beta^2\varepsilon\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\pxxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le &C_{0},\\
\varepsilon\int_{0}^{t}\norm{u_\eb(s,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le &C_{0},\\
\varepsilon^3\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le &C_{0},
\end{align*}
for every $t>0$.
Arguing as \cite[Lemma $2.2$]{Cd}, we have \eqref{eq:ux-uxx} and \eqref{eq:uxx-l-2}.
\end{proof}
To prove Theorem \ref{th:main}. The following technical lemma is needed \cite{Murat:Hneg}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:1}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open subset of $
{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Suppose that the sequence $\{\mathcal
L_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of distributions is bounded in
$W^{-1,\infty}(\Omega)$. Suppose also that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal L_{n}=\mathcal L_{1,n}+\mathcal L_{2,n},
\end{equation*}
where $\{\mathcal L_{1,n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ lies in a
compact subset of $H^{-1}_{loc}(\Omega)$ and
$\{\mathcal L_{2,n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ lies in a
bounded subset of $\mathcal{M}_{loc}(\Omega)$. Then $\{\mathcal
L_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ lies in a compact subset of $H^{-1}_{loc}(\Omega)$.
\end{lemma}
Moreover, we consider the following definition.
\begin{definition}
A pair of functions $(\eta, q)$ is called an entropy--entropy flux pair if $\eta :{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a $C^2$ function and $q :{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
q(u)=\int_{0}^{u} A\xi\eta'(\xi) d\xi.
\end{equation*}
An entropy-entropy flux pair $(\eta,\, q)$ is called convex/compactly supported if, in addition, $\eta$ is convex/compactly supported.
\end{definition}
Following \cite{LN}, we prove Theorem \ref{th:main}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th:main}]
Let us consider a compactly supported entropy--entropy flux pair $(\eta, q)$. Multiplying \eqref{eq:RKV-eps-beta} by $\eta'(u_\eb)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\partial_t\eta(u_\eb) + \partial_x q(u_\eb) =&\varepsilon \eta'(u_\eb) \pxxu_\eb - \beta \eta'(u_\eb) \pxxxu_\eb\\
&-\beta\eta'(u_\eb)\ptxxu_\eb +\beta^2\eta'(u_\eb)\ptxxxxu_\eb \\
=& I_{1,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+I_{2,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+ I_{3,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta} + I_{4,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+I_{5,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\\
&+I_{6,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+I_{7,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+I_{8,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:12000}
I_{1,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&=\partial_x (\varepsilon\eta'(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb),\\
I_{2,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&= -\varepsilon\eta''(u_\eb)(\pxu_\eb)^2,\\
I_{3,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&= \partial_x (-\beta\eta'(u_\eb)\pxxu_\eb),\\
I_{4,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&= \beta\eta''(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb\pxxu_\eb,\\
I_{5,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&= \partial_x (-\beta \eta'(u_\eb)\ptxu_\eb),\\
I_{6,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&= \beta\eta''(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb\ptxu_\eb,\\
I_{7,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&=\partial_x (\beta^2\eta'(u_\eb)\ptxxxu_\eb),\\
I_{8,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&=-\beta^2\eta''(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Fix $T>0$. Arguing as \cite[Lemma $3.2$]{Cd2}, we have that $I_{1,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to0$ in $H^{-1}((0,T) \times{\mathbb{R}})$, and $\{I_{2,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\}_{\varepsilon,\beta >0}$ is bounded in $L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})$.\\
Arguing as \cite[Theorem $1.1$]{Cd}, we get $I_{3,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to 0$ in $H^{-1}((0,T) \times{\mathbb{R}})$, and $I_{4,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to 0$ in $L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})$.\\
We claim that
\begin{equation*}
I_{5,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to0 \quad \text{in $H^{-1}((0,T) \times{\mathbb{R}}),\,T>0,$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$.}
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{eq:beta-eps} and Lemma \ref{lm:ux-l-2},
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\beta \eta'(u_\eb)\ptxu_\eb}^2_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le\norm{\eta'}^2_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\beta^2\int_{0}^{T}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}dt\\
&\qquad=\norm{\eta'}^2_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\frac{\beta^2\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\int_{0}^{T}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}dt\\
&\qquad\le C_{0}\norm{\eta'}^2_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\frac{\beta}{\varepsilon}\le C_{0}\norm{\eta'}^2_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\varepsilon^3\to0.
\end{align*}
We have that
\begin{equation*}
I_{6,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to0 \quad \text{in $L^1((0,T) \times{\mathbb{R}}),\,T>0,$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$.}
\end{equation*}
Due to \eqref{eq:beta-eps}, Lemmas \ref{lm:l-2}, \ref{lm:ux-l-2} and the H\"older inequality,
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\beta\eta''(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb\ptxu_\eb}_{L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\le\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\beta\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\pxu_\eb\ptxu_\eb\vert dtdx\\
&\qquad\le\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\frac{\beta\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\norm{\pxu_\eb}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\ptu_\eb}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad \le C_{0}\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\frac{\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\varepsilon} \le C_{0}\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\varepsilon\to0.
\end{align*}
We claim that
\begin{equation*}
I_{7,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to0 \quad \text{in $H^{-1}((0,T) \times{\mathbb{R}}),\,T>0,$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$.}
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{eq:beta-eps} and Lemma \ref{lm:ux-l-2},
\begin{align*}
&\norm{ \beta^2\eta'(u_\eb)\ptxxxu_\eb}^2_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\le \beta^4 \norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb}^2_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad= \norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\frac{\beta^4\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb}^2_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\le C_{0}\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\frac{\beta}{\varepsilon} \le C_{0}\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\varepsilon^3\to0.
\end{align*}
We have that
\begin{equation*}
I_{8,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to0 \quad \text{in $L^1((0,T) \times{\mathbb{R}}),\,T>0,$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$.}
\end{equation*}
Thanks to \eqref{eq:beta-eps}, Lemmas \ref{lm:l-2}, \ref{lm:ux-l-2} and the H\"older inequality,
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\beta^2\eta''(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb}_{L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\le\beta^2\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb\vert dsdx\\
&\qquad\le\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\frac{\beta^2\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\norm{\pxu_\eb}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\le C_{0}\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\frac{\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\varepsilon} \le C_{0}\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\varepsilon\to0.
\end{align*}
Therefore, \eqref{eq:con-u} follows from Lemma \ref{lm:1} and the $L^p$ compensated compactness of \cite{SC}.
To have \eqref{eq:entropy1}, we begin by proving that $u$ is a distributional solution of \eqref{eq:BU}.
Let $ \phi\in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ be a test function with compact support. We have to prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:k1}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u\partial_t\phi+u^2\partial_x \phi\right)dtdx +\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_{0}(x)\phi(0,x)dx=0.
\end{equation}
We define
\begin{equation}
u_{\varepsilon_{n},\,\beta_{n}}:=u_n.
\end{equation}
We have that
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!&\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_n\partial_t\phi+u^2_n\partial_x \phi\right)dtdx +\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_{0,n}(x)\phi(0,x)dx\\
&+\varepsilon_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_{n}\partial_{xx}^2\phi dtdx + \varepsilon_n\int_{0}^{\infty}u_{0,n}(x)\partial_{xx}^2\phi(0,x)dx\\
&+ \beta_n\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_n\partial_{xxx}^3\phi dt dx + \beta_n\int_{0}^{\infty}u_{0,n}(x)\partial_{xxx}^3\phi(0,x)dx\\
&-\beta_n\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_n\partial_{txx}^3\phi dtds - \beta_n\int_{0}^{\infty}u_{0,n}(x)\partial_{txx}^3\phi(0,x)dx\\
&+\beta^2_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_n\partial_{txxxx}^5\phi dtds -\beta_n\int_{0}^{\infty}u_{0,n}(x)\partial_{txxxx}^5\phi(0,x)dx=0.
\end{align*}
Therefore, \eqref{eq:k1} follows from \eqref{eq:u0eps} and \eqref{eq:con-u}.
We conclude by proving that $u$ is the unique entropy solution of \eqref{eq:BU}. Fix $T>0$. Let us consider a compactly supported entropy--entropy flux pair $(\eta, q)$, and $\phi\in C^{\infty}_{c}((0,\infty)\times{\mathbb{R}})$ a non--negative function. We have to prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:u-entropy-solution}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\partial_t\eta(u)+ \partial_x q(u))\phi dtdx\le0.
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{align*}
&\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\partial_t\eta(u_n)+\partial_x q(u_n))\phi dtdx\\
&\qquad=\varepsilon_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\partial_x (\eta'(u_n)\partial_x u_n)\phi dtdx-\varepsilon_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \eta''(u_n)(\partial_x u_n)^2\phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad -\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\partial_x (\eta'(u_n)\partial_{xx}^2 u_{n})\phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad+\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta''(u_n)\partial_x u_n\partial_{xx}^2 u_n\phi dtdx -\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\partial_x (\eta'(u_n)\partial_{tx}^2 u_n)\phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta''(u_n)\partial_x u_n \partial_{tx}^2 u_n\phi dtdx+\beta^2_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\partial_x (\eta'(u_n)\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n)\phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad -\beta^2_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta''(u_n)\partial_x u_n\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n\phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\le - \varepsilon_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta'(u_n)\partial_x u_n\partial_x \phi dtdx +\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta'(u_n)\partial_{xx}^2 u_n\partial_x \phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad+\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta''(u_n)\partial_x u_n\partial_{xx}^2 u_n\phi dtdx +\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta'(u_n)\partial_{tx}^2 u_n\partial_x \phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta''(u_n)\partial_x u_n \partial_{tx}^2 u_n\phi dtdx -\beta^2_{n} \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta'(u_n)\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n\partial_x \phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad -\beta^2_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\eta''(u_n)\partial_x u_n\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n\phi dtdx\\
&\qquad \le \varepsilon_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\eta'(u_n)\vert\vert\partial_x u_n\vert\vert\partial_x \phi\vert dtdx +\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\eta'(u_n)\vert\vert\partial_{xx}^2 u_n\vert\vert\partial_x \phi\vert dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\eta''(u_n)\vert\vert\partial_x u_n\vert\vert\partial_{xx}^2 u_n\vert\vert\phi\vert dtdx +\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\eta'(u_n)\vert\vert\vert\partial_{tx}^2 u_n\vert\vert\partial_x \phi\vert dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\eta''(u_n)\vert\vert\partial_x u_n\vert\vert \partial_{tx}^2 u_n\vert\vert\phi\vert dtdx +\beta^2_{n} \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\eta'(u_n)\vert\vert\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n\vert\vert\partial_x \phi\vert dtdx\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta^2_{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\vert\eta''(u_n)\vert\vert\partial_x u_n\vert\vert\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n\vert\phi dtdx\\
&\qquad\le \varepsilon_n\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x u_n}_{L^2(\mathrm{supp}\,(\partial_x \phi))}\norm{\partial_x \phi}_{L^2(\mathrm{supp}\,(\partial_x \phi))}\\
&\qquad\quad+\beta_n\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_{xx}^2 u_n}_{L^2(\mathrm{supp}\,(\partial_x \phi))}\norm{\partial_x \phi}_{L^2(\mathrm{supp}\,(\partial_x \phi))}\\
&\qquad\quad+\beta_{n}\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x u_n\partial_{xx}^2 u_n}_{L^1(\mathrm{supp}\,(\phi))}\\
&\qquad\quad+ \beta_{n}\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_{tx}^2 u_n}_{L^2(\mathrm{supp}\,(\partial_x \phi))}\norm{\partial_x \phi}_{L^2(\mathrm{supp}\,(\partial_x \phi))}\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta_{n}\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}}}\norm{\partial_x u_n\partial_{tx}^2 u_n}_{L^1(\mathrm{supp}\,(\phi))}\\
&\qquad\quad+\beta^2_n\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n}_{L^2(\mathrm{supp}\,(\partial_x \phi))}\norm{\partial_x \phi}_{L^2(\mathrm{supp}\,(\partial_x \phi))}\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta^2_{n}\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x u_n\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n}_{L^1(\mathrm{supp}\,(\phi))}\\
&\qquad \le \varepsilon_n\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x u_n}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x \phi}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad + \beta_n\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_{xx}^2 u_n}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x \phi}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad+\beta_{n}\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x u_n\partial_{xx}^2 u_n}_{L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad+ \beta_{n}\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_{tx}^2 u_n}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x \phi}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad+ \beta_{n}\norm{\eta''}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x u_n\partial_{tx}^2 u_n}_{L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad+\beta^2_n\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x \phi}_{L^2((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\beta^2_{n}\norm{\eta'}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})}\norm{\partial_x u_n\partial_{txxx}^4 u_n}_{L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})}.
\end{align*}
\eqref{eq:u-entropy-solution} follows from \eqref{eq:beta-eps}, \eqref{eq:con-u}, Lemmas \ref{lm:l-2} and \ref{lm:ux-l-2}.
\end{proof}
\section{The Rosenau-RLW equation}
\label{sec:Ro1}
In this section, we consider \eqref{eq:RKV34} and augment \eqref{eq:RKV34} with the initial condition
\begin{equation}
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x),
\end{equation}
on which we assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:u-0-2}
u_0\in L^2({\mathbb{R}})\cap L^4({\mathbb{R}}).
\end{equation}
We study the dispersion-diffusion limit for \eqref{eq:RKV34}. Therefore, we consider the following fifth order problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:R-eps-beta}
\begin{cases}
\ptu_\eb+ \partial_x u_\eb^2 - \beta\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb +\beta^2\ptxxxxu_\eb=\varepsilon\pxxu_\eb, &\qquad t>0, \ x\in{\mathbb{R}} ,\\
u_\eb(0,x)=u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}(x), &\qquad x\in{\mathbb{R}},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}$ is a $C^\infty$ approximation of $u_{0}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:u0eps-1}
&u_{\varepsilon,\,\beta,\,0} \to u_{0} \quad \textrm{in $L^{p}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$, $1\le p < 4$, as $\varepsilon,\,\beta \to 0$,}\\
&\norm{u_{\varepsilon,\beta, 0}}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\norm{u_{\varepsilon,\beta, 0}}^4_{L^4({\mathbb{R}})}+\beta\varepsilon^2\norm{\partial_{xx}^2 u_{\varepsilon,\beta,0}}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le C_0,\quad \varepsilon,\beta >0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and $C_0$ is a constant independent on $\varepsilon$ and $\beta$.
The main result of this section is the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:main-1}
Assume that \eqref{eq:u-0-2} and \eqref{eq:u0eps} hold.
If
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beta-eps-2}
\beta=\mathbf{\mathcal{O}}(\varepsilon^{4}),
\end{equation}
then, there exist two sequences $\{\varepsilon_{n}\}_{n\in{\cal N}}$, $\{\beta_{n}\}_{n\in{\cal N}}$, with $\varepsilon_n, \beta_n \to 0$, and a limit function
\begin{equation*}
u\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}; L^2({\mathbb{R}})\cap L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})),
\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:con-u-1}
&u_{\varepsilon_n, \beta_n}\to u \quad \text{strongly in $L^{p}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})$, for each $1\le p <4$};\\
\label{eq:entropy11}
&u \quad\text{is the unique entropy solution of \eqref{eq:BU}}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Let us prove some a priori estimates on $u_\eb$, denoting with $C_0$ the constants which
depend on the initial data.
We begin by observing that Lemma \ref{lm:l-2} holds also for \eqref{eq:R-eps-beta}.
Following \cite[Lemma $2.2$]{Cd}, or \cite[Lemma $2.2$]{CdREM}, or \cite[Lemma $4.2$]{CK}, we prove the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:ux-l-2-1}
Assume \eqref{eq:beta-eps-2}. For each $t>0$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i)$] the family $\{u_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta}$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+};L^{4}({\mathbb{R}}))$;
\item[$ii)$]the family $\{\varepsilon\sqrt{\beta}\pxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta}$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{+};L^2({\mathbb{R}}))$;
\item[$iii)$] the families $\{\sqrt{\beta\varepsilon}\ptxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},\,\{\beta\sqrt{\varepsilon}\ptxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},\,\{\beta\sqrt{\beta\varepsilon}\ptxxxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta},$\\
$\{\sqrt{\varepsilon}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\}_{\varepsilon,\beta}$ are bounded in\\ $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times{\mathbb{R}})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a positive constant which will be specified later. Multiplying \eqref{eq:R-eps-beta} by $u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:l123}
\begin{split}
&\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)\ptu_\eb+2\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)u_\eb\pxu_\eb\\
&\qquad\quad-\beta\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)\ptxxu_\eb+\beta^2\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)\ptxxxxu_\eb\\
&\qquad=\varepsilon\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)\pxxu_\eb.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)\ptu_\eb dx=& \frac{1}{4}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^4({\mathbb{R}})} + A\beta\varepsilon\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})},\\
2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)u_\eb\pxu_\eb dx =& -2A\beta\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\ptxxu_\eb dx,\\
-\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)\ptxxu_\eb dx=& 3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\ptxu_\eb dx +A\beta^2\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)\ptxxxxu_\eb dx =& -3\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb dx\\
&+ A\beta^3\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^({\mathbb{R}})},\\
\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\left(u_\eb^3 -A\beta\varepsilon\partial_{txx}^3 u_\eb \right)\pxxu_\eb dx= & -3\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\ &-\frac{A\beta\varepsilon^2}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})},
\end{align*}
integrating \eqref{eq:l123} on ${\mathbb{R}}$, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:l589}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^4({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{A\beta\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\right)\\
&\qquad\quad +A\beta\varepsilon\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+A\beta^2\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad + A\beta^3\varepsilon\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})} +3\varepsilon\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad= 2A\beta\varepsilon\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb\pxu_\eb\ptxxu_\eb dx -3\beta\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\ptxu_\eb dx \\
&\qquad\quad +3\beta^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u_\eb^2\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb dx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{eq:You23}, \eqref{eq:beta-eps-1}, \eqref{eq:p289}, \eqref{eq:290} and \eqref{eq:l589} that
\begin{align*}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^4({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{A\beta\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\right)\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{A\beta\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{A\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\varepsilon\left(3-\frac{2C_{0}D}{A}-2A\right)\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad + \frac{A\beta^3\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le 0.
\end{align*}
where $D$ is a positive constant which will be specified later.\\
We search a constant $A$ such that
\begin{equation*}
3-\frac{2C_{0}D}{A}-2A>0,
\end{equation*}
that is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:l-A}
2A^2 -3A +2C_0 D <0.
\end{equation}
$A$ does exist if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta}
9-16C_{0}D>0.
\end{equation}
Choosing
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:d-3}
D= \frac{1}{16C_0},
\end{equation}
it follows from \eqref{eq:l-A} and \eqref{eq:delta} that there exist $0<A_1<A_2$, such that for every
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:A-8}
A_1<A<A_2,
\end{equation}
\eqref{eq:l-A} holds. Hence, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:r13}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^4({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{A\beta\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\right)\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{A\beta\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+\frac{A\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\varepsilon K_1\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{A\beta^3\varepsilon}{2}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $K_1$ is a fixed positive constant. Integrating \eqref{eq:r13} on $(0,t)$, from \eqref{eq:u0eps-1}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{4}\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}^4_{L^4({\mathbb{R}})}+ \frac{A_3\beta\varepsilon^2}{2}\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\\
&\qquad\quad +\frac{A_3\beta\varepsilon}{2}\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds+\frac{A_3\beta^2\varepsilon}{2}\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\\
&\qquad\quad +\varepsilon K_1\int_{0}^{t}\norm{u_\eb(s,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds+ \frac{A_3\beta^3\varepsilon}{2}\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le C_{0},
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\norm{u_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^4({\mathbb{R}})}\le &C_0,\\
\sqrt{\beta}\varepsilon\norm{\pxxu_\eb(t,\cdot)}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}\le &C_0,\\
\beta\varepsilon\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le &C_0,\\
\beta^2\varepsilon \int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds \le &C_0,\\
\varepsilon\int_{0}^{t}\norm{u_\eb(s,\cdot)\pxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds \le&C_0,\\
\beta^3\varepsilon\int_{0}^{t}\norm{\ptxxxu_\eb(s,\cdot)}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}})}ds\le& C_{0},
\end{align*}
for every $t>0$.
\end{proof}
Now, we are ready for the proof of Theorem \ref{th:main-1}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th:main-1}]
Let us consider a compactly supported entropy--entropy flux pair $(\eta, q)$. Multiplying \eqref{eq:R-eps-beta} by $\eta'(u_\eb)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\partial_t\eta(u_\eb) + \partial_x q(u_\eb) =&\varepsilon \eta'(u_\eb) \pxxu_\eb -\beta\eta'(u_\eb)\ptxxu_\eb +\beta^2\eta'(u_\eb)\ptxxxxu_\eb \\
=& I_{1,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+I_{2,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+ I_{3,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta} + I_{4,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+I_{5,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}+I_{6,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:120004}
I_{1,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&=\partial_x (\varepsilon\eta'(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb),\\
I_{2,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&= -\varepsilon\eta''(u_\eb)(\pxu_\eb)^2,\\
I_{3,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&= \partial_x (-\beta \eta'(u_\eb)\ptxu_\eb),\\
I_{4,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&= \beta\eta''(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb\ptxu_\eb,\\
I_{5,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&=\partial_x (\beta^2\eta'(u_\eb)\ptxxxu_\eb),\\
I_{6,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}&=-\beta^2\eta''(u_\eb)\pxu_\eb\ptxxxu_\eb.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Following Theorem \ref{th:main}, we have that $I_{1,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta},\, I_{3,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta},\, I_{5,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to 0$ in $H^{-1}((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})$, $\{I_{2,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\}_{\varepsilon,\beta>0}$ is bounded in $L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})$,
$I_{4,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta},\,I_{6,\,\varepsilon,\,\beta}\to 0$ in $L^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}})$.
Arguing as Theorem \ref{th:main}, we get \eqref{eq:con-u-1} and \eqref{eq:entropy11}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The possibility of increasing the performances of interferometers by using quantum light represents one of the most interesting use of quantum states for overcoming classical limits of measurements.
The first approach proposed to this aim is based on exploiting squeezed light for reducing the noise level in interferometers \cite{cav} and found recently application in gravitational waves detectors \cite{mc,ab}.
A second approach is considering the use of entanglement in phase estimation and, in particular, the possibility offered by the use of NOON states \cite{noon}. However, even if this approach presents a significant conceptual interest and could find very interesting applications in the future, nowadays the difficulty in producing high $N$ entangled states and the fragility to noise and losses of these schemes strongly limits their real possible use.
More recently, correlation in photon number in two-mode squeezed vacuum or twin-beam state (TWB) \cite{Chekhova2015} has been demonstrated to be an important tool for beating shot noise \cite{n1} and for realising a first quantum protocol effectively robust against noise and losses \cite{n2}.
These results prompted to study the possibility of improving the so called ``holometer'' by exploiting quantum light, and in particular squeezed one or TWBs \cite{prl}.
The holometer is a double Michelson Interferometer (MI) addressed to detect the so called ``holographic noise'' (HN), namely a basic form of noise conjectured in quantum gravity theories that would derive from a non-commutativity of the spatial degrees of freedom at the Planck scale \cite{hog}. This noise, albeit very small, should be correlated when the two MIs are parallel, such to be in the respective light cones, while should be uncorrelated when one arm is rotated to be oriented in the opposite direction for the two MIs.
The evident huge impact that the discovery of holographic noise, the first eventual evidence of quantum gravity effects, would present, \cite{qg} motivates an accurate analysis of the possibility of improving the holometer performances.
In this paper we detail and complete the analysis of Ref.~\cite{prl} identifying operative situations where the use of quantum light would allow to greatly increase the performances of a double interferometer like the holometer.
More in detail, in \cite{prl} we investigated an unusual but potentially powerful system consisting of two interferometers whose correlation of output ports signals is measured (see Fig.\ref{scheme}). This kind of double interferometric system can represent a breakthrough for detecting a faint correlated signal that would remain otherwise hidden even using the most sensitive individual interferometric devices, limited by the shot noise. On the other side if the two interferometers are in the experience identical fluctuation, this signal should emerge in a correlation measurement of their output, while the fluctuations due to shot noise and other independent contributions will vanish.
The first experimental realization of this scheme using coherent beams (stabilized lasers), exactly for HN detection, is already being implemented at Fermilab. Other applications can be envisaged such as for new generation of gravitational wave detectors.
In \cite{prl} we have introduced a rigorous quantum model for describing the system. As opposed to standard phase measurement in a single interferometer, which involved first order expectation value of the output, in the double interferometric scheme the quantity under estimation is the covariance of the two outputs, which is a second order quantity, thus the associated uncertainty is a fourth order function. Notwithstanding this difference, we demonstrated how the injection of quantum light at the input ports, which would remain unused in classical Holometer configuration, can boost the sensitivity of the device. In addition to the classical intense coherent beam, we considered both the use of independent squeezed beam (SQB) and correlated state such as the TWB. The ideal experiment described theoretically there, is however not suitable for a practical experimental implementation. In particular, the setting of the central phases the two interferometers exactly at $\phi_{1,0}=\phi_{2,0}=0$ which provides the optimal quantum enhancement, is indeed critical, because minimal deviations from this working regime completely compromise the advantages of the quantum strategy. Furthermore, the balanced readout configuration explored in SQB case would require simultaneously high dynamic range, fast and high resolution detectors that are not yet available.
Here we present a framework in which a more complete and general study of the double interferometric system is provided, leading also to the depiction of a more experiment-oriented configuration of the system in terms of readout strategy and parameters choice.
In Sec. \ref{The interferometric scheme} we present the description of the scheme. In Sec. \ref{Correlations at the read-out ports} we analyse the correlation properties at the output ports of the interferometer in the case of TWB, demonstrating that for a proper choice of the relative phase $\psi$ between the coherent beam and the TWB, the energy transfer from the coherent beam due to the mixing allows the generation of either bright quantum correlation ($\psi=\pi/2$) or anti-correlation ($\psi=0$) in the photon number, as witnessed from the Noise Reduction Factor (NRF) value below unity. Furthermore, we demonstrate that there are two regimes with different behaviour of the system: (A), in which a strict choice of the central phases of the interferometers makes the contribution to the coherent light at the dark port negligible, i.e. only quantum light is detected. In principle it leads to the optimal correlation (only bounded by losses), but turns out quite challenging in practice, since would require extremely precise stabilization of the interferometers, especially if the coherent beam is intense.(B), in which the major component of the signal at the output ports is due to the coherent beam contribution. This is a more common and realistic working condition. There is a sudden transition between these two regimes.
In Sec. \ref{Estimation of phase-correlation (holographic noise)} we describe in detail a model establishing the connection between a generic measurement operator (observable) and the estimation of the phase-covariance introduced by a correlated faint phase signal such as HN. Then, we focus on two specific quantum strategies: either on the use of TWB state and the measure of the photons number difference, of the use of two independent squeezed states and the measure of quadratures covariance. In both cases we evaluate the lower bound to the uncertainty in the phase-covariance-estimation given by photon noise, in function of the fundamental parameters: the interferometers central phases $\phi_{i,0}$ ($i=1,2$), the quantum and classical beam intensities $\lambda$ and detection efficiency $\eta$. The Results are reported in Sec. \ref{Results}. For rather challenging conditions, namely almost ideal efficiency and perfect control of the stability of the interferometers central phases (regime (A)), TWB could deliver extraordinary advantage due to its photon number correlation at the quantum level (entanglement). This regime corresponds to the situation analyzed in \cite{prl}. Conversely, there exists a less demanding regime ((B)-regime described before), in which quantum strategies provide good enhancement in a more favorable experimental condition. In this case,both for TWB and SQB the expression of the minimal uncertainty presents the usual scaling with losses, ($\propto1-\eta$), and with the quantum light intensity, ($\propto1/\lambda$), typical of single phase estimation using strong local oscillator and squeezed light.
Finally we draw the conclusions in Sec. \ref{conclusions}
\section{The interferometric scheme}\label{The interferometric scheme}
Let us consider a system as depicted in Fig.\ref{scheme}. Two interferometers $\mathcal{I}_{i}$ ($i=1,2$) are injected at the ports denoted by the mode annihilation operators $b_{i}$ by a couple of identical coherent beams $|\sqrt{\mu} e^{i\psi}\rangle_{b_{i}}$, while the remaining ports identified by the mode operator $a_{i}$ (unused in the classical scheme) are fed with a quantum state $\vert\mathrm{\Psi}(\lambda)\rangle_{a_1,a_2}$, where $\lambda$ is the mean number of photon in each mode. The readout ports are denoted by the mode operator $c_{i}$ which will be function of the phases shifts $\phi_{i}$ among the arm of each interferometer, $c_{i}=c_{i}(\phi_{i})$. Therefore, a final combination of the outputs results in an observable $\widehat{C}\left(c_{1}, c_{2}, h.c.\right)=\widehat{C}\left(\phi_{1},\phi_{2}\right)$. A proper choice of the operator $\widehat{C}$ leads to an estimation of the phase-noise correlation. Here, it is useful to recall the properties that the input-output operator relations of a linear interferometer (for example a Michelson-type) are equivalent to the ones of a beam splitter (BS) with transmission coefficient $\tau=\cos^{2}(\phi/2)$.
The losses in the system are taken into account by considering in both channels two identical detectors with quantum efficiency $\eta$, formally re-defining the output operators with the substitution $c_{i}\rightarrow \sqrt{\eta}c_{i}$ in the normal-ordering products. For example the photon number operator will be $N_{i}\equiv \eta c_{i}^{\dag}c_{i}$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{scheme.png} \caption{Ideal scheme of the proposed experiment. The two modes of a twin beam are mixed with two identical coherent states at the input beam-splitters of two coupled interferometers (holometer). The covariance of the phase noise at the outputs is studied in order to detect very faint (but correlated) noise.}
\label{scheme}
\end{figure}
If only the classical field is injected, the photon counting statistics at the output ports is simply the one of coherent beams after reflection probability $(1-\tau_{i})$ and detection probability $\eta$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{COHstat}
\langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{i}} &=& \eta(1-\tau_{i})\mu,\\\nonumber
\langle\delta N^{2}\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{i}} &=& \langle N_{i}\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{i}}=\eta \mu (1-\tau_{i}), \\
\langle\delta N_{1} \delta N_{2}\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{1}\tau_{2}} &\equiv& 0. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now we consider two possible quantum states feeding the free input ports of $\mathcal{I}_{i}$ and two related readout strategies.
{\it Readout strategy 1: TWB} -- The TWB correlated state can be expressed in the Fock bases $\left\{\vert m \rangle_{a_{i}}\right\}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{TWB}
\vert\mathrm{\Psi}(\lambda)\rangle_{a_{1},a_{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda}}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\left(e^{i\theta}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{1+\lambda}}\right)^{m}\vert m,m\rangle_{a_{1},a_{2}}
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the global phase, which we set in the following to $\theta=0$ without loss of generality.
The TWB presents perfect correlations in the photon number $m_{i}\equiv a_{i}^{\dag}a_{i}$ meaning that ${}_{a_1,a_2}\langle\langle{\rm TWB}|(\hat{N}_{a_1}-\hat{N}_{a_2})^{M}|{\rm
TWB}\rangle\rangle_{a_1,a_2}=0$, $\forall M>0$. It implies for example that variance of the photons numbers difference $\langle\delta(m_{1}- m_{2})^{2}\rangle$ (with $\delta m\equiv m-\langle m\rangle$) is identically null if losses are neglected. It also suggests to choose the measurement operator in the same form $\widehat{C}\left(\phi_{1},\phi_{2}\right) =\langle(N_{1}- N_{2})^{M}\rangle$, since this should correspond to a reduction of the photon noise in the measurement, finally improving the sensitivity.
By using the equivalence between interferometers and BSs mentioned before, we can calculate the photon statistics of TWB transmitted to the output ports (in absence of classical coherent field) and detected with quantum efficiency $\eta$. The mean photon number, the variance and the covariance are respectively:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{TWBstat}
\langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{i}} &=& \eta \tau_{i}\lambda \\\nonumber
\langle\delta N^{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{i}} &=& \eta \tau_{i} \lambda (1+\eta \tau_{i} \lambda) \\
\langle\delta N_{1} \delta N_{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{1}\tau_{2}} &=& \eta^{2}\tau_{1}\tau_{2}\lambda(1+\lambda)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
{\it Readout strategy 2: two squeezed states} -- The product of two single mode squeezed vacuum states writes:
$$|\xi \rangle_{a_1}\otimes|\xi \rangle_{a_2} = S_{a_1}(\xi)S_{a_2}(\xi)|0\rangle_{a_1}\otimes |0\rangle_{a_2}$$
where $S_{a_i}(\xi) = \exp[ \xi~(a_i^\dag)^2 - \xi^*~(a_i)^2]$ is the squeezing operator. If we set $\xi=|\xi| e^{i \theta_\xi}$, then $\lambda=\sinh^2 |\xi|$ represents the average number of photons of the squeezed vacuum, taken equal in both the modes.
Defining the the quadrature of the field as $x_{i}\equiv \frac{a_{i}+a_{i}^{\dagger}}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $y_{i}\equiv \frac{a_{i}-a_{i}^{\dagger}}{i\sqrt{2}}$, and supposing $y_{i}$ the squeezed and $x_{i}$ the anti-squeezed one, it is known that in the single interferometer the injection of the squeezed field provides a fixed factor $\langle\delta y_{i}^{2}\rangle=e^{-2|\xi|}$ of resolution enhancement for arbitrary brightness of the coherent beam \cite{cav}. It is expected that the increased resolution in the estimation of the phase shifts $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ separately reflects in a better estimation of their correlation if the correlation of the squeezed quadrature $X_{i}$ of the output modes $c_{i}$ are considered, namely $\widehat{C}=X_{1}\cdot X_{2}$.
\section{Correlations at the readout ports}\label{Correlations at the read-out ports}
As a figure of merit for the correlations at the read-out ports, we study the noise reduction parameter $NRF_{\pm}\equiv\langle\delta(N_{1}\pm N_{2})^{2}\rangle/\langle N_{1}+N_{2}\rangle$ \cite{mas,Lamperti2014,m,Lanz2008}. It represents the ratio between the variance of the photon number sum (difference) and the corresponding shot noise limit. The $NRF_{-}<1$ it is a well known condition of non-classicality for the correlations of a bipartite state and its value also determines the quantum enhancement achievable in certain sensing and imaging protocols \cite{n1}.
For the same reason, $NRF_{+}<1$ could be be interpreted as strong signature of anti-correlation of the photon number beyond classical limits.
The BS-like transformation allows evaluating the fluctuation of the fields at the output ports in function of the input field. In particular one gets
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Ni}
\langle N_{i}\rangle&=& \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{i}}+\langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{i}}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{V(Ni)}
\langle\delta N_{i}^{2}\rangle&=& \langle\delta N^{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{i}}+\langle\delta N^{2}\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{i}} + 2 \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{i}} \langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{i}}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{cov(N1N2)}
\langle\delta N_{1} \delta N_{2}\rangle &=& \langle\delta N_{1} \delta N_{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{1}\tau_{2}}- 2 \sqrt{\langle\delta N_{1} \delta N_{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{1}\tau_{2}} \langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{1}} \langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau_{2}}}\cos[2 \psi ]
\end{eqnarray}
and the explicit expression, function of the parameters, can be directly obtained by substituting the quantities according to Eq.s (\ref{COHstat}) and (\ref{TWBstat}).
In particular Eq. (\ref{cov(N1N2)}) shows that the covariance is composed by the TWB covariance $\langle\delta N_{1} \delta N_{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau_{1}\tau_{2}}$ and a second term containing the phase of the coherent field $\psi$, originated by the BS interaction of the two fields. Interestingly, the choice of $\psi=\pi/2$ maximize the covariance, while for $\psi=0$ the covariance can even be negative (anti-correlation of photon numbers).
The $NRF_{\pm}$ can be easily calculated from Eq.s (\ref{Ni},\ref{V(Ni)},\ref{cov(N1N2)}) by exploiting the identity $\langle\delta(N_{1}\pm N_{2})^{2}\rangle=\langle\delta N_{1}^{2}\rangle+\langle\delta N_{2}^{2}\rangle\pm 2 \langle\delta N_{1}\delta N_{2}\rangle$. Using the same notation we have
\begin{equation}\label{NRF}
NRF_{\pm}=\frac{\langle\delta(N_{1}\pm N_{2})^{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}+ 2 \langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau} \left( 1 + 2 \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau} \pm 2\sqrt{ \langle\delta N_{1} \delta N_{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}}\cos[2 \psi ]\right)}{2 \langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau}+2 \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau} }
\end{equation}
For simplicity, in Eq. (\ref{NRF}) and in the following we have assume $\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=\tau$. We note that in general the $NRF_{-}$ is minimized for $\psi=\pi/2$ (corresponding to the optimization of the photon number correlation), while $NRF_{+}$ is minimized when $\psi=0 $ (corresponding to the optimization of the anti-correlation). The $NRF_{-}(\psi=\pi/2)$ and $NRF_{+}(\psi=0)$ are plotted in Fig.\ref{NRFplot}. In order to analyze the behaviour shown in the figures, and for the forthcoming discussion of the results concerning the phase-covariance estimation in Sec. \ref{Results}, it is useful to distinguish two regimes:
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{NRF-.png}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{NRF+.png}
\caption{Noise Reduction Factor versus the transmission coefficient $\tau$ of the TWB modes at the read-out ports of the interferometers. Different colored-lines stand for different mean number of photons of the TWB ($\lambda$): a) is the noise reduction factor ($NRF_{-}$) exploiting quantum correlation at the output ports, for $\psi=\Pi/2$, while b) is the noise reduction factor ($NRF_{+}$) exploiting quantum anti-correlation, for $\psi=0$. Here we consider the ideal lossless case, $\eta=1$, and we set $\mu=10^{6}$.}
\label{NRFplot}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Regime-(A): TWB-like correlations}
Referring to Eq.(\ref{NRF}), when the intensity at the read-out port is dominated by the TWB, i.e. $\langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau}\ll \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}$ or explicitly $k\equiv\mu\left(1-\tau\right)/\tau\lambda \ll1$, the noise reduction factor reduces to the one of TWB, $NRF_{\pm}\simeq\langle\delta(N_{1}\pm N_{2})^{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}/2 \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}$:
\begin{equation}
NRF_{-}\simeq (1-\eta\tau )+\eta\tau (1+2\lambda -2\sqrt{\lambda(1+\lambda)})\kappa\simeq(1-\eta \tau).
\label{NRF-(A)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
NRF_{+}\simeq 1+\eta\tau (2\lambda +1)
\label{NRF+(A)}
\end{equation}
recovering the expression of noise reduction factor for TWB in presence of losses \cite{n1}. Of course the condition $\langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau}\ll \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}$ appears quite challenging to achieve in the relevant case of practical interest in which the coherent mode is largely populated. Larger is $\mu$, closer to unity have to be the equivalent-transitivity $\tau$ of the interferometers. In Fig. \ref{NRFplot} it corresponds to the region $\tau\sim1$, where $NRF_{-}$ drops to zero, clearly behaving as a singular point. We observe that in the same regime, as indicated by Eq. (\ref{NRF+(A)}), the $NRF_{+}$ (marking the anti-correlation) rapidly grows accordingly. This regime has been studied in \cite{prl}. Even if in principle it allows exploiting the perfect TWB-like correlation, with a large classical power circulating into the interferometer, thus obtaining surprising quantum enhancement in the phase correlation estimation, the fragility of this regime has demanded for a more extended exploration of the parameter space. This is one of the motivation of this extended work.
\subsection*{Regime-(B): bright quantum correlation}
When the coherent power reflected to the measuring port is much higher than the transmitted power of TWB $\langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau}\gg \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}$, i.e $\mu\left(1-\tau\right)>> \lambda\tau$, Eq.(\ref{NRF}) reduces to
$$NRF_{\pm}\simeq1 + 2 \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau} \pm 2\sqrt{ \langle\delta N_{1} \delta N_{2}\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}}\cos[2 \psi ].$$
Introducing the explicit expressions of the various moments of the photon number distribution distributions we have
\begin{equation}
NRF_{-}(\psi=\pi/2)=NRF_{+}(\psi=0)\simeq1+2\eta\tau\left( \lambda- \sqrt{\lambda(1+\lambda)}\right)\simeq 1-\tau\eta+ \frac{\eta\tau}{4\lambda},
\label{NRF+-(B)}
\end{equation}
where in the last equality we have also considered the limit of high intensity TWB, i.e. $\lambda\gg1$. It is worth to be notice that the $NRF$, for the proper choice of the phase of the classical fields, is always smaller than 1, whatever the intensity of TWB and losses. Thus, $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ are always correlated (or anti-correlated) beyond the classical limit. It is possible to switch between quantum correlation and quantum anti-correlation just by acting on the phase $\psi$ of the classical fields. Even more interesting, the correlation can be extremely bright, because the mean number of photon at the read-out ports is determined by the brightness of the classical beam $\langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau}= \eta(1-\tau)\mu$, which can be increased almost arbitrarily in real experiments. It is clear from Eq. (\ref{NRF+-(B)}) that the highest correlation is obtained when $\lambda\gg1$ and at the same time $\tau\sim1$. For example in Fig. \ref{NRFplot} for plausible values of $\tau\sim0.90$ and $\lambda=10 $ the NRF is 0.1, and the mean intensity of the output signal is $(1-\tau)\mu=10^{5}$ photons.
\section{Estimation of phase correlation (holographic noise)}
\label{Estimation of phase-correlation (holographic noise)}
Since we the phase fluctuations due to the holographic noise
are expected to be extremely small, we can expand $\widehat{C}(\phi_1, \phi_2)$ around the chosen central
values $\phi_{1,0}$, $\phi_{2,0}$, namely:
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{C}(\phi_1, \phi_2)&=&\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0}, \phi_{2,0})+ \Sigma_i ~ \partial_{\phi_{i}}
\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0}, \phi_{2,0})~ \delta \phi_i + \frac{1}{2} \Sigma_i ~
\partial_{\phi_{i},\phi_{i}}^{2} \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0}, \phi_{2,0})~ \delta \phi_{i}^2 \nonumber \\
&\hbox{}&+
\partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2} \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0}, \phi_{2,0}) ~ \delta \phi_{1} \delta
\phi_{2}+ \mathcal{O}(\delta \phi^3)
\label{C}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta \phi_{i}= \phi_{i}-\phi_{i,0}$, and
$\partial_{\phi_{1}^h, \phi_{2}^k}^{h+k}\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},
\phi_{2,0}) $ is the $(h+k)$-th order derivative of
$\widehat{C}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) $ calculated at $\phi_{i}=\phi_{i,0}$, $i,j=1,2$
\par
In order to reveal the HN, the holometer exploits two different
configurations: the one, ``$\parallel$", where HN correlates the
interferometers, the other, ``$\perp$ ", where the effect of HN
vanishes. The statistical properties of the phase-shift (PS)
fluctuations due to the HN may be described by the joint probability
density functions $f_\parallel (\phi_{1}, \phi_{2})$ and $f_\perp
(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2})$. We make two reasonable hypotheses about
$f_x (\phi_{1}, \phi_{2})$, $x=\parallel,\perp$. First, the marginals
$\mathcal{F}^{(i)}_{x} (\phi_{i})=\int \mathrm{d} \phi_{j } f_x
(\phi_{i}, \phi_{j})$, $i,j=1,2$ with $i\neq j$, are exactly the same
in the two configurations, i.e.
$\mathcal{F}^{(i)}_{\parallel}(\phi_{i})=\mathcal{F}^{(i)}_{\perp}(\phi_{i})$:
one cannot distinguish between the two configurations just by
addressing one interferometer. Second, only in configuration
``$\perp$'' it is $f_\perp (\phi_{1}, \phi_{2})=
\mathcal{F}^{(1)}_{\perp}(\phi_{1})\mathcal{F}^{(2)}_{\perp} (\phi_{2})$,
i.e., there is no correlation between the PSs due to the HN. Now, the
expectation of any operator $\widehat{O}(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ should be
averaged over $f_x$, namely, $\langle\widehat{O}(\phi_1,\phi_2)\rangle
\to \mathcal{E}_{x}\left[\widehat{O}(\phi_1,\phi_2)\right] \equiv \int
\langle\widehat{O}(\phi_1,\phi_2)\rangle ~ f_x (\phi_{1},
\phi_{2}) ~ \mathrm{d} \phi_{1} ~ \mathrm{d} \phi_{2}$. In
turn, by averaging the expectation of Eq.~(\ref{C}), we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}_x \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_1, \phi_2) \right]
&=&
\langle \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0}, \phi_{2,0}) \rangle
+ \frac{1}{2} \Sigma_i ~
\langle \partial_{\phi_{i},\phi_{i}}^{2} \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},
\phi_{2,0}) \rangle ~ \mathcal{E}_x \left[\delta \phi_{i}^2\right]
\nonumber \\
& \hbox{} & +
\langle \partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2}\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},
\phi_{2,0}) \rangle~ \mathcal{E}_x \left[ \delta \phi_{1} \delta
\phi_{2}\right]+ \mathcal{O}(\delta \phi^3)
\label{EC}
\end{eqnarray}
where we used $\mathcal{E}_x \left[\delta
\phi_k\right]=0$. Then, according to the assumption on $f_x (\phi_{1}, \phi_{2})$ we have $\mathcal{E}_\parallel \left[\delta
\phi_{k}^2\right]= \mathcal{E}_\perp \left[\delta
\phi_{k}^2\right]$ and $\mathcal{E}_\perp \left[\delta \phi_{1} \delta
\phi_{2}\right] =\mathcal{E}_\perp \left[\delta \phi_{1} \right] \mathcal{E}_\perp \left[\delta
\phi_{2}\right]= 0$, and from Eq.~(\ref{EC}) follows that the phase-covariance may be written as:
\begin{equation}\label{PSs-Cov}
\mathcal{E}_\parallel \left[ \delta \phi_{1} \delta \phi_{2} \right]
\approx
\frac{\mathcal{E}_\parallel \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_1, \phi_2)
\right]-\mathcal{E}_\perp \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_1, \phi_2)\right]}{\langle \partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2}\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0}) \rangle },
\end{equation}
that is proportional to the difference between the mean values of the operator
$\widehat{C}(\phi_1, \phi_2)$ as measured in the two configurations
``$\parallel$ and ``$\perp$''.
Indeed, one has to reduce as much as possible the uncertainty associated with its measurement:
\begin{equation}\label{U}
\mathcal{U}(\delta \phi_{1} \delta \phi_{2}) \approx
\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{Var}_\parallel \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_1,\phi_2)
\right] + \mathrm{Var}_\perp \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_1,\phi_2) \right]}{\left[ \langle
\partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2} \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0}, \phi_{2,0}) \rangle \right]^2 }}, \quad
(\delta \phi_{1},\delta\phi_{2} \ll 1)
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{Var}_x \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_1,\phi_2) \right] \equiv
\mathcal{E}_x \left[ \widehat{C}^2 (\phi_1,\phi_2) \right] -
\mathcal{E}_x \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_1,\phi_2) \right]^2$.
Under the same hypotheses used for deriving Eq. (\ref{PSs-Cov}) we can calculate the variance of $\widehat{C}(\phi_1, \phi_2)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{VarC}
\mathrm{Var}_x \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_1,\phi_2) \right]=\mathrm{Var} \left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0}) \right]+ \Sigma_k ~ A_{kk}~\mathcal{E}_x \left[\delta \phi_{k}^2\right]+ A_{12}~\mathcal{E}_x \left[\delta \phi_{1}\delta \phi_{2}\right]+\mathcal{O}(\delta \phi^3)
\end{eqnarray}
where:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Akj}
A_{kk}&= &\langle \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0}) \partial_{\phi_{k},\phi_{k}}^{2}\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0})\rangle\\\nonumber
&+&\langle [\partial_{\phi_{k}} \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0})]^{2} \rangle-\langle \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0})\rangle\langle \partial_{\phi_{k},\phi_{k}}^{2}\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0})\rangle\\\nonumber
A_{12}&=&2\langle \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0}) \partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2}\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0})\rangle\\\nonumber
&+&2\langle \partial_{\phi_{1}} \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0})\partial_{\phi_{2}} \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0}) \rangle-\langle \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0})\rangle\langle \partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2}\widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},\phi_{2,0})\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
Analyzing expression (\ref{VarC}), we note the presence of a
zeroth-order contribution that does not depend on the PSs intrinsic
fluctuations, and represents the quantum photon noise of the
measurement described by the operator $\widehat{C}(\phi_1,\phi_2)$
evaluated on the optical quantum states sent into the holometer. The
statistical characteristics of the phase noise enter as second-order
contributions in Eq.~(\ref{VarC}) from each interferometer plus a
contribution coming from phase correlation between them.
This work addresses specifically the problem of reducing the photon
noise below the shot noise in the measurement of the HN, therefore in
the following, we will assume
the zero-order contribution being the dominant one. Of course, this
means to look for the HN in a region of the noise spectrum that is
shot-noise limited. Since the HN is expected up to frequencies of tens
MHz, it follows that all the sources of mechanical vibration noise are
suppressed. Therefore, the zero-order uncertainty that we will study here is
\begin{equation} \label{U0}
\mathcal{U}^{(0)} = \frac{\sqrt{2\, \mathrm{Var}\left[ \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0 }, \phi_{2,0}) \right]}}{\left|
\langle \partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2} \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0},
\phi_{2,0}) \rangle \right|},
\end{equation}
\subsection{TWB}
As we argue in Sec. \ref{The interferometric scheme}, when TWB state is injected it should be promising to define the observable operator in the form $\widehat{C}\left(\phi_{1},\phi_{2}\right)=\left(N_{1}-N_{2}\right)^{M}, (M>0)$ because of the perfect photon number correlation of TWB. Indeed, in the Sec. \ref{Correlations at the read-out ports} we show that at least up to the second order $M=2$, the strong non-classical correlations are preserved at the output ports of the interferometers (for $\psi=\pi/2$), justifying the conjecture that an advantage in terms of noise reduction would be obtained if we can estimate the phases covariance starting from the measurement of an observable of that form. We notice immediately that for $M=1$, corresponding to the photon numbers subtraction, the proportional coefficient in Eq. (\ref{PSs-Cov}), containing the double derivative with respect to both the phases will be null. Thus, we have to move to the second order measurement i.e. $\widehat{C}(\phi_{1},\phi_{2})=\left(N_{1}(\phi_{1})-N_{2}(\phi_{2})\right)^{2}= N_{1}^{2}+N_{2}^{2}-2N_{1}N_{2}$. Hereinafter we also consider the same central phase of the two interferometers $\phi_{1,0}=\phi_{2,0}=\phi_{0}$.
According to Eq. (\ref{PSs-Cov}) we get:
\begin{equation}\label{phaseCov-TWB}
\mathcal{E}_\parallel \left[ \delta \phi_{1} \delta \phi_{2} \right]
\approx
\frac{\mathcal{E}_\parallel \left[N_{1}N_{2}
\right]-\mathcal{E}_\perp \left[N_{1}N_{2}\right]}{\langle \partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2} N_{1}(\phi_{0})N_{2}(\phi_{0})\rangle },
\end{equation}
where we have used again the symmetry of the statistical properties of the two interferometers, in particular $\mathcal{E}_{\parallel(\perp)}\left[ N_{1}^{2}\right]=\mathcal{E}_{\parallel(\perp)} \left[ N_{2}^{2}\right]$. The covariance of the phase noise is proportional to the difference between the photon number correlation when the phase noise is correlated ($\parallel$) and when it is not ($\perp$), as one could expect.
The uncertainty of the measurement, due to photon noise can be obtained by Eq. (\ref{U0}) where $\mathrm{Var}[ \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0 }, \phi_{2,0}) ]=\langle\left(N_{1}(\phi_{0}) -N_{2}(\phi_{0}) \right)^{4}\rangle- \langle(N_{1}(\phi_{0}) -N_{2}(\phi_{0}) )^{2}\rangle^{2}$.
\subsection{Independent Squeezed States }
It is rather intuitive that the most simple form of the measurement operator $\widehat{C}(\phi_{1},\phi_{2})$, that combines the squeezed quadratures measured at the read-out port, and has non-null mixed derivative with respect to the phases, $\partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2}\widehat{C}\neq0$, would be the product $Y_{1}\cdot Y_{2}$ (where $Y_{i}$ are the squeezed quadratures). However, to avoid the presence of a dc-component in the measurement it turns out more useful to consider the fluctuation of the quadratures around their central value, therefore defining $\widehat{C}=(Y_{1}(\phi_{1})-\mathcal{E} [Y_{1}])\cdot(Y_{2}(\phi_{2})-\mathcal{E} [Y_{2}])$, where we have taken into account that $\mathcal{E}_\parallel [Y_{i}]=\mathcal{E}_\perp [Y_{i}]=\mathcal{E} [Y_{i}]$. The covariance of the phases is estimated according to Eq. (\ref{PSs-Cov}) as:
\begin{equation}\label{phaseCov-SQ}
\mathcal{E}_\parallel \left[ \delta \phi_{1} \delta \phi_{2} \right]
\approx
\frac{\mathcal{E}_\parallel \left[Y_{1}Y_{2}
\right]-\mathcal{E}_\perp \left[Y_{1}Y_{2}\right]}{\langle \partial_{\phi_{1},\phi_{2}}^{2} Y_{1}(\phi_{0}) Y_{2}(\phi_{0}) \rangle },
\end{equation}
Since the fluctuations of the quadratures due to quantum noise are independent in the two interferometers, the zero order uncerainty on the measured observable (ses Eq. (\ref{U0})) remains $\mathrm{Var}[ \widehat{C}(\phi_{1,0 }, \phi_{2,0}) ]=\langle\left(Y_{1}(\phi_{0}) -\mathcal{E} [Y_{1}]\right)^{2}\rangle \langle\left(Y_{2}(\phi_{0}) -\mathcal{E} [Y_{2}]\right)^{2}\rangle$.
\section{Results}
\label{Results}
The calculation of the variance of the measurement operator $\widehat{C}(\phi_{0})$, in particular for TWB case, involves many fourth-order terms of the photon number operator, i.e. eighth-order product of field operator $c_{i}$ and $c^{\dag}_{i}$, and the calculation and the complete expression of this variance are too cumbersome to be reported here. Thus, we will present numerical results for the most significative regions inside the parameter space and we give some general expression in particular relevant limits. First of all we need to define the classical benchmark to compare performance using quantum light. The uncertainty achievable in the estimation of the phase covariance, if only the coherent beams are used, is $\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)}=\sqrt{2}/(\eta \mu \cos^{2}\left[\phi_{0}/2\right])$. We notice that the scaling is with the detected number of photons, i.e. the square of the shot noise limit typical of the single phase estimation. This is because we are measuring a second order quantity, namely the covariance of the phases. As usual, it is clear that without any particularly low energy constraint, in order to reach high sensitivity in a phase-correlation measurement is necessary to push the intensity of the classical field. Therefore, even the quantum strategy should face and should improve the sensitivity when high power is circulating into the interferometers. In general we will consider the limit $\mu\gg1$.
Concerning the use of the two independent squeezed states, we can summarize the results in the following couple of equation:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{U-SQ(phi)}
\mathcal{U}_{\rm SQ}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)}&\approx& 1-\frac{\eta(1 + \cos[\phi_{0} ])}{2}+\frac{\eta\cos^{2}[\phi_{0}/2]}{4 \lambda}\quad(\mu\gg1, \lambda\gg1)\\\nonumber
\mathcal{U}_{\rm SQ}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)}&\approx& 1-\eta (1+\cos[\phi_{0} ]) \sqrt{\lambda }(1-\sqrt{\lambda })\quad(\mu\gg1, \lambda\ll1)
\end{eqnarray}
Of course, we expect that the advantages of using squeezing, and in general quantum light, is effective when it experience a low loss level. Thus the most interesting regime is when the two interferometers transmit almost all the quantum light to the read-out port, meaning that the central phase must be close to 0, according to the BS-like behaviour $\tau=\cos^{2}[\phi_{0}/2]\simeq1$. Applying this limit to Eq.s (\ref{U-SQ(phi)} we have $\mathcal{U}_{\rm SQ}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)}\approx 1-\eta+ \eta/4\lambda$ for $\lambda\gg1$ and $\mathcal{U}_{\rm SQ}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)}\approx 1-2\eta\sqrt{\lambda}(1-\sqrt{\lambda })$ for $\lambda\ll1$. We can appreciate visually what does it mean by looking to the Fig. \ref{UvsPhi(eta)}. A flat region (in logarithmic scale) appears in the uncertainty reduction in function of the central phase $\phi_{0}$. Since $\lambda=10$ in the figure, the value of the uncertainty reduction, given by the previous expression, is well represented by $1-\eta+ \eta/4\lambda$. In the opposite limit of $\lambda\ll1$ the advantage of squeezing is lost, according to the second of Eq.s (\ref{U-SQ(phi)}). For example for $\lambda=0.1$, represented in figure Fig. \ref{UvsPhi(lambda)}, the improvement is reduced to 0.6.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{UvsPhi_eta_.png} \caption{Uncertainty provided by the twin beam state (TWB) and by the product of squeezed states (SQ) normalized to the classical limit in function of the central phase $\phi_{0}$ in which the interferometers are operated. The plot is obtained for $\lambda=10$, $\mu=3\times10^{12}$, $\psi=\pi/2$, and different colors corresponds to different values of the detection efficiency $\eta$.}
\label{UvsPhi(eta)}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{UvsPhi_lambda_.png} \caption{Uncertainty provided by the twin beam state (TWB) and by the product of squeezed states (SQ) normalized to the classical limit in function of the of the central phase $\phi_{0}$ in which the interferometers are operated. The plot is obtained for $\eta=0.95$, $\mu=3\times10^{12}$, $\psi=\pi/2$, and different colors corresponds to different values of the mean number of photons per mode $\lambda$ of the quantum light.}
\label{UvsPhi(lambda)}
\end{figure}
Concerning TWB, one can clearly discern two different regions both in Fig. \ref{UvsPhi(eta)} and Fig. \ref{UvsPhi(lambda)}, one for really small values of the central phase, namely $\phi_{0}<10^{-6}$ and an other one in the range $10^{-5}<\phi_{0}<10^{-1}$. They correspond, for the a specific choice of the parameter indicated in figure, to the two relevant regimes that have been individuated in Sec. \ref{Correlations at the read-out ports}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{UvsEta.png} \caption{Uncertainty provided by the twin beam state (TWB) and by the product of squeezed states (SQ) normalized to the classical limit in function of the quantum efficiency $\eta$. The plot is obtained for $\phi=10^{-8}$, $\mu=3\times10^{12}$, $\psi=\pi/2$, and different colors correspond to different values of the mean number of photons per mode $\lambda$ of the quantum light.}
\label{UvsEta}
\end{figure}
\begin{description}
\item[(A)-TWB like correlations-] when $\langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau}\ll \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}$. The condition is guaranteed if the central phases are close enough to zero, $\phi_{1,0}=\phi_{2,0}\simeq0 $, meaning that the transmissivity of the equivalent-BS approaches the unity $\tau_{i}=Cos^{2}[\phi_{i,0}/2]\simeq1 (i=1,2)$. This is the regime studied and reported in \cite{prl}. For intense coherent beam and intense TWB source, i.e. $\mu\gg\lambda\gg1$, one gets $\mathcal{U}_{\rm TWB}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)} \approx 2\sqrt{5}\left( 1-\eta\right)$, while in the case of faint TWB, $\lambda\ll1$ and $\mu\gg1$, the result is $\mathcal{U}_{\rm TWB}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)} \approx \sqrt{2(1-\eta)/\eta}$. In both cases TWB allows reaching an amazing uncertainty reduction that approaches zero for unitary detection efficiency. This behaviour is clearly shown in Fig. \ref{UvsEta} in which the choice of $\mu$ and $\phi_{0}$ ensure to be in the TWB-like regime at least for the range of values of $\lambda$ represented there. All the TWB curves drop to zero, and for some value of the efficiency, depending on the intensity $\lambda$, they fall below the corresponding SQ curves. The limits for $\lambda\ll1$ and for $\lambda\gg1$ are also reported in dotted and dashed black lines respectively. However, we observe that for quantum light intensity $\lambda>1$ reachable in experiments nowadays (for example $\lambda=3$ in the picture) squeezing performs far better than TWB except for extremely demanding overall detection efficiency.
\item[(B)-Bright quantum correlations-] when $\langle N\rangle^{coh}_{\eta\tau}\gg \langle N\rangle^{TWB}_{\eta\tau}$. This regime corresponds to the flat region shown in Fig.s \ref{UvsPhi(eta)} and \ref{UvsPhi(lambda)} for intermediate values of the central phase $\phi_{0}$. Aside a constant factor, the uncertainty reduction for $\mu\gg1$ behaves as for the two independent squeezing case, specifically $\mathcal{U}_{\rm TWB}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)}=\sqrt{2}\mathcal{U}_{\rm SQ}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)}$. It can be easily appreciated when comparing the corresponding curves for TWB and Squeezing in the figures (taking in to account the logarithmic scale).
\end{description}
For the sake of completeness, we did the same analysis considering to exploit the anti-correlations, defining the observable as $\widehat{C}(\phi_{1},\phi_{2})=\left(N_{1}+N_{2}\right)^{2}= N_{1}^{2}+N_{2}^{2}+2N_{1}N_{2}$ (for $\psi=0$) instead of the correlation when TWB are injected, obtaining analogous results in the regime of $\mu\left(1-\tau\right) >> \lambda\tau$.
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
In Sec. \ref{Results} we observed interesting features, leading to promising experimental conditions. Referring to Fig. \ref{UvsPhi(eta)} and \ref{UvsPhi(lambda)} there is an extended range of value of the central working phase $\phi_{0}$ of the interferometers in which the uncertainty reduction achievable by adopting quantum light is stable, at the value $\mathcal{U}_{\rm }^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)}\approx 1-\eta+ \eta/4\lambda$ both with SQB and TWB (a part a factor $\sqrt{2}$ in the last case). This kind of scaling is a well known results of phase estimation in a single interferometer combining coherent strong field and single mode squeezed light (in fact $4\lambda\approx e^{2|\xi|}$ in the limit $4\lambda\gg1$) \cite{cav}. Therefore, it turns out that a measurement of the phase correlation retains the same advantage of the single phase estimation. As an example, for $\eta=0.9$ and $\lambda=3$, compatible with the actual technology, we have 5.7 times of uncertainty reduction in the single measurement. Since in any experiments $\mathcal{N}$ measurements are performed and the final uncertainty is $\mathcal{U}/\sqrt{\mathcal{N}}$, one would easily obtain the same sensitivity with a number of runs 30 times smaller, hence reducing the total measurement time of the same amount.
On the other side, only for TWB, there exists a special setting of the central phase of the interferometer, when the classical fields component is made negligible at the read-out ports with respect to the TWB component, in which in principle the uncertainty reach the zero point, whatever the intensity of TWB. In particular for faint TWB ($\lambda\ll1$) the uncertainty scales as $\mathcal{U}_{\rm TWB}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)} \approx \sqrt{2(1-\eta)/\eta}$ while for intense TWB ($\lambda\gg1$) one gets $\mathcal{U}_{\rm TWB}^{(0)}/\mathcal{U}_{\rm CL}^{(0)} \approx 2\sqrt{5}\left( 1-\eta\right)$. Even if at first glance this looks rather exciting, Fig. \ref{UvsEta} shows that in terms of absolute sensitivity squeezing performance can be overtaken only for rather high detection efficiency. For example for $\lambda=3$ we expect $\mathcal{U}_{\rm TWB}^{(0)}<\mathcal{U}_{\rm SQ}^{(0)}$ for $\eta\geq0.99$. However, for limited quantum resources, namely $\lambda<1$, TWB performs better than squeezing already for smaller and more realistic efficiency values.
In conclusion, we have analyzed in detail a system of two interferometers aimed at the detection of extremely faint phase-fluctuation. The idea behind is that a correlated phase-signal like the one introduced by the ``holographic noise'' could emerge by correlating the output ports of the interferometers, even when in the single interferometer it confounds with the background. We demonstrated that injecting quantum light in the free ports of the interferometers can reduce the photon noise of the system beyond the shot-noise, enhancing the resolution in the phase-correlation estimation. Our results basically confirms the benefit of using squeezed beams together with strong coherent beams in interferometry, even in this correlated case. However, mainly we concentrated on the possible use of TWB, discovering interesting and probably unexplored areas of application of bipartite entanglement and in particular the possibility of reaching in principle surprising uncertainty reduction.
{\bf Acknowledgements}
This work has been supported by EU (BRISQ project) and MIUR (FIRB ``LiCHIS'' -- RBFR10YQ3H). This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John
Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
|
\section{Introduction}
A graph is \emph{equimatchable} if each of its maximal matchings is maximum.
Equimatchable graphs were introduced in \cite{grunbaum}, \cite{lewin}, and \cite{meng}; in particular Gr\"unbaum \cite{grunbaum} asked for a characterisation of all equimatchable graphs.
If equimatchable graphs are required to have a perfect matching, the answer turns out to be fairly simple -- $K_{2n}$ and $K_{n,n}$ for all $n$ are the only such graphs, see \cite{sumner}. A general description of all equimatchable graphs in terms of their Gallai-Edmonds decomposition is provided in \cite{LPP}. Particular consequences of this description are that there is a polynomial-time algorithm recognizing equimatchable graphs, and that every $2$-connected equimatchable graph is either bipartite, or factor-critical.
On the other hand, if the graph is $2$-connected, then the Gallai-Edmonds decomposition provides no additional anformation about the structure of the graph.
Since these early results, a significant attention was given to equimatchable graphs and related concepts of extendability, see \cite{plummer:1994}, \cite{plummer:2007}, and \cite{plummer:2008} for surveys of the area.
Despite considerable effort, the structure of equimatchable graphs is still not very well understood.
Particular exceptions are equimatchable factor-critical graphs with
cuts of size $1$ or $2$,
which were characterized in \cite{favaron:1986}, and planar and cubic equimatchable graphs, which were characterized in \cite{KPS}.
The aim of this paper is to describe the structure of equimatchable factor-critical graphs with respect to their minimum vertex cuts, extending the results of Favaron \cite{favaron:1986} to graphs with higher connectivity.
We build on a result that for any minimal matching $M$ isolating a vertex $v$ of a 2-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph $G$ the graph $G-(V(M)\cup\{v\})$ is connected, which was used in \cite{EK:2013} to bound the maximum size of equimatchable factor-critical graphs with a given genus.
Matchings in graphs with independence number $2$ were studied during attempts to solve a special case of Hadwiger's conjecture, see \cite{PST:2003} and \cite{CHS:2012} for details. In particular, it is known that any odd graph with independence number $2$ is factor-critical, see for example \cite{PST:2003}. We reveal further connections between matchings and graphs with independence number $2$.
Our main results can be described as follows.
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with a $k$-cut $S$,
where $k\ge 3$.
If $G-S$ has at least $2k+3$ vertices, then $G-S$ has exactly two components
and both these components
are very close to being complete or complete bipartite. If both components of $G-S$ additionally have at least $3$ vertices,
then both are complete. Furthermore, if we also require
$k\ge 4$, then the graph has independence number $2$.
On the other hand, we show that
every $2$-connected odd graph with independence number 2 is equimatchable and thus we get the following result. For any $k\ge 4$ let $G$ be a $k$-connected odd graph with at least $2k+3$ vertices and a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G-S$ has two components with at least $3$ vertices. Then $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical if and only if it has independence number $2$.
It turns out that independence number is related with equimatchable graphs also in the following way.
A $2$-connected odd graph $G$ with at least 4 vertices has independence number at most 2 if and only if $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical and $G+e$ is equimatchable for every edge $e$ of the complement of $G$.
\section{Preliminaries}
All graphs in this paper are finite, undirected, and simple.
All subgraphs are considered to be induced subgraphs unless immediately evident otherwise.
If $X$ is a set and $x$ an element of $X$, for brevity we denote the set obtained by removing $x$ from $X$
by $X-x$. If $G$ is a graph and $v$ a vertex of $G$, with a slight abuse of notation we denote by $G-v$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $V(G)-v$.
We say that an edge is \emph{between} $A$ and $B$ if it has one endpoint in $A$ and the other endpoint in $B$, where
$A$ and $B$ are subgraphs, or sets of vertices, of a graph $G$.
Similarly, a set of edges or a matching are \emph{between} $A$ and $B$ if all their edges are between $A$ and $B$.
A graph or a component is \emph{even} if it has even number of vertices, otherwise it is \emph{odd}.
By a \emph{cut} we always mean a vertex cut.
A graph is \emph{randomly matchable} if it is equimatchable and has a perfect matching; it is known that a graph is connected and randomly matchable if and only if it is isomorphic with $K_{2n}$ or $K_{n,n}$ for some positive integer $n$, see \cite{sumner}.
For a matching $M$ of a graph $G$, by $V(M)$ we denote the vertices of $G$ covered by the edges of $M$.
We say that a matching $M$ \emph{isolates} a vertex $v$ of $G$ if $\{v\}$ is a component of $G-V(M)$. A matching $M$ is a \emph{minimal isolating matching of $v$} if $M$ isolates $v$ and
no proper subset of $M$ isolates $v$. We repeatedly use the following result.
\begin{theorem}[Eiben and Kotrb\v{c}\'ik \cite{EK:2013}]
\label{thm:paper1}
Let $G$ be a 2-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph. Let $v$ be a vertex of $G$ and $M_v$ a minimal matching isolating $v$.
Then $G-(V(M_v)\cup \{v\})$ is connected and randomly matchable.
\end{theorem}
We assume that the reader is familiar with basic properties of matchings; for more details we refer to \cite{LP}.
\section{Vertex cuts in equimatchable factor-critical graphs}
The aim of this section is to describe the structure of equimatchable factor-critical graphs with respect to their minimum vertex cuts.
Favaron \cite{favaron:1986} provided a characterisation of equimatchable factor-critical graphs with connectivity 1 or 2 with respect to their minimum vertex cuts.
\begin{theorem}[Favaron \cite{favaron:1986}]
A graph $G$ with vertex-connectivity $1$ is equimatchable and factor-critical if and only if all of the following conditions hold:\\
\textit{(1)} $G$ has exactly one cut-vertex $d$;\\
\textit{(2)} every connected component $C_{i}$ of $G - d$ is randomly matchable; and\\
\textit{(3)} $d$ is adjacent to at least two adjacent vertices of each $C_{i}$.
\end{theorem}
While the case of graphs with connectivity 1 is somewhat exceptional, our results for connectivity $k\ge 3$ are in nature very similar to Theorem~\ref{thm:favaron-2conn} below. In particular, the difficulties with describing the whole larger component in the case when the smaller component is a singleton carry completely to large connectivity, as can be seen from Theorem~\ref{thm:k-and-one}.
\begin{theorem}[Favaron \cite{favaron:1986}]
\label{thm:favaron-2conn}
Let $G$ be a $2$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with at least $4$ vertices and
a $2$-cut $S=\{s_{1}, s_{2}\}$. Then $G- S$ has precisely two components, one of them even
and the other odd.
Let $A$ and $B$ denote the even, respectively the odd component of $G- S$,
let $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ be two distinct vertices of $A$ adjacent to $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$, respectively,
and, if $|B|> 1$, let $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ be two distinct vertices of $B$ adjacent to $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$, respectively.
Then $G$ has the following structure:\\
\textit{(1)} $B$ is one of the four graphs $K_{2p+1}$, $K_{2p+1}- \{b_{1}b_{2}\}$, $K_{p,p+1}$, $K_{p,p+1}\cup \{b_{1}b_{2}\}$ for some nonegative integer $p$.
In the two last cases all neighbours of $S$ in $B$ belong to the larger partite set of $K_{p,p+1}$.\\
\textit{(2)} $A- \{ a_{1} ,a_{2}\}$ is connected randomly matchable
and, if $|B| > 1$, then $A$ is connected randomly matchable.
\end{theorem}
We extend these results to arbitrary fixed connectivity $k\ge 3$ by showing that if the graph has at least $2k+3$ vertices,
then there are exactly two components and both these components are almost complete or complete bipartite.
Our point of departure is a lemma which allows us to efficiently apply Theorem~\ref{thm:paper1} to bound the number of components.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:matchingCut}
Let $G$ be a $2$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph, $M$ a matching of $G$, and
$H$ an odd component of $G- V(M)$. Then $G- (H \cup V(M))$
is connected randomly matchable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $G$ is equimatchable, the matching $M$ can be extended to a maximum matching $M'$ of $G$. The fact that $G$ is factor-critical implies that $M'$ leaves uncovered exactly one vertex $v$ of $G$.
Clearly, $M'$ cannot cover all vertices of $H$ and hence $v$ lies in $H$.
The matching $M'$ covers all neighbours of $v$ and thus it is an isolating matching of $v$.
Consider any minimal matching $M_v$ such that $M_{v}\subseteq M'$ and $M_v$ isolates $v$. Let $G'$ denote the graph $G- (V(M_v)\cup \{v\})$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:paper1} the graph $G'$ is connected randomly matchable.
It is not difficult to see that $M_v$ can contain only edges of $M$ and edges of $H$, and thus
$\{v\}\cup V(M_v)\subseteq H\cup V(M)$.
It follows that
$G- (H \cup V(M)) \subseteq G- (\{v\} \cup V(M_v)) = G'$ and that
the graph $G- (H \cup V(M))$ can be obtained from $G'$ by removing the vertices covered by the edges of $M- M_v$. It is easy to see that removing any two adjacent vertices
of $K_{2n}$ or $K_{n,n}$
leads to $K_{2n-2}$ or $K_{n-1,n-1}$.
We conclude
that $G- (H \cup V(M))$ is connected randomly matchable,
as claimed.
\end{proof}
The next lemma guarantees the existence of a large number of independent edges between
any subset of a cut and a component separated by the cut.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:independentEdges}
Let $G$ be a
$k$-connected graph
with a $k$-cut $S$, where $k\ge 0$.
Let $H$ be a component of $G- S$. Then for arbitrary set of vertices $X\subseteq S$ the graph $G$
contains
at least $\min(|H|, |X|)$ independent edges between $H$ and $X$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We prove the lemma by contradiction.
Let $l$ be the maximum number of independent edges of $G$ between $H$ and $X$ and suppose that $l < \min(|H|, |X|)$.
Since any set of independent edges between $H$ and $X$ is a matching between the vertices of $H$ and $X$, any maximum matching between $H$ and $X$ has size $l$.
By K\"onig's theorem \cite{konig} the maximum size of a matching between $H$ and $X$ equals the minimum
cardinality of a vertex cover of all edges between $H$ and $X$. Hence there is a vertex set $Y\subseteq (H\cup X)$ such that
$|Y|=l$ and $Y$ cover all edges between $H$ and $X$.
Since $|Y|<|H|$, the set $H- Y$ contains at least one vertex and $(S- X)\cup Y$ is a vertex cut of $G$.
Using $|Y|<|X|$ we get that the size of $(S- X)\cup Y$ satisfies $(|S| - |X|) + |Y|= k-|X|+|Y|<k$, which contradicts the fact that
$G$ is $k$-connected.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove that
in the case where
there is a component with at least $k$ vertices
and a component with precisely one vertex
there are exactly two components and
the larger component, except the vertices matched with the cut, is complete or complete bipartite.
However, as stated earlier, a description of the structure of the graph induced on $V(M)$ and of the edges between $V(M)$ and $C$ seems to be quite difficult and remains to be an open problem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:k-and-one}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G- S$ has a component with a single vertex and a component with at least $k$ vertices, where $k\ge 2$.
Then $G-S$ has exactly two components and there is a matching $M$ between $S$ and $C$ covering all vertices of $S$. Furthermore, $C-V(M)$ is connected randomly matchable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Existence of a matching $M$ between $S$ and $C$ covering all vertices of $S$ is a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}.
Let $v$ be the vertex of the single-vertex component of $G-S$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}
implies that $v$ is adjacent to every vertex of $S$ and thus $M$ is a minimal isolating matching of $v$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:paper1} the graph $G-(V(M)\cup \{v\})$ is connected and randomly matchable,
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The next lemma implies that if the graph has at least $2k+3$ vertices, then removing any minimum cut yields precisely two components.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:two-components}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with
a $k$-cut $S$, where $k\ge 2$.
If $G$ has at least $2k+3$ vertices, then $G-S$ has precisely two components.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a contradiction suppose that $H_1,\ldots, H_l$ are the components of $G- S$ for some $l\ge 3$.
Let $M$ be a matching between $S$ and $H_1\cup H_2$ covering as many vertices of $S$ as possible while
leaving uncovered odd number of vertices of both $H_1$ and $H_2$.
Observe that such a matching always exists since $k\ge 2$ and, by Lemma \ref{lem:independentEdges}, every vertex of $S$ is adjacent to every component of $G-S$.
First we prove that if $M$ leaves uncovered at least $2$ vertices of $S$, then it leaves uncovered precisely one vertex in both $H_1$ and $H_2$. Indeed, suppose for the contrary that $M$ leaves uncovered at
least two vertices $s_1$ and $s_2$ of $S$ and more than one vertex in, say, $H_1$. Note that in this case $M$ leaves uncovered at least 3 vertices of $H_1$.
Denote by $M_1$ the edges of $M$ incident with $H_1$. Let $X = \{s_1,s_2\}\cup(S\cap V(M_1))$. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:independentEdges} to $H_1$ and $X$ yields that there is a matching $M'$ between $H_1$ and $X$ covering all vertices of $X$.
It can be easily seen that $M'' = M'\cup (M- M_1)$ is a matching between $S$ and $H_1\cup H_2$ which leaves uncovered odd number of vertices in both $H_1$ and $H_2$, and that $M''$ is larger than $M$, which contradicts the maximality of $M$.
We proceed to extend $M$ to a matching $N$ between $S$ and $G-S$ such that $N$ covers all vertices of $S$ and leaving uncovered odd number of vertices in both $H_1$ and $H_2$. If $M$ covers all vertices of $S$, then let $N=M$.
If $M$ leaves uncovered precisely one vertex $s$ of $S$, then let $N=M \cup\{e\}$, where $e$ is any edge joining $s$ with $H_3$, note that such an edge always exists by Lemma~ \ref{lem:independentEdges}. Finally, if $M$ leaves uncovered at least $2$ vertices of $S$, then it leaves uncovered exactly one vertex in both $H_1$ and $H_2$ as shown above, and $|V(G)|\ge 2k+3$ implies that $H_3\cup\dots\cup H_l$ contains more vertices than $S-V(M)$. Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is a matching $N'$ between $S-V(M)$ and $H_3\cup \dots\cup H_l$ covering all vertices of $S-V(M)$. Now $N=M\cup N'$ is the desired matching covering all vertices of $S$ and leaving uncovered odd number of vertices in both $H_1$ and $H_2$.
To complete the proof it suffices to show that $N$ cannot be extended to a maximum matching of $G$, contradicting the fact that $G$ is equimatchable. Indeed, $N$ leaves uncovered odd number of vertices in both $H_1$ and $H_2$ and separates $H_1$ and $H_2$ from the rest of the graph and thus any maximal matching $N''\supseteq N$ leaves uncovered at least one vertex in both $H_1$ and $H_2$. Since $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical, any maximum matching of $G$ leaves uncovered precisely one vertex of $G$ and hence $N''$ cannot be a maximum matching. The proof is now complete.
\end{proof}
To deal with the cases where the smaller component of $G-S$ has at least two vertices we will
need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:k-and-two}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with a $k$-cut $S$, where $k\ge 2$.
Assume that $G- S$ has a component $C$ with at least $k$ vertices and $G- (S\cup C)$ has a component with exactly two vertices.
Then $G-S$ has exactly two components and there is a matching $M$ between $S$ and $C$ covering all vertices of $S$. Furthermore,
for any matching $M'$ between $S$ and $C$ covering all vertices of $S$ and
for each vertex $x$ of $C\cap V(M')$, the subgraph of $G$ induced by $(C- V(M'))\cup \{x\}$ is connected randomly matchable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Existence of a matching $M$ between $S$ and $C$ covering all vertices of $S$ is a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}.
Let $M$ be any matching between $S$ and $C$ covering all vertices of $S$ and let $D$ be a component of $G- (C\cup S)$ with exactly two vertices.
Let $x$ be any vertex of $C$ covered by $M$ and let $s$ be the vertex of $S$ matched by $M$ with $x$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}
implies that there is a vertex of $D$, say $d$, adjacent to $s$. Let $d'$ be the vertex of $D$ different from $d$.
Consider the set $M' = (M- \{sx\})\cup \{ds\}$; clearly $M'$ is a matching and $\{d'\}$ is an odd component of $G- V(M')$.
Thus
by Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut} the graph $G-(V(M')\cup \{d'\})=(C- V(M))\cup \{x\}$ is connected randomly matchable,
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The following theorem provides a characterisation of $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graphs with a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G-S$ contains a component with at least $k$ vertices and a component with precisely $2$ vertices. We indicate the end of a proof of a claim by $\blacksquare$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:kCutEFC}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with a $k$-cut $S$, where $k\ge 3$.
Assume that $G- S$ has a component $C$ with at least $k$ vertices and $G- (S\cup C)$ has a component with exactly two vertices.
Then $G- S$ has exactly two components. Furthermore, if $S$ contains an edge, then $C$ is a complete graph.
If $S$ does not contain an edge,
then there is a nonegative integer $m$ and sets $\{x_1,\ldots, x_m\}$ of vertices of $C$ and $\{y_1,\ldots, y_m\}$ of vertices of $S$ such that $x_iy_i$ is not an edge of $G$ for every $i\in \{1,\ldots, m\}$ and $C\cup S\cup \{x_1y_1,\ldots, x_my_m\}$ is isomorphic with $K_{n,n+1}$ for some $n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $S=\{s_1,\ldots, s_k\}$ and
let $D=\{d_1,d_2\}$ be a component of $G- (C\cup S)$ with exactly two vertices.
Note that since $G$ is odd, it has at least $2k+3$ vertices and hence, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:two-components},
$D$ is the only component of $G- (C\cup S)$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is a matching $M$ between $S$ and $C$ which covers all vertices of $S$. Denote by $X$ the set $C\cap V(M)$ and let $C'=C-X$.
The fact that $G- S$ has exactly two components follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:k-and-two}.
The rest of the proof is split into two cases.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent {\bf Case A) } There is an edge in $S$.
\begin{claimA}
\label{claimA:triangle-in-X}
If $rs$ is an edge in $S$ and $u$ and $v$ are the two vertices of $C$ matched by $M$ with $r$ and $s$, respectively, then $\{u,v,w\}$ is a triangle for any vertex $w$ of $X- \{u,v\}$.
\end{claimA}
\begin{cProofA}
Choose an arbitrary vertex $w$ from $X- \{u,v\}$ and let $t$ be the vertex of $S$ matched by $M$ to $w$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is an edge between $s$ and a vertex of $D$, say $d$. Let $M' = (M-\{ru,sv,tw \})\cup\{rs,td\}$ and denote the only vertex of $D-d$ by $d'$.
Clearly, $M'$ is a matching of $G$ which isolates $d'$.
Let $x$ be any vertex from $\{u,v,w\}$.
Applying Lemma~\ref{lemma:k-and-two} to
$C'\cup\{x\}$ and $M$ yields that $C'\cup\{x\}$ is
randomly matchable
and thus
it has
a perfect matching $M_x$.
Observe that the set $M_x\cup M'$ is a matching of $G$ which leaves uncovered precisely the vertices in $\{d', u, v, w\}-\{x\}$. Because $\{u,v,w\}\subseteq C$ and
$S$ is a cut separating $C$ and $D$, there
is no edge between $d'$ and $\{u,v,w\}$.
The fact that $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical implies that the two vertices in $\{u, v, w\}-\{x\}$ are joined by an edge. Since $x$ was arbitrary vertex from $\{u,v,w\}$, the claim follows.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofA}
If $k=3$, then the result follows from Claim~A\ref{claimA:triangle-in-X}. Therefore, from now on we assume $k\ge 4$.
\begin{claimA}
\label{claimA:X-is-complete}
The subgraph of $G$ induced by $X$ is a complete graph.
\end{claimA}
\begin{cProofA}
Let $rs$ be an edge of $S$.
Our aim is to show that there is an edge between arbitrary two vertices $y$ and $z$ of $X$.
Denote by $x_r$ and $x_s$ the two vertices of $X$ joined by $M$ to $r$ and $s$, respectively. If $y$ or $z$ belongs to $\{x_r,x_s\}$,
then $y$ and $z$ are joined by an edge by Claim~A\ref{claimA:triangle-in-X}. Hence we can assume that $\{y,z\}\cap \{x_r,x_s\} = \emptyset$. Claim~A\ref{claimA:triangle-in-X} applied to $\{x_r,x_s,y\}$ shows that $x_ry$ is an edge of $G$.
Applying Lemma~\ref{lemma:k-and-two}
to $C'\cup\{z\}$ and $M$ yields that $C'\cup\{z\}$ is randomly matchable and thus it has a perfect matching $M'$.
Let $s_y$ and $s_z$ be the vertices of $S$ joined by $M$ to $y$ and $z$, respectively.
Consider the set
$M'' = (M-\{rx_r,ys_y,zs_z\})\cup M' \cup \{yx_r, e\}$, where $e$ is the edge in $D$. It is not difficult to see that $M''$ is a matching which leaves uncovered exactly the vertices $r$, $s_y$, and $s_z$. Hence $\{r,s_y,s_z\}$ contains an edge $e$ and the result follows by using Claim~A\ref{claimA:triangle-in-X} on $e$ and $\{x_r,y,z\}$.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofA}
\begin{claimA}
\label{claimA:C'-is-complete}
The subgraph of $G$ induced by $C'$ is a complete graph.
\end{claimA}
\begin{cProofA}
Assume that the edge in $S$ is $rs$.
Let $x_r$ and $x_s$ be the vertices of $X$ joined by $M$ to $r$ and $s$, respectively, and let $y$ be an arbitrary vertex of $X-\{x_r,x_s\}$. By Claim~A\ref{claimA:triangle-in-X} applied to $rs$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $\{y,x_r,x_s\}$ is a triangle. Let $s_y$ be the vertex of $S$ joined to $y$ by $M$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is a vertex of $D$, say $d$, adjacent to $s_y$. Let $d'$ be the vertex of $D$ different from $d$. Consider the set $M' = M-\{rx_r, sx_s, ys_y\}\cup\{rs,ds_y\}$; clearly $M'$ is a matching isolating $d'$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:paper1} the graph $G-(V(M)\cup\{d'\}) =C'\cup\{y,x_r,x_s\}$ is either $K_{2n}$ or $K_{n,n}$.
Since $\{y,x_r,x_s\}$ induces a triangle and is contained in $C'\cup\{y,x_r,x_s\}$, the graph $C'\cup\{y,x_r,x_s\}$ is a complete graph. In particular $C'$ is a complete graph, as claimed.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofA}
\begin{claimA}
The subgraph of $G$ induced by $C$ is a complete graph.
\end{claimA}
\begin{cProofA}
By Claim~A\ref{claimA:X-is-complete} the set $X$ induces a complete graph and by Claim~A\ref{claimA:C'-is-complete} the set $C'$ induces a complete graph. Lemma~\ref{lemma:k-and-two}
implies that for each vertex $x$ of $X$ the graph $C'\cup \{x\}$ is connected randomly matchable. It is not difficult to see that if $C'$ is a complete graph, then also $C'\cup \{x\}$ is a complete graph for each $x$ of $X$. It follows that each vertex of $X$ is adjacent to every vertex of $C'$ and thus $C$ is a complete graph, as claimed.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofA}
The preceding claim completes the case where there is an edge in $S$ and the first part of the proof.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent {\bf Case B)} The set $S$ is independent.
\vspace*{2mm}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:X-independent}
The set $X$ is independent.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
For a contradiction suppose that
$x_1x_2$ is an edge in $X$ and let $x_3$ be an arbitrary vertex of $X-\{x_1,x_2\}$. Let $M'$ be an arbitrary perfect matching of $C'\cup\{x_3\}$, due to Lemma~\ref{lemma:k-and-two} such a matching exists.
Furthermore, let $s_i$ be the vertex matched by $M$ with $x_i$ for $i=1,2,3$ and let $e$ be the edge in $D$.
The matching
$M'' = (M- \{s_1x_1, s_2x_2, s_3x_3\})\cup M' \cup \{x_1x_2,e\}$
leaves uncovered only the vertices $s_1$, $s_2$, and $s_3$. By the assumption of Case B) the maching $M''$ is maximal, contradicting the fact that $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:Knn+1}
The subgraph of $G$ induced by $C'$ is isomorphic with $K_{n+1,n}$ for some $n\ge 0$.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
If $C'$ contains only one vertex, then the claim holds. Since $C'$ is odd, we can assume $|V(C')|\ge 3$.
Lemma~\ref{lemma:k-and-two} implies that for each
$x\in X$
the graph $C'\cup\{ x\}$ is connected randomly matchable.
If $C'\cup \{x\}$ is $K_{m,m}$ for some $x\in X$, then $C'$ is clearly $K_{m,m-1}$ and the claim holds.
For a contradiction suppose that $C'\cup \{x\}$ is $K_{2m}$ for each $x\in X$.
Let $x$ be an arbitrary vertex of $X$, let $M'$ be a perfect matching of $C'\cup \{x\}$, and $bc$ an edge of $M'$ not incident with $x$.
Observe that both $b$ and $c$ are adjacent with
each vertex $x'$ of $X$
since $C'\cup \{x'\}$ is $K_{2m}$.
Let $x_b$ and $x_c$ be two vertices of $X-x$.
Finally, let $s_x$, $s_b$, and $s_c$, be the vertex matched by $M$ with $x$, $x_b$, respectively $x_c$.
It follows that
the set $M''$ defined by $M''=(M- \{s_xx,s_bx_b, s_cx_c \})\cup (M'-\{bc \})\cup \{ x_bb,x_cc, d_1d_2\}$ is a matching which covers all vertices of $G$ except $s_x$, $s_b$, and $s_c$.
Because $S$ is independent, $M''$ is a maximal matching leaving uncovered $3$ vertices, which contradicts the fact that $G$ is equimatchable factor-critical and completes the proof of the claim.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\noindent Denote by $U$ the smaller and by $W$ the larger partite set of $C'$.
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:no-edge-X-U}
There is no edge between $X$ and $U$.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
We proceed by contradiction. Suppose that $u$ is a vertex of $U$ adjacent to a vertex $x$ of $X$. Let $s$ be the vertex of $S$ matched with $x$ by $M$ and let $d$ be any vertex of $D$ adjacent to $s$; such a vertex $d$ exists by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}. Clearly, the set $M'= (M-\{sx\}) \cup \{ds, xu\}$ is a matching of $G$. It is not difficult to see that any maximal matching containing $M'$ leaves unmatched at least two vertices of $W$, which contradicts the fact that $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:no-edge-S-W}
There is no edge between $S$ and $W$.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
For a contradiction suppose that there is a vertex $w$ of $W$ adjacent to some vertex $s$ of $S$.
Let $t$ be any vertex of $S-s$ and let $d$ be a vertex of $D$ adjacent to $t$, such a vertex $d$ exists by
Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}. Furthermore, let $x_s$ and $x_t$ be the vertices of $X$ matched by $M$ with $s$ and $t$ respectively, and
let $N=(M- \{sx_s,tx_t\})\cup \{sw, td\}$. Clearly, $N$ is a matching of $G$.
Note that $N$ leaves uncovered $D-d$ and $(C'\cup \{x_s,x_t\})-w$. Since $S$ is a cut, the vertex in $D-d$ is not adjacent with any vertex in $(C'\cup \{x_s,x_t\})-w$.
Claim~B\ref{claimB:Knn+1} and the choice of $w$ imply that $C'-w$ is $K_{n,n}$ for some $n$. Furthermore, by Claim~B\ref{claimB:no-edge-X-U} there is no edge between $\{x_s,x_t\}$ and $U$. It follows that
$(C'\cup \{x_s,x_t\})-w$ is a subgraph of $K_{n+2,n}$ and thus any maximal matching of $G$ containing $N$ leaves uncovered $d$ and at least two vertices of $(C'\cup \{x_s,x_t\})-w$, contradicting the fact that $G$ is equimatchable factor-critical.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:all-edges-X-W}
Each vertex of $X$ is adjacent to every vertex of $W$.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Let $x$ be a vertex of $X$ and $w$ a vertex of $W$. By Claim~B\ref{claimB:Knn+1} the graph $C'$ is $K_{n,n+1}$ and by
the definition of $W$ the vertex
$w$ lies in the larger partite set of $C'$. It follows that there is a perfect matching $M'$ of $C'-\{w\}$. Let $s$ be the vertex of $S$ matched with $x$ by $M$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is an edge $e$ between $s$ and $D$. Let $d$ be the vertex of $D$ not covered by $e$. Let $M'' = (M-\{xs\})\cup M' \cup \{e\}$. Clearly, $M''$ is a matching which covers all vertices of $G$ except $d,x$ and $w$. Since $C$ and $D$ are different components of $G-S$ and $x$ and $w$ lie in $C$, the vertex $d$ is adjacent with neither $x$, nor $w$. Using the fact that $G$ is factor-critical and equimatchable we get that $x$ and $w$ are adjacent, which completes the proof.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:almost-all-edges-S-X-U}
Each vertex of $S$ is adjacent to either all, or all but one vertices of $X\cup U$.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Suppose to the contrary that there is a vertex $s$ of $S$ and two vertices $v_1$ and $v_2$ from $X\cup U$ such that $s$ is adjacent neither to $v_1$, nor to $v_2$. Let $x$ be the vertex of $X$ matched with $s$ by $M$ and note that $x$ is different from both $v_1$ and $v_2$.
If $v_1\in X$, then let $y_1 = v_1$, otherwise let $y_1$ be an arbitrary vertex of $X-\{x, v_2\}$. Similarly, if $v_2\in X$, then let $y_2 = v_2$, otherwise let $y_2$ be an arbitrary vertex of $X-\{x,y_1\}$.
Let $t_1$ and $t_2$ be the two vertices of $S$ matched by $M$ with $y_1$, respectively $y_2$.
Let $M'$ be a set of two independent edges between $D$ and $\{t_1, t_2\}$; such two edges exist by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}. Recall that
the graph $C'$ is isomorphic with $K_{n,n+1}$ by Claim~B\ref{claimB:Knn+1}
and that each vertex of $X$ is adjacent with every vertex of $W$
by Claim~B\ref{claimB:all-edges-X-W}.
Using the last two observations it is not difficult to prove that $C'\cup\{x,y_1,y_2\}$ has a matching $N$ which covers all vertices of $C'\cup\{x,y_1,y_2\}$ except $v_1$ and $ v_2$; a straightforward case analysis on $|\{y_1,y_2\}\cap \{v_1,v_2\}|$ is left to the reader.
Consider the set $N' = (M- \{sx, y_1t_1, y_2t_2\})\cup M'\cup N$.
It is easy to see that $N'$ is a matching which covers all vertices of $G$ except $v_1,v_2$, and $s$.
Observe that there is no edge between $v_1$ and $v_2$. Indeed, if one of $v_1,v_2$ belongs to $X$ and the other to $U$, then they are not adjacent by
Claim~B\ref{claimB:no-edge-X-U}. If both $v_1$ and $v_2$ are from $X$, then they are not adjacent by Claim~B\ref{claimB:X-independent}. Finally, if both $v_1$ and $v_2$ are from $U$, then they are not adjacent by the definition of $U$.
Since by our assumption $s$ is adjacent with neither $v_1$, nor $v_2$, we get a contradiction with the fact that $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:almost-all-edges-X-S}
Each vertex of $X$ is adjacent to either all, or all but one vertices of $S$.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Suppose for the contrary that there is a vertex $x$ of $X$ and two vertices $t_1$ and $t_2$ of $S$ such that $x$ is adjacent to neither $t_1$, nor $t_2$.
Let $s$ be the vertex of $S$ matched with $x$ by $M$ and let $y_1$ and $y_2$ be the two vertices matched by $M$ with $t_1$ and $t_2$, respectively. By Claim~B\ref{claimB:almost-all-edges-S-X-U} the vertex $s$ is adjacent with at least one of $y_1$ and $y_2$; without loss of generality we assume that $s$ is adjacent to $y_1$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:k-and-two} the graph $C'\cup\{y_2\}$ is randomly matchable and hence it has a perfect matching $M'$.
Let $M'' = (M- \{sx,t_1y_1,t_2y_2\})\cup M' \cup \{e, sy_1\}$, where $e$ is the edge in $D$.
It is not difficult to see that $M''$ is a matching which covers all vertices of $G$ except $x, t_1$, and $t_2$.
By the assumption of Case B)~the vertices $t_1$ and $t_2$ are not adjacent and by our assumption $x$ is adjacent to neither $t_1$, nor $t_2$.
Therefore, $M''$ is a maximal matching leaving uncovered 3 vertices, contradicting
the fact that $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:almost-all-edges-U-S}
Each vertex of $U$ is adjacent to either all, or all but one vertices of $S$.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Suppose for the contrary that there is a vertex $u$ of $U$ and two vertices $t_1$ and $t_2$ of $S$ such that $u$ is adjacent to neither $t_1$, nor $t_2$.
Let $y_1$ and $y_2$ be the two vertices of $X$ matched by $M$ with $t_1$ and $t_2$, respectively.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:k-and-two} the graph $C'$ is isomorphic with $K_{n,n+1}$ and by Claim~B\ref{claimB:all-edges-X-W} both vertices $y_1$ and $y_2$ are adjacent to every vertex from the larger partite set of $C'$.
Therefore, there exists a perfect matching $M'$ of $C'\cup\{ y_1, y_2\} - \{u\}$.
Let $M'' = (M- \{t_1y_1,t_2y_2\})\cup M' \cup \{e\}$, where $e$ is the edge in $D$.
It is not difficult to see that $M''$ is a matching which covers all vertices of $G$ except $u, t_1$, and $t_2$.
By the assumption of Case~B) the vertices $t_1$ and $t_2$ are not adjacent, and by our assumption $u$ is adjacent to neither $t_1$, nor $t_2$.
It follows that $M''$ is a maximal matching leaving uncovered 3 vertices, which contradicts the fact that $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical. The proof of Claim~B\ref{claimB:almost-all-edges-U-S} is now complete.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
Denote by $H$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $C\cup S$. Claims~B\ref{claimB:no-edge-X-U} and B\ref{claimB:no-edge-S-W} imply that $U\cup W\cup X\cup S = H$ is a bipartite graph with partite sets $X\cup U$ and $S\cup W$. Claim~B\ref{claimB:Knn+1} and the definition of $U$ and $W$ yield that each vertex of $U$ is adjacent to every vertex of $W$.
By Claim~B\ref{claimB:all-edges-X-W} each vertex of $X$ is adjacent to every vertex of $W$. From Claims~B\ref{claimB:almost-all-edges-S-X-U}, B\ref{claimB:almost-all-edges-X-S}, and B\ref{claimB:almost-all-edges-U-S} we get that there is a nonnegative integer $m$ and sets of vertices $\{t_1,\ldots, t_m\}\subseteq S$ and $\{y_1,\ldots, y_m\}\subseteq X\cup U$ such that $t_iy_i\notin E(G)$ for all $i\in \{1,\ldots, m\}$ and that $H\cup \{t_1y_1,\ldots, t_my_m\}$ is a complete bipartite graph. The proof is now complete.
\end{proof}
The following observation may be easily verified.
\begin{observation}
\label{observation:Knn-two-vertices-removal}
Let $G$ be isomorphic with $K_{n,n}$ for some $n\ge 1$ and let $u$ and $v$ be two vertices of $G$. If $G-\{u,v\}$ is randomly matchable,
then $u$ and $v$ are adjacent.
\hfill $\square$
\end{observation}
\setcounter{claimA}{0}
\setcounter{claimB}{0}
\setcounter{cProofA}{0}
\setcounter{cProofB}{0}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Cgek-Dge3}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with at least $2k+3$ vertices
and a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G- S$ has two components with at least $3$ vertices, where $k\ge 3$.
Then $G-S$ has exactly two components and both are complete graphs.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lemma:two-components} the graph $G-S$ has precisely two components, denote these components by $C$ and $D$, respectively.
First we deal with the case where both $C$ and $D$ are strictly smaller than $k$; this case is much simpler.
Take any two vertices $c$ and $c'$ of a component of $G-S$, say of $C$. Let $l = |V(C)|$. Since $|V(C)| < k$, there are $l$ independent edges between $S$ and $C$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}. Therefore, we can choose a set $M_C$ of $l-2$ independent edges between $S$ and $C-\{c,c'\}$. Since $|V(G)|\ge 2k+3$, by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is a set $M_D$ of $k-l+2$ independent edges between $D$ and $S-V(M_C)$.
Let $M=M_C\cup M_D$ and observe that $M$ is a matching of $G$.
It is not difficult to see that the vertex $c$ can be in $G-V(M)$ adjacent only to $c'$, and similarly $c'$ can be adjacent only to $c'$. Since $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical, the matching $M$ can be extended to a maximum matching of $G$,
which leaves unmatched precisely one vertex of $G$. Clearly, this is possible only if $c$ and $c'$ are adjacent. Since the choice of $c$ and $c'$ was arbitrary, it follows that both components of $G-S$ are complete, as claimed.
From now on we assume that at least one component of $G-S$, say $C$, has at least $k$ vertices.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is a set $M$ of $k$ independent edges
between $C$ and $S$ covering all vertices of $S$.
Denote by $X$ the set of vertices $C\cap V(M)$ and let $C' = C - X$.
We distinguish two cases.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Case A) $D$ is even.}
First observe that in this case $C'$ is odd and
denote by $H$ an odd component of $C'$.
Clearly, $G$, $M$, and $H$ satisfy the assumptions of Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut} which implies that $G-(H\cup V(M))$ is
connected randomly matchable.
Since $D$ is a component of $G-(H\cup V(M))$, it follows that $H$ is the only component of $C'$
and thus $H\cup V(M)=S\cup C$. Consequently, $D=G-(H\cup V(M))$ and hence $D$ is
connected
randomly matchable.
To prove that $D$ is complete we proceed by contradiction and suppose that $D$ is $K_{n,n}$ for some $n\ge 2$. Since $k\ge 3$, by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there are at least three independent edges between $D$ and $S$ and at least two of these edges, say $sd$ and $s'd'$, have their endvertices in the same partite set of $D$,
where $d$ and $d'$ are vertices of $D$.
Let $x$ and $x'$ be the vertices of $X$ matched by $M$ with $s$ and $s'$, respectively.
Let $M'=(M-\{sx,s'x'\})\cup\{sd,s'd'\}$ and let $H'$ be an odd component of $C'\cup\{x,x'\}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut} the graph $G-(H'\cup V(M'))$ is
randomly matchable.
On the other hand, $G-(H'\cup V(M')) = D-\{d,d'\}$ and thus $d$ and $d'$ are
adjacent by Observation~\ref{observation:Knn-two-vertices-removal}, contradicting the fact that $d$ and $d'$ lie in the same partite set.
Therefore, we conclude that $D$ is isomorphic with $K_{2n}$.
\begin{claimA}
\label{claimA:Ccup1}
The graph $C'\cup \{x\}$ is connected randomly matchable for each $x\in X$.
\end{claimA}
\begin{cProofA}
Let $s$ be the vertex of $S$ matched by $M$ with $x$.
Since $S$ is a minimum cut, there is a vertex $d$ of $D$ adjacent with $s$. Let $H$ be an odd component of $D-d$ and let $M' = (M\cup\{ds\})- sx$. Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut} applied to $H$ and $M'$ implies that $G-(H\cup V(M'))$ is connected randomly matchable and that $H= D-d$. Therefore, $C'\cup \{x\} = G-(H\cup V(M'))$ and thus $C'\cup \{x\}$ is connected randomly matchable, as claimed.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofA}
\begin{claimA}
\label{claimA:Ccup3}
For each triple of pairwise distinct vertices $x,y,z$ of $X$
the graph $C'\cup \{x,y,z\}$ is isomorphic with $K_{2n}$ for some $n$.
\end{claimA}
\begin{cProofA}
Let $s_x,s_y$ and $s_z$ be the vertices matched by $M$ with $x,y,$ and $z$, respectively.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there are three
pairwise distinct vertices $d_x, d_y,$ and $d_z$ of $D$ adjacent to $s_x, s_y$, and $s_z$, respectively.
Since $D$ is even and $|D|\ge 4$, the graph $D-\{d_x,d_y,d_z\}$ is odd and thus contains an odd component $H$. Using Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut} on $H$ and
$
(M-\{ xs_x,ys_y,zs_z\})
\cup
\{s_xd_x,s_yd_y,s_zd_z\}
$
we get that $C'\cup \{x,y,z\}$ is connected randomly matchable.
Since $C'\cup \{v\}$ is connected randomly matchable for each $v\in \{x,y,z\}$ by Claim~A\ref{claimA:Ccup1}, Observation~\ref{observation:Knn-two-vertices-removal} used on all pairs from $\{x,y,z\}$ implies that $\{x,y,z\}$ induces a triangle. The last observation
implies that
$C'\cup \{x,y,z\}$ is
complete
and concludes the proof of the claim.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofA}
Using Claim~A\ref{claimA:Ccup3} on all triples of vertices of $X$ implies that the graph induced by $C$ is complete, as claimed.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Case B) $D$ is odd.}
Let $l = \min\{|D|,k \}$ and
note that
$l\ge 3$.
Our first aim is to show that $C$ is complete.
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:C-RM}
The subgraph of $G$ induced by $C'$ is connected randomly matchable.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut} applied to $D$ and $M$ implies that $G-(D\cup V(M))$ is connected randomly matchable.
The claim follows from the fact that $C' = G-(D\cup V(M))$.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:Ccup2-RM}
For each two vertices $x$ and $x'$ of $X$ the graph $C'\cup \{x,x'\}$ is connected randomly matchable. Furthermore, the vertices $x$ and $x'$ are adjacent.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Let $s$ and $s'$ be the vertices of $S$ matched by $M$ with $x$ and $x'$, respectively.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there are two independent edges $sd$ and $s'd'$, where $d$ and $d'$ are vertices of $D$. Since $D$ is odd and $|D|\ge 3$, there is an odd component $H$ of $D-\{d,d'\}$.
Let $M' = (M \cup \{sd,s'd'\}) - \{ xs, x's'\}$. Clearly, $M'$ is a matching and thus Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut} applied to $H$ and $M'$ implies that $C'\cup \{x,x'\}$ is connected randomly matchable. If $C'\cup \{x,x'\}$ is a complete graph, then $c$ and $c'$ are adjacent and there is nothing left to prove. If $C'\cup \{x,x'\}$ is $K_{n,n}$ for some $n\ge 2$, then we get that $x$ and $x'$ are adjacent by Claim~B\ref{claimB:C-RM} and Observation~\ref{observation:Knn-two-vertices-removal}.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
Using Claim~B\ref{claimB:Ccup2-RM} on all pairs of vertices $x$ and $x'$ of $X$ implies that the subgraph of $G$ induced by $X$ is complete.
Since $C'$ is even, we can thus assume that $|C'|\ge 2$.
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:Ccup2-complete}
For each two vertices $x$ and $y$ of $X$ the graph $C'\cup \{x,y\}$ is $K_{2n}$ for some $n$.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Let $z$ be a vertex of $X-\{x,y\}$.
By Claim~B\ref{claimB:Ccup2-RM} the graph $C'\cup \{x,y\}$ is connected randomly matchable. Suppose for a contradiction that $C'\cup \{x,y\}$ is $K_{n,n}$ for some $n\ge 2$.
Since $C'\cup \{x,y\}$ is $K_{n,n}$ and $n\ge 2$, Claim~B\ref{claimB:Ccup2-RM} implies that $C'$ is $K_{n-1,n-1}$. Let $A$ and $B$ denote the partite sets of $C'$. Since $x$ and $y$ are adajcent, without loss of generality we may assume that
the partite sets of $C'\cup \{x,y\}$ are $A\cup \{x\}$ and $B\cup\{y\}$.
In particular, $x$ is not adjacent to any vertex of $A$ and thus $C'\cup\{x,z \}$ is not a complete graph. Similarly, $C'\cup \{y,z\}$ is also not a complete graph.
Therefore, Claim~B\ref{claimB:Ccup2-RM} used on $x$ and $z$ imply that $z$ is adjacent with all vertices of $A$ and it is not adjacent to any vertex in $B$.
However, Claim~B\ref{claimB:Ccup2-RM} used on $y$ and $z$ implies that at least one of $y$ and $z$ is adjacent to all vertices of $B$,
which is a contradiction.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
We conclude that $C$ is complete by using Claim~B\ref{claimB:Ccup2-complete} on all pairs of vertices $x$ and $x'$ of $X$.
\medskip
Now we prove that $D$ is complete. By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}
there is a set of $l$ independent edges
$\{s_1d_1,\ldots, s_ld_l\}$ between $S$ and $D$, where $d_1,\ldots, d_l$ are vertices of $D$. For each $i\in \{1,\ldots, l\}$ denote the graph $D-d_i$ by $D_i$ and let $x_i$ be the vertex of $X$ matched by $M$ with $s_i$.
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:Di-RM}
For each $i\in \{1,\ldots, l\}$ the graph $D_i$ is connected randomly matchable.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Let $M_{i}=(M-\{s_{i}x_i\})\cup \{d_{i}s_i\}$ and
let $H_{i}$ be an odd component of
$C'\cup\{x_i\}$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut} applied to $G$, $M_{i}$, and $H_{i}$ yields that $G-(H_{i}\cup V(M_{i}))$ is connected randomly matchable and thus $H_{i}$ is the only component of $C'\cup\{x_i\}$.
Consequently, $D_i = G-(H_{i}\cup V(M_{i}))$ and thus $D_i$ is connected randomly matchable, as claimed.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
Since $l\ge 3$, it is easy to see that if $D$ contains only three vertices, then Claim~B\ref{claimB:Di-RM} for $i=1,2$, and $3$ implies that $D$ is complete.
Therefore, we can assume $|V(D)|\ge 5$.
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:Di-complete}
If $D_i$ is a complete graph for some $i\in\{1,\ldots, l\}$, then $D$ is a complete graph.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Assume that $D_i$ is a complete graph for some $i\in\{1,\ldots, l\}$. It is easy to see that for any $j\in\{1,\ldots, l\}$ the graph $D_i-d_j$ contains a triangle. Since
$D_i - d_j$ is contained in $D_j$, we get that $D_j$ is a complete graph for each $j\in\{1,\ldots, l\}$ by Claim~B\ref{claimB:Di-RM}. The proof of the claim is concluded by observing that for each pair of vertices $d$ and $d'$ of $D$ there is some $m\in \{1,\ldots, l\}$ such that both $d$ and $d'$ are contained in $D_m$.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
\begin{claimB}
\label{claimB:D=Kn+1n}
If there is a pair of integers $i$ and $j$ from $\{1,\ldots, l\}$ such that
both $D_i$ and $D_j$ are isomorphic with $K_{n,n}$ for some $n$, then $d_i$ and $d_j$ are not adjacent.
\end{claimB}
\begin{cProofB}
Let $m$ be an integer from $\{1,\ldots, l\}-\{i,j\}$ and note that $D_m$ is connected randomly matchable by Claim~B\ref{claimB:Di-RM}.
Observe that $D_m$ is $K_{n,n}$, since otherwise $D_m - d_i \subseteq D_i$ would contain a triangle.
Since $D_j$ is $K_{n,n}$, the graph $D_j-d_i$ is $K_{n,n-1}$.
Let $A$ denote the set of vertices of $D$ lying in the larger partite set of $D_j$. By comparing $D_j$ and $D_j-d_i$ it is easy to see that
$d_i$ is adjacent to all vertices of $A$.
Furthermore, $D_i = (D_j - d_i) \cup \{d_j\}$ and thus also $d_j$ is adjacent to all vertices of $A$.
It follows that both $d_i$ and $d_j$ are
in $D_m$ adjacent to all vertices of $A\cap D_m$.
The fact that $|V(D)|\ge 5$ implies $n\ge 2$ and thus $A\cap D_m$ contains a vertex $d$.
The proof is concluded by observing that
$d_i$ and $d_j$ are not adjacent, since otherwise $D_m$ would contain the triangle $\{d,d_i,d_j\}$.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProofB}
Recall that $l\ge 3$ and observe that if one of $D_1, D_2,$ and $D_3$ is a complete graph, then we are done by Claim~B\ref{claimB:Di-complete}. Therefore, we can assume that $D_1,D_2,$ and $D_3$ are $K_{n,n}$ for some integer $n$.
Let $M' = (M-\{s_1x_1,s_2x_2,s_3x_3 \})\cup \{s_1d_1,s_2d_2,s_3d_3\}$, and let $H'$ be an odd component of
$C'\cup\{x_1, x_2, x_3\}$.
Clearly, $G, M'$, and $H'$ satisfy the assumptions of Lemma~\ref{lem:matchingCut}, which in turn implies that $G- (H'\cup V(M')) = D-\{d_1,d_2,d_3\}$ is
connected randomly matchable. Since $D-d_1$ is $K_{n,n}$ for some $n$ by our assumption, Observation~\ref{observation:Knn-two-vertices-removal} implies that $d_2$ and $d_3$ are adjacent. On the other hand, Claim~B\ref{claimB:D=Kn+1n} yields that $d_2$ and $d_3$ are not adjacent, which is a contradiction. The proof is now complete.
\end{proof}
We conclude this section by showing that the requirement on the number of vertices in Lemma~\ref{lemma:two-components} cannot be relaxed.
More precisely, for every $k\ge 3$ we construct a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graphs with $2k+1$ vertices and a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G-S$ has $k$ components and show that this bound is tight.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:many-components}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with a $k$-cut $S$ for any $k\ge 3$. Then $G-S$ has at most $k$ components and this bound is tight for every $k\ge 3$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $|V(G)|\ge 2k+3$, then $G-S$ has exactly $2\le k$ components by Lemma~\ref{lemma:two-components}. Therefore, we can assume that $|V(G)|\le 2k+1$. Clearly, the number of components of $G-S$ is at most $|V(G-S)| \le k+1$, with equality if and only if $G-S$ consists from $k+1$ singletons. However, it is easy to see that if $G-S$ consists from $k+1$ singletons, then for arbitrary vertex $s$ of $S$ the graph $G-s$ cannot have a perfect matching, which contradicts factor-criticality of $G$.
Therefore, the number of components of $G-S$ is at most $k$.
To show that this bound is tight, for each $k\ge 3$ we construct a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph $G_k$ with $2k+1$ vertices and a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G-S$ has exactly $k$ components.
Let $V(G_k) = C\cup D\cup S$, where $C$ and $S$ form independent sets of $G_k$ with sizes $k-1$ and $k$, respectively, and $D$ is a copy of $K_2$. The edges of $G_k$ are precisely all the edges between $S$ and $G_k-S$ and the edge in $D$.
Clearly, the graph $G_k$ is $k$-connected for every $k\ge 3$. To show that $G_k -v$ has a perfect matching for each vertex $v$, we distinguish whether $v$ belongs to $S$, $C$, or $D$.
If $v$ is a vertex of $S$, then a perfect matching of $G_k-v$ can be constructed by taking the edge from $D$ and a matching between $S-v$ and $C$ covering all vertices of $(C\cup S) - v$.
If $v$ is a vertex of $C$ or $D$, then
$G_k-v$ contains $K_{k,k}$ as a subgraph and hence also admits a perfect matching.
To prove that any matching $M$ of $G_k$ can be extended to a maximum matching, we distinguish two cases according to whether $M$ contains the edge of $C$ or not. If $M$ contains the edge $c_1c_2$ of $C$, then
$M- \{c_1c_2\}$ is a matching in $G_k- \{c_1,c_2\}$, which in turn is isomorphic to $K_{k,k-1}$. Since $K_{k,k-1}$ is equimatchable, the matching $M-\{c_1c_2\}$ can be extended to a matching $M$ of $G_k- \{c_1,c_2\}$ covering all but one vertex. It follows that $M'\cup \{c_1c_2\}$ is the desired maximum matching of $G_k$ containing $M$.
If $M$ does not contain the edge of $C$, then $M$ contains only edges from $G_k - E(C)$, which is isomorphic to an equimatchable graph $K_{k+1,k}$. It follows that $M$ can be extended to a matching of $G_k$ covering all but one vertex, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We note that Theorem~\ref{thm:Cgek-Dge3} and \ref{thm:kCutEFC} cannot be extended to graphs with connectivity $2$. More precisely, for graphs with connectivity 2 neither the fact that $G-S$ has two components with at least three vertices implies that the components are complete, nor presence, respectively absence, of an edge in $S$ forces the structure described in Theorem~\ref{thm:kCutEFC}.
\section{Graphs with independence number $2$}
In this section we investigate the relationship between equimatchability and independence number. We focus on odd $k$-connected graphs with $k\ge 4$, at least $2k+3$ vertices, and a $k$-cut which separates at least two components with at least $3$ vertices and show that such graphs are equimatchable factor-critical if and only if their independence number equals $2$. In one direction, we show that if a graph with independence number $2$ is odd, then it is equimatchable, and if it is even, then it is very close to being equimatchable. In the reverse direction, we use the characterisation of $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graphs with at least $2k+3$ vertices and a $k$-cut separating at least two components with at least three vertices from Theorem \ref{thm:Cgek-Dge3} to show that if $k\ge 4$, then all such graphs have independence number $2$. Finally, we provide examples showing that it is not possible to extend these results to graphs in which every minimum cut separates a component with at most $2$ vertices -- even if such graphs are equimatchable factor-critical, they can have arbitrarily large independence number. Note that Proposition~\ref{prop:many-components} from the previous section shows that these result can neither be extended to graphs with at most $2k+1$ vertices, since in such graphs $G-S$ can have $k$ components and hence also independence number at least $k$.
We start with two propositions showing close relationship between equimatchable and almost-equimatchable graphs, and graphs with independence number $2$. In the following proof we assume that the reader is familiar with the concept of Gallai-Edmonds decomposition, see \cite{LP} for details. We use notation consistent with \cite{LP}, more precisely,
$D$ is the set of vertices of $G$ uncovered by at least one maximum matching of $G$. Furthermore, $A$ is the set of vertices of $G-D$ adjacent to at least one vertex of $D$ and $C$ is the set $V(G)-(A\cup D)$. For
a discussion concerning how Gallai-Edmonds decomposition relates to equimatchable graphs see \cite{LPP}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:in-2-equimatchable}
Let $G$ be a graph with independence number $2$. If $G$ is odd, then $G$ is equimatchable. If $G$ is even, then
either $G$ is randomly matchable, or
$G$ is not equimatchable, has a perfect matching, and every maximal matching of $G$ leaves uncovered at most two vertices.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For any maximal matching $M$ the set of vertices not covered by $M$ induces an independent set. Hence any maximal matching of a graph with independence number $2$ leaves uncovered at most $2$ vertices. Since the parity of the number of vertices not covered by a matching is the same as the parity of the number of vertices of the graph, if $G$ is odd, then any maximal matching of $G$ leaves uncovered exactly one vertex. Consequently, all maximal matchings of $G$ have the same size and $G$ is equimatchable. If $G$ is even, then every maximal matching of $G$ leaves uncovered $0$ or $2$ vertices.
We distinguish two cases: either $G$ is equimatchable, or not. If $G$ is equimatchable with a perfect matching, then it is isomorphic with $K_{2n}$ or $K_{n,n}$ for some nonnegative integer $n$ by \cite{sumner}. Suppose that $G$ is equimatchable and every maximal matching of $G$ leaves uncovered exactly $2$ vertices, our aim is to show that there are no such graphs. Since $G$ is even, it cannot be factor-critical. Furthermore, $G$ does not have a perfect matching and thus it has a nontrivial Gallai-Edmonds decomposition. It is well known that the number of vertices uncovered by any maximum matching equals the difference between the number of components in $D$ and the number of vertices in $A$, see for example \cite{LP}. It follows that there are at least $3$ components in $D$, which contradicts the fact that the independence number of $G$ is $2$.
The only remaining possibility is that $G$ is not equimatchable, in which case $G$ has a perfect matching,
every its maximal matching leaves uncovered at most $2$ vertices, and it has a maximal matching which leaves uncovered precisely $2$ vertices.
\end{proof}
Odd graphs with independence number $2$ are described by the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:oddIS2}
Let $G$ be a connected odd graph with independence number $2$. Then $G$ is either
factor-critical, or an union of two complete graphs, one even and one odd, joined by a set of pairwise incident edges.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ is $2$-connected, then by \cite{LPP} it is either bipartite, or factor-critical.
If $G$ is factor-critical, then there is nothing to prove. Therefore, we can assume that $G$ is bipartite.
Since each partite set of a bipartite graph form an independent set, each partite sets of $G$ has size at most $2$. From the fact that $G$ is odd follows that $G=P_3$ and thus it has a cutvertex. Therefore, there is no $2$-connected odd bipartite graph with independence number $2$, which completes the proof of the first case.
If $G$ has a cutvertex $v$, then $G-v$ has exactly two components, otherwise the independence number of $G$ would be at least $3$. Moreover, both components of $G-v$ are complete, since otherwise there would be an independence set with size $3$ consisting from two nonadjacent vertices of one component and any vertex of the second component. If there are two vertices $u$ and $w$ from different components of $G-v$ such that $v$ is not adjacent to neither of them, then again $\{u,v,w\}$ is an independent set of size $3$. Hence $v$ is adjacent with every vertex of at least one component of $G-v$ and $G$ is an union of two complete graphs, one even and one odd, joined by a set of pairwise incident edges.
\end{proof}
We now turn our attention to the independence number of equimatchable factor-critical graphs.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:matching-of-S}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with a $k$-cut $S$ for some $k\ge 3$. Assume that $G-S$ has precisely two components $C$ and $D$, both of them complete. Then for each vertex $s$ of $S$ there
is a matching $M$ containing only edges from $S- s$ such that $|S- V(M)| = 2$ if $k$ is even and $|S- V(M)| = 3$ if $k$ is odd.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $s$ be a given vertex of $S$ and first assume that $k$ is even. One of the components of $G- S$, say $C$, is odd and the other is even. Let $c$ be a vertex of $C$ adjacent to $s$ and denote by $M_D$ and $M_C$ a perfect matching of $D$ and of $C- c$, respectively.
Clearly, the set $N$ defined by $N=M_D\cup M_C\cup \{sc\}$ is a matching of $G$ and hence it can be extended to a matching $N'$ leaving only one vertex of $G$ uncovered.
The only vertex not covered by $N'$ lies in $S$,
therefore $N'- N$ is the desired matching.
In the rest of the proof we assume that $k$ is odd, which implies that $|C|$ and $|D|$ have the same parity. First we consider the case where both $|C|$ and $|D|$ are even.
Let $M_C$ and $M_D$ be perfect matchings of $C$ and $D$, respectively.
Since $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical, the matching $M_C\cup M_D$ can be extended to a matching $N$ leaving only one vertex $s'$ of $G$ uncovered. Note that necessarily $s'$ lies in $S$.
Let $M = N- M_C\cup M_D$. If $s=s'$, then let $e$ be an arbitrary edge of $M$, otherwise let $e$ be the edge of $M$ incident with $s$. It is easy to see that $M- e$ is the desired matching.
\\
Finally we consider the case where both $|C|$ and $|D|$ are odd.
Let $s'$ be a vertex of $S$ different from $s$ and let
$c$ be a vertex of $C$ and $d$ a vertex of $D$ adjacent to $s$ and $s'$, respectively.
Furthermore, let $M_C$ and $M_D$ be perfect matchings of $C-c$ and $D-d$, respectively.
Since $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical, the
matching $N$ defined by $N=M_C\cup M_D\cup \{sc,s'd\}$ can be extended to a matching $N'$ leaving uncovered only
one vertex of $G$.
As in the previous cases, it is easy to see that the vertex uncovered by $N'$ lies in $S$. Therefore,
$N'-N$ is the desired matching, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:unmatched-triple}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with at least $2k+3$ vertices and a $k$-cut $S$, where $k\ge 4$.
Assume that $G- S$ has two components $C$ and $D$, each with at least $3$ vertices.
Then
for any vertices $s\in S$, $c\in C$, and $d\in D$
the subgraph of $G$ induced by $\{c,d,s\}$ contains at least one edge.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:Cgek-Dge3} implies that both $C$ and $D$ are complete and that $G-S$ does not have any other components. For the rest of the proof let $c,d$, and $s$ be arbitrary, but fixed, vertices of $G$ such that $c\in C$, $d\in D$, and $s\in S$.
We will need the following two claims.
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:matching-triple-even-components}
If there is a matching $M$ covering all vertices of $S-s$ such that $V(M)\cap \{c,d,s\}= \emptyset$ and both $C-V(M)$ and $D-V(M)$ are odd, then the subgraph of $G$ induced by $\{c,d,s\}$ contains at least one edge.
\end{claim}
\begin{cProof}
Since both $C$ and $D$ are complete and both $C-V(M)$ and $D-V(M)$ are odd, the subgraphs of $G$ induced by $C-V(M)$ and $D-V(M)$ are odd complete graphs. Therefore, there are matchings $M_C$ and $M_D$ of $C- V(M)$ and $D-V(M)$ covering all vertices of $C-(V(M)\cup\{c\})$ and $D- (V(M)\cup\{ d\})$, respectively. It follows that $M' = M\cup M_C\cup M_D$ is a matching of $G$ covering all vertices of $G$ except $c,d$, and $s$. Since $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical, $M'$ can be extended to a maximum matching of $G$, that is, a matching covering all but one vertices of $G$. Consequently, the subgraph of $G$ induced by $\{c,d,s\}$ contains at least one edge, as claimed.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProof}
\begin{claim}
\label{lemmas:unmatched-triple-claim}
Let $s$ be a vertex from $S$.
If $s$ is adjacent to only one vertex of some component of $G-S$, then $s$ is adjacent to all vertices of the other component of $G-S$.
\end{claim}
\begin{cProof}
Assume that $s$ is adjacent to a single vertex of $D$, say $d$.
Let $R = (S \cup \{d\}) - s$ and note that $R$ is a $k$-cut of $G$ such that $G-R$ has two components, namely $C\cup\{s\}$ and $D-d$.
If $|D|\ge 4$, then both components of $G- R$ have at least $3$ vertices and hence both are complete by Theorem~\ref{thm:Cgek-Dge3}. In particular, $s$ is adjacent to every vertex of $C$, as claimed.
If $|D|=3$, then the components of $G- R$ have size $2$ and at least $k+1$, respectively.
By Theorem \ref{thm:kCutEFC} either $C\cup \{s\}$ is a complete graph, or $R\cup C\cup \{s\}$ is a complete bipartite graph minus a matching. Since $C$ is a complete graph containing a triangle, the graph $R\cup C\cup \{s\}$ cannot be bipartite and the claim follows.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{cProof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:matching-of-S} there is a matching $M$ containing only edges from $S-s$ such that $|S-V(M)|\le 3$.
Let $C' = C- c$, $D' = D- d$, and $S' = S- (V(M)\cup \{s\})$. We distinguish three cases depending on the parity of $C$ and $D$.
First let $k$ be even.
Since $k$ is even, one of the components of $G-{S}$ is even, say $C$, and the other is odd.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:matching-of-S} the set $S'$ contains only one vertex, denote it by $s_{1}$.
If $s_{1}$ is adjacent to some vertex in $C'$, then we are done by Claim~\ref{claim:matching-triple-even-components}. Otherwise, $c$ is the only neighbour of $s$ in $C$ and by Claim~\ref{lemmas:unmatched-triple-claim} the vertex $s_{1}$ is adjacent to all vertices of $D$. Since $k\ge 4$,
$M$ contains at least one edge, say $s_2s_3$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there are two independent edges between $\{s_{2}, s_{3}\}$ and $D$. At least one of the edges, say the one incident with $s_{2}$, does not have $d$ as an endvertex. Denote this edge by $e$.
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} again yields that there are
two independent edges between $\{s_{1}, s_{3}\}$ and $C$. Clearly, one of these edges is $s_{1}c$ and hence there is an edge $f$ between $s_{3}$ and $C'$. Since $|D|\ge 3$ and $s_{1}$ is adjacent to all vertices of $D$, there is an edge $g$ between $D'$ and $s_{1}$
such that $e$ and $g$ are independent.
Applying Claim~\ref{claim:matching-triple-even-components} to the matching $(M-\{s_{2}s_{3}\})\cup\{e,f,g\}$ finishes the proof.
Assume that $k$ is odd and that both components of $G-S$ are even. Since $k$ is odd, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:matching-of-S} the set $S'$ contains precisely two vertices, denote them by $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there are two independent edges between $S'$ and $C$ and thus at least one of them, say $s_1c'$, is not incident with $c$.
If there exists an edge $s_2d'$, where $d\in D'$, then the matching $M\cup \{s_1c',s_2d'\}$ satisfy the assumptions of the Claim~\ref{claim:matching-triple-even-components} and we are done.
If there is no edge between $s_2$ and $D'$, then $d$ is the only vertex of $D$ adjacent to $s_2$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there are two independent edges between $D$ and $\{s_1,s_2\}$, one of them is necessarily $s_2d$ and thus the other is $s_1d''$, where $d''\neq d$. Furthermore, by Claim~\ref{lemmas:unmatched-triple-claim} the vertex $s_2$ is adjacent to all vertices $C$ and thus there is an edge $s_2c''$, where $c''\neq c$. Applying Claim~\ref{claim:matching-triple-even-components} to the matching $M\cup\{s_1d'',s_2c''\}$ completes the proof of this case.
Finally, if $k$ is odd and also both components of $G-S$ are odd, then again $S'$ has two vertices by Lemma~\ref{lemma:matching-of-S}.
First observe that if there is a matching $M'$ between $S'$ and $C'$ or between $S'$ and $D'$, which covers both vertices of $S'$,
then applying Claim~\ref{claim:matching-triple-even-components} to $M\cup M'$ yields the desired result.
We proceed to show that it is always possible to construct such a matching.
Let $s_1$ and $s_2$ be the vertices in $S'$.
Since $k$ is odd, the matching $M$ contains at least one edge of $S$, say $s_3s_4$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is a set of two independent edges $M_C$ between $S'$ and $C$ and a set of two independent edges between $S'$ and $D$.
If $M_C$ does not cover either $c$ or $d$, then $M\cup M_C$ is the desired matching and we are done, similarly for $M_D$.
Therefore, we can assume that all matchings between $S'$ and $C$ covering $S'$ cover also $c$ and analogously all matchings between $S'$ and $D$ covering $S'$ cover also $d$.
In the rest of the proof we distinguish two cases.
First assume that one of the vertices of $S'$, say $s_1$, is in $C$ adjacent only to $c$. By Claim~\ref{lemmas:unmatched-triple-claim} the vertex $s_1$ is adjacent to all vertices of $D$. It follows that $s_2$ is in $D$ adjacent only
to $d$, since othwerwise there would be a set of two independent edges between $S'$ and $D'$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}
there are $3$ independent edges $s_1c_1,s_2c_2,s_3c'$ between $C$ and $\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$. Since $s_1$ is in $C$ adjacent only with $c$,
we necessarily have $c_1 = c$.
Similarly, by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges}
there are $3$ independent edges $s_1d_1,s_2d_2,s_4d'$ between $D$ and $\{s_1,s_2,s_4\}$.
Again, since $s_2$ is in $D$ adjacent only to $d$, we have $d_2 = d$.
It follows that $M' = (M-s_3s_4)\cup \{s_1d_1,s_2c_1,s_3c', s_4d'\}$ satisfy the assumptions of Claim~\ref{claim:matching-triple-even-components}, which completes the proof of this case.
Second assume that both vertices of $S'$ are adjacent to at least two vertices of both $C$ and $D$. It follows that there is a vertex $c'$ of $C'$ such that there is no edge between $C'-c'$ and $S'$, since otherwise there would be a set of two independent edges between $S'$ and $C'$. Similarly, there is a vertex $d'$ of $D'$ such that there is no edge between $D'-d'$ and $S'$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there are three independent edges between $\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$ and $C$.
One of these edges is $s_3c''$, where $c''$ is different from both $c$ and $c'$, since $s_1$ and $s_2$ are adjacent to precisely two vertices of $C$.
Without loss of generality we can assume that the other two are $s_1c$ and $s_2c'$.
Similarly, by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there are three independent edges between $\{s_1,s_2,s_4\}$ and $D$. Again, one of these edges is $s_4d''$. Since both $s_1$ and $s_2$ are adjacent to precisely two vertices of $C$, each of them is adjacent to both $d$ and $d'$ and thus $s_1d'$ is an edge of $G$.
To conclude the proof of it suffices to observe that the matching $(M-s_3s_4)\cup \{s_1d',s_2c',s_3c'', s_4d''\}$ satisfy the assumptions of Claim~\ref{claim:matching-triple-even-components}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:efc-in-2}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph with at least $2k+3$ vertices and a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G-S$ has two components with at least $3$ vertices, where $k\ge 4$.
Then the independence number of $G$ is $2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Cgek-Dge3} both $C$ and $D$ are complete and $G-S$ does not have any other components.
Since both $C$ and $D$ are complete, no independent set of $G$ can contain more than one vertex from any of them. Observe that $G$ cannot have an independent set $\{c,d,s\}$ where $c\in C$, $d\in D$, and $s\in S$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:unmatched-triple}.
There are two remaining possible types of independent sets of size $3$ in $G$. More precisely, either $G$ has an independent set consisting of 3 vertices of $S$, or $G$ has an independent set consisting of 2 vertices of $S$ and a vertex of $C\cup D$. For a contradiction suppose that $I$ is such an independent set of size 3 in $G$.
Let $T= I\cap S$ and let $C' = C-I$.
If $C'$ is odd, let $F$ be the set containing an arbitrary edge between $C'$ and $S- T$, otherwise let $F=\emptyset$. Furthermore, if $C'$ is odd, let $T' = T\cup\{s\}$, where
$s$ is the vertex of $S$ incident with the edge in $F$, otherwise let $T' = T$.
It is not difficult to see that if $D$ is odd, then there is a vertex $s'$ in $S- T'$. Therefore, if $D$ is odd, then by Lemma~\ref{lem:independentEdges} there is a vertex $d$ of $D$ adjacent to $s'$ and we set $F'=F\cup \{ds'\}$. If $D$ is even, we set $F'=F$. Let $U$ be the set of vertices covered by the edges in $F'$.
Since $|C\cup D|\ge k-1$ by the assumptions, Lemma \ref{lem:independentEdges} implies that there is a matching $M$ between $S-(T\cup U)$ and $(C'\cup D) - U$ such that both $C'-V(M\cup F')$ and $D-V(M\cup F')$ are even and $M$ covers all vertices of $S-(T\cup U)$.
Finally, let $M_C$ and $M_D$ be perfect matchings of $C'- (U\cup V(M))$ and $D- (U\cup V(M))$, respectively. It is easy to see that the matching $M'$ defined by $M'=M\cup M_C\cup M_D\cup F'$ covers all vertices of $G$ except $I$. Since $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical, $M'$ can be extended to a matching leaving uncovered exactly one vertex. It follows that $I$ contains an edge, contradicting
the fact that it is an independent set.
The proof is now complete.
\end{proof}
The following theorem is the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:efc-iff}
Let $G$ be a $k$-connected odd graph with at least $2k+3$ vertices
and a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G- S$ has two components with at least $3$ vertices, where $k\ge 4$. Then $G$
has independence number at most $2$ if and only if
it is equimatchable and factor-critical.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical, then its independence number is $2$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:efc-in-2}.
\\
In the reverse direction, assume that $G$ has independence number $2$. Then $G$ is equimatchable by Proposition~\ref{prop:in-2-equimatchable}.
Furthermore, Proposition~\ref{prop:oddIS2} implies that $G$ is factor-critical, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The following theorem reveals further connection between independence number 2 and equimatchable graphs.
\begin{theorem}
A $2$-connected odd graph $G$ with at least 4 vertices has independence number at most 2 if and only if $G$ is equimatchable and factor-critical and $G\cup\{e\}$ is equimatchable for each edge of the complement $\overline{G}$ of $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ has independence number $2$, then it is equimatchable and factor-critical by Proposition~\ref{prop:in-2-equimatchable} and \ref{prop:oddIS2}.
Clearly, for any edge $e$ of the complement $\overline{G}$ of $G$ the graph $G\cup \{e\}$ has again independence number 2 and thus it is equimatchable by Proposition~\ref{prop:in-2-equimatchable}.
In the reverse direction, assume that $G$ is equimatchable factor-critical and that $G\cup\{e\}$ is equimatchable for every edge of the complement $\overline{G}$ of $G$.
For a contradiction suppose that $G$ has an independent set $\{x,y,z\}$ of size $3$. Since $G$ is factor-critical, $G-z$ has a perfect matching $M$. Let $x'$ and $y'$ be the vertices matched with $x$, respectively $y$, by $M$.
Mote that since $\{x,y,z\}$ is an independent set we have $x\neq x'$ and $y\neq y'$.
It is easy to see that $M' = (M-\{xx',yy'\})\cup \{x'y'\}$ is a maximal matching of $G\cup\{x'y'\}$ which leaves uncovered precisely three vertices.
On the other hand, $M$ is a matching of $G\cup \{x'y'\}$ leaving uncovered precisely one vertex.
It follows that $M'$ is a maximal matching of $G\cup\{x'y'\}$, which is not maximum, contradicting equimatchability of $G\cup \{x'y'\}$. We conclude that the independence number of $G$ is at most 2, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Equimatchable graphs $G$ such that $G\cup\{e\}$ is equimatchable for every edge $e$ of the complement $\overline{G}$ of $G$ are further investigated in \cite{EK:extremal}, together with other extremal classes of equimatchable graphs.
\medskip
Our final two results show that Lemma~\ref{lemma:efc-in-2}, and thus also Theorem~\ref{thm:efc-iff}, can be extended neither to equimatchable graphs without two components with at least $3$ vertices, nor to the case of graphs with connectivity $3$.
\begin{prop}
For every triple of integers $n,k,$ and $m$ such that $k\ge 3$ and $m\in\{1,2\}$ there is a $k$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph $G$ with
an independent set of size at least $n$ and
a $k$-cut $S$ such that $G-S$ has a component of size $m$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First assume that $m=1$.
Let $l = \max\{n,k\}$ and
denote by $H$
a copy of $K_{l,l}$. Choose a set $S$ of $k$ vertices of $H$ in such a way that $S$ contains at least one vertex from each partite set of $H$. The desired graph $G$ is constructed by taking a new vertex $v$ and joining it with every vertex in $S$.
Clearly, $G$ is $k$-connected and $S$ is a $k$-cut of $G$.
Since $\{v\}$ is a component of $G-S$ and $m=1$, the graph $G-S$ has a component with $m$ vertices.
Furthermore, it is easy to directly verify that $G$ is factor-critical and equimatchable.
The proof of this case is concluded by observing that each partite set of $H$ forms an
independent set of $G$ with size $l\ge n$.
Now we assume that $m=2$.
Let $l = \max\{n,k\}$ and
denote by $H_1$
a copy of $K_{l,l+1}$ and by $H_2$ a copy of $K_2$.
Denote by $S$ a set of $k$ vertices from the larger partite set of $H_1$.
The desired graph $G$ is constructed by joining both vertices of $H_2$ with all vertices of $S$.
It can be easily verified that the resulting graph is $k$-connected, equimatchable, and factor-critical.
Clearly $S$ is a $k$-cut of $G$ such that $G-S$ has a component with $m$ vertices. Finally, $G$ contains an independent set with $l+1 \ge n$ vertices, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
For every pair of odd integers $m$ and $n$ such that $m+n\ge 4$ there is a $3$-connected equimatchable factor-critical graph $G$ with independence number $3$ and a $3$-cut $S$ such that $G-S$ has two components with sizes $m$ and $n$, respectively.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For any given pair of positive odd integers $m$ and $n$ we construct a graph $G(m,n)$ with the required properties as follows.
Let $C$, respectively $D$, be a copy of the complete graph on $m$ and $n$ vertices, respectively and let $S$ be an independent set on $3$ vertices. To obtain $G(m,n)$ we join every vertex of $C\cup D$ with every vertex of $S$. Since $m+n\ge 4$, the graph $G(m,n)$ is $3$-connected.
To prove that $G(m,n)$ is factor-critical, first let $v\in(C\cup D)$ and let $G'=G(m,n)-v$. It is easy to see that there is a set $M$ of $3$ independent edges between $S$ and $(C\cup D)-v$ such that $G'-V(M)$ consists of two even complete graphs. Therefore, $M$ can be extended to a perfect matching of $G'$.
If $v\in S$, then there is an edge $sc$ between $S-v$ and $C$ and an edge $s'd$, independent from $sc$, between $S-v$ and $D$. Since removing $\{s,s',c,d \}$ from $G-v$ yields two even complete components,
$\{sc,s'd\}$ can be extended to a perfect matching of $G-v$, which in turn is factor-critical, as claimed.
In the rest of the proof we show that $G(m,n)$ is equimatchable.
Let $M$ be a maximal matching of $G(m,n)$.
Since $C$ and $D$ are complete, $M$ leaves uncovered at most one vertex of each $C$ and $D$.
Assume that $M$ leaves uncovered a vertex $c$ from $C$. Since $M$ is maximal, then clearly $M$ must cover all vertices of $S$. Therefore, $D-V(M)$ is an even complete graph and thus $M$ covers all vertices of $D$ by its maximality. We conclude that $c$ is the only vertex of $G(m,n)$ uncovered by $M$ and hence $M$ is a maximum matching. Analogous argument also shows that if $M$ leaves uncovered a vertex from $D$, then $M$ is maximum.
Therefore, we can assume that $M$ covers all vertices from $C\cup D$. Since both $C$ and $D$ are odd, to cover all vertices of $C\cup D$ the matching $M$ has to cover precisely two vertices of $S$. Consequently, $M$ leaves uncovered exactly one vertex of $S$ and $M$ is maximum, as required.
Since both $C$ and $D$ are odd, if $M$ does not leave uncovered exactly one vertex of $S$ leaves uncovered also at least one vertex of $C\cup D$, and hence $M$ cannot be a maximal matching of $G(m,n)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
Research reported in this paper was partially supported by
Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport of Czech Republic, Project No.~CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0009.
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
The theory of submanifolds of Riemannian or almost Hermitian
manifolds is an important topic in differential geometry. In an
almost Hermitian manifold, its complex structure $J$ transforms a
vector to another one which perpendicular to it. Perhaps this has
been the natural motivation to study submanifolds of an almost
Hermitian manifold, according to
the behavior of its tangent bundle under the action of the almost complex structure $J$ of the ambient manifold.\\
There are many classes of submanifolds in the literature. One of the
classes is \emph{holomorphic} (\emph{invariant}) submanifolds. In
this case the tangent space of the submanifold remains invariant
under the almost complex structure $J$. The other one is
$R$\emph{-invariant submanifolds}, where $R$ is the Riemannian
curvature tensor of the ambient manifold. In which case, $R_{XY}$
defines, at each point of the submanifold, a linear transformation
on the tangent space of the submanifold at the point and the tangent
space remains invariant under $R_{XY}$, where $X$ and $Y$ are
elements of the tangent space. The theory of holomorphic
submanifolds has been a
very active area whereas the theory of $R$-invariant submanifolds has not been so far.\\
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the fundamental
definitions and notions of almost Hermitian manifolds are given. In
Section 3, we recall some basic formulas for submanifolds of a
Riemannian manifold and the definition of holomorphic submanifold
of an almost Hermitian manifold. In Section 4, we study almost constant-type manifolds
and give a characterization theorem. In section 5, after recalling the
definition of $R$-invariant submanifold we study holomorphic,
totally umbilical and $R$-invariant submanifolds of
almost Hermitian manifolds ($AH$-manifolds). In particular, we shall
improve Theorem 4.2 of \cite{Ogi} concerning Kaehlerian manifolds. In the last
section, the strongly $R$-invariant submanifolds are considered and
analogues of Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.5 of \cite{Ogi} concerning Riemannian manifolds are
given. A different characterization of almost constant-type manifolds is placed in this section.
\section{Preliminaries}
Let $M$ be an almost Hermitian manifold, that is, its tangent bundle
has an almost complex structure $J$ and a Riemannian metric $g$ such
that $g(JX,JY)=g(X,Y)$ for all $X,Y\in\chi(M)$, where $\chi(M)$ is
the Lie algebra of $C^{\infty}$ vector fields on $M$. Let $\nabla$
be the Riemannian connection on $M$, the Riemannian curvature
tensor $R$ associated with $\nabla$ defined by
$R(X,Y)=\nabla_{[X,Y]}-[\nabla_{X},\nabla_{Y}].$ We denote
$g(R(X,Y)Z,W)$ by $R(X,Y,Z,W)$. Curvature identities are keys to understanding the geometry of almost Hermitian manifolds.
The following curvature identities are used in many studies, for
example, see \cite{Gan}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $R(X,Y,Z,W)=R(X,Y,JZ,JW),$
\item $R(X,Y,Z,W)=R(JX,JY,Z,W)+R(JX,Y,JZ,W)$
$\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad$$+R(JX,Y,Z,JW),$
\item $R(X,Y,Z,W)=R(JX,JY,JZ,JW)$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $AH_{i}$ denote the subclass of the class $AH$ of almost
Hermitian manifolds satisfying the curvature identity (i), i=1,2,3.
The following inclusion relations is well known in the literature.
$$AH_{1}\subset AH_{2}\subset AH_{3}\subset AH$$
An almost Hermitian manifold $M$ is called \emph{Kaehlerian} if
$\nabla_{X}J=0$ for all $X\in\chi(M)$. It is well known that a
Kaehlerian manifold is an $AH_{1}$-manifold (\cite{Yan}). Some authors call $AH_{1}$-manifold as a \emph{para-Kaehlerian} and call $AH_{3}$-manifold as an $RK$-\emph{manifold} (\cite{Van}).\\
By a \emph{plane section} we mean a two-dimensional linear subspace
of a tangent space $T_{p}M$. A plane section $\sigma$ is said to
be \emph{holomorphic} (resp.\emph{anti-holomorphic} or \emph{totally
real}) if $J\sigma=\sigma$ (resp. $J\sigma\bot\sigma$). The
sectional curvature $K$ of $M$ determined by orthonormal vector
fields $X$ and $Y$ is given by $K(X,Y)=R(X,Y,X,Y).$The sectional
curvature of $M$ restricted to a holomorphic (resp. an
anti-holomorphic) plane $\sigma$ is called \emph{holomorphic} (resp.
\emph{anti-holomorphic}) \emph{sectional curvature}. If the
holomorphic (resp. anti-holomorphic) sectional curvature at each
point $p\in M$, does not depend on $\sigma$, then $M$ is said to
be\emph{ pointwise constant holomorphic} (resp. \emph{pointwise
constant anti-holomorphic) sectional curvature}. A Riemannian
manifold of constant curvature is called a \emph{space form} or a
\emph{real space form}. Sometimes a space form defined as a
complete connected Riemannian manifold of constant curvature is
said to be \emph{elliptic}, \emph{hyperbolic} or \emph{flat} (or
\emph{locally Euclidean}) according as the sectional curvature is
positive, negative or zero. A Kaehlerian manifold of constant
holomorphic sectional curvature is called a \emph{complex space
form} (\cite{Kas,Yan}).
\section{Submanifolds of a Riemannian manifold}
Let $N$ be a submanifold of a Riemannian manifold $M$ with a
Riemannian metric $g.$ Let $\chi(N)$ and $\chi(M)$ the Lie algebras
of vector fields on $N$ and $M$ respectively, and
$\overline{\chi}(N)$ denote the Lie algebra of restrictions to $N$
of vector fields in $\chi(M)$. We then may write $\overline{\chi}(N)
=\chi(N)\oplus\chi(N)^{\bot}$, where $\chi(N)^{\bot}$ consists of
all vector fields perpendicular to $N$. The Gauss and Weingarten
formulas are given respectively by
$\nabla_{X}Y=\hat{\nabla}_{X}Y+B(X,Y)$ and
$\nabla_{X}\xi=-A_{\xi}X+\nabla_{X}^{\bot}\xi$ for all
$X,Y\in\chi(N)$ and $\xi\in\chi^{\bot}(N)$, where $\nabla,
\hat{\nabla}$ and $\nabla^{\bot}$ are respectively the Riemannian,
induced Riemannian and induced normal connection in $M, N$ and the
normal bundle $\chi^{\bot}(N)$ of $N$, and $B$ is the second
fundamental form related to shape operator $A$ corresponding to the
normal vector field $\xi$ by $g(B(X,Y),\xi)=g(A_{\xi}X,Y).$ We say
that $N$ is \emph{totally umbilical} submanifold in $M$ if for all
$X,Y\in\chi(N),$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
B(X,Y)=g(X,Y)H
\end{array},
\end{equation}
where $H\in\chi^{\bot}(N)$ is the mean curvature vector field of $N$
in $M$. A vector field $\xi\in\chi^{\bot}(N)$ is said to be
\emph{parallel} if $ \nabla^{\bot}_{X}\xi=0$ for each $X\in\chi(N)$. The Codazzi equation is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
(R(X,Y)Z)^{\bot}=(\nabla_{X}B)(Y,Z)-(\nabla_{Y}B)(X,Z)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all $X,Y,Z\in\chi(N),$ where $^{\bot}$ denotes the normal
component and the covariant derivative of $B,$ denoted by
$\nabla_{X}B$, is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
(\nabla_{X}B)(Y,Z)=\nabla^{\bot}_{X}(B(Y,Z))-B(\hat{\nabla}_{X}Y,Z)-B(Y,\hat{\nabla}_{X}Z)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all $X,Y,Z\in\chi(N)$ \cite{Kas,Ogi,Yan}.\\
Now, let $(M,J,g)$ (or briefly $M$) be an almost Hermitian manifold
and $N$ be a Riemannian submanifold of $M$. If $J(T_{p}N)=T_{p}N$ at
each point $p\in N,$
$T_{p}N$ being the tangent space over $N$ in $M,$ then $N$ is called a \emph{holomorphic} submanifold of $M.$ In this case we see that
$JT_{p}N^{\bot}= T_{p}N^{\bot}.$ The fundamental properties and
basic formulas of holomorphic submanifolds can be found in
\cite{Yan}.
\section{Almost Constant-type manifolds}
The following notion of constant type, is first defined by A. Gray for nearly Kaehlerian manifolds (\cite{Gray}),
and then by L. Vanhecke for almost Hermitian manifolds (\cite{Van}).\\
Let $M$ be an almost Hermitian manifold. Then $M$ is said
to be of \emph{constant type} at $p\in M$ provided that for all $X\in T_{p}M$,
we have $\lambda(X,Y)=\lambda(X,Z)$ whenever the planes $span\{X,Y\}$ and
$span\{X,Z\}$ are anti-holomorphic and $g(Y,Y)=g(Z,Z)$,
where the function $\lambda$ is defined by
$\lambda(X,Y)=R(X,Y,X,Y)-R(X,Y,JX,JY)$. If this holds for all $p\in M$,
then we say that $M$ has \emph{(pointwise) constant type}.
Finally, if for $X,Y\in\chi(M)$ with $g(X,Y)=g(JX,Y)=0,$ the value
$\lambda(X,Y)$ is constant whenever $g(X,X)=g(Y,Y)=1$,
then we say that $M$ has \emph{global constant type.}\\
In \cite{Rizza}, for an $AH$-manifold with dimension $2m\geq4$, G.B. Rizza gave an equivalent definition to the one above.
For some geometrical notions and for the notations, see \cite{Riza, Rizza}.\\
The manifold $M$ is said to be of \emph{constant type} $\alpha$ at $p$
if and only if we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
K_{\sigma}-\chi_{\sigma J\sigma}=\alpha
\end{array},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is any anti-holomorphic plane of $T_{p}M$ and $p\in M$.\\
In the same paper, G.B. Rizza also generalized the notion of constant type as follows.\\
We say that $M$ has \emph{constant type} $\alpha$, \emph{in a weak sense}, at $p$,
if and only if we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
K_{\sigma}-2\chi_{\sigma J\sigma}+K_{J\sigma}=2\alpha
\end{array},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is any anti-holomorphic plane of $T_{p}M$ and $p\in M$.
\begin{remark} If $\sigma$ is an anti-holomorphic plane of $T_{p}M$, then $J\sigma$ is also
an anti-holomorphic plane of $T_{p}M$, so (4.1) implies (4.2). In particular, if the curvature tensor
$R$ is $J$-invariant, that is, if $R$ satisfies the curvature identity (3), or the manifold $M$ belongs to
class $AH_{3}$, then we have $K_{\sigma}=K_{J\sigma}$. Thus (4.2) reduces to (4.1). (cf. \cite{Rizza}).
\end{remark}
An $AH$-manifold $M$ is said to be an \emph{almost constant-type manifold}
if and only if $M$ has constant type, in a weak sense at any point $p\in M$.
In particular, $M$ is a \emph{constant-type manifold} if the condition (4.1) is satisfied at any point $p\in M$, see \cite{Rizza}.\\
Now, we give a condition for an almost constant-type manifold to be a constant-type manifold.
\begin{theorem} Let $M$ be an $AH$-manifold of almost constant-type $\alpha$. Then $M$ has constant type $\alpha$
if and only if $M$ belongs to class $AH_{3}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $M$ be an $AH$-manifold of constant type $\alpha$, in a weak sense, at $p\in M.$
From the equation (5) in the proof of Theorem 1(\cite{Rizza}), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
\quad\quad\quad R(X,Y,X,Y)-2R(X,Y,JX,JY)+R(JX,JY,JX,JY)\\
=2\alpha\{g(X,X)g(Y,Y)-(g(X,Y))^{2}-(g(JX,Y))^{2}\}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for any vectors $X,Y\in T_{p}M$.
Now, suppose that $M$ has constant type $\alpha$, at $p\in M.$
By a similar method given in the proof of Theorem 1(\cite{Rizza}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
R(X,Y,X,Y)-R(X,Y,JX,JY)\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad=\alpha\{g(X,X)g(Y,Y)-(g(X,Y))^{2}-(g(JX,Y))^{2}\}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for any vectors $X,Y\in T_{p}M$. ( The equation (4.4) is also known in another form, see \cite{Kiri}).
If we multiply the equation (4.4) by 2 and then subtract it from the equation (4.3), we get
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
R(X,Y,X,Y)=R(JX,JY,JX,JY)
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
Now, let $ T:(T_{p}(M))^{4}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a four-linear mapping given by
$$T(X,Y,Z,W)=R(X,Y,Z,W)-R(JX,JY,JZ,JW)$$
for all $X,Y,Z,W\in T_{p}(M).$ Using the well-known properties of $R$ and (4.5),
it is not difficult to see that $T$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem 2(\cite{Gan}),
so it follows that $T=0.$ This means that the curvature tensor $R$ of
$M$ satisfies the curvature identity (3); that is, $M$ belongs to class $AH_{3}$,
in which case, by virtue of Remark 1(\cite{Rizza}), $M$ also belongs to the class $AH_{2}$.
On the other hand, by Remark 4.1, the converse of Theorem 4.1. is also true.
\end{proof}
\section{$R$-invariant submanifolds}
Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold and $N$ be a submanifold of
$M$. Then $R(X,Y)=R_{XY}$ defines, at each point $p$ of $N$, a
linear transformation on the tangent space $T_{p}N$ at the point,
where $R$ is the Riemannian curvature tensor of $M$. If for any
$X,Y\in T_{p}N,$ the relation $R_{XY}(T_{p}N)\subset T_{p}N$ is
satisfied, then $N$ is called an $R$-\emph{invariant} submanifold of
$M$. For the equivalent definitions of $R$-invariant submanifolds,
see \cite{Ogi}.
\begin{theorem}If every holomorphic submanifold of a connected $AH$-manifold $M$
of dimension $2m\geq6$ is $R$-invariant, then\\
\textbf{a)} $M$ is a real space form or a complex space form.\\
\textbf{b)} $M$ is an $AH_{2}$-manifold.\\
\textbf{c)} The curvature tensor $R$ of $M$ has the form
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
R(X,Y,Z,W)=\alpha R_{1}(X,Y,Z,W)+\beta R_{2}(X,Y,Z,W)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha,\beta$ are constants,
$R_{1}(X,Y,Z,W)=g(X,W)g(Y,Z)-g(X,Z)g(Y,W)$ and
$R_{2}(X,Y,Z,W)=g(JX,W)g(JY,Z)-g(JX,Z)g(JY,W)-2g(JX,Y)g(JZ,W)$ for
all $X,Y,Z,W\in T_{p}M$ and $p\in M.$\\
Moreover, the converse of \textbf{c)} is also true.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} If for any point $p$ in $M$ of a connected $AH$-manifold $M$
of dimension $2m\geq6$ and for any holomorphic subspace $\sigma$ of $T_{p}M$
there exists an $R$-invariant holomorphic submanifold $N$ of $M$ through $p$
such that $T_{p}N$ contains $\sigma$, then we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
(R(X,JX)JX)^{\bot}=0
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
(R(X,Y)Y)^{\bot}=0
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all orthonormal vectors $X,Y\in\sigma $ with $g(X,JY)=0$ and
$p\in N$. For any vector $\xi$ normal to $N$ at $p,$ from (5.2) and
(5.3), we get
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
R(X,JX,JX,\xi)=0
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
R(X,Y,Y,\xi)=0
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
From (5.4) and Lemma 1(\cite{Kas}), we conclude
that $M$ has pointwise constant holomorphic sectional curvature $\mu$ and from (5.5)
and Lemma 4(\cite{Kas}), we find that $M$ has pointwise constant anti-holomorphic sectional
curvature $\nu.$ In this case, the assertion \textbf{a)} follows
from Theorem C(\cite{Kas}) and assertions \textbf{b)} and
\textbf{c)} follow from Theorem 3(\cite{Gan}).\\
Now we prove the converse of \textbf{c)}. Let the curvature tensor
$R$ of $M$ satisfy (5.1), then after some calculation in (5.1), we
have
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
R(X,Y)Z=\alpha\{g(Y,Z)X-g(X,Z)Y\}\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\beta\{g(JY,Z)JX-g(JX,Z)JY-2g(JX,Y)JZ\}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all $X,Y,Z,W\in T_{p}M$ and $p\in M.$ In that case, if $N$ is
any holomorphic submanifold of the manifold $M,$ then from (5.6), we easily see that $R(X,Y)Z\in T_{p}N$ for all
$X,Y,Z\in T_{p}N$ and $p\in N$, that is, $N$ is $R$-invariant.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} The assertions \textbf{a)} and \textbf{c)} of Theorem 5.1. are equivalent whenever
the ambient manifold $M$ is of class $AH_{3}$ because of Theorem 12.7(\cite{Tri}).
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem} Let $N$ be any connected totally umbilical submanifold of an $AH$-manifold $M$.
Then $N$ is an $R$-invariant submanifold if and only if it has
parallel mean curvature vector field.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $N$ be any connected totally umbilical submanifold of an $AH$-manifold
$M$. With the help of (3.1) and (3.3), from the Codazzi equation
(3.2), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
(R(X,Y)Z)^{\bot}=g(Y,Z)\nabla^{\bot}_{X}H-g(X,Z)\nabla^{\bot}_{Y}H
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all $X,Y,Z\in\chi(N),$ where $H$ is mean curvature vector field
of $N$ in $M$. Let $N$ be $R$-invariant, then from (5.7), we have
$(R(X,Y)Z)^{\bot}=0$, in which case, if we choose $Y=Z$ with
$g(X,Y)=0$ in (5.7), we obtain $\nabla^{\bot}_{X}H=0$, which says
that $H$ is parallel. On the other hand, if $H$ is parallel, from
(5.7), we easily see that $(R(X,Y)Z)^{\bot}=0$, which means that $N$
is an $R$-invariant submanifold.
\end{proof}
We remark that Theorem 5.1 is a generalization Theorem 4.2(\cite{Ogi}) concerning Kaehlerian manifolds and analogue of Theorem 2.2(\cite{Ogi}) concerning Riemannian manifolds.
\section{Strongly $R$-invariant submanifolds}
Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold and $N$ be a submanifold of
$M$. If for any $X,Y\in T_{p}M,$ the relation $R_{XY}(T_{p}N)\subset
T_{p}N$ is satisfied, then $N$ is called a \emph{strongly}
$R$-\emph{invariant} submanifold of $M$. It is easy to see that a
strongly $R$-invariant submanifold is an $R$-invariant submanifold.
For the equivalent definitions of strongly $R$-invariant
submanifolds, see \cite{Ogi}.
\begin{theorem} There exists no holomorphic strongly $R$-invariant submanifold of an $AH$-manifold
$M$ with pointwise non-zero constant holomorphic sectional curvature
$\mu.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} In \cite{Riza}, G.B. Rizza, for an $AH$-manifold $M$ with pointwise
holomorphic constant sectional curvature $\mu$, proved the
following fundamental identity:
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
3\{R(X,Y,Z,W)+R(X,Y,JZ,JW)+R(JX,JY,Z,W)\\
\quad\quad\quad+R(JX,JY,JZ,JW)\}-2\{R(X,W,JY,JZ)+R(JX,JW,Y,Z)\\
\quad-R(X,Z,JY,JW)-R(JX,JZ,Y,W)\}-\{R(X,JY,JZ,W)\\
\quad+R(JX,Y,Z,JW)+R(X,JY,Z,JW)+R(JX,Y,JZ,W)\}\\
\quad\quad=4\mu\{g(X,Z)g(Y,W)-g(X,W)g(Y,Z)+g(X,JZ)g(Y,JW)\\
-g(X,JW)g(Y,JZ)+2g(X,JY)g(Z,JW)\}\quad\quad\quad\quad
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all $X,Y,Z,W\in T_{p}M$ and $p\in M$. After some calculations in (6.1), we conclude that
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
3\{R(X,Y)Z-J(R(X,Y)JZ)+R(JX,JY)Z\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad-J(R(JX,JY)JZ)\}-2\{R(JY,JZ)X-J(R(Y,Z)JX)\\
\quad\quad+J(R(X,Z)JY)-R(JX,JZ)Y\}-\{R(X,JY)JZ\\
\quad\quad-J(R(JX,Y)Z)-J(R(X,JY)Z)+R(JX,Y)JZ\}\\
=4\mu\{g(X,Z)Y-g(Y,Z)X-g(X,JZ)JY\quad\quad\\
+g(Y,JZ)JX-2g(X,JY)JZ\}\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all $X,Y,Z\in T_{p}M$ and $p\in M.$\\
Now, assume that $N$ is a holomorphic strongly $R$-invariant submanifold of an $AH$-manifold
$M$ with pointwise non-zero constant holomorphic sectional curvature
$\mu.$ Then from (6.2) we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
\begin{array}{c}
3R(X,\xi)X+5R(JX,J\xi)X-R(X,J\xi)JX-R(JX,\xi)JX\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\\
-5J(R(X,\xi)JX)-3J(R(JX,J\xi)X)+J(R(X,J\xi)X)+J(R(JX,\xi)X)\\
=4\mu g(X,X)\xi\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all $X\in T_{p}N, p\in N$ and $\xi\in
T_{p}N^{\bot}.$ From Proposition 3.3(\cite{Ogi}) and (6.3), we find
$\mu=0.$
\end{proof}
Since a strongly $R$-invariant submanifold is necessarily
$R$-invariant submanifold, from Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 6.1, we have
the following result.
\begin{corollary} If every holomorphic submanifold of a connected $AH$-manifold $M$ of dimension $2m\geq6,$
is a strongly $R$-invariant submanifold, then $M$ is flat.
\end{corollary}
We note that Theorem 6.1 and Corollary 6.1 may
be considered as analogues of Theorem 3.4(\cite{Ogi})
and Theorem 3.5(\cite{Ogi}) concerning Riemannian manifolds respectively,
and Theorem 6.1 is a generalizations
of Theorem 4.3(\cite{Ogi}) concerning Kaehlerian manifolds.
We end this paper, giving a different characterization of almost constant-type $AH$-manifolds.
\begin{theorem} There exists no holomorphic strongly $R$-invariant submanifold of an $AH$-manifold
$M$ of non-zero constant type $\alpha$, in a weak sense, at $p\in M$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}Assume that $N$ is a holomorphic strongly $R$-invariant submanifold of an $AH$-manifold
$M$ of non-zero constant type $\alpha$, in a weak sense, at $p\in M$. Then from (4.3),
for $X\in T_{p}N$ and $\xi\in T_{p}N^{\bot}$ with $g(X,X)=g(\xi,\xi)=1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\begin{array}{c}
R(X,\xi,X,\xi)-2R(X,\xi,JX,J\xi)+R(JX,J\xi,JX,J\xi)=2\alpha.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
From Proposition 1.4(\cite{Ogi}) and (6.4), it follows that
$\alpha=0.$ This is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The author thanks the referee(s) for their comments and suggestions
to improve this paper.
|
\section{ Introduction}
Let us consider the following two Bernoulli initial-value problems
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\dfrac{dy_{1}(t)}{dt}=a_{1}(t)y_{1}(t)+b_{1}(t)y_{1}^{n}(t)\\
y_{1}(0)=d_{1}\text{,
\end{array}
\right. \tag{1}\label{1
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\dfrac{dy_{2}(t)}{dt}=a_{2}(t)y_{2}(t)+b_{2}(t)y_{2}^{n}(t)\\
y_{2}(0)=d_{2}\text{,
\end{array}
\right. \tag{2}\label{2
\end{equation}
where $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$ are nonzero real numbers, $n$ is a rational number,
and the functions $a_{1}(t)$, $b_{1}(t)$, $a_{2}(t)$, and $b_{2}(t)$ are
continuous on some interval that contains $t=0$. Then the problems (\ref{1})
and (\ref{2}) have unique solutions $y_{1}(t)$ and $y_{2}(t)$ in some
intervals $I_{1}$ and $I_{2}$, respectively ([1] - [6]). The results in this
paper are also valid for linear ($n=0$ and $n=1$) and for Riccati ($n=2$)
initial-value problems.
If $n=\frac{p}{q}$, where $p$ is an even number and $q$ is an odd number, then
the solutions are
\begin{equation}
y_{i}(t)=e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{i}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( \frac{1}{d_{i}^{n-1}}-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{i}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{i}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\text{,}
\tag{3}\label{3
\end{equation}
where $i=1$, $2$. If $n=\frac{p}{q}$, where $p$ is an odd number and $q$ is an
even number, then (\ref{3}) is valid if the initial values $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$
are positive. If $n=\frac{p}{q}\neq1$, where $p$ and $q$ are odd numbers, the
\[
y_{i}(t)=\pm e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{i}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( \frac{1}{d_{i}^{n-1}}-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{i}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{i}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\text{,
\]
where $i=1$, $2$ and the sign is the same as the sign of the corresponding
initial value $d_{i}$, $i=1$, $2$. If $n=1$, then we have
\[
y_{i}(t)=d_{i}e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
\left( a_{i}(\hat{t})+b_{i}(\hat{t})\right) d\hat{t}}\text{,
\]
where $i=1$, $2$.
The function $y_{1}(t)$ is symmetric to $y_{2}(t)$ with respect to the origin,
if $y_{2}(-t)=-y_{1}(t)$. Also, $y_{1}(t)$ is symmetric to $y_{2}(t)$ with
respect to the $t$-axis, if $y_{2}(t)=-y_{1}(t)$. Finally, $y_{1}(t)$ is
symmetric to $y_{2}(t)$ with respect to the $y$-axis, if $y_{2}(-t)=y_{1}(t)$.
In Section 2, we show that under certain conditions on the
coefficients $a_{1}(t)$, $b_{1}(t)$, $a_{2}(t)$, and $b_{2}(t)$,
and the initial values $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$, the solutions
$y_{1}(t)$ and $y_{2}(t)$ are symmetric to each other either with
respect to the $t$-axis, or the $y$-axis, or the origin. This
knowledge of symmetry can be very useful since solving one
Bernoulli problem solves automatically the other. For example, the
results in this paper can be used to prepare multiple versions of
examination questions. In addition, solutions for Bernoulli
problems are used to study properties and long term behavior of
solutions for more complicated ordinary and partial differential
equations.
\section{Symmetry of solutions}
\begin{lemma}
Let $n$\ be any real number, $a(t)$\ be an even function, and $b(t)$\ be an
odd function. Then the following holds
\begin{equation
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{-t}^{0}}
b(\tilde{t})e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}=
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\text{.} \tag{4}\label{4
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}
If $a(t)$ is an even function, then
\[
\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t
\]
is an odd function. Therefore
\[
e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}=e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\text{.
\]
The graphs of the functions
\[
f(\tilde{t})=e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}
\]
and
\[
g(\tilde{t})=e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}
\]
are reflections of each other with respect to the $y$-axis sinc
\begin{align}
g(-\tilde{t}) & =e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}=e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{-\tilde{t}}^{0}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\tag{5}\label{5}\\
& =e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}=f(\tilde{t})\text{.}\nonumber
\end{align}
Let us consider the functions $h(\tilde{t})=b(\tilde{t})g(\tilde{t})$ and
$s(\tilde{t})=b(\tilde{t})f(\tilde{t})$. Using (\ref{5}), we have
\begin{equation}
h(-\tilde{t})=b(-\tilde{t})g(-\tilde{t})=-b(\tilde{t})f(\tilde{t
)=-s(\tilde{t})\text{,} \tag{6}\label{6
\end{equation}
which implies (\ref{4}).
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
Let $n$\ $=\frac{p}{q}$, where $p$\ is an even number and $q$\ is an odd
number. The following holds for the solutions $y_{1}(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ of
the problems (\ref{1}) and (\ref{2}):
(i). Let $a_{1}(t)$\ be an even function, $b_{1}(t)$\ be an odd function, and
$a_{2}(t)=-a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=-b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=-d_{1}$. Then
$y_{1}(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ are symmetric to each other with respect to the origin.
(ii).Let $a_{1}(t)$\ be an odd function, $b_{1}(t)$\ be an even function, and
$a_{2}(t)=a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=-d_{1}$. Then $y_{1
(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ are symmetric to each other with respect to the origin.
(iii).Let $a_{1}(t)$\ and $b_{1}(t)$\ be even functions, and $a_{2
(t)=-a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=-d_{1}$. Then $y_{1}(t)$\ and
$y_{2}(t)$\ are symmetric to each other with respect to the origin.
(iv). If $a_{1}(t)=a_{2}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=-b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=-d_{1}$, then
$y_{1}(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ are symmetric to each other with respect to the
$t$-axis.
\begin{proof}
(i). Let us show that $y_{2}(-t)=-y_{1}(t)$. Using (\ref{4}), we have
\begin{align*}
y_{2}(-t) & =e^{
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( -\frac{1}{d_{1}^{n-1}}+\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\\
& =-y_{1}(t)\text{.
\end{align*}
(ii). If $a_{1}(t)$ is an odd function, and $b_{1}(t)$ is an even function,
then
\[
b_{1}(t)e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}
\]
is even. This implies tha
\begin{equation
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{-t}^{0}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\text{.} \tag{7}\label{7
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{7}), we have
\begin{align*}
y_{2}(-t) & =e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( -\frac{1}{d_{1}^{n-1}}-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\\
& =-y_{1}(t)\text{.
\end{align*}
(iii). The functions
\[
f(t)=b_{1}(t)e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}
\]
and
\[
g(t)=b_{1}(t)e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}
\]
are symmetric to each other with respect to the $y$-axis becaus
\[
f(-t)=b_{1}(-t)e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}=b_{1}(t)e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}=g(t)\text{.
\]
Therefore
\begin{equation
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{-t}^{0}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\text{.} \tag{8}\label{8
\end{equation}
an
\begin{equation
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{-t}^{0}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\text{.} \tag{9}\label{9
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{9}), we have
\begin{align*}
y_{2}(-t) & =e^{
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( -\frac{1}{d_{1}^{n-1}}-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\\
& =-y_{1}(t)\text{.
\end{align*}
(iv). Using (\ref{3}), we have
\begin{align*}
y_{2}(t) & =e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( -\frac{1}{d_{1}^{n-1}}+\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\\
& =-y_{1}(t)\text{.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
Let $n$\ be any rational number. Suppose that one of the following is true:
(i). Let $a_{1}(t)$\ be an even function, and $b_{1}(t)$\ be an odd function.
Also, let $a_{2}(t)=-a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=d_{1}$.
(ii). Let $a_{1}(t)$\ be an odd function, and $b_{1}(t)$\ be an even function.
Also, let $a_{2}(t)=a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=-b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=d_{1}$.
(iii).Let $a_{1}(t)$\ and $b_{1}(t)$\ be even functions. Also, let
$a_{2}(t)=-a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=-b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=d_{1}$.
Then the solutions $y_{1}(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ of the problems (\ref{1}) and
(\ref{2}) are symmetric to each other with respect to the $y$-axis.
\begin{proof}
(i). Suppose that $d_{i}>0$, $i=1$, $2$ and $n\neq1$. Using (\ref{4}), we
have:
\begin{align*}
y_{2}(-t) & =e^{
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( \frac{1}{d_{1}^{n-1}}-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\\
& =y_{1}(t)\text{.
\end{align*}
The above result is also true for the case $d_{i}<0$, $i=1$, $2$, provided
$p$\ is even and $q$\ is odd, or $p$\ and $q$\ are both odd. If $n=1$, then we
have
\[
y_{2}(-t)=d_{1}e^{
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{-t}^{0}}
\left( -a_{1}(\hat{t})+b_{1}(\hat{t})\right) d\hat{t}}=y_{1}\left(
t\right) \text{.
\]
(ii). The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 3 (i), with (\ref{7}) used
instead of (\ref{4}).\newline(iii). The proof is similar to the proof in
Theorem 3 (i), with (\ref{8}) used instead of (\ref{4}).\newline
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
Let $n=\frac{p}{q}$, where $p$\ and $q$\ are odd numbers.\ The following holds
for the solutions $y_{1}(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ of the problems (\ref{1}) and
(\ref{2}):
(i). Let $a_{1}(t)$\ be an odd function, $b_{1}(t)$\ be an even function, and
$a_{2}(t)=a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=-b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=-d_{1}$. Then $y_{1
(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ are symmetric to each other with respect to the origin.
(ii). Let $a_{2}(t)=a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=-d_{1}$. Then
$y_{1}(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ are symmetric to each other with respect to the
$t$-axis.
(iii). Let $a_{1}(t)$\ be an even function, $b_{1}(t)$\ be an odd function,
and $a_{2}(t)=-a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=-d_{1}$. Then
$y_{1}(t)$\ and $y_{2}(t)$\ are symmetric to each other with respect to the origin.
(iv). Let $a_{1}(t)$\ and $b_{1}(t)$\ be even functions, and $a_{2
(t)=-a_{1}(t)$, $b_{2}(t)=-b_{1}(t)$, and $d_{2}=-d_{1}$. Then $y_{1}(t)$\ and
$y_{2}(t)$\ are symmetric to each other with respect to the origin.
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $d_{1}<0$ and $d_{2}>0$. (The case $d_{1}>0$ and $d_{2}<0$ can be
shown similarly.) For $n\neq1$
\[
y_{1}(t)=-e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( \frac{1}{d_{1}^{n-1}}-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\text{.
\]
(i). If $a_{1}(t)$ is an odd function, and $b_{1}(t)$ is an even function,
then the function
\[
b_{1}(t)e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}
\]
is even. This implies tha
\begin{equation
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{-t}^{0}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\text{.}\tag{10}\label{10
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{10}), we have for $n\neq1$
\begin{align*}
y_{2}(-t) & =e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( \frac{1}{d_{1}^{n-1}}+\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\\
& =-y_{1}(t)\text{.
\end{align*}
If $n=1$, then
\[
y_{2}(-t)=d_{2}e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
\left( a_{2}(\hat{t})+b_{2}(\hat{t})\right) d\hat{t}}=-d_{1}e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{-t}}
\left( a_{1}(\hat{t})-b_{1}(\hat{t})\right) d\hat{t}}=-y_{1}\left(
t\right) \text{.
\]
(ii). We have for $n\neq1$
\begin{align*}
y_{2}(t) & =e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}\left( \frac{1}{d_{1}^{n-1}}-\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
b_{1}(\tilde{t})e^{\left( n-1\right)
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{\tilde{t}}}
a_{1}(\hat{t})d\hat{t}}d\tilde{t}\right) ^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}\\
& =-y_{1}(t)\text{.
\end{align*}
If $n=1$, then
\[
y_{2}(t)=d_{2}e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
\left( a_{2}(\hat{t})+b_{2}(\hat{t})\right) d\hat{t}}=-d_{1}e^
{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}}
\left( a_{1}(\hat{t})+b_{1}(\hat{t})\right) d\hat{t}}=-y_{1}\left(
t\right) \text{.
\]
(iii). The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 4 (i), with (\ref{4}) used
instead of (\ref{10}).\newline(iv). The proof is similar to the proof of
Theorem 4 (i), with (\ref{9}) used instead of (\ref{10}).
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
|
\section{Introduction}
Weakly bound few-body systems are being studied since a long time back and have achieved revived interest recently as the physics of such
weakly bound systems can be investigated experimentally in ultracold atomic gases~\cite{Kramer}. Utilizing the Feshbach resonance, the effective
inter-atomic interaction can be changed essentially to any desired values~\cite{Donley,Chin}. The recent experiments on cold atoms also provide
evidence of the existence of large weakly bound clusters. Thus our present study is motivated by the recent experiments on ultracold Bose gas.
We treat the three-dimensional bosonic cluster with maximum up to $N = 40$ Rb atoms interacting through two-body van der Waals potential.
Alkali atoms, specially Rb atoms, are good candidates for laser manipulation and to observe Bose-Einstein condensate~\cite{Anderson}.
At ultracold temperature the interatomic interaction is fairly well represented by a single parameter $a_s$, the $s-$wave scattering length.
For our present system we keep $a_s = 100$ $a_0$ which corresponds to the JILA experiment~\cite{Anderson}.
Thus the system is weakly interacting, and diffuse as the average size of the
cluster increases with cluster size. The binding of such $N-$body cluster is provided by the two-body van der Waals potential having a short range
repulsive core below a cutoff radius and a $\frac{-C_6}{r^6}$ tail which represents the long range attractive interaction.
The stability of such $N-$body clusters, their energetics and various structural properties are recently studied~\cite{Pankaj}. We propose the use
of two-body basis function to describe various properties of bosonic clusters. With more than three particles the system becomes more complex as the
number of degrees of freedom increases. We have investigated correlations between energies of the $N$ and $(N-1)$ systems and observe the generalized
Tjon line~\cite{Pankaj} for large cluster.
Now we consider the spectral statistics and spectral correlation of the atomic clusters of different sizes as
these contain rich physics and also plays an pivotal role
to establish
the universal properties of quantum systems. Berry and Tabor conjectured that
the fluctuation property of energy levels of a quantum system whose classical analog is regular, is characterised by Poisson statistics~\cite{Berry}. Whereas,
the fluctuation property of energy levels of a quantum system whose corresponding classical dynamical system is fully chaotic obeys the Bohigas-Giannoni-Schmit (BGS)
conjecture~\cite{Bohigas}. This tells that Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) or Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE) or Gaussian sympletic ensemble (GSE)
statistics of random matrix theory, depending on time reversal symmetry and rotational symmetry of the system, will
describe the fluctuation properties. However this conjecture is often interpreted in another way and the observation of level repulsion in
the spectrum is treated as an indication of the non-integrability of the system. The Poisson distribution implies complete randomness in the relative
positions of energy levels as they are completely uncorrelated. On the other hand Wigner distribution implies strong correlation among the energy levels.
Earlier the spectral properties of many different quantum systems like atoms, atomic nuclei, quantum billiards have been
studied~\cite{Casati, Haake, Seligman, Zimmermann, Tanner, Sakhr, Brody, Kota, Gomez}. Also some attempts have been made for non-interacting many-bosons
and interacting bosonic system~\cite{Munoz, Leclair, Chavda, Vyas}.
Recently we have reported the level spacing distribution of ultra-cold interacting bosons trapped in a harmonic potential~\cite{Barnali,Kamalika1,Kamalika2}.
We found intriguing effect of both the
interatomic interaction and the trap and observed deviation from the BGS cojecture. In this paper we are interested in similar type of calculation in
the van der Waals bosonic clusters. Unlike the Bose-Einstein condensate where the external trapping provides the stability of the condensate,
the van der Waals clusters are bound due to the van der Waals interaction. In the very dilute condition one may treat it as a uniform Bose gas. Apart from the
experimental interest, this kind of systems are also challenging for the following reasons. First, solving the many-body Schr\"odinger equation itself is a
challenging numerical task due to many degrees of freedom and the obvious question is what kind of approximation is to be valid for the description of such clusters.
Secondly for large cluster size when the system becomes very much correlated, one may expect Wigner type spectral distribution. However it needs an
exhaustive study as level repulsion in the energy spectrum may not always lead to Wigner distribution which signifies chaos. It indicates that one may need
to use some deformed GOE type of distribution for the correct description of nonintegrable but non-chaotic system.
We propose to study several measures of spectral fluctuations and spectral correlation to determine the degree of influence of the interatomic interaction.
This kind of study is also relevant as
the statistical fluctuation can be directly observed experimentally in the context of ultracold Bose gases.
We calculate nearest neighbour level spacing distribution (NNSD) $P(s)$, the level number variance $\Sigma^2(L)$
and the Dyson-Mehta $\Delta_3$-statistics~\cite{Mehta} for
various cluster sizes. However all these measures require unfolding of the spectrum to remove variation in the density of energy levels in different parts of
the spectrum. We can either unfold the spectrum of each member of the ensemble
separately and form ensemble averaged NNSD or a single unfolding function can be used for all the members of the ensemble. Depending on the unfolding procedure,
the final outcome of NNSD may vary. Moreover suitable unfolding function is not always known a priori and generally is approximated by higher order polynomials.
Therefore to verify the outcome of the NNSD, we further analyze the distribution of quotients of successive spacings $P(r)$ which does not require any unfolding and
is independent of the energy level density.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section II, we introduce the
many-body potential harmonic expansion method.
Section III discusses the numerical results and Section IV concludes with
the summary of our work.
\section{Methodology:Many-body calculation with potential
harmonic basis}
To study the spectral statistics and different spectral correlations we need to calculate a large number of energy levels of the diffuse Rb cluster. We
approximately solve the full many-body Schr\"odinger equation by our recently developed Potential harmonic expansion method. We have earlier applied it successfully to
study different properties of BEC~\cite{Pankaj1, Sudip, Pankaj2, Anindya, Anindya1, sudipPRA13, sudipEPJD13} and atomic clusters~\cite{Pankaj, TKD, Sudip1}.
The methodology has already been described in detail in our earlier works~\cite{Tapan, Das, Kundu}. Hence here we describe it briefly for interested readers.
We consider a system of $N=(\mathcal{N}+1)$ Rb atoms, each of mass $m$ and interacting via two-body potential.
The time-independent quantum many-body Schr\"odinger equation is given by
\begin{equation}
\Big[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \nabla_{i}^{2}
+\displaystyle{\sum_{i,j>i}^{N}} V(\vec{r}_{i}-\vec{r}_{j}) - E\Big]\Psi(\vec{r}_{1},...,\vec{r}_{N})=0 ,
\end{equation}
Where $E$ is the total energy of the system,
$V(\vec{r}_{i}-\vec{r}_{j})$ is the two-body potential and
$\vec{r}_{i}$ is the position vector of the $i$th particle. It is usual practice to decompose the motion of a many-body system into
the motion of the center of mass and the relative motion of the particles in center of mass frame. In absence of any confinig potential
the center of mass behaves as a free particle in laboratory frame and we set its energy as zero. Hence, after elimination of the center of mass motion and using standard
Jacobi coordinates, defined as~\cite{Ballot, Fabre, MFabre}
\begin{equation}
\vec{\zeta}_{i}=\sqrt{\frac{2i}{i+1}}(\vec{r}_{i+1}-
\frac{1}{i}\sum_{j=1}^{i} \vec{r}_j) \hspace*{.5cm}
(i=1,\cdots,{\mathcal N}),
\end{equation}
we obtain the equation for the relative motion of the atoms
\begin{equation}
\Big[-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}} \nabla_{\zeta_{i}}^{2} + V_{int}(\vec{\zeta}_{1}, ..., \vec{\zeta}_{\mathcal{N}})
- E\Big]\Psi(\vec{\zeta}_{1}, ..., \vec{\zeta}_{\mathcal{N}}) = 0\hspace*{.1cm},
\end{equation}
$V_{int}$ is the sum of all pair-wise interactions. Now it is to be noted that Hyperspherical harmonic expansion method
is an {\it ab-initio} tool to solve the many-body Schr\"odinger equation where the total wave function is expanded in the complete
set of hyperspherical basis~\cite{Ballot}. Although Hyperspherical harmonic expansion method is a complete many-body approach and includes all possible correlations,
it is highly restricted to $N=3$ only. But for a diffuse cluster like Rb-cluster, only two-body correlation and pairwise interaction are important.
Therefore we can decompose the total wave function $\Psi$ into two-body Faddeev component
for the interacting $(ij)$ pair as
\begin{equation}
\Psi=\sum_{i,j>i}^{N}\phi_{ij}(\vec{r}_{ij},r)\hspace*{.1cm}\cdot
\end{equation}
It is important to note that $\phi_{ij}$ is a function of two-body
separation ($\vec{r}_{ij}$) only and the global
hyperradius $r$, which is defined as $r = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\zeta_{i}^{2}}$. Thus the effect of two-body correlation comes
through the two-body interaction in the expansion basis. $\phi_{ij}$
is symmetric under the exchange operator $P_{ij}$ for bosonic atoms and satisfy the
Faddeev equation
\begin{equation}
\left[T-E_R\right]\phi_{ij}
=-V(\vec{r}_{ij})\sum_{kl>k}^{N}\phi_{kl}
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the total kinetic energy operator. In this approach, we assume that when ($ij$) pair interacts, the rest
of the bosons are inert spectators. Thus the total hyperangular momentum
quantum number as also the orbital angular momentum of the whole system
is contributed by the interacting pair only. Next the $(ij)$th Faddeev
component is expanded in the set of potential harmonics (PH) (which is
a subset of hyperspherical harmonic (HH) basis and sufficient for the expansion of $V(\vec {r}_{ij})$)
appropriate for the ($ij$) partition as
\begin{equation}
\phi_{ij}(\vec{r}_{ij},r)
=r^{-(\frac{3\mathcal{N}-1}{2})}\sum_{K}{\mathcal P}_{2K+l}^{lm}
(\Omega_{\mathcal{N}}^{ij})u_{K}^{l}(r) \hspace*{.1cm}\cdot
\end{equation}
$\Omega_{\mathcal{N}}^{ij}$ denotes the full set of hyperangles in the $3\mathcal{N}$-dimensional
space corresponding to the $(ij)$ interacting pair and
${\mathcal P}_{2K+l}^{lm}(\Omega_{\mathcal{N}}^{ij})$ is called the PH. It
has an analytic expression:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal P}_{2K+l}^{l,m} (\Omega_{\mathcal{N}}^{(ij)}) =
Y_{lm}(\omega_{ij})\hspace*{.1cm}
^{(\mathcal{N})}P_{2K+l}^{l,0}(\phi) {\mathcal Y}_{0}(D-3) ;\hspace*{.5cm}D=3\mathcal{N} ,
\end{equation}
${\mathcal Y}_{0}(D-3)$ is the HH of order zero in
the $(3\mathcal{N}-3)$ dimensional space spanned by $\{\vec{\zeta}_{1}, ...,
\vec{\zeta}_{\mathcal{N}-1}\}$ Jacobi vectors; $\phi$ is the hyperangle between the ${\mathcal{N}}$-th Jacobi vector
$\vec{\zeta}_{\mathcal{N}}=\vec{r}_{ij}$ and the hyperradius $r$ and is given by
$\zeta_{\mathcal{N}}$ = $r\hspace*{0.1cm} \cos\phi$. For the remaining $(\mathcal{N}-1)$
noninteracting bosons we define hyperradius as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{ij}& = &\sqrt{\sum_{K=1}^{\mathcal{N}-1}\zeta_{K}^{2}}\nonumber\\
&= &r \sin\phi \hspace*{.01 cm}\cdot
\end{eqnarray}
such that $r^2=r_{ij}^2+\rho_{ij}^2$. The set of $(3\mathcal{N}-1)$ quantum
numbers of HH is now reduced to {\it only} $3$ as for the $(\mathcal{N}-1)$
non-interacting pair
\begin{eqnarray}
l_{1} = l_{2} = ...=l_{\mathcal{N}-1}=0, & \\
m_{1} = m_{2}=...=m_{\mathcal{N}-1}=0, & \\
n_{2} = n_{3}=...n_{\mathcal{N}-1} = 0, &
\end{eqnarray}
and for the interacting pair $l_{\mathcal{N}} = l$, $m_{\mathcal{N}} = m$ and $n_{\mathcal{N}} = K$.
Thus the $3\mathcal{N}$ dimensional Schr\"odinger equation reduces effectively
to a four dimensional equation with the relevant set of quantum
numbers: Energy $E$, orbital angular momentum quantum number $l$,
azimuthal quantum number $m$ and grand orbital quantum number $2K+l$
for any $N$. Substituting in Eq(4) and projecting on a particular PH, a set of
coupled differential equation for the partial wave $u_{K}^{l}(r)$
is obtained
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cl}
\Big[-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{m} \frac{d^{2}}{dr^{2}} + \frac{\hbar^{2}}{mr^{2}}
\{ {\cal L}({\cal L}+1)
+ 4K(K+\alpha+\beta+1)\} &\\
-E_R\Big]U_{Kl}(r) +\displaystyle{\sum_{K^{\prime}}}f_{Kl}V_{KK^{\prime}}(r)
f_{K^{\prime}l}
U_{K^{\prime}l}(r) = 0&\\
\hspace*{.1cm},
\end{array}
\label{eq.cde}
\end{equation}\\
where ${\mathcal L}=l+\frac{3N-6}{2}$, $U_{Kl}=f_{Kl}u_{K}^{l}(r)$,
$\alpha=\frac{3N-8}{2}$ and $\beta=l+1/2$.\\
$f_{Kl}$ is a constant and represents the overlap of the PH for
interacting partition with the sum of PHs corresponding to all
partitions~\cite{MFabre}.
The potential matrix element $V_{KK^{\prime}}(r)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
V_{KK^{\prime}}(r) =
\int P_{2K+l}^{lm^*}(\Omega_{\mathcal{N}}^{ij})
V\left(r_{ij}\right)
P_{2K^{\prime}+1}^{lm}(\Omega_{\mathcal{N}}^{ij}) d\Omega_{\mathcal{N}}^{ij}
\hspace*{.1cm}\cdot
\end{equation}
Here we would like to point out that we did not require the additional short-range correlation function $\eta(r_{ij})$ for
Rb clusters as was necessary for dilute BEC. A BEC is designed to be very dilute and hence confined by a harmonic oscillator potential of
low frequency ($\sim 100$ Hz). The average interatomic separation is thus very large ($\sim 20000 a_0$) compared with the range of
atom-atom interaction ($\sim 100 a_0$). Moreover the kinetic energy of the atoms is extremely small. Hence the effective interaction
for large $r_{ij}$ is controlled by the $s$-wave scattering length ($a_s$)~\cite{Pethick}. This is achieved by the inclusion of the correlation
function~\cite{Das, Kundu}. On the other hand, diffuse van der Waals clusters are weakly bound by the actual interatomic van der Waals
potential (of range $\sim 10 a_0$), without any confinement. Hence no correlation function is needed. The average inter-particle separation is
large enough, so that only two-body correlations are expected to be adequate,
at least for light clusters.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Choice of interaction and calculation of many body effective potential}
As pointed earlier we choose the van der Waals potential with a hard core of radius $r_c$ as the interaction potential,
$V(r_{ij})$= $\infty$ for $r_{ij} \leq r_c$ and
= $-\frac{C_6}{r_{ij}^6}$ for $r_{ij}>r_c$.
For Rb atoms, the value of $C_6$ is 2803 eV $\AA^6$~\cite{Pethick}. The unmanipulated scattering length corresponding to Rb-dimer
is $a_s=100$ $a_0$. We obtain $a_s$ by solving the two-body Schr\"odinger equation for zero-energy~\cite{Kundu}. We adjust the hard core radius
in the two-body equation to obtain the dimer scattering length. In the Fig.~1 of Ref.~\cite{Kundu} , we see the value of $a_s$ changes from negative
to positive passing through an infinite discontinuity as $r_c$ decreases. Each discontinuity corresponds to one extra two-body bound state.
We observe that tiny change in $r_c$ across the infinite discontinuity causes $a_s$ to jump from very large positive value to very large negative value.
For our present calculation, we tune $r_c$ such that it corresponds to single bound state of the dimer.
Thus calculated $r_c$ is $15.18 \AA$ for dimer scattering length of Rb atoms. With this set of values of $C_6$ and $r_c$,
we next solve the coupled differential equation [\ref{eq.cde}] by hyperspherical adiabatic approximation~\cite{Coelho}.
In hyperspherical adiabatic approximation, the hyperradial motion is assumed slow compared to hyperangular motion. For the hyperangular motion for a fixed value of $r$,
we diagonalize the potential matrix together with the hypercentrifugal term. Thus the effective potential for the hyperradial motion is obtained as
a parametric function of $r$. For the ground state of the system we choose the lowest eigenpotential $\omega_0(r)$ [corresponding eigen column vector
being $\chi_{K0}(r)$] as the effective potential. We plot the effective potential $\omega_0(r)$ as a function of hyperradius $r$, at the dimer scattering
length and for various cluster size $N=$3, 5 and 40 in Fig.~\ref{fig.pot}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{lep_N=3.eps}} & \\
(a) $N$ =3 & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{lep_N=5.eps}} &\\
(b) $N$ =5 & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{lep_N=40.eps}} & \\
(c) $N$ = 40 & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{(color online): Plot of the effective potential $\omega_0(r)$ for different cluster sizes, {\it viz.} $N=3$ [Panel (a)],
$N=5$ [Panel (b)] and $N=40$ [Panel (c)].}
\label{fig.pot}
\end{figure}
With increase in cluster size the depth of the eigen potential increases sharply which indicates stronger binding of the cluster.
The average size of the cluster also increases with increases in $N$. The energy of the cluster is finally obtained by solving the adiabatically
separated hyperradial equation in the extreme adiabatic approximation
\begin{equation}
\left[-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{m}\frac{d^{2}}{dr^{2}}+\omega_{0}(r)-E_{R}
\right]\zeta_{0}(r)=0\hspace*{.1cm},
\end{equation}
subject to appropriate boundary condition.
In our earlier published work we have reported ground state and few low-lying excitation of Rb cluster with maximum size of $N=40$.~\cite{Pankaj}.
However in the calculation of level statistics and spectral correlation we also need higher multipolar excitations.
In our many-body picture the collective
motion of the cluster is described by the effective potential. The excited states in this potential are denoted by $E_{nl}$ which
corresponds to $n$th radial
excitation with $l$th surface mode. Thus $E_{00}$ corresponds to the ground state and $E_{n0}$ are the different excitations for $l=0$.
To calculate the higher
levels with $l \neq 0$ we follow the next procedure. We have noted that for $l \neq 0$, a large inaccuracy is involved in the calculation
of the off-diagonal
potential matrix. As the main contribution to the potential matrix comes from the diagonal hypercentrifugal term we disregard the contribution
coming from
off-diagonal part. Thus we get the effective potential $\omega_l(r)$ for $l \neq 0$.
Substituting $\omega_l(r)$ in Eq.~(14) we solve for different radial modes and repeat the numerical procedure for various $l$ to obtain the
higher multipolar excitations.
Before discussing the statistical behavior of the energy spectrum we should discuss how accurate our calculated energy levels are.
It is to be noted that the potential
harmonic expansion method has been successfully applied in the calculation of collective excitations and thermodynamic properties of trapped bosons~\cite{Satadal}.
For the investigation of thermodynamic properties we need to calculate a large number of energy levels.
The calculated critical temperature and the condensate fraction
are in good agreement with the experimental results~\cite{Satadal}. The effect of two-body correlations on thermodynamic properties of trapped bosons is
also observed~\cite{Satadal}. Very recently we have also studied the energetics of diffuse $^{87}$Rb clusters~\cite{Pankaj} and also compared with the well studied He,
Ne, and Ar clusters. Thus the calculated energy levels are accurate for further analysis. We also check for the convergence such that the error is
considerably smaller than the mean level spacings.
\subsection{Level-spacing statistics for different cluster sizes}
NNSD or $P(s)$ distribution is the most common observable which is used to study the short range fluctuation.
Now to compare the statistical property of different parts of the spectrum we need to unfold them. By unfolding, the smooth part of the level
density is removed, it basically maps the energy levels to another with the mean level density equal to $1$. For our present calculation we use
polynomial unfolding of sixth order. We observe that for small cluster size with $N=3$ and $N=5$, as the effective potential is very shallow,
the number of energy levels are very small and not sufficient for the calculation of NNSD. Instead, we also calculate the many-body collective levels
including higher order excitations with different $l$. We then unfold each spectrum separately for a specific value of $l$ and then form an ensemble having
the same symmetry. From the unfolded spectrum we calculate the nearest neighbour spacing $s$ as $E_{i+1}-E_i$ and calculate $P(s)$. $P(s)$ is
defined as the probablity density of finding a distance $s$ between two adjacent levels. Uncorrelated spectra obey the Poisson
statistics which gives exponential
distribution $P(s)=e^{-s}$. Whereas for system with time-reversal symmetry, level repulsion leads to the Wigner-Dyson distribution
$P(s)= \frac{\pi}{2}s e^{\frac{-\pi s^2}{4}}$~\cite{Giannoni}.
The $P(s)$ distribution of the unfolded spectrum with cluster size $N=3$ is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=3}.
We observe that $P(s)=0$ for very small $s$ and also for large $s$. In our earlier calculation of $^{87}$Rb diffuse cluster,
we have calculated the several low-energy
excitations. We have observed that due to the heavier mass of Rb atom, kinetic energy $<T>$ of Rb$_{N}$ clusters is small while the
interaction energy $<V>$ is large. It
implies that although the system is tightly bound, it is less correlated for smaller $N$. Thus unlike the trapped bosons, the smaller
diffuse cluster does not
exhibit any degeneracy in the calculation of low-lying excitations. It is reflected in Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=3}(a) where we observe that
$P(s)=0$ for very small $s$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{6-22_N=3.eps}} &\\
(a) lowest 22 levels & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{300-400_brody_N=3.eps}} &\\
(b) 300 $<$ levels $<$ 400 &\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Plot of $P(s)$ distribution of lower [panel (a)] and higher [panel (b)] part of the spectrum of diffuse $^{87}$Rb cluster for $N=3$.
The green dashed curve in panel (b) represents the Poisson distribution whereas the blue dotted curve corresponds to the
Brody distribution with the Brody parameter being $\nu=0.007$.}
\label{fig.ps_N=3}
\end{figure}
The level spacing distribution for higher levels is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=3}(b) which indicates that for such small cluster, the energy levels
are completely uncorrelated. Though it looks very similar to the Poisson distribution the peak value at $s=0$
is less than $1$. To determine how closely the histogram matches with the Poisson distribution we fit it with Brody distribution~\cite{Brody}
\begin{equation}
P(\nu,s) = (1+\nu) a s^{\nu} \exp (-a s^{1+\nu})
\label{eq.brody}
\end{equation}
where $a=[\Gamma(\frac{2+\nu}{1+\nu})]^{1+\nu}$ and $\nu$ is the Brody parameter. Depending on the value of the Brody parameter $\nu$,
this distribution
interpolates between the Poisson distribution $(\nu =0)$ and the Wigner distribution ($\nu=1$). Here we found $\nu = 0.007$.
This implies that there is negligible
correlation between the energy levels and the system is very close to regular. Actually for $N=3$ there are only $3$ interacting pair and the net
attractive interaction is very weak.
Next to study the effect of inter-atomic interaction we gradually increase the effective interaction.
We can vary the effective interaction either by tuning the
scattering length $a_s$ or by changing the number of bosons. Here we increase the number of bosons to $N=5$.
It is already known from the earlier study of $^{4}$He
cluster that $\Delta E = E_{N+1}-E_N$ decreases smoothly as a function of $N$ which indicates the saturation in
the density and predicts liquid-drop behavior in
$^4$He cluster with larger $N$~\cite{Pankaj}. However diffuse Rb cluster which is the system of our present interest is
dilute and less compact which indicates sharp change in $\Delta E$ with change in cluster size.
The average size of the cluster also increases. Thus the cluster with $N=5$ is more tightly bound, stable and more
correlated compared with
the cluster size $N=3$. Due to more correlation in the energy spectrum, we can expect the very closely spaced energy levels which
leads to the quasi-degeneracy.
This is reflected in Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=5_lowest30} where we plot the $P(s)$ distribution for the lowest 30 levels.
The sharp peak in the first bin near $s=0$
clearly exhibits the signarure of quasidegeneracy. This peak is known as Shnirelman peak~\cite{Shnirelman}.
\begin{figure}[hbpt]
\vspace{-10pt}
\centerline{
\hspace{-3.3mm}
\rotatebox{0}{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{4-30_N=5.eps}}}
\caption{Plot of the $P(s)$ distribution of lowest 30 levels of $^{87}$Rb cluster for $N=5$.}
\label{fig.ps_N=5_lowest30}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{lowest30_0.2,15_N=5.eps}} & \\
(a) & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{lowest30_0.01,40_N=5.eps}} & \\
(b) & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The Structure of Shnirelman peak observed for lowest $30$ levels of $^{87}$Rb cluster with $N=5$ is shown in finer detail.
The bin size in panel(a) is 0.2. In panel (b) only the peak is further zoomed by taking the bin size 0.01.}
\label{fig.Shnirelman}
\end{figure}
For better understanding of the structure of Shnirelman peak, we plot the same histogram
in Fig.~\ref{fig.Shnirelman} as in Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=5_lowest30} in finer details. Reducing the bin size gradually, a huge peak appears in the first
bin which demonstrates the existence of global quasidegeneracy. The peak has a finite width which is further associated with Poisson tail.
The resolution of the peak is further studied as the integral level spacing distribution $I(s) = N P(s)$ (here $N$ being the number of levels),
normalized to unity. We plot $I(s)$ as a function of $\ln s$ in Fig.~\ref{fig.Is}. The linear dependence
between $I$ and $\ln s$ is shown in the left most part of Fig.~\ref{fig.Is} which represents the structure of the Shnirelman peak.
Whereas the rightmost steep increase of $I(s)$ corresponds to the Poisson tail.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-10pt}
\centerline{
\hspace{-3.3mm}
\rotatebox{0}{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{ips_0.01,300.eps}}}
\caption{Plot of the integral level spacing distribution $I(s)$ vs $\ln s$ for $N=5$.}
\label{fig.Is}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{40-80_N=5.eps}} & \\
(a) $40 <$ level $< 80$ & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{850-1000_brody_N=5.eps}} & \\
(b) $850 <$ level$ <1000$ & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Plot of the $P(s)$ distribution for middle and higher levels for $N=5$. The green dashed curve in panel (a) represents the
semi-Poisson distribution and that in panel (b) presents the Poisson distribution. The blue dotted curve in panel (b) corresponds to the
Brody distribution with the Brody parameter $\nu =0.025$.}
\label{fig.ps_N=5}
\end{figure}
However for the higher levels we observe that the system exhibits pseudo-integrability. It is reflected in Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=5}(a)
where we observe the
semi-Poisson (SP) distribution. For comparison, in the same
figure we plot the analytic expression of SP statistics given by $P(s) = 4 s e^{-2s}$~\cite{Antonio}. We observe the level repulsion at smaller
values of $s$ ($s << 1$), where $P(s) \propto s$ and asymptotic decay of $P(s)$ is exponential. The SP distribution is observed within a narrow
intermediate region between the quasi-degenerate regime and the completely integrable regime. $P(s)$ distribution for the higher levels are plotted
in the Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=5}(b) which is again very similar to Poisson distribution. We again fit the Brody distribution with the histogram and find the
Brody parameter $\nu =0.025$. The observation of SP distribution and increase in the value of Brody parameter $\nu$ clearly manifests
the enhanced effect of
inter-atomic correlation with increase in cluster size. However we fail to give any physical reason which causes this SP and Poisson statistics.
As pointed earlier, for smaller cluster size only $l=0$ effective potential is not enough to calculate sufficient number of levels for the
study of $P(s)$ distribution. So the findings of SP statistics may be physically acceptable whose origin is not clear to us or it may be due to overlap of
several $l$ values.
\begin{figure}[hbpt]
\vspace{-10pt}
\centerline{
\hspace{-3.3mm}
\rotatebox{0}{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{160-200_N=40.eps}}}
\caption{Plot of the nearest neighbour level spacing distribution $P(s)$ of the higher portion (160-200 levels) of the spectrum of diffuse
van der Waals cluster for $N=40$. The red smooth histogram represents our numerical result and the green dashed curve represents the Wigner distribution. }
\label{fig.ps_N=40}
\end{figure}
Thus to get further insight we significantly change the cluster size to $N=40$ where only $l=0$ effective potential is deep enough to
support sufficient number of states for calculation of $P(s)$ distribution. We plot the $P(s)$ distribution in Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=40}. We observe similarity with
Wigner distribution as very small value of $P(s)$ near $s=0$ signifies the level repulsion.
However the peak at $s=1$ overshoots $1$. The large peak at $s=1$ signifies large accumulation of levels with level spacing $s=1$. Though we tried
to fit the histogram again with Brody distribution we fail
to appropriately fit it. Now it is worthy to mention that Guhr and Weidenm\"uller~\cite{Guhr} proposed a modified uniform spectrum
in terms of a deformed GOE, which combines uniform, GOE and Poisson. As the $P(s)$ distribution of Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=40}
is quite similar to Fig.~1, Fig.~2, and Fig.~3 of Ref.~\cite{Guhr}, the use of deformed GOE may be an ideal step for future investigation.
As the Fig.~\ref{fig.ps_N=40} does not match with the Wigner
distribution we conclude that the Hamiltonian is not chaotic. However the deformed GOE type distribution signifies the system is strictly nonintegrable and exhibits
strong interatomic correlation. Thus it is indeed required to calculate the energy level correlation which we discuss in the following section.
\subsection{Energy level correlation}
So far we have considered only the NNSD which is commonly used to characterize the short-range fluctuations in the spectrum.
However in order to confirm our findings
of the effect of correlation on the spectral properties and to investigate how the correlation gradually builds in with the increase in cluster size
which makes the system too complex, we study the long range correlations of the spectrum. The level number variance $\Sigma^2(L)$ is
the most commonly used observable to characterize correlations between pair of levels. It mainly determines the long-range fluctuations in the spectrum.
It is defined as the average variance of the number of levels in the energy interval containing an average number of $L$ levels and is calculated as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma^2(L) = <(N(E+L)-N(E)-L)^2>
\end{equation}
where $<>$ represents the average over the energy value $E$ and $N(E)$ determines the number of eigen energy levels below $E$. For the uncorrelated
Poisson statistics $\Sigma^2(L) =L$, whereas for GOE, $\Sigma^2(L)$ increases logarithmically with $L$. From the earlier study of level spacing
distribution it has been observed that for $N=3$ the system exhibits features which are very close to the non-interacting limit.
We have also observed the Poisson distribution in the level statistics of higher levels. However the most interesting observation is the
semi-Poisson distribution for the intermediate part of the spectrum for $N=5$. The corresponding $\Sigma^2(L)$ is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig.sigma2_N=5}(a).
It approximately increases linearly as $L/2$ which is the value of number variance $\Sigma^2(L)$ of SP distribution.
Then we plot $\Sigma^2(L)$ for higher part of the spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig.sigma2_N=5}(b). It is approximately proportinal to $L$ indicating that
the system is correlated but does not exhibit any level repulsion. This further confirms the findings of the
Poisson distribution in the $P(s)$ distribution. For strongly correlated cluster with $N=40$ we observe that $\Sigma^2(L)$ approximately
increases logarithmically with $L$ [Fig.~\ref{fig.sigma2_N=40}].
This feature is close to GOE results. However there are significant differences between our numerical results and the Wigner surmise. It again indicates
that the system does not show full chaos though it exhibits strong non-integrability.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{sigma2_40-80_N=5.eps}} & \\
(a) $N=5$, $40 < level < 80$& \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{sigma2_850-1000_N=5.eps}} & \\
(b) $N=5$, $850 < level < 1000$ & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{(color online) Plot $\Sigma^2(L)$ vs $L$ for intermediate and higher part of the spectrum for $N=5$.}
\label{fig.sigma2_N=5}
\end{figure}
The other important observable to characterise long-range correlation is $\Delta_3-$statistics~\cite{Mehta}. Given an energy interval
$[\alpha, \alpha+L]$ of length $L$, it is defined as the least square deviation of the staircase function $\hat{N}(E_i)$ from the best straight line fitting it:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_3(\alpha;L)=\frac{1}{L}Min_{A,B}\int_{\alpha}^{\alpha+L}[\hat{N}(E_i)-AE_i-B]^2 dE_i
\end{equation}
It is customary to use the average values of $\Delta_3(L)$. Thus $\Delta_3-$statistics, averaged over energy intervals, measures
the deviation of the unfolded spectrum from the equidistant spectrum and hence it gives information on
the rigidity of spectrum or spectral stiffness. For uncorrelated Poisson spectra $<\Delta_3(L)> \propto L$ whereas for Wigner spectra
$<\Delta_3(L)> \propto \log L$. Our
\begin{figure}[hbpt]
\vspace{-10pt}
\centerline{
\hspace{-3.3mm}
\rotatebox{0}{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{sigma2_160-200_N=40.eps}}}
\caption{ (color online) Plot $\Sigma^2(L)$ vs $L$ for the spectrum of Rb cluster with $N=40$.}
\label{fig.sigma2_N=40}
\end{figure}
calculated numerical results for $N=40$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.delta3_N=40}. Though it looks similar to GOE distribution, it is significantly lower than
the GOE results which confirms our earlier observation for large cluster. The approach of $<\Delta_3(L)>$ towards the GOE behavior is valid only upto
$L \approx 2$. The similar kind of observation was made in Fig. 6 of Ref.~\cite{Guhr} where deformed GOE behavior is noted in $<\Delta_3(L)>$.
It indicates that for large cluster size,
the levels are strongly correlated. Whereas for smaller cluster ($N=5$), we observe that $<\Delta_3(L)>$ distribution gradually approaches to Poisson as
we move upward in the spectrum. For a small
\begin{figure}[hbpt]
\vspace{-10pt}
\centerline{
\hspace{-3.3mm}
\rotatebox{0}{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{delta3_160-200_N=40.eps}}}
\caption{ (color online) Plot $<\Delta_3(L)>$ vs $L$ for the spectrum of Rb cluster with $N=40$.}
\label{fig.delta3_N=40}
\end{figure}
intermediate region of the spectrum $<\Delta_3(L)>$ lies between the GOE and Poisson distribution [Fig.~\ref{fig.delta3_N=5}(a)] whereas for the upper levels it almost
perfectly follows the Poisson distribution [Fig.~\ref{fig.delta3_N=5}(b)] which indicates that the spectrum has turned soft.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{delta3_40-80_N=5.eps}} & \\
(a) $40 < lelvel <80$ & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{delta3_850-1000_N=5.eps}} & \\
(b) $850 < level < 1000$ & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{(color online) Plot of $<\Delta_3(L)>$ vs $L$ for intermediate [panel (a)] and higher part [panel(b)] of spectrum for $N=5$.}
\label{fig.delta3_N=5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ Quotients of successive spacings}
Before concluding the paper, we present in this Section, as a test of the
observations made in Sections III B, the results of the analysis of the
distribution of quotients of successive level spacings [denoted by $P(r)$], a
measure introduced recently, that is independent of the unfolding function and
the unfolding procedure \cite{Huse2007,ABGR-2013}. Note that in all the
analysis presented in Sections III B and III C, we have employed a sixth-order
polynomial for the density of levels for unfolding. The P(r) distribution and
the related averages allow for a more transparent comparison with experimental
results than the traditional level spacing distribution and this measure is
particularly important for many-body systems as the theory for the eigenvalue
(level) densities for these systems is usually not available. In the recent
past, this measure was used in analyzing many-body localization
\cite{Huse2007,OPH2009,Pal-10,Iyer-12} and also in quantifying the distance from
integrability on finite size lattices \cite{koll2010,Coll2012}. More recently,
using $P(r)$ it is established conclusively that embedded random matrix
ensembles for many-body systems, generated by random interactions in the
presence of a mean-field, follow GOE for strong enough two-body interaction
\cite{CV-2013}.
Given a ordered set of the energy levels $E_n$, the nearest neighbor spacing
$s_n= E_{n+1}- E_n$ and the probability distribution of the ratios
$r_n=s_n/s_{n-1}$ is $P(r)$ subject to normalization $\int P(r)dr=1$.
If the system is in integrable domain (described by Poisson NNSD), then the $P(r)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
P_P(r)=\frac{1}{(1+r)^2}
\label{eq.prpoi}
\end{equation}
and if the system is chaotic (described by GOE), then the $P(r)$ is given by
Wigner-like surmise \cite{ABGR-2013},
\begin{equation}
P_W(r)= \frac{27}{8} \frac{r+r^2}{(1+r+r^2)^{5/2}}\;.
\label{eq.prgoe}
\end{equation}
The average value of r, i.e. $\left\langle r \right\rangle$, is $1.75$ for GOE and is $\infty$
for Poisson. It is also possible to consider $\tilde{r}_n = \frac{\min(s_n,
s_{n-1})}{\max(s_n, s_{n-1})} = \min(r_n, 1/r_n)$. The average value of
$\tilde{r}$, i.e. $\left\langle \tilde{r}\right\rangle$, is $0.536$ for GOE and $0.386$ for
Poisson.
Some results for $P(r)$ vs $r$ for the spectrum of diffuse $^{87}$Rb cluster with the same cluster sizes as above {\it viz.}
$N$ = 3, 5 and 40, are shown in Figs. \ref{prdr1} and \ref{prdr2}. Moreover, we have
also calculated the averages $\left\langle r \right\rangle$ and $\left\langle \tilde{r}\right\rangle$ and results
are given in Table 1. For $N=3$ with levels 1-22, there is a peak at $r \sim 1$
as seen from Fig. \ref{prdr1}a. Similarly for levels 300-400, $P(r)$ is close to
Poisson form as shown in Fig. \ref{prdr2}a. These results are consistent with
the NNSD results in Figs. 2a and 2b respectively. In addition, the results for
$\left\langle r\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle \tilde{r}\right\rangle$ given in Table 1 are also in agreement
with these observations. Turning to $N=5$, with levels 1-30 the $P(r)$ shows
peaks at $r \sim 0$ and $r \sim 1$ (see Fig. \ref{prdr1}b) and for quantifying
this structure, it is necessary to derive $P(r)$ that corresponds to Shnirelman
peak. Going to levels 40-80, it is seen from Fig. \ref{prdr1}c that $P(r)$
exhibits level repulsion with $P(r) \sim 0$ for $r \sim 0$ but the form of
$P(r)$ shows clear deviations from the GOE result given by Eq. (\ref{eq.prgoe}).
In order to compare with the conclusion drawn from NNSD in Fig.~6a, it is
necessary to derive the formula for $P(r)$ for pseudo-integrable systems (these
systems give semi-Poisson form for NNSD). Turning to levels 850-1000, it is
clearly seen from Fig. \ref{prdr2}b that the $P(r)$ is close to Poisson and this
is in complete agreement with NNSD shown in Fig. 6b. Further, for $N=40$ the
$P(r)$ curve shows level repulsion and it is closer to GOE than to Poisson (see
Fig. \ref{prdr2}c). Also, the values of $\left\langle r \right\rangle$ and $\left\langle \tilde{r}\right\rangle$
(shown in Table 1) are close to GOE results. Thus N=40 example exhibits level
repulsion as seen in the NNSD result. Combining all these observations, we
conclude that the results deduced from NNSD analysis are consistent with those
obtained from $P(r)$ analysis and thus the unfolding procedure used in
Sections III B and III C can be considered to be good.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{pr-N3-1-22.eps}} & \\
(a) $N$ =3 & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{pr-N5-1-30.eps}} &\\
(b) $N$ =5 & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{pr-N5-40-80.eps}} & \\
(c) $N$ = 40 & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings $P(r)$ of the
spectrum of diffuse $^{87}$Rb for cluster sizes (a) $N=3$ with lowest $22$ levels,
(b) $N=5$ with lowest $30$ levels and (c) $N=5$ with levels $40-80$. Result for
GOE (blue curve) is also shown.}
\label{prdr1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{pr-N3-300-400.eps}} & \\
(a) $N$ =3 & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{pr-N5-850-1k.eps}} &\\
(b) $N$ =5 & \\
\resizebox{80mm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{pr-N40-160-200.eps}} & \\
(c) $N$ = 40 & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings $P(r)$ of the
spectrum of diffuse $^{87}$Rb for cluster sizes (a) $N=3$ with levels
$300-400$, (b) $N=5$ with levels $850-1000$ and (c) $N=40$ with levels
$160-200$. Results for Poisson (green curve) and GOE (blue curve) are also
shown.}
\label{prdr2}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Values of averages $\left\langle \tilde{r}\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle r \right\rangle$ for
various cluster size $N$.}
\begin{tabular}{llcc}
\hline
\hline
& & $\left\langle \tilde{r}\right\rangle$ & $\left\langle r \right\rangle$ \\
N=3 & levels (1-22) & 0.76 &1.168\\
&levels (300-400) & 0.34 &204151\\
& & & \\
N=5 & levels (1-30) & 0.48 &6.18\\
&levels (40-80) & 0.64 &1.64\\
&levels (850-1000) &0.39 &144078\\
& & &\\
N=40 &levels(160-200) & 0.76 &1.43\\
\hline
& & &\\
GOE &&0.5359 &1.75\\
Poisson&& 0.3863&$\infty$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table1}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
Study of energy level statistics plays an important role in elucidating the universal properties of quantum systems. Berry and Tabor conjectured that
the eigenenergy levels of a quantum system whose classical dynamics shows integrability, must exhibit the fluctuation property as determined by the uncorrelated
Poisson statistics. This is in sharp contrast with the BGS conjecture which asserts that the fluctuation property of energy levels of a quantum system whose classical
dynamics should exhibit GOE (or GUE or GSE) statistics. However, complicated quantum
many-body systems often lie between these two contrasting conjectures.
Thus the purpose of present paper is to consider a relatively complex quantum system whose experimental realization is possible. The van der Waals bosonic
cluster is such a quantum system which starts to be more and more complex with increase in cluster size. The above mentioned contrasting conjectures have been examined
thoroughly by using various statistical observables like NNSD, level number variance $\Sigma^2(L)$ and the spectral rigidity $\Delta_3(L)$. These observables
highlight the short and long range correlation, level repulsion, level clustering and how the features of the above observables crucially depend on the cluster
size are also focussed. Our detailed numerical analysis reveals that for smaller cluster
when the system is very close to integrability, Berry and Tabor conjecture is followed. For
large cluster although we observe similar to BGS conjecture, however deviation occurs. For large clusters the system becomes strongly correlated but does not exhibit
true chaos. However our present study reveals that the deformed GOE type of distribution may be suitable for future investigation.
\hspace*{.5cm}
\begin{center}
{\large{\bf{Acknowledgements}}}
\end{center}
This work is supported by the Department of Atomic
Energy (DAE), government of India, through Grant No.
2009/37/23/BRNS/1903.
SKH acknowledges the Council of Scientific and Industrial Reaserch (CSIR), India for a senior research fellowship through NET (Grant No: 08/561(0001)/2010-EMR-1).
NDC acknowledges financial support from the University Grants Commission (UGC), India [Grant No: F.40-425/2011 (SR)].
SKH also acknowledges hospitality of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, India during a recent visit for this work.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\paragraph{History}
Let $F$ be a non-archimedean local field, $\mathfrak{o}_F$ be its ring of integers, and choose a uniformizer $\varpi$ of the maximal ideal of $\mathfrak{o}_F$. Denote by $q_F$ the cardinality of the residue field of $F$. Let $G$ be an unramified connected reductive $F$-group. Fix a hyperspecial maximal compact subgroup $K$ of $G(F)$. In this article we shall always assume $G$ split. Let $\hat{G}$ be the complex dual group of $G$, and $\rho: \hat{G} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ be a finite-dimensional algebraic representation. The unramified local $L$-factor attached to these objects is defined by
$$ L(s,\pi,\rho) := \det(1 - \rho(c)q_F^{-s}|V)^{-1} \quad \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}(q_F^s), \; s \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} $$
for an unramified irreducible representation $\pi$ of $G(F)$ of Satake parameter $c \in \hat{T}/W$ where $\hat{T}$ is a maximal torus of $\hat{G}$ and $W$ is the corresponding Weyl group. It is the basic building block of automorphic $L$-functions via Euler products.
The first and perhaps the best studied example is the \textit{standard $L$-factor} of Tamagawa \cite{Ta63}, Godement and Jacquet \cite{GJ72}. It corresponds to the case where $G = \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n)$ and $\rho = \text{Std}: \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ is the \textit{standard representation}, i.e.\! the identity map. Their approach is to consider the function $\mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F)}$, identified with its restriction to $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,F)$. The integral pairing between $\mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F)}$ and the zonal spherical function of $\pi \otimes |\det|_F^s$ yields $L\left(s - \frac{n-1}{2}, \pi, \text{Std}\right)$ whenever $\Re(s) \gg 0$. Their result can be paraphrased as follows: the Satake transform $\mathcal{S}(\mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F)})$ equals the rational function $c \mapsto \det\left( 1 - \rho(c)q_F^{-s+(n-1)/2} \big| V \right)^{-1}$ on $\hat{T}/W$.
Some generalization of the Satake isomorphism is needed, as $\mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F)}$ is not compactly supported on $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,F)$ and $\det(1 - \rho(\cdot)q_F^{-s+(n-1)/2} \big| V)^{-1}$ is not a regular function. This is not a serious issue, however (see \S\ref{sec:ac}).
How about other pairs $(G,\rho)$? Satake \cite[Appendix 1]{Sat63} and Shimura \cite{Shi63} independently tried some other classical groups such as $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ embedded in the monoid $\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4)$, that is, its Zariski closure in $\text{Mat}_{4 \times 4}$. Here the determinant character of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n)$ is replaced by the similitude character $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$. It turns out that the function $\mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4, \mathfrak{o}_F)}$ does not produce an $L$-factor.
Braverman and Kazhdan \cite{BK00} explored the idea of a generalized Godement-Jacquet theory from the other side. Roughly speaking, they considered a short exact sequence of connected reductive groups
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:ses-0}
1 \to G_0 \to G \xrightarrow{\det_G} \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to 1
\end{gather}
and a representation $\rho: \hat{G} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ such that $\rho$ restricted to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \subset \hat{G}$ is $z \mapsto z\cdot\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$. In the unramified case, they started from the observation
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:L-sym-0}
L(s, \pi, \rho) = \sum_{k \geq 0} \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho(c)) q_F^{-ks}, \quad \Re(s) \gg 0.
\end{gather}
In this framework, a distinguished $K$-bi-invariant function $f_\rho$ is defined by taking the sum $\sum_{k \geq 0} \mathcal{S}^{-1}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho))$. This is a well-defined function on $G(F)$ since the $k$-th summand is supported on $\{g \in G(F) : |\det_G(g)|_F = q_F^{-k} \}$. Note that it is never compactly supported on $G(F)$. We deduce that
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:f_rho-L-0}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}\left(\pi \otimes |\det_G|_F^s \right) (f_\rho) = L(s, \pi, \rho)
\end{gather}
for every unramified irreducible representation $\pi$, whenever $\Re(s) \gg 0$.
In the Tamagawa-Godement-Jacquet setting, one recovers $f_{\text{Std}} = \mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n\times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F)} |\det|_F^{(n-1)/2}$. In general, however, almost nothing has been said about $f_\rho$ beyond its existence.
These constructions can be understood in terms of a program of Sakellaridis \cite[\S 3]{Sake12}, who emphasized the importance of the conjectural \textit{Schwartz space} $\mathcal{S}(X)$ attached to a spherical $G$-variety $X$ in harmonic analysis. In the unramified local setting, there should exist a distinguished element called the \textit{basic function} in $\mathcal{S}(X)$ whose behaviour reflects the singularities of $X$. In the preceding cases, the relevant spherical varieties are expected to be some \textit{reductive monoids} \cite{Vi95,Re05} containing $G$ as the unit group, such as $\text{Mat}_{n \times n} \supset \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n)$ or $\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(2n) \supset \ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(2n)$.
In \cite{NgSa,Ng12} Ngô Bao Châu formulates a precise construction of the objects in \eqref{eqn:ses-0} and an irreducible representation $\rho: \hat{G} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$. The inputs are
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item a simply connected split semisimple $F$-group $G_0$ and
\item a dominant element $\bar{\xi}$ in $X_*(T_\text{ad})$, where $T_\text{ad}$ denotes a maximal torus in the adjoint group $G_\text{AD}$.
\end{inparaenum}
The relevant monoid $M_\xi$ here is constructed from $\bar{\xi}$ using Vinberg's \textit{enveloping monoids} \cite[Theorem 5]{Vi95}. The basic function $f_\rho$ is defined by inverting the Satake transform $\mathcal{S}$ as before so that \eqref{eqn:f_rho-L-0} is satisfied. In the equi-characteristic setting, Ngô conjectures that $f_\rho$ comes from some perverse sheaf on $M_\xi$ via the function-sheaf dictionary. Note that reductive monoids are usually singular \cite[Theorem 27.25]{Ti11}.
The significance of the functions $f_\rho$ may be partially explained by the fact that they can be plugged into the Arthur-Selberg trace formula upon some twist $f_{\rho,s} = f_\rho |\det_G|_F^s$ with $\Re(s) \gg 0$ (see \cite{FLM11} for the delicate analytic issues). This will permit us to express the partial automorphic $L$-function as a trace, and it has applications to Langlands' program of \textit{beyond endoscopy}. Cf. \cite{Ng12} and Matz's thesis \cite{Matz}.
Another direction is pioneered by L.\! Lafforgue \cite{La13} in his search of a kernel for Langlands functoriality, in which the basic function $f_\rho$ is an instance of his functions of $L$-type. The crucial ingredient thereof, the conjectural non-linear Poisson summation formula for certain reductive monoids, is also a prominent part in the work of Braverman and Kazhdan \cite{BK00}. Using the Plancherel formula, however, Lafforgue is able to formulate the relevant Fourier transform in a precise manner. Note that a wider class of representations $\rho$ than Ngô's construction is needed, and he considered quasi-split groups as well.
In all the aforementioned works, there is no description of the basic function without resort to the Satake transform, except in the case $(G,\rho)=(\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n),\text{Std})$. This makes it difficult to understand the behaviour of $f_\rho$. In the next paragraph we will see where the obstacle lies: it is related to the decomposition of symmetric power representations and the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials.
We recommend the nice survey by Casselman \cite{Cas14} for this circle of ideas.
\paragraph{Our results}
Now we may state our main results. Let $G$, $\det_G$, $\rho$, etc. be as in \eqref{eqn:ses-0}. Choose a suitable Borel pair $(B,T)$ of $G$ and consider the Cartan decomposition $G(F) = K T(F)_+ K$ using the anti-dominant Weyl chamber $X_*(T)_-$ in the cocharacter lattice $X_*(T)$, where $T(F)_+$ is the image of $X_*(T)_-$ under $\mu \mapsto \mu(\varpi)$. Let $\rho_{B^-}$ be the half-sum of negative roots relative to $(B,T)$. The homomorphism $\det_G: G \twoheadrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ induces a homomorphism $\det_G: X_*(T) \twoheadrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$.
The basic function is determined by its restriction to $T(F)_+$. We shall introduce an indeterminate $X$ in place of $q_F^{-s}$ and write
\begin{align*}
f_{\rho, X} & = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q_F) q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} \mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K} \cdot X^{\det_G(\mu)} \\
& = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q_F) \delta_{B^-}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mu(\varpi)) \mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K} \cdot X^{\det_G(\mu)}
\end{align*}
instead of $f_{\rho,s} = f_\rho |\det_G|_F^s$. Here $c_\mu(q_F)$ are certain polynomials in $q_F^{-1}$. Let $\leq$ be the Bruhat order relative to the opposite Borel subgroup $B^-$. For every $\lambda \in X_*(T)_-$, let $V(\lambda)$ denote the irreducible representation of $\hat{G}$ of highest weight $\lambda$. Then $c_\mu(q) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q^{-1}]$ is given by
\begin{gather*}
c_\mu(q) := \begin{cases}\displaystyle
\sum_{\substack{\lambda \in X_*(T)_- \\ \lambda \geq \mu}} q^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \lambda-\mu}} P_{n_\mu, n_\lambda}(q) \ensuremath{\mathrm{mult}}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^{\det_G(\mu)} \rho : V(\lambda)), & \text{if } \det_G(\mu) \geq 0, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{gather*}
Here $P_{n_\mu, n_\lambda}(q)$ are some Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials: they appear in the Kato-Lusztig formula (Theorem \ref{prop:Kato-Lusztig}) for $\mathcal{S}^{-1}$.
In particular, $c_\mu(q)$ has non-negative integral coefficients. Also note that $P_{n_\mu, n_\lambda}(q)$ reduces to weight-multiplicities when $q=1$. These properties already imply some easy estimates for $c_\mu(q_F)$ upon passing to the ``classical limit'' $q=1$ (see \S\ref{sec:estimates}). Nonetheless, for the study of the structural properties of the basic function $f_{\rho, X}$, we need more.
The formula for $c_\mu(q)$ above suggests that one has to understand
\begin{enumerate}
\item the decomposition of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k\rho$ into irreducibles, for all $k$;
\item the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomial $P_{n_\mu,n_\lambda}(q)$ for infinitely many $\lambda$, since $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho$ produces infinitely many irreducible constituents as $k$ varies.
\end{enumerate}
Both tasks are daunting, but their combination turns out to have a nice interpretation. We shall make use of \textit{invariant theory} for the dual group $\hat{G}$, for want of anything better. Suppose $\lambda, \mu \in X_*(T)_-$. Set $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q) = q^{\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \lambda-\mu}} P_{n_\mu, n_\lambda}(q^{-1})$. One can show that $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}[q]$, known as Lusztig's $q$-analogue of weight-multiplicities or the Kostka-Foulkes polynomial, for the based root datum of $\hat{G}$. An argument due to Hesselink (see \cite{Bry89}) expresses $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q)$ as the Poincaré series in $q$ of the vector space
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\hat{G}} \left( V(\lambda), \Gamma\left( \hat{G} \utimes{\hat{B}} \hat{\mathfrak{u}}, \; p^* \mathscr{L}_{\hat{G}/\hat{B}}(\mu) \right) \right), $$
which is endowed with the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$-grading coming from the dilation action of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ along the fibers of $p: \hat{G} \utimes{\hat{B}} \hat{\mathfrak{u}} \to \hat{G}/\hat{B}$. Note that the homogeneous fibration $\hat{G} \utimes{\hat{B}} \hat{\mathfrak{u}} \to \hat{G}/\hat{B}$ may also be identified with the cotangent bundle $T^*(G/B)$. Plugging this into the formula for $c_\mu(q^{-1})$, we arrive at the Poincaré series of
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\hat{G}} \left( \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}} V, \Gamma\left( \hat{G} \utimes{\hat{B}} \hat{\mathfrak{u}}, \; p^* \mathscr{L}_{\hat{G}/\hat{B}}(\mu) \right) \right), $$
or equivalently, $(\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[V] \otimes \Gamma(\cdots))^{\hat{G}}$. Constructions of this type were familiar to the invariant theorists in the nineteenth century, known as the space of \textit{covariants}.
In order to study $f_{\rho, X}$, we form the formal power series
$$ \mathbf{P} := \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q^{-1}) e^\mu X^{\det_G(\mu)} $$
and interpret it as a multi-graded Poincaré series of the space of invariants $\mathcal{Z}^{\hat{G}}$ of some infinite-dimensional $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$-algebra $\mathcal{Z}$ with $\hat{G} \times \hat{T} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^2$-action. Here $\hat{T}$ (resp. $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^2$) is responsible for the grading corresponding to the variable $\mu$ (resp. by $(X,q)$) in the Poincaré series. This is our Theorem \ref{prop:basicfun-gen}.
As a byproduct, we get another description of the coefficients $c_\mu(q^{-1}) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q]$ of $f_{\rho, X}$: for $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$, they equal $q^{-\det_G(\mu)}$ times the \textit{generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomials} $m^\mu_{0, \Psi}(q)$ defined à la Panyushev \cite{Pan10}, attached to the data
\begin{compactitem}
\item the Borel subgroup $\hat{B}$ of $\hat{G}$;
\item $N = V \oplus \hat{\mathfrak{u}}$, as a representation of $\hat{B}$ where $\hat{\mathfrak{u}}$ is acted upon by the adjoint representation;
\item $\Psi$ is the set with multiplicities of the $\hat{T}$-weights of $N$.
\end{compactitem}
These polynomials are defined in a purely combinatorial way: for $\lambda \in X_*(T)_-$ and $\mu \in X_*(T)$, set
$$ m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) := \sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{\ell(w)} \mathcal{P}_\Psi \left( w(\lambda + \check{\rho}_{B^-}) - (\mu + \check{\rho}_{B^-}); q \right) $$
where $\mathcal{P}_\Psi$ is a $q$-analogue of Kostant's partition function, defined by
\begin{gather}
\prod_{\alpha \in \Psi} (1 - qe^{-\alpha}) = \sum_{\nu \in X_*(T)} \mathcal{P}_\Psi(\nu; q) e^\nu.
\end{gather}
For $N = \hat{\mathfrak{u}}$ we recover $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q)$. This gives a surprising combinatorial formula for $c_\mu(q^{-1})$, but it is ill-suited for computation. See \S\ref{sec:com-setup} for details.
One can regard $\mathbf{P}$ as a generating function for $c_\mu(q^{-1})$. Generating functions are most useful when they are \textit{rational}, and this becomes clear in the invariant-theoretic setup: $\mathcal{Z}$ is identified with the coordinate ring of an affine variety $\mathcal{Y}$, thereby showing the rationality of $\mathbf{P}$. This is our Theorem \ref{prop:c_mu-rat-fun}, the main qualitative result of this article. In fact $\mathbf{P}$ takes the form
$$
\frac{Q}{\prod_{i=1}^s (1 - q^{d_i} e^{\mu_i} X^{\det_G(\mu_i)})}
$$
for some $s$, where $d_i \geq 0$, $\mu_i \in X_*(T)_-$, $\det_G(\mu_i) \geq 0$, and $Q$ is a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-linear combination of monomials of the form $e^\mu X^{\det_G(\mu)} q^d$.
Broer \cite{Bro93} employed a similar strategy to study $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q)$ for semisimple groups.
For the explicit determination of the rational Poincaré series $\mathbf{P}$ of $\mathcal{Z}^{\hat{G}}$, i.e. the determination of $f_{\rho, X}$, we have to know the homogeneous generators (or: the $d_i$, $\mu_i$ in the denominator) and the syzygies (or: the numerator $Q$) thereof. In general, this seems to be a difficult problem of invariant theory. In this article we accomplish this only for $(\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n), \text{Std})$ in \S\ref{sec:GJ}. Conceivably, tools from computational invariant theory might have some use here.
Our results might also shed some light on the definition of Schwartz spaces for the monoids arising from Ngô's recipe. Nevertheless, the monoid-theoretic aspects are deliberately avoided in this article. Hopefully they will be treated in subsequent works.
\subsection*{Postscript}
In an earlier version, the Brylinski-Kostant filtration \cite{Bry89} of $V$ was used to interpret $\mathbf{P}$ as a Poincaré series. Due to some careless manipulations of filtered vector spaces under tensor products and confusions about the definition of Brylinski-Kostant filtrations, the resulting formula is wrong except in the $(\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n), \text{Std})$ case. I would like to thank Professor Casselman for pointing this out.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I am grateful to Bill Casselman, Laurent Lafforgue and Chung Pang Mok for helpful conversations. In fact, my interest in this topic is initiated by the lectures of Casselman and C.\! P.\! Mok in Beijing, 2013. The \S\ref{sec:GSp4} on $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ is heavily influenced by Casselman's lectures. My thanks also go to Nanhua Xi for his unquestionable expertise in Kazhdan-Lusztig theory.
\subsection*{Organization of this article}
In \S\ref{sec:Satake-review} we collect the basic properties of the Satake isomorphism for split groups, including the description of its inverse in terms of the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials. We also introduce an easy yet handy generalization, namely the almost compactly supported version of the Satake isomorphism.
In the subsequent sections we switch to the framework of anti-dominant weights. It makes the invariant-theoretic results in \S\ref{sec:gKF} much cleaner.
We revert to the harmonic analysis for $p$-adic groups in \S\ref{sec:L-basic}. We review Ngô's recipe, the definition for the basic functions $f_{\rho,X}$ (as well as their specializations $f_{\rho}, f_{\rho,s}$), and their relation to unramified local $L$-factors. The coefficients of the basic functions are explicitly expressed in terms of
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials, and
\item the multiplicities in the decomposition of symmetric power representations.
\end{inparaenum}
Then we give several estimates for $f_{\rho, s}$ by passing to the ``classical limit'', namely by specialization to $q=1$. For example, $f_{\rho,s}$ is shown to be tempered in the sense of Harish-Chandra when $\Re(s) \geq 0$
In order to study qualitative behaviour of basic functions, we set up the combinatorial and geometric formalism for the generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomials in \S\ref{sec:gKF}, following Panyushev \cite{Pan10}. The upshot is the interpretation of these polynomials as certain multi-graded Poincaré series. Unlike \cite{Bry89,Bro93,Pan10}, we allow connected reductive groups and use anti-dominant weights in our exposition. Complete proofs will be given in order to dispel any doubt.
In \S\ref{sec:gKF-basic}, we interpret the coefficients $c_\mu(q^{-1})$ of the basic function as certain generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomials $m^\mu_{0,\Psi}(q)$. We are then able to encode those $c_\mu(q^{-1})$ into a rational Poincaré series; this is largely based on the arguments in \cite{Bro93}.
In \S\ref{sec:examples}, as a reality check, we first consider the Tamagawa-Godement-Jacquet construction for the standard $L$-factor of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n)$. We recover their function $\mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n \times n}}$ as $f_{\text{Std},-\frac{n-1}{2}}$. In the case of the spinor $L$-factor for $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$, we compute the based root datum and the weights of the standard representation of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ explicitly. It turns out that from the viewpoint of $L$-factors, our basic function is ``more basic'' then the one considered by Satake and Shimura. Unfortunately we are not yet able to determine $f_\rho$ completely in the $(\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4), \text{spin})$ case.
\subsection*{Conventions}
\paragraph{Local fields}
Throughout this article, $F$ always denotes a non-archimedean local field. Denote its ring of integers by $\mathfrak{o}_F$, and choose a uniformizer $\varpi$ of the maximal ideal of $\mathfrak{o}_K$. Set $q_F := |\mathfrak{o}_F/(\varpi)|$, the cardinality of the residue field of $F$.
Denote the normalized valuation of $F$ by $\text{val}: F \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \sqcup \{+\infty\}$. The normalized absolute value of $F$ is $|\cdot|_F := q_F^{-\text{val}(\cdot)}: F \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}$.
\paragraph{Groups and representations}
Let $\Bbbk$ be a commutative ring with $1$. For a $\Bbbk$-group scheme $G$, the group of its $\Bbbk$-points is denoted by $G(\Bbbk)$. The algebra of regular functions on $G$ is denoted by $\Bbbk[G]$. Assume henceforth that $\Bbbk$ is a field, the center of $G$ will then be denoted by $Z_G$. When $\Bbbk$ is algebraically closed, the algebraic groups over $\Bbbk$ are identified with their $\Bbbk$-points.
The derived group of $G$ is denoted by $G_\text{der}$. Now assume $G$ to be connected reductive. The simply connected cover of $G_\text{der}$ is denoted by $G_\text{SC} \twoheadrightarrow G_\text{der}$. We denote the adjoint group of $G$ by $G_\text{AD}$, equipped with the homomorphism $G \twoheadrightarrow G_\text{AD}$. For every subgroup $H$ of $G$, we denote by $H_\text{sc}$ (resp. $H_\text{ad}$) the preimage of $H$ in $G_\text{SC}$ (resp. image in $G_\text{AD}$). For example, if $T$ is a maximal torus of $G$, then $T_\text{ad}$ is a maximal torus of $G_\text{AD}$.
A Borel pair of $G$ is a pair of the form $(B,T)$ where $B$ is a Borel subgroup and $T \subset B$ is a maximal torus; we shall always assume that $B$ and $T$ are defined over the base field $\Bbbk$. Once a Borel pair $(B,T)$ is chosen, the opposite Borel subgroup $B^-$ is well-defined: it satisfies $B \cap B^- = T$. The Weyl group is denoted by $W := N_G(T)/T$. The longest element in $W$ is denoted by $w_0$. The length function of $W$, or more generally of any extended Coxeter systems, is denoted by $\ell(\cdot)$.
When $\Bbbk = F$ is a non-archimedean local field, the representations of $G(F)$ are always assumed to be smooth and admissible. When $\Bbbk$ is algebraically closed, the representations of $G$ are always assumed to be algebraic and finite-dimensional; in this case we denote the representation ring by $\text{Rep}(G)$. For an algebraic finite-dimensional algebraic representation $(\rho, V)$ of $G$, we may define the set \textit{with multiplicities} of its $T$-weights, denoted as $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)$.
The Lie algebra of $G$ (resp. $B$, etc.) is denoted by $\mathfrak{g}$ (resp. $\mathfrak{b}$, etc.) as usual.
If $H$ is a locally compact group, the modulus function $\delta_H: H \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ is the character defined by $\mu(h \cdot h^{-1}) = \delta_H(h)\mu(\cdot)$, where $\mu$ is any Haar measure on $H$.
\paragraph{Varieties with group action}
Let $\Bbbk$ be an algebraically closed field and $G$ be an algebraic group over $\Bbbk$. Varieties over $\Bbbk$ are irreducible by convention. By a $G$-variety we mean an algebraic $\Bbbk$-variety $X$ equipped with the action (on the left) morphism $a: G \times X \to X$ such that $a|_{1 \times X} = \ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$ and satisfying the usual associativity constraints. The action will often be abbreviated as $gx = a(g,x)$. We may also talk about morphisms between $G$-varieties, etc.
On a $G$-variety $X$ we have the notion of $G$-linearized quasi-coherent sheaves, that is, a quasi-coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ equipped with an isomorphism $\text{pr}_2^* \mathcal{F} \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} a^* \mathcal{F}$ inducing a $G$-action on the set of local sections, where $\text{pr}_2: G \times X \to X$ is the second projection. A $G$-linearization of $\mathcal{F}$ induces $G$-actions on the cohomology groups $H^i(X, \mathcal{F})$, for every $i$. See \cite[Appendix C]{Ti11} for details.
We will occasionally deal with hypercohomology of complexes of sheaves on $X$; the relevant notations will be self-evident.
\paragraph{Combinatorics}
Always fix a base field $\Bbbk$. For a $\Bbbk$-torus $T$, we write $X^*(T) := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}(T,\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}})$, $X_*(T) := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}, T)$ where the $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}(\cdots)$ is taken in the category of $\Bbbk$-tori and $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ denotes the multiplicative $\Bbbk$-group scheme. We identify $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}, \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}})$ by associating $k$ to the homomorphism $z \mapsto z^k$. Then the composition of homomorphisms gives a duality pairing $\angles{\cdot, \cdot}: X^*(T) \otimes X_*(T) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$.
Let $G$ be a split connected reductive $\Bbbk$-group with a Borel pair $(B,T)$. The Weyl group $W$ acts on $X^*(T)$ and $X_*(T)$ so that $\angles{\cdot,\cdot}$ is $W$-invariant. Define
\begin{compactitem}
\item $\Delta_B$: the set of simple roots relative to $B$,
\item $\Delta_B^\vee$: the set of simple coroots relative to $B$,
\item $\Sigma_B$: the set of positive roots relative to $B$,
\item $\Sigma_B^\vee$: the set of positive coroots relative to $B$,
\item $\rho_B$: the half sum of the elements of $\Sigma_B$,
\item $\check{\rho}_B$: the half sum of the elements of $\Sigma_B^\vee$.
\end{compactitem}
Note that $\Sigma_B \subset X^*(T)$. For each $\alpha \in \Sigma_B$, the corresponding coroot is denoted by $\alpha^\vee \in X_*(T)$. The Bruhat order on $X^*(T)$ relative to $B$ is defined by $\lambda_1 \leq \lambda_2$ if and only if $\lambda_2 = \lambda_1 + \sum_{\alpha \in \Delta_B} n_\alpha \alpha$ with $n_\alpha \geq 0$ for all $\alpha$. Similarly, the Bruhat order on $X_*(T)$ relative to $B$ is defined by the requirement that $\mu_1 \leq \mu_2$ if and only if $\mu_2 = \mu_1 + \sum_{\alpha \in \Delta_B} n_\alpha \alpha^\vee$ for non-negative $n_\alpha$.
The dominant cone in $X_*(T)$ relative to $B$ is defined as
$$ X_*(T)_+ := \{ \mu \in X_*(T) : \angles{\alpha,\mu} \geq 0 \text{ for all } \alpha \in \Delta_B \}. $$
Likewise, using $B^-$ one defines the anti-dominant cone
$$ X_*(T)_- := \{ \mu \in X_*(T) : \angles{\alpha,\mu} \geq 0 \text{ for all } \alpha \in \Delta_{B^-} \}. $$
Set $X_*(T)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} := X_*(T) \otimes_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, etc. The cones $X_*(T)_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}},\pm}$ are defined as before. Similarly, the dominant and anti-dominant cones in $X^*(T)$ are defined using coroots $\alpha^\vee$ instead of $\alpha$.
\paragraph{Dual groups}
Always assume $G$ split. The dual group of $G$ in the sense of Langlands will be denoted by $\hat{G}$; it is defined over an algebraically closed field $\Bbbk$ of characteristic zero, usually $\Bbbk=\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. In this article, the group $G$ will always be equipped with a Borel pair $(B,T)$. Therefore $\hat{G}$ is equipped with the dual Borel pair $(\hat{B},\hat{T})$. Write the based root datum of $G$ as $(X^*(T), \Delta_B, X_*(T), \Delta_B^\vee)$, the based root datum of $\hat{G}$ is given by
$$ (X^*(\hat{T}), \Delta_{\hat{B}}, X_*(\hat{T}), \Delta_{\hat{B}}^\vee) = (X_*(T), \Delta_B^\vee, X^*(T), \Delta_B). $$
For the dual group $\hat{G}$, or more generally for a connected reductive group over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, the irreducible representations are classified by their highest weights relative to $B$. If $\xi \in X^*(\hat{T})_+ = X_*(T)_+$, the corresponding irreducible representation of $\hat{G}$ is denoted by $V(\xi)$. We will consider the case relative to $B^-$ as well, in which the highest weights belong to $X_*(T)_-$.
The character of a representation $\rho \in \text{Rep}(\hat{G})$ is denoted by $\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\rho)$. It can be identified with its restriction to $\hat{T}$, hence with the $W$-invariant element of the group ring $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X^*(\hat{T})] = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X_*(T)]$ given by
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\rho) = \sum_{\nu \in X^*(\hat{T})} \dim V_\nu \cdot e^\nu $$
where $V_\mu$ is the $\mu$-weight subspace of $V$. We may also view $\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\rho)$ as a regular function on the variety $\hat{T}/W$.
\paragraph{Miscellany}
For any vector space $V$ over a base field, its linear dual is denoted by $V^\vee$. The symmetric (resp. exterior) $k$-th power is denoted by $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k V$ (resp. $\bigwedge^k V$). The same notation pertains to representations and sheaves.
The trace of a trace class operator is denoted by $\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\cdots)$.
For any sets $Y \subset X$, we denote by $\mathbbm{1}_Y: X \to \{0,1\}$ the characteristic function of $Y$.
The symmetric group on $k$ letters is denoted by $\mathfrak{S}_k$.
Let $Y$ be a commutative monoid. Its monoid ring is denoted as $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[Y]$; for example, taking $Y=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} \cdot q$ furnishes the polynomial ring $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q]$. Write the binary operation of $Y$ additively, the corresponding elements in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[Y]$ are formally expressed in exponential notations: $\{ e^y : y \in Y \}$, subject to $e^{y_1 + y_2} = e^{y_1}e^{y_2}$. In particular $1 = e^0$ is the unit element in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[Y]$.
We will use the standard notations $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n)$, $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(2n)$, etc. to denote the general linear groups, symplectic similitude groups, etc. Let $A$ be a ring, the $A$-algebra of $n \times n$-matrices will be denoted by $\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(A)$.
\section{Review of the Satake isomorphism}\label{sec:Satake-review}
The materials here are standard. We recommend the excellent overview \cite{Gr98}.
\subsection{The Satake transform and $L$-factors}\label{sec:Satake-trans}
Consider the following data
\begin{itemize}
\item $G$: a split connected reductive $F$-group,
\item $(B,T)$: a Borel pair of $G$ defined over $F$,
\item $U$: the unipotent radical of $B$,
\item $\hat{G}$: the dual group over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ of $G$, equipped with the dual Borel pair $(G,T)$.
\end{itemize}
Fix a hyperspecial vertex in the Bruhat-Tits building of $G$ that lies in the apartment determined by $T$. It determines a hyperspecial maximal compact subgroup $K$ of $G(F)$. Note that
$$ K_T := T(F) \cap K $$
is a hyperspecial subgroup of $T(F)$.
Choose the Haar measure on $G(F)$ satisfying $\ensuremath{\mathrm{mes}}(K)=1$. An admissible smooth representation of $G(F)$ is called $K$-unramified if it contains nonzero $K$-fixed vectors.
Let $T(F)_- \subset T(F)$ be the image of $X_*(T)_+$ under the map $\mu \mapsto \mu(\varpi)$. We have the Cartan decomposition
$$ G(F) = K T(F)_- K. $$
The integral $K$-spherical Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})$ is defined as the convolution algebra of \textit{compactly supported} functions $K \backslash G(F) / K \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$. It has the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-basis $\mathbbm{1}_{K \mu(\varpi) K}$ parametrized by $\mu \in X_*(T)_+$. More generally, for every ring $R$, we define $\mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; R)$ by considering bi-invariant functions under $K$ with values in $R$. Equivalently,
$$ \mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; R) = \mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} R . $$
The same definitions also apply to $T(F)$ with respect to $K_T$. The Weyl group $W$ acts on $\mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R)$.
\begin{definition}[I.\! Satake \cite{Sat63}]
Let $R$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q_F^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}]$-algebra. The \textit{Satake isomorphism} is defined as the homomorphism between $R$-algebras
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{S}: \mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; R) & \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R)^W, \\
f & \longmapsto \left[ t \mapsto \delta_B(t)^{\frac{1}{2}} \int_{U(F)} f(tu) \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} u \right],
\end{align*}
where $U(F)$ is equipped with the Haar measure such that $\ensuremath{\mathrm{mes}}(U(F) \cap K) = 1$. Also recall that $\delta_B^{1/2}: \mu(\varpi) \mapsto q_F^{-\angles{\rho_B, \mu}}$ takes value in $R$ and factors through $K_T$.
\end{definition}
Note that $X_*(T) \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} T(F)/K_T$ by $\mu \mapsto \mu(\varpi)$, by which we have $\mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})^W = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X_*(T)]^W $. On the other hand, it is well-known that $\text{Rep}(\hat{G}) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X^*(\hat{T})]^W = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X_*(T)]^W$: to each representation $\rho \in \text{Rep}(\hat{G})$ we attach its character $\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\rho) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X_*(T)]^W$.
We will be mainly interested in the usual $K$-spherical Hecke algebra
$$ \mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K) := \mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}). $$
Elements of $\mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T)^W = \text{Rep}(\hat{G}) \otimes_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ can then be identified as regular functions on the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$-variety $\hat{T}/W$. In this setting, $\mathcal{S}$ establishes bijections between
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item the classes $c \in \hat{T}/W$,
\item the $1$-dimensional representations of the algebra $\mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T)^W = \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[X_*(T)]^W$;
\item the isomorphism classes of $K$-unramified irreducible representations of $G(F)$.
\end{inparaenum}
Let $\pi_c$ be the $K$-unramified representation corresponding to a class $c$, then the bijection is characterized by
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}\;\pi_c(f) = \mathcal{S}(f)(c), \quad \varphi \in \mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K). $$
On the other hand, $c$ can be identified with a unramified character $\chi_c$ of $T(F)$ (unique up to $W$-action). Denote the normalized parabolic induction of $\chi_c$ from $B$ as $I_B(\chi_c)$. Then $\pi_c$ can also be characterized as the $K$-unramified constituent of $I_B(\chi_c)$. Note that $I_B(\chi_c)$ is irreducible for $c$ in general position. It follows that the Satake isomorphism $\mathcal{S}$ does not depend on the choice of $B$.
We say that $c \in \hat{T}/W$ is the Satake parameter of the $K$-unramified irreducible representation $\pi$ if $\pi = \pi_c$.
Now comes the unramified $L$-factor. Fix a representation
$$ \rho: \hat{G} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) $$
of the dual group $\hat{G}$ over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. Let $c \in \hat{T}/W$. It can also be viewed as an element in the adjoint quotient of $\hat{G}$ by Chevalley's theorem.
\begin{definition}
Introduce an indeterminate $X$. The unramified local $L$-factor attached to $\pi_c$ and $\rho$ is defined by
$$ L(\pi_c, \rho, X) := \det(1 - \rho(c)X|V)^{-1} \quad \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}(X). $$
The usual $L$-factors are obtained by specializing $X$, namely
$$ L(s, \pi_c, \rho) := L(\pi_c, \rho, q_F^{-s}), \quad s \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}},$$
which defines a rational function in $q_F^{-s}$. In what follows we will omit the underlying spaces $V$, etc. in the traces.
The following alternative description is well-known: see \cite[(2.6)]{Mc95}
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:L-Sym}
L(\pi_c, \rho, X) = \left[ \sum_{i=0}^{\dim V} (-1)^i \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}\left( \bigwedge^i \rho(c)\right) X^i \right]^{-1} = \sum_{k \geq 0} \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}\left( \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho(c) \right) X^k \quad \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\llbracket X\rrbracket.
\end{gather}
\end{definition}
\subsection{Inversion via Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials}\label{sec:Satake-inversion}
We set out to state the Kato-Lusztig formula for the inverse of $\mathcal{S}$. The basic references are \cite{Lu83,Ka82}; a stylish approach can be found in \cite{HKP10}.
Let us introduce an indeterminate $q$. For any $\nu \in X_*(T)$, we define $\mathcal{P}(\nu; q) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q]$ by
$$ \prod_{\alpha \in \Sigma_B} (1 - qe^{\check{\alpha}})^{-1} = \sum_{\nu \in X_*(T)} \mathcal{P}(\nu; q) e^\nu. $$
For $\lambda, \mu \in X_*(T)$, define
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:K}
K_{\lambda, \mu}(q) := \sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{\ell(w)} \mathcal{P}(w(\lambda + \check{\rho}_B) - (\mu + \check{\rho}_B); q) \quad \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q].
\end{gather}
Kostant's partition function is recovered by taking the ``classical limit'' $q = 1$. For this reason it is called Lusztig's $q$-analogue.
At this point, it is advisable to clarify the relation between $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q)$ and certain Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials, since the latter appear frequently in the relevant literature. Consider the extended affine Weyl group $\tilde{W} := X_*(T) \rtimes W$, regarded as a group of affine transformations on $X_*(T) \otimes_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. As is well-known, the standard theory of affine Coxeter groups carries over to this setting. We will be sketchy at this point. First, recall the definition of the set of simple affine roots $S_\text{aff} = S \sqcup \{s_0\}$. Here $S \subset W$ is the set of simple root reflections determined by $B$ and $s_0$ is the reflection whose fixed locus is defined by $\angles{\tilde{\alpha}, \cdot}=1$, with $\tilde{\alpha}$ being the highest root.
One can then write $\tilde{W} = W_\text{aff} \rtimes \Omega$ where $(W_\text{aff}, S_\text{aff})$ is an authentic affine Coxeter system and $\Omega$ is the normalizer of $S_\text{aff}$. The length function $\ell$ and the Bruhat order $\leq$ can then be extended to $\tilde{W}$ by stipulating
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ell(wz)=\ell(w)$ for $w \in W_\text{aff}$, $z \in \Omega$;
\item $wz \leq w'z'$ if and only if $w \leq w' \in W$, $z=z' \in \Omega$.
\end{itemize}
The \textit{Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials} $P_{w,w'}(q) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q]$ (see \cite{KL79}) can also be defined on $\tilde{W}$: we have $P_{wz,w'z'} \neq 0$ only when $z=z' \in \Omega$, and $P_{wz,w'z} = P_{w,w'}$.
For every $\mu \in X_*(T)$, there exists a longest element $n_\mu$ in $W \mu W$; in fact it equals $w_0 \mu$.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem 1.8]{Ka82}}]\label{prop:K-P}
Let $\mu, \lambda \in X_*(T)_+$ such that $\lambda \geq \mu$. Then
$$ K_{\lambda, \mu}(q) = q^{\angles{\rho_B, \lambda-\mu}} P_{n_\mu, n_\lambda}(q^{-1}). $$
\end{theorem}
Now we can invert the Satake isomorphism. Given $\lambda \in X_*(T)_+ = X^*(\hat{T})_+$, recall that $V(\lambda)$ denotes the irreducible representation of $\hat{G}$ of highest weight $\lambda$ relative to $B$, and the character $\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}\,V(\lambda)$ is regarded as an element of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X_*(T)]^W = \mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})^W$.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[(3.5)]{Ka82}} or {\cite[Theorem 7.8.1]{HKP10}}]\label{prop:Kato-Lusztig}
Let $R$ be a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q_F^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}]$-algebra and $\lambda \in X_*(T)_+ = X^*(\hat{T})_+$, then
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace} V(\lambda) &= \sum_{\substack{\mu \in X_*(T)_+ \\ \mu \leq \lambda}} q_F^{-\angles{\rho_B, \mu}} K_{\lambda,\mu}(q_F^{-1}) \mathcal{S}(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K}) \\
& = \sum_{\substack{\mu \in X_*(T)_+ \\ \mu \leq \lambda}} q_F^{-\angles{\rho_B, \lambda}} P_{n_\mu, n_\lambda}(q_F) \mathcal{S}(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K}).
\end{align*}
as elements of $\mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R)^W$.
\end{theorem}
Since $\text{Rep}(\hat{G}) = \mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}})^W$, the Theorem does give the inverse of $\mathcal{S}$.
\begin{remark}
Theorem \ref{prop:Kato-Lusztig} is sometimes stated under the assumption that $\hat{G}$ is adjoint, so that $\tilde{W} = W_\text{aff}$. The case for split reductive groups is covered in \cite[\S 10]{HKP10}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Functions of almost compact support}\label{sec:ac}
We record a mild generalization of the Satake isomorphism here. Retain the same assumptions on $G$, $B$, $T$ and $K$. Set
$$ \mathfrak{a}^*_G := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\text{alg.grp}}(G, \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}) \otimes_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} $$
and let $\mathfrak{a}_G$ be its $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$-linear dual. We define Harish-Chandra's homomorphism $H_G: G(F) \to \mathfrak{a}_G$ (with the same sign convention as in \cite[p.240]{Wa03}) as the homomorphism characterized by
$$ q_F^{-\angles{\chi, H_G(\cdot)}} = |\chi(\cdot)|_F, \quad \chi \in X^*(G). $$
The image of $H_G$ is a lattice in $\mathfrak{a}_G$ denoted by $\mathfrak{a}_{G,F}$. Observe that $H_G$ is zero on $U(F)$ and $K$.
Fix a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q_F^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}]$-algebra $R$. We denote by $C_c(\mathfrak{a}_{G,F}; R)$ the $R$-module of finitely supported function $\mathfrak{a}_{G,F} \to R$. The following notion of functions of \textit{almost compact support} (abbreviation: ac) is borrowed from Arthur; it will also make sense in the archimedean case.
\begin{definition}
Given functions $f: G(F) \to R$ and $b \in C_c(\mathfrak{a}_{G,F}; R)$, we write
$$ f^b(\cdot) := b(H_G(\cdot)) f(\cdot): G(F) \to R. $$
Define $\varphi^b$ similarly for $\varphi: T(F) \to R$ and $b \in C_c(\mathfrak{a}_{G,F}; R)$. Set
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(G(F)\sslash K; R) & := \left\{ f: G(F) \to R, \forall b \in C_c(\mathfrak{a}_{G,F}; R), \; f^b \in \mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; R) \right\}, \\
\mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R) & := \left\{ f: T(F) \to R, \forall b \in C_c(\mathfrak{a}_{G,F}; R), \; f^b \in \mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R) \right\}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
The left and right convolution products endow $\mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(G(F)\sslash K; R)$ (resp. $\mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R)$) with a $\mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; R)$-bimodule (resp. $\mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R)$-bimodule) structure. The Weyl group $W$ acts on $\mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R)$ as usual.
\begin{proposition}
The Satake isomorphism $\mathcal{S}$ extends to an isomorphism between $R$-modules
$$ \mathcal{S}: \mathcal{H}_\mathrm{ac}(G(F)\sslash K; R) \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} \mathcal{H}_\mathrm{ac}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R)^W $$
characterized by
$$ \mathcal{S}(f^b) = \mathcal{S}(f)^b $$
for any $b \in C_c(\mathfrak{a}_{G,F}; R)$ and $f \in \mathcal{H}_\mathrm{ac}(G(F)\sslash K; R)$. Moreover, it respects the $\mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K; R)$-bimodule (resp. $\mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T; R)^W$-bimodule) structures.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $H_G$ is $W$-invariant and $H_G \equiv 0$ on $U(F)$, the integral defining $\mathcal{S}(f)$ still makes sense for $f \in \mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(G(F)\sslash K; R)$ and we have indeed $\mathcal{S}(f^b) = \mathcal{S}(f)^b$. It characterizes $\mathcal{S}(f)$ by an argument of partition of unity on $\mathfrak{a}_{G,F}$. The preservation of bimodule structures is routine to check.
\end{proof}
The inverse of $\mathcal{S}$ in the almost compactly supported setting is given by exactly the same formulas as in Theorem \ref{prop:Kato-Lusztig}. When $R=\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$, we write $\mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(G(F) \sslash K)$, etc.
Note that elements in $\mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(T(F)\sslash K_T)^W$ are not necessarily regular functions on $\hat{T}/W$. It contains some formal functions, as we will see later on.
\section{Unramified $L$-factors and the basic function}\label{sec:L-basic}
\textbf{Caution} -- Henceforth we shall use the opposite Borel subgroup to define various objects. More precisely, for a given split connected reductive $F$-group $G$ with the Borel pair $(B,T)$,
\begin{compactitem}
\item the Bruhat order in $X_*(T)$ is taken relative to $B^-$ unless otherwise specified;
\item the highest weight of an irreducible representation of $\hat{G}$, etc. is now taken relative to $B^-$;
\item consequently, in the polynomials $P_{n_\mu,n_\lambda}(q)$ and $K_{\lambda,\mu}(q)$ we assume $\lambda \in X_*(T)_-$;
\item we use the Cartan decomposition relative to $B_-$, so that $\{ \mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K} : \mu \in X_*(T)_- \}$ will form a basis of $\mathcal{H}(G(F)\sslash K)$;
\item the image of $X_*(T)_-$ under $\mu \mapsto \mu(\varpi)$ is denoted by $T(F)_+$;
\item in parallel, the irreducible characters $\{ \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace} V(\lambda) : \lambda \in X_*(T)_- \}$ of $\hat{G}$ form a basis of $\mathcal{H}(T(F) \sslash K_T)^W$.
\end{compactitem}
Nevertheless, the Satake isomorphism $\mathcal{S}$ is independent of the choice of Borel subgroup.
\subsection{Ngô's recipe}\label{sec:Ngo}
Here we give a brief review of \cite{NgSa}.
Let $G_0$ be a split unramified $F$-group which is semi-simple and simply-connected. Fix a Borel pair $(B_0, T_0)$ for $G_0$ and define the dual avatars $\widehat{G_0}$, $\widehat{B_0}$, $\widehat{T_0}$ over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. Let $Z_0 := Z_{G_0}$.
Given $\bar{\xi} \in X_*(T_{0,\text{ad}})_- = X^*(\widehat{T_0}_{,\text{sc}})_-$, we deduce an irreducible representation
$$ \rho_{\bar{\xi}}: \widehat{G_0}_{,\text{SC}} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) $$
of highest weight $\bar{\xi}$ relative to $\widehat{B_0}^-$.
Note that $\widehat{G_0}$ is an adjoint group. The highest weight $\bar{\xi}$ for $\rho_{\bar{\xi}}$ is not always liftable to $X_*(T_0)_-$, thus what we have for $\widehat{G_0}$ is just a projective representation $\bar{\rho}: \widehat{G_0} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{PGL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$. It can be lifted to an authentic representation upon passing to a canonical central extension $\hat{G}$ by $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$, as explicated by the following commutative diagram
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:lifting}
\xymatrix{
1 \ar[r] & \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \ar[r]^{\widehat{\det_G}} \ar@{=}[d] & \hat{G} \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\rho} \ar@{}[rd]|{\Box} & \widehat{G_0} \ar[d]^{\bar{\rho}} \ar[r] & 1 \\
1 \ar[r] & \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \ar[r] & \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) \ar[r] & \ensuremath{\mathrm{PGL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) \ar[r] & 1
}\end{gather}
in which the rows are exact and the rightmost square is cartesian. Since $\bar{\rho}$ can also be lifted to $\widehat{G_0}_{,\text{SC}}$, there is another description for $\hat{G}$: denote the central character of $\rho_{\bar{\xi}}$ by $\omega_{\bar{\xi}}$, then we have
$$ \hat{G} = \dfrac{\widehat{G_0}_{,\text{SC}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} }{\left\{ (z^{-1}, \omega_{\bar{\xi}}(z)) : z \in Z_{\widehat{G_0}_{,\text{SC}}} \right\} } . $$
The complex group $\hat{G}$ inherits the Borel pair $(\hat{B}, \hat{T})$ from $(\widehat{B_0}, \widehat{T_0})$. Dualization gives a short exact sequence of split unramified $F$-groups
\begin{gather}
1 \to G_0 \to G \xrightarrow{\det_G} \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to 1
\end{gather}
and a Borel pair $(B,T)$ for $G$. It induces a short exact sequence
$$ 0 \to X_*(T_0) \to X_*(T) \xrightarrow{\det_G} X_*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}) \to 1. $$
Hereafter, we shall forget $G_0$ and work exclusively with $G$, $B$, $T$, the homomorphism $\det_G: G \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ and the representation $\rho: \hat{G} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$. Note that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\rho$ is irreducible with a highest weight $\xi \in X^*(\hat{T})_- = X_*(T)_-$ relative to $B^-$, it is mapped to $\bar{\xi} \in X_*(T_{0,\text{ad}})_-$ via $G \twoheadrightarrow G_{0,\text{AD}}$;
\item the restriction of $\rho$ on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \hookrightarrow \hat{G}$ is simply $z \mapsto z\cdot\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$, this means that $\rho$ satisfies \cite[(3.7)]{BK00} with respect to $\det_G: G \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$;
\item since $\widehat{G_0}$ is adjoint, $\ensuremath{\mathrm{ker}\xspace}(\rho)$ is always connected, hence $\rho$ is admissible in the sense of \cite[Definition 3.13]{BK00}: this follows from the construction of $\hat{G}$ as a fiberd product;
\item every weight $\mu \in X_*(T) = X^*(\hat{T})$ of $\rho$ satisfies $\det_G(\mu)=1$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{remark}
For a similar construction for unramified quasi-split groups, see \cite[Chapitre I\!I]{La13}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The basic function}\label{sec:basicfun}
Fix a split connected reductive $F$-group $G$ together with a Borel pair $(B,T)$ over $F$. Assume that we are given
\begin{itemize}
\item a short exact sequence
$$ 1 \to G_0 \to G \xrightarrow{\det_G} \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to 1 $$
where $G_0$ is a split semisimple $F$-group, and on the dual side we have $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^\times \hookrightarrow \hat{G}$;
\item the induced short exact sequence
$$ 0 \to X_*(T_0) \to X_*(T) \xrightarrow{\det_G} \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \to 0 $$
where $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$ is identified with $X_*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}})$ by $k \mapsto [z \mapsto z^k]$;
\item a representation $\rho: \hat{G} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(V, \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ such that $\rho(z) = z\cdot\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$ for every $z \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^\times$.
\end{itemize}
Such data can be obtained systematically from the recipe in \S\ref{sec:Ngo}; in practice we have to allow more general situations, such as the case of reducible $(\rho, V)$.
Choose a hyperspecial vertex in the Bruhat-Tits building of $G$ which lies in the apartment determined by $T$. The corresponding hyperspecial subgroup of $G(F)$ is denoted by $K$ as usual. Define the Satake isomorphism $\mathcal{S}$ accordingly.
Let $c \in \hat{T}/W$ and $\pi_c$ be the $K$-unramified irreducible representation with Satake parameter $c$. Our starting point is the formula \eqref{eqn:L-Sym} for the $L$-factor
$$ L(\pi_c, \rho, X) = \sum_{k \geq 0} \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}\left( \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k\rho(c) \right) X^k \quad \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\llbracket X\rrbracket $$
where $X$ is an indeterminate. Also observe that for all $s \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$,
$$ L(\pi_c \otimes |\det_G|_F^s, \rho, X) = L(\pi_c, \rho, q_F^{-s} X). $$
For every $k \geq 0$ and $\lambda \in X_*(T)_-$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $V(\lambda)$ denotes the irreducible representation of $\hat{G}$ with highest weight $\lambda \in X^*(\hat{T})_- = X_*(T)_-$ relative to $B^-$;
\item $\ensuremath{\mathrm{mult}}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho : V(\lambda)) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$ denotes the multiplicity of $V(\lambda)$ in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho$.
\end{itemize}
Hence
$$ L(\pi_c, \rho, X) = \sum_{k \geq 0} \sum_{\lambda \in X_*(T)_-} \ensuremath{\mathrm{mult}}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho : V(\lambda)) \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(V(\lambda))(c) X^k . $$
By the Kato-Lusztig formula (Theorem \ref{prop:Kato-Lusztig}), it equals
\begin{multline*}
\sum_{k \geq 0} \left( \sum_{\substack{\mu, \lambda \in X_*(T)_- \\ \mu \leq \lambda}} \ensuremath{\mathrm{mult}}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho : V(\lambda)) q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} K_{\lambda, \mu}(q_F^{-1}) \mathcal{S}(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K})(c) \right) X^k \\
= \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} \left( \sum_{k \geq 0} \sum_{\substack{\lambda \in X_*(T)_- \\ \lambda \geq \mu}} K_{\lambda,\mu}(q_F^{-1}) \ensuremath{\mathrm{mult}}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho : V(\lambda)) X^k \right) q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} \mathcal{S}(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K})(c).
\end{multline*}
At this stage, one has to observe that each weight $\nu$ of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho$ satisfies $\det_G \nu = k$. Thus for each $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$, the inner sum can be taken over $k = \det_G(\mu)$. Our manipulations are thus justified in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\llbracket X\rrbracket$.
Introduce now another indeterminate $q$. For $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$, we set
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:c_mu}
c_\mu(q) := \begin{cases}\displaystyle
\sum_{\substack{\lambda \in X_*(T)_- \\ \lambda \geq \mu}} K_{\lambda,\mu}(q^{-1}) \ensuremath{\mathrm{mult}}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^{\det_G(\mu)} \rho : V(\lambda)), & \text{if } \det_G(\mu) \geq 0, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{gather}
We have to justify the rearrangement of sums. Given $\mu$ with $\det_G(\mu) = k \geq 0$, the expression \eqref{eqn:c_mu} is a finite sum over those $\lambda$ with $\det_G(\lambda)=k$ as explained above, thus is well-defined. On the other hand, given $k \geq 0$, there are only finitely many $V(\lambda)$ that appear in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k \rho$, thus only finitely many $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$ with $\det_G(\mu)=k$ and $c_\mu(q) \neq 0$. To sum up, we arrive at the following equation in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\llbracket X \rrbracket$
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:L-c_mu}
L(\pi_c, \rho, X) = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q_F) q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} \mathcal{S}(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K})(c) \cdot X^{\det_G(\mu)}.
\end{gather}
Define the function $\varphi_{\rho,X}: T(F)\sslash K_T \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[X]$ by
$$ \varphi_{\rho,X} = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q_F) q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} \mathcal{S}(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K}) X^{\det_G(\mu)}. $$
The preceding discussion actually showed that $\varphi_{\rho,X} \in \mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(T(F)\sslash K_T; \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[X])^W$. It is meaningful to evaluate $\varphi_{\rho,X}$ at $c \in \hat{T}/W$ by the sum \eqref{eqn:L-c_mu}: it converges in the $X$-adic topology.
\begin{definition}\label{def:basic}
Define the \textit{basic function} $f_{\rho,X} \in \mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(G(F)\sslash K; \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[X])$ as
$$ f_{\rho,X} := \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q_F) q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} \mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K} \cdot X^{\det_G(\mu)}. $$
One may specialize the variable $X$. Define $f_\rho, f_{\rho, s} \in \mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(G(F)\sslash K)$ as the specialization at $X=1$ and $X=q_F^{-s}$ ($s \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$), respectively. Then
$$ f_{\rho,s} = f_{\rho} \cdot |\det_G|_F^{s} . $$
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The basic functions $f_{\rho,X}$, $f_{\rho,s}$ are never compactly supported on $G(F)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:basic-L}
We have $\mathcal{S}(f_{\rho,X}) = \varphi_{\rho,X}$. Let $c \in \hat{T}/W$ and $\pi_c$ be the $K$-unramified irreducible representation with Satake parameter $c$. Let $V_c$ denote the underlying $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$-vector space of $\pi_c$, then
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(f_{\rho,X}|V_c) = \varphi_{\rho,X}(c) = L(\pi_c, \rho, X). $$
Similarly, for $\Re(s)$ sufficiently large with respect to $c$, the operator $\pi_c(f_{\rho,s}): V_c \to V_c$ and its trace will be well-defined and
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(f_{\rho,s}|V_c) = L(s, \pi_c, \rho). $$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first equality has been noted. As for the second equality, let us show the absolute convergence of
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:L-conv}
\sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q_F) q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\pi_c(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K})) \cdot q_F^{-\Re(s)\det_G(\mu)}
\end{gather}
for $\Re(s) \gg 0$. Granting this, the equalities $\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(f_{\rho,X}|V_c) = \varphi_{\rho,X}(c) = L(\pi_c, \rho, X)$ will follow at once (say from \eqref{eqn:L-c_mu}), in which every term is well-defined. We have to cite some results as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Macdonald's formula for \textit{zonal spherical functions} \cite[Theorem 5.6.1]{HKP10} says that for $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$, the trace $\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\pi_c(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K}))$ is equal to
$$ \frac{q_F^{\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}}}{W_\mu(q_F^{-1})} \sum_{w \in W} \prod_{\alpha \in \Sigma_{B^-}} \dfrac{1 - q_F^{-1}(w\chi_c)(\alpha^\vee(\varpi)^{-1})}{1 - (w\chi_c)(\alpha^\vee(\varpi)^{-1})} \cdot w\chi_c(\mu(\varpi)) $$
where $\chi_c: T(F) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^\times$ is a unramified character associated to $c$ and
$$ W_\mu(q) := \sum_{w \in W: w\mu = \mu} q^{\ell(w)}. $$
As a function in $\mu$, the trace is thus dominated by
$$ q_F^{\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} \max_{w \in W}\left\lvert w\chi_c(\mu(\varpi))\right\rvert. $$
\item In Lemma \ref{prop:Ehrhart} we will see that the number of points in $\mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X_*(T)_-$ (see Corollary \ref{prop:basic-supp}) with $\det_G = k$ is of polynomial growth in $k$.
\item The Lemma \ref{prop:c_mu-growth} asserts that $\mu \mapsto c_\mu(q_F)$ is of at most polynomial growth.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\gamma_c \in X^*(T)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ be the element such that $q_F^{\angles{\gamma_c, \nu}} = |\chi_c(\nu(\varpi))|$ for all $\nu \in X_*(T)$. The three facts above imply the absolute convergence of \eqref{eqn:L-conv} whenever
$$ \Re(s) > \max \left\{ \angles{w\gamma_c, \mu} : w \in W, \mu \in \mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X_*(T)_- \text{ satisfying } \det_G(\mu)=1 \right\} $$
holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:basic-L}
Choose $K$-fixed vectors $v \in V_c$ and $\check{v} \in \check{V}_c$ (the contragredient representation) such that $\angles{\check{v},v}=1$. Then $\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\pi_c(\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K}))$ equals $\int_{K\mu(\varpi)K} \angles{\check{v}, \pi_c(x) v} \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} x$. The absolute convergence of \eqref{eqn:L-conv} is equivalent to that $f_{\rho,s}(\cdot) \angles{\check{v}, \pi_c(\cdot) v} \in L^1(G(F))$, in which case that integral equals $L(s, \pi_c, \rho)$.
When $\pi_c$ is unitary, there is another way to control $\Re(s)$. In fact it suffices that $f_{\rho,s} \in L^1(G(F))$ since $\angles{\check{v}, \pi_c(\cdot)v}$ is uniformly bounded. In Proposition \ref{prop:L1} we will obtain a lower bound for this purpose.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Trivial estimates}\label{sec:estimates}
We will give some estimates on the coefficients $c_\mu(q_F)$ (see \eqref{eqn:c_mu}) of the basic function $f_\rho$. These estimates are called trivial since they are obtained by passing to the classical limit $q=1$.
Observe that $\det_G(\nu)=1$ for every $\nu \in \ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)$, the set with multiplicities of the $T$-weights of $V$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:classical}
For every $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$ we have
$$ c_\mu(q_F) \leq c_\mu(1) = \left\lvert \left\{ (a_\nu)_\nu \in (\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0})^{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)} : \sum_{\nu \in \ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)} a_\nu \nu = \mu \right\} \right\rvert . $$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first inequality follows \eqref{eqn:c_mu} and the well-known non-negativity of the coefficients of $K_{\lambda,\mu}(q)$. For the second equality, we use the fact that
$$ K_{\lambda,\mu}(1) = \text{the multiplicity of $\mu$ in $V(\lambda)|_{\hat{T}}$}. $$
This is also well-known; in fact, \eqref{eqn:K} reduces to Kostant's multiplicity formula for $V(\lambda)$ at $q=1$. Thus
\begin{align*}
c_\mu(1) & = \sum_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_-} \text{mult}(V(\lambda)|_{\hat{T}} : \mu) \cdot \text{mult}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^{\det_G(\mu)} \rho : V(\lambda)) \\
& = \text{mult}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^{\det_G(\mu)}\rho|_{\hat{T}} : \mu) = \text{mult}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(\rho)|_{\hat{T}} : \mu),
\end{align*}
and the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{prop:basic-supp}
Let $\mathcal{C}_\rho$ be the convex hull of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V) \sqcup \{0\}$ in $X_*(T)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{C}_\rho$ is a strongly convex polyhedral cone, that is, it contains no lines;
\item the basic function $f_{\rho,X}$ is supported in $K(\mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X_*(T)_-)K$, where we embed $X_*(T)_-$ into $T(F)$ by $\mu \mapsto \mu(\varpi)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion is evident and the second follows from Proposition \ref{prop:classical}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{prop:c_mu-growth}
There is a polynomial function $Q: X_*(T)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ depending solely on $(\rho,V)$ such that $c_\mu(q_F) \leq |Q(\mu)|$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Combine Proposition \ref{prop:classical} with the fact the number of non-negative integer solutions of $\sum_{\nu \in \ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)} a_\nu \nu = \mu$ is of polynomial growth in $\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:Ehrhart}
There exists a polynomial function $R: \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ depending solely on $(\rho,V)$ such that
$$ \left\lvert \left\{ \mu \in \mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X_*(T)_- : \det_G(\mu)=k \right\}\right\rvert \leq R(k) $$
for every $k \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $\mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X_*(T)_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}},-}$ is a convex polyhedral cone lying in the half-space $\det_G > 0$. Its intersection with $\det_G = 1$ can be viewed as an integral polytope in $X_*(T_0)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. Denote this polytope by $\mathcal{P}$. Then the cardinality of $\mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X_*(T)_- \cap (\det_G = k)$ can be bounded by that of $(k\mathcal{P}) \cap X_*(T_0)$. The behaviour of $k \mapsto |k\mathcal{P} \cap X_*(T_0)|$ is described by the Ehrhart polynomial of $\mathcal{P}$: see for example \cite[6.E]{BG09}.
\end{proof}
Hereafter we choose the Haar measure on $T(F)$ such that $\ensuremath{\mathrm{mes}}(T(F) \cap K)=1$. Recall the integration formula
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:KAK-int}
\int_{G(F)} f(x) \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} x = \int_K \int _K \int_{T(F)_+} f(k_1 t k_2) D_T(t) \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} t \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} k_1 \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} k_2
\end{gather}
for every measurable function $f$ on $G(F)$, where $D_T(t) := \ensuremath{\mathrm{mes}}(KtK)$. By \cite[I.1 (5)]{Wa03}, there exist constants $c_1, c_2 > 0$ such that
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:D_T}
c_1 \delta_{B^-}(t)^{-1} \leq D_T(t) \leq c_2 \delta_{B^-}(t)^{-1}, \quad t \in T(F)_+
\end{gather}
where $T(F)_+ \subset T(F)$ is the image of $X_*(T)_-$ under $\mu \mapsto \mu(\varpi)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Lp}
Let $p \geq 2$ and $s \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. Then $f_{\rho,s} \in L^p(G(F))$ whenever $\Re(s) > 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $\delta_{B^-}(\mu(\varpi)) = q_F^{-\angles{2\rho_{B^-}, \mu}}$, we can write
\begin{align*}
\int_{G(F)} |f_{\rho, s}(x)|^p \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} x & = \int_{T(F)_+} |f_{\rho, s}(t)|^p D_T(t) \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} t \\
& = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} |f_{\rho,s}(\mu(\varpi))|^p D_T(\mu(\varpi)) \\
& \leq c_2 \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q_F)^p q_F^{-p\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu} - \Re(s) p \det_G(\mu)} q_F^{\angles{2\rho_{B^-}, \mu}}
\end{align*}
using \eqref{eqn:D_T}. As $p \geq 2$ and $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$, the exponent of $q_F$ is
$$ (2-p)\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu} - \Re(s)p \det_G(\mu) \leq -\Re(s) p \det_G(\mu). $$
On the other hand, we have seen that $c_\mu(q_F)$ is of at most polynomial growth in $\mu$. Thus so is $c_\mu(q_F)^p$ and we can drop it in the study of convergence issues, say upon replacing $s$ by $s-\epsilon$ for an arbitrarily small $\epsilon > 0$. Furthermore, the Lemma \ref{prop:Ehrhart} reduces our problem to the series $\sum_{k \geq 0} q_F^{-\Re(s) pk}$, again upon replacing $s$ by $s-\epsilon$. The latter series converges absolutely as $\Re(s) > 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:L1}
Let $s \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$. Then $f_{\rho,s} \in L^1(G(F))$ whenever
$$ \Re(s) > m := \max_{\xi \in \ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)} \angles{\rho_{B^-}, \xi}. $$
If it is the case, then $\int_{G(F)} f_{\rho,s}(x) \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} x = L(s, \mathbbm{1}, \rho)$ where $\mathbbm{1}$ denotes the trivial representation of $G(F)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\epsilon > 0$ be arbitrarily small. As in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:Lp} (now with $p=1$), formula \eqref{eqn:KAK-int} gives
$$ \int_{G(F)} |f_{\rho, s}(x)| \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} x \leq c_2 \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_-} c_\mu(q_F) q_F^{\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu} - \Re(s) \det_G(\mu)}. $$
Again, by Corollary \ref{prop:c_mu-growth} we may discard the term $c_\mu(q_F)$ upon replacing $s$ by $s - \epsilon/2$. For every $\mu \in \mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X_*(T)_-$ we have $\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu} \leq \det_G(\mu)m$. We may collect terms according to $k = \det_G(\mu)$ by Lemma \ref{prop:Ehrhart}, at the cost of replacing $s-\epsilon/2$ by $s-\epsilon$. It remains to observe that
$$ \sum_{k=0}^\infty q_F^{k (m - \Re(s) + \epsilon)} = \left( 1 - q_F^{m - \Re(s) + \epsilon} \right)^{-1} $$
whenever $\Re(s) - \epsilon > m$.
Suppose $\Re(s) > m$ so that $f_{\rho, s}$ is integrable. The second assertion follows from the Remark \ref{rem:basic-L} applied to the trivial representation $\mathbbm{1}$.
\end{proof}
The next result concerns Harish-Chandra's Schwartz space $\mathcal{C}(G)$, which is a strict inductive limit of Fréchet spaces, cf. \cite[III.6]{Wa03}. We refer to \cite{Wa03} for the definition of the height function $\sigma$ and Harish-Chandra's $\Xi$-function, etc.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:tempered}
For every $s$ with $\Re(s) \geq 0$, the function $f_{\rho,s}$ defines a tempered distribution on $G(F)$ in the sense that the linear functional
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}(G) & \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}, \\
h & \longmapsto \int_{G(F)} h(x)f_{\rho,s}(x) \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} x
\end{align*}
on Harish-Chandra's Schwartz space $\mathcal{C}(G)$ is well-defined and continuous.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $f_{\rho,s}(x) \neq 0$ implies $|\det_G(x)|_F \leq 1$, it suffices to treat the case $s=0$. Recall that $q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} = \delta_{B^-}(\mu(\varpi))^{1/2}$ for $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$. By the Definition \ref{def:basic} of $f_\rho$, the Lemma \ref{prop:c_mu-growth} and \cite[Lemme II.1.1]{Wa03}, there exist $r \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ and $c > 0$ such that
$$ 0 \leq f_\rho(x) \leq c(1+\sigma(x))^r \Xi(x), \quad x \in T(F)_+. $$
Since $\Xi$ and $\sigma$ are both bi-invariant under $K$, the same estimates holds for all $x \in G(F)$. Therefore $f_\rho$ belongs to the space $C^w_\text{lisse}(G)$ of \cite[III.2]{Wa03}. Now the assertion follows from the discussion in \cite[p.273]{Wa03}.
\end{proof}
\section{Generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomials}\label{sec:gKF}
Let $\Bbbk$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. We fix a connected reductive $\Bbbk$-group $G$, together with a chosen Borel pair $(B,T)$ for $G$. We will write the Levi decomposition as $B=TU$, $\mathfrak{b} = \mathfrak{t} \oplus \mathfrak{u}$. Accordingly, we have the Weyl group $W$, the weight lattice $X^*(T)$ and the monoid $X^*(T)_-$ of anti-dominant weights relative to $B$, etc.
These objects on the dual side should not be confused with those in the previous sections.
\subsection{Combinatorial setup}\label{sec:com-setup}
The main reference here is \cite{Pan10}, nonetheless we
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item consider reductive groups and
\item work with anti-dominant weights.
\end{inparaenum}
Consider the data
\begin{itemize}
\item $P$: a parabolic subgroup of $G$ containing $B$, whose unipotent radical we denote by $U_P$;
\item $\Psi$: a set \textit{with multiplicities} of weights in $X^*(T)$, such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Psi$ lies in a strongly convex cone in $X^*(T)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, that is, a convex cone containing no lines,
\item $\Psi$ is the set with multiplicities of $T$-weights of a $P$-stable subspace $N$ of a finite-dimensional representation $W$ of $G$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
Under these assumptions, we may define $\mathcal{P}_\Psi(\nu; q) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q]$, for each $\nu \in X^*(T)$, by requiring
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:P-Psi}
\prod_{\alpha \in \Psi} (1 - qe^{-\alpha}) = \sum_{\nu \in X^*(T)} \mathcal{P}_\Psi(\nu; q) e^\nu.
\end{gather}
\begin{definition}\label{def:gKF}
Let $\lambda \in X^*(T)_-$ and $\mu \in X^*(T)$, define the corresponding generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomial as
$$ m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) := \sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{\ell(w)} \mathcal{P}_\Psi \left( w(\lambda + \rho_{B^-}) - (\mu + \rho_{B^-}); q \right) \quad \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q]. $$
\end{definition}
In the examples below we take $P=B$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:q-analogue}
Consider the special case in which $W := \mathfrak{g}$ is the adjoint representation $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ad}\xspace}$ of $G$, and $N := \mathfrak{u}$ is a $B$-stable subspace. Thus $\Psi = \Sigma_B$ is the set of positive roots relative to $B$; it certainly lies in a strongly convex cone. We obtain
$$ \prod_{\alpha \in \Sigma_{B^-}} (1 - q e^\alpha)^{-1} = \prod_{\alpha \in \Sigma_B} (1 - qe^{-\alpha})^{-1} = \sum_\nu \mathcal{P}_\Psi(\nu; q) e^\nu. $$
Hence $\mathcal{P}_\Psi(\nu; q)$ equals the function $\mathcal{P}(\nu; q)$ introduced in \S\ref{sec:Satake-inversion}, defined on the root datum dual to that of $(G, T)$ and relative to $B^-$. Consequently we recover Lusztig's $q$-analogue \eqref{eqn:K}, namely
$$ m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) = K_{\lambda, \mu}(q), $$
in the anti-dominant setting, which is precisely our choice throughout \S\ref{sec:L-basic}.
We record some well-known properties of $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q)$, for $\lambda, \mu \in X^*(T)_-$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $K_{\lambda, \lambda} = 1$.
\item $K_{\lambda, \mu} \neq 0$ only if $\mu \leq \lambda$ for the Bruhat order relative to $B^-$.
\item $\deg_q K_{\lambda, \mu} = \angles{\lambda-\mu, \check{\rho}_{B^-}}$ whenever $\mu \leq \lambda$.
\item $K_{\lambda,\mu}(1)$ equals the weight multiplicity $\dim_\Bbbk V(\lambda)_\mu$ of the irreducible representation $V(\lambda)$ of highest weight $\lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
The first two properties are actually shared by all generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomials $m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q)$ with $\Psi \subset \Sigma_B$; see \cite[Lemma 2.3]{Pan10}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{ex:basic-fcn}
Assume that we are given a short exact sequence $1 \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to G \to G_0 \to 1$ with $G_0$ semisimple. It induces a homomorphism $X^*(T) \to X^*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$ denoted as $\det_G$. Let $(\rho, V)$ be a representation of $G$ such that $\rho(z) = z\cdot\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$ for all $z \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$. Now take $N := V \oplus \mathfrak{u}$, a $B$-stable subspace of some representation of $G$ (where $\mathfrak{u}$ is acted upon by $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ad}\xspace}|_B$). We have
$$ \Psi = \ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V) \sqcup \Sigma_B $$
where $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)$ is the set with multiplicities of $T$-weights, as usual. The elements of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)$ lie on $\det_G = 1$, whereas the elements of $\Sigma_B$ lie in a chamber in the subspace $\det_G = 0$. Evidently, $\Psi$ is contained in a strongly convex cone in $X^*(T)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$. Hence the polynomials $m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q)$ are well-defined.
Notice that in this case, $m^\mu_{0, \Psi} \neq 0$ only when $\det_G(\mu) \geq 0$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Geometric setup}
We refer to \S\ref{sec:intro} for the formalism of $G$-varieties and $G$-linearized sheaves.
Let $H$ be a $\Bbbk$-subgroup of $G$. Let $Z$ be an $H$-variety, we define the associated \textit{homogeneous fiber space} as
$$ G \utimes{H} Z := (G \times Z) \bigg/ ((gh,z) \sim (g, hz), \forall h \in H). $$
The quotient here is to be understood as the \textit{geometric quotient} $(G \times Z)/H$, where $h \in H$ acts by $h(g,z) = (gh^{-1}, hz)$. In order to form the quotient as a $\Bbbk$-variety we should assume that $Z$ can be covered by $H$-stable quasi-projective open subsets, which is possible under mild conditions, eg. whenever $Z$ is quasi-projective. We refer to \cite[\S 2]{Ti11} or \cite[II. \S 4]{AGIV} for details.
In what follows we assume implicitly that $Z$ has all the required properties to ensure the existence of $G \utimes{H} Z$ as a $\Bbbk$-variety. The $G$-action on $G \utimes{H} Z$ is descended from the left translation on the first component of $G \times Z$. The natural projection $G \utimes{H} Z \to G/H$ descended from $\text{pr}_1: G \times Z \to G$ is locally trivial in the étale topology, with fibers isomorphic to $Z$. A typical element in $G \utimes{H} Z$ is denoted by $[g,z]$, signifying the image of $(g,z) \in G \times H$ under the quotient morphism.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:locally-trivial}
The bundles $G \utimes{H} Z \to G/H$ are locally trivial in the Zariski topology for all $Z$ if and only if so is $G \to G/H$. The latter condition holds when $H$ is a parabolic subgroup of $G$, due to Bruhat decomposition. See the discussion in \cite[II. \S 4.8]{AGIV}.
\end{remark}
We will make use of the following avatar of projection formula: suppose that $Z$ is actually endowed with a $G$-variety structure, and let $Z'$ be any $H$-variety, then there is an isomorphism of $G$-varieties
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:proj-formula} \begin{split}
G \utimes{H} (Z' \times Z) & \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} (G \utimes{H} Z') \times Z \\
[g, (z',z)] & \mapsto ([g,z'], gz).
\end{split}\end{equation}
Here $Z' \times Z$ is equipped with the diagonal $H$-action, and $(G \utimes{H} Z') \times Z$ is equipped with the diagonal $G$-action. In particular $G \utimes{H} Z \simeq G/H \times Z$.
Next, we consider the ``collapsing'' of homogeneous fiber spaces \cite{Kem76}. Let $P$ be a parabolic subgroup of $G$. Let $Z$ be a closed $G$-variety and $W$ be a $P$-subvariety of $Z$. We have the commutative diagram of $G$-varieties
$$\xymatrix{
G \utimes{P} W \ar[r] \ar[rd]_{\pi} & G \utimes{P} Z \ar[r]^{\sim} & G/P \times Z \ar[ld]^{\text{pr}_2} \\
& Z &
}$$
where $\pi$ sends $[g,w]$ to $gw$. Also note that $G \utimes{P} W \to G \utimes{P} Z$ is a closed immersion.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:collapsing}
For $Z$ and $W$ as above,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi: G \utimes{P} W \to Z$ is a projective morphism;
\item the set-theoretic image of $\pi$ equals $G \cdot W$ and is a closed subvariety of $Z$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\text{pr}_2: G/P \times Z \to Z$ is projective since $G/P$ is a projective $\Bbbk$-variety. Hence $\pi$ is projective as well, by the diagram above. Since projective morphisms have closed images, the second assertion follows.
\end{proof}
For any finite-dimensional representation $W$ of $P$, the construction above yields a $G$-equivariant vector bundle $p: G \utimes{P} W \to G/P$; see Remark \ref{rem:locally-trivial}. We denote by $\mathscr{L}_{G/P}(W)$ the locally free $\mathcal{O}_{G/P}$-module of its sections. More precisely, for every open subset $U \subset G/P$ we have
$$ \Gamma(U, \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(W)) = \left\{ s: p^{-1}U \xrightarrow{\text{morphism}} W, \quad \forall h \in P, \; s(gh^{-1}) = hs(g) \right\}. $$
This $\mathcal{O}_{G/P}$-module is canonically $G$-linearized. The natural $G$-action on $\Gamma(G/P, \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(W))$ is $gs: x \mapsto s(g^{-1}x)$. More generally, $G$ acts on the cohomology groups $H^i(G/P, \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(W))$. We have a canonical isomorphism $\mathscr{L}_{G/P}(W^\vee) \simeq \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(W)^\vee$.
We record the following standard facts.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:bundle-pushforward}
Let $p: V \to X$ be a vector bundle with sheaf of sections $\mathcal{F}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For every locally free $\mathcal{O}_X$-module $\mathscr{L}$ of finite rank, we have $p_* p^* \mathscr{L} \simeq \mathscr{L} \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(\mathcal{F}^\vee) = \bigoplus_{k \geq 0} \left( \mathscr{L} \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\mathcal{F}^\vee) \right)$.
\item For every quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_V$-module $\mathcal{G}$, we have $H^i(V, \mathcal{G}) \simeq H^i(X, p_* \mathcal{G})$ for all $i$.
These isomorphisms are all canonical. Recall another elementary fact:
\item Cohomology on noetherian schemes commutes with direct limits.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first isomorphism is an easy consequence of the projection formula and the identification $p_* \mathcal{O}_V = \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(\mathcal{F}^\vee)$. The second isomorphism results from the degeneration for the Leray spectral sequence for the affine morphism $p: V \to X$.
\end{proof}
Consider a parabolic subgroup $P$ containing $B$ with unipotent radical $U_P$. The inclusion $B \hookrightarrow P$ induces a surjective homomorphism $B/B_\text{der}U = B/U \twoheadrightarrow P/P_\text{der} U_P$ between $\Bbbk$-tori. Hence
$$ X^*(P) := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}(P, \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}) \hookrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}(B, \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}) = X^*(T) $$
where the Hom-groups are taken in the category of $\Bbbk$-groups. For $\mu \in X^*(P)$, we write $\Bbbk_\mu$ for the corresponding one-dimensional representation of $P$, and use the shorthand
$$ \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\mu) := \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\Bbbk_\mu), $$
thus $\mathscr{L}_{G/P}(-\mu) \simeq \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\mu)^\vee$ canonically. We need the following vanishing theorem due to Panyushev.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem 3.1]{Pan10}}]\label{prop:vanishing}
Let $N$ be a representation of $P$ satisfying the conditions in \S\ref{sec:com-setup}; in particular we have the homogeneous fibration $p: G \utimes{P} N \to G/P$ and a collapsing morphism $\pi: G \utimes{P} N \to G \cdot N \subset W$. If $\pi$ is generically finite, then
$$ H^i \left( G \utimes{P} N, \; p^* \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\mu) \right) = 0 \quad \text{ for all } i \geq 1, $$
whenever
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:mu-vanishing-condition}
\mu + \sum_{\alpha \in \Psi} \alpha - \sum_{\alpha \in \Sigma_P} \alpha \in X^*(T)_-.
\end{gather}
Here $\Psi$ is the set with multiplicities of the $T$-weights of $N$, and $\Sigma_P$ is the set of roots in $\mathfrak{u}_P$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We reproduce the proof in \cite{Pan10} under our setup. Let $\nu \in X^*(T)_+$ and set $\mathbf{Z} := G \utimes{P} N$ and $\mathbf{U} := G \utimes{P} (N \times \Bbbk_\nu)$. Write $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbf{Z}}(\cdots) := p^* \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\cdots)$; the same for $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbf{U}}(\cdots)$. The natural projection $\eta: \mathbf{U} \to \mathbf{Z}$ makes $\mathbf{U}$ into the total space of a line bundle over $\mathbf{Z}$ whose sheaf of sections is $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbf{Z}}(\nu)$. Let
$$ \gamma := - \sum_{\alpha \in \Psi} \alpha + \sum_{\alpha \in \Sigma_P} \alpha . $$
Note that $\gamma \in X^*(P)$. Let $\omega_{\mathbf{U}}$ (resp. $\omega_{G/P}$) denote the dualizing sheaf on $\mathbf{U}$ (resp. $G/P$). Using the smooth fibration $\mathbf{U} \to G/P$ we see that $\omega_{\mathbf{U}}$ equals the tensor product of
$$ \mathscr{L}_{\mathbf{U}} \left( \det N^\vee \otimes \Bbbk_{-\nu} \right), $$
the sheaf of relative differentials of top degree, with the pullback of $\omega_{G/P}$ to $\mathbf{U}$. However, $\omega_{G/P} = \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\det \mathfrak{u}_P)$ as $(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{p})^\vee = \mathfrak{p}^\perp \simeq \mathfrak{u}_P$ via the Killing form of $\mathfrak{g}_\text{der}$. Thus we obtain
$$ \omega_{\mathbf{U}} = \mathscr{L}_{\mathbf{U}}\left( \det N^\vee \otimes \det\mathfrak{u}_P \otimes \Bbbk_{-\nu} \right) = \eta^* \mathscr{L}_{\mathbf{Z}}(\gamma - \nu). $$
Notice that each identification is equivariant. Proposition \ref{prop:bundle-pushforward} applied to $\eta$ yields
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:omega_U-cohomology}
H^i(\mathbf{U}, \omega_{\mathbf{U}}) = H^i \left( \mathbf{Z}, \; \bigoplus_{k \geq 0} \mathscr{L}_{\mathbf{Z}}(\gamma - (k+1)\nu) \right).
\end{gather}
Let $V(\nu)$ be the irreducible representation of $G$ with highest weight $\nu$ relative to $B$. Embed $\Bbbk_\nu$ into $V(\nu)$ as a the highest weight subspace. We deduce the collapsing
$$ \pi': \mathbf{U} = G \utimes{P} (N \times \Bbbk_\nu) \twoheadrightarrow G \cdot (N \times \Bbbk_\nu) \subset W \times V(\nu). $$
It is proper by Lemma \ref{prop:collapsing} and generically finite since $\pi$ is. Therefore Kempf's vanishing theorem \cite[Theorem 4]{Kem76} asserts that $H^i(\mathbf{U}, \omega_{\mathbf{U}})$ vanishes for all $i \geq 1$. Taking the summand $k=0$ in \eqref{eqn:omega_U-cohomology} with $\mu := \gamma - \nu$ gives the vanishing of $H^i(\mathbf{Z}, p^* \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\mu))$. The condition $\nu \in X^*(T)_+$ translates into \eqref{eqn:mu-vanishing-condition}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Poincaré series}
\begin{definition}\label{def:P-series}
Let $M$ be $\Bbbk$-vector space, possibly of infinite dimension.
\begin{itemize}
\item Assume $M$ is equipped with a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-grading, or equivalently with a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action, such that each graded piece $M_k$ ($k \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$) is finite-dimensional. Assume moreover that $M_k = \{0\}$ for $k < 0$. Introduce an indeterminate $q$ and define the Poincaré series of $M$ as
$$ \mathbf{P}(M; q) := \sum_{k \geq 0} (\dim_\Bbbk M_k) q^k \quad \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\llbracket q \rrbracket. $$
\item The multi-graded version will also be needed. Let $\mathfrak{X}$ be a commutative monoid (written additively) that is finitely generated and isomorphic to some submonoid of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^r_{\geq 0}$ for some $r$. Such monoids are called \textit{positive affine monoids} in \cite[2.15]{BG09}. Assume that $M$ is equipped with a grading by $\mathfrak{X}$, such that the graded piece $M_\mu$ is finite-dimensional for every $\mu \in \mathfrak{X}$. We may define its Poincaré series
$$ \mathbf{P}(M) := \sum_{\mu \in \mathfrak{X}} (\dim_\Bbbk M_\mu) e^\mu $$
which belongs to the completion $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\llbracket \mathfrak{X} \rrbracket$ of the monoid ring $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[\mathfrak{X}]$ with respect to the ideal generated by non-invertible elements in $\mathfrak{X}$. The previous case corresponds to $\mathfrak{X} = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$.
\item Furthermore, assume that $M$ is a representation of $G$ admitting a compatible grading by $\mathfrak{X}$ as above, such that $\dim_\Bbbk M_\mu < \infty$ for all $\mu$. For every finite-dimensional irreducible representation $V$ of $V$, let $M[V]$ be the $V$-isotypic subrepresentation of $M$. Define the formal (infinite) sum
$$ \mathbf{P}(M) := \sum_{[V]} \mathbf{P}(M[V]) [V] $$
where $[V]$ ranges over the equivalence classes of finite-dimensional irreducible representations.
\item The previous case generalizes to virtual representations of $G$, by setting $\mathbf{P}(M_1 - M_2) = \mathbf{P}(M_1) - \mathbf{P}(M_2)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Let $P$ be a parabolic subgroup of $G$ containing $B$, and $N$ be a finite-dimensional representation of $P$. Note that $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ acts on $N$ by dilation, which clearly commutes with the $P$-action. We deduce a $G \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action on $G \utimes{P} N$, namely
$$ (g,z) \cdot [x,n] = [gx, z^{-1} n], \quad g \in G, \; z \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}, \; [x,n] \in G \utimes{P} N. $$
The bundle map $p: G \utimes{P} N \to G/P$ is $G \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-equivariant if we let $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ act trivially on $G/P$. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a $G$-linearized locally free $\mathcal{O}_{G/P}$-module of finite rank. Then $p^* \mathcal{F}$ is canonically $G \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-linearized. All in all, we obtain a $G \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-representation $H^i(G \utimes{P} N, p^* \mathcal{F})$ for each $i$, or equivalently, a $G$-representation with a compatible $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-grading. The grading is given by the degrees along the fibers of $p$. In concrete terms, the $k$-th graded piece is identified with
$$ H^i(G/P, \mathcal{F} \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k (N^\vee)) $$
for every $k \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$, by Proposition \ref{prop:bundle-pushforward}.
In view of the Definition \ref{def:P-series}, we may define
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:EP}
\chi \left( G \utimes{P} N, \; p^* \mathcal{F} \right) := \sum_{i \geq 0} (-1)^i H^i \left( G \utimes{P} N, \; p^* \mathcal{F} \right),
\end{gather}
an element of the Grothendieck group of representations of $G$ graded by $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$, each graded piece being a finite-dimensional representation of $G$. Thus we may consider its Poincaré series.
The following result is well-known in the case for Lusztig's $q$-analogues; see \cite{He76, He80, Bry89, Bro93}. Here we state and reprove it for reductive groups and anti-dominant weights, following the arguments in \cite[Theorem 3.8]{Pan10} for generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomials. Our convention makes the annoying contragredients in \textit{loc. cit.} disappear.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:EP-gKF}
Let $N$, $P$ and $\Psi$ be as in \S\ref{sec:com-setup} and assume that $P=B$. For every $\mu \in X^*(T)_-$, we have the equality
$$ \mathbf{P} \left( \chi \left( G \utimes{P} N, \; p^*\mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\mu) \right); q \right) = \sum_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_-} m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) [V(\lambda)] $$
of formal sums.
\end{theorem}
These sums may be understood $q$-adically: for each $k$ the coefficient of $q^k$ is a finite sum.
\begin{proof}
Take $P=B$. For every $k \geq 0$ we have
$$ \chi\left( G/B, \; \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\Bbbk_\mu \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k (N^\vee))\right) = \chi\left( G/B, \; \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\Bbbk_\mu \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k (N^\vee))^{\text{ss}} \right) $$
in the Grothendieck group of finite-dimensional $G$-representations, where we have used an obvious variant of \eqref{eqn:EP}, and we denote by $(\cdots)^\text{ss}$ the semi-simplification of a finite-dimensional representation of $B$, namely the direct sum of its Jordan-Hölder factors. Therefore $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k (N^\vee)^{\text{ss}}$ is a sum of elements in $X^*(T)$ inflated to $B$.
By virtue of the Proposition \ref{prop:bundle-pushforward}, the left-hand side in the assertion equals
\begin{multline*}
\sum_{k \geq 0} \mathbf{P}\left( \chi\left( G/B, \; \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\Bbbk_\mu \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k (N^\vee))^{\text{ss}} \right) \right) q^k = \\
\sum_{k \geq 0} \sum_{\nu \in X^*(T)} \text{mult}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k (N^\vee)|_T : \nu) \cdot \mathbf{P}\left( \chi\left( G/B, \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu+\nu) \right) \right) q^k = \\
\sum_{\nu \in X^*(T)} \mathcal{P}_\Psi(\nu; q) \cdot \mathbf{P}\left( \chi\left( G/B, \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu+\nu) \right) \right), \quad \text{ by the definition \eqref{eqn:P-Psi} for } \mathcal{P}_\Psi(\cdot ; q).
\end{multline*}
Now we invoke the Borel-Weil-Bott theorem. It asserts that
\begin{itemize}
\item either $\mu + \nu + \rho_{B^-}$ does not intersect $W \cdot (X^*(T)_- + \rho_{B^-})$, in which case
$$ H^i(G/B, \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu+\nu)) = 0 \quad \text{ for all } i. $$
\item or there exists $\lambda \in X^*(T)_-$ and $w \in W$ such that $\mu + \nu + \rho_{B^-} = w(\lambda + \rho_{B^-})$, in which case the pair $(w, \lambda)$ is unique and
$$ H^i(G/B, \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu+\nu)) \simeq \begin{cases}
V(\lambda), & \text{ if } i = \ell(w), \\
0, & \text{ otherwise},
\end{cases}$$
as $G$-representations.
\end{itemize}
Therefore the last sum can be rearranged according to $(w, \lambda) \in W \times X^*(T)_-$. The result is
\begin{gather*}
\sum_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_-} \sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{\ell(w)} \mathcal{P}_\Psi( w(\lambda + \rho_{B^-}) - (\mu + \rho_{B^-}); q) [V(\lambda)] = \sum_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_-} m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) [V(\lambda)]
\end{gather*}
as asserted.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The assertion in Theorem \ref{prop:EP-gKF} holds for any parabolic subgroup $P$ containing $B$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Use the Leray spectral sequence for $G/P \to G/B$ to reduce to the case $P=B$; see \cite[Theorem 3.9]{Pan10}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{prop:gKF-positivity}
If $\mu \in X^*(T)$ satisfies
$$ H^i \left( G \utimes{P} N, \; p^* \mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\mu) \right) = 0 \quad \text{ for all } i \geq 1, $$
then we have
$$ \mathbf{P} \left( \Gamma \left( G \utimes{P} N, \; p^*\mathscr{L}_{G/P}(\mu) \right); q \right) = \sum_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_-} m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) [V(\lambda)]. $$
In particular, in this case $m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}[q]$ for all $\lambda \in X^*(T)_-$.
\end{corollary}
In this article we will only use the case $P=B$.
Now comes the case of Lusztig's $q$-analogues $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q)$ of the Example \ref{ex:q-analogue}. We concentrate on the case of anti-dominant $\mu$. The following result appeared first in \cite[\S 5]{Bry89}.
\begin{corollary}\label{prop:K-as-P-series}
Let $\lambda, \mu \in X^*(T)_-$. Then $K_{\lambda, \mu}(q)$ equals the following $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$-graded Poincaré series of the $\Bbbk$-vector space
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}_G \left( V(\lambda), \Gamma\left( G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u}, \; p^* \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu) \right) \right); $$
or equivalently, of the space of $G$-invariants
$$ \left( V(\lambda)^\vee \otimes \Gamma\left( G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u}, \; p^* \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu) \right) \right)^G . $$
In both cases the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$-grading comes from the component $\Gamma(G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u}, \cdots)$.
\end{corollary}
To reconcile with the terminologies in \cite{Bry89}, we remark that $G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u}$ is nothing but the cotangent bundle of $G/B$.
\begin{proof}
It suffices to take up the Example \ref{ex:q-analogue} in which $N=\mathfrak{u}$, $P=B$ and $\Psi = \Sigma_B$. Note that
\begin{itemize}
\item the collapsing $\pi: G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u} \to G \cdot \mathfrak{u}$ becomes the Springer resolution of the nilpotent cone in $\mathfrak{g}$, in particular $\pi$ is birational;
\item the condition on $\mu$ in Theorem \ref{prop:vanishing} reduces to $\mu \in X^*(T)_-$.
\end{itemize}
Thus the higher cohomologies in question all vanish and we may apply Corollary \ref{prop:gKF-positivity}.
\end{proof}
\section{Basic functions as Poincaré series}\label{sec:gKF-basic}
\subsection{Geometry of the variety $\mathcal{Y}$}\label{sec:variety-Y}
Let $\Bbbk$, $G$, $B$ and $T$ as be in \S\ref{sec:gKF}. Consider a submonoid $X^*(T)_\ominus$ of $X^*(T)$ such that
$$ X^*(T)_\ominus \subset X^*(T)_- $$
and of the form
$$ X^*(T)_\ominus = \mathcal{C}^* \cap X^*(T) $$
where $\mathcal{C}^*$ is some rational cone in $X^*(T)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ that is strongly convex (i.e. defined over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}$ and containing no lines).
To such a $X^*(T)_\ominus$ there is an associated a normal affine toric variety under $T$, denoted by $\Pi$. More precisely, we define the following representation of $T$
$$ R := \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} \Bbbk_\mu. $$
It is actually a $\Bbbk$-algebra with $T$-action: the multiplication comes from the equality $\Bbbk_{\mu_1} \otimes \Bbbk_{\mu_2} = \Bbbk_{\mu_1 + \mu_2}$ for representations of $T$. One can show that $R$ is a domain finitely generated over $\Bbbk$ (see also the proof of Lemma \ref{prop:Pi-embedding} below). Set
$$ \Pi := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Spec}\xspace}(R). $$
We inflate $R$ (resp. $\Pi$) to a $\Bbbk$-algebra (resp. $\Bbbk$-variety) with $B$-action.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:Pi-embedding}
There exists an affine $G$-variety $\Xi = \ensuremath{\mathrm{Spec}\xspace}(S)$ together with a $B$-equivariant closed immersion $\Pi \hookrightarrow \Xi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $\lambda \in X^*(T)$, let $V(\lambda)$ be the irreducible representation of $G$ of extremal weight $\lambda$. Consider the diagram
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:R-S-diag}
\xymatrix{
S := \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} V(-\mu)^\vee \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar@{-->>}[d] & \bigoplus_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_+} V(\lambda)^\vee = \Bbbk\left[ \overline{G/U}^\text{aff} \right] \\
R = \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} \Bbbk_\mu &
}\end{gather}
where $\overline{G/U}^\text{aff}$ denotes the affine closure of the quasi-affine variety $G/U$; see \cite[p.10]{Ti11} for detailed discussions. Here the representations $V(\lambda)^\vee$ are viewed as spaces of regular functions on $\overline{G/U}^\text{aff}$, so it makes sense to talk about multiplication and there is an equality (see \cite[Lemma 2.23]{Ti11}):
$$ V(\lambda_1)^\vee \cdot V(\lambda_2)^\vee = V(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2)^\vee, \quad \lambda_1, \lambda_2 \in X^*(T)_+ . $$
This makes $S$ into a $\Bbbk$-algebra. Moreover, $S$ is finitely generated: this follows from the equality above and the fact that $X^*(T)_\ominus$ is finitely generated as a commutative monoid (Gordan's lemma).
The first row of \eqref{eqn:R-S-diag} respects the $G$-actions. To define the vertical arrow, set
$$ \mathfrak{a} := \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} \bigoplus_{\nu >_B \mu} (V(-\mu)^\vee)_\nu $$
where $\nu >_B \mu$ means the strict inequality in the Bruhat order relative to $B$. One easily checks that $\mathfrak{a}$ is a $B$-stable ideal, and
$$ S/\mathfrak{a} = \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} (V(-\mu)^\vee)_\mu = \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} (V(-\mu)^\vee)^{U^-}, \quad T-\text{equivariantly}. $$
Also observe that $U$ acts trivially on $S/\mathfrak{a}$ since the $\mathfrak{u}$-action raises weights. It remains to identify $S/\mathfrak{a}$ with $R$. Take $o \in G/U$ corresponding to $1 \cdot U$. For every $\mu$ take the unique $f_\mu \in (V(-\mu)^\vee)_\mu$ satisfying $f_\mu(o) = 1$. Sending $f_\mu$ to $1 \in \Bbbk_\mu$ yields the required $B$-equivariant surjection $S \twoheadrightarrow S/\mathfrak{a} \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} R$ as $\Bbbk$-algebras.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
When $X^*(T)_\ominus = \bigoplus_{i=1}^r \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} \varpi_i$ for some $\varpi_1, \ldots, \varpi_r$ with $r := \dim T$, there is a more straightforward recipe. Indeed, we have $R = \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}( \bigoplus_{i=1}^r \Bbbk \varpi_i)$ and
$$ \Pi = \prod_{i=1}^r \Bbbk_{-\varpi_i} $$
where we regard each $\Bbbk_{-\varpi_i}$ as a one-dimensional affine $T$-variety. After inflation to $B$ we may regard $\Bbbk_{-\varpi_i}$ as the highest weight subspace of $V(-\varpi_i)$ relative to $B$. Hence $\Pi \hookrightarrow \Xi := \prod_{i=1}^r V(-\varpi_i)$ as $B$-varieties. This is the construction adopted in \cite[2.13]{Bro93}.
\end{remark}
In what follows, we fix a finite-dimensional representation $N$ of $B$, together with an affine $G$-variety $W$ with a closed immersion $N \hookrightarrow W$ of $B$-varieties.
\begin{definition}
The $B$-equivariant embeddings $\Pi \hookrightarrow \Xi$ (Lemma \ref{prop:Pi-embedding}) and $N \hookrightarrow W$ define the collapsing for homogeneous fiber space
$$\xymatrix{
\tilde{\mathcal{Y}} := G \utimes{B} (\Pi \times N) \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar[d]_{\pi_0} & G \utimes{B} (\Xi \times W) \simeq G/B \times (\Xi \times W) \ar[d]^{\text{pr}_2} \\
\mathcal{Y}_0 := G \cdot (\Pi \times N) \ar@{{(}->}[r] & \Xi \times W
}$$
All arrows are $G$-equivariant and the rows are closed immersions. Set
$$ \mathcal{Y} := \text{the normalization of } \mathcal{Y}_0 $$
so that $\pi_0$ factors through a morphism $\pi: \tilde{\mathcal{Y}} \to \mathcal{Y}$, which is still $G$-equivariant. The space $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}$ is endowed with a $G \times T \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action, where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ acts on the component $N$ as dilation by $z^{-1}$, for all $z \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$;
\item $G$ acts by left translation as usual and $T$ acts through the toric variety $\Pi$, it is probably better to see this by writing
$$ \tilde{\mathcal{Y}} = (T \times G) \utimes{T \times B} (\Pi \times N), $$
the $(T \times B)$-action on $\Pi \times N$ being
$$ (t, b) \cdot (x,u) = (t \bar{b} x ,bu), \quad (x, u) \in \Pi \times \mathfrak{u}, $$
where $\bar{b}$ denotes the image of $b \in B$ in $T=B/U$.
\end{itemize}
Endow $\mathcal{Y}_0$ with the $G \times T \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action so that $\pi_0$ is equivariant. This induces a natural $G \times T \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action on $\mathcal{Y}$ making $\pi: \tilde{\mathcal{Y}} \to \mathcal{Y}$ equivariant.
\end{definition}
\begin{hypothesis}\label{hyp:N}
Henceforth it is assumed that
\begin{enumerate}
\item the collapsing morphisms $\pi_0: \tilde{\mathcal{Y}} \to \mathcal{Y}_0$ and $\eta: G \utimes{B} N \to G \cdot N$ are both birational;
\item the condition \eqref{eqn:mu-vanishing-condition} in Theorem \ref{prop:vanishing} (for $N$ and $P=B$) holds for every $\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{hypothesis}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:birationality}
The first condition holds when $N=\mathfrak{u}$ under the adjoint action of $B$, or more generally when $N = N_0 \oplus \mathfrak{u}$ for some $N_0$. Indeed, let $\mathcal{N} \subset \mathfrak{g}$ be the nilpotent cone and $\mathcal{N}_\text{reg}$ be the Zariski open subset of regular nilpotent elements, that is, the elements which belong to a unique Borel subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$. Set $\mathfrak{u}_\text{reg} := \mathfrak{u} \cap \mathcal{N}_\text{reg}$. The collapsing restricts to an isomorphism
$$ G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u}_\text{reg} \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} G \cdot \mathfrak{u}_\text{reg} = \mathcal{N}_\text{reg}. $$
From this we deduce a cartesian diagram
$$\xymatrix{
G \utimes{B} (N_0 \times \mathfrak{u}_\text{reg}) \ar[r]^{\sim} \ar[d] & G \cdot (N_0 \times \mathfrak{u}_\text{reg}) \ar[d] \\
G \utimes{B} N \ar[r]_{\eta}& G \cdot N \\
}$$
in which the vertical arrows are open immersions. The case for $\pi_0$ is similar.
\end{remark}
The following arguments are essentially paraphrases of \cite[2.13]{Bro93}
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:resolution-Y}
The morphisms $\pi_0$ and $\pi$ are proper and birational. Moreover, $R\pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}} = \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{Y}}$ and $R(\pi_0)_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}}$ is concentrated in degree zero, in the derived categories $D^b(\mathcal{Y})$ and $D^b(\mathcal{Y}_0)$, respectively.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By hypothesis $\pi_0$ is birational; it is proper surjective by Lemma \ref{prop:collapsing}. Since the normalization morphism is birational and proper, the same holds for $\pi: \tilde{\mathcal{Y}} \to \mathcal{Y}$.
Consider the commutative diagram
$$\xymatrix{
\tilde{\mathcal{Y}} \ar[r]^{\pi} \ar[d]_p & \mathcal{Y} \ar[d] \\
G/B \ar[r] & \ensuremath{\mathrm{Spec}\xspace}\;\Bbbk
}$$
in which the vertical morphisms are affine. We get
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:Y-sections-0}
H^i(\mathcal{Y}, R\pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}}) = H^i(G/B, Rp_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}}) = H^i(G/B, p_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}})
\end{gather}
for all $i \geq 0$. Upon recalling the description of $\Pi = \ensuremath{\mathrm{Spec}\xspace} R$, the last term can be rewritten via Proposition \ref{prop:bundle-pushforward} as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Y-sections-1}\begin{aligned}
H^i(G/B, \; p_* p^* \mathcal{O}_{G/B}) & = \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} H^i(G/B, \; \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(N^\vee) \otimes \Bbbk_\mu )) \\
& = \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} H^i(G \utimes{B} N, \; r^* \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu))
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $r$ is the bundle map $G \utimes{B} N \to G/B$. Now we may invoke the Theorem \ref{prop:vanishing} and Hypothesis \ref{hyp:N} to deduce $H^i(\mathcal{Y}, R\pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}})=0$ whenever $i \geq 1$. As $\mathcal{Y}$ is affine, this entails that $R\pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}}$ is concentrated in degree zero. On the other hand, since $\pi$ is proper and birational, the normality of $\mathcal{Y}$ implies $\pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}} = \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{Y}}$.
The arguments for $\pi_0$ are similar.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:kY}
There are canonical $G \times T \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-equivariant isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Bbbk[\mathcal{Y}] & \simeq \Gamma(\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}, \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}}) \\
& \simeq \bigoplus_{\substack{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus \\ k \geq 0}} \Gamma\left(G/B, \; \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\Bbbk_\mu \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k (N^\vee)) \right).
\end{align*}
On the right hand side, the group $G$ acts on each of the summands $\Gamma(G/B, \cdots)$, whereas the $X^*(T)$-grading by $\mu$ and the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-grading by $k$ give the $T \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{prop:resolution-Y}, we have an equivariant identification $\Bbbk[\mathcal{Y}] = H^0(\mathcal{Y}, R\pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}})$, which equals $\Gamma(\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}, \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}})$. From \eqref{eqn:Y-sections-0} and \eqref{eqn:Y-sections-1} with $i=0$ we obtain the required isomorphism. It remains to recall the definition of the $G \times T \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action on $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Y-ratsing}
The $\Bbbk$-varieties $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ have rational singularities.
\end{proposition}
We refer to \cite[A.1]{Ti11} for the backgrounds about rational singularities.
\begin{proof}
Consider the case for $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}$ first. The normal toric variety $\Pi$ is known to have rational singularities \cite[p.76]{Fu93}, hence so do the fibers of $p: \tilde{\mathcal{Y}} \to G/B$. On the other hand, the variety $G/B$ certainly has rational singularities. We conclude by applying \cite[Theorem A.5]{Ti11} to the bundle $p$.
As for $\mathcal{Y}$, apply \cite[Theorem 1]{Kov00} to $\pi$ together with Lemma \ref{prop:resolution-Y}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{On certain generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomials}\label{sec:certain-gKF}
Retain the previous notations and choose the data as in Example \ref{ex:basic-fcn}. To be precise, we have now a short exact sequence of connected reductive $\Bbbk$-groups
$$ 1 \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to G \to G_0 \to 1 $$
with $G_0$ semisimple, and a finite-dimensional representation $(V,\rho)$ of $G$ such that $\rho(z)=z\cdot\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$ for all $z \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$. Define the set with multiplicities
$$ \Psi = \ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V) \sqcup \Sigma_B, $$
which is formed by the $T$-weights of the representation $N = (V, \rho|_B) \oplus (\mathfrak{u}, \ensuremath{\mathrm{Ad}\xspace}|_B)$ of $B$. Dualizing $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \hookrightarrow G$ furnishes a surjective homomorphism $\det_G: X^*(T) \to X^*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}})=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:X-ominus}
Define the monoid
\begin{gather}
X^*(T)_\ominus := \left\{ \mu \in X^*(T)_- : \det_G(\mu) \geq 0 \right\}.
\end{gather}
and form the corresponding normal affine toric variety $\Pi := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Spec}\xspace}(R)$. See also the Remark \ref{rem:smaller-monoid}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
The Hypothesis \ref{hyp:N} is satisfied with the choice of $N$ and $X^*(T)_\ominus$ above.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In Remark \ref{rem:birationality} (with $N_0 := V$) we have seen that the first condition in Hypothesis \ref{hyp:N} is satisfied. Let $\theta := \sum_{\alpha \in \ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(V)} \alpha$, the second condition amounts to
$$ \forall \mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus, \quad \mu + \theta \in X^*(T)_- . $$
Since $V$ is a representation of $G$, the sum $\theta$ is fixed by every root reflection, hence $\angles{\theta, \beta^\vee} = 0$ for every $\beta \in \Delta_B$. Therefore $\mu + \theta \in X^*(T)_-$ as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:smaller-monoid}
In practice one can often work with a smaller monoid. For example, after proving Theorem \ref{prop:basicfun-gen} one will see that the submonoid $\mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X_*(T)_-$ suffices for the study of the coefficients of the basic function $f_\rho$ (cf. Corollary \ref{prop:basic-supp}).
\end{remark}
The results in \S\ref{sec:variety-Y} are thus applicable. Define the morphisms
$$\xymatrix{
& \tilde{\mathcal{Y}} = G \utimes{B} (\Pi \times N) \ar[ld]_{p} \ar[rd]^{\pi} & \\
G/B & & \mathcal{Y}
}$$
accordingly. Recall that the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action on $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}$ comes from the dilation on $N = V \times \mathfrak{u}$. It will be convenient to thicken it to a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-action, namely
$$ \forall (z, w) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}, \quad (z,w) \cdot [g, (\pi, v, u)] = [g, (\pi, z^{-1}v, w^{-1}u)] $$
for all $[g, (\pi, v,u)] \in \tilde{\mathcal{Y}}$, where $(\pi, v, u) \in \Pi \times V \times \mathfrak{u}$. Restriction to the diagonal $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ gives back the original action.
Introduce indeterminates $X$ and $q$.
\begin{definition}
Using the $G \times T \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^2$-action on $\mathcal{Y}$, we define the Poincaré series
$$ \mathbf{P}(\Bbbk[\mathcal{Y}]; X, q) = \sum_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_-} \sum_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(X,q) e^\mu [V(\lambda)] $$
for some $m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(X,q) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X,q]$, where $\lambda$ (resp. $\mu$) corresponds to the $G$-action (resp. $T$-action), and $(X,q)$ corresponds to the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^2$-action described above. Cf. the Definition \ref{def:P-series}.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:qq}
The generalized Kostka-Foulkes polynomials associated to $\Psi$ are recovered via
$$ m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) = m^\mu_{\lambda,\Psi}(q,q), \quad \lambda \in X^*(T)_-, \mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus. $$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In view of Hypothesis \ref{hyp:N}, we may apply Corollary \ref{prop:gKF-positivity} to every $\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus$ to get
$$ \mathbf{P} \left( \; \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} \Gamma \left( G \utimes{B} N, \; r^*\mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu) \right); q \right) = \sum_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_-} \; \sum_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q) e^\mu [V(\lambda)] $$
where $r: G \utimes{B} N \to G/B$. Furthermore,
\begin{align*}
\bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} \Gamma \left( G \utimes{B} N, \; r^*\mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu) \right) & \simeq \bigoplus_{\substack{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus \\ k \geq 0}} \Gamma\left(G/B, \; \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\Bbbk_\mu \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k (N^\vee)) \right) \\
& \simeq \Bbbk[\mathcal{Y}];
\end{align*}
the first isomorphism follows from Proposition \ref{prop:bundle-pushforward} and the second follows from Proposition \ref{prop:kY}. The $G \times T \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$-actions are respected ($\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \hookrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^2$ diagonally), whence the assertion.
\end{proof}
Next, let $\kappa: G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u} \to G/B$ and define the $\Bbbk$-algebra
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:Z}
\mathcal{Z} := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(V^\vee) \otimes \left(\; \bigoplus_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} \Gamma(G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u}, \; \kappa^* \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu) ) ) \right).
\end{gather}
The algebra $\mathcal{Z}$ is a direct sum of irreducible finite-dimensional representation of $G$, since both tensor slots are. Moreover, it is equipped with
\begin{compactitem}
\item the $X^*(T)_\ominus$-grading via $\mu$;
\item the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$-grading on the first tensor slot, by placing $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(V^\vee)$ in degree $k$;
\item the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$-grading on the second tensor slot, via the familiar dilation on the fibers of $G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u} \to G/B$.
\end{compactitem}
They are compatible with the $G$-representation structure. The invariant subalgebra $\mathcal{Z}^G$ is thus graded by $X^*(T)_\ominus \times (\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0})^2$.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:Z-P-series}
There is a canonical isomorphism of $\Bbbk$-algebras $\mathcal{Z} \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} \Bbbk[\mathcal{Y}]$ respecting the $G$-actions and gradings. Consequently,
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{Z}; X, q) & = \sum_{\lambda \in X^*(T)_-} \sum_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(X,q) e^\mu [V(\lambda)], \\
\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{Z}^G; X, q) & = \sum_{\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus} m^\mu_{0, \Psi}(X, q) e^\mu.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{eqn:proj-formula}, there is an equivariant isomorphism
$$ \tilde{\mathcal{Y}} = G \utimes{B} (\Pi \times V \times \mathfrak{u}) \simeq V \times \left( G \utimes{B} (\Pi \times \mathfrak{u}) \right). $$
By Künneth formula, $\Bbbk[\mathcal{Y}] \simeq \Gamma(\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}, \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}})$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{Z}$. Indeed, the first tensor slot of $\mathcal{Z}$ is simply $\Bbbk[V]$, whilst the Proposition \ref{prop:kY} and \eqref{eqn:Y-sections-1} in the case $N=\mathfrak{u}$ recognizes the second tensor slot. It is easy to see that the structures of $G$-representations and gradings match, and the equalities of Poincaré series follow.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{prop:X-degree}
For every $\mu \in X^*(T)_\ominus$, we have $m^\mu_{0,\Psi}(X, q) = m^\mu_{0,\Psi}(1, q) X^{\det_G(\mu)}$. Consequently, $m^\mu_{0, \Psi}(q) = m^\mu_{0,\Psi}(1, q) q^{\det_G(\mu)}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We identify $\mathfrak{u}^\vee$ with the opposite nilpotent radical $\mathfrak{u}^-$ using the Killing form on $\mathfrak{g}_\text{der}$.
Let $\mu \in X^*(T)$ and $k \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$, we contend that
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(V^\vee) \otimes \Gamma \left( G \utimes{B} \mathfrak{u}, \; \kappa^* \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\mu) ) \right) $$
contains the trivial representation of $G$ only if $k = \det_G(\mu)$. Indeed, the second tensor slot is
$$ \Gamma \left( G/B, \mathscr{L}_{G/B}(\Bbbk_\mu \otimes \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(\mathfrak{u}^-) ) \right). $$
One checks that every $z \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \hookrightarrow G$ acts on this representation as $\mu(z) \cdot \ensuremath{\mathrm{id}} = z^ {\det_G(\mu)} \cdot \ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$, since $Z_G$ acts trivially on $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(\mathfrak{u}^-)$. On the other hand, $z$ acts on $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(V^\vee)$ as $z^{-k} \cdot \ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$. Hence $k = \det_G(\mu)$ if it contains the trivial $G$-representation.
In view of Theorem \ref{prop:Z-P-series}, the first assertion follows immediately, and the second one follows from Theorem \ref{prop:qq}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{prop:rat-fun}
The formal power series $\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{Z}^G; X, q)$ is rational of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:rat-fun}
\frac{Q}{\prod_{i=1}^s (1 - q^{d_i} e^{\mu_i} X^{\det_G(\mu_i)})}
\end{equation}
for some $s$, where $d_i \geq 0$, $\mu_i \in X^*(T)_\ominus$ for all $i$, and $Q \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X^*(T), X^{\pm 1}, q^{\pm 1}]$ is a $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-linear combination of monomials of the form $e^\mu X^{\det_G(\mu)} q^d$, for various $\mu$ and $d$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\mathcal{Z}^G \simeq \Bbbk[\mathcal{Y}]^G$ is finitely generated over $\Bbbk$ \cite[p.217]{Ti11}. The assertion then follows from the multi-graded Hilbert-Serre theorem \cite[Theorem 6.37]{BG09}; the term $X^{\det_G(\mu)}$ comes from Corollary \ref{prop:X-degree}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The $\Bbbk$-variety $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spec}\xspace}(\mathcal{Z}^G)$ has rational singularities. In particular, $\mathcal{Z}^G$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop:Y-ratsing}, the affine variety $\mathcal{Y}$ has rational singularities. From \cite{Bou87} we conclude that the same holds for $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spec}\xspace}(\mathcal{Z}^G) \simeq \mathcal{Y}/\!/G$ (the categorical quotient \cite[II. \S 4.3]{AGIV}).
\end{proof}
Denote by $\omega$ the graded dualizing module of $\mathcal{Z}^G$. By a celebrated theorem of Stanley \cite[Theorem 6.41]{BG09}, there is a simple equation relating the rational functions $\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{Z}^G; X, q)$ and $\mathbf{P}(\omega; X, q)$. A detailed analysis of $\omega$ will be needed in order to elucidate this functional equation.
\subsection{Coefficients of the basic function}\label{sec:coeff-basicfun}
In this subsection we revert to the setup in \S\ref{sec:basicfun}: $F$ is a nonarchimedean local field and we have a short exact sequence of split connected reductive $F$-groups
$$ 1 \to G_0 \to G \xrightarrow{\det_G} \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to 1 $$
in which $G_0$ is semisimple. Fix a Borel pair $(B,T)$ for $G$ defined over $F$, as well as a hyperspecial subgroup $K \subset G(F)$.
On the dual side, these data give rise to the groups over $\Bbbk = \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$
$$ 1 \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to \hat{G} \to \widehat{G}_0 \to 1, $$
and $\hat{G}$ is endowed with the dual Borel pair $(\hat{B}, \hat{T})$. We have a finite-dimensional representation $(\rho, V)$ of $\hat{G}$ such that $\rho(z) = z\cdot\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$ for all $z \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$. There is also the surjective homomorphism
$$ \det_G: X_*(T) = X^*(\hat{T}) \longrightarrow X^*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}) = X_*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}. $$
The formalism in \S\ref{sec:certain-gKF} applies to $\hat{G}$, etc. We define the corresponding objects $N = V \oplus \mathfrak{u}$, $\Psi := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Supp}}(N)$ and $m^\mu_{\lambda, \Psi}(q)$ (Definition \ref{def:gKF}) for $\lambda \in X_*(T)_-$, $\mu \in X_*(T)$, etc. Also, $X_*(T)_\ominus$ is the submonoid of $X_*(T)_-$ defined by $\det_G \geq 0$.
On the other hand, in Definition \ref{def:basic} we defined the basic function $f_{\rho, X}$ with the indeterminate $X$. Crucial in that definition are the coefficients $c_\mu(q_F)$ indexed by $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$, where $c_\mu(q) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q^{-1}]$. According to \eqref{eqn:c_mu}, $c_\mu \neq 0$ only if $\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus$.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:basicfun-gen}
For all $\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus$ we have
$$ c_\mu(q^{-1}) = m^\mu_{0, \Psi}(q) q^{-\det_G(\mu)}. $$
Equivalently, the equalities below hold in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[X_*(T)_\ominus][q,X]$:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} c_\mu(q^{-1}) e^\mu X^{\det_G(\mu)} & = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} m^\mu_{0, \Psi}(X,q) e^\mu \\
& = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} m^\mu_{0, \Psi}(q) q^{-\det_G(\mu)} X^{\det_G(\mu)} e^\mu.
\end{align*}
In fact, they equal the Poincaré series $\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{Z}^{\hat{G}}; X,q)$ where $\mathcal{Z}$ is defined in \eqref{eqn:Z}.
\end{theorem}
Substituting
\begin{align*}
q & \longmapsto q_F^{-1}, \\
e^\mu & \longmapsto q_F^{-\angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}} \mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K}
\end{align*}
in these Poincaré series yields the basic function $f_{\rho, X}: K \backslash G(F) / K \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}[q_F^{\pm 1/2}, X]$.
\begin{proof}
We use \eqref{eqn:c_mu} to write $\sum_\mu c_\mu(q^{-1}) e^\mu X^{\det_G(\mu)}$ as
\begin{gather*}
\sum_{k \geq 0} \; \sum_{\substack{\lambda \in X_*(T)_- \\ \det_G(\lambda)=k}} \; \sum_{\substack{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus \\ \mu \leq \lambda}} K_{\lambda, \mu}(q) \text{mult}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\rho) : V(\lambda)) e^\mu X^k.
\end{gather*}
The $\leq$ above is the Bruhat order relative to $B^-$. The following manipulations are justified since they are ``finitary'' for a fixed $k$. Apply Corollary \ref{prop:K-as-P-series} to turn the sum into
\begin{gather*}
\sum_{k \geq 0} \; \sum_{\substack{\mu \leq \lambda \\ \det_G(\mu) = k}} \mathbf{P}( \mathcal{Z}_{\lambda, \mu} ; q) \text{mult}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\rho) : V(\lambda)) e^\mu X^k
\end{gather*}
where we define the homogeneous fibration $\kappa: \hat{G} \utimes{\hat{B}} \hat{\mathfrak{u}} \to \hat{G}/\hat{B}$ and the $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$-graded $\Bbbk$-vector space
$$ \mathcal{Z}_{\lambda, \mu} := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\hat{G}} \left( V(\lambda), \Gamma\left( \hat{G} \utimes{\hat{B}} \mathfrak{\hat{u}}, \; \kappa^* \mathscr{L}_{\hat{G}/\hat{B}}(\mu) \right) \right). $$
Observe that the condition $\det_G(\mu)=k$ can be removed, since $\mu \leq \lambda$ implies $\det_G(\lambda) = \det_G(\mu)$, and $\text{mult}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\rho) : V(\lambda)) \neq 0$ implies $\det_G(\lambda)=k$. It has been observed in Example \ref{ex:q-analogue} that $\mu \leq \lambda$ can also be removed, since otherwise we get $\mathbf{P}( \mathcal{Z}_{\lambda, \mu} ; q) = K_{\lambda, \mu}(q) = 0$. The resulting expression is
$$ \sum_{k \geq 0} \; \sum_{\lambda \in X_*(T)_-} \mathbf{P} \left( \bigoplus_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} \mathcal{Z}_{\lambda, \mu} ; q \right) \text{mult}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\rho) : V(\lambda)) X^k , $$
where $\bigoplus_\mu \mathcal{Z}_{\lambda, \mu}$ is naturally $X_*(T)_\ominus \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$-graded. The inner sum over $\lambda$ yields the Poincaré series of
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\hat{G}} \left( \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\rho), \Gamma\left( \hat{G} \utimes{\hat{B}} \mathfrak{\hat{u}}, \; \kappa^* \mathscr{L}_{\hat{G}/\hat{B}}(\mu) \right) \right), $$
equivalently,
$$ \left( \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(V^\vee) \otimes \Gamma\left( \hat{G} \utimes{\hat{B}} \mathfrak{\hat{u}}, \; \kappa^* \mathscr{L}_{\hat{G}/\hat{B}}(\mu) \right) \right)^{\hat{G}}. $$
Taking the sum over $k \geq 0$, we arrive at the Poincaré series $\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{Z}^{\hat{G}}; X, q)$. On the other hand, Theorem \ref{prop:Z-P-series} asserts that $\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{Z}^{\hat{G}}; X, q) = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} m^\mu_{0, \Psi}(X,q) e^\mu$.
The last equality follows by Corollary \ref{prop:X-degree}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{prop:c_mu-rat-fun}
The expression $\sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} c_\mu(q^{-1}) e^\mu X^{\det_G(\mu)}$ in Theorem \ref{prop:basicfun-gen} is rational of the form \eqref{eqn:rat-fun}, with $X_*(T)_{\cdots}$ in place of $X^*(T)_{\cdots}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Immediate from Corollary \ref{prop:rat-fun}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The indeterminate $X$ is somehow redundant. The result above can be written as
$$ \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} c_\mu(q^{-1}) e^\mu = \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} m^\mu_{0, \Psi}(q) q^{-\det_G(\mu)} e^\mu $$
in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \llbracket X_*(T)_\ominus \rrbracket [q]$.
\end{remark}
\section{Examples}\label{sec:examples}
\subsection{The standard $L$-factor of Tamagawa-Godement-Jacquet}\label{sec:GJ}
Fix $n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 1}$. In Ngô's recipe \S\ref{sec:Ngo}, take
\begin{itemize}
\item $G_0 := \ensuremath{\mathrm{SL}}(n)$, viewed as a subgroup of $G := \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n)$;
\item $(B, T)$: the standard Borel pair of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n)$, namely $B$ (resp. $T$) is the subgroup of upper triangular (resp. diagonal) matrices;
\item $(B_0, T_0) := (B \cap G_0, T \cap G_0)$, which is a Borel pair of $G_0$;
\item $\varepsilon_1, \ldots, \varepsilon_n$: the standard basis of $X_*(T)$, namely $\varepsilon_i: \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to T = \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^n$ is $\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$ at the $i$-th slot of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^n$, and trivial elsewhere;
\item $\bar{\xi} \in X_*(T_{0,\text{ad}})$ is the cocharacter obtained by composing $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \xrightarrow{\varepsilon_n} T \twoheadrightarrow T/Z_G = T_{0,\text{ad}}$.
\end{itemize}
Choose the usual $\mathfrak{o}_F$-model of $G$. The hyperspecial subgroup $K$ of $G(F)$ is $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,\mathfrak{o}_F)$. We have $\widehat{G_0} = \ensuremath{\mathrm{PGL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$, $\widehat{G_0}_{,SC} = \ensuremath{\mathrm{SL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ and $\hat{G} = \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$. To $\bar{\xi}$ is associated the standard representation $\rho_{\bar{\xi}}: \ensuremath{\mathrm{SL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) \hookrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ for $\widehat{G_0}_{,SC}$, which yields the tautological projective representation $\bar{\rho}: \ensuremath{\mathrm{PGL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) \xrightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}} \ensuremath{\mathrm{PGL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ for $\widehat{G_0}$. Now gaze at the diagram \eqref{eqn:lifting}: the lifted representation $\rho$ is nothing but the standard representation on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^n$
$$ \text{Std}: \hat{G} = \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) \xrightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}} \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}), $$
for tautological reasons. Moreover, its highest weight relative to $B^-$ is the cocharacter
$$ \xi = \varepsilon_n: \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \to T . $$
In this case, $\det_G$ is simply the determinant $\det: \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$. It induces the homomorphism $\det: X_*(T) \to X_*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}})=\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$ sending $\sum_i a_i \varepsilon_i$ to $\sum_i a_i$.
Thus we recover the setting of Tamagawa \cite{Ta63} and Godement-Jacquet \cite{GJ72}. Their calculations in the unramified setting can actually be deduced from our formalism in \S\ref{sec:L-basic}, as explained below.
The weights of $\text{Std}$ are $\varepsilon_1, \ldots, \varepsilon_n$, each with multiplicity one. We take the corresponding weight vectors $v_1, \ldots, v_n$ to be the standard basis of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^n$. Let $X_*(T)_\ominus = X^*(\hat{T})_\ominus$ be as in Definition \ref{def:X-ominus}.
The following criterion is suggested by Casselman.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Sym-irred}
Suppose temporarily that $\hat{G}$ is any connected reductive $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$-group and $\hat{B}$ is a Borel subgroup with unipotent radical $\hat{U}$. Let $(\rho, V)$ be an irreducible representation of $\hat{G}$ of highest weight $\varepsilon$ relative to $\hat{B}^-$. Let $v_- \neq 0$ be a highest vector in $V$ of weight $\varepsilon$ relative to $\hat{B}^-$. Then $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(V)$ is irreducible for all $k \geq 0$ (with highest weight $k\varepsilon$) if and only if $\hat{U} \cdot (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} v_-)$ is dense in $V$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Write $\mathbb{P}(V)$ for the projective space and $[v_-] \in \mathbb{P}(V)$ for the line containing $v_-$. Notice that $\hat{G} \cdot [v_-]$ is always closed. The density of $\hat{U} \cdot (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} v_-)$ is equivalent to
$$ \hat{G} \cdot [v_-] = \mathbb{P}(V). $$
Let $\check{v}_+$ be the highest vector of $V^\vee$ relative to $\hat{B}$ such that $\angles{\check{v}_+, v_-}=1$, of weight $-\varepsilon$. It is known that $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Stab}}_{\hat{G}} [v_-]$ and $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Stab}}_{\hat{G}} [\check{v}_+]$ are opposite parabolic subgroups (see \cite[1.1]{BLV86}). Hence the density condition is equivalent to $\hat{G} \cdot [\check{v}_+] = \mathbb{P}(V^\vee)$, or to the density of $\hat{U}^- \cdot (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} \check{v}_+)$ in $V^\vee$.
To decompose $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(V)$ it suffices to describe $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}(V)^{\hat{U}^-} = \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[V^\vee]^{\hat{U}^-}$.
For the ``if'' part, we shall prove that $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[V^\vee]^{\hat{U}^-} = \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[v_-]$ (the polynomial algebra generated by $v_-$). The inclusion $\supset$ is evident. As for $\subset$, the discussion above implies that every $\hat{U}^-$-invariant regular function $f$ on $V^\vee$ is a polynomial in $v_-$, thereby establishing our claim for all $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(V)$.
For the ``only if'' part, let $Z$ be the Zariski closure of $\hat{U}^- \cdot (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} \check{v}_+)$ in $V^\vee$: it is defined by a $\hat{G}$-stable ideal $I$. We have
$$ \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[V^\vee]^{\hat{U}^-}/I^{\hat{U}^-} = \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[Z]^{\hat{U}^-} = \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[v_-] = \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}[V^\vee]^{\hat{U}^-} $$
where the first equality stems from \cite[Lemma D.1]{Ti11} and the second is the restriction to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} \check{v}_+$. Therefore $I^{\hat{U}^-}=\{0\}$, so $I=\{0\}$ by highest weight theory. Hence $Z=V^\vee$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:c_mu-Std}
For $\mu = \sum_{i=1}^n a_i \varepsilon_i \in X_*(T)_\ominus$ with $k := \det(\mu)$, the coefficient $c_\mu(q)$ defined in \eqref{eqn:c_mu} satisfies
$$ c_\mu(q^{-1})
= \begin{cases}
q^{k \cdot \frac{n-1}{2} - \angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}}, & \text{if } a_1, \ldots, a_n \geq 0, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases} $$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin by showing that $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\text{Std})$ is irreducible of highest weight $\lambda := k\varepsilon_n$. There are several ways to do this, eg. by Schur-Weyl duality; here we opt for the invariant-theoretic approach via Proposition \ref{prop:Sym-irred}. Indeed, the orbit $\hat{U} \cdot (\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}} v_n)$ is open dense since the $n$-th column of elements in $\hat{U}$ is arbitrary except for the last $1$.
For $\lambda$ as above, we always have $\mu \leq \lambda$. Therefore \eqref{eqn:c_mu} reduces to
$$ c_\mu(q^{-1}) = K_{\lambda,\mu}(q). $$
Specialized at $q=1$, we obtain the multiplicity of the weight $\mu$ in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\text{Std})$ (recall Example \ref{ex:q-analogue}), that is, the cardinality of
$$ \left\{ (b_1, \ldots, b_n) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n : \sum_{i=1}^n b_i \varepsilon_i = \mu \right\}, $$
which is $1$ if $a_1, \ldots, a_n \geq 0$, and zero otherwise.
Since $c_\mu(q^{-1}) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}[q]$, it must be a monomial in $q$ when $a_1, \ldots, a_n \geq 0$, and zero otherwise. In the former case, we have seen that
$$ \deg K_{\lambda,\mu}(q) = \angles{\lambda-\mu, \rho_{B^-}} = \frac{n-1}{2} \cdot k - \angles{\rho_{B^-}, \mu}. $$
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let
\begin{align*}
\Lambda & := \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^n a_i \varepsilon_i \in X_*(T)_- : a_1, \ldots, a_n \geq 0 \right\} \\
& = \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^n a_i \varepsilon_i \in X_*(T) : 0 \leq a_1 \leq \cdots \leq a_n \right\}.
\end{align*}
The basic function in the Tamagawa-Godement-Jacquet case is given by
$$ f_{\mathrm{Std},X} = \sum_{\mu \in \Lambda} q_F^{-\frac{n-1}{2} \det\mu} \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K} X^{\det\mu}. $$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Immediate from Definition \ref{def:basic} and Lemma \ref{prop:c_mu-Std}.
\end{proof}
Note that $\Lambda$ equals the monoid $\mathcal{C}_\rho \cap X^*(T)_-$ appearing in Corollary \ref{prop:basic-supp}, for $\rho=\text{Std}$.
Set $\lambda_i := \varepsilon_{n-i+1} + \cdots + \varepsilon_n$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$. Then
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:C-basis-GJ}
\Lambda = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} \lambda_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} \lambda_n.
\end{gather}
\begin{theorem}
The generating function in Corollary \ref{prop:c_mu-rat-fun} takes the form
$$ \sum_{\mu \in X_*(T)_\ominus} c_\mu(q^{-1}) e^\mu X^{\det(\mu)} = \prod_{i=1}^n \left( 1 - q^{\frac{i(i-1)}{2}} e^{\lambda_i} X^i \right)^{-1}. $$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In Lemma \ref{prop:c_mu-Std}, the exponent of $q$ in $c_\mu(q^{-1})$ is linear in $\mu \in \Lambda$. Since $\det(\lambda_i)=i$ and
$$ \angles{\lambda_i, \rho_{B^-}} = \underbrace{\frac{n-1}{2} + \cdots + \frac{n-2i+1}{2}}_{i \text{ terms}} = \dfrac{i(n-i)}{2}, $$
the coefficient of $q$ in $c_{\lambda_i}(q^{-1})$ is $\frac{i(i-1)}{2}$. We conclude by using \eqref{eqn:C-basis-GJ}.
\end{proof}
The specialization $s = -\frac{n-1}{2}$, i.e. $X \leadsto q_F^{-s} = q_F^{\frac{n-1}{2}}$ yields
$$ f_{\text{Std}, -(n-1)/2} = \sum_{\mu \in \Lambda} \mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K} \quad \in \mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(G(F)\sslash K). $$
Recall the elementary fact
$$ \text{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F) \cap \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,F) = \bigsqcup_{\mu \in \Lambda} K\mu(\varpi)K. $$
Hence $f_{\text{Std}, -(n-1)/2} = \mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F)}|_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,F)}$, which is a very familiar element of the Schwartz-Bruhat space of $\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(F)$.
Let $(\pi, V_\pi)$ be a $K$-unramified irreducible representation of $G(F)$. Then the Proposition \ref{prop:basic-L} implies
$$ L\left( -\frac{n-1}{2}, \pi, \text{Std} \right) = \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}\left( \pi(\mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F)}) \big| V_\pi \right) $$
upon twisting $\pi$ by $|\det|_F^s$ for $\Re(s) \gg 0$ to ensure convergence. By the Remark \ref{rem:basic-L}, it is also equal to $\int_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(n,F)} a(x) \mathbbm{1}_{\text{Mat}_{n \times n}(\mathfrak{o}_F)}(x) \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}} x$ where $a(x)$ is the matrix coefficient $\angles{\check{v}, \pi(x)v}$ for $\pi$ with $K$-fixed $v,\check{v}$ and $\angles{\check{v},v}=1$.
All these facts are already contained in \cite{Ta63,GJ72}, although they were derived in a quite different manner there.
\subsection{The spinor $L$-factor for $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$}\label{sec:GSp4}
Fix a base field $\Bbbk$ of characteristic $\neq 2$. We begin by reviewing the structure of the symplectic similitude group $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ over $\Bbbk$.
Consider a symplectic $\Bbbk$-vector space of dimension $4$, equipped with the symplectic form $\angles{\cdot|\cdot}$ and a basis $e_{-2}, e_{-1}, e_1, e_2$ with
\begin{compactitem}
\item $\angles{e_i | e_{-j}} = \delta_{i,j}$ for $1 \leq i,j \leq 2$;
\item $\angles{e_1 | e_2} = \angles{e_{-1} | e_{-2}} = 0$.
\end{compactitem}
Let $g \mapsto {}^* g$ be the transpose anti-automorphism such that $\angles{gx|y} = \angles{x|{}^* g y}$. Using this basis, we have the identifications
\begin{align*}
G_0 := \ensuremath{\mathrm{Sp}}(4) &= \{g \in \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4) : {}^t g J g = J\}, \\
G := \ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4) &= \{ g \in \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4) : \exists \sigma(g) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}, \; {}^t g J g = \sigma(g) J \} \\
& = \{(g,\sigma(g)) \in \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4) \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} : {}^* g g = \sigma(g) \},
\end{align*}
where
$$ J := \begin{pmatrix}
& & & -1 \\
& & -1 & \\
& 1 & & \\
1 & & &
\end{pmatrix} \quad \text{ and } {}^* g = J^{-1} \cdot {}^t g \cdot J. $$
The second description of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ makes it a closed $\Bbbk$-algebraic subgroup of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4)$. We have the \textit{similitude character} $\sigma: \ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ which maps $g$ to the element $\sigma(g)$. The center of $G$ coincides with the center $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$ of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4)$.
The standard Borel pair for $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4)$ induces a Borel pair $(B,T)$ for $G$ (resp. $(B_0,T_0)$ for $G_0$) by taking intersections. In particular, $B$ is upper triangular and $T$ is diagonal.
When $\Bbbk = F$ is a non-archimedean local field of characteristic $\neq 2$, we take the vertex in the Bruhat-Tits building of $G$ arising from the self-dual lattice $\bigoplus_{\pm i = 1,2} \mathfrak{o}_F e_i$ and define the hyperspecial subgroup $K$ of $G(F)$ accordingly.
Choose the standard basis $\check{\varepsilon}_1, \ldots, \check{\varepsilon}_4$ for $X_*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^4)$ where $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^4 \hookrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4)$. Let $\varepsilon_1, \ldots, \varepsilon_4$ be its dual basis of $X^*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^4)$. Then $X_*(T)$ is the subgroup of $X_*(\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}^4)$ defined by the equation $\varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_2 - \varepsilon_3 + \varepsilon_4 = 0$. In what follows, we identity each $\varepsilon_i$ with its image in $X^*(T)$.
\begin{compactitem}
\item The elements of $\Sigma_B$ are: $\alpha := \varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_2$, $\beta := \varepsilon_2 - \varepsilon_3$, $\alpha+\beta = \varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_3$, $2\alpha+\beta = 2\varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_2 - \varepsilon_3$.
\item The elements of $\Delta_B^\vee$ are: $\check{\alpha} = \check{\varepsilon}_1 - \check{\varepsilon}_2 + \check{\varepsilon}_3 - \check{\varepsilon}_4$, $\check{\beta} = \check{\varepsilon}_2 - \check{\varepsilon}_3$. They generate $X_*(T_0)$.
\item The similitude character $\sigma$ restricted to $T$ is $\mu := \varepsilon_1 + \varepsilon_4 = \varepsilon_2 + \varepsilon_3$.
\item The inclusion of the center $\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \hookrightarrow G$ is $\check{\mu} := \check{\varepsilon}_1 + \check{\varepsilon}_2 + \check{\varepsilon}_3 + \check{\varepsilon}_4 \in X_*(T)$.
\item Define $\check{\gamma} := \check{\varepsilon}_1 + \check{\varepsilon}_2 \in X_*(T)$, then we have $\mu \circ \check{\gamma} = \ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$. This implies
$$ X_*(T) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\check{\alpha} \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\check{\beta} \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\check{\gamma}. $$
For example, we have $\check{\mu} = -\check{\alpha} - 2\check{\beta} + 2\check{\gamma}$.
\end{compactitem}
The standard representation $(\rho, V)$ is simply the inclusion $\rho: G \hookrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4)$, which satisfies $\rho \circ \mu = \ensuremath{\mathrm{id}}$. Its weights are
\begin{align*}
\xi & = \varepsilon_1 = \alpha + \frac{\beta + \mu}{2}, \\
\xi-\alpha & = \varepsilon_2, \\
\xi-\alpha-\beta & = \varepsilon_3, \\
\xi-2\alpha-\beta & = \varepsilon_4,
\end{align*}
where $\varepsilon_1$ is highest relative to $B$ and $\varepsilon_4$ is highest relative to $B^-$; in particular $\rho$ is irreducible. Each weight has multiplicity one.
In general, the dual group of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(2n)$ is the split $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSpin}}(2n+1)$, which carries the irreducible spin representation $(\text{spin}, V)$ with $\dim V = 2^n$; here it is convenient to take the dual group over $\Bbbk$. A special feature of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ is that it is isomorphic to its dual $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSpin}}(5)$, under which the representation $\text{spin}$ becomes the standard representation $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4) \hookrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4)$. This self-duality amounts to the existence of an isomorphism $\Phi: X^*(T) \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} X_*(T)$ such that $\Phi$ sends simple roots to simple coroots, and so does its transpose ${}^t \Phi$. By considerations of root lengths, we must have $\alpha \mapsto \check{\beta}$ and $\beta \mapsto \check{\alpha}$. On the other hand, $\ensuremath{\mathrm{ker}\xspace}\alpha \cap \ensuremath{\mathrm{ker}\xspace}\beta = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\check{\mu}$ and $(\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\check{\alpha} \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\check{\beta})^\perp = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\mu$, thus $\mu \mapsto \pm\check{\mu}$. There is an involution of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ that is identity on $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sp}}(4)$ and flips the similitude character: simply take $g \mapsto {}^* g^{-1}$. Hence we may assume $\mu \mapsto \check{\mu}$. This completely determines $\Phi: X^*(T) \ensuremath{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}} X_*(T)$ and one sees that
$$ \Phi(\varepsilon_1) = \Phi(\alpha) + \frac{\Phi(\beta)+\Phi(\mu)}{2} = \check{\beta} + \frac{\check{\alpha}+\check{\mu}}{2} = \check{\gamma}. $$
Now let us take $\Bbbk = F$ be a non-archimedean local field of characteristic $\neq 2$ and define $G$, $G_0$, etc. The dual groups $\widehat{G_0}$, $\hat{G}$, the spin or standard representation $\text{spin}: \hat{G} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$ and the based root datum for $\hat{G}$ are described as above with $\Bbbk = \ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$.
In Ngô's recipe \S\ref{sec:Ngo}, we start from $\bar{\xi}: \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}} \xrightarrow{\xi} T \twoheadrightarrow T_{0,\text{ad}}$ where $\xi \in X_*(T) = X^*(\hat{T})$ is the highest weight of the standard representation of $\hat{G}$, relative to $B^-$. As in \S\ref{sec:GJ}, the resulting framework is $G = \ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ with $\det_G$ being the similitude character $\sigma: G \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{m}}$. The corresponding irreducible representation $\rho$ of $\hat{G}$ is $\text{spin}: \ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}) \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{GL}}(4,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$. We have to describe its weights first.
Recall that $\hat{G}$ is isomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4,\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}})$, therefore $X^*(\hat{T})$ is isomorphic to $X^*(T)$. The highest weight $\xi \in X^*(\hat{T})$ of $\text{spin}$ relative to $\hat{B}^-$ is mapped to $\varepsilon_4 \in X^*(T)$, the highest weight of the standard representation of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ relative to $B^-$. The identification is realized as follows.
$$\xymatrix@C=5pc{
X^*(\hat{T}) \ar@{=}[r]_{\text{canonical}} \ar@/^1.5pc/[rr] & X_*(T) \ar[r]^{\sim}_{\Phi^{-1}} & X^*(T)
}$$
where $\Phi$ is the self-duality isomorphism described before. Under $\Phi$ we have
\begin{align*}
\varepsilon_1 & \longmapsto \check{\gamma} & = \check{\varepsilon}_1 + \check{\varepsilon}_2, \\
\varepsilon_2 & \longmapsto -\check{\beta} + \check{\gamma} & = \check{\varepsilon}_1 + \check{\varepsilon}_3, \\
\varepsilon_3 & \longmapsto -\check{\alpha} - \check{\beta} + \check{\gamma} & = \check{\varepsilon}_2 + \check{\varepsilon}_4, \\
\varepsilon_4 & \longmapsto -\check{\alpha} - 2\check{\beta} + \check{\gamma} & = \check{\varepsilon}_3 + \check{\varepsilon}_4.
\end{align*}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:C-spin}
Define the cone $\mathcal{C}_\mathrm{spin} \subset X_*(T)_\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ as in Corollary \ref{prop:basic-supp}. Then
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_\mathrm{spin} & = \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^4 x_i \check{\varepsilon}_i : x_1 + x_4 = x_2 + x_3, \; x_1, x_2, x_3 \geq 0, x_2+x_3 \geq x_1 \right\}, \\
\mathcal{C}_\mathrm{spin} \cap X_*(T)_- & = \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^4 x_i \check{\varepsilon}_i : x_1 + x_4 = x_2 + x_3, \; 0 \leq x_1 \leq x_2 \leq x_3 \right\} \\
& = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} (\check{\varepsilon}_3 + \check{\varepsilon}_4) \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} (\check{\varepsilon}_2 + \check{\varepsilon}_3 + 2\check{\varepsilon}_4) \oplus \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} (\check{\varepsilon}_1 + \check{\varepsilon}_2 + \check{\varepsilon}_3 + \check{\varepsilon}_4).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $\varepsilon_1 + \varepsilon_4 = \varepsilon_2 + \varepsilon_4$ defines $X_*(T)$. We have $\sum_{i=1}^4 x_i \check{\varepsilon}_i \in \mathcal{C}_\text{spin}$ if and only if the equation
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ b \\ c \\ d
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2 \\ x_3 \\ x_4
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad a, b, c, d \geq 0
$$
is solvable. The solutions are given by $c = -x_1 + x_2 + x_3 - d$, $b = x_3 - d$, $a = x_1 - x_3 + d$. Non-negative solutions exist if and only if there exists $d \geq 0$ such that
\begin{gather*}
-x_1 + x_2 + x_3 \geq d \geq -x_1 + x_3, \\
x_3 \geq d \geq -x_1 + x_3.
\end{gather*}
From those inequalities we derive $x_1, x_2 \geq 0$; the non-negativity of $d$ then implies $x_2 + x_3 \geq x_1$ and $x_3 \geq 0$, in which case the non-negative solutions are parametrized by
$$ \min\{ -x_1 + x_2 + x_3,\; x_3 \} \geq d \geq \max\{-x_1 + x_3, 0 \}. $$
Taking intersection with $X_*(T)_-$ imposes the constraint $0 \leq x_1 \leq x_2 \leq x_3$, which implies $x_2 + x_3 \geq x_1$. Note that $x_4 = -x_1 + x_2 + x_3 \geq x_3$. This gives the first description of $\mathcal{C}_\mathrm{spin} \cap X_*(T)_-$; the second follows in a routine manner.
\end{proof}
Unlike the case of standard $L$-factors, we are unable to determine the coefficients $c_\mu(q)$ completely in this article. In what follows, we discuss some relations to Satake's work \cite{Sat63} on the spinor $L$-factor for $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Firstly, set
$$ \ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4) := \left\{ (X,\sigma(X)) \in \text{Mat}_{4 \times 4} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{G}_\mathrm{a}} : {}^* X X = \sigma(X) \right\} \hookrightarrow \text{Mat}_{4 \times 4}, $$
or equivalently, the Zariski closure of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ in $\text{Mat}_{4 \times 4}$. It is a reductive algebraic monoid with unit group $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ and inherits the $\mathfrak{o}_F$-structure from that of $\angles{\cdot|\cdot}$. Likewise one can define the reductive monoid $\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(2n)$ for $n \geq 1$. Hereafter we identify $\mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4, \mathfrak{o}_F)}$ with its restriction to $G(F)$.
\item Satake \cite{Sat63} and Shimura \cite{Shi63} tried to extend the Tamagawa-Godement-Jacquet construction to $\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4)$ by taking the function $\mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4, \mathfrak{o}_F)} \in \mathcal{H}_\text{ac}(G(F)\sslash K)$ instead of $f_{\text{spin}, s}$; its Satake transform is called the \textit{local Hecke series} of $G$ in \cite[Appendix 1]{Sat63}. Unlike the Tamagawa-Godement-Jacquet case, it turns out that $\mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4, \mathfrak{o}_F)}$ is not basic enough: for a $K$-unramified irreducible representation $(\pi, V_\pi)$ of Satake parameter $c$, the case $\nu=2$ of \cite[Appendix 1, \S 3]{Sat63} says
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}(\mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4, \mathfrak{o}_F)} \big| V_\pi) & = \frac{P(c)}{\det\left( 1 - q_F^{-\frac{3}{2}}\text{spin}(c) \right)} = P(c) \cdot L\left(-\frac{3}{2}, \pi, \text{spin}\right) \\
& = P(c) \cdot \ensuremath{\mathrm{tr}\xspace}\left( f_{\text{spin}, -\frac{3}{2}} \big| V_\pi \right)
\end{align*}
for some explicit $P \in \mathcal{H}(T(F)\sslash K_T)^W$ depending on $q_F$, upon twisting $\pi$ by some $|\sigma|_F^s$ for $\Re(s) \gg 0$ to make things converge. Moreover, $P \not\equiv 1$ as a function on $\hat{T}/W$. Equivalently,
$$ \mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4, \mathfrak{o}_F)} = \mathcal{S}^{-1}(P) * f_{\text{spin}, -\frac{3}{2}}. $$
\item There is a conceptual explanation for the failure of $\mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4, \mathfrak{o}_F)}$ to yield the spinor $L$-factor. In what follows, we cheat somehow by considering the case of generic $q_F$, i.e. $q_F = q$ will be viewed as an indeterminate. Let $s \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}$. If $f_{\text{spin},s}$ equals the restriction of $\mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(4, \mathfrak{o}_F)}$ to $G(F)$, then for each $\mu \in X_*(T)_-$ the coefficient of $\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K}$ in $f_{\rho,s}$ would be either $0$ or $1$. Suppose this is the case for generic $q = q_F$, the same property will then hold for $q=1$. Now the coefficient of $\mathbbm{1}_{K\mu(\varpi)K}$ at $q=1$ equals $c_\mu(1)$, which is the cardinality of
$$ \left\{ (a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^4 : a_0 (-\check{\alpha} - 2\check{\beta} + \check{\gamma}) + a_1 (-\check{\alpha} - \check{\beta} + \check{\gamma}) + a_2 (-\check{\beta}+\check{\gamma}) + a_3 \check{\gamma} = \mu \right\} . $$
Since $X_*(T)$ is of rank $3$, the cardinality of this set has asymptotically polynomial growth in $\mu$ with degree $1$; see also the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:C-spin}. In particular, the $0$/$1$ dichotomy cannot hold.
\item One can show the irreducibility of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\text{spin})$ for all $k$ by Proposition \ref{prop:Sym-irred}, by imitating the proof Lemma \ref{prop:c_mu-Std}. This does not determine $c_\mu(q)$ for $(\ensuremath{\mathrm{GSp}}(4), \text{spin})$, since the weights of $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sym}}^k(\text{spin})$ do not have multiplicity one in general.
\item Some calculations for the Satake transforms of $\mathbbm{1}_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MSp}}(2n, \mathfrak{o}_F)}$, as well as for some other classical similitude groups, are made in \cite{HS83} for $n \geq 2$: the non-trivial numerator $P$ is always present, and quickly becomes unmanageable.
\end{enumerate}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\chapter*{Les Houches lectures on inflationary observables and string theory}
\section{Introduction and Motivations}
Inflation \cite{inflation} provides a mechanism for generating the structure in the observed universe in a very simple way: it is seeded by quantum fluctuations during a primordial epoch of accelerated expansion \cite{classicperts}. This in itself is one of the most elegant results in physics, perhaps the most basic application of quantum field theory.
Observational data -- including the Planck 2013 release \cite{Planckpapers}\ and recent predecessors such as \cite{WMAP}\cite{SPT}\cite{ACT}, as well as important upcoming observations such as CMB B-mode measurements \cite{Bmode}\ and large-scale structure studies -- provides unprecedented results on the spectrum and statistics of primordial perturbations. We will be particularly concerned with the tensor to scalar ratio $r$, the tilt $n_s$ and other features of the power spectrum, and non-gaussian corrections $f_{NL}^I$; other measurements such as direct gravity wave searches can also provide constraints and discovery potential. This confluence of theory and observation is a good situation, even though both sides have significant limitations.
The subject is far reaching in other ways, including nontrivial connections to string theory, which will be our focus in these lectures.
Before getting to that let me dispel a possible misconception. You will sometimes hear inflation described as fine tuned. However, models of inflation -- including the simplest kind -- can easily be radiatively stable with dynamically generated couplings, i.e. fully `natural' from a Wilsonian low energy effective field theory point of view. This is the case for some of the simplest classes such as chaotic inflation \cite{chaotic}\ or more general large-field inflation scenarios such as Natural Inflation \cite{Natural}, as well as some examples of small-field inflation such as \cite{smallsymm}.\footnote{A separate question is how to think about initial conditions before inflation (or any alternative theory) -- there is no clear framework in which to discuss probabilities. This is an interesting challenge, but does not affect the modeling and phenomenology of the perturbations any more than it affects other areas of physics. One needs a small (ten percent) hierarchy between potential energy and other sources in order for inflation to proceed. (See the lectures by A. Albrecht for other views of these questions.)}
Moreover, low energy field theory is all that is required to describe most of the phenomenology;\footnote{Exceptions include contributions of defects such as strings, or situations where heavy sectors come in and out of the spectrum during the process.} this goes back to pioneering works such as \cite{classicperts}\ for particular models, and one can capture the physics of the perturbations in a very elegant, less model-dependent way using the recently developed effective theory \cite{EFT}\ or more general calculations such as \cite{generalsingle}.
However, it is also true, as we will discuss in detail, that the process would be strongly affected by the presence of Planck-suppressed higher dimension operators in the Lagrangian (there is sensitivity to an infinite sequence of such terms in the large-field cases just mentioned!). This raises the question of their existence and robustness in a complete theory of quantum gravity. In string theory we find interesting answers to these questions at the level of specific mechanisms for inflation. Some of these in part realize the classic ideas, but they all bring substantial new twists to the story. Examples include \cite{monodromy}\cite{KKLMMT}\cite{DBI}\cite{Trapped}\cite{roulette}\cite{unwinding}\ along with a number of other interesting proposals.
Regardless of their fate as literal models of primordial inflation, novel string-theoretic mechanisms have contributed to a more systematic understanding of the process of inflation and its perturbations, leading in turn to a more complete analysis of cosmological data. There is a rich synergy between ``top down" and ``bottom up" approaches.
From the bottom up, the subject is becoming increasingly systematic \cite{EFT}\cite{generalsingle}.
In principle, one would also like to make a systematic analysis of possible UV completions of inflation, determining which values of observables such as $r, n_s, f_{NL}^I$ are realized in theory space. This level of generality is prohibitively difficult at the moment, but one gets surprisingly far by exploring the theory and phenomenology of particular mechanisms and broad classes of mechanisms.
In these lectures, we will start with some basics of inflationary cosmology and its sensitivity to high energy physics, with a focus on tensor modes and their implications (with non-Gaussianities being covered by P. Creminelli at this school). We will then give a pedagogical introduction to the structure of string compactifications and explain several mechanisms for inflation that arise naturally along with their phenomenology. The intent is to assume no more than a colloquial knowledge of string theory, and develop what we need, focusing on the basic ideas involved.
Last but not least, another equally important aspect of the subject is that it leads to challenging conceptual questions -- questions out of reach of real observations, but amenable to thought experiments. In the presence of observer-dependent cosmological horizons, it is not obvious how to formulate observables in a theoretically complete and precise way. In the last part of these lectures, we will review recent results in this direction based on generalizing the AdS/CFT correspondence.
For lack of space and time, I will not be able to be comprehensive in these notes. Some other interesting aspects of the subject are covered in other lectures at this school (such as those by R. Kallosh and A. Linde which describe new developments on classic models \cite{KLnew}). The literature contains many reviews such as \cite{inflationreviews}\cite{axionreview}\ and \cite{Dioreview}.
\section{Inflation: generalities}
The basic paradigm of inflationary cosmology requires a source of stress-energy $\rho$ in the Friedmann equation
\begin{equation}\label{Friedmann}
H^2 =\left(\frac{\dot a}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{\rho}{3 M_P^2}
\end{equation}
which dilutes slowly in the very early universe.\footnote{In these notes, we will not keep track of all the factors of order 1, focusing on the main physical points.} In an FRW metric
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-dt^2+a(t) d\vec x^2, ~~~ H=\frac{\dot a}{a}
\end{equation}
we require
\begin{equation}\label{Hslow}
\frac{\dot H}{H^2}, \frac{\ddot H}{H^3} \ll 1
\end{equation}
for a period under which $a$ expands by a factor of roughly $e^{60}$. After that, this source must decrease in favor of the radiation and matter domination in later epochs of cosmology.
The early inflationary behavior occurs if the energy density driving inflation dilutes slowly, something which can arise in a wide variety of ways. Because of the need for an exit into the later phase of decelerating FRW cosmology, we require the source $\rho$ to decrease rapidly after inflation. The potential energy $V(\phi)$ of a dynamical scalar field can play this role, and we will focus on this case.
One broad class of mechanisms is known as slow roll inflation, where this potential energy $V(\phi)$ dilutes slowly because the potential is very flat, and then steepens (either in the $\phi$ direction itself or in some transverse direction), leading to the required exit. Other mechanisms maintain a nearly constant potential energy even if $V(\phi)$ is steep, with interactions that slow the field down.
These two classes of mechanisms lead to very different phenomenology, with the interacting theories leading to stronger non-Gaussian correlations among quantum fluctuations in the early universe.
Given a single scalar inflaton, we can write an action of the form
\begin{equation}
\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{M_P^2}{2}{ R}+{ L_{scalar}}(\phi, g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\nu\phi)\right)
\end{equation}
as long as higher derivatives (acceleration) of the fields are not important in the solutions we consider. If the potential energy $V(\phi)$ dominates over the kinetic energy in the solution, then the system undergoes accelerated expansion.
The addition of the scalar field to model inflation and its exit has a very important additional consequence. This new quantum field fluctuates according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as does the metric. This leads to seeds for structure that are generated via inflation, after the background solution dilutes pre-existing inhomogeneities. Let us quickly review these perturbations, as they are central to the observational probes of inflationary physics. There are many reviews of this; examples of readable references include \cite{Juanperts}\cite{Mukhanovbook}\cite{Dodelsonbook}. We can parameterize the metric as
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-N^2dt^2+h_{ij}(dx^i+N^idt)(dx^j+N^jdt)
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
h_{ij}=a(t)^2\left[e^{2\zeta}\delta_{ij}+\gamma_{ij}\right]
\end{equation}
and $N, N^i$ the lapse and shift, non-dynamical modes of the metric that enforce constraints.
During inflation, we have $a(t)\approx e^{Ht}$. We can use time reparameterization to shuffle
the scalar degree of freedom between fluctuations $\delta\phi$ of the inflaton and the scalar mode $\zeta$ in the metric, giving
the relation
\begin{equation}
\zeta \sim \frac{H}{\dot\phi}\delta\phi
\end{equation}
That is,
\begin{equation}
\langle\zeta_{k_1}\zeta_{k_2}\rangle\equiv P_\zeta \delta({\bf k}+{\bf k'}) = \frac{H^2}{\dot\phi^2}\langle\delta\phi_{k_1}\delta\phi_{k_2}\rangle
\end{equation}
There are in general higher-point correlation functions, otherwise known as non-Gaussianity,
\begin{equation}
\langle\zeta_{k_1}\dots\zeta_{k_n}\rangle.
\end{equation}
These are functions of the momenta $k$, subject to rotational and translational symmetries.\footnote{See P. Creminelli's lectures on this topic for a systematic introduction; we will discuss some aspects of these signatures below.}
In single-field slow-roll inflation, $\langle\delta\phi_{k}\delta\phi_{k'}\rangle\sim \frac{H^2}{2 k^{3}}\delta({\bf k}+{\bf k'})$ and one gets
\begin{equation}
\langle\zeta_{k}\zeta_{k'}\rangle\sim \frac{H^4}{2\dot\phi^2k^{3} }\left(\frac{k}{k_0}\right)^{n_s-1}\delta({\bf k}+{\bf k'}) ~~~~ {\rm (slow-roll)}
\end{equation}
where in this last formula we allowed for a nonzero tilt to the spectrum, parameterized by $n_s$ and computable in any specific model by keeping track of the leading effects of the slow variations of the fields. For single-field slow-roll inflation, the non-Gaussianity is negligible. More generally one must calculate the correlation functions using the scalar field action \cite{Creminelli}\cite{ghost}\cite{DBI}\cite{generalsingle}, and they depend on the underlying model parameters. A clean result that comes out of these calculations and the effective field theory treatement of the perturbations \cite{EFT}\ is a relation between the sound speed of the perturbations and the level of non-Gaussianity, as well as theorems about the $k_i$-dependence (the shape) of the non-Gaussianity.
Tensor modes $\gamma_{ij}$ also fluctuate; for polarizations $s_1,s_2$ one finds
\begin{equation}
\langle \gamma_{s_1,k_1}\gamma_{s_2,k_2}\rangle\equiv P_\gamma \delta_{s_1s_2}\delta({\bf k}+{\bf k'})\sim \frac{2 H^2}{M_P^2}\delta_{s_1s_2}\delta({\bf k}+{\bf k'})
\end{equation}
These produce a very important signal detectable indirectly through B-mode polarization in the CMB \cite{Bmode}. This quantity is captured by the tensor to scalar ratio
\begin{equation}
r= \frac{P_\gamma}{P_\zeta}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Inflationary dynamics and high energy physics}
Now let us return to the question of the mechanism behind inflation. There are many possibilities.
Let us start with a classic example of slow-roll inflation with scalar field Lagrangian \cite{chaotic}
\begin{equation}\label{msquared}
L_{matter}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial\phi)^2-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2.
\end{equation}
The Friedman equation and scalar equation of motion give
\begin{equation}
H^2=(\frac{\dot a}{a})^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{m^2\phi^2}{3 M_P^2}+kinetic
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\ddot\phi + 3H\dot\phi=-m^2\phi\\
\end{equation}
which lead to $\dot\phi\sim m M_P$.
The condition that the potential energy dominates is then
\begin{equation}
\dot\phi^2\ll V(\phi) \Rightarrow m^2 M_P^2\ll m^2\phi^2 \Rightarrow \phi \gg M_P
\end{equation}
and in general in this super-Planckian regime $\phi\gg M_P$, the slow roll conditions
\begin{equation}\label{SR}
\frac{M_P V'}{V}\ll 1, ~~~ M_P^2 \frac{ V''}{V} \ll 1
\end{equation}
are very well satisfied. The number of e-foldings of inflation goes like $\phi^2/M_P^2$, and to match the observed normalization of the power spectrum we require $m\sim 10^{-6}M_P, H\sim 10^{-5}M_P$.
Note that the scalar field ranges over a super-Planckian distance in field space, but we are not reaching Planck scale energy densities -- that would be completely out of control. A large field range is sensitive to quantum gravity effects, but in a more subtle way that we will discuss below.
Similar results hold for any potential which behaves as
\begin{equation}\label{phip}
V(\phi)\to\mu^{4-p}\phi^p ~~~ for ~~~ \phi\gg M_P
\end{equation}
for any $p$ (integer or not). Note that at large field values, there is no reason to consider only integer powers $p$, since Taylor expanding about the origin is not useful. Of course a priori it would not be clear that such a simple form as (\ref{phip}) for the potential pertains at all over a large range of $\phi$ given unknown quantum gravity contributions to the effective action.
One of the mechanisms that we will find in string theory is a similar potential with $p<2$ over a large field range \cite{monodromy} (more generally potentials flatter than $m^2\phi^2$ at large field range \cite{flattening}). There is a nice mathematical structure behind such solutions which we will discuss.
Before getting to that, let me first note that this model -- and any with a shift symmetry broken mildly by a flat potential -- is radiatively stable against loop corrections \cite{smolin}. This makes it technically natural, and it is fully Wilsonian `natural' if the small scale $\mu\ll M_P$ required for phenomenology is obtained dynamically as we will discuss further below. This is analogous to other familiar examples, such as `natural' solutions of the electroweak hierarchy problem. As in that case, it remains to be seen if nature is Wilsonian-natural, but from a basic effective field theory point of view inflation is not generally fine tuned.\footnote{This is important for studies of potential signatures of earlier epochs -- sometimes these are motivated by the claim that minimizing tuning requires restricting to the fewest e-foldings consistent with solving the horizon problem. Although that argument is not correct, the possibility of observing physics from the onset of inflation is certainly an interesting possibility worth pursuing (particularly given the various low-$\ell$ anomalies in the current data).}
The basic reason that we will find this $V\propto \phi^{p<2}$ behavior in some robust regimes is rather trivial \cite{flattening}; it can be seen by simply coupling $\phi$ to additional massive degrees of freedom. Let us dress up the model (\ref{msquared}) by coupling the inflaton $\phi$ to a heavy field $\chi$ via canonical kinetic terms and
\begin{equation}\label{flattoy}
V(\phi,\chi)= \frac{1}{2}\phi^2\chi^2 + \frac{1}{2}M_\chi^2(\chi-m)^2
\end{equation}
Here we take $M_\chi$ large compared to other scales in the problem. The second term by itself would favor $\chi=m$, which when plugged into the first term would produce simply an $\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2$ potential, the theory \ref{msquared}. Instead what happens is that as $\phi$ builds up potential energy, $\chi$ shifts away from its minimum in an energetically favorable way, leading to a potential flatter than $\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2$.
Classically integrating out $\chi$ -- i.e. solving its equation of motion $\partial_\chi V=0$ (it turns out a good approximation to neglect its kinetic term) -- leads to an effective potential for $\phi$ which is totally flat at large field range (i.e. $p=0$),
\begin{equation}\label{flatV}
V(\phi,\chi_*(\phi))=M_\chi^2 m^2\frac{\frac{1}{2}\phi^2}{\frac{1}{2}\phi^2+M_\chi^2}.
\end{equation}
In general, the ultraviolet completion of gravity might come with massive degrees of freedom -- certainly this is true of string theory, our leading candidate. Although (\ref{flattoy}) is just a toy model, this effect occurs in large-field inflation in string theory, leading to examples with potentials of the form (\ref{phip}) with $p<2$. Let us call this the flattening effect, for lack of a better term (it need not always produce a power law potential).
Another classic example of inflation from the bottom up is known as Natural Inflation \cite{Natural}, with an axion potential of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Natural}
V(\phi) = V_0+ \Lambda^4 sin(\phi/f)
\end{equation}
in terms of the canonically normalized scalar field $\phi = f\theta$ (where $\theta$ has period $2\pi$).
There is an elegant quantum field theory motivation for this structure in terms of couplings of Yang-Mills fields to pseudo-scalars.\footnote{See e.g. \cite{Coleman}\ for a pedagogical introduction to some of the background.}
It arises from quantum effects of a non-abelian Yang-Mills theory to which the axion couples only via its derivative. There is a term in the action of the form $\int \theta Tr \epsilon_{\mu\nu\sigma\rho} F^{\mu\nu} F^{\sigma\rho}$ where $F$ is the field strength of a non-abelian Yang-Mills theory analogous to QCD and $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}$ is a totally antisymmetric tensor. For constant $\theta$, this term is a total derivative, integrating to zero, for topologically trivial configurations of the Yang-Mills fields. Topologically nontrivial instanton configurations that contribute to the Feynman path integral of the theory have an integer-quantized value of $\int Tr \epsilon_{\mu\nu\sigma\rho} F^{\mu\nu} F^{\sigma\rho}$, so such contributions are periodic in $\theta$, hence the sinusoidal potential (\ref{Natural}). These contributions can also naturally be small in magnitude; instanton effects scale like $e^{-8\pi^2/g_{YM}^2}$, exponentially suppressed for small Yang-Mills coupling $g_{YM}$.
Since taking derivatives of this potential with respect to $\phi$ brings down powers of $f$, it is straightforward to show that inflation on this potential requires $f > M_P$, and again the field rolls over a super-Planckian range.
So far we have discussed two bottom-up examples of large-field inflation.
From the point of view of low energy field theory, one can consider other models where the field rolls over a smaller range, including examples with inflection points, or hybrid inflation \cite{hybrid}\ with a second field that develops an instability that triggers an exit from inflation.
Having warmed up with these examples, let us elaborate on the question of how to package the effects of ultraviolet degrees of freedom\footnote{As is common in high energy theory, we use `ultraviolet' to mean high energy here, in analogy to the high frequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum just beyond the visible range.} with a lightning review of effective field theory. We can organize the Lagrangian of for example a weakly interacting scalar field theory in terms of a sequence of operators with different scalings under dilatations of space and time.
The action is dimensionless -- it is the phase in the Feynman path integral. The kinetic term $S_{kin}=\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g}\frac{1}{2}(\partial\phi)^2$ implies that a canonically normalized scalar field has dimension 1: the action is invariant under a scaling $x^\mu\to \eta x^\mu,\phi\to \phi/\eta$.
Writing the action for $\phi$, taylor expanded about some point $\phi_0$ in field space and also expanded in derivatives, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Wilsac}
S=S_{kin}-\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}\{\frac{1}{2}m^2(\phi &-&\phi_0)^2+\lambda_1(\phi-\phi_0)+\lambda_3(\phi-\phi_0)^3 +\lambda_4(\phi-\phi_0)^4 \nonumber \\
&+& \lambda_6\frac{(\phi-\phi_0)^6}{M_*^2}+\lambda_{4,4}\frac{(\partial\phi)^4}{M_*^4}+\dots \}
\end{eqnarray}
With the scalar mass $m$, and mass scale $M_*$ included as indicated, all terms in the action are dimensionless (with a convention that the coefficients $\lambda$ are dimensionless).
In a given interaction term, let us call the fields and derivatives ${O}$.\footnote{${ O}$ stands for ``operator", an abuse of language in the Lagrangian formalism.} Under the rescaling just described, ${ O}\to \frac{1}{\eta^\Delta}{O}$ where here $\Delta$ is determined by the above scaling of $\phi$ and its derivatives (in a strongly interacting theory these values are not accurate but here we can expand about weak coupling). By dimensional analysis, the strength of the intereaction -- the effective coupling -- generated by a given term is of order
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{eff}=\lambda\left(\frac{E}{M_*}\right)^{4-\Delta}
\end{equation}
For operators of dimension $\Delta<4$, their effects grow at low energies, whereas for most operators, $\Delta>4$ and they are irrelevant at low energies.
However, there is a subtlety here that is important for inflation: operators can be ``dangerously irrelevant". Even if we stick to low energy densities, well below the Planck scale, higher-dimension operators actually matter for inflation, even if suppressed by $M_*=M_P$. Adding a dimension-6 operator $V (\phi-\phi_0)^2/M_P^2$ would shift the slow roll parameters (\ref{SR}) by order 1, whereas they must be much smaller for inflation.
In a Wilsonian view of field theory, if there is a high energy scale $M_*$ in the problem (such as an inverse lattice spacing in condensed matter physics, or the Planck scale $M_P$ in gravity) we would generically expect it to contribute a full sequence of higher dimension operators as in (\ref{Wilsac}) that are consistent with the symmetries or approximate symmetries of the model. Even if we started with an action containing none of the $\Delta>4$ terms, we would generate them upon path integrating over high energy degrees of freedom.
In the simplest case, this is a classical effect, as in the above discussion of ``flattening" in the model (\ref{flattoy}). Its potential (\ref{flatV}), obtained by solving $\chi$'s equation of motion (classically integrating it out), has an infinite sequence of terms suppressed by powers of the heavy mass scale $M_\chi$.
The caveat about symmetries is very important: if we do not start with large symmetry breaking, then
integrating over high energy degrees of freedom does not generate such terms. As mentioned above, the relevant symmetry in inflation is the approximate shift symmetry $\phi\to\phi+const$. If that is weakly broken by a very flat potential, quantum effects do not ruin it. In the case of large-field inflation which is sensitive to an infinite sequence of $M_P$-suppressed operators, the question becomes one of whether the full theory has such a symmetry.
In string theory the answer is affirmative, along appropriate directions in field space.\footnote{These directions are a good fraction of the scalar field directions in the theory; we will discuss some basic aspects of the spectrum and interactions of string theory below.}
The mechanism that comes out -- a structure like a wind-up toy known as monodromy -- is a kind of hybrid of chaotic inflation and Natural inflation, but with new elements. The essential features can be understood as in the following setup, which turns out to be a dual, effective description of a local piece of the internal dimensions in the presence of an axion field. You have probably heard of ``branes", the extended objects of string theory. These can end on each other in various ways -- you may have seen the pictures of strings ending on D-branes, and more generally there are consistent configurations like this involving the higher dimensional objects.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{winduptoy.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{}
\label{winduptoy}
\end{figure}
In the figure \ref{winduptoy}, we have two types of branes, one of which ends on the others. These fill all four ordinary dimensions, and are situated as drawn on a space which is locally a cylinder within the extra dimensions. These objects -- in particular the endpoints -- can move, and each such collective coordinate behaves as a scalar field in four dimensions.
Before we include the stretched branes, moving one of the others around the cylinder constitutes a periodic direction. Let us call this direction $\theta$, with our scalar field $\phi$ being proportional to the distance $\ell_\theta\theta$. However, once we include the stretched branes, the scalar is no longer periodic: the physics (in particular the potential energy built up by the stretched branes) depends on how many times we move around the underlying circle. Specifically, using the fact that the energy density of the branes is given by their tension $\tau_4$ times the internal volume they wrap, we see that the potential energy will have the form
\begin{equation}
V(\phi) = \tau_4\sqrt{\ell_\perp^2 +\ell_\theta^2 \theta^2 }\equiv \mu^4\sqrt{1+\frac{\phi^2}{M_*^2}}
\end{equation}
where the scale $M_*$ is determined by canonically normalizing the kinetic term for $\phi$. This setup is rather simple and exhibits a potential of the form (\ref{phip}), with as in (\ref{flattoy}) a quadratic potential near the origin which flattens out at large field range. Using the AdS/CFT description of the branes in terms of gravitational and matter fields (which we will discuss in the final lecture), this can be understood very explicitly as an example of the flattening effect just discussed \cite{flattening}.
To belabor this rather trivially, let us replace $\theta$ in the formula above by $\theta-2\pi n$ for integer $n$. This corresponds to starting in a sector with an $n$-times wrapped brane, and then winding it up or down further with the continuous variable $\theta$. In this trivial sense, the whole system remains invariant under $\theta\to\theta+2\pi n$, with a flattened large-field potential arising for any choice of $n$.
\subsection{Field Range and Tensor Mode Signature}
A very simple and important relation generalizes the above analysis of (\ref{msquared}) \cite{Lyth}.
We can write the number of e-foldings as
\begin{equation}
N_e = \int \frac{da}{a}=\int \frac{\dot a}{a} dt = \int \frac{H}{\dot\phi}d\phi = \int \frac{H M_P }{\dot\phi}\frac{d\phi}{M_P} = \sqrt{8} \, r^{-1/2}\frac{\Delta\phi}{M_P}
\end{equation}
where in the last step we used the normalized results for the scalar and tensor power in single-field slow-roll inflation (even though in these lectures we are not keeping track of all `order 1' factors).
This connection is extremely interesting, relating the excursion of the field in Planck units to an observable quantity. Recall our discussion of Wilsonian effective field theory (\ref{Wilsac}). A value $\Delta\phi>M_P$ corresponds to a model which is formally sensitive to an infinite sequence of higher dimension operators suppressed by $M_*=M_P$. (If there are lower scales $M_*$ in high energy physics, the sensitivity is even greater.)
When we plug in the numbers, a Planck range of field corresponds to $r\sim .002$ to $.01$ depending on the reheating temperature.
This level of $r$ is accessible observationally in the relatively near term according to the latest estimates \cite{Snowmass}.
\section{String Theory as a UV Completion: effective action, stress energy sources, and symmetries}
This sensitivity to Planck suppressed operators is ample motivation to investigate inflationary cosmology in string theory. Of course we do not know if string
theory is the UV completion of gravity in our world, but it is a very strong candidate to play this role. Extensive work strongly suggests that the theory is internally consistent, satisfying numerous mathematical ``null tests", including concrete calculations of black hole entropy (albeit for highly supersymmetric examples). In what follows we will study inflationary cosmology in the framework of string theory. This leads to a number of different mechanisms for inflation, some observationally testable.
With this multiplicity of possibilities, it is not possible (at least with our current understanding) to falsify string theory as a whole; one can only test particular mechanisms. But that is how physical model building often works. Within the framework of quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, one needs to specify the system under study (the content and Hamiltonian of the model) in order to define and implement experimental probes. The novelty here is that inflationary cosmology strictly speaking must be modeled in a UV complete theory, so we work in string theory as a candidate. But otherwise it is similar -- within that framework we must specify the model under discussion (or at least a class thereof) to set up empirical tests in the cases for which that is possible.
Of course, the inverse problem is very difficult -- given the data available, it is not in general possible to hone in aritrarily closely to a specific model. But the data that is expected to become available can make broad distinctions such as how $\Delta\phi$ compares to the Planck range, and whether multiple fields or nontrivial interactions are involved in inflation.
Data on non-Gaussianity can make a distinction between single field slow roll and other mechanisms for inflation. And some models produce detailed signatures involving structure in the power spectrum or non-Gaussianity.
In any case, regardless of the fate of particular models, string theory at the very least plays a useful role in suggesting a variety of novel mechanisms for inflation which feed into the bottom up treatment of signatures and data analysis, helping to make it more systematic. Plus it is intellectually interesting!
So without further ado, let us develop what we will need of string theory. The effective action in $D$ dimensions is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Dac}
S =\frac{1}{2\alpha'^{\frac{D-2}{2}}}\int d^Dx\sqrt{-G} \,e^{-2 \phi_{s}} \left(R-\frac{D-10}{\alpha'}+ 4 (\partial \phi_{s})^2 \right) + S_{{matter}}\,.
\end{equation}
for backgrounds with a sufficiently large curvature radius and small string coupling $e^{\phi_s}$, where $S_{matter}$ contains various matter sources that we will discuss in some detail below. (See also \cite{TASIlectures}\cite{landscapereviews}\ for lecture notes devoted to the relevant features of string compactifications.)
The term proportional to $D-10$ exhibits the special nature of $D=10$: it is the total dimensionality in which the classical theory has no potential energy and hence admits a Minkowski space solution. The cases $D\ne 10$ are not anomalous: the Weyl anomaly you may have learned about is a sickness that arises on the string worldsheet if you incorrectly solve the spacetime equations of motion, looking for a Minkowski solution in the presence of the nontrivial potential for $\phi_s$.
It turns out that another special feature of the theory in $D=10$ is that it has a lot of supersymmetry (if one does not include generic matter sources), leading to an exact flat space solution. One can show that there exist physical transitions connect these different cases \cite{simeon}\cite{DimMutation}, so the picture to have in mind is that full theory has different limits with different effective $D$. There are interesting behaviors at large $D$, including a spectrum dominated by $\sim 2^D$ axion fields, and simplifications of interactions and the loop expansion \cite{LargeD}.
In the real world, scalar potential energy plays an important role in early universe cosmology as well as in the electroweak theory, and supersymmetry has not been observed despite significant LHC searches (although it remains an interesting possibility). So as far as I can tell, the common approach setting $D=10$ from the start may be missing the big picture. It has been natural to construct theories of de Sitter and dark energy in the case $D>10$ \cite{SCdS}\cite{SCDE}\ because of the leading contribution of the above scalar potential.
Having made this point, let me emphasize that there are important mechanisms for producing de Sitter solutions in $D=10$ that have been much more extensively studied, especially \cite{KKLT}\ and also other examples such as \cite{large}\cite{Saltman}\ and recently \cite{Danielsson}\ (to name just a few). From the bottom up it remains an important possibility, even if it requires these special choices. There are interesting signatures of the case where supersymmetry is broken by the inflationary Hubble scale in the early universe \cite{BaumannGreenSUSY}.
Let us proceed to the other sources of potential energy. The additional matter sources in $S_{matter}$ include higher dimensional analogues of electomagnetic fields and various types of localized defects. These include strings, domain walls, and their higher dimensional analogues, as well as important but more exotic structures known as orientifolds. We have schematically
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Smatter}
S_{matter} =\int d^Dx \sqrt{-G}\{ &-&\sum_{n_B}\tau_{n_B}\frac{\delta^{(D-1-n_B)}(x_\perp)}{\sqrt{G_\perp}}+ \sum_{n_O}\tau_{n_O}\frac{\delta^{(D-1-n_O)}(x_\perp)}{\sqrt{G_\perp} }\nonumber \\
&+& e^{-2\phi_s}|H_3|^2+\sum_p |\tilde F_p|^2+C.S.+h.d.\}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $h.d.$ stands for higher derivative terms. $C.S.$ stands for ``Chern-Simons" terms coupling defects to the gauge potential fields (analogues of the vector potential in electromagnetism) that they source, to be discussed further below.
We will explain the rest of the notation as we go through each type of contribution in what follows. To do so will take some time as we will up from more familiar physics.
First, $n_B$ indexes branes of spatial dimension $n_B$ and tension $\tau_{n_B}$ localized at $x_\perp=0$ (we could use normal vectors to write this more covariantly). This is just saying that the branes' contribute to the energy is given by the volume they wrap times their tension. They also are charged under higher-dimensional generalizations of electromagnetic fields, a feature we will discuss extensively below. Some of the branes, known as D-branes, have the property that strings can end on them rather than forming closed loops. Their positions are dynamical, described by scalar fields living on the brane.
Similarly $n_O$ indexes the exotic defects known as orientifolds, which carry negative tension. They affect the global structure of the space -- in the simplest case an orientifold introduces a $Z_2$ identification on the coordinates transverse to it, and in more general cases such objects are associated with certain topological quantum numbers of the space. As such, although they contribute negatively to the stress energy, they cannot be wantonly produced to lower the energy -- a good thing for the stability of the theory. Their positions are not dynamical, in contrast to the branes.
The terms in the last line are the kinetic and gradient terms for higher dimensional analogues of the electromagnetic fields $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu$. We will be very interested in these fields, so it will
be useful to build up what we need starting from the familiar case of electromagnetism.
In ordinary electromagnetism, the potential field $A_\mu$ is useful even though it provides a redundant description, with the physics invariant under transformations of the form $A_\mu\to A_\mu+\partial_\mu \Lambda$.
The field strength $F$ is gauge invariant.
Another important set of gauge-invariant physical quantities are Wilson lines $e^{i\int_\gamma A_\mu dx^\mu}$ around a closed path $\gamma$. We will need to understand these because their higher dimensional generalization will lead to axion fields, so let us discuss it here while we are on the subject. Let us consider the case where $\gamma$ goes around a non-contractible cycle, say we have a circle in one spatial direction $y$:
\begin{equation}\label{ymetric}
ds^2=-dt^2 + d\vec x^2 + L_y^2 dy^2, ~~~ y\equiv y+1.
\end{equation}
Define
\begin{equation}
a(x) =\oint dy A_y
\end{equation}
Under a gauge transformation, $A_y\to A_y+\partial_y \Lambda$, so $a(x)$ is invariant since the circle has no boundary. The field $a(x)$ is a scalar field in the remaining dimensions ($t,\vec x$). It is given in terms of the vector potential $A$ as
\begin{equation}\label{aform}
A_y=a(x) ~~ i.e. ~~ A=a(x) dy \equiv a(x)\omega_1
\end{equation}
where $\omega_1=dy$ is a one-form.
The kinetic energy term in the action for this field is
\begin{equation}\label{akinetic}
\sim \int d^3 x L_y\dot a^2\times \frac{1}{L_y^2},
\end{equation}
obtained from the $\int \sqrt{-g}F_{0y}^2g^{00}g^{yy}$ term in the electromagnetic action
$\int dt d\vec x dy\sqrt{-g} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$, where $L_y$ is the radius of the circle (\ref{ymetric}). Here the first factor of $L_y$ comes from integrating over the $y$ direction with length $\int dy\sqrt{g_{yy}} = L_y$, and the $1/L_y^2$ comes from the inverse metric factor $g^{yy}$ in the contraction of the field strengths. Scalar fields analogous to this one are numerous in string theory.
Next let us review some of the physics of charged particles interacting with the electromagnetic fields.
A charged particle sources the electromagnetic field via a coupling directly to the potential field: the action includes a term
\begin{equation}\label{Acoup}
\int d^4 x J^\mu A_\mu =\int_{worldline} A
\end{equation}
In varying the action with respect to $A$ to get its equation of motion, this contributes a source localized along the worldline of the charged particle.
Quantum mechanically, this coupling encodes something else we know, the Aharanov-Bohm effect: the wavefunction of a charge particle develops a phase $e^{i\oint A}$ if it circumnavigates a region with magnetic flux.
Finally, we note another feature that will be important: magnetic fluxes on compact spaces are quantized: $\int F = N$ is an integer (up to a numerical factor). One way to see this is that it is required for consistency of the wavefunction of a charged particle that moves around a vanishingly small circle in the compact space: the flux outside the circle had better be quantized so that the Aharanov-Bohm phase is trivial and the particle's wavefunction is invariant.
Now we are ready to start generalizing this to string theory and explain the last line of (\ref{Smatter}).
The most basic generalization of this structure is a potential field $B_{\mu\nu}$, antisymmetric in its indices, which couples to the two-dimensional string worldsheet in the same way as the previous example $A_\mu$ couples to a particle worldline: the action has a term
\begin{equation}\label{Bworldsheet}
\int_{worldsheet}B = \int \frac{d^2\sigma}{\alpha'} \sqrt{\gamma}\epsilon^{ab}B_{MN}\partial_a X^M\partial_b X^N.
\end{equation}
where the string tension is denoted $1/\alpha'$.
Here $X^M=X^M(\sigma^a)$ describe the embedding of the string in spacetime as a function of position $\sigma^a$ on the worldsheet, $\gamma_{ab}$ is the worldsheet metric and $\epsilon^{ab}$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor in two dimensions ($\epsilon^{01}=1=-\epsilon^{10}$).
The corresponding field strength is (in analogy to $F=dA$)
\begin{equation}\label{Hflux}
H_3 = dB_2 ~~~ i.e. ~~~ H_{MNP} \propto \partial_{(M}B_{NP)}
\end{equation}
where the subscripts indicate the rank of the field and $d$, the exterior derivative, means a totally antisymmetrized derivative (indicated by the parentheses in the last expression). The kinetic term for $B$ is the term proportional to $H_3^2$ in our action (\ref{Smatter}) above. The field strength $H_3$ is invariant under gauge symmetries
\begin{equation}\label{Bgauge}
B\to B+d\Lambda_1, ~~~ i.e. ~~~ B_{MN}\to B_{MN}+\partial_{(M}\Lambda_{N)}
\end{equation}
where again the parentheses indicate antisymmetrization.
Analogously to (\ref{aform}), this leads to scalar fields $b(x)$ from the configuration
\begin{equation}
B=b(x)\omega_2
\end{equation}
where $\omega_2$ is a two-form. For example, consider a two-dimensional torus among the extra dimensions with coordinates $y_{1,2}$,
\begin{equation}
ds^2_{extra} = L_{y_1}^2dy_1^2 + L_{y_2}^2dy_2^2
\end{equation}
this configuration is in a component description $B=B_{y_1y_2}dy_1\wedge dy_2=b(x)dy_1\wedge dy_2$. The normalization is such that $b$ is dimensionless, and has an underlying period of $2\pi$ under which the stringy Wilson line $e^{i\int B}=e^{i b}$ is invariant.
This two-form potential $B_{MN}$ is special in that it arises for all perturbative closed-string theories.
Next, there is an immediate generalization of this potential field $B$ which couples to strings. The theory also famously contains defects of other dimensions, the `branes'. Similar remarks apply to higher-rank potential fields $C_{p-1}$, i.e. antisymmetric fields with $p-1$ indices, which are sourced by D-branes \cite{joebook}. These again yield axion fields $c(x)=\int_{\Sigma_{p-1}} C_{p-1}$ where $\Sigma_{p-1}$ is a non-contractible $p-1$ dimensional subspace in the extra dimensions. The field strength is $F_{p}=dC_{p-1}$.
However, that is not the full story -- there is a very interesting interplay among these various fields and their gauge transformations which we are now ready to describe. There are two aspects to this, one having to do with the generalization of the $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$ terms in the effective action, and the other having to do with couplings between scalar axion fields and branes.
You may have noticed in the above action (\ref{Smatter}) that we wrote $\tilde F_p^2$ rather than $F_p^2$. The generalized field strengths $\tilde F_p$ are defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\tilde F_p = F_p+B\wedge F_{p-2}=dC_{p-1}+B\wedge dC_{p-3}
\end{equation}
These are invariant under the gauge transformation (\ref{Bgauge}) as long as we accompany it with the transformation $C_{p-1}\to C_{p-1}-\Lambda_1\wedge F_{p-2}$. That is, the full transformation is
\begin{equation}
B\to B+d\Lambda_1, ~~~ C_{p-1}\to C_{p-1}-\Lambda_1\wedge F_{p-2}.
\end{equation}
As before, there is actually an analogue of this in ordinary physics: upon spontaneous symmetry breaking of electromagnetism (as occurs for example in superconductors), the low energy effective action has the Stuckelberg term
\begin{equation}
(A+\partial\theta)^2
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the would-be Goldstone mode which shifts under the gauge symmetry: $A\to A+d\Lambda, \theta\to\theta-\Lambda$. This exhibits the gauge invariance of the underlying system in the phase with a massive vector field. Our couplings
\begin{equation}\label{Ftildesquared}
\tilde F^2 = ( F_p+B\wedge F_{p-2})^2
\end{equation}
are just higher-dimensional versions of this.
When we dimensionally reduce the theory on a $D-4$ dimensional space $X$,\footnote{as a toy example you can keep in mind a manifold $X$ that has a two-torus factor} if there are nontrivial field strengths (fluxes) $F_{p-2}$, then there will be a classical potential for the $b(x)$ field we described above. This is the generic situation, as turning off the fluxes requires making a very special choice. This classical, non-periodic potential for $b$ is in contrast to traditional axions in quantum field theory, which develop a potential through non-perturbative effects in the Yang-Mills theory to which they couple, as discussed above (\ref{Natural}).
One might na\"ively conclude from (\ref{Ftildesquared}) that we get a quadratic potential for $b(x)$. This is true close to the origin $b(x) = 0$. But when we turn on $b(x)$, then as we build up potential energy in this term, the heavy degrees of freedom (such as gradients of the fields) can adjust in a more energetically favorable way, as in the toy model of flattening discussed above (\ref{flattoy})(\ref{flatV}). For example, the $B$ field can develop a spatial dependence that reduces its overlap with $F_{p-2}$, at the cost of turning on the term $H_3^2=dB^2$ since the gradients of $B$ that are contained in $H$ cost energy. This is analogous to the sharing of potential energy between the mass term and quartic term in (\ref{flattoy}). This will generically cause the potential to deviate from the na\"ive $m^2\phi^2$ behavior. In some concrete examples, one can see explicitly how it flattens the potential \cite{flattening}.
One such example has an equivalent description in terms of branes, something we will need to understand in its own right. Consider the term (\ref{Bworldsheet}) coupling the string to the potential field $B_{MN}$ that it sources. If the $B_{MN}$ field is constant ($H_3=dB=0$), then the term (\ref{Bworldsheet}) is a total derivative: it can be written as
\begin{equation}
\int\frac{ d^2\sigma}{\alpha'} \partial_a( B_{MN} \epsilon^{ab}\partial_a X^M\partial_b X^N)
\end{equation}
If the worldsheet has a boundary -- as occurs in the presence of the D-branes on which open strings end,
then this term does not automtatically integrate to zero. In the presence of D-branes, there is a direct dependence of the effective action on $B_{MN}$, not just its field strength $H_3=dB$.
The full worldsheet action in the Polyakov form depends on the spacetime metric $G_{MN}$ as well as on $B_{MN}$, in the combination $G+B$:
\begin{equation}\label{wsGB}
S_{worldsheet} = \int \frac{d^2\sigma}{\alpha'} \sqrt{\gamma}\left\{\gamma^{ab}G_{MN}\partial_a X^M\partial_b X^N+\epsilon^{ab}B_{MN}\partial_a X^M\partial_b X^N\right\}
\end{equation}
We would like to motivate this further, and also obtain the action on D-branes as a function of $G_{MN}$ and $B_{MN}$.
To move toward these goals, it proves useful to first consider the action for a relativistic particle, which is the Born-Infeld action
\begin{equation}\label{BI}
S_{particle}=-m\int dt \sqrt{1-\dot x^2}
\end{equation}
From this action, you can derive the standard equation of motion $dp/dt=0$, where $p=m\gamma \dot x = m\dot x/\sqrt{1-\dot x^2}$. This can equivalently be written as
\begin{equation}\label{particleBIagain}
S_{particle}=-m\int d{\xi^0} \sqrt{G_{MN}\partial_{\xi^0} X^M\partial_{\xi^0} X^N}
\end{equation}
where $\xi^0$ is the coordinate along the worldline of the particle. The action (\ref{BI}) arises (in the flat Minkowski spacetime $G_{MN}=\eta_{MN}$ if we choose this coordinate such that $X^0=\xi^0$, the simplest choice. In a more generic background geometry, the equation of motion from this action reproduces the geodesic equation for particle motion in general relativity.
The action (\ref{BI}) arises from a particle analogue of (\ref{wsGB}). Focusing on the metric dependence, we have
\begin{equation}\label{particlepoly}
\int d\sigma^0 \sqrt{g_{00}}\left\{ G_{MN} g^{00} \dot X^M\dot X^N +m^2\right\}
\end{equation}
Integrating out $g_{00}$, which means solving the worldline Hamiltonian constraint, produces (\ref{particlepoly}).
The generalization of (\ref{particleBIagain}) to higher dimensions, with the $B$ field included, turns out to be the Dirac-Born-Infeld brane action
\begin{equation}\label{DBI}
S_{DBI}=-\tau_B\int d^d\xi\sqrt{det((G_{MN}+B_{MN})\partial_aX^M\partial_b X^N+f_{ab})}
\end{equation}
where $\tau_B$ is the brane tension. Here the determinant is taken with respect to the indices $a,b$ which label directions along the worldvolume of the brane, and $f_{ab}$ is the field strength for an Abelian gauge group which lives on the brane. As a check, in the case that the brane is just sitting there motionless, this gives an action which is just minus the tension $\tau_B$ times the volume wrapped by the brane. (There is also a coupling analogous to (\ref{Acoup}) to the $C_p$ potential field sourced by the brane, but here let us focus on the $B$ and $G$ dependence.)
It turns out that these two ways in which this direct dependence on $B$ arises -- from flux or D-branes,
are related by the AdS/CFT correspondence. There, as we will discuss further below, D-branes are described equivalently by a curved spacetime background with fluxes $F_q$ turned on. One of these descriptions is usually more useful than the other in a given regime.
So far we have focused on the way the axion field $b(x)=\int B$ enters into the stress-energy sources, but it is also interesting to consider their dependence on axions that come from the other potential fields $C_{p-1}$. From various dualities that connect different string theories, there are relations between the different axions $b(x)$ and $c(x)$. Indeed, while $b(x)$ axions get a potential from D-branes, there are other types of branes which produce a potential directly for the $c(x)$ type axions. To see this more directly, integrate by parts on the couplings $B_{MN} F_{i_1\dots i_{p-2}}F^{MN i_1\dots i_{p-2}}$ coming from the $\tilde F^2$ terms in the action. This produces couplings of the schematic form $H F c$, indicating a potential for $c$ axions in the presence of generic fluxes just as we discussed above for $b$ axions.
The axion fields $b(x),c(x)$, and the brane collective coordinates $X$ provide candidate inflaton fields in string theory, along with some of the other scalar field moduli. We will discuss some examples below. But first we should discuss more about the process of compactification to four dimensions, since there are other scalar fields (collectively called `moduli' $\phi_I$) and they must all be accounted for in looking for inflationary solutions.
We are interested in the four dimensional effective action obtained upon dimensionally reducing the theory (\ref{Dac})(\ref{Smatter}) down to four dimensions on some space $X$ of dimension $D-4$. Deriving this in detail in general is difficult. However it is possible to work in controlled limits where one can obtain it to good approximation. In the context of inflation, note from our discussion below (\ref{Wilsac}) above that this requires controlling enough $M_*$ suppressed terms, where the high energy scales in the problem include the Planck scale $M_P$, but also lower scales such as Kaluza-Klein scales and the scale of the string tension.
To make things simple -- but not completely generic -- let us consider the case where the localized sources we consider, the branes and orientifolds, do not in themselves source strong warping (gravitational redshift) in most of the compact space. This can be quantified as in \cite{micromanaging} (section 3.3) in terms of the amplituded of the internal gravitational potential in the solution. More generally, one must analyze the problem as in \cite{Douglaswarping}. Some of the following is contained in the lecture notes \cite{TASIlectures}\ as well as \cite{landscapereviews}\cite{Nil}\cite{Saltman}, so I will be relatively brief here and
focus on the main elements as well as some aspects that were understood more recently.
The Einstein term $\int d^D x\sqrt{-G}R$ reduces to a the four-dimensional Einstein term plus a contribution to the potential energy $V(\phi_I)$. The former is not yet canonically normalized: we have
\begin{equation}\label{Rterm}
\int\frac{ d^4 x\sqrt{-g}}{\alpha'} (\frac{L^{D-4}}{g_s^2}+loops)\frac{ R}{2}
\end{equation}
where $L^{D-4}$ is the size of $X$ in units of the string tension $1/\alpha'$, and the ``+loops" includes quantum corrections to the Newton constant.
The latter can build up in the presence of a large number of species, and it in general will depend on the scalar field moduli since the effective cutoff scale will depend on them. It will be interesting to analyze the effect of this term on moduli stabilization and inflation when it does dominate over the classical term, but for our purposes here we can for the most part ignore this correction.
Since the size $L=e^\phi$ (in units of the string tension) and $g_s=e^{\phi_s}$ are dynamical scalar fields, it is most convenient to rescale the four-dimenisonal metric $g_{\mu\nu}\to (g_s^2/L^n)g_{\mu\nu}$ to work in Einstein frame in four dimensions. Since then $\sqrt{-g}\to (g_s^2/L^n)^2\sqrt{-g}$, this rescales the potential terms by $(g_s^2/L^n)^2$, a factor which strongly dilutes the potential energy at large radius and weak coupling. In fact, all contributions vanish in that limit, something which has important implications both technically and conceptually as we will see.
Notice that such a rescaling does not change the ratio of the Planck mass to the scale of the string tension $1/\alpha'$, which is
\begin{equation}\label{Planckmass}
M_P^2\alpha' \sim \frac{L^n}{g_s^2}
\end{equation}
When we go to Einstein frame, we work at a fixed value of $M_P$, with an Einstein term $\sim \int\sqrt{-g}M_P^2 R/2$.
The internal curvature makes a positive contribution to the potential energy $V(\phi_I)$ if the internal space is negatively curved (for which there is an infinite number of possible topologies), and a negative contribution if it is positively curved; these contributons are of order $M_P^4(L^n/g_s^2)\times (1/L^2)\times (g_s^2/L^n)^2$. Choosing a Ricci-flat internal space, a Calabi-Yau manifold, gives zero contribution to the potential at tree level; if one also chooses $D=10$ this preserves a nonzero fraction of the supersymmetry below the scale $1/L$. Orientifolds wrapping $n_O$ internal dimensions contribute negatively, $\sim -M_P^4 (L^n/g_s)\times (1/L^{n-n_O})\times (g_s^2/L^n)^2$. The fluxes $\tilde F_p^2$ with their legs along the internal dimensions contribute positively, a contribution going like $M_P^4(L^n)\times (\tilde N^2/L^{2p})\times (g_s^2/L^n)^2$. (In all these contributions, the dependence on $g_s$ is not obvious but does come out of the string theory calculations \cite{joebook}.)
These various contributions individually contribute steep tadpoles, of the form
\begin{equation}
e^{\beta\phi_c/M_P}
\end{equation}
for the canonically normalized fields associated to the string coupling and internal volume. However, we very recently found a string-theoretic version of assisted inflation \cite{assisted}\cite{TolleyWesley} -- where multiple exponential terms contribute in a way that reduces the $\beta$ coefficient along the rolling direction and stabilizes the transverse directions \cite{SCDE}. This literal form of the potential does not produce observationally viable inflation, although it may be of interest for dark energy research depending on the structure of the Standard Model contribution; see also the recent work \cite{SandipDE}.
These new solutions suggest the possibility of more economical mechanisms for treating moduli stabilization and inflation together. More generally, the plethora of inflationary mechanisms that do not require single-field slow roll may help stabilize the moduli with fewer complications.
That said, previous work has instead largely implemented inflation within a pre-existing scenario for stabilizing the string coupling, volume, and other moduli. For the rest of these notes we will proceed that way, with a few additional comments below.
Since the potential drops to zero in the controlled regime of weak coupling and large radius, the simplest way to meta-stabilize these fields in expanding the potential in $g_s$ and $1/L$ is to play three terms off each other: a leading positive term, a negative term to produce a dip in the potential, and a third positive term. The $D-D_c$ term, negative curvature, $H$ flux, and certain branes can contribute the first term; orientifolds, positive curvature, and certain perturbative and non-perturbative quantum effects can contribute negatively; and the generalized fluxes $\tilde F$ naturally contribute the required positive third term. We will not spend more time on this subject, since there is an extensive literature including for example \cite{landscapereviews}\cite{TASIlectures}\cite{SCdS}\cite{KKLT}\cite{large}\cite{Saltman}\cite{Danielsson}\cite{Nil}\cite{nogo}.
\section{A sample of string-theoretic inflationary mechanisms and signatures}
Having developed some of the relevant background on scalar fields and the effective action in controlled regimes of string theory, we will now discuss several mechanisms with some interesting and robust features. Many of the features of the string theory action and sources which we just explained will play a role in the following mechanisms, so we will refer back to the previous section as we go.
By the way, most of the mechanisms described here were not found by seeking a string-theoretic generalization of bottom up models, or by looking to produce certain signatures. Nor were they discovered by trying to be systematic from the bottom up. Some were serendipitous discoveries obtained while studying other, only tangentially related, problems (such as those we will discuss in the final section). Such is the way it goes often in theoretical physics: it is not always very effective to try to legislate immediate progress in a particular direction, but it is useful to be aware of many problems in order to recognize potential solutions.
\subsection{Axions, chaotic inflation, and tensor modes}
Axion inflation and chaotic inflation are beautiful examples illustrating the Wilsonian naturalness of large-field inflation from the bottom up, while at the same time revealing important new effects that emerge in their closest analogues in string theory.\footnote{For a recent overview of various interesting versions of axion inflation with additional references, see \cite{axionreview}.}
Axions in traditional quantum field theory couple derivatively at the classical level, as in the discussion below (\ref{Natural}). In that model, known as Natural Inflation, there is a sinusoidal potential resulting from non-perturbative effects. The model requires a super-Planckian period $f$ in order to inflate. It is radiatively stable, protected by a shift symmetry, and has an appealing partial UV completion in terms of the Yang-Mills theory which generates the axion potential.
\smallskip
A full UV completion requires quantum gravity to account for possible Planck-suppressed terms which could affect the results. In the case of string theory, it turns out that axions work differently in two important respects:
\begin{itemize}
\item The potential energy generically depends directly on the axion, although there is an underlying periodicity; this monodromy structure is as in the wind-up toy example above in figure \ref{winduptoy}.
\item Even if we worked in a very special regime where we turned off the fluxes and branes which produce this direct dependence on the axions in the potential, the axion kinetic terms imply $f\ll M_P$ in controlled regimes (large radius and weak coupling) \cite{Banksaxion}. There is, however, a multiple-field version of Natural inflation, known as N-flation \cite{Nflation}, which mitigates this via collective effects of multiple axion fields as we will explain below.
\end{itemize}
The first point follows from the couplings between $b,c$ and the fluxes and branes discussed in the previous section. Let us consider, for example, the brane action (\ref{DBI}). To be specific, consider for example a brane with five spatial dimensions (so $a=1=0,1,\dots,5$) wrapped on a two-dimensional torus $T^2$ of size $L\sqrt{\alpha'}$. That means that along the torus directions, the metric $G_{MN}$ is $L^2$ times the identity, $L^2 (dy_1^2+dy_2^2)$. The $B$ field is simply a $2\times 2$ antisymmetric matrix with entries $B_{12}=-B_{21}=b$. The worldvolume field strength is also antisymmetric, and its flux on the torus is quantized: $\int_{T^2} f =2\pi N_3$.\footnote{The subscript ``3" here refers to the fact, which I haven't explained and we will not need directly, that $f$ on the brane sources the D3-brane potential field.}
We can explicitly work out the determinant, working for simplicity with the coordinates $\xi^a=X^a$ (identifying the worldvolume coordinates with the corresponding embedding coordinates $X^M$ in spacetime). If we put the brane at rest, the DBI action gives us a four-dimensional potential energy of the form
\begin{equation}\label{bPythagorean}
V=\mu^4\sqrt{L^4+(b+N_3)^2}
\end{equation}
Here the coefficient includes the Einstein frame conversion factor $(g_s^2/L^n)^2$ and other effects like gravitational redshift at the location of the brane. As we mentioned above, we can work within a standard moduli-stabilization scenario and treat $g_s$ and $L$ as constant (for more details and nuances in specific examples, please see the original literature).
This illustrates several things. First, at large $b$ this in itself gives a linear potential. Secondly, we see the monodromy (windup toy) structure as follows. We are in a particular sector of flux with a given $N_3$: it takes a non-perturbative process to change that quantum number. We can move continuously in $b$ arbitrarily far. If we move by a period in $b$, the same configuration could have been obtained starting from a shifted value of $N_3$. So the whole theory -- the set of flux quantum numbers combined with $b$ field configurations -- respects the periodicity. However, on a given branch, again, the $b$ field builds up more and more potential energy as it moves around the underlying circle multiple times. In general there may be additional, residual effects of this underlying periodicity, leading to a sinusoidal contribution to the potential as in (\ref{Vplusosc}) below.
This structure of the axion potential is rather robust. For a specific model realization, it must occur within a sufficiently stable compactification, with an explanation for the phenomenological value of $\mu^4$ (best thought about after canonically normalizing all fields using the results for the kinetic energy discussed below). Originally this has been done in a modular way just to show it is consistent \cite{monodromy}: stabilizing the dilaton and radii and other scalars using say \cite{KKLT}\cite{large}, on a manifold with gravitationally redshifted regions which naturally warp down the energy scales as in \cite{RS}\cite{GKP}.\footnote{The claim in \cite{conlon}\ regarding back reaction in these examples is incorrect. The author argues that since the charge of an object does not dilute when it is placed in a highly redshifted region, its energy cannot decrease either because of the BPS bound. The question can be most simply addressed for electrons in a Schwarzchild black hole background. The flaw in this reasoning is that the black hole itself is well above the BPS bound, and an electron near its horizon with redshifted energy $m_e\sqrt{g_{00}}$ does not cause any such violation of the BPS bound. More generally, as we have seen above, back reaction can easily (and does in specific examples) flatten the potential.} In particular, the Randall-Sundrum mechanism, realized in warped compactifications of string theory \cite{GKP}\cite{KKLT}, introduces scales which are exponentially suppressed as a function of the curvature radius of the geometry. This means that the low scale of the coefficient in the potential is not tuned (again according to the Standard Wilsonian effective field theory); this is analogous to dynamical supersymmetry breaking as a theoretically natural explanation of the weak scale in particle physics.
More recently this mechanism has been realized in a more economical way, itself helping to stabilize the string coupling and radii \cite{SCDE}.
Now let us next explain the second point about the decay constant $f$ being sub-Planckian. This follows from the analogue of (\ref{akinetic}) for the $b$ and $c$ fields. Note that the normalizations above are such that $b$ and $c$ are dimensionless variables, with the string-theoretic analogues of Wilson lines $e^{i \int B}=e^{i b}$ being invariant under a shift $b\to b+2\pi$.
For the $b$ field, starting from the $\int \sqrt{-g}H_{0m_1m_2}g^{00}g^{m_1m_1'}g^{m_2m_2'}H_{0m_1'm_2'}/g_s^2$ term in the original action, we obtain a kinetic term for $b$ (or equivalently, the canonically normalized field $\phi_b=fb$)
\begin{equation}\label{bkinf}
\int \sqrt{-g}H^2\sim \int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} \frac{L^n}{g_s^2\alpha'}\dot b^2 \frac{1}{L^4}=\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} f^2\dot b^2 \equiv \int d^4 x\sqrt{-g}\dot\phi_b^2
\end{equation}
where the last factor of $1/L^4$ comes from the internal inverse metric factors $ g^{m_1m_1'}g^{m_2m_2'}$. (For simplicity here we are taking all scales of order $L$; more generally one obtains similar results from a more precise calculation of the overlap of differential forms $\int \omega\wedge \star\omega$ that arises from plugging $B=b\omega$ into the $H^2$ term.)
From this we read off
\begin{equation}
f_b\sim \frac{M_P}{L^2}
\end{equation}
This is much less than $M_P$ for the controlled regime $L\gg 1$.
Similar results hold for the $c$ axions, which lead to a suppression with respect to the string coupling as well, for example for the axion coming from $C_2$ we get
\begin{equation}
f_{c_{2}}\sim\frac{g_s}{L^2} M_P \ll M_P.
\end{equation}
The upshot is that in controlled limits of string theory, we obtain sub-Planckian underlying axion periods.
Combining this with the first bullet point above, the way axion inflation works in string theory is more like chaotic inflation, with a large field range and no periodicity along a given branch of the potential. However, there is still an underlying periodicity in the setup, and that does lead to periodic corrections to the potential, with a model-dependent amplitude $\Lambda^4$. Altogether, in terms of the canonically normalized field $\phi_{axion}$, the potential is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Vplusosc}
V(\phi_{axion}) = V_0(\phi_{axion}) + \Lambda^4 \Upsilon(\frac{\phi_{axion}}{f})
\end{equation}
where $V_0$ is derived from the brane or flux couplings as above, with special cases including a Pythagorean potential (\ref{bPythagorean}). $\Upsilon$ is a periodic function, for example $sin((\phi_{axion}-\phi_0)/f$, that is generated by physics that is periodic under $b\to b+2\pi$. This includes instanton effects, but can be more general. In the windup toy picture figure \ref{winduptoy}, there is a nice mechanical way to see such effects. As the two endpoints come together, new sectors of light strings connecting them appear, and their effects will in general generated an $\Upsilon$ term.
In the windup toy picture of figure \ref{winduptoy}, the strength of the periodic term is determined by the lateral separation of the two endpoints on the cylinder. In general, it depends on how the moduli are stabilized. In some circumstances, this leads to a non-perturbative suppression of $\Lambda$, somewhat similar to what we discussed
in the original case of Natural Inflation where the amplitude $\Lambda$ was naturally an exponentially small instanton effect.
One feature that deserves further analysis is to incorporate the moduli-dependence of the period $f$ into the dynamics, keeping track of the small adjustments that the moduli make even though they are heavy. We discussed an analogue of this in the `flattening' analysis above, where such adjustments make an important difference to the shape of the potential. Adjustments of the heavy fields such as the moduli determining $f$ will cause the period to change at some level during the process of inflation. This, along with the overall amplitude $\Lambda^4$, seems rather model-dependent, but it will be interesting to explore whether some general conclusions are possible about its direction or shape.
There is another feature of string theory as a UV completion which is worth remarking on: there are in general multiple axions. If a large number $N_a$ are light, they produce inflation over a smaller range of field for each axion \cite{assisted}\cite{Nflation}: multiplying the kinetic term (e.g. (\ref{bkinf})) by $N_a$ increases the effective $f_{axion}$ by a factor of $\sqrt{N_a}$.
On the other hand, they contribute to the renormalization of Newton's constant (\ref{Rterm}), so we get a range of the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{f^2}{M_P^2}\sim \frac{N_af_0^2}{M_{P,bare}^2+N_a\Lambda_c^2}
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_c$ is the appropriate cutoff scale. So as emphasized in the original paper \cite{Nflation}\ this is not a parametric enhancement of $f$ at large $N$, but depending on the cutoff scale this can make a difference.
Adding fields tends to push the tilt to the red side \cite{Liddlemulti}\ compared to the single-field version of the model, presumably because the field is rolling down the steeper part of each individual potential. For a sinusoidal or effectively $m^2\phi^2$ potential along each axion direction, this moves the predictions further toward the outside of the allowed region in the data (although one should not take $2\sigma$ distinctions seriously). But as we have seen, that case is very special, more generically the potential is flattened as happens in axion monodromy inflation.
Putting all this together, perhaps a generic example would have $N_a>1$ light axions, each in a monodromy-expanded potential. The phenomenology of this case is analyzed in \cite{Danjie}, with the expected redward shift of the tilt.
Finally, let us briefly describe two other examples that involve angular directions and multiple fields. In one example, known as trapped inflation \cite{Trapped}, the field rolls slowly down a steep part of its potential, repeatedly dumping its kinetic energy into the production of particles (or higher dimensional defects) that become light along its trajectory in field space. This is motivated by the quasiperiodic variables we have been discussing in string theory, where there can easily be a periodicity to particle production events. To see this most easily, consider the regime of figure \ref{winduptoy}\ where the two endpoints are close together laterally. In addition to the spacefilling brane sectors shown, the spectrum of the theory contains sectors of strings or branes stretched between the two endpoints. If the two endpoints come close enough together each time around the underlying circle, these sectors can be non-adiabatically produced, with inflaton kinetic energy dissipated in the process, slowing down its motion down the potential. This can produce inflation on a steep potential, with a strong non-Gaussian signature in the perturbations.
Another multifield example is known as Roulette Inflation \cite{roulette}, where a pair of scalar fields organize into a modulus and phase $\rho e^{i\theta}$ related by (broken) supersymmetry in a particular scenario \cite{large}. With this and other multifield examples including \cite{Nflation}, the results depend on the initial conditions, i.e. on the trajectory. The analysis of the predictions is statistical, with ultimately an unknown distribution on the initial conditions. The contributions of the additional fields to the fluctuations may lead to interesting large-scale anomalies and non-Gaussianity \cite{Dick}.
\subsubsection{Phenomenology of axion inflation}
After fitting model parameters to the normalized power spectrum and $N_e$ (with some uncertainty in reheating dynamics), one obtains well defined predictions for $r$, $n_s$, and other quantities as a function of any remaining parameters in the model.
The classic single-field quantum field theoretic axion theory, Natural Inflation, makes predictions along a swath of the $r-n_s$ plane which is indicated in figure 1 of the Planck inflation paper \cite{Planckpapers}.
Axion monodromy inflation \cite{monodromy}\ makes distinct predictions. It produces a detectable tensor signal within the range $.01 < r < .1$ which is observationally accessible but not yet constrained by the data. Multiple B-mode experiments promise to cover this range and beyond
\cite{Bmode}\cite{Snowmass}. As discussed above, this is very exciting in general because it will cover the full range of possible large-field inflation with a super-Planckian field excursion $\Delta\phi$.
The Planck 2013 inflation paper \cite{Planckpapers}\ (figure 1) shows the current $2\sigma$ limits on $r$ and the tilt $n_s$, including two representative versions of axion monodromy. These constraints disfavor $\phi^p$ inflation with $p$ much greater than 2, as does the theory for the reasons discussed above, but beyond that we cannot make statistically significant distinctions within this class of models. They will be significantly tested by the B-mode observations.
An additional, more model-dependent signature arises from the oscillating term in (\ref{Vplusosc}) \cite{monodromy}, with some interesting analyses already reported in \cite{oscdata}\cite{Planckpapers}\ (with no detection). If it is accessible it could affect the power spectrum and non-Gaussianity \cite{resonantNG}\ in a dramatic way. This is model-dependent in amplitude and in the evolution of the period $f$ during the process, but it is well worth analyzing this in both in the theory and data as far as we can.
As mentioned above, multifield versions of axion inflation such as N-flation push the tilt to the red of the single-field version of a given model, as analyzed for example in \cite{Liddlemulti}\cite{Nflation}\cite{Danjie}.
There are many more aspects of axions in cosmology than we have been able to cover here. As we saw above, in string theory axions arise from higher-dimensional analogues of electromagnetic gauge fields; let me mention that people have considered other uses of gauge fields in inflation such as the recent works \cite{chromo}\cite{gauge}.
\subsection{Gravitationally redshifted D-brane inflation and strings}
A classic example of string-theoretic inflation is the KKLMMT model \cite{KKLMMT}. By emphasizing the role of Planck-suppressed contributions to the effective theory, this paper played a very important role in enforcing the necessary standard of control on inflationary model-building in string theory. Being an early example, it is covered in numerous earlier reviews and papers, so here we will be brief. The basic elements are a D-brane and anti D-brane stretched along our 3+1 dimensions, and living at points in the extra dimensions in a region of strong gravitational redshift, approximately the $AdS_5$ metric
\begin{equation}\label{AdSdS}
ds^2|_{`warped~throat'}\approx sinh^2\frac{w}{R} ds^2_{dS_{4}}+dw^2
\end{equation}
where $ds^2_{dS_4}$ is the metric of four-dimensional de Sitter spacetime (i.e. the first approximation to inflation).
This metric applies along a slice of the spacetime going up to some finite value of $w$ where the geometry matches on to a compact manifold \cite{RS}\cite{GKP}\cite{KKLT}.
The redshift makes it possible for the slow-roll conditions to be satisfied at the level of the classical potential generated by the brane-antibrane interaction energy. There are, as emphasized in \cite{KKLMMT}, many other contributions to the potential which affect the slow roll parameters at order 1, and these can be packaged in a useful way using the AdS/CFT correspondence to relate them to operator dimensions in a dual field theory description of the warped throat geometry (\ref{AdSdS}), and treated statistically. As a small-field model without a symmetry protecting the potential, any given realization of the model is somewhat tuned, but there are plausibly many possible realizations.
The tilt is not determined, as it depends on the Planck-suppressed contributions in any realization of the model, but the tensor to scalar ratio is robustly predicted to be too small for detection; this is a small-field model.
Because of the warping, a very interesting albeit model-dependent potential signature is cosmic strings from the exit. The redshifting to low energies makes this viable -- without it such strings would have large enough string tensions that they would already be ruled out \cite{CSreview}. Searches for cosmic strings have been made using various probes including \cite{Planckpapers}, with no detection thus far.
\subsection{DBI Inflation and Equilateral non-Gaussianity}
In this section we will describe a (then-)novel mechanism for inflation that came out of the AdS/CFT correspondence in string theory and our early attempts to generalize it to cosmology.\footnote{This will be the subject of the final part of these lectures.} The original setup inspired by string theory is similar to that of the previous subsection, but in a different regime (there are more recent ideas such as \cite{unwinding}\cite{TolleyWyman}\ where it may arise in a different way with less extreme parameters).
Regardless of the particular embedding in string theory, the mechanism helps make very clear how much more general inflation is than the slow-roll case (\ref{SR}). The requirement for inflation is not (\ref{SR}), but only (\ref{Hslow}), as the following dynamics illustrates explicitly.
Recall our expression for a relativistic particle action (\ref{BI}) which we generalized to the DBI action on branes (\ref{BI}).
As for the particle, this action enforces the fact that the brane cannot move faster than light. This continues to hold in the presence of a nontrivial potential $V(\phi)$ -- including potentials which are too steep for slow-roll inflation. The interactions in (\ref{DBI}) slow the field down even on a steep potential.
Let us evaluate this in the anti-de Sitter geometry
\begin{equation}\label{AdSpoinc}
ds^2=\frac{r^2}{R^2}\left(-dt^2+d{\bf x}^2\right) + \frac{R^2}{r^2}dr^2,
\end{equation}
putting the brane at a position $r$ that might depend on time $t$. Here we can set $B=0, f=0$ in (\ref{DBI}), and choose the simplest embedding $\xi^0=t, {\xi^i}={x^i}$. The metric $G_{MN}$ is given by (\ref{AdSpoinc}). Plugging all this in, and rewriting $\phi=r/\alpha'$, $\lambda=R^4/{\alpha'}^2$, we obtain the action
\begin{equation}
S=-\int d^4 x \left\{\frac{\phi^4}{\lambda}\sqrt{1-\frac{\lambda\dot\phi^2}{\phi^4}}+\Delta V(\phi)\right\}
\end{equation}
for a canonically normalized scalar field $\phi$. The term $\Delta V$ has to do with other contributions to the scalar potential, which depend on the charge and tension of the brane in this noncompact background (\ref{AdSpoinc}).
Regardless of the potential, the field is limited by the speed of light:
\begin{equation}\label{speedlimit}
\frac{\lambda \dot\phi^2}{\phi^4} < 1.
\end{equation}
This makes an infinite difference to the dynamics near $\phi=0$. If we expand out the square root and consider the metric term alone, the field would roll through the origin $\phi=0$ according to the solution $\phi=\phi_0+v(t-t_0)$, taking a finite time to get to $\phi=0$ from any finite value $\phi_0$. In contrast, with the interactions in place enforcing (\ref{speedlimit}), it never gets there!
These features persist when we couple this theory to gravity and introduce a potential $V(\phi)$, providing a mechanism for inflation very different from slow roll inflation, one which works for steep potentials. (This does not imply that it suffers from less tuning than in the slow roll regime, since the rest of the action may require tuning.) Because of the interactions, the perturbation spectrum is much more non-Gaussian than in slow roll inflation and require a more general analysis \cite{Creminelli}\cite{DBI}\cite{generalsingle}\cite{EFT}\cite{shape}. Writing $\phi=\phi_0(t)+\delta\phi(t,{\bf x})$ and expanding the square root makes this immediately clear since this brings down inverse powers of the square root. That is, positive powers of $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\lambda\dot\phi_0^2/\phi_0^4}$ multiply interaction terms of order $\delta\phi^3,\delta\phi^4$ and so on.
The interactions in this theory, expanded in powers of $\lambda\dot\phi^2/\phi^4$, are reminiscent of
those in the general discussion above of effective field theory (\ref{Wilsac}). Except here, the scale $M_*$ is replaced by the field $\phi$ itself. We do not have time to explain it here, but this lines up very well with the dual description of the system (\ref{AdSpoinc})\ according to the AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{AdSCFT}, where this action arises precisely from integrating out degrees of freedom $\chi$ whose masses are proportional to $\phi$. That is $M_*=M_\chi=\phi$ is indeed a mass threshold in the theory.
For $\lambda \gg 1$, the effects from integrating out the $\chi$ field dominate over effects of their time-dependent production. In that sense, trapped inflation \cite{Trapped}\ (discussed above), where the field is slowed down due to dissipation into $\chi$ fields, is a similar mechanism in a different regime of parameters. These play a role in the scenario \cite{unwinding}, which also has an interesting way of starting the process through explicit bubble nucleation.
The extensive analysis of non-Gaussian shapes using the current CMB data \cite{Planckpapers}\ has provided important constraints on this mechanism and others that produce non-Gaussianity. The strongest constraints apply to
$f_{NL}^{local}$, which is a shape that can only be produced in multifield inflation. Although a significant portion of the parameter space has been removed, there is still room within the current constraints for substantial non-Gaussianity in the equilateral and orthogonal shapes, among others. From the point of view of the low-energy effective theory of inflationary perturbations \cite{EFT}, one can quantify the level of constraint required to show that slow roll inflation is favored over other possibilities. Although all the data is consistent with single-field slow roll, more stringent bounds are needed in order to reach that conclusion.
As a result there is a strong push to analyze large-scale structure in sufficient detail to use it as a probe of non-Gaussianity
(see e.g. \cite{Snowmass}\ for a recent summary).
\subsection{Planck-suppressed operators from hidden sectors}
The limits on non-Gaussianity are already very powerful in any case. One immediate application is to analyze the constraints they imply on Planck-suppressed operators that could couple observed physics to an otherwise hidden sector of additional fields \cite{Plancksuppressed}. Consider the possibility of such an additional sector of fields. From our general introduction to effective field theory (\ref{Wilsac}), we would expect couplings between additional fields and the inflaton, suppressed by appropriate energy scales $M_*$, for example
\begin{equation}
\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\frac{(\partial\phi)^2O_{\Delta}}{M_*^\Delta}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ is the dimension the operator $O$. This includes a mixing term $\dot\phi\dot{\delta\phi}O_\Delta/M_*^\Delta$ between the perturbation $\delta\phi$ of the inflaton and the operator $O$ of the other sector. In this other sector, there may be significant interactions, including a nontrivial three-point function $\langle OOO\rangle$. This combined with the mixing interaction induces non-Gaussianity $\langle\zeta\zeta\zeta\rangle$. When one plugs in the numbers, this leads to constraints on hidden sectors connected via $M_P$-suppressed operators, in the case of high-scale inflation (in general the results depend on the ratio $H/M_*$). This was just the basic idea; see the papers \cite{Plancksuppressed}\ for a careful treatment.
\subsection{Entry and Exit physics}
There have been interesting explorations of the physics and potential for observables coming from the entry into inflation or from the exit phase. Tunneling into an inflationary trajectory from a metastable vacuum could give very interesting signatures \cite{bubbles}. Note that this requires a minimal number of e-foldings, whereas inflation in string theory can naturally produce significant numbers of e-foldings beyond the $\approx 60$ observed without any additional fine-tuning. (Claims that a small number of e-foldings is preferred are not reliable, as they are based on particular fine-tuned small-field classes of models; nonetheless it is a very interesting possibility.) Reheating dynamics has brought interesting novelties such as oscillon configurations \cite{oscillons}\ and large-scale non-Gaussianities \cite{Dick}. We mentioned cosmic strings, another interesting possibilty for observable physics coming out of the exit from inflation, in the context of the model \cite{KKLMMT}\ above \cite{CSreview}.
\section{What is the framework?}
Let us now switch gears and discuss conceptual questions associated with inflation, and with the late-time accelerating universe \cite{SNDE}\cite{Huterer}.
The causal structure of de Sitter spacetime is very different from Minkowski spacetime or $AdS$, in that no single observer can collect all the data that appears to exist mathematically in the global geometry. This question persists even when we include an exit from inflation for any given observer -- because of the structure of the moduli potential that we found above, which runs away toward zero at weak coupling or large radius, there is a nonzero amplitude form a Coleman-de Luccia bubble with that runaway phase inside. Given this decay, an observer can access more degrees of freedom than in the original de Sitter phase, as previously super-horizon modes come into the horizon; but with inflation persisting eternally in the global sense (going on elsewhere), observer-dependent horizons remain.
In string theory, there is a well supported conjecture for a complete formulation of physics in Anti de Sitter space (and some other non-cosmological spacetimes) in terms of a dual quantum field theory which is formulated on a spacetime of one less dimension. This realized an older idea of `holography' that developed out of black hole physics, in which the area of the event horizon behaves like a statistical-mechanical entropy. The latter idea seems more general than its implementation in $AdS$ and related spacetimes, and we would like to explore its upgrade to inflationary spacetimes, particularly de Sitter.
Our strategy is simply to add ingredients to the `gravity side' of the correspondence, and see what this does to the dual description of the system. We find nontrivial, but qualitative, agreement between a macroscopic and microscopic approach to this problem, between \cite{dSdS} and \cite{micromanaging}.
To begin let us introduce the basic ideas behind the AdS/CFT correspondence. Let us return to the branes we mentioned earlier as stress-energy sources in string theory. If we introduce a stack of parallel $N_3$ of D3-branes in $D=10$, they source a metric
\begin{equation}\label{threebrane}
ds^2 = \frac{1}{(1+\frac{R^4}{r^4})^{1/2}}(-dt^2+d{\bf x}^2)+(1+\frac{R^4}{r^4})^{1/2}dr^2 + R^2 d\Omega^2
\end{equation}
where $d\Omega^2$ is the metric on the 5-sphere which surrounds the D3-branes. The form of the Newtonian potential far from the source is just the generalization of the familiar $1/r$ potential in four dimensions; in general it goes like $1/r^{d_\perp-2}$ where $d_\perp$ is the spatial codimension (the number of spatial directions transverse to the object--here that is 6, so we get 4=6-2).
These branes are charged: in addition to sourcing a gravitational potential, they also source a five-form flux $F_5=dC_4$ with both electric and magentic components; the quantized internal magnetic flux satisfies $\int_{S^5} F_5=N_3$.
The redshift factor $G_{00}=1/(1+\frac{R^4}{r^4})^{1/2}$ becomes very small for $r\ll R$. That is, $r\ll R$ is the low energy regime of this system, where we measure the energy with respect to time $t$. The metric simplifies in this limit, becoming the Anti de Sitter metric (\ref{AdSpoinc}) times the $S^5$ metric.
This $AdS$ solution can be understood as coming from the stabilization of the $S^5$, which occurs via a balance of forces between two terms. We can think about this in terms of the five-dimensional potential energy as a function of the sphere size and the string coupling, starting from (\ref{Dac})(\ref{Smatter}). As explained in detail in \cite{TASIlectures}, this produces a potential that depends only on one combination $\eta=e^{\phi_s/3}/L^{4/3}$, where $L=R/\sqrt{\alpha'}$ is the sphere size in units of the string tension. This potential is of the form
\begin{equation}
V=M_5^5\left(-\eta^4+N_3^2 \eta^{10}\right)
\end{equation}
The first, negative term comes from the positive curvature of the $S^5$ in the $D=10$ Einstein term $\int\sqrt{-G}R$. The second term comes from the flux term $F_5^2$, which pushes against the contraction of the sphere since that causes large energy density. In more detail, the curvature term goes like $-(L^5/g_s^2)\times(1/L^2)$ times a Weyl rescaling factor to go to Einstein frame, and the flux goes like $L^5 \times N_3^2/L^{10}$ times the conversion factor.
There is another description of low energy physics in this system: that of the open string theory on the D-branes, which make up a specific quantum field theory, the $N=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $U(N_3)$. This is a distant cousin of quantum chromodynamics, a $U(3)$ Yang-Mills theory. The conjecture is that these two low energy descriptions are equivalent \cite{AdSCFT}.
We will want to draw from two generalizations of this structure which give additional examples of the duality. The first is to consider a stack of D3-branes at the tip of a cone whose base $X$ is a positively curved Einstein space (meaning $R_{ij}=const\times g_{ij}$). This also gives $AdS$ solutions dual to specific field theories, as in \cite{orbifoldCFT}\ and many generalizations. It is useful to describe the cone (which is simply locally flat space), or the original 6-dimensional flat space in the original example above,
\begin{equation}\label{cone}
ds^2=dr^2+R(r)^2 ds^2_{X}=ds^2=dr^2+ r^2 ds^2_{X}
\end{equation}
as the solution to a radial version of the Friedmann equation
\begin{equation}\label{radialAdS}
\left(\frac{R'}{R}\right)^2=\frac{1}{R^2} \Rightarrow R(r)=r
\end{equation}
where the role of the scale factor is played here by $R(r)$.
Here the $1/R^2$ on the right hand side comes from the curvature of the base (e.g. $S^5$ in the original example above). To belabor the obvious, the solution $R(r)$ goes off to infinity as $r\to\infty$.
The reason for making these comments is that when we `uplift' to de Sitter spacetime it will be useful to see how (\ref{radialAdS}) is modified.
Let us now analyze what happens when we add contributions to the potential to produce metastable de Sitter instead of anti de Sitter. Recall that the stabilization mechanism involved two terms: the sphere (or more general Einstein space) curvature, and the $N_3$ units of flux sourced by the D3-branes. Placing the D3-branes at the tip of the cone causes the geometry to become $AdS_5\times X$ in the small-$r$ `near horizon' region. As we discussed above, the stabilization of moduli to metastable de Sitter spacetime requires a three-term structure (at least), a potential of the schematic form
\begin{equation}\label{Vabc}
V=a\frac{1}{R^{n_a}}-b\frac{1}{R^{n_b}}+c\frac{1}{R^{n_c}}
\end{equation}
where $n_c>n_b>n_a$ and $a,b,c>0$. Here in general the coefficients $a,b$, and $c$ will depend on many scalar field moduli, and in each direction the potential must stabilize these or at least produce accelerated expansion. This has been done in an explicit uplift of a different version of $AdS/CFT$ \cite{micromanaging}, and it is rather complicated but does have this basic structure, with the final term proportional to $c$ coming from fluxes with indices along the internal sphere
($F_5$ flux in the above example). We will be interested in the qualitative features here.
We could consider for example the case that the first, positive term proportional to $a$ comes from changing the internal space $X$ from being positively curved to being negatively curved. This is possible to do, with sources of stress-energy which have a known field-theoretic interpretation \cite{dualpurpose}\cite{micromanaging}\cite{FRW}\ in terms of magnetic matter. Another possibility is to introduce branes which wrap $X$. We need a negative term which can come from the exotic objects we discussed above, `orientifolds'.
Given those elements, we can now see what happens to the radial Friedmann equation (\ref{radialAdS}) upon such an uplift of $AdS/CFT$. It becomes
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{R'}{R}\right)^2=-\frac{1}{R^{n_a}}+\frac{1}{R^{n_b}}
\end{equation}
with the flux term left out as before because it corresponds to the D-branes we placed at the origin of the cone.
With $n_a<n_b$, this equation has a solution in which the $R(r)$ starts small, grows to a finite maximal value, and then shrinks again. The cone has become like a rugby ball (or American football) in shape, with two tips and a finite maximum of $R(r)$ in between.
Since adding $N$ units of flux produces a metastable dS solution, we can obtain that solution by introducing $N$ branes at one tip and $N$ anti-branes at the other; these have an equivalent description in terms of the flux. This introduces {\it two} low energy sectors.
This lines up beautifully with the geometry of de Sitter spacetime. The latter has a metric (which is not global, but covers more than an observer patch)
\begin{equation}\label{dSdS}
ds^2_{dS_{d}}=sin^2(\frac{w}{L})ds^2_{dS_{d-1}}+dw^2
\end{equation}
This exhbits a gravitational redshift which mirrors the structure we just derived from the brane construction: namely, $g_{00}$ starts at zero at $w=0$ where $sin(w/L)=0$, it rises to a finite maximum at $w=\pi L/2$, and decreases again to a second zero at $w=\pi L$. That is, there are two low energy regions. This is what we just found above: two low energy sectors from the two tips.
This agreement is rather striking, even though it is only qualitative. Note that it would not have occurred if string theory came with a hard cosmological constant: the vanishing of the potential in large-radius limits, encoded in the structure (\ref{Vabc}), plays a crucial role here.
The analogous metric on $AdS$ spacetime is (\ref{AdSdS}), with the coordinate $w$ and the redshift factor $g_{00}$ going all the way up to infinity. This regime is the deep ultraviolet region of the field theory, described by local operators. In warped compactifications \cite{RS}\cite{GKP}\cite{KKLT}\cite{KKLMMT}, or as we have just seen in de Sitter spacetime itself \cite{dSdS}, the redshift factor goes down to zero in the infrared, but not all the way up to infinity. One important consequence of this is that the system has dynamical $d-1$ dimensional gravity. The dual description is a pair of low-energy quantum field theories, coupled via $d-1$ dimensional gravity. The field theories need not be ultraviolet complete \cite{Dusan}; they only need a good low energy regime, as with quantum electrodynamics.
Since three-dimensional gravity is much simpler than four-dimensional gravity -- and since the low energy region near the horizon is dualized in terms of a non-gravitational theory -- this represents some progress, albeit not a complete formulation of the theory. One can also dimensionally reduce further to obtain two-dimensional, Liouville gravity \cite{dSdS} (as was also found in a different framework \cite{FRWCFT}). This seems to me to contain the right physics -- it reflects the fluctuating nature of cosmological solutions at finite time and the finite Gibbons-Hawking entropy of de Sitter spacetime. Other approaches to the problem, including the conjectured dS/CFT correspondence \cite{dSCFT}, have the same feature: in order to calculate observables, one must make sense of integration over $d-1$ dimensional metrics, i.e. dynamical $d-1$ dimensional gravity. In fact, those calculations also involve two matter sectors coupled through the $d-1$ dimensional metric, perhaps not a coincidence.\footnote{We thank L. Susskind for this observation.}
In these systems there is actually an important simplification that arises in the far future, something that also follows from the structure of the potential \cite{FRW}\cite{HarlowSusskind}. Because the de Sitter solutions are only metatable, they eventually decay to a rolling scalar FRW solution with decelerating expansion. The causal structure within an observer patch becomes more like Minkowski space in the future. The gravitational entropy bound \cite{Boussobound}\ goes off to infinity. The analogue of the warped metric (\ref{dSdS}) has the property that the inferred $d-1$ dimensional Newton constant goes to zero at late times -- the $d-1$ dimensional gravity eventually decouples! In fact, this is true also for accelerating solutions with $w>-1$ as in \cite{SCDE}, even though their causal structure is similar to de Sitter \cite{HellSuss}.
These features strike me as very promising, but there is much more to do to flesh out and test these ideas. Simpler solutions will help, and there are many ideas to pursue for reducing the list of sources required to generate inflation (e.g. \cite{SCDE}\cite{Danielsson}). There is another general approach which we do not have time to cover here: one can obtain clues about the dual description by trading fluxes for branes and analyzing the theory as it moves out along the resulting space of scalar fields.
In general, the structure of spacetime dependent field theory and string theory is an extremely fruitful area for further research. The bulk of research in string theory thus far is on special, highly symmetric solutions in which
one can compute certain quantities very elegantly even at strong coupling.\footnote{One should never confuse the statistics of string theory papers with the statistics of string theory backgrounds.} However, even from the point of view of mathematical physics, the more general setting of curved target spaces with nontrivial evolution are extremely interesting -- they exhibit beautiful generalizations of string dualities involving their topology and geometry. In any case, the observational discovery of the accelerating universe and the evidence for inflation in the primordial perturbations provide ample motivation for further work toward a complete framework.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I am grateful to numerous collaborators and other colleagues for many illuminating and enjoyable discussions in this area.
I would like to thank the participants and organizers Cedric Deffayet, Patrick Peter, Ben Wandelt, and Matias Zaldarriaga of the Les Houches School on Post-Planck Cosmology for an extremely interesting time. I am also grateful to the participants and organizers of the 2013 ICTP Spring School, the 2011 PiTP school Frontiers of Physics in Cosmology at the IAS, and the 2010 La Plata, Argentina school on high-energy physics where earlier versions of these lectures were given. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants
PHY-0756174 and NSF PHY11-25915, by the Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00515.
|
\section{Introduction}
There is a recent upsurge in the studies of non-equilibrium dynamics of quantum many body systems
\cite{polkovnikov11,dutta10,dziarmaga10}
driven across a quantum critical point (QCP) or gapless critical regions \cite{sachdev99}. Possibility of experimental realization in
cold atomic systems \cite{coldatom_1,polkovnikov11} has paved the way for a plethora of
theoretical works to investigate the time dependent evolution
and detection of quantum many body systems. In particular,
quenching of interactions by means of Feshbach resonances
or changing the lattice parameters as a function of
time has motivated numerous theoretical \cite{polkovnikov11}
and experimental works \cite{coldatom_3}.
In this article, we explore the behaviour of the Loschmidt echo (LE),
which is defined as the overlap of wave functions,
$|\Psi_{0}(t)\rangle$ and $|\Psi(t)\rangle$, evolving from the same initial state,
but with different Hamiltonians $H_{0}$ and $H$, respectively. It is given by
\begin{equation} \mathcal{L}(t)=\left| \langle\Psi_{0}|e^{i H_0 t} e^{-i H t} |\Psi(t)\rangle \right|^{2},
\label{LE0}
\end{equation}
and is usually interpreted as a measure of the hyper-sensitivity of the time evolution of the system to the perturbations experienced due to the surrounding environment \cite{peres,scholar}. It is also interpreted as the time evolved fidelity
following a quantum quench \cite{pollmann10, heyl13} in the sense that $\mathcal{L}(t)$ measures the overlap between the initial ground state $|\Psi_0\rangle$ (of $H_0$) and the corresponding time evolved state $|\Psi(t) \rangle = e^{-i H t} |\Psi_0\rangle$, when $H_0$ is changed to $H$ . In the context of a quantum phase transition, the LE has been found useful in detecting
a QCP showing a sharp dip in its vicinity \cite{quan06,sharma12}; it also shows an early time decay with the decay constant characterized by
the critical exponents of the associated quantum phase transition \cite{fazio_pra}. In recent years the LE, which is also related to the orthogonality catastrophe, has been
probed experimentally \cite {Knapp_PRX}.
Although the temporal evolution of the echo following a quantum quench across a
QCP has been studied in several works \cite{silva08,pollmann10,damski11,Venuti,damski11_2,nag12,heyl13}, the same when the quantum system is quenched within a
gapless critical phase has gained more prominence in recent times \cite{cazalila_prl06, Perfetto_epl, Dora_prl_2011,Dora_prl13, Dora3, Meden2, meden_prl12}.
In this work, we focus on a paradigmatic one dimensional interacting system with a gapless phase, namely the Luttinger model \cite{LL_ref} (LM) which is characterized by bosonic
collective modes as elementary excitations. LM can be seen as a fixed point, in the renormalization group sense, for a large class of gapless quantum many-body systems in one dimension, {\it i.e.,} the equilibrium, low energy properties of many one-dimensional systems are universally described by the LM.
Interacting cold atoms
in a one dimensional trap mimics such LMs \cite{coldatom_4}, as confirmed by existing
experiments \cite{finitequench_1}. Other systems where
LM is relevant are various spin models or interacting fermion
systems \cite{fazio_pra,dora_prb12,DzairmagaPRB2011}.
The LM has recently been studied from the view point
of quantum quenches and thermalization \cite{cazalila_prl06, LL_quench2, aditi_prl11,aditi_prl12}. Here, we study the non-equilibrium properties of a LM, due to a change in the interaction parameter achieved over finite span of time given by $\tau$,
investigating the behaviour of the LE.
In particular we will focus on an interaction quench in a LM using a linear protocol from an initial state to a final state.
The paper is organized in the following manner.
In Sec \ref{model}, we introduce the model Hamiltonian, {\it i.e.} LM, with an interaction quench, and
calculate the Loschmidt echo; within the central spin model, where a qubit is coupled to a quantum many body system, the LE measures the decoherence of the qubit \cite{quan06}.
In Section \ref{adiasudsec}, we reproduce the limiting behaviour
of the LE for sudden ($\tau \to 0$) and adiabatic quench ($\tau \to \infty$), where we also argue that the result in
the adiabatic case can also be interpreted by visualizing an adiabatic quench as a process that leads to the formation of an interacting Luttinger liquid from a non interacting 1D system.
In section \ref{quenchsec}, we study the LE for a finite time linear interaction quench a.) within a perturbation scheme with
quench amplitude (or the change in the interaction strength) as the small parameter and b.) numerically. In Section \ref{LElimits}, we analyze the LE
in various limits, particularly focussing on the early time (immediately after quench) and asymptotic ($t \to \infty$) behaviour
both for small and large $\tau$ and discuss alternate scaling arguments in a more general context.
The summary and discussion of our results is presented in section \ref{conclusions}. We note at the
outset that we shall denote the LE for fast quench (small $\tau$) and slow quench (large $\tau$ limit) using the notations $ \mathcal{L}_{SQ^{+}}$
and $ \mathcal{L}_{AQ^{-}}$, respectively.
\section{Luttinger model and the Loschmidt Echo}\label{model}
The low energy properties of interacting 1D bosons or that of spin chains
can be described in terms of bosonic sound like excitations, in the LM.
The initial LM Hamiltonian, we consider is given by \cite{LL_ref}
\begin{equation}
H_i=\sum_{q\neq 0} \left(v_0 |q|
b_q^\dagger b_q +\frac{g_i|q|}{2} \left[ b_q b_{-q} + b_q^\dagger b_{-q}^\dagger\right] \right) ~.
\label{Eq.1}
\end{equation}
Here, $v_0 |q|$
is the `linearized' excitation spectrum of the non-interacting bosons, $g_i$ is the initial interaction strength, and $b_q^\dagger ~(b_q)$ is the creation (annihilation) operator describing the bosonic density excitations.
The Hamiltonian in Eq.\eqref{Eq.1} being quadratic in bosonic operators can be easily diagonalized in terms of new bosonic quasiparticle operators ($\beta_q ,~ \beta_q^\dagger$), using the standard time-independent Bogoliubov transformation $b_q= u_q~\beta_q-v_q~\beta_{-q}^\dagger$. The commutation relations for the bosonic operators enforce the condition, $|u_q|^2 - |v_q|^2 = 1$, which enable us to
use the parameterization, $u_q \equiv \cosh(\phi_q)$, and $v_q \equiv \sinh(\phi_q) $.
One can easily arrive at the condition that diagonalizes Hamiltonian (\ref{Eq.1}), given by,
\begin{equation}
\tanh(2\phi_q)=\frac{g_i}{v_0}~ ~~{\rm or}~~~e^{-2\phi_q} = \left(\frac{v_0 - g_i}{v_0+g_i}\right)^{1/2} \equiv K_i ~.
\end{equation}
Here $K_i$ is the dimensionless LM interaction parameter which characterises the initial strength of interaction. Note that $K_i =1$ for a non interacting system, $K_i<1$ for repulsive ($g_i > 0$) electron electron interactions and
$K_i > 1$ for attractive ($g_i < 0$) electron electron interactions.
The Bogoliubov coefficients can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray} u_q &=& \frac{\sqrt{v_0 +g_i}+\sqrt{v_0-g_i}}{2 (v_0^2-g_i^2)^{1/4}} = \frac{K_i +1}{2\sqrt{K_i}}~,~~~{\rm and} \label{eq:u_q}\\
v_q &=& \frac{\sqrt{v_0 +g_i}-\sqrt{v_0 -g_i}}{2 (v_0^2 - g_i^2)^{1/4}} = \frac{K_i -1}{2\sqrt{K_i}} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
The diagonalised Hamiltonian in terms of new bosonic operators is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq: GS}
H_i=\varepsilon_i +\sum_{q\neq 0} v_i |q| ~\beta_q^\dagger \beta_q,
\end{equation}
where $v_i=\sqrt{v_0^2-g_i^2}$, is the renormalized velocity and $\varepsilon_i$ is the ground state energy of $H_i$ with respect to the non-interacting ground state.
The initial quasiparticle dispersion spectra is given by $\omega_i (q) =v_i |q|$; clearly, the ground state of $H_i$ is the vacuum of the $\beta$ bosons.
To study the dynamics of the LM, we quench the interaction strength from an initial value $g_i$ to a
final value $g_f$ within a quench time $\tau$.
The quench in the interaction parameter is described by incorporating an additional time dependent term in the Hamiltonian [Eq.\eqref{Eq.1}]
\begin{equation}
H'=\sum_{q\neq 0}\frac{\delta_g|q|Q(t)}{2}[b_qb_{-q}+b_q^\dagger b_{-q}^\dagger],
\end{equation}
where $\delta_g =g_f-g_i$, and $Q(t)$ is the quench protocol satisfying $Q(t<0)=0$ and $Q(t>\tau)= 1$; the cases $\tau=0$ and $\tau \to \infty$ refer to the sudden and adiabatic quenching schemes, respectively.
The time dependent Hamiltonian ($H=H_i+H'$), can now be recast in terms of the $\beta$ bosons using the standard Bogoliubov transformation ($ b_q=u_q \beta_q-v_q\beta_{-q}^{\dag}$) to the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
H(t)=\varepsilon_i+\sum_{q\neq 0}\left\{\left(v_i -\frac{g_i\delta_g Q(t)}{v_i}\right)|q| \beta_q^\dagger \beta_q+\right.\nonumber\\
\left.+\frac{\delta_g Q(t)v_0}{2 v_i}|q|[\beta_q \beta_{-q} + \beta_q^\dagger \beta_{-q}^\dagger ]
-\frac{\delta_g Q(t) g_i}{v_i}|q|\right\}~.
\label{Eq.3}
\end{eqnarray}
Redefining the time-dependent parameters as
$v(t) = (v_i- \delta_g Q(t) g_i/v_i)$, and
$g(t) = (\delta_g Q(t)v_0/ v_i)$, and ignoring unimportant constants, one finds
\begin{equation}
H(t)=\sum_{q\neq 0} \left(v(t) |q| ~\beta_q^\dagger \beta_q
+\frac{g (t) |q|}{2}\left[\beta_q \beta_{-q} + \beta_q^\dagger \beta_{-q}^\dagger\right] \right)\;.
\label{Eq.4}
\end{equation}
The time evolution for the quadratic Eq.\eqref{Eq.4}
is obtained by the Heisenberg equation of motion, leading to
\begin{eqnarray}
i \partial_t \beta_q &=&
v(t) |q| ~\beta_q (t)+ g(t) |q| ~\beta_{-q}^\dagger(t) ~, \nonumber\\
i \partial_t \beta_{-q}^\dagger(t) &=& - v(t) |q| ~\beta_{-q}^\dagger(t)- g(t) |q| ~\beta_q (t)~.
\label{Eq.EOM}
\end{eqnarray}
The coupled linear Eq.\eqref{Eq.EOM} have solutions of the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_q(t)= f(q,t)~\beta_q(0) +h^*(q,t)~\beta^\dagger_{-q}(0)~,
\label{Eq.ansatz}
\end{eqnarray}
where the time-dependence has been completely shifted to the pre-factors $f(q,t)$ and $h(q,t)$ which satisfy the condition $|f(q,t)|^{2}-|h(q,t)|^{2} = 1$ for all times.
Also, the operators $\beta_q(0)$ and $\beta_q^{\dagger} (0)$, appearing on the right hand side of Eq.\eqref{Eq.ansatz} defined, at time
$t=0$, refer to non-interacting Bogoliubov bosons describing the initial Hamiltonian in Eq.\eqref{eq: GS}.
Using Eqs.\eqref{Eq.EOM}-\eqref{Eq.ansatz}, we obtain coupled differential equations for the coefficients $f(q,t)$ and $h(q,t)$, satisfying
\begin{equation}
i \partial_t \left[ \begin{array}{c}
f(q,t) \\
h(q,t)
\end{array} \right] = |q| \times \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
v(t) & g(t) \\
-g(t) & -v(t)
\end{array} \right]
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
f(q,t) \\
h(q,t)
\end{array} \right]~.
\label{Eq.6}
\end{equation}
with the initial condition $[f(q,0),~h(q,0)] =[1,~0]$.
Using the generic definition given in Eq.\eqref{LE0}, one can find the LE or the overlap of wave functions time evolved from the initial ground state with the Hamiltonian $H_i$ and the time dependent Hamiltonian $H(t)$ [Eq.~(\ref{Eq.4})], respectively. This has been calculated for a spin-less Luttinger model in Ref. [\onlinecite{Dora_prl13}], and is expressed in terms of the time dependent coefficients $[f(q,t), h(q,t)]$ as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}(t)=\exp {\left[-\sum\limits_{q>0}~\ln\left(|f(q,t)|^2\right)\right]}~.
\label{le}
\end{eqnarray}
In subsequent sections, we solve Eq.\eqref{Eq.6}
to obtain $[f(q,t), h(q,t)]$ and hence the LE in different situations.
\section{Loschmidt echo in the adiabatic and the sudden quench limit}\label{adiasudsec}
Before discussing the LE for a finite time quench, let us briefly reproduce the behaviour of the LE for the limiting cases of adiabatic and sudden quench reported in Ref.[\onlinecite{Dora_prl13}]. We reiterate that we are varying the interaction strength from $g_i$ to $g_f$ in a finite interval of time $\tau$; $\tau \to \infty$ ($\tau=0$) limit correspond to the adiabatic (sudden) case.
For convenience, let us also define the final renormalized velocity, $v_f = (v_0^2 - g_f^2)^{1/2}$, and the final dispersion relation, $\omega_f (q) = v_f |q|$.
\subsection{Adiabatic quench}
In the adiabatic limit, after the quench ($t > \tau \to \infty$, {\it i.e.}, $Q(t) =1$), Eq.\eqref{Eq.6} has stationary solutions of the form $[f(q,t), h(q,t)] = [f_q, h_q] e^{-i \omega_f(q) t} $. These solutions in Eq.\eqref{Eq.6} together with the final expression for the velocity and interaction strength, $v(t> \tau) = (v_0^2 - g_f g_i)/v_i$ and $g(t> \tau) = (g_f -g_i) v_0/v_i $, leads to
\begin{equation}
|f(q,t>\tau)|^{2}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{K_{f}}{K_{i}}+\frac{K_{i}}{K_{f}}\right)~.
\label{adiares}
\end{equation}
Here we have used the constraint $|f_q|^2-|h_q|^2 = 1$ and the parameter
$ K_{f}=\sqrt{[v_0-g_f]/[v_0+g_f]}$ characterizes
the strength of interaction in final state. The LE can now be obtained by substituting Eq.\eqref{adiares} in Eq.\eqref{le}, and
is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{AQ} =
\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{K_{f}}{K_{i}}+\frac{K_{i}}{K_{f}}\right)\right)^{-L/2\pi\alpha}~,
\label{ad1}
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the system size and the momentum sum in the exponential has been regularized using the ultraviolet cut-off $1/\alpha$. Here $\alpha$ is a non-universal and model-dependent short distance cutoff (inverse of the ultraviolet cutoff) which is used for the regularization of divergences in the Luttinger model.
Since $1/\alpha$ is a measure of the maximum wave vector included in the sum of Eq.{\eqref{le}}, and the separation between any two wave vectors is $ 2 \pi /L$, the exponent $L/(2 \pi \alpha)$, appearing in the Loschmidt Echo, just represents the number of wave vectors appearing in the sum of Eq.{\eqref{le}}. The soft cutoff $\alpha$ arises, naturally when any finite size physical system is mapped to the Luttinger model. For example in the $XXZ$ model,
$L/(2 \pi \alpha) = \pi^2 N \chi_{f}$, where $N$ is the number of lattice sites, and, $\chi_f$ is the known\cite{sirker_prl10}, fidelity susceptibility around the non-interacting $XX$ point of the $XXZ$ model \cite{Dora_prl13}. In the present study, the cut-off renormalizes the length of $L$ of the system
and the scaling relations derived here depend on the rescaled length $L/\alpha$.
Clearly the adiabatic LE simply measures the overlap of the ground state of
initial and final Hamiltonians implying that in the adiabatic limit the system is always in its instantaneous ground state
which can be viewed as the ground state of an instantaneous LM with a time dependent effective interaction parameter
\begin{equation}
K(t) = \sqrt{\frac{v(t) - g(t)}{v(t) + g(t)}}~. \label{eq:Kt}
\end{equation}
One can also use this argument to arrive at the result given in Eq.~\ref{ad1}. Using Eq.\eqref{eq:Kt} in Eq.\eqref{eq:u_q}, for $t > \tau$, {\it i.e.}, when $v(t) = (v_0^2 - g_f g_i)/v_i$ and $g(t) = (g_f -g_i) v_0/v_i $, one can find out the time independent Bogoliubov coefficient,
\begin{equation}
|u_q|^2 = \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{K_{f}}{K_{i}}+\frac{K_{i}}{K_{f}}\right)~. \label{ad2}
\end{equation}
After the quench, $|u_q|^2 = |f(q,t>\tau)|^2$ as the interaction parameter is no longer changing and there is no mixing of the $\pm q$ modes [see Eq.\eqref{Eq.ansatz}], and this leads to Eq.\eqref{ad1}.
We note in passing that the argument presented above is also consistent with the idea behind the `formation' of an interacting Luttinger liquid state starting from an initial non-interacting state, $K_i = 1$, by adiabatically switching on the interactions. Technically this is evident by substituting $K_i \to 1$ and $K_f \to K_i$ in Eq.\eqref{ad2} which immediately leads to Eq.\eqref{eq:u_q}.
We note that the adiabatic LE turns out to be the modulus squared of the ground state fidelity, and Eq.\eqref{ad1} is consistent with the ground state fidelity calculated earlier \cite{fidelity_yang}.
\subsection{Sudden quench}
In the sudden quench limit ($\tau \to 0$), for $t> 0$, the velocity and the interaction strength assume their
time independent final value, and Eq.\eqref{Eq.6} can be decoupled to obtain $\partial_t^2 f (q,t) + v_f^2 |q|^2 f (q,t) = 0$.
Solving this with the initial condition, $f(q,0) =1$, we get
\begin{equation}
f(q,t)=\cos(v_{f}|q|t)-\frac{i}{2}\left(\frac{K_{f}}{K_{i}}+\frac{K_{i}}{K_{f}}\right)\sin(v_{f}|q|t) ~.
\label{eq:SU1}
\end{equation}
(An identical result has also been derived in Ref.[\onlinecite{cazalila_prl06}] using forward Bogoliubov transformation which is followed by the backward one). Using Eq.\eqref{eq:SU1}, we find the decay in the LE in the very short
time limit ($t \ll \alpha/v_{f}$)) given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{SQ}(t)
\approx \exp\left[-\frac{L}{2 \pi \alpha}\left(\frac{K_f}{K_i} - \frac{K_i}{K_f} \right)^2 \frac{v_f^2 t^2}{12 \alpha^2}\right]~.\label{sud1}
\end{equation}
We note that this is the usual gaussian decay of a LE expected (from a perturbation theory point of view) for a sudden quench \cite{peres, fazio_pra}.
In the large time limit ($t\gg\alpha/v_f$), on the other hand, one can neglect a small oscillating term with decaying amplitude (as $t$ increases), to obtain a simplified time independent form of the echo,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{SQ}(t\gg\alpha/v_f) =
\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{K_{f}}{K_{i}}+\frac{K_{i}}{K_{f}}\right)\right)^{-L/\pi\alpha}~.
\label{suddenlong}
\end{equation}
We emphasize that in the long time $t\rightarrow\infty$ limit, $\mathcal{L}_{SQ}=\mathcal{L}_{AQ}^2$; this correspondence has been reported in the Ref. [\onlinecite{Dora_prl13}] (also see Ref. [\onlinecite{Heyl13}]).
In the adiabatic limit, $\mathcal{L}_{AQ}=|\langle G_f|G_0\rangle|^2$ where $G_0$ and $G_f$ are the ground states of the initial and final Hamiltonian, respectively.
On the other hand, in the sudden limit, the LE takes the form $
\mathcal{L}=|\langle\Phi(t)|\Phi_0(t)\rangle|^2 = |\langle G_0|e^{i H t} e^{-i H_0 t} | G_0\rangle|^2$.
When expanded in eigenstates
of final Hamiltonian, only the ground state contributes to LE in the asymptotic limit, while the oscillating terms due to
the excited states interfere destructively and vanish as $t\rightarrow\infty$; one therefore finds $\mathcal{L}_{SQ}|_{t \to \infty}=|\langle G_f|G_0\rangle|^4$, thereby yielding the correspondence $\mathcal{L}_{SQ}=\mathcal{L}_{AQ}^2$.
\section{Loschmidt Echo for the finite time linear quench}\label{quenchsec}
In this section we focus on the interaction quench in a LM from an initial value $g_i$ to a final
value $g_f$ introduced over a finite interval time $\tau$ using the quenching protocol,
$$Q(t\le0)=0, ~~~Q(0<t<\tau)=t/\tau ~~{\rm and}~~ Q(t\ge\tau)= 1.$$
We use Eq.\eqref{Eq.6} which can be decoupled in different regimes. For all quenching
schemes, we get
\begin{equation}
\ddot{f} + v_i^2q^2 f = 0 ~~~{\rm and} ~~~
\ddot{h} + v_i^2q^2 h =0~,
\end{equation}
for $t<0$ while for $t \ge \tau$ \begin{equation}
\ddot{f} + v_f^2q^2 f = 0 ~~~{\rm and} ~~~
\ddot{h} + v_f^2q^2 h =0~.
\label{Eq.21}
\end{equation}
where we have dropped the arguments $q,t$ for $f(q,t)$ and $h(q,t)$.
However for the quenching scheme we are interested in, we have the following set of coupled equations during the interval $0< t < \tau$~ {\it i.e.}, when the interaction is being quenched
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq.9}
\ddot{f} - \frac{\dot{f}}{t} + \left[v_0^2q^2 - \left(g_i + \delta_g t/\tau\right)^2q^2 - i \frac{v_i|q|}{t} \right]f &=& 0 ~, \nonumber \\
\ddot{h} - \frac{\dot{h}}{t} + \left[v_0^2q^2 - \left(g_i + \delta_g t/\tau\right)^2q^2
+ i \frac{v_i|q|}{t} \right]h &=&0 ~. \nonumber \\
\label{Eq.linear}
\end{eqnarray}
We solve these linear second order inhomogeneous equation using numerical techniques.
However, we also consider the case when the change in the interaction parameter
$\delta_g$ is small and employ a perturbative expansion in $\delta_g \to 0$,
to gain insight of the time-evolution of the LE following a linear quench. We emphasize that the $\delta_g \to 0$ limit happens to be analogous to the adiabatic quench regime of $\tau \to \infty$, as only the combination of $\delta_g/\tau$ appears in Eq.\eqref{Eq.9}.
We now find the perturbative solutions of Eq.\eqref{Eq.6} [or equivalently Eq.\eqref{Eq.9}], with the boundary conditions $[f(q,t=0),h(q,t=0)] =[1,0]$, in terms of the small interaction parameter, {\it i.e.}, $ \delta_g << v_i$. The solutions of Eq.\eqref{Eq.21} are just harmonically varying functions of constant frequency ($\omega_f$), whose constant coefficients need to be determined through boundary condition at $t = \tau$; this necessitates solving Eq.\eqref{Eq.9} to obtain the value of the functions $[f(q,\tau),h(q,\tau)]$.
{\bf Solution for $t < \tau$} ({\it i.e.}, within the interval during which the interaction term is being changed): using Eq.\eqref{Eq.6}, we get \cite{Dora_prl_2011} to lowest order in $\delta_{g}$, {\it i.e.}, ${\cal O}(\delta_g)$, \begin{eqnarray}
f(q,0<t<\tau)&\approx& \text{exp}(-iv_{i}|q|t)\label{uqpert} \nonumber\\
h(q,0<t<\tau)&\approx&\frac{i\delta_{g}v_{0}|q|}{v_{i}\tau}~
e^{i[v_i t-\frac{\delta_{g}g_{i}}{2v_{i}\tau}t^{2}]|q|} \nonumber \\
& \times & \int_{0}^{t}t'e^{-2iv_{i}|q|t'}e^{i\frac{\delta_{g}g_{i}|q|}{2v_{i}\tau}t'^{2}}dt'~.
\label{hqtfull}
\end{eqnarray}
The integral on the RHS of above equation can be evaluated exactly to obtain,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray} h(q,t)& =&\frac{v_{0}}{g_{i}}~
e^{-i\left(2 v_{i}^{2}t+\frac{g_{i}\delta_{g}t^{2}}{\tau}
+\frac{4v_i^{4}\tau}{g_{i}\delta_{g}}\right)\frac{|q|}{2v_{i}}}
\Bigg[e^{\frac{2i v_{i}^{3}\tau |q|}{g_{i}\delta_{g}}}
\left(-e^{2iv_{i}|q|t}+e^{\frac{ig_{i}\delta_{g}|q|t^{2}}{2v_{i}\tau}}
\right) +(1+i) ~e^{2iv_{i}|q|t} \nonumber\\
&\times & v_{i} \sqrt{\frac{\pi\tau v_{i}|q|}{g_i\delta_g}}
\Bigg\{ \mathbf{Erfi}\left(\frac{(1+i)v_{i}
\sqrt{v_{i} |q| \tau}}{\sqrt{g_{i} \delta_g}}\right)+\mathbf{Erfi}
\left(\frac{ (1+i)(g_{i}\delta_{g}t-2v_{i}^{2}\tau)
\sqrt{|q|}}{2 \sqrt{g_{i}\delta_{g}v_{i}\tau}}\right)\Bigg\}\Bigg],~\label{hqttletau}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $\mathbf{Erfi}(z) = -i ~\mathbf{Erf}(i z)$, is the imaginary error function.
We expand the expression in Eq.(\ref{hqttletau}) in powers of $\delta_{g}$,
retaining only the lowest order term.
This simplifies Eq.\eqref{hqttletau} upto ${\cal O}(\delta_g)$ to the form,
\begin{equation}
h(q,t\le\tau)\approx \frac{\delta_{g}v_{0}}{2v_{i}^{2}} \left( \frac{\sin(v_{i}|q| t)}{v_i |q| \tau}- \frac{t}{\tau}e^{-iv_{i} |q|t} \right)
~. \label{hqtle2}\end{equation}
{\bf Solution for $t\ge\tau$} : In order to calculate the coefficients
in $t\ge\tau$ regime, {\it i.e.}, after the interaction reaches its final value, we use Eq. \eqref{hqtle2} at $t=\tau$ as the boundary condition for Eq. \eqref{Eq.21} and obtain the time evolution of $h(q,t\ge\tau)$ to be
\begin{equation}
h(q,t\ge\tau) \approx\frac{\delta_{g}v_{0}}{2v_{i}^{2}}\left[\frac{\sin(v_{i}|q|
\tau)}{v_{i}|q|\tau} e^{iv_{i}|q|(t-\tau)} - e^{-iv_{i}|q|t}\right] ~.
\label{fullhqtpert}
\end{equation}
The first term in the square brackets dominates the time evolution for small $\tau$ ({\it i.e.}, $\tau << 1/\omega_i$), and the second term yields the time evolution for large $\tau$ ({\it i.e.}, $\tau >> 1/\omega_i$).
One can readily obtain the exact results for the sudden ($\tau = 0$) as well as adiabatic ($\tau = \infty$) quench limits
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{SQ}(q,t\ge\tau)& \approx&\frac{i\delta_{g}v_{0}}{v_{i}^2} \sin(v_{i}|q|t)~, ~~~{\rm and}\nonumber\\
h_{AQ}(q,t\ge \tau)&\approx&-\frac{\delta_{g}v_{0}}{2v_{i}^{2}} e^{-i v_i|q| t }~,
\end{eqnarray}
to lowest order in $\delta_g$.
Eq.\eqref{fullhqtpert} provides the perturbative solution of $h(q,t)$ (which in fact yields the
number of excited states with respect to the
vacuum of the $\beta_q$ bosons generated during the quenching process)
in powers of $\delta_g$, for finite $\tau$ at all times and appropriately reduces to the sudden and adiabatic quench limits.
We now proceed to study the LE by means of the perturbative solution in powers of small parameter $\delta_g$.
Using Eq.\eqref{fullhqtpert}, and the constraint $|f(q,t)|^2 -|h(q,t)|^2 =1$, we find $|f(q,t)|^2$, which is then substituted in Eq.\eqref{le} to obtain the
finite $\tau$ behaviour of LE for a finite time, {\it i.e.,} $t\ge\tau$ in the perturbative limit:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}(t)
&=&\text{exp}\left[-\frac{L}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{1/\alpha}
\text{ln}\left( 1+\frac{\delta_{g}^{2}v_{0}^{2}}
{8v_{i}^{4}}\left[\frac{1}{v_i^2q^2\tau^2}+2-\frac{\cos(2v_{i}|q|
\tau)}{v_i^2q^2\tau^2}+\frac{2}{v_{i}|q|\tau}\{\sin(2v_{i}|q|
(t-\tau))-\sin(2v_{i}|q|t)\}\right]\right) dq \right]~, \nonumber\\
&\approx& \text{exp}\left[ -\frac{L}{2\pi \alpha}\frac{\delta_g^{2}
v_{0}^{2}}{4 v_{i}^{4}}\left(1-\frac{\alpha^2}{v_i^2\tau^2}\sin^2\left(\frac{v_{i}\tau}{\alpha}\right)+
\frac{ \alpha}{v_{i}
\tau}\left\{-\text{Si}\left(\frac{2v_{i}t}{\alpha}\right)+\text{Si}\left(\frac{2v_{i}(t-\tau)}{\alpha}\right)+\text{Si}\left(\frac{2v_{i}\tau}{\alpha}\right)\right\}\right)\right]~.\nonumber\\
\label{LEexp1}\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
In the above equation, the function $\text{Si}(x)$ is the SinIntegral of $x$ defined as $\text{Si}(x)=\int_{0}^{x}(\sin{t}/t)dt$,
with $1/\alpha$ as the upper momentum (ultra-violet) cut-off.
The above expression provides a generic form of the LE as a function of $\tau$ and $t$ which will be used extensively in the subsequent calculations.
In the adiabatic quench case ($\tau \to \infty$), only the first term in the exponential of Eq.\eqref{LEexp1} contributes, while in the sudden quench limit ($\tau \to 0$),
the first and the second terms in the exponential of Eq.\eqref{LEexp1} contribute, resulting in the following expressions,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{AQ}(t \ge \tau)&=& \text{exp} \left[-\frac{L}{2\pi\alpha}\frac{\delta_{g}^{2} v_0^{2}}{4v_{i}^{4}}\right] ~, ~~~{\rm and} \label{LEpertAQ1} \\
\mathcal{L}_{SQ}(t \ge \tau)&=& \text{exp} \left[-\frac{L}{2\pi\alpha}\frac{\delta_{g}^{2} v_0^{2}}{2v_{i}^{4}}\right] ~ . \label{LEpertSQ1}
\end{eqnarray}
which satisfy the correspondence $\mathcal{L}_{SQ}=\mathcal{L}_{AQ}^2$ established for an arbitrary
value of $\delta_g$ \cite{Dora_prl13}.
In Fig.{\ref{LEplot1}}, we plot the temporal evolution of the LE for a fast quench, with $\tau = 0.2$, obtained
both numerically and analytically for small $\delta_g$ . As anticipated earlier, we find very good agreement between the perturbative and the exact results.
The case of a slow quench, for $\tau = 5$, is shown in Fig.{\ref{LEplot2}. Although, the quantitative agreement between the perturbative and the exact solutions is not as
perfect as the small $\tau$ case, the perturbative solutions still capture all the qualitative features. However, it is worth noting that for both fast and slow quenches, the LE shows a damped oscillatory behaviour which saturates to some finite value in the infinite time limit. The dimensionless time period of these oscillations can be estimated using Eq.\eqref{LEexp1} and is given by $T = \pi \alpha/(v_i \tau)$, which corresponds to a value of $5$ and $0.2$ for Fig.\ref{LEplot1} and Fig.\ref{LEplot2} respectively. The damped oscillatory nature of the LE, and its saturation to
an asymptotic constant value with time, are characteristics of the LE that has also been observed following a linear quench across the QCP of a transverse Ising chain \cite{pollmann10}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig1_v2.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Plot for $\log \mathcal{L}(t)$, in units of $L/(2 \pi \alpha)$, as a function
of time for $v_i \tau/\alpha = 0.2\pi$ and $\delta_{g}/v_i=0.1$ for an initial choice of $g_i/v_i = 0.1$ ({\it i.e.}, $K_i = 0.91$). The solid (blue) line denotes the exact numerical result [based on Eq.\eqref{Eq.6}] and the dotted(red) line shows the perturbative solution [based on Eq.\eqref{LEexp1}]. The solid horizontal line is the analytical expression for the LE in the sudden quench limit (for $\tau \to 0$ and $t \to \infty$). The shaded region marks the `quench' interval during which the interaction parameter is changed.}
\label{LEplot1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2_v2_final.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online) Plot for $\log \mathcal{L}(t)$, in units of $L/(2 \pi \alpha)$, as a function
of time for $v_i \tau/\alpha = 5\pi$ and $\delta_{g}/v_i=0.1$ for an initial choice of $g_i/v_i = 0.1$ ({\it i.e.}, $K_i = 0.91$). The solid (blue) line denotes the exact numerical result [based on Eq.\eqref{Eq.6}] and the dotted(red) lines shows the perturbative solution [based on Eq.\eqref{LEexp1}]. The solid horizontal line is the analytical expression for the LE in the adiabatic quench limit (for $t \to \infty$). The shaded region marks the `quench' interval during which the interaction parameter is changed.}
\label{LEplot2}
\end{figure}
\section{Loschmidt Echo in different limits}\label{LElimits}
In this section we focus our efforts on studying the behaviour of the LE in the early time limit immediately after the quench [$(t/\tau-1) \to 0$] and also the asymptotic large time limit [$t/\tau \to \infty$]. In particular, we will be interested in the corrections to the LE in the sudden and the adiabatic limits.
\subsection{Loschmidt Echo in the early time limit}\label{LEtau}
To find the early time limit after the quench, {\it i.e.}, when $ 0 < t-\tau < \alpha /v_{i}$, Eq.\eqref{LEexp1} can be expanded in powers of $t - \tau$ (see Fig. \ref{LEplot3}).
For the case of $t = \tau$, the last term in Eq.\eqref{LEexp1} vanishes and
LE simplifies to the form
\begin{equation} \mathcal{L}(\tau)= \exp
\left[-\frac{L}{2\pi\alpha}\frac{\delta_{g}^{2}v_0^{2}}{4v_{i}^{4}}
\left(1-\frac{\text{sin}^2\left(v_{i}\tau/\alpha\right)}
{v_{i}^2\tau^2/\alpha^2}\right)\right].~
\end{equation}
The behaviour of the early time LE for a fast quench, {\it i.e.}, in the small $\tau$ limit, can be investigated by taking
the limit $\tau \to 0$ in Eq. \eqref{LEexp1}, and to the lowest order in $\tau$ for $ 0 < t-\tau < \alpha /v_{i}$, it is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{SQ^{+}}({t}) \approx\text{exp}\left[-\frac{L}{2\pi\alpha} \frac{\delta_g^2 v_0^2}{3 \alpha^2 v_i^2}
\left\{t^2-
\tau(t -\tau/4) \right \}\right].
\label{sqttLE}
\end{equation}
Here the first term corresponds to the expected gaussian decay of the LE, with a decay constant independent of $\tau$, which
is a generic feature of the LE following a quench \cite{peres, fazio_pra}. On the other hand, the second term depends on $\tau$,
and indicates a correction to the proper Gaussian
decay; thereby it carries a signature of the fact that the interaction has been quenched over
a finite interval of time. As expected, this correction term vanishes when $\tau=0$.}
For a slow quench, {\it i.e.}, large $\tau$, to lowest order in $\tau$ we find the following form for the LE for all times,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{AQ^{-}}(t)&=& \text{exp}
\Bigg[-\frac{L}{2\pi\alpha}\frac{\delta_{g}^{2}
v_0^{2}}{4v_{i}^{4}}\Bigg\{1-\frac{\text{sin}^2(v_{i} \tau/\alpha)}{v_{i}^2\tau^2/\alpha^2} \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{2(t-\tau)}{\tau}-\frac{2v_{i}^{2}}{\alpha^{2}}\frac{(t-\tau)^{2}}{\tau}\frac{\text{cos}(2v_{i}\tau/\alpha)}{2v_{i}\tau/\alpha}\Bigg\}\Bigg]~.
\nonumber \\
\label{eq:slow1}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the first term in the exponential, is the echo for the adiabatic case and as expected it is independent of time and the quench rate.
The expression in Eq.\eqref{eq:slow1}, can be simplified to obtain the early time behaviour for a slow quench. Retaining the most dominant correction term in $\tau$ for $ 0 < t-\tau < \alpha /v_{i}$, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{AQ^{-}}( {t })\approx\text{exp}
\left[-\frac{L}{2\pi\alpha} \frac{\delta_g^2 v_0^2}{ v_i^4} \left\{ 1+
2 \frac{ (t-\tau)}{\tau} \right \}\right]~.
\label{aqtfLE}
\end{equation}
We emphasise that, for a finite quench rate, we find that the correction to the early time behaviour of the LE, after a slow quench, shows a linear exponential decay in time.
The corrections to the early time behaviour of the LE due to a finite quench rate, primarily arise due to the fact that the state from which the early time behaviour is observed, {\it i.e.} $\psi(t = \tau)$, is neither a ground state of the initial Hamiltonian, nor of the final Hamiltonian. In general $\psi(t = \tau)$ incorporates `defects' (excited states contributions) for a finite quench rate ($\tau$), over the initial ground state at $t=0$. This actually leads to the difference in the early time behaviour both in the large $\tau$ and small $\tau$ limits, manifested in Eqs. \eqref{sqtfLE} -\eqref{aqtfLE}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Plot for $\log \mathcal{L}(t)$, in units of $L/(2 \pi \alpha)$, in the early time limit as a function of $\tau$.
Here we have chosen $t = \tau + 0.1$, and $\delta_{g}/v_i=0.1$ for an initial choice of $g_i/v_i = 0.1$.
The solid (blue) line denotes the exact numerical result and the dashed(red) lines shows the perturbative solution.
The solid horizontal line is the analytical expression for the LE in the sudden quench limit (for $t \to \infty$).
}
\label{LEplot3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Loschmidt Echo in the large time limit}\label{LEinf}
In this subsection, we use the exact expression of LE [Eq.\eqref{LEexp1}], in the perturbative limit of $\delta_g$, to study the behaviour of LE in the infinite time limit. As $t \to \infty$, Eq.\eqref{LEexp1} reduces to,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}(t \to \infty) &\approx& \text{exp}\Bigg[ -\frac{L}{2\pi \alpha}\frac{\delta_g^{2}
v_{0}^{2}}{4 v_{i}^{4}}\Bigg(1-\frac{\text{sin}^2\left(v_{i}\tau/\alpha\right)}
{v_{i}^2\tau^2/\alpha^2}\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{ \alpha}{v_{i} \tau}\text{Si}\left(\frac{2v_{i}\tau}{\alpha}\right)\Bigg)\Bigg]~.
\label{LEinf1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{Plot for $\log \mathcal{L}(t)$, in units of $L/(2 \pi \alpha)$, in the large time (asymptotic) limit as a function of $\tau$.
Here we have chosen $t = \tau + 50$, and $\delta_{g}/v_i=0.1$ for an initial choice of $g_i/v_i = 0.1$.
The solid (blue) line denotes the exact numerical result and the dashed(red) lines shows the perturbative solution.
The solid (dashed) horizontal line is the analytical expression for the LE in the adiabatic (sudden) quench limit for $t \to \infty$.
}
\label{LEplot4}
\end{figure}
For small $\tau$, incorporating correction to the lowest order in $\tau$ appearing in Eq.\eqref{LEinf1}, we find
\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L}_{SQ^{+}}(t \to \infty) \approx\text{exp}\left[-\frac{L}{2\pi\alpha} \frac{\delta_g^2 v_0^2}{2 v_i^4} \left\{ 1-
\frac{v_i^2 \tau^2}{18 \alpha^2} \right \}\right];
\label{sqtfLE} \end{eqnarray}
where the sudden quench result [Eq.\eqref{LEpertSQ1}] is recovered
for $\tau = 0$. This is to be noted that the lowest order correction term (over the $\tau=0$ case) scales as $\tau^2$ which
can be be understood physically using a simple quantum mechanical argument.
The system changes over a time scale of $\tau$, and the time evolved wave function can be obtained by integrating the Schr\"odinger equation within the interval $[0,\tau]$:
\begin{equation}
|\psi (\tau) \rangle - |\psi(0) \rangle = -\frac {i}{\hbar} \int_0^{\tau} H(t) ~dt~ .
\end{equation}
Since the integrand is finite, the integral is of the order of $\tau$ [see Ref.~\onlinecite{shankar}].
We therefore get a correction which varies as $\tau^2$, in the probability of excitation to the $n$-th excited state, which is given by $P_n = |\langle\psi_0 | \psi_n \rangle|^2$.
Here $|{\psi_0}\rangle$ is the initial ground state and $|{\psi_n}\rangle$ is the $n$-th excited state associated with the final time evolved Hamiltonian. This correction scaling as $\tau^2$ appears in the LE when LM is being quenched with a small but finite $\tau$.
In the limit of large $\tau$, the LE in the asymptotic limit is obtained by retaining only lowest order term
(of the order $1/\tau$) in Eq.\eqref{LEinf1}; this is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{AQ^{-}}(t \to \infty)\approx\text{exp}\left[-\frac{L}{2\pi\alpha}\frac{\delta_g^2 v_0^2}{4 v_i^4} \left\{ 1+
\frac{\pi \alpha}{2\tau v_i} \right \}\right].
\label{aqtfLE}
\end{eqnarray}
The second term of Eq.(\ref{aqtfLE}) represents the first order correction in $\tau$ over the adiabatic quench ($\tau=\infty$ limit). We emphasise
that the correction to the LE over the adiabatic limit for $t \to \infty$ scales as $1/\tau$ .
This can be understood by the following argument \cite{Grandi}. Lets assume a parameter $\lambda$ of a $d$-dimensional Hamiltonian is driven as $\lambda(t)=t/\tau$ within the gapless phase with quasiparticle energy dispersion as $\epsilon_q \sim A(\lambda)q^z$, where $z$ is the dynamical critical exponent.
When the dynamics is adiabatic, the excitation to higher energy state becomes suppressed when the rate of change of $\lambda$ is small compared to the internal time scale, {\it i. e.}, $\dot \epsilon_q(\lambda)/\epsilon_q(\lambda) \ll \epsilon_q(\lambda)$. For the present model, the inherent time scale is given by $L/v_i$ while the external time scale is $\tau$. Adiabaticity breaks down when $\dot \epsilon_q(\lambda) \sim \epsilon_q^2(\lambda)$. This leads to a characteristic momentum scale which is related to the quench rate $\tau$ through
the following relation:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{q}^z\sim \frac{1}{\tau A(\lambda)}\frac{\delta {\ln A(\lambda)}}{\delta \lambda}.
\label{scale}
\end{equation}
The total number of quasiparticle excitation to higher state is proportional to the phase space volume ${ \tilde q}^d \sim \tau^{-d / z}$. This scaling law holds true for $d/z \le 2$. In the present model, therefore the measure of the defect density given by $|h(q,t)|^2$ integrated over all momenta mode scales as $1/\tau$; this scaling is reflected in the asymptotic behaviour of the LE.
One can observe that $ \mathcal{L}^{SQ}_{t \to \infty}=(\mathcal{L}^{AQ}_{t \to \infty})^2$ with the proper adiabatic and sudden limits of $\tau$ i.e., $\tau=\infty$ for perfect adiabatic quenching and $\tau=0$ for perfect sudden quenching. But when LM is being quenched through a finite driving rate $1/\tau$, the infinite time expressions of LE, for a fast and a slow quenching scheme, is modified in a relevant way.
The ground state conjecture does not hold true for a finite $\tau$. The LE in the slow quenching case could not be described as an modulo square overlap between initial and final ground state of LM. The finite $\tau$ brings additional contributions coming from higher excited state to the infinite time LE. In the infinite time limit LE under a fast quenching scheme is also modified from the $\tau=0$ limit of LE.
\section{conclusion}
\label{conclusions}
In this manuscript, we have studied the dynamics of a Luttinger model following an interaction quench when the quench is applied
over a finite duration $\tau$. The Loschmidt echo for a finite time linear interaction quench is
studied in both large $\tau$ and small $\tau$ limits. In particular, we reproduce the results for the adiabatic and sudden quench limits derived earlier \cite{Dora_prl13}, and using perturbative solutions we estimate the corrections to both these
limiting situations in the early time limit as well as the infinite time limit. We also compare the perturbative results with the exact numerical ones, and obtain a reasonably good agreement between them.
Let us summarize the interesting findings of our study: we find that the correction terms scales as $1/\tau$ in the large
$\tau$ limit and as $\tau^2$ in the $\tau \to 0$ limit which show up both in the early time and the large time behaviour.
We propose generic scaling relations to justify the scaling of the correction terms. Finally, our results confirm that
for a finite $\tau$ the excited states contribute non-trivially to the echo even in the asymptotic limit ($t \to \infty$).
Note that our results [see for {\it e.g.}, Eqs.~\eqref{LEexp1}-\eqref{aqtfLE}] depend on the non-universal short distance cutoff, $\alpha$.
This may be a consequence of the fact that we are using a linear ramp, whose derivative has discontinuities at
$t=0$ and $t=\tau$. A Fourier transform of such a non-analytic ramp has a fat high frequency tail, which is governed by a power law \cite{DzairmagaPRB2011}. The high frequencies in the tail
give rise to excitations that are beyond the low-energy description of the
Luttinger model. We believe that if the linear ramp were replaced by a
smooth quench protocol [{\it e.g.}, $\tanh (t/\tau)$-like], then the tail would be exponential and
the inverse ultraviolet cutoff $\alpha$ would not appear in the results \footnote{This was pointed out by one of the referees.}.
Finally we note that the Luttinger model uses a linearized dispersion relation which is valid only in a small window of energy around the Fermi points. In any realistic quenching scenario, the system will be excited to energies where, the non-linearities of the dispersion relation begin to play a role in the dynamics via the so called `umklapp' scattering of the right- and left-moving modes.
It is commonly argued in the literature that all these deviations are irrelevant in the renormalization group sense, which means that their effects are limited, or that their effects die out if we wait for long enough times. Another way to avoid exciting the system to very high energies (where the Luttinger model is not valid), is to tune the interaction parameter ($g$) in a regime which is much smaller than the Fermi energy of the system \cite{cazalila_prl06}. However, it is not completely clear, if the Luttinger model is appropriate to describe the quench dynamics in a realistic physical system, even though we believe that the long-term dynamics of the system should be dominated by the low-energy excitations.
\begin{acknowledgments}
AA gratefully acknowledges funding from the INSPIRE faculty fellowship by DST (Govt. of India), and from the Faculty Initiation Grant by IIT Kanpur. We thank the referees for their useful and constructive comments.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Motivation}
At finite chemical potential $\mu$ the fermion determinant of QCD becomes complex
and can not be interpreted as a probability weight in a Monte Carlo simulation.
This so-called "complex phase problem" or "sign problem" has considerably
slowed down the exploration of QCD at finite density using lattice methods.
Although a lot of effort has been put into solving the complex phase problem of
QCD (see, e.g., \cite{reviews} for recent reviews), the final goal of a proper ab-initio
simulation of lattice QCD at finite density has not been achieved yet.
For some models, as well as for QCD in limiting cases, it is possible to deal with the complex phase
problem (see, e.g., \cite{solve-sign-problem}) with different techniques. Here we use a dual
representation, i.e., a reformulation of the system with new degrees of freedom,
which has been shown to be a very powerful method that can solve the complex
phase problem of different models \cite{dual} without making any approximation of the partition sum.
In the following we present another example where the dual representation can be applied successfully.
We consider scalar QED with two flavors, i.e., a compact U(1) gauge field coupled to two complex scalar
fields with opposite charge and a quartic self interaction \cite{prl}. We explore the full phase diagram as a
function of the inverse gauge coupling and the mass parameter, and present some results at finite $\mu$.
After mapping the degrees of freedom of the system to the dual variables, the weight in the
partition sum is positive and real and usual Monte Carlo techniques can be applied. However,
the dual variables, links and plaquettes for this model, are subject to non-trivial constraints.
Therefore one has to choose a proper algorithm in order to sample the system efficiently. In our case, we have
used two different Monte Carlo algorithms: A local update algorithm \cite{z3} and an extension \cite{swa} of the
Prokof'ev Svistunov worm algorithm \cite{worm}. In addition to discussing the physics of the model, we also present
a comparison of the performance of the two algorithms
\section{Scalar electrodynamics}
In the conventional representation two flavor scalar electrodynamics is a model of two flavors of
oppositely charged complex fields $\phi_x, \chi_x \in \mathds{C}$ living on the
sites $x$ of the lattice, interacting via the gauge fields $U_{x,\sigma} \in$ U(1) sitting on the links.
We use 4-d euclidean lattices of size $V_4 = N_s^3 \times N_t$ with periodic
boundary conditions for all directions. The lattice spacing is set to 1, i.e., all dimensionful quantities
are in units of the lattice spacing.
We write the action as the sum, $S = S_U + S_\phi + S_\chi$, where $S_U$ is the gauge action
and $S_\phi$ and $S_\chi$ are the actions for the two scalars. For the gauge action we use
Wilson's form
\begin{equation}
S_U \; = \; - \beta \, \sum_x \sum_{\sigma < \tau} \mbox{Re} \; U_{x,\sigma} U_{x+\widehat{\sigma}, \tau}
U_{x+\widehat{\tau},\sigma}^\star U_{x,\tau}^\star \; .
\label{gaugeaction}
\end{equation}
The sum runs over all plaquettes, $\widehat{\sigma}$ and $\widehat{\tau}$ denote the unit vectors in $\sigma$- and
$\tau$-direction and the asterisk is used for complex conjugation.
The action for the field $\phi$ is
\begin{equation}
S_\phi
\; = \sum_x \!\Big( M_\phi^2 \, |\phi_x|^2 + \lambda_\phi |\phi_x|^4 -
\sum_{\nu = 1}^4 \!
\big[ e^{-\mu_\phi \delta_{\nu, 4} } \, \phi_x^\star \, U_{x,\nu} \,\phi_{x+\widehat{\nu}}
\, + \,
e^{\mu_\phi \delta_{\nu, 4}} \, \phi_x^\star \,
U_{x-\widehat{\nu}, \nu}^\star \, \phi_{x-\widehat{\nu}} \big] \! \Big) .
\label{matteraction}
\end{equation}
By $M_\phi^2$ we denote the combination $8 + m_\phi^2$, where $m_\phi$ is the bare mass
parameter of the field $\phi$ and $\mu_\phi$ is the chemical potential, which favors forward
hopping in time-direction (= 4-direction). We also allow for a quartic self interaction of the scalar fields and
the corresponding coupling is denoted as $\lambda_\phi$. Note that for $\mu_\phi \neq 0$ (\ref{matteraction})
is complex, i.e., in the conventional form the theory has a complex action problem.
The action for the field $\chi$ has the same form as (\ref{matteraction}) but with complex conjugate link
variables $U_{x,\nu}$ such that $\chi$ has opposite charge. $M_\chi^2$, $\mu_\chi$ and $\lambda_\chi$
are used for the parameters of $\chi$.
The partition sum $Z = \int D[U] D[\phi,\chi] e^{-S_U - S_\chi - S_\phi}$ is obtained by
integrating the Boltzmann factor over all field configurations. The measures are products over
the measures for each individual degree of freedom.
\vskip2mm
\noindent
{\bf Dual representation:} A detailed derivation of the dual representation for the one flavor
model is given in \cite{swa} and the two flavor version we consider here simply uses two copies
of the representation of the matter fields. The dual variables for the first flavor will be denoted by
$j_{x,\nu}, \overline{j}_{x,\nu}$, while $l_{x,\nu}$ and $\overline{l}_{x,\nu}$ are used for the second flavor.
The dual representation of the partition sum for scalar QED
with two flavors of matter fields is given by
\begin{equation}
\hspace*{-3mm} Z = \!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{\{p,j,\overline{j},l,\overline{l} \}} \!\!\!\!\!\! {\cal C}_g[p,j,l] \; {\cal C}_s [j] \; {\cal C}_s [l] \; {\cal W}_U[p]
\; {\cal W}_\phi \big[j,\overline{j}\,\big] \, {\cal W}_\chi \big[l,\overline{l}\,\big] .
\label{Zfinal}
\end{equation}
The sum runs over all configurations of the dual variables: The occupation numbers
$p_{x,\sigma\tau} \in \mathds{Z}$ assigned to the plaquettes of the lattice and the flux variables $j_{x,\nu}, l_{x,\nu} \in \mathds{Z}$ and
$\overline{j}_{x,\nu}, \overline{l}_{x,\nu} \in \mathds{N}_0$ living on the links. The flux variables $j$ and $l$ are subject
to the constraints ${\cal C}_s$,
\begin{equation}
{\cal C}_s [j] \, = \, \prod_x \delta \! \left( \sum_\nu \partial_\nu j_{x,\nu} \right)\; , \; \;
{\cal C}_s [l] \, = \, \prod_x \delta \! \left( \sum_\nu \partial_\nu l_{x,\nu} \right) , \;
\label{loopconstU1}
\end{equation}
which enforce the conservation of $j$-flux and of $l$-flux at each site of the lattice
(here $\delta(n)$ denotes the Kronecker delta $\delta_{n,0}$ and $\partial_\nu f_x \equiv
f_x - f_{x-\widehat{\nu}}$).
Another constraint,
\begin{equation}
{\cal C}_g [p,j,l] \! =\! \prod_{x,\nu} \! \delta \Bigg( \!\sum_{\nu < \alpha}\! \partial_\nu p_{x,\nu\alpha}
- \!\sum_{\alpha<\nu}\! \partial_\nu p_{x,\alpha\nu} + j_{x,\nu} - l_{x,\nu} \! \Bigg)\! ,
\label{plaqconstU1}
\end{equation}
connects the plaquette occupation numbers $p$ with the $j$- and $l$-variables.
At every link it enforces the combined flux of the plaquette occupation
numbers plus the difference of $j$- and $l$-flux residing on that link to vanish. The
fact that $j$- and $l$-flux enter with opposite sign is due to the opposite charge of the two
flavors.
The constraints (\ref{loopconstU1}) and (\ref{plaqconstU1}) restrict the admissible
flux and plaquette occupation numbers giving rise to an interesting geometrical
interpretation: The $j$- and $l$-fluxes form closed oriented loops made of links. The integers
$j_{x,\nu}$ and $l_{x,\nu}$ determine how often a link is run through by loop segments, with negative
numbers indicating net flux in the negative direction. The flux conservation
(\ref{loopconstU1}) ensures that only closed loops appear. Similarly, the constraint
(\ref{plaqconstU1}) for the plaquette occupation numbers can be seen as a continuity
condition for surfaces made of plaquettes. The surfaces are either closed
surfaces without boundaries or open surfaces bounded by $j$- or $l$-flux.
The configurations of plaquette occupation numbers and fluxes in (\ref{Zfinal}) come with
weight factors
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal W}_U[p] & = & \!\! \! \prod_{x,\sigma < \tau} \! \! \!
I_{p_{x,\sigma\tau}}(\beta) \, ,
\\
{\cal W}_\phi \big[j,\overline{j}\big] & = &
\prod_{x,\nu}\! \frac{1}{(|j_{x,\nu}|\! +\! \overline{j}_{x,\nu})! \,
\overline{j}_{x,\nu}!}
\prod_x e^{-\mu j_{x,4}} P_\phi \left( f_x \right) ,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
f_x \; = \; \sum_\nu\!\big[ |j_{x,\nu}|\!+\! |j_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu}| \!+\!
2\overline{j}_{x,\nu}\! +\! 2\overline{j}_{x-\widehat{\nu},\nu} \big] \; ,
\end{equation}
which is an even number. The $I_p(\beta)$
in the weights ${\cal W}_U$ are the modified Bessel functions and the $P_\phi (2n)$ in
${\cal W}_\phi$ are the integrals
\begin{equation}
P_\phi (2n) \; = \; \int_0^\infty dr \, r^{2n+1}
\, e^{-M_\phi^2\, r^2 - \lambda_\phi r^4} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{16 \lambda}} \, \left(\frac{-\partial}{\partial M^2}\right)^{\!n} \;
e^{\, M^4 / 4 \lambda} \left[1- erf(M^2/2\sqrt{\lambda})\right] \; .
\end{equation}
These integrals are related to derivatives of the error function and we evaluate them numerically and
pre-store them for the Monte Carlo simulation. The weight factors $ {\cal
W}_\chi$ are the same as the $ {\cal W}_\phi$, only the parameters $M_\phi^2$,
$\lambda_\phi$, $\mu_\phi$ are replaced by $M_\chi^2$, $\lambda_\chi$, $\mu_\chi$. All
weight factors are real and positive and the partition sum (\ref{Zfinal}) thus is
accessible to Monte Carlo techniques, using the plaquette occupation numbers and the
flux variables as the new degrees of freedom.
\section{Monte Carlo simulation}
Because the dual variables are subject to non-trivial constraints, they cannot be modified randomly during
the update. Here we use two strategies: A local update, referred to as LMA (local Metropolis algorithm),
which consists of three types of steps: Steps where we change plaquettes bounded by matter flux, steps where
we change the plaquettes on 3-cubes, and steps where we propose double lines of matter flux around the temporal
direction. These changes are built such that the constraints remain intact for each individual step and the
tests of the LMA are reported in \cite{prl,z3,swa}.
Another possibility is to use an extension of the worm
algorithm \cite{worm}, the so called surface worm algorithm \cite{swa}, which we refer to as SWA. Here initially
the constraints are violated at a single link and the SWA subsequently propagates this defect on the lattice
until the defect is healed in a final step. For both the LMA and the SWA the unconstrained $\overline{l}$ and
$\overline{j}$ variables are updated with conventional Metropolis steps.
Here we present results for both algorithms and
assess their performance.
\subsection{Local Metropolis algorithm LMA}
Let us begin by describing the LMA. It consists of the following update steps:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace*{-1mm}
\item A sweep for each unconstrained variable $\overline{l}$ and $\overline{j}$
raising or lowering their occupation number by one unit.
\vspace*{-1mm}
\item ``Plaquette update'':
It consists of increasing or decreasing a plaquette occupation number
$p_{x,\nu\rho}$ and
the link fluxes (either $j_{x,\sigma}$ or $l_{x,\sigma}$) at the edges of $p_{x,\nu\rho}$ by $\pm 1$ as
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{plaquette}. The change of $p_{x, \nu \rho}$
by $\pm 1$ is indicated by the signs $+$ or $-$, while the flux variables $j$ ($l$) are denoted by the thin red line
(fat blue lines for the second flavor) and we use a dashed line to indicate a decrease by $-1$ and a full line
for an increase by $+1$.
\vspace*{-1mm}
\item ``Winding loop update'':
It consists of increasing or decreasing the occupation number of both link variables $l$ and $j$ by
one unit along a winding loop in any of the 4 directions. This update is very important because the winding loops
in time direction are the only objects that couple to the chemical potential.
\vspace*{-1mm}
\item ``Cube update'': The plaquettes of 3-cubes
of our 4-d lattice are changed according to one of the two patterns illustrated in
Fig.~\ref{cube}.
Although the plaquette and winding loop update are enough to satisfy ergodicity,
the cube update helps for decorrelation in the region of
parameters where the system is dominated by closed surfaces, i.e., where the link
acceptance rate is small.
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{-1mm}
A full sweep consists of updating all links, plaquettes, 3-cubes and winding loops on the lattice,
offering one of the changes mentioned above and accepting them with the Metropolis
probability computed from the local weight factors.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip]{pics/plaquettes}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Plaquette update: A plaquette occupation number is changed by $+1$ or
$-1$ and the links $j$ (thin red links) or $l$ (fat blue links) of the plaquette are changed simultaneously. The
full line indicates an increase by +1 and a dashed line a decrease by $-1$.
The directions $1 \le \nu_1 < \nu_2 \le 4$
indicate the plane of the plaquette.} \label{plaquette}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,clip]{pics/cubes}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Cube update: Here we show the two possible changes in the plaquette occupation numbers on a 3-cube.
The edges of the 3-cube are parallel to the directions $1 \leq \nu_1 < \nu_2 < \nu_3 \leq 4$.} \label{cube}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Surface worm algorithm SWA}
Instead of the LMA we can use a generalization of the the worm algorithm, the SWA.
Here we only shortly describe the SWA and refer to \cite{swa} for a detailed description.
The SWA is constructed by breaking up the smallest update elements of the LMA, i.e., the plaquette updates,
into smaller building blocks called ``segments'' (examples are shown in Fig.~\ref{segments}), used to build
larger surfaces on which the flux and plaquette variables are changed. In the SWA the constraints are temporarily
violated at a link $L_V$, the head of the worm, and the two sites at its endpoints. The SWA then transports this defect on the
lattice until it closes with a final step that heals the constraint.
The admissible configurations are generated using 3 elements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The worm starts by changing either the $l$ or the $j$ flux by $\pm 1$ at
a randomly chosen link (step 1 in Fig.~\ref{worm} where a worm for $j$ fluxes starts).
\item The first link becomes the head of the worm $L_V$.
The defect at $L_V$ is then propagated through the lattice by
attaching segments of the same kind of flux ($j$ or $l$) as the first segment,
which are chosen in such a way that the constraints are always
obeyed at the link where the next segment is attached (step 2 in Fig.~\ref{worm}).
\item Attaching segments the defect is propagated through the lattice until the worm decides to
end with the insertion of another unit of link flux at $L_V$ (step 3 in Fig.~\ref{worm}) to heal the violated constraint.
\end{enumerate}
A full sweep consists of $V_4$ worms with $l$ fluxes and $V_4$ worms with $j$ fluxes,
plus a sweep of the unconstrained
variables $\overline{l}$ and $\overline{j}$,
and a sweep of winding loops (as explained for the LMA).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip]{pics/segments}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Examples of segments for the links $j$ (lhs.) and $l$ (rhs.)
in the $\nu_1$-$\nu_2$-plane ($\nu_1 < \nu_2$).
The plaquette occupation numbers are changed as indicated by the signs.
The full (dashed) links are changed by $+1$ ($-1$). The empty link shows
where the segment is attached to the worm and the dotted link is the new position of the link
$L_V$ where the constraints are violated.} \label{segments}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip]{pics/worm}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{A simple example for an update with the surface worm algorithm.
See the text for a detailed explanation of the steps involved.} \label{worm}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\vspace{-1mm}
\noindent
In this section we discuss the results from the numerical analysis. We first show
an assessment of both algorithms and compare their performance. Subsequently
we discuss the physics of scalar QED at finite density and present the phase diagram.
In both cases we use thermodynamical observables and their fluctuations. In particular
we use the following observables which can be evaluated as simple derivatives of
$\ln Z$ in both the conventional and the dual representations:
\vskip5mm
\noindent
The first and second derivatives with respect to the inverse gauge coupling $\beta$, i.e.,
the plaquette expectation value and its susceptibility,
\begin{equation}
\langle U \rangle = \frac{1}{6 N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta} \ln\ Z\quad , \quad
\chi_{U} = \frac{1}{6 N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \beta^2} \ln\ Z\ .
\end{equation}
\noindent We also consider the particle number density $n$
and its susceptibility which are the first and second derivatives
with respect to the chemical potential,
\begin{equation}
\langle n \rangle = \frac{1}{N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} \ln\ Z\quad , \quad
\chi_{n} = \frac{1}{N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \mu^2} \ln\ Z\ .
\end{equation}
\noindent Finally, we analyze the derivatives with respect to $M^2$,
\begin{equation}
\langle |\phi|^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial}{\partial M^2} \ln\ Z\quad , \quad
\chi_{|\phi|^2} = \frac{1}{N_s^3 N_t}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial (M^2)^2} \ln\ Z\ .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Assessment of the LMA and SWA algorithms}
\noindent
For the comparison of our two algorithms we considered the U(1) gauge-Higgs model coupled
with one (see \cite{swa}) and two scalar fields (as described here).
First we checked the correctness of the SWA comparing the results for different
lattices sizes and parameters. Examples for the one flavor model were presented
in \cite{swa}.
In Fig.~\ref{obs} we now show some examples for the two flavor case. The top figures
of Fig.~\ref{obs} show
$\langle |\phi|^2 \rangle$ (lhs.) and the corresponding susceptibility (rhs.) as a function of
$\mu_\phi = \mu_\chi = \mu$ at $\beta = 0.85$ and
$M_\phi^2 = M_\chi^2 = M^2 = 5.325$ on a lattice of size $12^3 \times 60$. This point is located
in the Higgs phase and does not show any phase transition as a function of $\mu$. The bottom
plots show the particle number $\langle n \rangle$ (lhs.) and its susceptibility (rhs.) as a function of $\mu$
for $\beta = 0.75$ and $M^2 = 5.73$ on a lattice of volume $12^3 \times 60$. Here we observe
a pronounced first order transition from the confining phase into the Higgs phase.
It is obvious that in all four plots the agreement between the results from the LMA and from the
SWA is excellent.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\hbox{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip]{pics/aphi}}
\vskip5mm
\hbox{\hspace{4mm}\includegraphics[width=0.97\textwidth,clip]{pics/bn}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{Observables for the two flavor model as a function of $\mu$ for different
parameters on a $12^3 \times 60$ lattice.
We compare results from the SWA (circles) and the LMA (triangles).} \label{obs}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\noindent
In order to obtain a measure of the computational effort, in \cite{swa} we compared the normalized
autocorrelation time $\overline{\tau}$ of the SWA and LMA for
the one flavor model for different volumes and parameters. We concluded that,
the SWA outperforms the local update near a phase transition and if
the acceptance rate of the constrained link variables is not very low (e.g., lhs.\ of Fig.~\ref{auto}).
On the other hand, for parameter values where the constrained links have a very low acceptance rate
the worm algorithm has difficulties to efficiently sample the
system because it changes the link occupation number in every move, while the LMA has a sweep with only
closed surfaces. The plot on the rhs. of Fig.~\ref{auto} shows how $\overline{\tau}$ for
$\langle U \rangle$ is larger for the SWA than for the LMA. We remark however, that this performance issue
can be overcome easily by augmenting the SWA with sweeps of cube updates as used in the LMA.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip]{pics/u2}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Normalized autocorrelation times $\overline{\tau}$ for the observables $\langle U \rangle$ and
$\langle |\phi|^2 | \rangle$ for two different sets
of parameters for the one flavor model. Left: Parameter values close to a first order phase transition.
Right: A parameter set characterized by a low acceptance for matter flux. Both simulations
were done on $16^4$ lattices, with data taken from \cite{swa}.} \label{auto}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Physics results}
So far one of the main physics results of our studies of 2-flavor scalar QED
(already published in \cite{prl}) is the full phase diagram of the considered
model in the $\beta$-$M^2$ plane (using $M_\phi^2 = M_\chi^2 = M^2$)
at $\mu=0$ and the analysis of phase
transitions driven by the chemical potential $\mu_\phi = \mu_\chi = \mu$
when starting from the different
phases of the model. For the sake of completeness we here again show the
$\mu = 0$ phase diagram, and then present new results for the observables
in the $\beta$-$M^2$ plane at several values of $\mu > 0$, which illustrate the
shift of the phase-boundaries at $\mu > 0$, i.e., the positions of the critical surfaces.
In addition we show that some of the transitions at finite $\mu$ can be seen as
condensation phenomena of the dual occupation numbers.
\subsubsection*{Phase diagram at $\mu=0$}
The results for the phase diagram at $\mu = 0$ are summarized in Fig.~\ref{phasediagram}. The various phase
boundaries were determined from the observables $\langle U \rangle$ and $\langle |\phi|^2 \rangle$ and the
corresponding susceptibilities. We found that the phase boundary separating Higgs- and
confining phase is of strong first order, the line separating confining- and Coulomb phase is of weak
first order, and the boundary between Coulomb- and Higgs phase is a continuous transition.
Our results for the $\mu = 0$ phase diagram are in qualitative
agreement with the results for related
models \cite{Lang} studied in the conventional formulation.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\hspace*{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=85mm,clip]{pics/phasediagram}
\caption{Phase diagram in the $\beta$-$M^2$ plane at $\mu = 0$. We show
the phase boundaries determined from the maxima of the susceptibilities $\chi_U$ and $\chi_{\phi}$ and the
inflection points of $\chi_n$.}
\label{phasediagram}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\hspace*{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip]{pics/muphases}
\caption{The observables $\langle U \rangle$, $\langle |\phi|^2 \rangle$, and
$\langle n \rangle$ as a function of $\beta$ and $M^2$ for different chemical
potentials $\mu = 0.0,\,0.5,\,1.0$ and $1.5$. It can be seen how the phase
boundaries shift with increasing chemical potential.}
\label{muphases}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace*{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip]{pics/occutrans_plaq}
\caption{We here show the plaquette expectation value $\langle U \rangle$ and the corresponding suscpetibility $\chi_U$ as function of the chemical potential, for two different volumes $12^3\times60$ and $16^3\times60$.}
\label{occutrans_plaq}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\hspace*{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip]{pics/occutrans}
\caption{Link occupation numbers $\bar{j}$, $\bar{l}$, $j$, $l$ and plaquette occupation numbers $p$ for values of $\mu$
just below (top) and above (bottom) the critical value $\mu_c$ for the transition from the confining- to the Higgs-phase.}
\label{occutrans}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Phase boundaries at $\mu > 0$}
As a first step in the determination of the phase boundaries as functions of all three parameters $\beta, \, M^2$ and $\mu$,
in Fig.~\ref{muphases} we plot the observables $\langle U \rangle$, $\langle |\phi|^2 \rangle$ and $\langle n \rangle$ as functions
of $\beta$ and $M^2$ for four different values of the chemical potential $\mu=0.0,\, 0.5,\, 1.0$ and $1.5$.
The phase-transition from the confining phase to the Coulomb phase shown in Fig.~\ref{phasediagram}
is characterized by a rapid increase of $\langle U \rangle$ across the transition but does not give rise to
significant changes in the other observables (compare the top row of plots in Fig.~\ref{muphases}).
This behavior persists also at finite $\mu$ and the
confinement-Coulomb transition can only be seen in the $\langle U \rangle$-plots.
The transition between the Higgs- and the confinig phase is characterized by a strong first order discontinuity in all observables
(except for $\langle n \rangle = 0$ at $\mu = 0$), a feature that persists for all our values of $\mu$. Also the transition between the Higgs- and the
Coulomb phase is seen in all observables. It is obvious from the plots, that with increasing $\mu$ all three transitions become more pronounced in
all variables they are seen in, and the Higgs-Coulomb transition might even change from crossover to first order. Still, the shown results
have to be considered preliminary and more detailed studies will be necessary to draw final conclusions.
\subsubsection*{Dual occupation numbers}
The dual reformulation of lattice field theories makes it possible to look at the same physics from a different perspective
by studying the dynamics of the dual degrees of freedom instead of the conventional ones.
This being a feature we find especially interesting about the dual formulation, we here present an example where a transition
manifests itself as the condensation of dual variables.
Let us first look at the transition using the standard observables. In Fig.~\ref{occutrans_plaq} we
plot the plaquette expectation value $\langle U \rangle$ and the corresponding susceptibility $\chi_U$
as function of the chemical potential, for two different volumes $12^3\times60$ and $16^3\times60$.
We see that for the larger volume the transition is shifted slightly towards lower chemical potential,
but the volume dependence seems to be reasonably small. The parameters $\beta$ and $M^2$ are
fixed to $\beta=0.75$ and $M^2=5.73$. Increasing the chemical potential takes us from the confining-
to the Higgs phase where we cross the phase boundary
at some critical value of $\mu$, which is $\mu_c\simeq2.65$
for the larger of the two lattices. Below the critical value of the chemical potential both
$\langle U \rangle$ and $\chi_U$ are independent of $\mu$, which is characteristic for a Silver Blaze type of transition \cite{cohen}.
At $\mu_c$ a strong first order transition signals the entry into the Higgs phase.
In Fig.~\ref{occutrans} we have a look at the same transition, by now showing typical configurations of the dual variables
just below (top) and above (bottom) the critical chemical potential $\mu_c$.
In particular we show snapshots of the occupation numbers of all dual link variables $\bar{j}$, $\bar{l}$, $j$,
$l$ and dual plaquette variables $p$. Here blue links/plaquettes depict positive occupation numbers,
green links/plaquettes depict negative occupation numbers and links/plaquettes with $0$-occupation
are not shown. It can be seen that below $\mu_c$ links and plaquettes are hardly occupied,
while above $\mu_c$ their occupation is abundant. In that sense the Silver Blaze transition of Fig.~\ref{occutrans_plaq}
can be understood as a condensation phenomenon of the dual variables, which is a new perspective on the underlying
physics we gained from the dual reformulation of the problem.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\noindent
We thank Hans Gerd Evertz
for numerous discussions that helped to shape this project and for
providing us with the software to compute the autocorrelation times.
We also acknowledge interesting discussions with Thomas Kloiber
on aspects of the dual formulation for charged scalar fields.
This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund,
FWF, DK {\it Hadrons in Vacuum, Nuclei, and Stars} (FWF DK W1203-N16). Y.~Delgado is supported by
the Research Executive Agency (REA) of the European Union
under Grant Agreement number PITN-GA-2009-238353 (ITN STRONGnet) and by {\it Hadron Physics 2}.
Furthermore this work is partly supported by DFG TR55, ``{\sl Hadron Properties from Lattice QCD}''
and by the Austrian Science Fund FWF Grant.\ Nr.\ I 1452-N27.
|
\section{Introduction}
Risk arises from the uncertainties associated with future events, and is inevitable since the consequences of actions are uncertain at the time when a decision is made. Hence, risk has to be taken into account by the decision-maker, consciously or unconsciously. An economically rational decision-making rule, which is \emph{risk-neutral}, is to select the alternative with the highest expected reward. In the context of sequential or multistage decision-making problems, \emph{reinforcement learning} (RL, \citealp{sutton1998reinforcement}) follows this line of thought. It describes how an agent ought to take actions that maximize expected cumulative rewards in an environment typically described by a \emph{Markov decision process} (MDP, \citealp{puterman1994markov}).
RL is a well-developed model not only for human decision-making, but also for models of free choice in non-humans, because similar computational structures, such as dopaminergically mediated reward prediction errors, have been identified across species (\citealp{schultz1997neural,schultz2002getting}).
Besides risk-neutral policies, \emph{risk-averse} policies, which accept a choice with a more certain but possibly lower expected reward, are also considered economically rational \citep{gollier2004economics}. For example, a risk-averse investor might choose to put money into a bank account with a low but guaranteed interest rate, rather than into a stock with possibly high expected returns but also a chance of high losses. Conversely, \emph{risk-seeking} policies, which prefer a choice with less certain but possibly high reward, are considered economically irrational.
Human agents are, however, not always economically rational \citep{gilboa2009theory}. Behavioral studies show that human can be risk-seeking in one situation while risk-averse in another situation \citep{kahneman1979prospect}. RL algorithms developed so far cannot effectively model these complicated risk-preferences.
Risk-sensitive decision-making problems, in the context of MDPs, have been investigated in various fields, e.g., in machine learning \citep{heger1994consideration, mihatsch2002risk}, optimal control \citep{hernandez1996risk}, operations research \citep{howard1972risk, borkar2002q}, finance \citep{ruszczynski2010risk}, as well as neuroscience \citep{nagengast2010risk,braun2011risk,niv2012neural}.
Note that the core of MDPs consists of two sets of \emph{objective} quantities describing the environment: immediate \emph{rewards} obtained at states by executing actions, and \emph{transition probabilities} for switching states when performing actions. Facing the same environment, however, different agents might have different policies, which indicates that risk is taken into account differently by different agents. Hence, to incorporate risk, which is derived from both quantities, all existing literature applies a nonlinear transformation to either the experienced reward values or to the transition probabilities, or to both. The former is the canonical approach in classical economics, as in expected utility theory \citep{gollier2004economics}, while the latter originates from behavioral economics, as in \emph{subjective probability} \citep{savage1972foundations}, but is also derived from a rather recent development in mathematical finance, \emph{convex/coherent risk measures} \citep{artzner1999coherent, follmer2002convex}. For modeling human behaviors, prospect theory (\citealp{kahneman1979prospect}) suggests that we should combine both approaches, i.e., human beings have different perceptions not only for the same objective amount of rewards but also the same value of the true probability.
Recently, \cite{niv2012neural} combined both approaches by applying piecewise linear functions (an approximation of a nonlinear transformation) to reward prediction errors that contain the information of rewards directly and the information of transition probabilities indirectly. Importantly, the reward prediction errors that incorporated experienced risk were strongly coupled to activity in the nucleus accumbens of the ventral striatum, providing a biologically based plausibility to this combined approach. In this work we show (in Section 2.1) that the risk-sensitive algorithm proposed by Niv and colleagues is a special case of our general risk-sensitive RL framework.
Most of the literature in economics or engineering fields focuses on economically rational risk-averse/-neutral strategies, which are not always adopted by humans. The models proposed in behavioral economics, despite allowing economic irrationality, require knowledge of the true probability, which usually is not available at the outset of a learning task. In neuroscience, on the one hand, several works (e.g., \citealp{wu2009economic, preuschoff2008human}) follow the same line as in behavioral economics and require knowledge of the true probability. On the other hand, though different modified RL algorithms (e.g., \citealp{glimcher2008neuroeconomics, symmonds2011deconstructing}) are applied to model human behaviors in learning tasks, the algorithms often fail to generalize across different tasks. In our previous work \citep{Shen2013}, we described a general framework for incorporating risk into MDPs by introducing nonlinear transformations to both rewards and transition probabilities. A risk-sensitive objective was derived and optimized by value iteration or dynamic programming. This solution, hence, does not work in learning tasks where the true transition probabilities are unknown to learning agents. For this purpose, a model-free framework for RL algorithms is to be derived in this paper, where, similar to Q-learning, the knowledge of the transition and reward model is not needed.
This paper is organized as follows.
Section \ref{sec:valfunc} starts with a mathematical introduction into \emph{valuation functions} for measuring risk. We then specify a sufficiently rich class of valuation functions in Section \ref{sec:ubsf} and provide the intuition behind our approach by applying this class to a simple example in Section \ref{sec:toyex}. We aslo show that key features of prospect theory can be captured by this class of valuation functions. Restricted to the same class, we derive a general framework for risk-sensitive Q-learning algorithms and prove its convergence in Section \ref{sec:rsmdps}. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:ex}, we apply this framework to quantify human behavior. We show that the risk-sensitive variant provides a significantly better fit to the behavioral data and significant correlations are found between sequences generated by the proposed framework and changes of fMRI BOLD signals.
\section{Valuation Functions and Risk Sensitivities}
\label{sec:valfunc}
Suppose that we are facing choices. Each \emph{choice} might yield different outcomes when events are generated by a random process. Hence, to keep generality, we model the outcome of each choice by a real-valued random variable $\{ X(i), \mu(i) \}_{i \in I}$, where $I$ denotes an \emph{event space} with a finite cardinality $\lvert I \rvert$ and $X(i) \in \mathbb R$ is the outcome of $i$th event with probability $\mu(i)$.
We say two vectors $X \leq Y$ if $X(i) \leq Y(i)$ for all $i \in I$. Let $\mathbf 1$ (resp.~$\mathbf 0$) denote the vector with all elements equal 1 (resp.~0). Let $\mathscr P$ denote the space of all possible distributions $\mu$.
Choices are made according to their outcomes. Hence, we assume that there exists a mapping $\rho: \mathbb R^{\lvert I \rvert} \times \mathscr P \rightarrow \mathbb R$ such that one prefers $(X,\mu)$ to $(Y, \nu)$ whenever $\rho(X,\mu) \geq \rho(Y,\nu)$. We assume further that $\rho$ satisfies the following axioms inspired by the \emph{risk measure theory} applied in mathematical finance \citep{artzner1999coherent, follmer2002convex}. A mapping $\rho: \mathbb R^{\lvert I \rvert} \times \mathscr P \rightarrow \mathbb R$ is called a \textbf{valuation function}, if it satisfies for each $\mu \in \mathscr P$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[I] (monotonicity) $\rho(X, \mu) \leq \rho(Y, \mu)$, whenever $X\leq Y \in \mathbb R^{\lvert I \rvert}$;
\item[II] (translation invariance) $\rho(X + y \mathbf 1, \mu) = \rho(X, \mu) + y$, for any $y \in \mathbb R$.
\end{itemize}
Within the economic context, $X$ and $Y$ are outcomes of two choices. Monotonicity reflects the intuition that given the same event distribution $\mu$, if the outcome of one choice is \emph{always} (for all events)
higher than the outcome of another choice, the \emph{valuation} of the choice must be also higher. Under the axiom of translation invariance, the sure outcome $y \mathbf 1$ (equal outcome for every event) after executing decisions, is considered as a sure outcome before making decision. This also reflects the intuition that there is no risk if there is no uncertainty.
In our setting, valuation functions are not necessarily centralized, i.e.\ $\rho(\mathbf 0, \mu)$ is not necessarily 0, since $\rho(\mathbf 0, \mu)$ in fact sets a reference point, which can differ for different agents. However, we can centralize any valuation function by $\tilde \rho(X, \mu) := \rho (X, \mu) - \rho(\mathbf 0, \mu)$. From the two axioms, it follows that (for the proof see Lemma \ref{lm:inrm} in Appendix)
\begin{align}
\min_{i \in I} X_i =: \underline{X} \leq \tilde \rho(X, \mu) \leq \overline{X}:= \max_{i \in I} X_i, \forall \mu \in \mathscr P, X \in \mathbb R^{\lvert I \rvert}. \label{eq:range}
\end{align}
$\overline{X}$ is the possibly largest outcome, which represents the most optimistic prediction of the future, while $\underline{X}$ is the possibly smallest outcome and the most pessimistic estimation. The centralized valuation function $\tilde \rho(X, \mu)$ satisfying $\tilde \rho(0,\mu) = 0$ can be in fact viewed as a subjective mean of the random variable $X$, which varies from the best scenario $\overline{X}$ to the worst scenario $\underline{X}$, covering the objective mean as a special case.
To judge the risk-preference induced by a certain type of valuation functions, we follow the rule that \emph{diversification} should be preferred if the agent is \emph{risk-averse}. More specifically, suppose an agent has two possible choices, one of which leads to the future reward $(X,\mu)$ while the other one leads to the future reward $(Y,\nu)$. For simplicity we assume $\mu = \nu$. If the agent \emph{diversifies}, i.e., if one spends only a fraction $\alpha$ of the resources on the first and the remaining amount on the second alternative, the future reward is given by $\alpha X+ (1-\alpha)Y$. If the applied valuation function is concave, i.e.,
$$\rho(\alpha X+ (1-\alpha)Y, \mu) \geq \alpha \rho(X, \mu) + (1-\alpha)\rho(Y, \mu),$$
for all $\alpha \in [0,1]$ and $X, Y \in \mathbb R^{\lvert I \rvert},$
then the diversification should increase the (subjective) valuation. Thus, we call the agent's behavior \emph{risk-averse}. Conversely, if the applied valuation function is \emph{convex}, the induced risk-preference should be \emph{risk-seeking}.
\subsection{Utility-based Shortfall}
\label{sec:ubsf}
We now introduce a class of valuation functions, the utility-based shortfall, which generalizes many important special valuation functions in literature. Let $u: \mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a \emph{utility function}, which is continuous and strictly increasing. The shortfall $\rho_{x_0}^{u}$ induced by $u$ and an \emph{acceptance level} $x_0$ is then defined as
\begin{align}
\rho_{x_0}^{u}(X, \mu) := \sup\left\{ m \in \mathbb R \ | \ \sum_{i \in I} u(X(i) - m) \mu(i) \geq x_0 \right\}, \label{eq:sh}
\end{align}
It can be shown (cf.~\citealp{follmer2004stochastic}) that $\rho_{x_0}^{\textrm{u}}$ is a valid valuation function satisfying the axioms. The utility-based shortfall was first introduced in the mathematical finance literature \citep{follmer2004stochastic}. The class of utility functions considered here will, however, be more general than the class of utility functions typically used in finance.
Comparing with the expected utility theory, the utility function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:sh} is applied to the relative value $X(i)-m$ rather than to the absolute outcome $X(i)$. This reflects the intuition that human beings judge utilities usually by comparing those outcome with a reference value
which may not be zero.
The property of $u$ being convex or concave determines the risk sensitivity of $\rho_{x_0}^{u}$: given a concave function $u$, $\rho$ is also concave and hence risk-averse (see Theorem 4.61, \citealp{follmer2004stochastic}). Vice versa, $\rho$ is convex (hence risk-seeking) for convex $u$.
Utility-based shortfalls cover a large family of valuation functions, which have been proposed in literature of various fields.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] For $u(x) = x$ and $x_0 = 0$, one obtains the standard expected reward $\rho(X, \mu) = \sum_{i} X(i) \mu(i)$.
\item[(b)] For $u(x) = e^{\lambda x}$ and $x_0 = 1$, one obtains $\rho(X, \mu) = \frac{1}{\lambda} \log \left[ \sum_{i} \mu(i) e^{\lambda X(i)} \right]$ (the so called \emph{entropic map}, see e.g.~\citealp{cavazos2010optimality} and references therein). Expansion w.r.t.~$\lambda$ leads to
\begin{align*}
\rho(X, \mu) = \mathbb E^\mu [X] + \lambda \textrm{Var}^\mu[X] + O(\lambda^2)
\end{align*}
where $\textrm{Var}^\mu[X]$ denotes the variance of $X$ under the distribution $\mu$. Hence, the entropic map is risk-averse if $\lambda<0$ and risk-seeking if $\lambda >0$. In neuroscience, \cite{nagengast2010risk} and \cite{braun2011risk} applied this type of valuation function to test risk-sensitivity in human sensorimotor control.
\item[(c)] \cite{mihatsch2002risk} proposed the following setting
\begin{align*}
u(x) = \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
(1-\kappa) x & \textrm{ if } x > 0 \\
(1 + \kappa) x & \textrm{ if } x \leq 0
\end{array}
\right.,
\end{align*}
where $\kappa \in (-1,1)$ controls the degree of risk sensitivity. Its sign determines the property of the utility function $u$ being convex vs.~concave and, therefore, the risk-preference of $\rho$. In a recent study, \cite{niv2012neural} applied this type of valuation function to quantify risk-sensitive behavior of human subjects and to interpret the measured neural signals.
\end{itemize}
When quantifying human behavior, combined convex/concave utility functions, e.g.,
\begin{align}
u_p(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
k_+ x^{l_+} & x \geq 0 \\
- k_- (-x)^{l_-} & x < 0
\end{array}
\right.,
\label{eq:utilfunc}
\end{align}
are of special interest, since people tend to treat gains and losses differently and, therefore, have different risk preferences on gain and loss sides. In fact, the polynomial function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:utilfunc} was used in the prospect theory \citep{kahneman1979prospect} to model human risk preferences and the results show that $l_+$ is usually below 1, i.e., $u_p(x)$ is concave and thus risk-averse on gains, while $l_-$ is also below 1 and $u_p(x)$ is therefore convex and risk-seeking on losses.
\subsection{Utility-based Shortfall and Prospect Theory} \label{sec:toyex}
To illustrate the risk-preferences induced by different utility functions, we consider a simple example with two events. The first event has outcome $x_1$ with probability $p$, while the other event has smaller outcome $x_2 < x_1$ with $1-p$. Note that $p = \frac{\mathbb E X - x_2}{x_1 - x_2}$, where $\mathbb E X = p x_1 + (1-p) x_2$ denotes the risk-neutral mean.
Replacing $\mathbb E X$ with the \emph{subjective mean} $\tilde \rho(X, p) = \rho(X, p) - \rho(0, p)$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:range},
we can define a \emph{subjective probability} (cf.\ \cite{tversky1992advances}) as
\begin{align}
w(p) := \frac{\tilde \rho(X, p) - x_2}{x_1 - x_2}, \label{eq:subprob}
\end{align}
which measures agents' subjective perception of the true probability $p$.
In risk-neutral cases, $\tilde \rho(X, p)$ is simply the mean and $w(p) = p$. In risk-averse cases, the balance moves towards the worst scenario. Hence, the probability of the first event (with larger outcome $x_1$) is always underestimated. On the contrary, in risk-seeking cases, the probability of the first event is always overestimated. Behavioral
studies show that human subjects usually overestimate low probabilities and underestimate high probabilities \citep{tversky1992advances}. This can be quantified by applying mixed valuation functions $\rho$. If we apply utility-based shortfalls, it can be quantified by using mixed utility function $u$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{ubsf.eps}
\caption{Shortfalls with different utility functions and induced subjective probabilities. (Left) utility functions defined as follows: $\textrm{lin}: x; \textrm{RS}: e^{x} - 1; \textrm{RA}: 1 - e^{-x}$; $\textrm{mix1: } u_p(x)$ as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:utilfunc} with $k_+ = 0.5$, $l_+ = 2$, $k_- = 1$ and $l_- = 2$; mix2: same as mix1 but with $k_+ = 1$, $l_+ = 0.5$, $k_- = 1.5$ and $l_- = 0.5$. (Right) subjective probability functions calculated according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:subprob}.}
\label{fig:uf}
\end{figure}
Let $x_1 = 1$, $x_2 = -1$ and the acceptance level $x_0 = 0$.
Fig.\ \ref{fig:uf} (left) shows five different utility functions, one linear function ``lin'', one convex function ``RS'', one concave function ``RA'', and two mixed functions ``mix1'' and ``mix2'' (for details see caption). The corresponding subjective probabilities are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:uf} (right). Since the function ``RA'' is concave, the corresponding valuation function is risk-averse
and therefore the probability of high-reward event is always underestimated. For the case of the convex function ``RS'', the probability of high-reward event is always overestimated. However, since the ``mix1'' function is convex on $[0,\infty)$ but concave on $(-\infty,0]$, high probabilities are underestimated while low probabilities are overestimated, which replicates very well the probability weighting function applied in prospect theory for gains (cf.~Fig.\ 1, \citealp{tversky1992advances}). Conversely, the ``mix2'' function, which is concave on $[0,\infty)$ and convex on $(-\infty,0]$, corresponds to the overestimation of high probabilities and the underestimation of low probabilities. This corresponds to the weighting function used for losses in prospect theory (cf.~Fig.\ 2, \citealp{tversky1992advances}).
We will see in the following section that the advantage of using the utility-based shortfall is that we can derive iterating learning algorithms for the estimation of the subjective valuations, whereas it is difficult to derive such algorithms in the framework of prospect theory.
\section{Risk-sensitive Reinforcement Learning}
\label{sec:rsmdps}
A Markov decision process (see e.g.\ \citealt{puterman1994markov}) $$\mathcal M = \{ \mathbf S, (\mathbf A, \mathbf A(s), s\in \mathbf S), \mathcal P, (r, \mathcal P_r) \},$$ consists of a state space $\mathbf S$, admissible action spaces $\mathbf A(s) \subset \mathbf A$ at $s \in \mathbf S$, a transition kernel $\mathcal P(s'|s,a)$, which denotes the transition probability moving from one state $s$ to another state $s'$ by executing action $a$, and a reward function $r$ with its distribution $\mathcal P_r$. In order to model random rewards, we assume that the reward function has the form\footnote{In standard MDPs, it is sufficient \citep{puterman1994markov} to consider the \emph{deterministic} reward function $\bar r(s,a) := \sum_{\epsilon \in \mathbf E} r(s,a,\varepsilon) \mathcal P_r(\varepsilon|s,a)$, i.e., the mean reward at each $(s,a)$-pair. In risk-sensitive cases, random rewards cause also risk and uncertainties. Hence, we keep the generality by using random rewards.}
$$r(s,a,\varepsilon):\mathbf S \times \mathbf A \times \mathbf E \rightarrow \mathbb R.$$
$\mathbf E$ denotes the noise space with distribution $\mathcal P_r(\varepsilon|s,a)$, i.e., given $(s,a)$, $r(s,a,\varepsilon)$ is a random variable with values drawn from $\mathcal P_r(\cdot|s,a)$. Let $R(s,a)$ be the \emph{random} reward gained at $(s,a)$, which follows the distribution $\mathcal P_r(\cdot|s,a)$. The random state (resp.~action) at time $t$ is denoted by $S_t$ (resp.~$A_t$). Finally, we assume that all sets $\mathbf S, \mathbf A, \mathbf E$ are finite.
A \emph{Markov policy} $\boldsymbol \pi = [\pi_0, \pi_1, \ldots]$ consists of a sequence of single-step Markov policies at times $t=0,1,\ldots$, where $\pi_t(A_t = a|S_t = s)$ denotes the probability of choosing action $a$ at state $s$. Let $\Pi$ be the set of all Markov policies. The optimal policy within a time horizon $T$ is obtained by maximizing the expectation of the discounted cumulative rewards,
\begin{align}
J_T(\boldsymbol \pi, s) := \max_{\boldsymbol \pi \in \Pi} \mathbb E \left[ \sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t R(S_t,A_t) | S_0 = s, \boldsymbol \pi\right]. \label{eq:mdp:obj}
\end{align}
where $s \in \mathbf S$ denotes the initial state and $\gamma \in [0,1)$ the discount factor. Expanding the sum leads to
\begin{align}
J_T(\boldsymbol \pi, s) = \mathbb E^{\pi_0}_{S_0=s} \left[R(S_0,A_0) + \gamma
\mathbb E^{\pi_1}_{S_1} \left[ R(S_1,A_1) + \ldots + \gamma \mathbb
E^{\pi_{T}}_{S_{T}} \left[ R(S_T,A_T) \right] \ldots \right]
\right]. \label{eq:T}
\end{align}
We now generalize the conditional expectation $\mathbb E_{s}^\pi$ to represent the valuation functions considered in Section \ref{sec:valfunc}. Let $\mathbf K := \{ (s,a) | s \in \mathbf S, a \in \mathbf A(s)\}$ be the set of all admissible state-action pairs. Let
\begin{align}
I = \mathbf S \times \mathbf E \quad \textrm{and} \quad \mu_{s,a}(s',\varepsilon) = \mathcal P(s'|s,a) \mathcal P_r(\varepsilon|s,a). \label{eq:mu}
\end{align}
A mapping $\mathcal U(X, \mu|s,a): \mathbb R^{\lvert I \rvert} \times \mathscr P \times \mathbf K \rightarrow \mathbb R$ is called a \textbf{valuation map}, if for each $(s,a) \in \mathbf K$, $\mathcal U(\cdot|s,a)$ is a valuation function on $\mathbb R^{\lvert I \rvert} \times \mathscr P$.
Let $\mathcal U_{s,a}(X, \mu)$ be a short notation of $\mathcal U(X, \mu|s,a)$ and let $$\mathcal U^\pi_s(X, \mu) := \sum_{a \in \mathbf A(s)} \pi(a | s) \mathcal U(X, \mu|s,a)$$
be the valuation map averaged over all actions.
Since $\mu \equiv \mu_{s,a}$ for each $(s,a) \in \mathbf K$, we will omit $\mu$ in $\mathcal U$ in the following.
Replacing the conditional expectation $\mathbb E_s^\pi$ with $\mathcal U^\pi_s$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:T}, the risk-sensitive objective becomes
\begin{align}
\tilde J_T(\boldsymbol \pi, s) := \mathcal U^{\pi_0}_{S_0=s} [R(S_0,A_0) + \gamma
\mathcal U^{\pi_1}_{S_1} [ R(S_1,A_1) + \ldots + \gamma \mathcal
U^{\pi_{T}}_{S_{T}} \left[ R(S_T,A_T) \right] \ldots ] ].\label{eq:T:rs}
\end{align}
The optimal policy is then given by $\max_{\boldsymbol \pi \in \Pi} \tilde J_T(\boldsymbol \pi, s)$. For infinite-horizon problem, we obtain
\begin{align}
\max_{\boldsymbol \pi \in \Pi} \tilde J(\boldsymbol \pi, s) := \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}\tilde J_T(\boldsymbol \pi, s), \label{eq:obj:rs}
\end{align}
using the same line of argument.
The optimization problem for finite-stage objective function $\tilde J_T$ can be solved by a generalized \emph{dynamic programming} \citep{bertsekas1996neuro}, while the one defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:obj:rs} requires the solution to the \emph{risk-sensitive Bellman equation}:
\begin{align}
V^*(s) = \max_{a \in \mathbf A(s)} \mathcal U_{s,a}(R(s,a) + \gamma V^*). \label{eq:bellman}
\end{align}
The latter is a consequence of the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 5.5, \citealp{Shen2013}]
\label{th:vi} $V^*(s)= \max_{\boldsymbol \pi} \tilde J(\boldsymbol \pi, s)$ holds for all $s \in \mathbf S$, whenever $V^*$ satisfies the equation \eqref{eq:bellman}. Furthermore, a deterministic policy $\pi^*$ is optimal, if $\pi^*(s) = \arg\max_{a \in \mathbf A(s)} \mathcal U_{s,a}(R + \gamma V^*)$.
\end{theorem}
Define $Q^*(s,a) := \mathcal U_{s,a}(R + \gamma V^*)$. Then Eq.~\eqref{eq:bellman} becomes
\begin{align}
Q^*(s,a)= \mathcal U_{s,a}\left(R(s,a) + \gamma \max_{a \in \mathbf A(s')} Q^*(s',a)\right), \forall (s,a) \in \mathbf K. \label{eq:optimalQ}
\end{align}
To carry out value iteration algorithms, the MDP $\mathcal M$ must be known \emph{a priori}. In many real-life situations, however, the transition probabilities are unknown as well as the outcome of an action before its execution. Therefore, an agent has to explore the environment while gradually improving its policy.
We now derive RL-type algorithms for estimating Q-values of general valuation maps based on the utility-based shortfall, which do not require knowledge of the reward and transition model.
\begin{proposition}[cf.~Proposition 4.104, \citealp{follmer2004stochastic}] \label{prop:impl}
Let $\rho_{x_0}^{\textrm{u}}$ be a shortfall defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:sh}, where $u$ is continuous and strictly increasing. Then the following statements are equivalent: (i) $\rho_{x_0}^{\textrm{u}}(X) = m^*$ and (ii) $\mathbb E^\mu[u(X-m^*)] = x_0$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent For proof see Appendix A.
Consider the valuation map induced by the utility-based shortfall\footnote{In principle, we can apply different utility functions $u$ and acceptance levels $x_0$ at different $(s,a)$-pairs. However, for simplicity, we
drop their dependence on $(s,a)$.} $$\mathcal U_{s,a}(X) = \sup\{m \in \mathbb R \ | \ \mathbb E^{\mu_{s,a}}\left[u(X-m)\right] \geq x_0 \},$$ where $\mu_{s,a}$ is defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:mu}.
If $\mathcal U_{s,a}(X) = m^*(s,a)$ exists, Proposition \ref{prop:impl} assures that $m^*(s,a)$ is the unique solution to equation $$\mathbb E^{\mu_{s,a}}\left[u(X-m^*(s,a))\right] = x_0.$$ Let $X = R + \gamma V^*$. Then $m^*(s,a)$ corresponds to the optimal Q-value $Q^*(s,a)$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:optimalQ}, which is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\sum_{s' \in \mathbf S, \varepsilon \in \mathbf E} \mathcal P(s'|s,a) \mathcal P_r(\varepsilon|s,a)
u \left( r(s,a,\varepsilon) + \gamma \max_{a' \in \mathbf A(s')} Q^*(s',a') - Q^*(s,a) \right) \nonumber \\
= x_0, \forall (s,a) \in \mathbf K. \label{eq:opt}
\end{align}
Let $\left\{s_t,a_t, s_{t+1}, r_t\right\}$ be the sequence of states, chosen actions, successive states and received rewards. Analogous to the standard Q-learning algorithm, we consider the following iterative procedure
\begin{align}
Q_{t+1}(s_t,a_t) = Q_t(s_t,a_t) + \alpha_t(s_t,a_t) \left[ u\left(r_t + \gamma \max_{a} Q_t(s_{t+1},a) - Q_t(s_t,a_t)\right) - x_0 \right], \label{eq:ql}
\end{align}
where $\alpha_t \geq 0$ denotes learning rate function that satisfies $\alpha_t(s,a) > 0$ only if $(s,a)$ is updated at time $t$, i.e., $(s,a) = (s_t,a_t)$. In other words, for all $(s,a)$ that are not visited at time $t$, $\alpha_t(s,a) = 0$ and their Q-values are not updated.
Consider utility functions $u$ with the following properties.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:2}
(i) The utility function $u$ is strictly increasing and there exists some $y_0\in \mathbb R$ such that $u(y_0) = x_0$.
(ii) There exist positive constants $\epsilon, L$ such that $ 0 < \epsilon \leq \frac{u(x) - u(y)}{x-y} \leq L $, for all $x \neq y \in \mathbb R$.
\end{assumption}
\noindent Then the following theorem holds (for proof see Appendix \ref{sec:proof_rl}).
\begin{theorem}\label{th:ql}
Suppose Assumption \ref{ass:2} holds. Consider the generalized Q-learning algorithm stated in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ql}. If the nonnegative learning rates $\alpha_t(s,a)$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\sum_{t=0}^\infty \alpha_t(s,a) = \infty \quad \textrm{ and } \quad \sum_{t=0}^\infty \alpha_t^2(s,a) < \infty, \quad \forall (s,a) \in \mathbf K, \label{eq:io}
\end{equation}
then $Q_t(s,a)$ converges to $Q^*(s,a)$ for all $(s,a) \in \mathbf K$ with probability 1.
\end{theorem}
The assumption in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:io} requires in fact that all possible state-action pairs must be visited infinitely often. Otherwise, the first sum in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:io} would be bounded by the setting of the learning rate function $\alpha_t(s,a)$. It means that, similar to the standard Q-learning, the agent has to explore the whole state-action space for gathering sufficient information about the environment. Hence, it can not take a too greedy policy in the learning procedure before the state-action space is well explored. We call a policy \textbf{proper} if under such policy every state is visited infinitely often. A typical policy, which is widely applied in RL literature as well as in models of human reward-based learning, is given by
\begin{align}
a_t \sim p(a_t | s_t) := \frac{e^{\beta Q(s_t,a_t)}}{\sum_{a} e^{\beta Q(s_t,a)}}, \label{eq:softmax}
\end{align}
where $\beta \in [0,\infty)$ controls how greedy the policy should be. In Appendix \ref{sec:softmax}, we prove that under some technical assumptions upon the transition kernel of the underlying MDP, this policy is always proper.
A widely used setting satisfying both conditions in Eq.~\eqref{eq:io} is to let $\alpha_t(s,a) := \frac{1}{N_t(s,a)}$, where $N_t(s,a)$ counts the number of times of visiting the state-action pair $(s,a)$ up to time $t$ and is updated trial-by-trial. This leads to the learning procedure shown in Algorithm \ref{alg:ql} (see also Fig.\ \ref{fig:rl}).
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{Risk-sensitive Q-learning}
\label{alg:ql}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State initialize $Q(s,a) = 0$ and $N(s,a) = 0$ for all $s,a$.
\For{$t=1$ to $T$}
\State at state $s_t$ choose action $a_t$ randomly using a proper policy (e.g.\ Eq.~\eqref{eq:softmax});
\State observe date $(s_t,a_t,r_t, s_{t+1})$;
\State $N(s_t,a_t) \Leftarrow N(s_t,a_t) + 1$ and set learning rate: $\alpha_t := 1/N(s_t,a_t)$;
\State update $Q$ as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ql};
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The expression
\begin{align*}
TD_t := r_t + \gamma \max_{a} Q_t(s_{t+1},a) - Q_t(s,a)
\end{align*}
inside the utility function of Eq.~\eqref{eq:ql} corresponds to the standard temporal difference (TD) error. Comparing Eq.~\eqref{eq:ql} with the standard Q-learning algorithm, we find that the nonlinear utility function is applied to the TD error (cf.~Fig.\ \ref{fig:rl}).
This induces nonlinear transformation not only of the true rewards but also of the true transition probabilities, as has been shown in Section \ref{sec:ubsf}. By applying S-shape utility function, which is partially convex and partially concave, we can therefore replicate key effects of prospect theory without the explicit introduction of a probability-weighting function.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{rl_bw.eps}
\caption{Illustration of risk-sensitive Q-learning (cf.~Algorithm \ref{alg:ql}). The value function $Q(s,a)$ quantifies the current subjective evaluation of each state-action pair $(s,a)$. The next action is then randomly chosen according to a proper policy (e.g.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:softmax}) which is based on the current values of $Q$. After interacting with the environment, the agent obtains the reward $r$ and moves to the successor $s'$. The value function $Q(s,a)$ is then updated by the rule given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ql}. This procedure continues until some stopping criterion is satisfied.}
\label{fig:rl}
\end{figure}
Assumption \ref{ass:2} (ii) seems to exclude several important types of utility functions. The exponential function $u(x) = e^x$ and the polynomial function $u(x) = x^p$, $p>0$, for example, do not satisfy the global Lipschitz condition required in Assumption \ref{ass:2} (ii). This problem can be solved by a truncation when $x$ is very large and by an approximation when $x$ is very close to 0. For more details see Appendices \ref{sec:truncate} and \ref{sec:heuristics}.
\section{Modeling Human Risk-sensitive Decision Making}
\label{sec:ex}
\subsection{Experiment}
Subjects were told that they are influential stock brokers, whose task is to invest into a fictive stock market (cf.\ \citealp{tobia2013}). At every trial (cf.~Fig.\ \ref{fig:mdp}a) subjects had to decide how much ($a=$ 0, 1, 2, or 3 EUR) to invest into a particular stock. After the investment, subjects first saw the change of the stock price and then were informed how much money they earned or lost. The received reward was proportional to the investment. The different trials, however, were not independent from each other (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:mdp}b). The sequential investment game consisted of 7 states, each one coming with a different set of contingencies, and subjects were transferred from one state to the next dependent of the amount of money they invested. For high investments, transitions followed the path labeled ``risk seeking'' (RS in Fig.~\ref{fig:mdp}b). For low investments, transitions followed the path labeled ``risk averse'' (RA in Fig.~\ref{fig:mdp}b). After 3 decisions subjects were always transferred back to the initial state, and the reward, which was accumulated during this round, was shown. State information was available to the subjects throughout every trial (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:mdp}a). Altogether, 30 subjects (young healthy adults) experienced 80 rounds of the 3-decision sequence.
Formally, the sequential investment game can be considered as an MDP with 7 states and 4 actions (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mdp}b). Depending on the strategy of the subjects, there are 4 possible paths, each of which is composed of 3 states. The total expected return for each path, averaged over all policies consistent with it, are shown in the right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:mdp}b (``EV''). Path 1 provides the largest expected return per round (EV = 90), while Path 4 leads to an average loss of -9.75. Hence, to follow the on-average highest rewarded path 1, subjects have to take ``risky'' actions (investing 2 or 3 EUR at each state). Always taking conservative actions (investing 0 or 1 EUR) results in Path 4 and a high on-average loss. On the other hand, since the standard deviation of the return $R$ of each state equals $\textrm{std}(R) = a \times \textrm{C}$, where $a$ denotes the action (investment) the subject takes and $C$ denotes the price change, the higher the investment, the higher the risk. Path 1 has, therefore, the highest standard deviation (std = 14.9) of the total average reward, whereas the standard deviation of Path 4 is smallest (std = 6.9). Path 3 provides a trade-off option: it has slightly lower expected value (EV = 52.25) than Path 1 but comes with a lower risk (std = 12.3). Hence, the paradigm is suitable for observing and quantifying the risk-sensitive behavior of subjects.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[Phase transition.]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{phase.eps}} \
\subfloat[Structure of the underlying Markov decision process.]{\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{mdp.eps}}
\caption{The sequential investment paradigm. The paradigm is an implementation of a Markov decision process with 7 states and 4 possible actions (decisions to take) at every state. (a) Every decision (trial) consists of a choice phase (3s), during which an action (invest 0, 1, 2, or 3 EUR) must be taken by adjusting the scale bar on the screen, an anticipation phase (.5s), an outcome phase (2-5s), where the development of the stock price and the reward (wins and loses) are revealed, an evaluation phase (2-5s), where it reveals the maximal possible reward that could have been obtained for the (in hindsight) best possible action, and a transition phase (2.7s), where subjects are informed about the possible successor states and the specific transition, which will occur. The intervals of the outcome and evaluation phase are jittered for improved fMRI analysis. State information is provided by the colored patterns, the black field provides stock price information during anticipation phase, and the white field provides the reward and the maximal possible reward of this trial. After each round (3 trials), the total reward of this round is shown to subjects. (b) Structure of the underlying Markov decision process. The 7 states are indicated by numbered circles; arrows denote the possible transitions. Lables ``RS'' and ``RA'' indicate the transitions caused by the two ``risk-seeking'' (investment of 2 or 3 EUR) and the two ``risk-averse'' (investment of 0 or 1 EUR) actions. Bi-Gaussian distributions with a standard deviation of 5 are used to generate the random price changes of the stocks. Panels next to the states provide information about the means (top row) and the probabilities (center row) of ever component. M (bottom row) denotes the mean price change. The reward received equals the price change multiplied by the amount of money the subject invests. The rightmost panels provide the total expected rewards (EV) and the standard deviations (std) for all possible state sequences (Path 1 to Path 4) under the assumption that every sequence of actions consistent with a particular sequence of states is chosen with equal probability.}
\label{fig:mdp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{group_bw.eps}
\caption{Distribution of ``strategies'' chosen by the subjects in the sequential investment game and the corresponding cumulative rewards. Subjects are grouped according to the sequence of states (Path 1 to Path 4, cf.\ Fig.\ \ref{fig:mdp}b) they chose during the last 60 trials of the game. If a path $i$ is chosen in more than 60\% of the trials, the subject is assigned the group ``Path $i$''. Otherwise, subjects are assigned the group labeled ``random''. The vertical axis denotes the cumulative reward obtained during the last 60 trials.}
\label{fig:grouping}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Risk-sensitive Model of Human Behavior}
Fig.~\ref{fig:grouping} summarizes the strategies which were chosen by the 30 subjects. 17 subjects mainly chose Path 1, which provided them high rewards. 6 subjects chose Path 4, which gave very low rewards. The remaining 7 subjects show no significant preference among all 4 paths and the rewards they received are on average between the rewards received by the other 2 groups. The optimal policy for maximizing expected reward is the policy that follows Path 1. The results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:grouping}, however, indicate that the standard model fails to explain the behavior of more than 40\% of the subjects.
We now quantify subjects' behavior by applying three classes of Q-learning algorithm: (1) standard Q-learning, (2) the risk-sensitive Q-learning (RSQL) method described by Algorithm \ref{alg:ql}, and (3) an expected utility (EU) algorithm with the following update rule
\begin{align}
Q(s_t,a_t) \Leftarrow Q(s_t,a_t) + \alpha \left( u(r_t) - x_0 + \gamma \max_{a} Q(s_{t+1},a) - Q(s_t,a_t)\right), \label{eq:eu}
\end{align}
where the nonlinear transformation is applied to the reward $r_t$ directly. The latter one is a straightforward extension of expected utility theory. Risk-sensitivity is implemented via the nonlinear transformation of the true reward $r_t$. For both risk-sensitive Q-learning methods (RSQL and EU), we set the we set the reference level $x_0 = 0$ and consider the family of polynomial mixed utility functions
\begin{align}
u(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
k_+ x^{l_+} & x \geq 0 \\
- k_- (-x)^{l_-} & x < 0
\end{array}
\right..\label{eq:poly}
\end{align}
The parameters $k_{\pm} >0 $ and $l_\pm > 0$ quantify the risk-preferences separately for wins and losses
(see Table \ref{tab:lpm}).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\small
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | c }
\hline
branch $x\geq 0$ & shape & risk preference \\ \hline
$0 <l_+ < 1$ & concave & risk-averse \\ \hline
$l_+ = 1$ & linear & risk-neutral \\ \hline
$l_+ > 1$ & convex & risk-seeking \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | c }
\hline
branch $x < 0$ & shape & risk preference \\ \hline
$0 < l_- < 1$ & convex & risk-seeking \\ \hline
$l_- = 1$ & linear & risk-neutral \\ \hline
$l_- > 1$ & concave & risk-averse \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Parameters for the two branches $x\geq 0$ (left) and $x<0$ (right) of the polynomial utility function $u(x)$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:poly}), its shape and the induced risk preference.}
\label{tab:lpm}
\end{table}
Hence, there are 4 parameters for $u$ which have to be determined from the data. For all three classes, actions are generated according to the ``softmax'' policy Eq.\ \eqref{eq:softmax}, which is a proper policy for the paradigm (for proof see Appendix \ref{sec:softmax}), and the learning rate $\alpha$ is set constant across trials.
For RSQL, the learning rate is absorbed by the coefficients $k_\pm$. Hence, there are 6 parameters $\{ \beta, \gamma, k_{\pm}, l_{\pm}\} =: \theta$ which have to be determined. Standard Q-learning corresponds to the choice $l_{\pm} = 1$ and $k_\pm = \alpha$. The risk-sensitive model applied by \cite{niv2012neural} is also a special case of the RSQL-framework and corresponds $l_{\pm} = 1$. For the EU algorithm, there are 7 parameters, $\{ \alpha, \beta, \gamma, k_{\pm}, l_{\pm}\} =: \theta$, which have to be fitted to the data. $l_{\pm} = 1$ and $k_\pm = 1$ again corresponds to the standard Q-learning method.
Parameters were determined subject-wise by maximizing the log-likelihood of the subjects' action sequences,
\begin{align}
\max_{\theta} L(\theta) := \sum_{t=1}^{T} \log p(a_t|s_t, \theta) = \sum_{t=1}^{T} \log \frac{e^{\beta Q(s_t,a_t|\theta)}}{\sum_{a} e^{\beta Q(s_t,a|\theta)}} \label{eq:ml}
\end{align}
where $Q(s,a|\theta)$ indicates the dependence of the Q-values on the model parameters $\theta$. Since RSQL/EU and the standard Q-learning are nested model classes, we apply the Bayesian information criterion (BIC, see e.g.~\citealp{ghosh2006introduction})
\begin{align*}
B := - 2 L + k \log(n)
\end{align*}
for model selection. $L$ denotes the log-likelihood, Eq.~\eqref{eq:ml}. $k$ and $n$ are the number of parameters and trials respectively.
To compare results, we report relative BIC scores, $\Delta B := B - B_Q$, where $B$ is the BIC score of the candidate model and $B_Q$ is the BIC score of the standard Q-learning model. We obtain
\begin{align*}
\Delta B =& -500.14 \quad \textrm{ for RSQL, and } \\
\Delta B =& -23.10 \quad \ \ \textrm{ for EU}.
\end{align*}
The more negative the relative BIC score is, the better the model fits data. Hence, the RSQL algorithm provides a significantly better explanation for the behavioral data than the EU algorithm and standard Q-learning. In the following, we only discuss the results obtained with the RSQL model.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{l_bw.eps}
\caption{Distribution of values for the shape parameters $l_+$ (left) and $l_-$ (right) for the RSQL model.}
\label{fig:para}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ \ref{fig:para} shows the distribution of best-fitting values for the two parameters $l_{\pm}$ which quantify the risk-preferences of the individual subjects. We conclude (cf.~Table \ref{tab:lpm}) that most of the subjects are risk-averse for positive and risk-seeking for negative TD errors. The result is consistent with previous studies from the economics literature (see \citealp{tversky1992advances}, and references therein).
After determining the parameters $\{k_\pm, l_\pm \}$ for the utility functions, we perform an analysis similar to the analysis discussed in Section \ref{sec:toyex}. Given an observed reward sequence $\{ r_i\}_{i=1}^N$, the empirical subjective mean $m_{sub}$ is obtained by solving the following equation
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N u(r_i - m_{sub}) = 0.
\end{align*}
If subjects are risk-neutral, then $u(x) = x$, and $m_{sub} = m_{emp} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N r_i$ is simply the empirical mean. Following the idea of prospect theory, we define a normalized subjective probability
$\Delta p$,
\begin{align}
\Delta p := \frac{m_{sub} - \min_{i} r_{i}}{\max_{i} r_{i} - \min_{i} r_{i}} - \frac{m_{emp} - \min_{i} r_{i}}{\max_{i} r_{i} - \min_{i} r_{i}} = \frac{m_{sub} - m_{emp}}{\max_{i} r_{i} - \min_{i} r_{i}}. \label{eq:relP}
\end{align}
If $\Delta p$ is positive, the probability of rewards is overestimated and the induced policy is, therefore, risk-seeking. If $\Delta p$ is negative, the probability of rewards is underestimated and the policy is risk-averse. Fig.\ \ref{fig:subprob} summarizes the distribution of normalized subjective probabilities for subjects from the ``Path 1'', ``Path 4'' and ``random'' groups of Fig.~\ref{fig:grouping}. For subjects within group ``Path 1'', $\lvert \Delta p \rvert$ is small and their behaviors are similar to those of risk-neutral agents. This is consistent with their policy, because both risk-seeking and risk-neutral agents should prefer Path 1. For subjects within groups ``Path 4'' and ``random'', the normalized subjective probabilities are on average 10 \% lower than those of risk-neutral agents. This explains why subjects in these groups adopt the conservative policies and only infrequently choose Path 1.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{subnorm_bw.eps}
\caption{Distribution of normalized subjective probabilities, $\Delta p$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:relP}, for the different subject groups defined in Fig.~\ref{fig:grouping}. }
\label{fig:subprob}
\end{figure}
\subsection{fMRI Results}
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data were simultaneously recorded while subjects played the sequential investment game. The analysis of fMRI data was conducted in SPM8 (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK; details of the magnetic resonance protocol and data processing are presented in Appendix \ref{sec:mr}). The sequence of Q-values for the action chosen at each state were used as parametric modulators during the choice phase, and temporal difference (TD) errors were used at the outcome phase (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mdp}a).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[TD errors]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{td.eps}} \label{fig:fmriTD}\
\subfloat[Q-values]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{qsa.eps}} \label{fig:fmriQ}
\caption{Modulation of the fMRI BOLD signal by TD errors (a) and by Q-values (b) generated by the RSQL model with best fitting parameters. The data is shown whole-brain corrected to $p<.05$ (voxel-wise $p<.001$ and minimum 125 voxels). The color bar indicates the $t$-value ranging from 0 to the maximal value. The cross indicates location of strongest modulation for TD errors (in the left ventral striatum (-14 8 -16)) and for Q-values (in the right ventral striatum (14 8 -4)). However, it is remarkable that for both TD errors and Q-values, modulations in the left and right ventral striatum are almost equally strong with a slight difference.}
\label{fig:fmri}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:fmri}a shows that the sequence of TD errors for the RSQL model (with best fitting parameters) positively modulated the BOLD signal in the subcallosal gyrus extending into the ventral striatum (-14 8 -16) (marked by the cross in Fig.~\ref{fig:fmri}a), the anterior cingulate cortex (8 48 6), and the visual cortex (-8 -92 16; $z=7.9$). The modulation of the BOLD signal in the ventral striatum is consistent with previous experimental findings (cf.\ \citealp{schultz2002getting,o2004reward}), and supports the primary assertion of computational models that reward-based learning occurs when expectations (here, expectations of ``subjective'' quantities) are violated \citep{sutton1998reinforcement}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:fmri}b shows the results for the sequence of Q-values for the RSQL model (with best fitting parameters), which correspond to the subjective (risk-sensitive) expected value of the reward for each discrete choice. Several large clusters of voxels in cortical and subcortical structures were significantly modulated by the Q-values at the moment of choice. The sign of this modulation was negative.
The peak of this negative modulation occurred in the left anterior insula (-36 12 -2, $z=4.6$ ), with strong modulation also in the
bilateral ventral striatum (14 8 -4, marked by the cross in Fig.~\ref{fig:fmri}b; -16 4 0) and the cingulate cortex (4 16 28). The reward prediction error processed by the ventral striatum (and other regions noted above) would not be computable in the absence of an expectation, and as such, this activation is important for substantiating the plausibility for the RSQL model of learning and choice. Sequences of Q-values obtained with standard Q-learning (with best fitting parameters), on the other hand, failed to predict any changes in brain activity even at a liberal statistical threshold of $p < .01$ (uncorrected). This lack of neural activity for the standard Q model, in combination with the significant activation for our RSQL, supports the hypothesis that some assessment of risk is induced and influences valuation. Whereas the areas modulated by Q-values differ from what has been reported in other studies (i.e., the ventromedial prefrontal cortex as in \citealp{glascher2009determining}), it does overlap with the representation of TD errors. Furthermore, the opposing signs of the correlated neural activity suggests that a neural mismatch of signals in the ventral striatum between Q-value and TD errors may underlie the mechanism by which values are learned.
\subsection{Discussion}
We applied the risk-sensitive Q-learning (RSQL) method to quantify human behavior in a sequential investment game and investigated the correlation of the predicted TD- and Q-values with the neural signals measured by fMRI.
We first showed that the standard Q-learning algorithm cannot explain the behavior of a large number of subjects in the task. Applying RSQL generated a significantly better fit and also outperformed the expected utility algorithm. The risk-sensitivity revealed by the best fitting parameters is consistent with the studies in behavioral economics, that is, subjects are risk-averse for positive while risk-seeking for negative TD errors. Finally, the relative subjective probabilities provide a good explanation why some subjects take conservative policies: they underestimate the true probabilities of gaining rewards.
The fMRI results showed that TD sequence generated by our model has a significant correlation with the activity in the subcallosal gyrus extending into the ventral striatum. The sequence of Q-values has a significant correlation with the activities in the left anterior insula.
Previous studies (see e.g., Chapter 23 of \citealp{glimcher2008neuroeconomics} and \citealp{symmonds2011deconstructing}) suggest that higher order statistics of outcomes, e.g., variance (the 2nd order) and skewness (the 3rd order), are encoded in human brains separately and the individual integration of these risk metrics induces the corresponding risk-sensitivity. Our results indicate, however, that the risk-sensitivity can be simply induced (and therefore encoded) by a nonlinear transformation of TD errors and no additional neural representation of higher order statistics is needed.
\section{Summary}
We applied a family of valuation functions, the utility-based shortfall, to the general framework of risk-sensitive Markov decision processes, and we derived a risk-sensitive Q-learning algorithm. We proved that the proposed algorithm converges to the optimal policy corresponding to the risk-sensitive objective. By applying S-shape utility functions, we show that key features predicted by prospect theory can be replicated using the proposed algorithm. Hence, the novel Q-learning algorithm provides a good candidate model for human risk-sensitive sequential decision-making procedures in learning tasks, where mixed risk-preferences are shown in behavioral studies. We applied the algorithm to model human behaviors in a sequential investment game. The results showed that the new algorithm fitted data significantly better than the standard Q-learning and the expected utility model.
The analysis of fMRI data shows a significant correlation of the risk-sensitive TD error with the BOLD signal change in the ventral striatum, and also a significant correlation of the risk-sensitive Q-values with neural activity in the striatum, cingulate cortex and insula, which is not present if standard Q-values are applied.
Some technical extensions are possible within our general risk-sensitive reinforcement learning (RL) framework: (a) The Q-learning algorithm derived in this paper can be regarded a special type of RL algorithms, TD(0). It can be extended to other types of RL algorithms like SARSA and TD($\lambda$) for $\lambda \neq 0$. (b) In our previous work \citep{Shen2013}, we also provided a framework for the average case. Hence, RL algorithms for the average case can also be derived similar to the discounted case considered in this paper. (c) The algorithm in its current form applies to MDPs with finite state spaces only. It can be extended for MDPs with continuous state spaces by applying function approximation technique.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
Thanks to Wendelin B\"ohmer, Rong Guo and Maziar Hashemi-Nezhad for useful discussions and suggestions and to the anonymous referee for helpful comments. The work of Y.\ Shen and K.\ Obermayer was supported by the BMBF (Bersteinfokus Lernen TP1), 01GQ0911, and the work of M.J.\ Tobia and T.\ Sommer was supported by the BMBF (Bernsteinfokus Lernen TP2), 01GQ0912.
|
\section{Introduction}
Parametric amplifiers are attractive in that they can in principle amplify a signal while only adding a minimum of noise\cite{Caves:1982}. From this point of view, parametric amplifiers may be divided into two groups; \emph{phase sensitive} amplifiers which amplify only one of the incoming quadratures, and \emph{phase insensitive} amplifiers which amplify both quadratures, thereby preserving the phase of the signal. A phase sensitive amplifier can in principle amplify the signal without adding any noise. The minimum noise added by a phase insensitive amplifier corresponds to half a quantum of the amplified frequency, $\hbar \omega /2$.
In a parametric amplifier, some parameter of the system must be varied in time. By pumping the system, \textit{i.e.} modulating that parameter at one frequency, it is possible to amplify a signal at a different frequency. Power is transferred from the pump frequency to the signal frequency.
Parametric amplifiers can be realized in a large number of systems, both in optics and in electronics. A typical example in optics is a fiber-based amplifier where the refractive index of the fiber material is modulated by the pump. In other systems utilizing varactor diodes, it is the nonlinear diode capacitance which is modulated. Varactor diodes are typically used at frequencies ranging from radio to THz frequencies.
Superconducting circuits can also be used to build parametric amplifiers in the microwave domain. The use of parametric amplifiers with Josephson junctions was pioneered by several researchers in the 1970's\cite{Feldman:1975, Taur:1977, Feldman:1977,Wahlsten:1977,Wahlsten:1978}, as well as Bernard Yurke in the 1980's\cite{Yurke:1988,Yurke:1989}. Josephson junctions are used as parametric inductances, and may be pumped either by a time varying current through the junction\cite{CastellanosBeltran:2007,Eichler:2011,Hatridge:2011}, or in a SQUID geometry by a time-varying magnetic flux\cite{Yamamoto:2008, Hatridge:2011, Wilson:2012, Sundqvist:2013}. Alternatively the kinetic inductance of a thin superconductor can be used as the parametric component\cite{Tholen:2007,HoEom:2012}.
Parametric amplifiers based on superconducting devices have recently regained interest because of the need for better amplifiers for qubit readout and microwave quantum optics. The utility of these amplifiers have been demonstrated in a number of experiments showing single shot qubit readout\cite{Mallet:2009}, quantum feedback\cite{Vijay:2012}, vacuum squeezing\cite{Flurin:2012}, and in determining the statistics of nonclassical photon states\cite{Steffen:2013}. There are two major advantages of superconducting parametric amplifiers: i) they have very low dissipation, and ii) they have well characterized and engineer-able properties. This makes it possible to design well functioning parametric amplifiers with good gain and little added noise\cite{CastellanosBeltran:2007,Abdo:2011}.
To understand and implement a parametric amplifier, one often needs to solve a system of coupled equations where it may be difficult to fully appreciate the amplifier's overall properties. Along with the resurgent use of parametric amplifiers as applied to quantum systems, a quantum optics formalism is also typically adopted to explain the amplifier.
By contrast, we recently presented a linearized impedance model for a flux-pumped SQUID following the engineering formalism\cite{Blackwell:1961,Decroly:1973,Howson:1970} developed for (classical) varactor diodes in the 1960's and 70's. While a similar formalism had also been utilized for early treatments of Josephson junction parametric amplifiers\cite{Feldman:1977}, this had not been applied to the flux-pumped SQUID. The flux-pumped SQUID can be represented as a parallel combination of a Josephson inductance and an additional circuit element which we named the ``pumpistor"\cite{Sundqvist:2013}. The pumpistor has the frequency dependence of an inductance, but it is an inductance which is \emph{complex}. The phase of this complex inductance (or impedance) depends on the phase angle of the pump relative to the signal. By properly adjusting the pump, the pumpistor can act as a negative resistance. Thus, it can provide gain in the circuit. In this recent paper, we treated only the three-wave degenerate case, \textit{i.e.} where the pump is applied at exactly twice the signal frequency.
In this work, we extend this pumpistor model. We revisit the three-wave degenerate case to include higher-order saturation effects. We also explore the four-wave degenerate case, which couples to the pump at higher order. Perhaps most importantly, we also treat the \emph{nondegenerate} case, where the pump frequency is not a multiple of the signal frequency. Here a matrix formalism provides for the exploration of many types of nondegenerate frequency mixing, which, in addition to gain as a negative resistance, also describes up- and down- conversion of a signal.
\section{The current response of a simple dc SQUID}
In this section, we briefly review the relations between external magnetic flux, effective junction phase, and series current in a dc SQUID. In this work, we refer to a dc SQUID simply as a ``SQUID," and we consider it free of parasitic internal impedances. To begin, we first consider a single Josephson junction in order to introduce the Josephson relations due to the \emph{dc} and \emph{ac} Josephson effects\cite{Josephson:1962}.
\subsection{Current and voltage in a simple Josephson junction}
In a Josephson junction, the \emph{dc Josephson effect} denotes the relation between the phase difference $\phi_J$, \textit{i.e.} the difference in phase between the superconducting order parameters on either side of the junction, and the current $I$ which flows through the junction. This is given by
\begin{equation}
I = I_{c} \sin(\phi)\,.
\label{eqn:DCJosephsonEffect}
\end{equation}
Here, $I_{c}$ is the critical current for this single Josephson junction, which is its maximum allowed super-current. The \emph{ac Josephson effect} relates the \emph{time derivative} of the phase difference to the voltage, V, across the junction.
\begin{equation}
V = \left( {\frac{{\Phi _0 }} {{2\pi }}} \right) ~\frac{d \phi}{dt},
\label{eqn:ACJosephsonEffect}
\end{equation}
where, $\Phi_0 \equiv h/(2e)$ is the \emph{superconducting flux quantum}. By taking the time derivative of Eq. \ref{eqn:DCJosephsonEffect} and combining it with Eq. \ref{eqn:ACJosephsonEffect}, we see that the Josephson junction acts like an inductor, $dI/dt=V/L_J$, with the \emph{Josephson inductance}
\begin{equation}
L_J=\frac{\Phi_0}{2\pi I_c \cos{\phi}}\,.
\label{eqn:Josephson_Inductance}
\end{equation}
\subsection{ Extending the Josephson relations to a SQUID}
Placing two Josephson junctions (``1'' and ``2'') in parallel, we form a SQUID, where the currents combine as a sum. We adopt the sign conventions suggested in Ref.\,\cite{Zagoskin:2011}.
\begin{equation}
I = I_{c1} \sin \left( {\phi _{1} } \right) - I_{c2} \sin \left( {\phi _{2} } \right).
\label{eqn:SQUID_Current_unsimplified}
\end{equation}
Going around the loop and returning to the same point, the phase can only subtend multiples of 2$\pi$. We therefore find a quantization condition for the superconducting loop flux. We regard the phase differences to occur only at the two Josephson junctions, \textit{i.e.}, neglecting the inductance of the loop. Furthermore we assume that the two junctions are equal, $I_{c1}=I_{c2}=I_c/2$, and we define the SQUID phase to be $\phi=(\phi_1-\phi_2)/2$. Then we arrive at the SQUID current,
\begin{equation}
I = I_c \cos \left(\pi \frac{\Phi_{\rm{ext}}}{\Phi _0} \right)\sin \left( \phi \right).
\label{eqn:SQUIDCurrent}
\end{equation}
We see that the SQUID acts just like a Josephson junction, but with a critical current tunable by the external magnetic flux $\Phi_{\rm{ext}}$. Note that our choice of sign convention following Ref. \cite{Zagoskin:2011} eliminates the need for taking the \emph{absolute value} of the quantity $\cos(\pi~\Phi_{\rm{ext}}/\Phi_0)$ in Eq. \ref{eqn:SQUIDCurrent}. This is not the case in the definition commonly used in other very good and popular references (\textit{e.g.}, \cite{VanDuzer:1999, Tinkham:1996}). In any case, for this work we consider only the situation where $| \Phi _{\rm{ext}}/\Phi_0 | < | 1/2 |$. Here, the quantity corresponding to $\cos(\pi~\Phi_{\rm{ext}}/\Phi_0)$ is always positive regardless of convention.
Thus, we recover a device phenomenology similar to the single Josephson junction depicted in Eqs. \ref{eqn:DCJosephsonEffect} and \ref{eqn:ACJosephsonEffect}. Specifically, the SQUID acts as a tunable inductance such that
\begin{equation}
L_J=\frac{\Phi_0}{2\pi I_c \cos \left(\pi \frac{\Phi_{\rm{ext}}}{\Phi _0} \right) \cos{\phi}}\,.
\label{eqn:JosephsonInductance}
\end{equation}
In this section, we have defined the system of a SQUID by current and voltage relations similar to a single Josephson junction. We found the SQUID to be tunable by an externally applied magnetic flux. Using this framework, in the next section we examine the SQUID circuit response to a magnetic flux, \emph{applied dynamically}.
\section{The signal impedance of a SQUID, subject to a dynamically pumped external magnetic flux}
We investigate how a SQUID responds as an impedance due to the presence of a periodic perturbation of the external magnetic flux. To this end, we assume the external flux is of the following form.
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:FluxPerturbation}
\Phi_{\text{ext}} & = \Phi_{\rm{dc}} + \delta \Phi
\end{align}
Here $\Phi_{\rm{dc}}$ is a static (``quiescent'') magnetic flux, and we use a time-dependent perturbation of the form $ \delta \Phi = \Phi_{\text{ac}}~\text{cos}(\omega_3 t + \theta_{3})$.
For convenience of notation, we define these following normalized flux amplitudes.
\begin{align}
F = \pi \frac{{{\Phi _{{\rm{dc}}}}}}{{{\Phi _0}}}\\
\delta f = \pi \frac{{{\Phi _{{\rm{ac}}}}}}{{{\Phi _0}}}
\end{align}
\subsection{An aside regarding labels and conventions}
For clarity, we take the opportunity to introduce a handful of electromagnetic disturbances necessary to understand our system. These small-signal disturbances occur at different frequencies. We follow the nomenclature for frequency terms as presented by Blackwell and Kotzebue\cite{Blackwell:1961}.
Regarding frequencies and how we label them, in this work we consider at most six frequencies due to possible mixing effects. Foremost, we consider a ``signal'' exists at a frequency assigned to index 1. For a parametric amplifier, the signal frequency serves as the frequency of both the input and output of the device. We shall the small-signal current at the signal frequency, for a given voltage at this same frequency. This gives us a ``signal impedance'' upon which we base our subsequent reasoning. Some driven ``pump'' disturbance occurs at a frequency of index 3. This pump frequency corresponds to the frequency at which the SQUID is driven externally. The pumping of the SQUID provides for a nonlinear interaction to occur. Another frequency we consider is the ``idler'' frequency. An idler response comes about due to the nonlinear mixing between signal and pump. In the general case, we need to provide for the possibility for the idler response to exist, even if it remains as an internal state variable (serving neither as an externally accessible input or output to the circuit). Among the various topologies which allow frequency mixing, an idler tone occurs at a frequency that is some linear combination of the signal and pump frequencies. In this work we delineate an idler as either a \emph{sum} or a \emph{difference} between signal and pump frequencies, for either the \emph{three-wave} or \emph{four-wave} case. An underlying principle of the parametric amplifier is that (some portion of) the power absorbed at the pump frequency is transferred to signal and idler frequencies, allowing for an amplified response.
We list all considered mixing frequencies in Table \ref{tab:freq}, and provide a depiction in Fig. \ref{Fig1}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Our convention for the frequencies involved in mixing effects}
\label{tab:freq}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
(Angular) frequency & Designation & Relation \\ \hline
${\omega _1 }$ & ``signal'' & ${\omega _1 }$ \\
${\omega _2 }$ & ``idler" (three-wave difference) & ${\omega _3 } - {\omega _1 }$ \\
${\omega _3 }$ & ``pump" & ${\omega _3 }$ \\
${\omega _4 }$ & ``idler" (three-wave sum) & ${\omega _3 } + {\omega _1 }$ \\
${\omega _5 }$ & ``idler" (four-wave difference) & ${2 \omega _3 } - {\omega _1 }$ \\
${\omega _6 }$ & ``idler" (four-wave sum) & ${2 \omega _3 } + {\omega _1 }$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5 in]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{This figure depicts the mixing terms we consider pertinent. The signal frequency is at (angular) frequency $\omega_1$, and the pump frequency is $\omega_3$. The amplitudes are arbitrary. }
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
We must also consider different types of small-signal electromagnetic disturbances in the SQUID. Generally, we may account for the \emph{junction phases}, \emph{voltages}, \emph{currents}, or \emph{magnetic fluxes}, at any of the signal, idler, or pump frequencies. In practice, we account for any of the phases, voltages, and currents at the signal and idler frequencies, while only the magnetic flux at the pump frequency. We assume periodic (cosine) forms for these quantities, including an offset phase term. For instance, the phase across the junction at the signal frequency we denote as,
\begin{equation}
\phi_1(t) = {\tilde \phi_{1}} ~\text{cos}(\omega_1 t + \theta_{1}).
\end{equation}
To relate this phase to the corresponding voltage at the signal frequency, we use the Josephson relation of Eq. \ref{eqn:ACJosephsonEffect}.
\begin{equation}
v_1(t) = V_{1} ~\text{cos}(\omega_1 t + \theta_{v1})
\label{eqn:voltageForm}
\end{equation}
Above, we have set
\begin{equation}
V_{1} = \frac{\Phi_0 ~{\tilde \phi_{1}} ~ \omega_1 }{2 \pi},
\end{equation}
as well as set the relation
\begin{equation}
\theta_{v1} = \theta_{1} + \pi/2.
\end{equation}
We have now established our nomenclature for small-signal responses in a flux-pumped SQUID. We proceed to treat the response of the SQUID under various, specific conditions. We begin by studying the \emph{three-wave, degenerate} case.
\section{The three-wave degenerate case}
\label{sec:3waveDegen}
There are particular cases where we do not need to treat an idler response separate from the signal response. For the three-wave case, at precisely half of the pump frequency, the signal and idler frequencies are identical.
\begin{center}
{\bf{The three-wave degenerate case:}}
\end{center}
\begin{align}
\omega_1 = \omega_2 = (\omega_3 - \omega_1) = \omega_3 / 2
\label{eqn:3waveDegenerateFreq}
\end{align}
For this particular situation, we need only treat the signal and pump variables. From Eq. \ref{eqn:SQUIDCurrent}, note that there are two terms to consider; the ``flux'' term, and the ``phase'' term.
\begin{equation}
i(t) = \underbrace {I_c \cos \left( {\pi ~\Phi _{{\text{ext}}}(t) /\Phi _0 } \right)}_{{\text{`flux'' term}}}\underbrace {\sin \left( \phi(t) \right)}_{{\text{``phase'' term}}}
\label{SQUIDCurrentItemized}
\end{equation}
When treating these sorts of dynamics involving sinusoids, a common approximation is to implement Fourier-Bessel expansions \cite{VanDuzer:1999}. However, a simple Taylor expansion recovers the same result as a Fourier-Bessel expansion when approximating Bessel functions in their small-signal limit. We take separate series expansions of the two multiplied terms of Eq. \ref{SQUIDCurrentItemized}.
To first order we expand the ``flux' term, using the flux-perturbation variable, $\delta \Phi$, of Eq. \ref{eqn:FluxPerturbation}. We find
\begin{align}
{I_c \cos \left( {\pi \Phi _{{\text{ext}}} /\Phi _0 } \right)} & \approx {I_c}\left[ {\cos \left( F \right) - \sin \left( F \right) \delta f \cos \left( {{\omega _3}t + {\theta _3}} \right)} \right].
\label{eqn:IcCosExpand}
\end{align}
Also to first order, we expand the ``phase'' term so that sin$[\phi(t)] \approx \phi(t)$. Considering the functional form of the phase variables, we approximate the ``phase'' term by the following.
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\sin \left[ {\phi (t)} \right] \approx \phi (t) = \tilde \phi _{1} \cos \left( {\omega _1 t + \theta _{1} } \right) \quad \quad \left( {{\text{degenerate case}}} \right) \hfill \\
\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{} & {} & { = \tfrac{1}
{2}~\tilde \phi _{1}~ e^{j\theta _{p1} } e^{j\omega _1 t} + } \\
\end{array} \tfrac{1}
{2}~\tilde \phi ^* _{1} ~e^{ - j\theta _{p1} } e^{ - j\omega _1 t} \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\label{eqn:PhaseExpand}
\end{equation}
Here, since we have assumed a cosine dependence with an explicit phase angle, the amplitude $\tilde \phi_{1}$ is real and therefore equal to its complex conjugate $\tilde \phi^*_{1}$. Yet, for now, we retain the use of conjugate notation for generality. We also did not include a phase variable present at the pump frequency. This is because we are interested in the signal response. For frequency \emph{mixing} to occur, components at different frequencies must be \emph{multiplied}. As long as the approximation $\sin[\phi(t) ] \approx \phi(t)$ is valid, the pump component of phase need not be included as it simply \emph{sums} with the signal component of phase.
The multiplication of Eq. \ref{eqn:IcCosExpand} by \ref{eqn:PhaseExpand} serves as our approximation to Eq. \ref{SQUIDCurrentItemized}. We apply the degenerate frequency condition of Eq. \ref{eqn:3waveDegenerateFreq}. From the resulting expression, we find the terms present corresponding to the frequency component at $e^{ j \omega _{1} t }$. We further consider the current to also be of a cosine response,
\begin{align}
i_1(t) = I_1 ~ \cos(\omega_1 t) = {\textstyle{1 \over 2}}\,~{I_1}~{e^{j{\omega _1}t}} + {\textstyle{1 \over 2}}\,~I^*_1~{e^{ - j{\omega _1}t}} = {i_1}{(t)_ + } + {i_1}{(t)_ - }
\end{align}
such that we can match its $e^{ j\omega _{1} t } $ component to the following form.
\begin{align}
{i_1}{(t)_ + }&{ = \frac{1}{2}~{I_1}~{e^{j{\omega _1}t}}}\\
{}&{ = \frac{1}{2}~{I_c}~{\tilde \phi _{1}}~\left[ {{e^{j{\theta _1}}}\cos \left( F \right) - \frac{{\delta f}}{2}\,\sin \left( F \right){e^{j\left( {{\theta _3} - {\theta _1}} \right)}}} \right]{e^{j{\omega _1}t}}}
\label{eqn:CurrentOmega1}
\end{align}
Considering a voltage based on the Josephson relation applied to the phase response, we find the following voltage component at $e^{ j\omega _{1} t }$.
\begin{align}
\notag
{v_1}{(t)_ + }&= \tfrac{1}
{2}\left( {V_{1} ~e^{j\theta _{v1} } } \right)e^{j\omega _1 t} = \frac{{\Phi _0 }}
{{2\pi }}\frac{d}
{{dt}}\left[ {\tfrac{1}
{2}~\tilde \phi _{1} ~{\kern 1pt} e^{j\theta _{1} } e^{j\omega _1 t} } \right] \hfill \\
{} & { = \tfrac{1}
{2}\left[ {\frac{{\Phi _0 {\kern 1pt} \tilde \phi _{1} {\kern 1pt} \omega _1 }}
{{2\pi }}\left( {je^{j\theta _{1} } } \right)} \right]e^{j\omega _1 t} }
\label{eqn:VoltageOmega1}
\end{align}
By dividing Eq. \ref{eqn:CurrentOmega1} by Eq. \ref{eqn:VoltageOmega1}, we can define a \emph{signal admittance}, $Y_d(\omega_1)$, for this degenerate case.
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:degenerateAdmittanceGeneral}
{Y_d (\omega _1 )} & = {\frac{{i_{1} (t)_+}}
{{v_{1 } (t)_+}}} \\
&= {\left( {j{\omega _1}{L_{{\rm{3d,0}}}}} \right)^{ - 1}} + {\left( {j{\omega _1}{L_{{\rm{3d,1}}}}} \right)^{ - 1}}
\label{eqn:degenerateAdmittance}
\end{align}
Above, we have defined the following identities.
\begin{equation}
\boxed{
\begin{gathered}
{\text{Three-wave degenerate case:}} \\
\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{L_{{\rm{3d,0}}}}}& = {{L_J}}\\
\\
{{L_{{\rm{3d,1}}}}}& = { - {L_J}\frac{2}{{\tan \left( F \right)}}\left( {\frac{1}{{\delta f}}} \right){e^{ + j\Delta {\theta _{{\rm{3d}}}}}}}\\
\\
{\Delta {\theta _{\rm{3d}}}}& = {2{\theta _1} - {\theta _3}}
\end{array}\\
\end{gathered}
}
\label{eqn:3waveDegenPumpistor}
\end{equation}
The subscript ``3d" denotes the \emph{three-wave degenerate} case. We identify the Josephson inductance, $L_J$, from Eq. \ref{eqn:JosephsonInductance} for the unperturbed flux ($\Phi_{\rm{ext}} = \Phi_{\rm{dc}}$) and small phase ($\phi \approx 0$) conditions. We therefore consider ${L_J} = {\Phi _0}/\left[ {2\pi {I_c}\cos \left( F \right)} \right]$ for the remainder of this work. From these definitions, Eq. \ref{eqn:degenerateAdmittance} shows that the admittance appears as the parallel combination of the Josephson inductance and a perturbation inductance with an ac-flux dependence (\textit{i.e.}, ``the pumpistor"\cite{Sundqvist:2013}).
Note that this extra inductance, $L_{\text{3d,1}}$, has a dependence on the effective pump phase, $\Delta \theta_{\rm{3d}}$. Depending on the value of $\Delta \theta_{\rm{3d}}$, the inductance $L_{\text{3d,1}}$ has both real and imaginary contributions, which may be either positive or negative. Our amplifier topology will be able to supply signal gain when $L_{\text{3d,1}}$ has a substantial negative and real impedance. This depicts the mechanism which allows the SQUID to inject power back into the external circuit at the signal frequency. A diagram of this equivalent circuit is demonstrated in Fig. \ref{Fig2}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5 in]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{One may solve for the admittance of a flux-modulated SQUID using series expansions for the super-current. The resulting circuit model appears as the Josephson inductance in parallel to a flux- (and phase-) dependent, inductance-like impedance.}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
Here we have treated the degenerate case to first order both in pump flux and in signal phase. We recover the Josephson inductance in combination with a component representing the perturbation to the signal response. This extra impedance, as defined by its frequency dependence, is an inductor. However, its phase dependence allows it to take on complex amplitudes.
It is important to point out that, mathematically, this relation only holds at \emph{precisely} the frequency $\omega_1=\omega_3/2$. When this condition is not met, we need to resort to the general form of the \emph{nondegenerate} case, which we shall treat in sections \ref{sec:generalNondegenerate} and \ref{sec:nondegen3wave}.
Now, we consider some saturation arguments for this three-wave degenerate case.
\subsection{Saturation of the pump flux for the three-wave degenerate case}
As in the theory of mixers and other nonlinear devices, the nonlinear properties of the driven SQUID lead also to saturation effects. These effects include the amplitude-dependent modifications of the Josephson inductance, as well as the \emph{gain compression} of the incremental response.
If we extend the degenerate treatment as in Eq. \ref{eqn:degenerateAdmittanceGeneral}, we can find higher-order parallel inductance terms by expanding the ``flux'' term to higher orders in ac flux. Taking the series expansion to third-order, we find the following extension to Eq. \ref{eqn:degenerateAdmittance}.
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:3DegL0Saturating}
{{L_{{\rm{3d}},{\rm{0}}}}}& = {{L_J}}\\
\label{eqn:3DegL1Saturating}
{{L_{3{\rm{d}},{\rm{1}}}}}& = { - {L_J}\frac{2}{{\tan \left( F \right)}}\left( {\frac{1}{{\delta f}}} \right){e^{ + j\Delta {\theta _{{\rm{3d}}}}}}}\\
\label{eqn:3DegL2Saturating}
{{L_{3{\rm{d}},{\rm{2}}}}}& = { - 4{L_J}{{\left( {\frac{1}{{\delta f}}} \right)}^2}}\\
\label{eqn:3DegL3Saturating}
{{L_{3{\rm{d}},{\rm{3}}}}}& = {{L_J}\frac{{16}}{{\tan \left( F \right)}}{{\left( {\frac{1}{{\delta f}}} \right)}^3}{e^{ + j\Delta {\theta _{{\rm{3d}}}}}}}\\
\label{eqn:3DegAngleSaturating}
{\Delta {\theta _{{\rm{3d}}}}}& = {2{\theta _1} - {\theta _3}}
\end{align}
We find that the parallel inductance terms corresponding to the even powers of ac flux contribute to modifying the standard Josephson inductance. Meanwhile, the odd powers modify the phase-dependent term. Knowing that $L_{\text{d,1}} $ is responsible for gain, we can compare it to its higher-order correction, $L_{\text{d,3}}$. So by equating $| L_{\text{d,1}} | $ to $| L_{\text{d,3}} |$ we can estimate the pump ac-flux amplitude ``intercept point." This is only a rough estimate of saturation, and the effects of gain compression would start to become apparent at ac-fluxes considerably smaller than this. To ensure that operation is far from this condition, we would say that the following should always be true.
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\Phi _{{\text{ac}}} }}
{{\Phi _{\text{0}} {\kern 1pt} }} \ll \frac{{2 \sqrt{2}}}
{\pi } \approx 0.90
\end{equation}
This is not a particularly useful constraint, as we already knew that we wish to keep the total external flux below $\Phi_0/2$. However, we could say that this constraint reinforces the notion that, for properly linearized behavior, $\Phi_{\text{ac}}$ should be maintained at some small fraction of $\Phi_0$.
\subsection{Saturation in the signal phase (or voltage) for the three-wave degenerate case}
\label{sec:PhaseSaturation}
If we instead now expand the \emph{phase term} of Eq. \ref{SQUIDCurrentItemized} to higher order, we can estimate nonlinear effects due to the magnitude of the \emph{signal phase}. Here, we assume sin$(\phi) \approx \phi - \frac{1}{6} \phi^3$. If we again combine the terms which occur at $e^{ j\omega _{1} t }$, we find the 3rd-order correction to the $\Phi_{\text{ac}}$-independent term, $L_{\text{3d,0}}$, to be the following.
\begin{align}
{\raise0.7ex\hbox{$1$} \!\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 {{L_{{\rm{3d,0}}}}}}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${{L_{{\rm{3d,0}}}}}$}} \to {\raise0.7ex\hbox{$1$} \!\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 {{L_J}}}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${{L_J}}$}}\left( {1 - \frac{{\tilde \phi _{1}^2}}{8}} \right)
\label{eqn:L0With3rdOrderPhase}
\end{align}
We also find a 3rd-order correction to the $L_{\text{3d,1}}$ inductance term, which was the term inversely proportionate to $\delta f$.
\begin{align}
{\raise0.7ex\hbox{$1$} \!\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 {{L_{{\rm{3d}},{\rm{1}}}}}}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${{L_{{\rm{3d}},{\rm{1}}}}}$}} \to {\raise0.7ex\hbox{$1$} \!\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 {{L_{{\rm{3d}},{\rm{1}}}}}}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${{L_{{\rm{3d}},{\rm{1}}}}}$}}\left[ {1 + \tilde \phi _{1}^2\left( {\frac{1}{{24}}{e^{j2\Delta {\theta _{{\rm{3d}}}}}} - \frac{1}{8}} \right)} \right]
\label{eqn:degenerate_L1_saturation}
\end{align}
To estimate an ``intercept point'' due to saturation of the phase amplitude, we can take the maximum of the corrected $1/L_{\text{3d,1}}$ of Eq. \ref{eqn:degenerate_L1_saturation}, at $\Delta \theta_{\rm{3d}}={\pi}/{2}$. It is straightforward to see that the contribution of $\tilde \phi_{1}^2$ should be negligible when the following is true.
\begin{equation}
\left| {\tilde {\phi _{1}}} \right| \ll \sqrt 6
\end{equation}
As in the previous consideration of the nonlinearity due to $\Phi_{\text{ac}}/\Phi_0$, this is not particularly a remarkable constraint. The phase amplitude $\sqrt{6}$ is obviously already a large fraction of $\pi$. It only reinforces the point that $|\tilde \phi_1|$ should be quite small compared to this value. Perhaps, though, it is worthwhile to point out this limit also corresponds directly to a limit on the junction \emph{voltage}, by way of the ac Josephson effect.
\begin{equation}
\left| {{V_{1}}} \right| = {\tilde \phi _{1}}\left( {\frac{{{\Phi _{\rm{0}}}{\omega _1}}}{{2\pi }}} \right) \ll \frac{{\sqrt 2 }}{\pi }{\Phi _{\rm{0}}}{\omega _1}
\end{equation}
Concluding discussion of saturation effects due to flux and to signal phase, we turn to Fig. \ref{Fig3}. Here, we combine the effects of gain compression into a common model. As in the theory of mixers, we see that the odd terms in the expansion account for both gain and its saturation.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.25 in]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{The admittance expansion to higher order, both in external flux and in junction phase, gives a more complete model for the three-wave degenerate case. The even harmonics in the flux expansion serve to only modify the net inductance value. The odd harmonics modify the potential gain and phase-sensitivity. This allows for estimation of the saturation effects. As it is in the theory of mixers, we see in the ac-flux expansion that the third-order term compresses the gain-providing first-order term.}
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section{The four-wave degenerate case}
\label{sec:FourWaveDegenerate}
Next, we take interest in the SQUID with zero dc flux. When the dc flux is zero, the first derivative of inductance as a function of flux is also zero. We notice from Eq. \ref{eqn:3DegL1Saturating} that $L_{3d,1}$ becomes infinite (an ``open") and no longer contributes to the circuit. In fact, all of the odd powers of $\Phi_{\text{ac}}$ will disappear from the ``flux'' term of Eq. \ref{SQUIDCurrentItemized}. The reason for this can be attributed to the symmetric behavior of the unbiased device. Yet it is still possible to achieve parametric amplification among the even harmonics of the admittance expansion in flux, in a degenerate case without an idler tone distinct from a signal ($\omega_1 = \omega_2$). In this case one must use \emph{four-wave degenerate} mixing, where \emph{two} pump photons interact with the signal and idler photons. This condition requires the following.
\bigskip
\begin{center}
{\bf{The four-wave degenerate case:}}
\end{center}
\begin{equation}
\omega _1 + \omega _2 = 2\omega _3
\end{equation}
As in the three-wave degenerate case, both idler and signal tones occur at identically the same frequency and we consider only the disturbance of their combined response. We call this the \emph{signal} ($\omega_1$) response.
When the external magnetic flux is comprised of solely the ac component, we mentioned that the device behaves symmetrically around zero flux. To find the relevant dynamical response, we need to expand the ``flux'' term of Eq. \ref{SQUIDCurrentItemized} to \emph{2nd-order} for this four-wave case.
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{I_c}\cos \left( {\pi \;\delta \Phi /{\Phi _0}} \right)}& \approx &{{I_c} - {I_c}\frac{{{\pi ^2}}}{{2\Phi _0^2}}{{\left( {\delta \Phi } \right)}^2}}&{}\\
{}& = &{{I_c} - \frac{{{I_c}}}{2}{{\left( {\delta f} \right)}^2}{{\left[ {\cos ({\omega _3}t + {\theta _3})} \right]}^2}}&{}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
As before, we find the total current at the signal frequency by multiplying our ``flux'' approximation by the phase term approximation. We use the approximation for the signal phase as in Eq. \ref{eqn:PhaseExpand}. The resulting signal current, analogous to Eq. \ref{eqn:CurrentOmega1} but with $\omega_1 = \omega_3$, becomes
\begin{equation}
{i_{{1}}}(t)_{+} = \frac{1}{2}{I_c}{\tilde \phi _{1}}\left[ {1 - \frac{1}{4}{{\left( {\delta f} \right)}^2}} \right]{e^{j{\theta _1}}}{e^{j{\omega _1}t}} - \frac{1}{{16}}{I_c}\tilde \phi _{1}^*{\left( {\delta f} \right)^2}{e^{j2{\theta _3} - j{\theta _1}}}{e^{j{\omega _1}t}}
\label{eqn:CurrentOmega1FourWave}
\end{equation}
Considering the small-signal voltage of Eq. \ref{eqn:VoltageOmega1}, we find the signal admittance in the four-wave degenerate case to be
\begin{align}
{{Y_{4{\rm{d}}}}({\omega _1})}& = {\frac{{2{I_c}\pi }}{{j{\omega _1}{\Phi _0}}} - \frac{{{I_c}\pi }}{{j2{\omega _1}{\Phi _0}}}{{\left( {\delta f} \right)}^2} - \frac{{{I_c}\pi }}{{j4{\omega _1}{\Phi _0}}}{{\left( {\delta f} \right)}^2}{e^{j2{\theta _3} - j2{\theta _1}}}}\\
\notag \\
{}& = {{{\left( {j{\omega _1}{L_{4{\rm{d}},{\rm{0}}}}} \right)}^{ - 1}} + {{\left( {j{\omega _1}{L_{{\rm{4d,2a}}}}} \right)}^{ - 1}} + \left( {j{\omega _1}{L_{{\rm{4d,2b}}}}} \right){.^{ - 1}}}
\label{eqn:Admittance4Wave}
\end{align}
In this case, we define the following.
\begin{equation}
\boxed{
\begin{gathered}
{\text{Four-wave degenerate case:}} \\
\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{L_{{\rm{4d,0}}}}}& = &{{L_J}}\\
{}&{}&{}\\
{{L_{{\rm{4d,2a}}}}}& = &{ - 4{L_J}{{\left( {\frac{1}{{\delta f}}} \right)}^2}}\\
{}&{}&{}\\
{{L_{{\rm{4d,2b}}}}}& = &{ - 8{L_J}{{\left( {\frac{1}{{\delta f}}} \right)}^2}{e^{j\Delta {\theta _{{\rm{4d}}}}}}}\\
{}&{}&{}\\
{\Delta {\theta _{{\rm{4d}}}}}& = &{2\left( {{\theta _1} - {\theta _3}} \right)}\\
{}&{}&{}
\end{array}\\
\end{gathered}
}
\end{equation}
So we find that the admittance which is proportionate to $(\delta f)^2$ has both phase-insensitive and phase-sensitive terms. Note also the dependence on the pump phase in ${\Delta \theta _{{\text{4d}}} } $ is different by $2$ compared to the phase angle ${\Delta \theta _{{\text{3d}}} } $ of Eq. \ref{eqn:3waveDegenPumpistor}. Also in this four-wave degenerate case, we can produce a negative resistance, and consequently gain, from the $L_{\rm{4d,2b}}$ term by adjusting ${\Delta \theta _{{\text{4d}}} } $ accordingly.
In the following sections, we turn to the more general case of a \emph{nondegenerate} operation. There, the idler response must now be considered separately from the signal response.
\section{General conditions for nondegenerate parametric effects using the small-signal admittance matrix}
\label{sec:generalNondegenerate}
We now turn to specifically \emph{nondegenerate} mixing conditions. Here, ``nondegenerate" asserts its standard meaning that all frequency terms under consideration are unique, i.e., $\omega_i \ne \omega_j $ for all $ j \ne i$. Where any of our six considered mixing frequencies (Table \ref{tab:freq}) may contribute to a flux-pumped SQUID circuit, we work within our typical small-signal limit using a linearized system of equations. From this, we will develop an equivalent admittance matrix.
Consider a general voltage response at any of the six frequencies.
\begin{equation}
{v_n}\left( t \right) = {\textstyle{1 \over 2}} ~ {V_{n}}~{e^{j{\omega _n}t}} + {\textstyle{1 \over 2}} ~{V^*_{n}}~{e^{ - j{\omega _n}t}}\quad \quad \quad n \in \{ 1,2...6\}
\label{eqn:voltForNondegen}
\end{equation}
The amplitude ${v_{0,n}}$ is complex and eliminates the need to introduce a phase angle as we did before in Eq. \ref{eqn:voltageForm}. Here, Eq. \ref{eqn:voltForNondegen} also demonstrates that we have adopted the electrical engineering convention for complex number, $j$, rather than the physics convention, $i$, since the convention for the phase factors are opposite compared to what one would find in the quantum optics literature.
We assume ideal, sinusoidal tones. In this case, the ac Josephson effect gives junction phases from Eq. \ref{eqn:voltForNondegen} as
\begin{align}
{{\phi _n}(t)}&{ = \frac{{2\pi }}{{{\Phi _0}}}\int {{v_n}(t)dt = - j\frac{\pi }{{{\Phi _0}{\omega _n}}}~{V_{n}}~{e^{j{\omega _n}t}} + j\frac{\pi }{{{\Phi _0}{\omega _n}}}~{V_n^*}~{e^{ - j{\omega _n}t}}} }
\label{eqn:phiForNondegen}
\end{align}
Meanwhile, currents will also flow at any of the frequencies.
\begin{equation}
{i_n}(t) = {\textstyle{1 \over 2}} ~ {I_{n}}~{e^{j{\omega _n}t}} + {\textstyle{1 \over 2}} ~ I^*_{n}~ {e^{ - j{\omega _n}t}}\quad \quad \quad n \in \{ 1,2...6\}
\label{eqn:currentsForNondegen}
\end{equation}
As before, the SQUID current is directly related to the junction phase by the dc Josephson effect as in Eq. \ref{SQUIDCurrentItemized}, while an external flux is again driven at $\omega_3$ as in Eq. \ref{eqn:FluxPerturbation}. We continue to work in the limit of small junction phase, $\text{sin}[\phi(t)] \approx \phi(t)$. Furthermore, we know the total junction phase due to all six considered frequencies is the superposition $\phi (t) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^6 {{\phi _n}(t)} $, with $\phi _n(t)$ taken from Eq. \ref{eqn:phiForNondegen}. This gives the total SQUID current approximated as the following.
\begin{align}
{i\left( t \right)}& \approx {\underbrace {\left\{ {{I_c}\,\cos \left[ {F + \delta f\cos \left( {{\omega _3}t + {\theta _{3}}} \right)} \right]} \right\}}_{\text{``flux'' term}}\underbrace {\left( {\sum\limits_{n = 1}^6 {{\phi _n}(t)} } \right)}_{\text{``phase'' term}}}
\label{eqn:SQUIDCurrentGeneralNonDegen}
\end{align}
We wish to find the contributions of the current at different frequencies, given by the form $i(t) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^6 {{i_n}(t)}$ as in Eq. \ref{eqn:currentsForNondegen}. For a given frequency of junction phase, we find the current amplitudes at all frequencies. To do this we expand the ``flux'' term of Eq. \ref{eqn:SQUIDCurrentGeneralNonDegen} to second order, which provides nontrival mixed current amplitudes at all frequencies. We next translate junction phase amplitudes into voltage amplitudes by way of Eq. \ref{eqn:phiForNondegen}. We take advantage of conjugate symmetries to arrive at a simplified, small-signal admittance matrix. Rather than a basis set of physical ports as in a multi-terminal device, here the admittance matrix ``ports'' (indices) represent the frequencies from Table 1.
\begin{equation}
\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{I_{1}}}\\
{}\\
{I_{2}^*}\\
{}\\
{{I_{4}}}\\
{}\\
{I_{5}^*}\\
{}\\
{{I_{6}}}
\end{array}} \right) = \frac{1}{{j{L_J}}}\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\frac{{{\epsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&{ - \frac{{\epsilon _1^*}}{{{\omega _2}}}}&{\frac{{{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\omega _4}}}}&{ - \frac{{\epsilon _2^*}}{{{\omega _5}}}}&{\frac{{{\epsilon _2}}}{{{\omega _6}}}}\\
{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\
{\frac{{{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&{ - \frac{{{\epsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _2}}}}&{\frac{{{\epsilon _2}}}{{{\omega _4}}}}&{ - \frac{{\epsilon _1^*}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&0\\
{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\
{\frac{{\epsilon _1^*}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&{ - \frac{{\epsilon _2^*}}{{{\omega _2}}}}&{\frac{{{\epsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _4}}}}&0&{\frac{{{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\omega _6}}}}\\
{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\
{\frac{{{\epsilon _2}}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&{ - \frac{{{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\omega _2}}}}&0&{ - \frac{{{\epsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _5}}}}&0\\
{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\
{\frac{{\epsilon _2^*}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&0&{\frac{{\epsilon _1^*}}{{{\omega _4}}}}&0&{\frac{{{\epsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _6}}}}
\end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{V_{1}}}\\
{}\\
{V_{2}^*}\\
{}\\
{{V_{4}}}\\
{}\\
{V_{5}^*}\\
{}\\
{{V_{6}}}
\end{array}} \right)
\label{eqn:generalMatrix}
\end{equation}
We do not list in this matrix the pump current amplitude, $I_3$, as it does not include any off-diagonal terms to couple to other frequencies.
This admittance matrix holds true as long as the pump frequency is larger than the signal frequency ($\omega_3 > \omega_1$) so that the ``three-wave difference idler'' frequency remains positive ($\omega_2>0$). In the case of $\omega_3 < \omega_1$, some matrix elements appear instead with conjugate quantities. Similar redefinitions are also necessary if frequency $\omega_5=2 \omega_3 - \omega_1$ were also to become negative. We consider the conditions ($\omega_2 > 0 $) and ($\omega_5 > 0$) to be the standard situation.
We find again the quiescent Josephson inductance, ${L_J}={\textstyle{{{\Phi _0}} \over {2\pi \,{I_c}\cos \left( F \right)}}}$. Some new, flux-dependent terms $\epsilon_0$, $\epsilon_1$, and $\epsilon_2$ also appear, which are not indexed by frequency. Rather, their indices indicate the order of the series expansion in flux for which they first become nontrivial. Their expressions are the following.
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:epsilon0}
\epsilon _0 &= 1 - \frac{1}{4}\delta {f^2}\\
\notag\\
\label{eqn:epsilon1}
\epsilon _1 &= {\frac{{\delta f}}{2}{\rm{tan}}(F){e^{ - j{\theta _3}}}} \\
\notag\\
{{\epsilon_2}}&={\frac{{\delta {f^2}}}{8}{e^{ - j2{\theta _3}}}}
\label{eqn:epsilon2}
\end{align}
To note, for vanishing $\delta f = \frac{\pi \Phi_{\rm{ac}}}{\Phi_0}$, the limit of $\epsilon_0$ is unity, while $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ tend to zero.
The importance of the matrix equation (Eq. \ref{eqn:generalMatrix}) should be emphasized. This tells us the response of a flux-pumped SQUID between all relevant frequency components, but yet it can be used in the same form as any other n-port admittance matrix from circuit theory. So for this very general degenerate case, we may now consider a large number of three-wave and four-wave mixing devices, both as negative-resistance amplifiers and as frequency converters. It further allows us to describe a number of next-order effects which also occur in these devices.
The elements of the admittance matrix (Eq. \ref{eqn:generalMatrix}), are specifically the \emph{short-circuit} admittance parameters\cite{Chen:1980}. This is defined as the following,
\begin{equation}
{Y_{kl}} = {\left. {\frac{{{I_k}}}{{{V_l}}}} \right|_{{V_m} = 0,\,m \ne l}}
\end{equation}
where $V_m = 0$ with $m \ne l$ is a condition met by shorting all ports, $m$ other than the port of interest, $l$.
In the next section, we begin by considering a special case of Eq. \ref{eqn:generalMatrix} where the desired harmonics form a subset of the admittance matrix. The unwanted components are assumed to be zero (i.e., shorted). We will then find necessary corrections for when unwanted harmonics are instead \emph{open-circuited}.
\section{The three-wave nondegenerate negative-resistance parametric amplifier}
\label{sec:nondegen3wave}
When the signal frequency under consideration is NOT specifically $\omega_3/2$ or $\omega_3$, the ``degenerate'' conditions of sections \ref{sec:3waveDegen} and \ref{sec:FourWaveDegenerate} break down. We now return to considerations of three-wave mixing, but for the \emph{nondegenerate} case where $\omega _1 \ne \omega _3 /2$. In this case, it is necessary to provide for the presence of an \emph{idler} junction phase (at $\omega_2$). The idler comes about due to the nonlinear frequency coupling between the signal and pump terms. A response at the idler frequency need not be induced at the input, nor measured as an output variable, to play an important role as an internal state variable.
In this section, we consider the following conditions on the signal and idler frequencies.
\begin{center}
{\bf{The three-wave nondegenerate case:}}
\end{center}
\begin{align}
\omega_2 & = (\omega_3 - \omega_1) \ne \omega_1
\label{eqn:DegenerateFreq}
\end{align}
We consider the matrix subset of Eq. \ref{eqn:generalMatrix} corresponding to a signal at $\omega_1$ and the idler at $\omega_2$. The circuit at all other harmonics is assumed to be shorted.
\begin{align}
\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{I_1}}\\
{I_2^*}
\end{array}} \right) = \frac{1}{{j{L_J}}}\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\frac{{{\epsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&{ - \frac{{\epsilon _1^*}}{{{\omega _2}}}}\\
{\frac{{{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&{ - \frac{{{\epsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _2}}}}
\end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{V_1}}\\
{V_2^*}
\end{array}} \right)
\label{eqn:paramp3WaveMatrix}
\end{align}
This provides the current and voltage relations directly across the SQUID at the signal and idler frequencies. Next, we generalize the circuit such that we take into account the possible effects of other generator and load admittances.
\subsection{Understanding this three-wave nondegenerate model as a circuit topology}
\label{sec:3waveTopology}
To conceptualize the system we have just described, consider the flux-pumped SQUID as the primary element of a multi-frequency circuit. This is depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig4}(a). We assume this circuit to be sourced by a signal current $i_{s}(t)$ of the form of Eq. \ref{eqn:currentsForNondegen}. This external current source at $\omega_1$, may be loaded by an external admittance, $Y_{\rm{ext}}$. The currents $i_{1}(t)$ and $i_{2}(t)$ continue to indicate the currents directly into the SQUID at frequencies $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$, respectively. We account for either parasitic or intentional admittances directly across the SQUID by the term $Y_{\rm{sh}}$. We make a distinction between $Y_{\rm{ext}}$ and $Y_{\rm{sh}}$ since the definition of available power from the external source involves only $\text{Re}[Y_{\rm{ext}}]$.
In Fig.\ref{Fig4}(b), we depict how we can think of the effects of the external load at different frequencies by recasting this circuit in an equivalent representation. In this case, we separate $Y_{\rm{ext}}$ into distinct impedances $Y_1$ at frequency $\omega_1$ and $Y_2$ at frequency $\omega_2$. We introduce hypothetical bandpass filters which isolate $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ to their respective frequencies outside of the pumped SQUID. These ideal filters work by providing a high-impedance (open) at their intended frequencies, while at all other frequencies they serve as a perfect short. This topology ensures that all unwanted frequencies short the SQUID, preventing any voltage at those frequencies to accumulate. Thus, we are able to reduce the general admittance matrix of Eq. \ref{eqn:generalMatrix} to the much simpler matrix of Eq. \ref{eqn:paramp3WaveMatrix}. While we do not actively source the idler current, we will find that the external admittance at the idler frequency, $Y_2$, effects response of the SQUID at the signal frequency in an important way.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.0 in]{Fig4.eps}
\caption{ { \bf{(a)}} This figure depicts the physical, general circuit considered in this section, containing a flux-pumped SQUID. This circuit accounts for an external source current, $i_s$, as well as external ($Y_{\rm{ext}}$) and local shunt ($Y_{\rm{sh}}$) admittances. { \bf{(b)}} It is possible to represent the general circuit in an equivalent way that separates the external loading effects of the circuit at the ``signal'' ($\omega_1$) and ``idler'' ($\omega_2$) frequencies. This is done by introducing hypothetical, ideal bandpass filters at $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$. These filters act open-circuited at their respective frequency, but short-circuited for all other frequencies. In this representation, the external admittance, $Y_{\rm{ext}}$, is represented at different frequencies by $Y_1$ and $Y_2$. The input admittance ($Y_{\rm{SQ}}$) is then based on the signal voltage response to current $i_1$, which depends upon the idler in a way that may allow for gain. }
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The voltage and current ratios of the three-wave nondegenerate parametric amplifier}
We are not quite ready to understand how gain appears in this system. This nondegenerate case is complicated by the appearance of an idler response distinct from the signal. For instance, the idler-to-signal voltage ratio $\frac{{V_2^*}}{{V_1}}$ will become important. To find a relation for ${V_2^*}$, we examine the second line of the matrix equation \ref{eqn:paramp3WaveMatrix}. While it is clear that we need to solve for ${V_2^*}$, what is ${I_2^*}$? Unlike the signal response, we are not sourcing or measuring an idler current. The idler current is the result of voltage disturbances at the idler frequency, coupled to the external circuit of the surrounding electrical system. So we need to specify how the circuit is loaded at the idler frequency, which was why it was necessary to specify some external (conjugate) admittance $Y^*_2$ in the previous section. In what follows, we complete an analysis of our generalized circuit to solve for the idler voltage and current in terms of the signal.
Regarding the general circuit as depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig4}, we use Kirchhoff's node equations for both the signal and idler.
\begin{align}
{I_{{s}}} - {V_1} {Y_1}^\prime - {I_1} &= 0\\
- V_2^* {Y_2}^{\prime *} - I_2^* &= 0
\end{align}
Above, we defined the grouped admittances ${Y_1}^\prime = {Y_1} + {Y_{{\rm{sh}}}}$ and ${Y_2}^\prime = {Y_2} + {Y_{{\rm{sh}}}}$. To go further, the coupled subsystem of Eq. \ref{eqn:paramp3WaveMatrix} allows us to eliminate $I_1$ and $I^*_2$, giving the following.
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:sigCurrentReducedWithGen}
{{I_s}}&{ = {V_1}\left( {{Y_1}^\prime + \frac{\epsilon_0}{{j{\omega _1}{L_J}}}} \right) - \frac{{V_2^*\epsilon _1^*}}{{j{\omega _2}{L_J}}}}\\
0&{ = \frac{{{V_1{\epsilon _1}}}}{{j{\omega _1}{L_J}}} + V_2^*\left( {{Y_2}^{\prime *} - \frac{{\epsilon _0}}{{j{\omega _2}{L_J}}}} \right)}
\label{eqn:idlerCurrentReducedWithNoGen}
\end{align}
Eq. \ref{eqn:sigCurrentReducedWithGen} and \ref{eqn:idlerCurrentReducedWithNoGen} now represent the current and voltage response of the generalized circuit depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig4}. Since the \emph{signal current} is sourced in this model (with amplitude $I_{s}$), what remains to be solved are the voltage disturbances $V_1$ and $V^*_2$. We define the impedances ${Z_{L1}} = j{\omega _1}{L_J}/{\epsilon _0}$ and ${Z_{L2}} = j{\omega _2}{L_J}/{\epsilon _0}$. The voltage amplitudes are then found to be
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:V1ReducedForCircuit}
{V_1} & = L_J^2{Z_{L1}}{\omega _1}{\omega _2}\left( {{Y_2}^{\prime *}{Z_{L2}} - 1} \right)\left( {\frac{{{I_s}}}{\Delta }} \right) \\
V_2^* &= j{L_J}{Z_{L1}}{Z_{L2}}{\epsilon _1}{\omega _2}\left( {\frac{{{I_s}}}{\Delta }} \right),
\label{eqn:V2StarReducedForCircuit}
\end{align}
where the denominator term, $\Delta$, is proportionate to the determinant formed by the matrix of Eqs. \ref{eqn:sigCurrentReducedWithGen} and \ref{eqn:idlerCurrentReducedWithNoGen}.
\begin{align}
\Delta = L_J^2{\omega _1}{\omega _2}\left( {{Y_1}{Z_{L1}} + 1} \right)\left( {{Y_2}^{\prime *}{Z_{L2}} - 1} \right) - {Z_{L1}}{Z_{L2}}{\left| {{\epsilon _1}} \right|^2}
\end{align}
When we consider the \emph{voltage ratio} between the idler and signal, the cumbersome denominator cancels, providing the more simple relation
\begin{align}
\frac{{V_2^*}}{{{V_1}}} = \frac{{{\omega _2}{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\omega _1}{\epsilon _0}}}\frac{1}{{1 + Z_{L2}^*{Y_2}^{\prime *}}}.
\label{eqn:voltageRatio}
\end{align}
Where $ Z_{L2}^*{Y_2}^{\prime *} \ll 1$, we see Eq. \ref{eqn:voltageRatio} go to the limit
\begin{align}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{Z_{L2}^*{Y_2}^{\prime *} \to 0} \left( {\frac{{V_2^*}}{{{V_1}}}} \right) = \frac{{{\omega _2}{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\omega _1}{\epsilon _0}}} = \frac{{{\omega _2}}}{{2{\omega _1}}}\frac{{\delta f}}{{1 - {\textstyle{1 \over 4}}\delta {f^2}}}{\rm{tan}}(F){e^{ - j{\theta _3}}}.
\label{eqn:limV2with0}
\end{align}
On the other hand, when this admittance quantity becomes large such that $Z_{L2}^*{Y_2}^{\prime *} \gg 1$, we see
\begin{align}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{Z_{L2}^*{Y_2}^{\prime *} \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{V_2^*}}{{{V_1}}}} \right) = 0.
\label{eqn:limV2withInf}
\end{align}
So the voltage of the idler response is of course a function of how well the external circuit is being kept ``open" at the idler frequency, $\omega_2$.
We can also find the idler-to-signal \emph{current ratio}. For this we revisit the system represented by Eq. \ref{eqn:paramp3WaveMatrix}, and divide its second equation by its first. We substitute the signal and idler voltage amplitudes found in Eq. \ref{eqn:V1ReducedForCircuit} and \ref{eqn:V2StarReducedForCircuit}. This gives the following.
\begin{align}
\frac{{I_2^*}}{{{I_1}}} = \frac{{{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\epsilon _0}}}\frac{1}{{1 + \frac{1}{{Z_{L2}^*{Y_2}^{\prime *}}} + \frac{{{{\left| {{\epsilon _1}} \right|}^2}}}{{\epsilon _0^2}}\frac{{{\omega _1}}}{{{\omega _2}{Z_{L1}}{Y_2}^{\prime *}}}}}
\end{align}
We can look at the admittance limits of the current ratio as well. When the external admittance is small, we see
\begin{align}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{Z_{L2}^*{Y_2}^{\prime *} \to 0} \left( {\frac{{I_2^*}}{{{I_1}}}} \right) = 0.
\label{eqn:limI2with0}
\end{align}
Conversely, when external admittance is large, we see
\begin{align}
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{Z_{L2}^*{Y_2}^{\prime *} \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{I_2^*}}{{{I_1}}}} \right) = \frac{{{\epsilon _1}}}{{{\epsilon _0}}} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{{\delta f}}{{1 - {\textstyle{1 \over 4}}\delta {f^2}}}{\rm{tan}}(F){e^{ - j{\theta _3}}}.
\label{eqn:limI2withInf}
\end{align}
These limits are intuitive. We can see the idler current will be inhibited when the external circuit is comparatively more ``open,'' representing a small external admittance. Note the similar behavior indicated between Eq. \ref{eqn:limV2with0} and \ref{eqn:limI2with0}, as well as between Eq. \ref{eqn:limV2withInf} and \ref{eqn:limI2withInf}.
These quantities depict the response of the circuit at the idler frequency, $\omega_2$, relative to the circuit behavior at the signal frequency, $\omega_1$. We will now utilize this understanding in the next section to find how this system acts as a negative-resistance amplifier.
\subsection{The input impedance of the nondegenerate three-wave parametric amplifier}
\label{sec:shortCircuitedCase}
To understand how this system works as an amplifier, we must find how it provides a negative resistance at the signal frequency. To this end, we seek to find the input admittance as seen at $\omega_1$.
The input admittance as seen into the device at the signal frequency we can say is $Y_{SQ} = {{{I_1}} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{{I_1}} {{V_1}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{V_1}}}$, giving
\begin{align}
{Y_{SQ}} = \frac{{{I_1}}}{{{V_1}}} = \frac{1}{{{Z_{L1}}}} - \frac{{V_2^*}}{{{V_1}}}\frac{{\epsilon _1^*}}{{{\epsilon _0}}}\frac{1}{{{Z_{L1}}}}
\label{eqn:3waveInputAdmit}
\end{align}
Recall that $\epsilon_0 \approx 1$ to first order. To interpret Eq. \ref{eqn:3waveInputAdmit} as an \emph{impedance}, this is the Josephson inductance again in parallel to some other term. To find this other term, which is represented (as an admittance) by the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. \ref{eqn:3waveInputAdmit}, we must incorporate the ratio $\frac{{V_2^*}}{{V_1}}$ from Eq. \ref{eqn:voltageRatio}. Substituting this term into Eq. \ref{eqn:3waveInputAdmit}, we arrive at
\begin{align}
{{Y_{SQ}}}&{ = \frac{1}{{{Z_{L1}}}} - \frac{{{{\left| {{\epsilon _1}} \right|}^2}}}{{{\epsilon ^2}_0}}\frac{1}{{{Z_{L1}}}}\frac{1}{{1 + {Z^*}_{L2}{Y_2}^{\prime *}}}}\\
\notag\\
{}&{ = {{\left( {j{\omega _1}{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{0}}}}} \right)}^{ - 1}} + {{\left( {j{\omega _1}{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{2}}}}} \right)}^{ - 1}}.}
\end{align}
We have therefore represented the input admittance again as inductive terms. We determined a parallel inductance model before, in the \emph{degenerate} case, but here the dependence on the \emph{pump phase is no longer present}. This \emph{nondegenerate} amplifier, therefore, is \emph{phase insensitive}. The following terms for inductances are used.
\begin{equation}
\boxed{
\begin{gathered}
{\text{Three-wave nondegenerate case:}} \\
\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{0}}}}}& = &{{L_J}/{\varepsilon _0}}\\
{}&{}&{}\\
{{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{2}}}}}& = &{ - \frac{{{L_J}}}{{{{\left| {{\varepsilon _1}} \right|}^2}}}\left( {{\varepsilon _0} - j{\omega _2}{L_J}{Y_2}^{\prime *}} \right)}\\
{}&{}&{}
\end{array}
\end{gathered}
\label{eqn:nondegLn}
}
\end{equation}
Above, the ``$L_{\rm{n,0}}$'' inductance is once again simply the Josephson inductance in the small-signal limit. The ``$L_{\rm{n,2}}$'' inductance, in parallel to $L_{\rm{n,0}}$, contains two terms which are both proportionate to ${{{\left| {{\epsilon _1}} \right|}^{-2}}}$. The first term is negative and simply modifies the net inductance by a small correction, making the net inductance appear bigger as the ac flux increases. The second term of $L_{\rm{n,2}}$ depends on ${Y_2}^{\prime *}$ in an important way, providing the possibility for gain in this scenario. If ${Y_2}^{\prime *}$ has a real and positive component, this allows the impedance represented by $L_{\rm{n,2}}$ to acquire a \emph{negative} and real component. Therefore the ${Y_2}^{\prime *}$ term of $L_{\rm{n,2}}$ acts as an active impedance converter, allowing the impedance external to the SQUID at the idler frequency to appear, transformed, at the signal frequency. We may think of the input admittance (or input impedance $Z_{SQ} = {\raise0.7ex\hbox{$1$} \!\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 {{Y_{{\rm{in,1}}}}}}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${{Y_{{{SQ}}}}}$}}$) directly into the three-wave nondegenerate pumped SQUID as depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig5}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5 in]{Fig5.eps}
\caption{This figure depicts the equivalent signal impedance of the flux-pumped SQUID in the three-wave \emph{nondegenerate} case. The constituent inductances are given by Eq. \ref{eqn:nondegLn}. In the limit that the ac-flux is small such that $\gamma_0 \approx 1$, the inductance $L_{\rm{n,0}}$ is simply the quiescent Josephson inductance and $L_{\rm{n,2}} \propto \Phi _{{\rm{ac}}}^2$. The $L_{\rm{n,2}}$ acquires an imaginary component due to the external (real) admittance at the idler frequency. A positive, imaginary \emph{inductance} is a \emph{negative, real impedance}, which may therefore provide gain. }
\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
We comment on the \emph{frequency dependence} of $L_{\rm{n,2}}$. If we subscribe to axiomatic circuit theory\cite{Chua:1969, Chua:1987, Chua:2003}, our linearized inductances should have a dependence strictly proportional to $j \omega$. The second term in $L_{\rm{n,2}}$, which is the same term that may act as a negative resistance, also contains an extra factor, $j \omega_2 = j ( \omega_3 - \omega_1 )$. This gives a maximum of the product $\omega_1 \omega_2$ at $\omega_3 /2$, which for this reason is why $\omega_3/2$ is the frequency of maximum parametric amplification in a three-wave nondegenerate amplifier. So between an uncommon frequency dependence and negative-resistance behavior, it may be logical to consider this second term of $L_{\rm{n,2}}$ as relating to something other than an inductance. We choose keep the terminology of an inductance only for consistency.
To conclude this section, we repeat that we have found the \emph{negative resistance} that provides gain in this three-wave nondegenerate amplifier. This appears in the imaginary component of the term $L_{\rm{n,2}}$ from Eq. \ref{eqn:nondegLn}. Although the frequency mixing between the idler and signal is provided for by the pump, the negative resistance occurs as an effect of mapping the idler's external (real) load admittance back onto the signal as a negative resistance.
\subsection{The three-wave nondegenerate amplifier: transducer gain}
As we have described a system loaded by specific impedances, we can also specify the \emph{transducer gain} of the device. The transducer gain is the ratio of the output power to the available input power. We consider the source admittance as $Y_1$. For the \emph{(rms) available input power} at the signal frequency, we find
\begin{align}
{P_{{\rm{a,1}}}} &= \frac{{{I_{s}}^2}}{{8~{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} [{Y_1}]}}.
\end{align}
We consider the output signal to be reflected back onto the input admittance, such that we say the \emph{(rms) output power} is
\begin{align}
{P_{{\rm{o,1}}}} &= \frac{{{V_1}^2}}{2~}{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} [{Y_1}].
\end{align}
The transducer gain is then
\begin{align}
{G_T} = \frac{{{P_{{\rm{o}},{\rm{1}}}}}}{{{P_{{\rm{a}},{\rm{1}}}}}} = \frac{{4{V_1}^2{{\left( {{\rm{Re}}[{Y_1}]} \right)}^2}}}{{{I_s}^2}} = 4\frac{{{{\left( {{\rm{Re}}[{Y_1}]} \right)}^2}}}{{{{\left| {{Y_1}^\prime + {Y_{SQ}}} \right|}^2}}}.
\end{align}
This can be expressed as
\begin{align}
{G_T} = \frac{{4\,{\rm{Re}}{{[{Y_1}]}^2}}}{{{{\left( {\frac{1}{{{\omega _1}{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{0}}}}}} + \frac{{{\rm{Re}}\left[ {{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{2}}}}} \right]}}{{{\omega _1}{{\left| {{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{2}}}}} \right|}^2}}} - {\rm{Im}}\left[ {{Y_1}^\prime } \right]} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{{\rm{Im}}\left[ {{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{2}}}}} \right]}}{{{\omega _1}{{\left| {{L_{{\rm{n}},{\rm{2}}}}} \right|}^2}}} - {\rm{Re}}\left[ {{Y_1}^\prime } \right]} \right)}^2}}}
\end{align}
where ${L_{\rm{n,0}}}$ and ${L_{\rm{n,2}}}$ are from Eq. \ref{eqn:nondegLn}.
\subsection{Adding open-circuited terms}
As an \emph{admittance} model, as opposed to an \emph{impedance} model, the ideal case is for all non-intentional harmonics to be subject to an infinite admittance external to the pumped SQUID (e.g., to have a shorted external load at frequencies other than the signal and idler). This prevents voltages at these other frequencies from accumulating across the SQUID, thereby removing their influence from the admittance matrix and the resulting mixed currents. Conversely, when the external impedance is nontrivial at other frequencies, other harmonics will modify the description we have just presented.
Here, we treat the case opposite from before, where we now consider frequencies other than $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ to be \emph{open-circuited}. Therefore, we consider the last three rows of the admittance matrix of Eq. \ref{eqn:generalMatrix} to represent no current flow, setting currents $I_4$, $I^*_5$, and $I_6$ to zero. We solve for the voltage amplitudes of these harmonics, which are now nontrivial. We substitute these voltage amplitudes into the expressions for current at the signal ($\omega_1$) and idler ($\omega_2$) frequencies. To reach a manageable solution, we assume the limiting conditions $\epsilon_0 \approx 1$ and $\epsilon_2 \approx 0$ for currents at $\omega_4$, $\omega_5$, and $\omega_6$. If we keep terms up to $\delta f^2$, we find the signal-idler subset matrix has the simple form,
\begin{equation}
\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{I_1}}\\
{I_2^*}
\end{array}} \right) = \frac{1}{{j{L_J}}}\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\frac{{{\varepsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _1}}}\left[ {1 - \frac{{{{\left| {{\varepsilon _1}} \right|}^2}}}{{{\varepsilon _0}}}} \right]}&{ - \frac{{\varepsilon _1^*}}{{{\omega _2}}}}\\
{\frac{{{\varepsilon _1}}}{{{\omega _1}}}}&{ - \frac{{{\varepsilon _0}}}{{{\omega _2}}}\left[ {1 - \frac{{{{\left| {{\varepsilon _1}} \right|}^2}}}{{{\varepsilon _0}}}} \right]}
\end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{V_1}}\\
{V_2^*}
\end{array}} \right).
\label{eqn:paramp3WaveMatrixOpen}
\end{equation}
We find this system identical to that of Eq. \ref{eqn:paramp3WaveMatrix}, except for the multiplicative correction factor in square brackets, ${\left[ {1 - \frac{{{{\left| {{\varepsilon _1}} \right|}^2}}}{{{\varepsilon _0}}}} \right]}$, appearing in the two matrix elements of the main diagonal. This correction factor may become significant even for reasonably small $\delta f$ as the dc flux, $F$, approaches $\pi / 2$. This is the notable difference between this open-circuited case and the short-circuited case we treated in section \ref{sec:shortCircuitedCase}.
We illustrate the open-circuited case as an equivalent circuit in Fig. \ref{Fig6}. We depict signal and idler circuits now directly in parallel to the pumped SQUID. As opposed to the short-circuited case depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig4}(b), here the ideal filters are accomplished \emph{in series} such that only the permitted frequency is allowed to pass, while all other frequencies see an open-circuit.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=3.5 in]{Fig6.eps}
\centering
\caption{This figure demonstrates the parametric interaction of the {\textbf{open-circuited}} SQUID at the signal and idler frequencies. As opposed to section \ref{sec:3waveTopology}, these \emph{series} bandpass filters are now \emph{zero} impedance at bandpass and blocking at all other frequencies. This works in such a way that frequencies other than $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ now present an open circuit to the pumped SQUID. Therefore the voltage across the SQUID is not necessarily zero at these other frequencies. These additional mixing effects can be mapped onto a \emph{modified} subsystem between signal and idler, which is the 2x2 matrix of Eq. \ref{eqn:paramp3WaveMatrixOpen}. }
\label{Fig6}
\end{figure}
In this section, we have determined the response of the three-wave \emph{nondegenerate} amplifier as an impedance model. This is analogous to the ``pumpistor'' models we found for the three-wave and four-wave degenerate cases treated in sections \ref{sec:3waveDegen} and \ref{sec:FourWaveDegenerate}. A notable difference in this nondegenerate case is that the external admittance at the idler frequency now determines the negative resistance. As can be seen by Eq. \ref{eqn:nondegLn}, for a negative resistance to occur at the signal frequency, it is necessary that the circuit external to the SQUID at the idler frequency appear as a positive and real admittance. By treating both a ``short-circuited" and an ``open-circuited'' model, we found that a finite external admittance at harmonics other than the signal and idler frequencies may also affect amplifier performance.
\section{Conclusions}
In conclusion, we have substantially extended the equivalent impedance models of a flux-pumped SQUID which we first put forth for the three-wave degenerate case\cite{Sundqvist:2013}. For all the general classes of parametric driving, a flux-pumped SQUID can be described at the signal frequency as a Josephson inductance in parallel to an effective, flux-dependent circuit element, ``the pumpistor.'' Parametric amplification can be intuitively understood within this framework, as the pumpistor impedance manifests in whole or in part as a negative resistance. These models allow the tools and techniques of circuit theory and radio-frequency engineering to be utilized for these applications.
We reviewed three-wave degenerate pumping, which explains why gain in this case should be \emph{phase senstive} between the signal and pump. For this case, we also extended our impedance approximation to demonstrate how the SQUID saturates both by pump flux and by junction phase (or voltage). We also depicted the four-wave degenerate case which is appropriate when the device is biased with zero-flux. Here, the pumpistor element is inversely proportionate to the \emph{square} of the ac flux. We found this case also to be phase sensitive, but with a slightly different signal-to-pump difference than in the three-wave degenerate case.
We also depicted nondegenerate pumping in a very general sense, using a matrix equation formalism. This formalism accounts for the presence of one or up to four ``idler'' frequencies which occur as mixing tones between the pump and the signal response. Many three- and four-wave nondegenerate parametric phenomena can be interpreted from this matrix, including effects such as frequency up- and down-conversion. Using a subset of these matrix equations, we treated the three-wave nondegenerate amplifier, where the signal and single idler are considered. By solving for an idler distinct from the signal, we found that the pumpistor impedance was now \emph{phase insensitive}. We found the negative resistance responsible for gain was now dependent on the external circuit admittance at the idler frequency. With regards to the other, higher harmonics, we treated the three-wave nondegenerate amplifier in both the ``short-circuited'' and ``open-circuited'' approximations. While all of these models operate under a classical, circuit-theoretic framework rather than a quantum optics framework, they should be of great benefit for future designs of experiments using superconducting circuits for quantum information purposes.
\section*{Competing interests}
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
\section*{Author's contributions}
KMS derived most of the equations. Both authors developed the concept and wrote this paper together.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge support from the EU through the ERC and the projects SOLID, SCALEQIT, and PROMISCE, as well as from the Swedish Research Council and the Wallenberg Foundation. We are also grateful for fruitful discussions with Christopher M. Wilson, Seckin Kinta\c{s}, Micha{\"e}l Simoen, Philip Krantz, Martin Sandberg, and Jonas Bylander.
\bibliographystyle{bmc-mathphys}
|
\section{Introduction}
With the discovery of what seems to be the Higgs boson with a mass $m_h \approx 126$ GeV the ATLAS\cite{Aad:2012tfa} and CMS\cite{Chatrchyan:2012ufa} collaborations have initiated a long way in the understanding of the mechanism of Electroweak Symmetry Breaking (EWSB). For many years, this task has been organized around the naturalness principle which has been the starting point in the construction or proposal of most of the EWSB models. Two broad branches of study of EWSB theories can be identified: weakly coupled and strongly coupled ones. The main exponent of the former is Supersymmetry (SUSY) whereas for the latter one of the most interesting is Composite Higgs Models (CHM).
A general feature of both of these Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) theories is the prediction of anomalous coupling of the Higgs Boson to the other particles of the Standard Model (SM). However, the 7/8 TeV LHC run I has shown no significant deviation from the SM expectation and results on the couplings of this Higgs-like particle to the other SM particles seem to prefer the original Higgs mechanism~\cite{Aad:2013wqa,Chatrchyan:2013lba}. Unfortunately, the LHC is not suitable to Higgs couplings precision measurements and in this respect any clue that could shed light into the mechanism of EWSB is very difficult to achieve~\cite{Peskin:2012we}.
On the other hand, other common prediction in most of these models of EWSB is the presence of partners of the quarks of the third generation which are lighter than the other new particles~\cite{lightsusy,light}. In particular, since the top coupling with the Higgs is order 1, the top quark partners need to be light to stabilize the Higgs potential and keep naturalness. For LHC, searches for partners of the third generation of quarks is one of the best ways to pursue hints of new physics related to EWSB. In SUSY the top partners are spin 0 particles called {\it stops}. After the LHC run I no evidence for stops has been found up to 650 GeV putting some tension with natural SUSY~\cite{Craig:2013cxa}. In CHM the top partners are spin 1/2 vector-like fermions. ATLAS and CMS studies have constrained the top partners to be above 600-700 GeV at a 95\% confidence level~\cite{limits}.
Besides the requirements to stabilize the Higgs potential, there are two ingredients of many CHM that we want to stress because they are responsible for important properties of these theories, with a deep impact in the phenomenology. First, to avoid large corrections to the oblique parameters in these theories, it is usual to consider that the composite sector has a global symmetry larger than the SM gauge one, containing the custodial symmetry~\cite{Agashe:2003zs}.~\footnote{See Ref.~\cite{Cabrer:2010si} for a different approach.} The composite resonances furnish complete representations of the extended symmetry of the composite sector. The choice of the representations of the composite fermions under this group defines different alternatives for the top partners. Second, the paradigm of partial compositeness: the masses of the SM fermions arise from mixing with composite fermions, that in turn couple with the Higgs~\cite{Kaplan:1991dc,Contino:2006nn}. Partial compositeness gives an economical mechanism to naturally obtain the hierarchy in the fermionic spectrum of the SM (although flavor mixing require some extra ingredients), it also gives rise to a mild separation of scales in the composite sector. Within partial compositeness, the large top mass requires large mixing, simultaneously leading to some top partners with masses parametrically smaller than the composite scale, these are the components of the multiplet that do not mix with the top before EWSB and are usually called {\it custodians}~\cite{light,Pomarol:2008bh}. These states, being usually the lightest new particles, are the leading candidates to direct searches at colliders. The discovery signatures of top-like heavy quarks (${T}$) at LHC have been studied in the context of CHM's, for instance, in Refs.~\cite{Carena:2007tn,single}. Bottom-like ($B$) and exotic quark of charge 5/3 ($X$) have been widely discussed also~\cite{samesign}. These studies have motivated many searches that have putted stringent limits on the masses of the top partners. These searches assume model-independent QCD pair production and the model-dependent part only modifies the weight of each decay channel. Recently, the authors of Ref.~\cite{DeSimone:2012fs} have reassessed these limits for the case of Pseudo Goldstone Boson Higgs, showing that in some cases one can exclude top partners with masses up to 1.5 TeV. For such masses, single production of exotic quarks, although usually being electroweak (EW) suppressed, starts being competitive with double production~\cite{Willenbrock:1986cr}. Almost all these searches have been restricted to top partners, assuming that the bottom partners are heavier.~\footnote{However Refs.~\cite{AguilarSaavedra:2009es,Aguilar-Saavedra:2013qpa} have also considered a extended list of partners of third generation quarks in different representations of SU(2)$_L\times$U(1)$_Y$.}
In this work we explore another possibility motivated by the third generation anomalies in LEP and SLC. One of the largest known tension of a light Higgs with the data is in the bottom forward-backward asymmetry ($A^b_{FB}$) at the Z pole in LEP and SLC. For a light Higgs, the deviation in this observable is about 2.9$\sigma$ compared with the best global fit, suggesting a modification of the $Zb\bar b$ coupling. On the other hand, the branching ratio of $Z$ decaying to a pair bottom anti-bottom ($R_b$) is in very good agreement with the SM expectation~\cite{ALEPH:2010aa}. Explaining the $A^b_{FB}$ deviation without simultaneously spoiling the agreement for $R_b$ requires in general extra structure~\cite{Choudhury:2001hs}. Within the framework of CHM, the large shift of $Zb_R\bar b_R$ coupling needed to solve this puzzle requires large mixing of $b_R$, then partial compositeness leads to light bottom partners with masses parametrically smaller than the composite scale. In this work we study the possibility to produce and detect the bottom partners at the LHC, within an effective CHM that addresses the bottom puzzle and can accommodate the mass spectrum of the third generation of quarks~\cite{DaRold:2010as}, see also~\cite{Djouadi:2011aj}. We will consider a minimal realization in terms of a two-site model that allows to compute the couplings and the spectrum of resonances.~\footnote{In Ref.~\cite{Alvarez:2010js} the model was extended to explain the value of the top forward-backward asymmetry ($A^t_{FB}$) measured by CDF and D0 collaboration at Tevatron~\cite{Aaltonen:2012it,Abazov:2011rq}, that also have shown a considerable deviation from the SM expectation.}
The model can be extended to include the Higgs as a Pseudo Goldstone Boson.
In the minimal CHM with custodial symmetry the bottom composite partners include bottom and top-like resonances, as well as exotic resonances of charge -4/3 ($V$)~\footnote{Other common quotation for an exotic particle or mirror of charge -4/3 is $\chi$~\cite{Choudhury:2001hs,Kumar:2010vx} and $Y$~\cite{AguilarSaavedra:2009es,Aguilar-Saavedra:2013qpa}.} and -7/3 ($S$), also called mirrors.
Due to the large mixing of $b_R$, the lightest of these resonances is a custodian $V$, a partner of $b_R$. $V$ can be produced through QCD pair production or EW single production. Having charge -4/3, and assuming suppressed mixing with light generations, it can be single produced only through the vertex $WVb$ with just one decay channel for the exotic fermion: $V \to bW^-$. Thus, as long as the bottom charge is not measured, the signature for pair and single production is analogue to $T$ if its decays are exclusively through the $bW$ channel or to a top-like quark of a chiral fourth generation. Therefore, the limit for pair production of $T$ when it decay exclusively through $T \to bW$, applies, being this $m_{V} > 740 $ GeV~ at a 95\% confidence level \cite{ATLAS_T}.
The present 5$\sigma$ discovery reach for $V$ through QCD pair production is estimated to be 820 GeV for the early 14 TeV LHC run II of 100 fb$^{-1}$~\cite{AguilarSaavedra:2009es}. As the discovery reach of the LHC for heavy quarks approaches masses around TeV scale, pair production begins to loss power of discovery against single production due to phase space suppression. The goal of this work is to design a search strategy that works in the range of masses where the EW single production of heavy quarks dominates over pair production. This search strategy is suitable for both: $V$ and $T$, whether the later decays exclusively to $bW$, though our study is motivated by the former. A model of $T$ being the lightest new resonance of the New Physics sector and being produced and decaying predominantly through $VbW$ vertex is hard to justify, whereas those properties are guaranteed for $V$ in the model of Ref.~\cite{DaRold:2010as}.
As was pointed out in Ref.~\cite{DeSimone:2012fs} present experimental searches are not sensitive to single production of third generation partners. This is the case with searches for single production of a new quark which decays to one $b$-jet and a $W$. Although there are many experimental searches for sequential fourth generation of quarks with this signature, they usually assume $b'$ and $t'$ to be close in mass and lighter than 1 TeV, as required by EW precision tests and perturbativity. Thus, these searches are inclusive on both pair and single production of either $t'$ and/or $b'$. However, in these conditions channels with more multiplicity in $W$ and/or $b$-jets are more relevant, and these are the ones the experimental studies have been concentrated in so far.
Single production jointly with pair production of bottom partners was first studied in Ref.~\cite{Kumar:2010vx}, where the authors considered a single value for the coupling and showed their results for a mass of the exotic fermion of 500 GeV. Ref.~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2013qpa} has also analyzed the allowed single production cross-sections at the LHC. The region of the parameter space and the search strategy that we propose in this work is different from those studies. We will propose a search strategy that relies on main features of the EW single production of $V$ as a high $p_T$ $b$-jet and a forward light jet. Previous works in this respect can be found in Refs.~\cite{single}. We will propose here a new channel with only one tagged $b$-jet, one lepton, missing energy and a forward light jet that improves the sensitivity of the early LHC run II. Contrary to QCD pair production, EW single production of resonances depends not only on the mass of the resonance, but also on the EW coupling with SM fields. Thus in a reduced picture, the relevant parameters are the mass and EW coupling of the resonances. One of the main results of our work is to determine the region in this parameter space where LHC can discover the bottom partner. We find that our complementary search strategy extends the 5$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) discovery reach for $V$ from 820 GeV to roughly 1.7 TeV (2.4 TeV) for couplings ${\cal O}(g/10)$. Even so, in the intermediate region 800-1000 GeV an enhancement on the sensitivity can be achieved taking advantage of both, QCD pair and EW single production together. We leave this for future work.
The structure of this work is as follows: In section 2 we briefly describe the effective model, we show the embedding of the top and bottom partners fields into the global symmetry of the new strongly coupled sector and describe the spectrum of the mass eigenstates and its couplings with the SM. In section 3 we discuss the production mechanism and decays of the $V$-resonance predicted by the model. In section 4 we describe the kinematical features of the signal and main backgrounds for the single production of $V$. Then, we design a cut-based search strategy for the signal. Finally we show the reach of the search strategy for the early 14 TeV LHC run II and expected limits for 300 and 500 fb$^{-1}$. We end with some discussion and conclusions in sections 5 and 6.
\section{The model}
We give a brief description of the model of Ref.~\cite{DaRold:2010as}, where effects from a new strongly interacting sector can solve the $A^b_{FB}$ anomaly of LEP and SLC by shifting the $Zb\bar b$ couplings. We will focus on the spectrum of bottom partners and their couplings to the SM fields relevant for single creation of resonances at LHC. For more details on this kind of effective theories we refer the reader to the original reference and to~\cite{Contino:2006nn}.
We consider a model with two sectors, an elementary one, whose field content is as in the SM except for the Higgs, and a new sector with strong interactions that lead to resonances with masses $m_{\phi^{cp}}$ of order TeV, plus a lighter scalar boson corresponding to the Higgs field. We will assume that the interactions between the resonances can be described by couplings $g_{cp}$ involving vector resonances and $y_{cp}$ corresponding to proto Yukawa interactions, such that: $g_{SM}\ll g_{cp}\ll 4\pi$ and $y_{cp}\sim 1-2\pi$.
In the minimal set-up with custodial symmetry the composite sector has a global symmetry [SU(3)$_c\times$SU(2)$_L\times$SU(2)$_R\times$U(1)$_X]^{cp}$, with vector resonances in the adjoint representation, and hypercharge realized as $Y=T^{3R}+X$. The leading order interactions involving the vector resonances can be obtained by use of covariant derivative on the composite sector. The Higgs field $\Sigma=(\tilde H,H)$ is a bidoublet of the composite symmetry $({\bf 2},{\bf 2})_0$ and it does not couple to U(1)$_X$. A Pseudo Goldstone Boson realization of the Higgs with dynamical EW symmetry breaking can be obtained by extending the EW symmetry of the strong sector to SO(5)$\times$U(1)$_X$ with a spontaneous breaking of SO(5) to SO(4)~\cite{Agashe:2004rs}. The strong dynamics of the composite sector also leads to fermionic resonances.
The elementary fermions mix linearly with operators of the strongly coupled sector realizing the idea of partial compositeness
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}\supset y_L\bar \psi^{el}_L {\cal P}_\psi{\cal O}_R + y_R\bar {\tilde\psi}^{el}_R {\cal P}_{\tilde\psi}\tilde {\cal O}_L + {\rm h.c.} \ ,
\end{equation}
with ${\cal O}_R$ and $\tilde {\cal O}_L$ fermionic operators of the strong sector. Since the symmetry of the composite sector is larger than the SM one, we have introduced projectors ${\cal P}_\psi$ that project the composite multiplets onto the components with the quantum numbers of the SM fields. Assuming that the composite operators can create fermionic resonances with masses of order TeV, at low energies partial compositeness aims to linear mixing with them
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}\supset \bar \psi^{el}_L \Delta{\cal P}_{\psi}\psi^{cp}_R + \bar {\tilde\psi}^{el}_R \tilde\Delta{\cal P}_{\tilde\psi}\tilde\psi^{cp}_L + {\rm h.c.} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ and $\tilde\Delta$ have mass dimension and parameterize the mixing. As we will show explicitly below, partial compositeness allows to obtain small masses for the light SM fermions by taking the mixing of at least one of the chiralities to be small compared with the composite scale.
We will consider just the third generation, assuming that both chiralities of the light quarks have small mixing and can be neglected in our analysis. If the structure of the strong sector is rich enough, it is possible to mix the elementary fermions with several operators in different representations of the composite group, each operator having its own coupling. In fact, as explained in Ref.~\cite{DaRold:2010as}, to solve the bottom puzzle and obtain the masses of the third generation quarks, a model with two resonances mixing with $q_L^{el}$ is preferred, ${\cal L}\supset \bar q^{el}_L (\Delta_1{\cal P}_1q^{cp}_{1R}+\Delta_2{\cal P}_2q^{cp}_{2R})$. Below we specify the quantum numbers of these resonances.
Similar to the fermions, there is mixing between the SM gauge fields and the bosonic operators of spin one of the strong sector. At low energies it is enough to consider the mixing with the lightest level of vector resonances created by those operators, with TeV masses $m_{A^{cp}}$ arising from the strong dynamics. The mixing preserves the diagonal subgroup G$_{\rm el+cp}$, leading to a set of massless fields that correspond to the SM gauge symmetry. Matching at tree level with the couplings of the SM leads to $g_{SM}=g_{el}g_{cp}/\sqrt{g_{el}^2+g_{cp}^2}$.
Before EWSB there is a set of massless fermions $q_L$, $t_R$ and $b_R$, and gauge bosons $A_\mu$, with the same quantum numbers as in the SM. These states can be obtained by performing a rotation between the elementary and composite states~\cite{Contino:2006nn}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{bmatrix}\phi \\ \phi^*\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}\cos\theta_\phi & \sin\theta_\phi \\ -\sin\theta_\phi & \cos\theta_\phi \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \phi^{el} \\ {\cal P}_\phi \phi^{cp} \end{bmatrix} \ ,
\qquad \phi=A,\psi_L,\tilde\psi_R \ , \label{rot1} \\
\tan\theta_A=\frac{g_{el}}{g_{cp}} \ ,
\qquad \tan\theta_\psi=\frac{\Delta_\psi}{m_{\psi^{cp}}} \ , \qquad \tan\theta_{\tilde\psi}=\frac{\Delta_{\tilde\psi}}{m_{\tilde\psi ^{cp}}} \ ,
\label{rot2}
\end{eqnarray}
with $A_\mu$, $\psi_L$ and $\tilde\psi_R$ the massless fields and $A^*$, $\psi^*$ and $\tilde \psi^*$ the combination of composite and elementary fields that remains massive, with mass $M_{\phi^*}=m_{\phi^{cp}}/\cos\theta_\phi$. The multiplets of resonances contain new states that do not mix with the elementary ones before EWSB, the custodians, that can be defined as $\tilde{\cal P}_\phi \phi^{cp}\equiv(1-{\cal P}_\phi)\phi^{cp}$. The mass of the custodians is suppressed compared with the other components of a multiplet: $M_{\tilde{\cal P}_\phi \phi}=m_{\phi^{cp}}$. In the rest of this work we will fix the scale $M_{\phi^*}=M$ to be the same for all the fields. The custodian mass depends on this scale and on the size of the mixing: $M_{\tilde{\cal P}_\phi \phi}=M\cos\theta_{\phi}$, thus for those fields with large mixing the mass of the corresponding custodians will be parametrically smaller than the composite scale.
After diagonalization of the elementary/composite mixing, the proto Yukawa interactions lead to interactions between the Higgs and the would be massless fermions:
\begin{equation}\label{mfermionSM}
{\cal L}\supset y_{cp}\ \sin\theta_\psi\ \sin\theta_{\tilde\psi}\ \bar\psi_L h\tilde\psi_R\ .
\end{equation}
After EWSB these interactions are responsible for the mass of the SM fermions, that are controlled by the size of the mixing of each chiral fermion.
The quantum numbers of the bottom partners are chosen to induce tree level shifts in $Zb\bar b$ couplings that can accommodate the experimental results on $A^b_{FB}$ and $R_b$. In the minimal model we consider resonances $q_2^{cp}$ and $b^{cp}$ mixing respectively with $q^{\rm el}_L$ and $b^{\rm el}_R$
\begin{eqnarray}
q_2^{cp}=({\bf 2},{\bf 3})_{-5/6}=
\begin{bmatrix}
V''^{cp}_2 & D'^{cp}_2 & U^{cp}_2 \\
S'^{cp}_2 & V'^{cp}_2 & D^{cp}_2
\end{bmatrix} \ ,
& b^{cp}=({\bf 1},{\bf 2})_{-5/6}=\begin{bmatrix} V'^{cp}_b & D^{cp}_b\end{bmatrix} \ , \label{bembeddingb}
\end{eqnarray}
where $({\bf r}_L,{\bf r}_R)_{{\bf r}_X}$ denotes the representation for [SU(2)$_L\times$SU(2)$_R\times$U(1)$_X]^{cp}$.~\footnote{It is possible to consider larger representations also~\cite{DaRold:2010as}.} $V$ and $S$ are exotic fermions with $Q=-4/3$ and $-7/3$, respectively, primed fermions are custodians. The mixing term with the elementary fermions explicitly breaks SU(2)$_R$, and requires projectors ${\cal P}_{b_L}$ and ${\cal P}_{b_R}$ that select the proper components of the multiplets: ${\cal P}_{b_L}q_2^{cp}=(U_2^{cp},D_2^{cp})^t$ and ${\cal P}_{b_R}b^{cp}=D_b^{cp}$.
As in Eq.~(\ref{mfermionSM}), the proto Yukawa $y_{cp}^b\bar q^{cp}_2\Sigma b^{cp}$ leads, after mixing, to the bottom mass. The size of the corrections of the couplings as well as the bottom mass are controlled by the mixing angles.
Since the set of resonances in $q^{cp}_2$ and $b^{cp}$ do not allow the generation of the top mass, extra resonances are needed. We add to our model two new resonances, $q^{cp}_1$ and $t^{cp}$, mixing respectively with $q^{el}_L$ and $t^{el}_R$, the top mass arising from a composite proto Yukawa $y_{cp}^t\bar q_1^{cp}\Sigma t^{cp}$. The large top mass requires large mixing with both chiralities of the top, inducing dangerous corrections to $Zb_L\bar b_L$ interactions. To protect $g_{b_L}$ one can invoke a $P_{LR}$ symmetry for these resonances~\cite{Agashe:2006at}, demanding that $q_1^{cp}$ transforms as $({\bf 2},{\bf 2})_{2/3}$. Invariance of the proto Yukawa interaction under the composite symmetry requires $t^{cp}$ to be a $({\bf 1},{\bf 1})_{2/3}$ or a $({\bf 3},{\bf 1})_{2/3}+({\bf 1},{\bf 3})_{2/3}$. We choose the smallest representation for this work:
\begin{eqnarray}
q_1^{cp}=({\bf 2},{\bf 2})_{2/3}=
\begin{bmatrix}
U^{cp}_1 & X'^{cp}_1 \\
D^{cp}_1 & U'^{cp}_1
\end{bmatrix} \ ,
& t^{cp}=({\bf 1},{\bf 1})_{2/3}=U^{cp}_t \ ,
\label{bembeddingt}
\end{eqnarray}
with $X_1'^{cp}$ an exotic resonance with charge $5/3$, again primed fermions are custodians. $q_L^{el}$ and $t^{el}_R$ mix with ${\cal P}_{t_L}q_1^{cp}=(U_1^{cp},D_1^{cp})^t$ and $U^{cp}_t$, respectively. In this minimal embedding, the large mixing $\Delta_1$ leads to light $X_1'$ and $U_1'$ that could be produced at the LHC~\cite{Carena:2007tn,samesign}.
To study the production and decay of the bottom partners we need the spectrum and couplings in the mass basis. In the following we will argue which are the lightest states and we will estimate the size of their EW couplings, however we have checked that our estimates agree with the full numerical diagonalization. In fact for our scan we have made several considerations: we have matched the SM gauge couplings as previously explained and we have varied $1/8\leq g_{el}/g_{cp}\leq 1/5$, we have selected points of the parameter space that solve the bottom puzzle and reproduce the SM spectrum of the third generation and gauge bosons, we have considered natural Yukawa couplings $1/3\leq y_{cp}\leq 2\pi$, we have considered a composite scale $M\sim 2-3$ TeV. With these constraints we have checked that it is possible to obtain masses and couplings for the lightest resonance as those shown in the simulations. The mass matrices necessary for the calculations of the physical masses and couplings are shown in Appendix~\ref{ap_diag} in the gauge basis.
Let us first analyze the spectrum of fermions. After EWSB all the fermions with equal charge are mixed. We will order the heavy fermions in the eigenmass basis according to increasing masses, {\it ex}: there are three exotic states with charge $-4/3$: $\{V'^{cp}_2,V''^{cp}_2,V'^{cp}_b\}$, whereas the mass basis will be $\{V_1,V_2,V_3\}$, with $m_{V_1}\leq m_{V_2}\leq m_{V_3}$. To gain some insight we consider first the situation of no EWSB, in this case there are no mixing between the $V$-states and the mass basis coincides with the gauge basis, the masses depending on the size of the elementary/composite mixing angles. The large $\delta g_{b_R}$ needed to solve the $A^b_{FB}$ anomaly suggests that $\theta_b$ should be larger than $\theta_2$, leading to $V_1= V'^{cp}_b$ before EWSB. In fact, in this case $V_b'^{cp}$ is the lightest bottom partner, providing the motivation for the study of $V$ production at the LHC. Varying $\theta_b$ we can obtain moderate to large suppression of $m_{V_1}$. If $\theta_b$ is large, the small ratio $m_b/m_t$ requires small $\theta_2$ and the masses of $V'^{cp}_2$ and $V''^{cp}_2$ are $\simeq M_{cp}+O(\theta_2^2)$, {\it ie}: their mass is approximately given by the composite scale.
After EWSB there is mixing between the $V$-resonances induced by the Higgs, with strength $y_{cp}^b$. For moderate values of the Yukawa coupling, $y_{cp}^b\sim 1$, that are favored by the bottom mass, we have checked that for sizable $\theta_b$ the lightest state has a dominant projection on $V'^{cp}_b$.
According to the arguments of the previous paragraph, the other custodians arising from the bottom sector are expected to be heavier. However, it is important to consider also the mass of the $B$-resonances in some detail, because in the case of $m_{B_1}< m_W+m_{V_1}$, $V_1$ can decay to $WB_1$ with strength ${\cal O}(y_{cp}^b)$, that can dominate over $Wb$. $B_1$ would decay to $hb$, $Zb$ and $Wt$, leading to a very different signal for $V$-production. The only $B$-custodian of the simplest model is $D'^{cp}_2$, whose mass is suppressed by $\cos\theta_2\sim1+{\cal O}(\theta_2^2)$, similar to $V'^{cp}_2$ and $V''^{cp}_2$. Therefore, in the case we are interested in, with $\theta_b\gg\theta_2$, $B$-resonances are always heavier than $V_1$, that decays exclusively by $V_1\to Wb$.
Single production of $V$ is driven by the interaction $WVb$. The size of this interaction can be computed by diagonalizing all the mixing. To obtain an estimate of its strength and its parametric dependence, it is simpler to consider the interaction with longitudinal EW gauge bosons only, that can be computed using the Equivalence Theorem. We have to consider the charged Yukawa interaction $h^-\bar Vb+{\rm h.c.}$ that in the gauge basis arises from the proto Yukawa between composite fermions and the Higgs:
\begin{equation}\label{b-yukawa}
{\cal L}\supset y_{cp}^b \bar q^{cp}_2 \Sigma b^{cp} +{\rm h.c.}\supset y_{cp}^b \left[h^-\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bar V'^{cp}_b D^{cp}_2+\bar D^{cp}_b U^{cp}_2\right)+h^+\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bar D^{cp}_b V'^{cp}_2+\bar V'^{cp}_b S'^{cp}_2\right)\right] \ .
\end{equation}
After diagonalization of the elementary/composite mixing Eq.~(\ref{b-yukawa}) leads to interactions involving the bottom quark. In Fig.~\ref{fig_ET} we show the leading order interaction with the bottom quark expanding in powers of elementary/composite mixing insertions. For the lightest resonance $V_1\simeq V^{cp'}_b$, to leading order in elementary/composite mixing the interaction $hVb$ can be approximated by $g_{1} h^-\bar V_{1R} b_L+{\rm h.c.}$ with $g_{1}\simeq y_{cp}^b\sin\theta_2\sim O(10^{-1})$, whereas for $V_2\simeq V^{cp'}_2$ the leading interaction is $\tilde g_{2} h^-\bar V_{2L} b_R$ with $\tilde g_{2}\simeq y_{cp}^b\sin\theta_b\sim O(1)$. Thus, for $\theta_b\gg\theta_2$, the lightest resonance has a smaller coupling with $W_L$, decaying preferentially with $R$-polarization, whereas the next $V$-resonance has a larger coupling with $W_L$ and decays preferentially with $L$-polarization.
After EWSB there are corrections to the estimates made before, but the order of magnitude does not change. We have verified numerically that the order of magnitude of the mixing required to solve the bottom puzzle are as in the previous paragraph (see Ref.~\cite{DaRold:2010as} for analytic estimates), resulting in $g_{1}\lesssim 0.1$ and $\tilde g_{2}\lesssim 1$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(250,110)
\DashLine(0,50)(50,50){4}
\Vertex(50,50){2}
\ArrowLine(80,80)(50,50)
\ArrowLine(50,50)(80,20)
\Vertex(80,20){2}
\ArrowLine(80,20)(110,20)
\Text(0,60)[]{$h^-$}
\Text(65,75)[]{$\bar V'^{cp}_b$}
\Text(55,25)[]{$D^{cp}_2$}
\Text(110,30)[]{$b^{el}_L$}
\Text(65,50)[]{$y_b$}
\Text(80,10)[]{$\Delta_2$}
\DashLine(150,50)(200,50){4}
\Vertex(200,50){2}
\ArrowLine(230,80)(200,50)
\ArrowLine(200,50)(230,20)
\Vertex(230,20){2}
\ArrowLine(230,20)(260,20)
\Text(150,60)[]{$h^-$}
\Text(215,75)[]{$\bar V'^{cp}_2$}
\Text(205,25)[]{$D^{cp}_b$}
\Text(260,30)[]{$b^{el}_R$}
\Text(215,50)[]{$y_b$}
\Text(230,10)[]{$\Delta_b$}
\end{picture}
\caption{Charged Higgs interactions involving V-resonances and bottom quark.}
\label{fig_ET}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
From now on we will consider just the lightest $V$-resonance, we will denote its mass $m_V$, and its couplings with $Wb$ as $g_{L,R}$. Moreover, since $g_R\gg g_L$, we will consider the effect of $g_R$ only, neglecting $g_L$. We will restrict $g_R < 0.065$, since larger values are hard to be obtained satisfying the conditions explained before.
\section{Single production and decay of $V$}
The model described in the previous section predicts many new particles and, therefore, many possible signatures which could be detected at the LHC. Although the model has a range where the masses and effective couplings could vary, the embedding of the fermions predicts that the lightest particle should be an exotic quark $V$. We study in this section the production mechanisms for $V$ mirror quark and its dependence on the parameters of the model.
Being $V$ a colored particle, its coupling to gluons is model independent and $V$-pair production dominates in the low mass regime. As the $V$ mass reaches 1 TeV and beyond, the phase space at the LHC at 14 TeV suppresses pair production and single $V$ production has to be taken into consideration. Single production, however, depends on the coupling in the $WVb$ term which is model dependent. Since the $V$ interaction with $Wb$ is similar to the top quark in the SM, then it is natural to expect similar diagrams as in single-top production. In fact, single $V$ production can go through a $t$-channel, a $s$-channel or in associated production with a $W$ (see Fig.~\ref{production}). As it can be expected, the $t$-channel dominates over the other possibilities. The reason for this is that the $t$-channel amplitude has the smallest suppression from the propagator.
(Similar reasoning holds for single-top production.) We have plotted the cross-section for the different single-$V$ production mechanisms as well as for $V$-pair production as a function of the mass and the coupling in Fig.~\ref{xsections}. As it can be seen from the figure, we can expect at least an order of magnitude more single- than pair- $V$ production for couplings $\sim 0.065$ and masses above $\sim 1.4$ TeV.
Once a single $V$ has been produced, its decay will go through the same vertex to a $W$ and a $b$ quark, which we assume to be the only decay channel for $V$. Typical widths for the $V$ are in the order of 1-100 GeV for the 1.3-2.5 TeV mass range and couplings in the $0.01-0.06$ range. These widths corresponds to a maximum lifetime of 10$^{-24}$ seconds which yields a vertex displacement of 3 $\times$ 10$^{-16}$ meters for the typical LHC run II collisions.
In the case the $W$ decays leptonically, and assuming $t$-channel production, the process will consist in a hard $b$-jet, a hard lepton, $\not \hskip-0.1cm E$ from the neutrino, a forward light-jet, and a forward $b$-jet that comes from the gluon splitting in the proton,
$$ pp \to V\,b\,j \to W\,b\,b\,j \to \ell\,\not \hskip-0.1cm E\,b\,b\,j .$$
For a hadronic decaying $W$ the signature would be $b\,b\,j\,j\,j$, which would have an irreducible QCD multijet background. Since the QCD multijet simulation has large uncertainties, controlling this background requires data-driven methods which are beyond the scope of this work. For this reason we choose to work with leptonically decaying $W$ at the price of reducing in about a third the signal cross-section times branching ratio. However, groups with access to control samples should consider the hadronic channel also.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(150,100)
\ArrowLine(0,100)(75,90)
\ArrowLine(75,90)(150,100)
\Gluon(0,20)(40,25){5}{3}
\ArrowLine(40,25)(75,40)
\ArrowLine(130,20)(40,25)
\ArrowLine(75,40)(150,40)
\Photon(75,40)(75,90){5}{2.5}
\Vertex(75,90){2}
\Vertex(40,25){2}
\Vertex(75,40){2}
\Text(-10,100)[]{$q$}
\Text(-10,20)[]{$g$}
\Text(160,100)[]{$q'$}
\Text(140,20)[]{$\bar b$}
\Text(170,40)[]{$V_{-4/3}$}
\Text(50,45)[]{$b$}
\Text(95,70)[]{$W$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\center{(a)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(150,100)
\ArrowLine(0,100)(40,60)
\ArrowLine(40,60)(0,20)
\Photon(40,60)(110,60){5}{3}
\ArrowLine(110,60)(150,100)
\ArrowLine(150,20)(110,60)
\Vertex(40,60){2}
\Vertex(110,60){2}
\Text(-10,100)[]{$q$}
\Text(-10,20)[]{$\bar q'$}
\Text(170,100)[]{$V_{-4/3}$}
\Text(160,20)[]{$\bar b$}
\Text(75,80)[]{$W^-$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\center{(b)}
\end{minipage}
\vskip 1.2cm
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(350,100)
\ArrowLine(0,100)(40,60)
\Gluon(40,60)(0,20){5}{5}
\ArrowLine(40,60)(110,60)
\ArrowLine(110,60)(150,100)
\Photon(150,20)(110,60){5}{2.5}
\Vertex(40,60){2}
\Vertex(110,60){2}
\Text(-10,100)[]{$b$}
\Text(-10,20)[]{$g$}
\Text(170,100)[]{$V_{-4/3}$}
\Text(170,20)[]{$W^+$}
\Text(75,80)[]{$b$}
\Gluon(230,100)(290,90){5}{5}
\ArrowLine(290,90)(350,100)
\ArrowLine(230,20)(290,30)
\ArrowLine(290,30)(290,90)
\Photon(290,30)(350,20){5}{2.5}
\Vertex(290,90){2}
\Vertex(290,30){2}
\Text(220,100)[]{$g$}
\Text(220,20)[]{$b$}
\Text(372,100)[]{$V_{-4/3}$}
\Text(370,20)[]{$W^+$}
\Text(315,60)[]{$V_{-4/3}$}
\end{picture}
\center{(c)}
\end{center}
\caption{Single-$V$ production diagrams: (a) $t$-channel, (b) $s$-channel and (c) $WV$ associated production. The $t$-channel diagram dominates because has the smallest suppression from the propagator.}
\label{production}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{channels.eps}
~
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{xsecs.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{[color online] Left panel: single-$V$ production cross-sections for the different production mechanisms with $g_R = 0.06$. Right panel: single- versus pair-$V$ production cross-section as a function of its mass for different $WVb$ couplings. Since in the model $g_R \gg g_L$, in both figures we set $g_L = 0$.}
\label{xsections}
\end{figure}
\section{Analysis and search strategy for V-single production}
\subsection{Signal features and Backgrounds}
The EW single production of the V quark depends only on the V mass and the left and right couplings to W. Since $g_R\gg g_L$, we are neglecting effects of $g_L$ and the cross-section scales with the couplings as $g_R^2$. This is true also for the QCD NLO correction of the cross-section. This allow us to use the results of the Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2009gj} where the NLO K-factor of the single production of heavy quarks between 1.3 TeV and 2.5 TeV range over 1.26 - 1.49. This leads to a cross-section of 1-10 fb which yields 100-1000 of single production events in the first 100 fb$^{-1}$ of the 14 TeV LHC run II.
Being V a very heavy particle it is expected to be produced with low $p_T$. For the same reason, the $W$ and $b$ from its decay will be boosted and therefore approximately back-to-back in the laboratory. Therefore, the signal features a high $p_T(b)$ and $p_T(W)$. Hence, we expect the $b$-jet to be the highest $p_T$ particle and the lepton and missing energy from the decay of $W$ having high $p_T$. Observe that being the single production a $t$-channel process the jet that comes with the V is likely to be produced forward. Notice that this is true even with $W$-exchange because it is comparatively massless against the energy of the process.
Let us now characterize the backgrounds. The final state we are looking for is the same as a single top production with the top decaying leptonically except for the sign of the charge of the lepton relative to the one of the $b$-jet, that is not easy to measure. However, although irreducible, it is not a main background as it will be explained below. $W$ production associated with light jets, when the $W$ decays leptonically and one of the high $p_T$ light jets is mistagged as a $b$-jet, is background for this signal also. Despite the fact that the $b$-tag has a tiny contamination coming from light jets the cross-section for $W$ + light jets production is so huge that it becomes the largest background the signal has. Observe that the event topology of this background is much the same as the one of the signal. If we are looking for a high $p_T$ jet that is mistagged as a $b$-jet the $W$ will have high $p_T$ in the opposite direction because of the transverse momentum balance. This leads background events with the same kinematical features that the signal as we discussed above.
In second place, the other main background is $t \bar t$ , when only one of the top quarks decays leptonically and one bottom is missed. Although top quark pair production has larger cross-section than single top production, this is fairly not enough to explain why it is more important. This is so because a high $p_T(b)$ is more suppressed in the case of single top production than in pair production. Single top production is mainly through a $t$-channel exchanging a $W$ while $t \bar t$ \ production is through $t$-channel exchanging a top and a $s$-channel. A particle coming from a $t$-channel production is more likely to be forward, and the tendency to this is increased as the mass of the exchanging particle is lower. Therefore, the $b$ which comes from the decay of the top in the single top production is expected to be more forward than in the case of pair production, resulting in events with lower $p_T(b)$.
QCD multijet backgrounds, even with a mistagged $b$-jet and one fake lepton, could be important. The missing energy could come from an energy imbalance from the poor determination of the jet momentum. The larger is the jet transversal momentum the larger could be the fake missing energy. At high $p_T$, the measured jet momentum is within a 5 \% of the actual momentum of the jet at 1$\sigma$ \cite{ATLAS:2013wma}. Therefore, to avoid this background we require the minimum missing energy to be at least a 20 \% of the minimum momentum of the $b$-jet, that will be the highest $p_T$ jet. Assuming a normal distribution for the measured jet momentum, this gives a loose 4$\sigma$ that leads a QCD multijet contribution of less than 1 event at 100 fb$^{-1}$ for $p_T(b) > 600$ GeV taking into account also the probability of a fake lepton and the mistagging rate of the $b$-jet algorithm. This estimate is enough for our purposes.
Other backgrounds to this signal are $W$ + $b$ and $W$ + $b \bar b$ when one of the bottom is missed or $W$ + $c$ and $W$ + $c \bar c$ when one $c$ is mistagged. Also, $Z$ + light jets, $Z$ + $b$ and $Z$ + $b \bar b$ when $Z$ decays to charged leptons, and one of them is missed. We have found all these backgrounds to be negligible, so that in the following we only show $W$ + light jets and $t \bar t$ \ backgrounds.
Throughout this work we have considered a large region of the parameter space of masses and couplings, with $g_R\leq0.065$ and $1.3\ {\rm TeV}\leq m_V\leq2.5\ {\rm TeV}$, reporting our results for that set in Fig.~\ref{reach}. We have chosen two signal benchmark points for the plots, tables and optimization of the cuts: a reference point 1 of coupling $g_R = 0.035$ and mass of 1.3 TeV and a reference point 2 with $g_R = 0.046$ and mass of 1.8 TeV. In the first row of Table \ref{table1} we show the total NLO cross-section for the reference points and the main backgrounds. Although in the single production dominated region we have a statistically significant number of events for the signal at 100 fb$^{-1}$, the background are huge and we have to design cuts to show up the signal over the background fluctuations.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$N_{\text{lep}}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$N_{b\text{-jet}}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$N_{\text{jet}}$} & $\sigma(t\bar t)$ & $\sigma$($W$ + jets) & $\sigma(S_1)$ & $\sigma(S_2)$ \\
& & & (pb) & (pb) & (pb) & (pb) \\
\hline
1 & - & - & 148 & 7400 & 3.4 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ & 1.8 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ \\
1 & 1 & - & 57.3 & 42.1 & 1.3 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ & 0.65 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ \\
1 & 1 & 1 or 2 & 15.4 & 18.9 & 0.84 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ & 0.42 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{table1} Single production cross-section for the two signal reference points and main backgrounds in the one lepton channel, one $b$-tagged jet and after jet multiplicity cuts.}
\end{table}
We have simulated signal and background for LHC at 14 TeV with \texttt{MadGraph/MadEvent 5} \cite{mgme}. We pass them to \texttt{Pythia 6} \cite{pythia} for showering and hadronization and to \texttt{PGS} \cite{pgs} for detector simulation. The jets are reconstructed using the anti-$k_T$ algorithm with $R = 0.4$ provided by \texttt{PGS}. We have used NLO K-factor of Ref.~\cite{Campbell:2009gj} for the normalization of the signal and the ones of Ref.~\cite{Huston:2010xp,Cacciari:2008zb} for the backgrounds. Before the analysis we apply usual pre-selection cuts for the LHC. For charge leptons we require $p_T(\ell) > 25$ GeV and $\eta(\ell) < 2.5$. For reconstructed jets we require $p_T(j) > 25$ GeV and $\eta(j) < 4$. Finally, we required for the missing energy ${\not \!\! E_T} > 25$ GeV.
We used PGS with the original tune, that for $b$-tagging in the high $p_T$ regime has an efficiency of about 40 \% and mistagging of 0.5 \%. Notice as reference that in Ref.~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012jua} the CMS experiment has reported for $p_T > 500$ GeV an efficiency of about 55 \% and mistagging rates of about 3 \% for light quarks jets, showing consistency of our working point. The $b$-tag algorithm works for jets within $\eta(j) < 2.5$ and all $b$-jets out of that region are considered as light jets.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{bjet.eps}
\newline
(a)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{jet.eps}
\newline
(b)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{multiplicities}[color online] (a) $b$-jet and (b) jet multiplicity for the benchmark signal $m_V = 1.8$ TeV and $g_R = 0.046$ and main backgrounds. The signal for $m_V=1.3$ TeV is similar to 1.8 TeV. The jet multiplicity is shown having already asked for one $b$-jet.}
\end{figure}
We study in first place variables that define the final state as $b$-jet and jet multiplicities. After that we discuss kinematical variables that can lead to an enhancement of the signal over the background.
In Fig.~\ref{multiplicities} (a) we show the $b$-jet multiplicity of the benchmark signal and main backgrounds. As it was expected, asking for more than one $b$-jet rejects most of the $W$ + jet background. The initial $b$-quark for the signal necessarily comes from a gluon splitting. Therefore, along with the $b$ quark coming from the decay of the $V$ there is a $b$ quark from initial state radiation. Thus, although both, the signal process and $t \bar t$ \ have two $b$-jets, notice that the rate of missed second $b$-jet is higher in the case of the signal because most of the initial state $b$-quarks are forward and escape from the $b$-tagger. However, in the practice there is a slight difference between asking for exactly one or more than one $b$-jet. We choose the former. In Table \ref{table1} we show the cross-section for benchmark signal and main backgrounds after select events with exactly one $b$-tagged jet.
The second feature we can notice is that the number of reconstructed jets has differences between the benchmark signal and background as we show in the Fig.~\ref{multiplicities} (b) after we have asked for exactly one $b$-jet. $W$ + jets background has the most contribution for low jet multiplicity, that is no jet or 1 jet.\footnote{Notice that we are calling jets only to light jets, so that taking into account the jet that was mistagged most of the background comes from $W$ + 2 to 3 jets.} Therefore, to suppress this background we require at least 1 jet. On the other hand, $t \bar t$ \ background events has the highest number of jets, mostly between 2 and 4 jets, due to the hadronically decaying top. To suppress these backgrounds we ask for 2 jets at most. In Table \ref{table1} we show the cross-section for benchmark signal and main backgrounds after asking for 1 or 2 jets.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{ptb.eps}
\newline
(a)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eta.eps}
\newline
(b)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{ptbandeta}[color online] (a) $p_T(b)$ differential cross-section for the two signal reference points and main backgrounds after $b$-jet and jet multiplicity cuts. (b) $\eta(j_1)$ distribution for signal $m_V = 1.8$ TeV and $g_R = 0.046$ and main backgrounds after the previous cuts and $p_T(b) > 500$ GeV. The signal for $m_V=1.3$ TeV is similar to 1.8 TeV.}
\end{figure}
As we discussed above, other useful variable is $p_T(b)$. This variable is highly efficient to enhance the signal, as we can see in Fig.~\ref{ptbandeta} (a). There, we have plotted the main backgrounds and the two benchmark signals after the previous cuts on $b$-jet and jet multiplicities. We can see that the $b$-jet takes half of the momentum of the V resonance and $p_T(b)$ is peaked around $m_V/2$.
In Fig.~\ref{ptbandeta} (b) we have plotted the distribution of the rapidity of the leading jet ($\eta(j_1)$) for the benchmark signal of $m_V = 1.8$ TeV and the main background after the previous multiplicity cuts and after we have applied the cut $p_T(b) > 500$ GeV. Only after these cuts we can notice the accumulation of signal events in the forward region. The reason for this is as follows: in the case of the signal, the propagator of the $W$ boson in the $t$-channel becomes more peaked as the energy of the outgoing particles rise. On other hand, $t \bar t$ \ background will be boosted after the cuts and one of the top quarks will be most likely to be in the central region because of the $\eta$ restriction on the $b$-tagger. Therefore, because of the momentum balance of the event the leading jet will come from the decay product of the other top and should be mostly central. The same is for $W$ + jet background. If we asked for a large momentum and central $b$, it is more likely to find a central leading jet because of the momentum balance.
Other useful kinematical variable would be the invariant mass of the system ($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$), M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$), for which one needs to reconstruct the four momentum of the neutrino. The invariant mass M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) will be peaked around the mass of the particle V for the signal. The knowledge of the mass of the $W$ and the transversal momentum of the neutrino allow us to determine its longitudinal momentum through a quadratic equation. In case the discriminant is positive there are two real solutions, we will take the one with the smaller absolute value for the longitudinal momentum. If the discriminant is negative there are two imaginary solutions. In this case we do not use any of the two solutions but we take the $\eta$ of the neutrino as the $\eta$ of the lepton. This solution becomes a better approximation for boosted and high invariant mass events. The $W$ + jets background can give large M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) when the $W$ and the jet which is mistagged are produced back-to-back and with high $p_T$. In the case of $t \bar t$ \ production, the main contribution for high invariant masses is when the $b$-tagged jet is the one from the hadronically decaying top quark, because if it is from the leptonically decaying top quark it would reconstruct the mass of the top quark. We do not use the invariant mass as a cut variable because of the possible large systematic uncertainties in the determination of the neutrino momentum. The introduction of these systematic uncertainties requires a careful analysis that is beyond the scope of this work. However, we will show the invariant mass M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) distribution at various stages along this work to get an idea of the cuts' effects on it.
\subsection{Cut scanning}
We have found that the best final state to find the signal is to ask for 1 lepton, 1 $b$-jet, missing energy and 1 or 2 light jets, being the leading one forward. Now we use the remaining relevant cuts to optimize the search strategy in this final state and to show up the signal over the background. The optimized cuts will be a set of kinematical cuts that will depend on the mass of the new resonance. Despite the fact that the significance is reduced with smaller couplings, the optimized set of cuts will not depend on it because the signal cross-section scales with the coupling square for $g_R\gg g_L$.
We have generated the signal and main backgrounds as we detailed in the previous section, but to improve the generation time for the backgrounds we implemented some cuts at the parton level. For the $W$ + jets background we asked for at least one high $p_T$ jet of 200 GeV (the one that would be mistagged as $b$-jet). For $t \bar t$, we cannot know \emph{a priori} which of the two $b$-jets will be the missed one, then we cannot ask for at least one high $p_T$ $b$-jet without losing events. Therefore, we have generated $t \bar t$ \ with only one leptonically decaying top with $p_T(\ell) > 100 $~GeV. We will show the results of the simulation for the early LHC run II of 100 fb$^{-1}$ although we used a generated sample of 1000 fb$^{-1}$ for backgrounds to reduce statistical fluctuations.
We have scanned randomly over $p_T(b)$, $\eta(j_1)$, ${\not \!\! E_T}$ and $p_T(\ell)$ in order to find the best cuts for both reference points with $m_V=1.3$ and $1.8$ TeV. The scan was over the whole allowed range for these variables. The only restriction arises from the cuts implemented at the generation level and the requirement that the missing energy cut is at least 20\% of the cut on the $b$-jet. In the case of $p_T(b)$ the best cut will be far beyond the limit of 200 GeV of the generation. In the case of $p_T(\ell)$ we cannot go below 100 GeV for the reasons explained in the previous paragraph, but we do not expect much improvement in that region. To calculate the significance we assume the signal and background events to follow a Poisson distribution. The $p$-value, {\it i.e.}: the probability to obtain at least as many signal events as $S$ with expected background $B$ is:
\begin{equation}
p = \sum_{n=S+B}^\infty \frac{B^n e^{-B}}{n!}. \label{pvalue}
\end{equation}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c||c|}
\hline
$p_T(b)$ & ${\not \!\! E_T}$ & $\eta(j_1)$ & $\sigma(t \bar t)$ & $\sigma$($W$ + jets) & $\sigma(S_1)$ & significance \\
& & & (fb) & (fb) & (fb) & 100 fb$^{-1}$ \\
\hline
\hline
300 GeV & - & - & 12.79 & 11.52 & 0.5 & 1 \\
500 GeV & - & - & 2.47 & 2.4 & 0.31 & 1.4 \\
500 GeV & 100 GeV & - & 2.17 & 1.84 & 0.29 & 1.42 \\
500 GeV & 100 GeV & 2.5 & 0.05 & 0.19 & 0.15 & 2.72 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{table2} Optimized cuts for the reference point 1 with $m_V = 1.3$ TeV and $g_R = 0.035$ at 100 fb$^{-1}$. The ${\not \!\! E_T}$ has been taken as at least 20\% of the $p_T(b)$ to suppress possible QCD background. After all cuts the backgrounds events are 24 and the signal events 15. An overall cut $p_T(\ell)~>~100$~GeV has been applied.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c||c|}
\hline
$p_T(b)$ & ${\not \!\! E_T}$ & $\eta(j_1)$ & $\sigma(t \bar t)$ & $\sigma$($W$ + jets) & $\sigma(S_2)$ & significance \\
& & & (fb) & (fb) & (fb) & 100 fb$^{-1}$ \\
\hline
\hline
300 GeV & - & - & 12.79 & 11.52 & 0.29 & 0.59 \\
700 GeV & - & - & 0.67 & 0.62 & 0.17 & 1.41 \\
700 GeV & 150 GeV & - & 0.55 & 0.42 & 0.15 & 1.46 \\
700 GeV & 150 GeV & 2.5 & 0.013 & 0.047 & 0.078 & 2.63 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{table3} Optimized cuts for the reference point 1 with $m_V = 1.8$ TeV and $g_R = 0.046$ at 100 fb$^{-1}$. The ${\not \!\! E_T}$ has been taken as at least 20\% of the $p_T(b)$ to suppress possible QCD background. After all cuts the backgrounds events are 6 and the signal events 8. An overall cut $p_T(\ell)~>~100$~GeV has been applied.}
\end{table}
In Tables \ref{table2} and \ref{table3} we show the optimized cuts for the reference points 1 and 2 respectively. To understand the role of the cuts we show how the signal and backgrounds are reduced as we apply each cut. An overall cut $p_T(\ell)~>~100$~GeV has been applied for the two reference points. We have not found an increment of the significance for more stringent cuts on $p_T(\ell)$. As expected, the $p_T(b)$ cut strongly reduces the backgrounds. Notice in Table \ref{table2} (\ref{table3}) how, even after a strong pre-selection cut in $p_T(b)$, the optimal cut still reduces the backgrounds by a factor of 5 (20) while the signal is slightly reduced. The missing energy cut gives a tiny enhancement on the significance in both cases but a large QCD multijet background suppression which we are not showing, as discussed above.
To illustrate further the effects of the cuts, we show in Fig.~\ref{mtop} the invariant mass M($\ell$,~$\nu$,~$b$) after the quoted cuts along with the $p$-value.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{mtop_1.eps}
\newline
(a)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{mtop_2.eps}
\newline
(b)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{mtop_3.eps}
\newline
(c)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{mtop_4.eps}
\newline
(d)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{mtop}[color online] Invariant mass M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) after cuts for reference point 2 ($m_V = 1.8$ TeV and $g_R = 0.046$). }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The choice of the variables to include in the scan ($p_T(b)$, $\eta(j_1)$, ${\not \!\! E_T}$ and $p_T(\ell)$) do not exhaust all the possibilities. One may choose to include M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) instead of $p_T(b)$ since they are correlated. In this case one can achieve a statistical significance slightly larger. However, as we discussed above, a realistic treatment of the invariant mass requires taking into account possible large systematic uncertainties.
The key observable in this kind of single new resonance fermion production searches is the $p_T(b)$ which helps to isolate the signal for a wide range of the parameter space of the model as we will show in the next section. Because of this we have retained $p_T(b)$ as a cut variable instead of the more usual $H_T$\footnote{$H_T = \left|p_T(b)\right| + \left|p_T(\ell)\right| + \left|{\not \!\! E_T}\right|$}. However, notice that there is no loss in generality because having fixed $p_T(\ell) > 100$ GeV and ${\not \!\! E_T} > p_T(b)/5$, a $p_T(b)$ cut is equivalent to require $H_T~>~6/5 \ p_T(b)~+~100$~GeV.
Additionally, we have checked that some other typical variables that we could have included in the scan do not improve the search. For instance, as a heavy particle is created one can expect the signal to emit radiation of smaller $p_T$ than the backgrounds which have more energy available. However, since we have already asked high $p_T(b)$, that it is not the case. Therefore, the vetoes in the leading and second jets are useless in this case.
\subsection{Discovery reach}
In this section we will explore the discovery reach of our search strategy. The best search strategy should depend on the resonance mass $m_V$, however we find that the optimized cuts for the two reference points described in the previous section are enough to cover a wide range of masses and couplings for 100 fb$^{-1}$. We also show how the reach evolves with more luminosity.
To analyze the discovery reach of our search strategy we apply the optimized cuts we have found in the previous section for the two reference points to different samples of the signal varying the mass of the particle. We need to know how the significance of the signal over the background changes with the coupling $WVb$. Since the signal cross-section scales with the coupling, we re-scale the results for each mass to take into account different couplings.
In the top row of Fig.~\ref{reach} we show the significance in the plane $m_V$ vs.~$g_R$ for the two reference points at 100 fb$^{-1}$. For the best cut associated to the reference point 1 we have found that one can claim an evidence for a 2$\sigma$ discovery for masses up to 2.2 TeV for $g_R = 0.065$. Also, with that cut one can reach couplings as low as about $g_R = 0.035$ for masses up to a 1.6 TeV and $0.03$ for 1.3 TeV. For the best cut associated to the reference point 2 the reached mass is increased up to 2.4 TeV for $g_R=0.065$, while the coupling reach is $g_R = 0.04$ for 1.7 TeV. Notice that the background events only depend on the cuts and these are 24(6) for the best cut of point 1(2). Hence, the number of signal events for a 2$\sigma$ discovery is 11(6). This ensures that after applying the cuts the minimum number events is larger than 5 for all the region of masses and coupling of interest.
The dashed white line in Fig.~\ref{reach} is where the cross-section for double and single production of $V$ are equal. Below the line usual pair production searches could be more useful although a precise determination requires the comparison of the efficiency of each search. In any case, the dashed white line provides an estimate of how this search strategy is complementary to the one for double production. We can see from Fig.~\ref{reach} that a considerable parameter space remains inaccessible between the reach for 100 fb$^{-1}$ and the white dashed line. This region can be probed with more luminosity. To see this, we also show in the Fig.~\ref{reach} two magenta solid lines corresponding to the contour lines of 2$\sigma$ for 300 and 500 fb$^{-1}$.
These results justify the choice of the reference point 1 and 2 as benchmark signal points. As we can see the optimized cut for 1.8 TeV are useful to claim a 2$\sigma$ evidence for all the range of masses between $1.4$ and $2.4$ TeV when $g_R=0.065$. But for the region below $1.5$-$1.6$ TeV and to probe all the range of coupling for $1.3$-$1.4$ TeV, it is necessary a second set of cuts, i.e. for 1.3 TeV.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{cut1.3.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{cut1.8.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\vskip .6cm
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{cut1.3syst.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{cut1.8syst.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{reach}[color online] Top row: Statistical significance at 100 fb$^{-1}$ for different parameters $m_V$ and $g_R$ of the model for the optimized cuts for reference points 1 (left) and 2 (right). Bottom row: Full statistical and systematic significance at 100 fb$^{-1}$ for the same reference points, where systematic uncertainties are modeled as a 20 \% of the events. Green regions correspond to significance $>2$ and blue regions to significance $<2$. Below the dashed white line is the region where the cross-section for double production of V is larger than the single production. The magenta solid lines are the 2$\sigma$ contour lines for 300 and 500 fb$^{-1}$. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The second step, after finding an excess over the SM, would be to determine the properties of the new particle, as: charge, mass, spin. To estimate the quality of the invariant mass as an approximation for the mass of the new particle after the strong cuts we have applied, we plotted the invariant mass distribution in Fig.~\ref{mtop2}. This shows how two different signal behave after the same cut. In each row, we can see the effects of the cuts in the two reference points. We can see that different optimized cuts for each signal are required to see an effect in the invariant mass distribution. Moreover, it is worth noticing how after the strong cuts there is not an appreciable bias and the events of the signal are peaked around the mass of the resonance in panels (a) and (d).
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{mtop_13_cut13.eps}
\newline
(a)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{mtop_18_cut13.eps}
\newline
(b)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{mtop_13_cut18.eps}
\newline
(c)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{mtop_18_cut18.eps}
\newline
(d)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{mtop2}[color online] Comparison of the invariant mass M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) for different signals and cuts to illustrate the possibility to obtain the mass of the particle after the strong cuts. In the first(second) column we show the invariant mass M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) for the reference point 1(2) after the cut optimized for that reference and for the other reference point. In plots (a) and (d) we see that, despite the strong cuts the peak in the signal corresponds to the mass of the particle. In plots (b) and (c) we see that different designed cuts for different signals are required.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
We have presented several results and distributions under the hypothesis of statistical uncertainties only. We want to consider now the impact of the systematic uncertainties. We start assuming that we know $B$ in Eq.~(\ref{pvalue}) within a 20 \% as usual in new fermion searches \cite{systematics}. We include this information as a Gaussian Bayesian prior of media $B$ and standard deviation $0.2 B$. In Fig.~\ref{reach} we show the full statistical and systematic significance (bottom row) in the plane $g_R$ vs.~$m_V$ along with the statistical only significance (top row). With this simplified model for the systematic uncertainties we have found that the overall reach is little reduced for both reference points. The reason for this is that, because of the small signal cross-section, the only-statistical scanning chooses final selection cuts with few background events (see tables \ref{table2} and \ref{table3}). Therefore, the systematic uncertainty of 20 \% does not produce an important modification to the total uncertainty. Moreover, in the case of reference point 1 the systematic and statistical uncertainties are approximately equal and, therefore, more luminosity produces little enlargement in the reach, as it can be seen in the bottom left panel of Fig.~\ref{reach}. For this case, a new cut scanning including systematic uncertainties would improve the reach.
The quantitative results of this work depends on the $b$-tag algorithm for high $p_T$. More precisely, the results of the scan show that any added variable that suppresses even more the $t \bar t$ \ background is in general useless. The reason is that as the main background is $W$ + jets the scan chooses to reduce this background even when one can achieve a stronger suppression in $t \bar t$. In the case that the $W$ + jets can be further suppressed, either because of a better rejection of light jets by the $b$-tag algorithm or for other reason, $t \bar t$ \ will dominate requiring modifications of the search strategy. In the next paragraph we discuss how to reduce $t \bar t$ \ background.
We have already observed that boosted $t \bar t$ \ background events can be obtained only when the $b$-tagged jet is the one from the hadronically decaying top quark. But this means that the $b$-jet is likely to be part of a fat-jet that includes all the decays from the top quark. Then, a top tagger can be used rejecting events when one jet is tagged as a top. Without going into details we present two simpler jet substructure variables to illustrate the discriminating power between the signal and the $t \bar t$ \ background. These variables attempt to expose the differences in the jet structure of the signal and $t \bar t$ \ background. We have found that all the decay products of the hadronically decaying top quark are inside one fat-jet if we reconstruct jets with anti-$k_T$ and $R = 0.6$ for boosted events with M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) $> 1.5$ TeV. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{substructure} (a) where the reconstructed $b$-tagged jet includes most of the decay products of the top quark and reconstructs its mass. On the other hand, in Fig.~\ref{substructure} (b) we can see that the number of tracks is higher in the case of the $t \bar t$ \ background because of the high activity in the fat-jet.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{bjetmass.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{ntrk.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{substructure}[color online] (Left) Mass of the reconstructed jet tagged as a $b$-jet for the reference point 2 and $t \bar t$ \ background. (Right) Number of tracks in the reconstructed jet tagged as a $b$-jet for the reference point 2 and $t \bar t$ \ background. We have taken boosted events with M($\ell$, $\nu$, $b$) $> 1.5$ TeV and used anti-$k_T$ algorithm with $R = 0.6$ in order to reconstruct a jet which includes all the decay products of the hadronically decaying top quark.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
After an eventual discovery of a new fermion resonance, as any other particle, its properties should be determined. We have already shown how the mass of the particle could be measured, even after the strong cuts needed to look for a first evidence. The determination of the charge of the new particle will be more involved and will depend on the ability of the LHC to measure the charge of a $b$-jet. Measuring the sign of the $b$-jet charge relative to the $W$ charge it can be established if the new fermion has a charge 2/3 or -4/3. Notice that the ratios $\sigma_{\bar V}/\sigma_V \sim \sigma_{W^+}/\sigma_{W^-} \sim 2$ because of the proton composition. Hence, since $W+$jets is the main background, the lepton charge is not a good variable to discriminate signal and background.
Finally, the strength of the coupling $VWb$ could be determined with a measurement of the cross-section as usual. The V-A structure of this coupling could be tested with the $W$ polarisation. The $W$ polarisation is extracted from the angular distribution between the lepton and the $b$-jet in the $W$ rest frame. In the top quark SM, because of the Left nature of the EW coupling the $W$ Right-handed polarization is absent (only arise at NLO). Conversely, in our model the coupling is mainly right and the $W$ Left-handed polarization will be absent. As it can be easily deduced from angular momentum conservation, our right-handed signal angular distribution of the lepton and the $b$-jet will be sharply peaked at zero degrees.
\section{Conclusions}
We have considered a search for a bottom exotic partner that is complementary to the ones of top partners at LHC. Composite Higgs models aiming to solve the $A^b_{FB}$ anomaly measured at LEP and SLC generically require the presence of light partners of the bottom quark, including exotics fermions $V$ of charge -4/3. We have shown an effective theory with a composite Higgs and resonances where the correction to $A^b_{FB}$ is associated with the prediction of a light $V$-resonance. We also showed that partial compositeness predicts $m_V$ lighter than the composite scale, similar to the top partners. For masses larger than $\sim1$ TeV and couplings of order $g/10$ the model-independent pair production of the new particle is suppressed against the EW single production, favoring this signal at LHC. We have determined the typical size of couplings and masses within naturalness and have designed a search strategy for discovery over backgroun
. We have made an approximate analysis of the discovery reach of this kind of particles at LHC with 14 TeV
We have found that the best channels to find a signal of single production of this particle is to ask for one $b$-tagged jet, one lepton, missing energy and 1 to 2 jets. For this signal $W$ + jets and $t \bar t$ \ production are the main backgrounds. We have designed a search strategy to show up the signal over the background and presented the optimized cuts for two reference points of the proposed model. The two sets of cuts, although optimized for two points only, are enough to cover a wide range of masses and couplings for 100 fb$^{-1}$ and also for higher luminosities. With them we have determined the range of masses and couplings that can be discovered at the LHC at 14 TeV.
We have identified $p_T(b)$ and $\eta(j_1)$ as the key kinematical variables which help to enhance the signal over the $t \bar t$ \ and $W$ + jet background. We used $p_T(\ell)$ and ${\not \!\! E_T}$ to suppress the QCD background. We have performed a cut-based search strategy on these variables and found the optimal cuts to enhance the signal over the background. We have found that in the early LHC run II with 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, the presence of this new particle can be tested up to masses of $2.4$ TeV with couplings of order $g/10$. Taking into account a systematic uncertainty of 20 \% the reach only drops to $2.3$ TeV. This reach covers a large region of the parameter space of a natural theory, aiming to solve the little hierarchy problem.
We have also found that substructure variables as the track multiplicity and the mass of the $b$-tagged jet can be used to discriminate between the signal and $t \bar t$ \ background. $t \bar t$ \ events produce a larger number of tracks than the signal, as well as larger masses for the reconstructed jets tagged as $b$-jet. This could be useful in case of improvement of the $b$-tagging algorithm in the high $p_T$ regime, so that the main background were $t \bar t$ \ production.
Finally, the fact that the $V$-resonance only decays through the $Wb$ channel restrict its search and makes it different for previous studies on $T$-single production with open channels $Zt$ and $ht$. However, the results of this work are also valid for a charge $2/3$ resonance, provided it decays dominantly through $T\to Wb$. To distinguish between them would require a precise determination of the $b$-charge. In any case, it is worth to remark that our model predicts Right $V$ couplings which could be differentiated from other models with Left couplings through $W$ polarisation observables.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Ricardo Piegaia for many useful discussions and suggestions, we also thank Juan Guerrero for collaboration in the early stages of this work. We are partly supported by FONCYT under the contract PICT-2010-1737 and CONICET under the contract PIP 114220100100319.
|
\section{Introduction}
The original motivation of this project is to study the transports of positive and negative charges in solar cells.
We model a solar cell by a domain in $\R^d$ that is divided into two disjoint sub-domains $D_+$ and $D_-$ by an interface $I$,
a $(d-1)$-dimensional hypersurface, which can be possibly disconnected.
$D_+$ and $D_-$ represent the hybrid medium that confine the positive and the negative charges, respectively.
At microscopic level, positive and negative charges are initially modeled by $N$ independent reflected Brownian motion (RBM) with drift on $D_+$ and on $D_-$ respectively.
(In this paper, they are actually modeled by $N$ independent random walks on lattices inside $D_+$ and $D_-$ that serve as discrete approximation of RBM with drifts.)
These random motions model the transport of positive (respectively negative) charges under an electric potential (See Figure \ref{fig:Interface}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\includegraphics[scale=.22]{Interface}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{$I$ is the interface of $D_{+}$ and $D_-$}\label{fig:Interface}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
These two types of particles annihilate each other at a certain rate when they come close to each other near the interface $I$. This interaction models the annihilation, trapping, recombination and separation phenomena of the charges. The interaction distance is of microscopic order $\varepsilon$ where $N\varepsilon^d$ is comparable to 1, and the intensity of annihilation per pair is of order $\lambda/\varepsilon$ where $\lambda\geq 0$ is a given parameter. This means that, intuitively and roughly speaking, according to a random time clock which runs with a speed proportional to the number of pairs (one particle of each type) of distance $\varepsilon$, we annihilate a pair (picked uniformly among those pairs of distance less than $\varepsilon$) with an exponential rate of parameter $\lambda/\varepsilon$. The above scaling guarantees that in the limit, a nontrivial proportion of particles are annihilated in any open time interval. We investigate the scaling limit of the empirical distribution of positive and negative charges;
that is, the hydrodynamic limit of this interacting diffusion system. We show that in the macroscopic level, the empirical distribution converges to a deterministic
measure whose density satisfies a system of partial differential equations that has non-linear interaction
at the interface.
The study of \emph{hydrodynamic limits} of particle systems with stochastic dynamics is of fundamental importance in many areas. This study dates back to the sixth Hilbert problem in year 1900, which concerns the mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics, and to Boltzmann's work on principles of mechanics. Proving hydrodynamic limits corresponds to establishing \emph{the law of large number} for the empirical measure of some attributes (such as position, genetic type, spin type, etc.) of the individuals in the systems. It contributes to our better understanding of the asymptotic behavior of many phenomena, such as chemical reactions \cite{tK71}, population dynamics \cite{rDsL94, tK81, rMmN92}, super-conductivity \cite{htY91}, quantum dynamics \cite{lEbShtY07}, fluid dynamics \cite{fG05}, etc. It reveals fascinating connections between the microscopic stochastic systems and deterministic partial differential equations that describe the macroscopic pictures. It also provides approximations via stochastic models to some partial differential equations that are hard or impossible to solve directly.
Since the work of Boltzmann and Hilbert, there have been many different lines of research on stochastic particle systems. Various models were constructed and different techniques were developed to establish hydrodynamic limits. Among those techniques, the entropy method \cite{GPV88} and the relative entropy method \cite{htY91} are considered to be general methods. Unfortunately these methods do not seem to work for our model due to the singular interaction near the interface.
Many models studied in literature are conservative, for example exclusion processes \cite{cKcL98, KOV89} and Fleming-Viot type systems \cite{BHM00, BQ06}. Reaction-diffusion systems (R-D system) constitute a class of models that are typically non-conservative. These are systems which have hydrodynamic limits of the form $\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}= \frac{1}{2}\Delta u + R(u)$ (a reaction-diffusion equation, or R-D equation in short), where $R(u)$ is a function in $u$ which is thought of as the reaction term. R-D systems arise from many different contexts and have been studied by many authors. For instance, for the case $R(u)$ is a polynomial in $u$, these systems contain the Schl\"ogl's model and were studied in \cite{pD88a, pD88b, pK86, pK88} on a cube with Neumann boundary conditions, and in \cite{BDP92, BDPP87} on a periodic lattice. Recently, perturbations of the voter models which contain the Lotka-Volterra systems are considered in \cite{CDP11}. In addition to results on hydrodynamic limit, \cite{CDP11} also established general conditions for the existence of non-trivial stationary measures and for extinction of the particles.
Our model is a non-conservative stochastic particle system which consists of two types of particles. In \cite{BQ06}, Burdzy and Quastel studied an annihilating-branching system of two types of particles, for which the total number of particles of each type remains constant over the time. Its hydrodynamic limit is described by a linear heat equation with zero average temperature.
In contrast, besides being non-conservative, our model gives rise to a system of nonlinear differential equations that seems to be new.
Moreover, the interaction between two types of particles is singular near the interface of the two media, which gives rise to a boundary integral term in the hydrodynamic limit. The approach of this paper provides some new tools that are potentially useful for the study of other non-equilibrium systems.
We now give some more details on the discrete approximation of the spatial motions in our modeling.
We approximate $D_{\pm}$ by square lattices $D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$ of side length $\varepsilon$, and then approximate reflected diffusions on $D_{\pm}$ by continuous time random walks (CTRWs) on $D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$. The rigorous formulation of the particle system is captured by the operator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}$ in (\ref{E:generator0}).
Let $X^{\pm}_{i}(t)$ be the position of the particle with index $i$ in $\bar{D}_{\pm}$ at time $t$. We prescribe each particle a mass $1/N$ and consider the normalized empirical measures
\begin{eqnarray*}
\X^{N,+}_t(dx) := \frac{1}{N}\sum_{\alpha: \alpha\sim t}\1_{X^{+}_{\alpha}(t)}(dx) \quad \text{and} \quad
\X^{N,-}_t(dy) := \frac{1}{N}\sum_{\beta: \beta\sim t}\1_{X^{-}_{\beta}(t)}(dy).
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\1_y(dx)$ stands for the Dirac measure concentrated at the point $y$, while
$\alpha\sim t$ if and only if the particle $X^{+}_{\alpha}$ is alive at time $t$, and $\beta\sim t$ if and only if the particle $X^{-}_{\beta}$ is alive at time $t$. For fixed positive integer $N$ and $t>0$, $\X^{N,\pm}_t$ is a random measure on $\bar{D}_{\pm}$. We want to study the asymptotic behavior, when $N\to\infty$ (or equivalently $\varepsilon \to 0$), of the evolution in time $t$ of the pair $(\X^{N,+}_t,\,\X^{N,-}_t)$.
\subsection{Main results}
Our first main result (Theorem \ref{T:conjecture}) implies the following. Suppose each particle in $D_{\pm}$ is approximating a RBM with gradient drift $\frac{1}{2}\,\nabla (\log \rho_{\pm})$, where $\rho_{\pm}\in C^1(\bar{D}_{\pm})$ is strictly positive. Then under appropriate assumptions on the initial configuration $(\X^{N,+}_0,\,\X^{N,-}_0)$, the normalized empirical measure $(\X^{N,+}_t(dx),\,\X^{N,-}_t(dy))$ converges in distribution to a deterministic measure
$$
(u_+(t,x)\rho_+(x)dx,\,u_-(t,y)\rho_-(y)dy)
$$
for all $t>0$, where $(u_+,u_-)$ is the solution of the following coupled heat equations:
\begin{equation}\label{E:coupledpde:+}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\partial u_+}{\partial t} &= \frac{1}{2}\Delta u_+ +\frac{1}{2}\nabla (\log \rho_{+})\cdot\nabla u_+ & &\qquad\text{on } (0,\infty)\times D_+ \\
\dfrac{\partial u_+}{\partial \vec{n}_+} &=\frac{\lambda}{\rho_+}\,u_+u_-\,\1_{I} & &\qquad\text{on } (0,\infty)\times \partial D_+
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{E:coupledpde:-}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\partial u_-}{\partial t} &= \frac{1}{2}\Delta u_- +\frac{1}{2}\nabla (\log \rho_{-})\cdot\nabla u_- & &\qquad\text{on } (0,\infty)\times D_- \\
\dfrac{\partial u_-}{\partial \vec{n}_-} &=\frac{\lambda}{\rho_-}\,u_+u_-\,\1_I & &\qquad\text{on } (0,\infty)\times \partial D_- ,
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\vec{n}_\pm$ is the inward unit normal vector field on $\partial D_{\pm}$ of $D_{\pm}$ and $\1_I$ is the indicator function on $I$. Note that $\rho_{\pm}=1$ corresponds to the particular case when there is no drift.
The above result tells us that for any fixed time $t>0$, the probability distribution of a randomly picked particle in $D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$ at time $t$ is close to $c_{\pm}(t)u_{\pm}(t,x)$ when $N$ is large, where $c_{\pm}(t)=(\int_{D_{\pm}} u_{\pm}(t))^{-1}$ is a normalizing constant. In fact, the above convergence holds at the level of the path space. That is, the full trajectory (and hence the joint law at different times) of the particle profile converges to the deterministic scaling limit described by (\ref{E:coupledpde:+}) and (\ref{E:coupledpde:-}), not only its distribution at a given time.
\noindent {\bf Question}: How about the limiting joint distribution of more than one particles ?
Our second main result (Theorem \ref{T:correlation}) answers this question. It asserts that \textbf{propagation of chaos} holds true for our system; that is, when the number of particles tends to infinity, their positions appear to be independent of each other. More precisely, suppose $n$ and $m$ unlabeled particles in $D^{\varepsilon}_+$ and $D^{\varepsilon}_-$, respectively, are chosen uniformly among the living particles at time $t$. Then, as $N\to\infty$, the probability joint density function for their positions converges to
$$c_{(n,m)}(t)\,\prod_{i=1}^{n}u_{+}(t,r_i) \prod_{j=1}^{m}u_{-}(t,s_j)$$
uniformly for $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \bar{D}_+^n\times \bar{D}_-^m$ and for $t$ in any compact time interval, where $c_{(n,m)}(t)$ is a normalizing constant.
\subsection{Key ideas}
A key step in our proof of propagation of chaos (Theorem \ref{T:correlation}) is Theorem \ref{T:Uniqueness_hierarchy}. The latter establishes uniqueness of solution for the infinite system of equations satisfied by the correlation functions of the particles in the limit $N\to\infty$. Such infinite system of equations is sometimes called \emph{BBGKY-hierarchy} in statistical physics. Our BBGKY hierarchy involves boundary terms on the interface, which is new to the literature.
Our proof of uniqueness involves a representation and manipulations of the hierarchy in terms of trees. This technique is related to but different from that in \cite{lEbShtY07} which used Feynman diagrams. It is potentially useful in the study of other stochastic models involving coupled differential equations.
To establish hydrodynamic limit result (Theorem \ref{T:conjecture}), we employ the classical tightness plus finite dimensional distribution approach. Tightness of $(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})$ in the Skorokhod space is proved in Theorem \ref{T:tight}. This together with the propagation of chaos result (Theorem \ref{T:correlation}) establishes the hydrodynamic limit of the interacting
random walks.
Two new tools for discrete approximation of random walks in domains are developed in this article. Namely, the local central limit theorem (local CLT) for reflected random walk on bounded Lipschitz domains (Theorem \ref{T:LCLT_CTRW}) and the `discrete surface measure' (Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}). We believe these tools are potentially useful in many discrete schemes which involve reflected Brownian motions.
Weak convergence of simple random walk on $D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$ to RBM has been established for general bounded domains in \cite{BC08} and \cite{BC11}.
However, we need more for our model; namely a local convergence result which guarantees that the convergence rate is uniform up to the boundary. For this, we establish the local CLT. We further generalize the weak convergence result and the local limit theorem to deal with RBMs with gradient drift. There are two reasons for us to consider gradient drift. First, it is physically natural to assume the particles are subject to an electric potential. Second, the maximal extension theorem, \cite[Theorem 6.6.9]{CF12}, which is a crucial technical tool used in \cite{BC08} and \cite{BC11}, has established only in symmetric setting. The proof of the local CLT is based on a `discrete relative isoperimetric inequality' (Theorem \ref{T:Isoperimetric_Discrete}) which leads to the Poincar\'e inequality and the Nash inequality. The crucial point is that these two inequalities are uniform in $\varepsilon$ (scaling of lattice size) and is invariant under the dilation of the domain $D \mapsto aD$.
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Remarks}
A related chemical reaction model with one kind of RBMs on the bounded interval $[0,1]$ was studied in \cite{pD88}. Under a high density assumption, chemical reaction models with RBMs on a cube with general reaction term were studied in \cite{pK86} and \cite{pK88}. Our model works for any bounded Lipschitz domain of any dimension $d\geq 1$ (the case $d=1$ corresponds to an interval), the ``reaction'' in our model is different, and we do not need high density assumption.
The number of particles per cell in our model remains (asymptotically) bounded. The special feature of our model is that the system is not conservative
and the interplay occurs near the interface of two subdomains where two types of particles are confined to.
In [to appear], we construct another stochastic model which has the same hydrodynamic limit. Instead of random walks, each particle performs a reflected diffusion which has a continuous transition density up to the boundary. [to appear] can be viewed as a generalization of this paper (since the underlying motion of each particle is more general, but it does not imply the result in this paper. Moreover, the ``discrete to continuous'' flavor in this paper distinguishes itself from [to appear].
The result in this paper and [to appear] can be viewed as a ``law of large number'' of the particle model. In a sequel paper [to appear], we will study the space-time behavior of the fluctuation around the limit and establish a ``central limit theorem''.
\end{comment}
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce the stochastic model and some preliminary facts that will be used later. We then prove the existence and uniqueness of solution for the coupled PDE. The main results, Theorem \ref{T:conjecture} and Theorem \ref{T:correlation}, will be rigorously formulated. We also mention various extensions of our main results in Remark \ref{Rk:GeneralizationResults}. Section 3 and section 4 contains the proof of Theorem \ref{T:correlation} and Theorem \ref{T:conjecture} respectively. Section 5 is devoted to the proofs of the discrete relative isoperimetric inequality and the local CLT.
\section{Notations and Preliminaries}
For the reader's convenience, we list our notations here:
\begin{longtable}{ll}
$\mathbb{Z}$ & set of all integers\\
$\mathbb{Z}_+$ & $\{1,2,3,\cdots\}$ positive integers\\
$\mathbb{N}$ & $ \{0,1,2,\cdots\}$ non-negative integers\\
$\mathbb{R}$ & set of all real numbers\\
&\\
$\mathcal{B}(E)$ & Borel measurable functions on $E$ \\
$\mathcal{B}_b(E)$& bounded Borel measurable functions on $E$ \\
$\mathcal{B}^+(E)$& non-negative Borel measurable functions on $E$\\
$C(E)$ & continuous functions on $E$\\
$C_b(E)$ & bounded continuous functions on $E$\\
$C^+(E)$ & non-negative continuous functions on $E$\\
$C_c(E)$ & continuous functions on $E$ with compact support\\
$D([0,\infty),\,E)$ & space of $c\grave{a}dl\grave{a}g$ paths from $[0,\infty)$ to $E$ \\
&\quad equipped with the Skorokhod metric\\
&\\
$\mathcal{H}^m$ & $m$-dimensional Hausdorff measure\\
$M_+(E)$ & space of finite non-negative Borel measures on $E$ \\
& \quad equipped with the weak topology\\
$M_{\leq 1}(E)$ & $\{\mu\in M_{+}(E):\,\mu(E)\leq 1\}$ \\
$M_{1}(E)$ (or $\mathcal{P}(E)$) & $\{\mu\in M_{+}(E):\,\mu(E)=1\}$ \\
$\eta^{\varepsilon,\pm}_t(x)$ & number of living particles at $x\in D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$ at time $t$\\
$(\eta^{\varepsilon}_t)_{t\geq 0}$& process with generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}=\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0+\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}$ in Definition \ref{Def:ConfigurationProcess_eta}\\
$(\xi^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(\eta^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$& independent processes with generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0$\\
$E^{\varepsilon}$ & $\mathbb{N}^{D^ {\varepsilon}_{+}} \times \mathbb{N}^{D^ {\varepsilon}_{-}}$, state space of $(\eta^{\varepsilon}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ \\
$\X^{N,\pm}_t(dz)$ & $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{x \in D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}}\eta^{\pm}_t(x)\1_x(dz)$,
the normalized empirical measure in $\bar{D}_{\pm}$ \\
$\mathfrak{E}$& $M_{\leq 1}(\bar{D}_+) \times M_{\leq 1}(\bar{D}_-)$, the state space of $(\X^{N,+}_t,\,\X^{N,-}_t)_{t\geq 0}$\\
$\{\F^X_t:\,t\geq 0\}$ & filtration induced by the process $(X_t)$, i.e. $\F^X_t=\sigma(X_s,\,s\leq t)$\\
$\1_x$ & indicator function at $x$ or the Dirac measure at $x$\\
&\quad (depending on the context)\\
$\,{\buildrel \mathcal{L} \over \longrightarrow}\,$ & weak convergence of random variables (or processes)\\
$\<f,\,\mu\>$ & $\int f(x)\,\mu(dx)$ \\
$x\vee y$ & $\max\{x,\,y\}$\\
$x\wedge y$ & $\min\{x,\,y\}$\\
$C,\,C_1,\,C_2,\,\cdots$ & positive constants\\
$I^{\varepsilon}$ & `$\varepsilon$-point approximation' of $I$ constructed in Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}\\
$\sigma_{\varepsilon}$ & `discrete surface measure' constructed in Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}\\
\end{longtable}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
Process & Semigroup & Heat kernel & Measure & Generator & State space\\
$X^{\pm}(t)$ & $P^{\pm}_t$ & $p^{\pm}(t,x,y)$ & $\rho_{\pm}$ & $\A^{\pm}$ & $\bar{D}_{\pm}$\\
$X^{\varepsilon,\pm}(t)$ & $P^{\varepsilon,\pm}_t$ & $p^{\varepsilon,\pm}(t,x,y)$ & $m^{\pm}_{\varepsilon}$ & $\A^{\pm}_{\varepsilon}$ & $D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$\\
$X_{(n,m)}(t)$ & $P^{(n,m)}_t$ & $p=p^{(n,m)}$ & $\rho=\rho_{(n,m)}$ & $\A^{(n,m)}$ & $\bar{D}_{+}^n\times \bar{D}_{-}^m$\\
$X_{(n,m)}^{\varepsilon}(t)$ & $P^{(n,m),\varepsilon}_t$ & $p^{\varepsilon}=p^{(n,m),\varepsilon}$ & $m_{\varepsilon}$ & $\A^{(n,m)}_{\varepsilon}$ & $(D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n\times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m$
\end{tabular}
where in the above,
\begin{align*}
p^{(n,m)}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))&:= \prod_{i=1}^n p^{+}(t,r_i,r_i')\prod_{j=1}^m p^{-}(t,s_j,s_j')\\
\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})&:= \prod_{i=1}^n\rho_+(r_i)\prod_{j=1}^m\rho_-(s_j).
\end{align*}
We also use the following abbreviations:
\begin{tabular}{ll}
a.s. & almost surely\\
LDCT & Lebesque dominated convergence theorem\\
CTRW & continuous time random walk\\
RBM & reflected Brownian motion\\
local CLT & local central limit theorem\\
LHS & left hand side\\
RHS & right hand side\\
WLOG & without loss of generality
\end{tabular}
\bigskip
\begin{definition}
A Borel subset $E$ of $\R^d$ is called $\mathcal{H}^m$\textbf{-rectifiable} if $E$ is a countable union of Lipschitz images of bounded subsets of $\R^m$ with $\mathcal{H}^m(E)<\infty$ (As usual, we ignore sets of $\mathcal{H}^m$ measure 0). Here $\mathcal{H}^m$ denotes the $m$-dimensional
Hausdorff measure.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A \textbf{bounded Lipschitz domain} $D\subset\R^d$ is a bounded connected open set such that for any $\xi\in \partial{D}$, there exits $r_{\xi}>0$ such that $B(\xi,r_{\xi})\cap D$ is represented by $B(\xi,r_{\xi}) \cap \{(y',y^{d})\in \R^d: \phi_{\xi}(y')<y^d\}$ for some coordinate system centered at $\xi$ and a Lipschitz function $\phi_{\xi}$ with Lipschitz constant $M$, where $M=M_D>0$ does not depend on $\xi$ and is called the Lipschitz constant of $D$.
\end{definition}
\begin{assumption}\label{A:Setting}
$D_{\pm}$ are given adjacent bounded Lipschitz domains in $\R^d$ such that $I:= \bar{D}_{+}\cap \bar{D}_{-}=\partial D_+\cap \partial D_-$ is a finite union of disjoint connected $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}$-rectifiable sets, $\rho_{\pm}\in W^{(1,2)}(D_{\pm})\cap C^1(\bar{D}_{\pm})$ are given functions which are strictly positive, $\lambda>0$ is a fixed parameter.
\end{assumption}
\subsection{Interacting random walks in domains}
In this subsection, we describe the interacting random walk model. We start with
some key ingredients needed in discrete approximation.
\subsubsection{Discrete approximation of surface measure}
To capture the boundary behavior of our processes near the interface $I$ in the discrete scheme, we need a discrete approximation of the surface measure $\sigma$
on $I$. The construction of $I^{\varepsilon}$ and $\sigma_{\varepsilon}$ in the following lemma is a key to our approximation scheme. For us, $\mathbb{N}:= \{0,1,2,\cdots\}$ denotes the set of non-negative integers.
\begin{lem}\label{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}
Suppose $D$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain of $\R^d$. Let $I\subset \partial D$ be closed, connected and $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}$-rectifiable. Let $\varepsilon_j = 2^{-j}$ for $j\in \mathbb{N}$. Then there exist finite subsets $I^{(j)}=I^{\varepsilon_j}$ of $I$ and functions $\sigma_{(j)}=\sigma_{\varepsilon_j}: \,I^{(j)}\rightarrow [\varepsilon^{d-1}/C,\, C\varepsilon^{d-1}]$ such that (a) and (b) below hold simultaneously:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] \begin{equation}\label{E:NumberOfPoints_SurfaceMea}
\sup_{x\in \bar{D}}\, \#\,\left( I^{(j)}\cap B(x,\,s)\right) \leq C\,\left(\frac{s}{\varepsilon_j}\vee 1 \right)^{d-1}\, \quad \forall\,s\in(0,\infty),\,j \in\mathbb{N},
\end{equation}
where $\# A $ denotes the number of elements in the finite set $A$, $B(x,\,s)=\{y\in \R^d:\,|y-x|<s\}$ is the ball with radius $s$ centered at $x$,
and $C$ is a constant that depends only on $D$.
\item[(b)] For any equi-continuous and uniformly bounded family $\F\subset C(I)$,
\begin{equation}\label{E:WeakConverge_SurfaceMea}
\lim_{j\to \infty}\, \sup_{f\in\F} \Big|\,\sum_{I^{(j)}}f\,\sigma_{(j)}- \int_{I}f\,d\sigma\,\Big|=0.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
We can always split $I$ into small pieces. The point is to guarantee that each piece is not too small, so that $\sigma_{(j)}/\varepsilon^{d-1}\geq C$ and that (\ref{E:NumberOfPoints_SurfaceMea}) holds. Since $I$ is $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}$-rectifiable, we have
$$
C^{-1}\,R^{d-1} \leq \sup_{x\in I} \mathcal{H}^{d-1}(I \cap B(x,R)) \leq C\,R^{d-1}
$$
for $R\in (0, 1]$, where $C$ does not depend on $R$.
Since $I$ is closed, it is regular with dimension $d-1$ in the terminology of section 1 of \cite{DS91}. Hence by \cite{gD88} or section 2 of \cite{DS91}, we can build ``dyadic cubes'' for $I$. More precisely, there exists a family of partitions $\{\Delta_j\}_{j\in \Z}$ of $I$ into ``cubes'' $Q$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] if $j\leq k$, $Q\in \Delta_j$ and $Q'\in\Delta_k\,$, then either $Q\cap Q' =\emptyset$ or $Q\subset Q'$;
\item[(ii)] if $Q\in \Delta_j\,$, then $$C^{-1}\,2^j \leq {\rm diam} ( Q) \leq C\,2^j\quad \text{ and}$$ $$C^{-1}\,2^{j(d-1)}\leq \mathcal{H}^{d-1}(Q) \leq C\,2^{j(d-1)};$$
\item[(iii)] $$\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(\{x\in Q:\, {\rm dist} (x,\,I\setminus Q)\leq r2^j\}) \leq C\,r^{1/C}\,2^{j(d-1)}$$
for all $Q\in \Delta_j$ and $r>0$.
\end{enumerate}
Here the constant $C$ is independent of $j,\,Q,$ or $r$.
Note that $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}$ is the surface measure $\sigma$ of $\partial D$ and that property (iii) tells us that the cubes have relatively small boundary. In particular, (iii) implies $\sigma (\partial Q \cap I)=0$ for all cube $Q$.
Suppose $\Delta_j= \left\{U_i^{(j)}\right\}_{i=1}^{k_{j}}$.
We pick one point $z^{(j)}_i$ from each $U_i^{(j)}$ to form the set $I^{(j)}$. Finally, we define $\sigma_{(j)}(z^{(j)}_i):= \sigma(U_i^{(j)})$. It follows from (ii) that $\sigma_{(j)}\in[\varepsilon^{d-1}/C,\, C\varepsilon^{d-1}]$ for some $C$ which depends only on $D$. The inequality (\ref{E:NumberOfPoints_SurfaceMea}) follows from $C^{-1}\,\varepsilon_j^{d-1}\leq \sigma\,(U_i^{(j)})$ and the Lipschitz property of $\partial D$. It remains to check (\ref{E:WeakConverge_SurfaceMea}).
Fix any $\eta>0$. There exists $\lambda=\lambda(\eta)>0$ such that $|f(x)-f(y)|<\eta$ whenever $|x-y|<\lambda$. Hence for $j$ large enough (depending only on $\lambda$),
\begin{equation*}
\Big|\int_{I}g\,d\sigma - \sum_{I^{(j)}}g\,\sigma_{(j)}\Big|
= \left|\sum_{i}\,\Big(\int_{U^{(j)}_i}g\,d\sigma - g(z^{(j)}_i)\sigma(U^{(j)}_i)\Big)\right| \leq \eta\,\sum_{i}\sigma(U^{(j)}_i)=\eta\,\sigma(I).
\end{equation*}
The desired convergence (\ref{E:WeakConverge_SurfaceMea}) now follows.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark} \rm
(\ref{E:WeakConverge_SurfaceMea}) implies that we have the weak convergence $\sum_{z\in I^{(j)}}\,\sigma_{(j)}\,\delta_{z} \to \sigma\big|_{I}$
on the space $M_{+}(I)$ of positive finite measure Borel measures on $I$. Here $\delta_{z}$ is the dirac delta measure at $z$, and $\sigma\big|_{I}$ is the surface measure restricted to $I$. (\ref{E:NumberOfPoints_SurfaceMea}) is a control on the number of points locally in $I^{\varepsilon_j}$. We call $I^{\varepsilon}$ the `$\varepsilon$-point approximation' of $I$ and $\sigma_{\varepsilon}$ the `discrete surface measure' associated to $I^{\varepsilon}$. \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \rm
The above lemma remains true if $I$ is the finite union of disjoint closed connected and $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}$-rectifiable subsets of $\partial D$. This enables us to deal with disconnected interface $I$. \qed
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Reflected diffusion and random walk approximation }\label{UnderlyingMotion}
We now describe the motion of each underlying particle. First we fix a bounded Lipschitz domain $D\subset \R^d$ and any $\varepsilon >0$. Without loss of generality, we assume that the origin $0\in D$. Let $\bar{\varepsilon \Z^d}$ be the union of all closed line segments joining nearest neighbors in $\varepsilon \Z^d$, and $(D^{\varepsilon})^{*}$ the connected component of $D\cap \bar{\varepsilon \Z^d}$ that contains the point $0$. Set $D^{\varepsilon} = (D^{\varepsilon})^{*} \cap \varepsilon\Z^d$.
We can view $D^\varepsilon$ as the vertices of a graph whose edges coming from $(D^{\varepsilon})^{*}$.
We also denote the graph-boundary $\partial D^{\varepsilon}:= \{x\in D^{\varepsilon}:\,v_{\varepsilon}(x)<2d\}$, where $v_{\varepsilon}(x)$ is the degree of $x$ in $D^{\varepsilon}$.
Suppose $\rho\in W^{1,2}(D)\cap C^1(\bar{D})$ is strictly positive. Define
$$\D (f,g) := \dfrac{1}{2} \int_{D}\nabla f(x)\cdot \nabla g(x)\,\rho(x) \,dx.$$
Since $D$ is Lipschitz, $(W^{1,2}(D), \D)$ is a regular Dirichlet form on $L^2(D;\rho)$ and so there is a $\rho$-symmetric diffusion $X$ associated with it (cf. for example \cite{zqChen93}).
\begin{definition}
We call $X$ the $(I_{d\times d},\rho)$\textbf{-reflected diffusion}, where $I_{d\times d}$ is the $d\times d$ identity matrix. When $\rho=1$, $X$ is called the \textbf{reflected Brownian motion} (RBM) in $D$. Hence a $(I_{d\times d},\rho)$-reflected diffusion is a RBM in$D$ with drift $\frac{1}{2}\nabla\log\rho$.
\end{definition}
The $L^2$-infinitesimal generator of $X$ is
$$\A=\frac{1}{2\rho}\,\nabla\cdot\,(\rho\,\nabla) = \frac{1}{2}\Delta + \frac{1}{2}\,\nabla (\log \rho)\cdot\nabla.
$$
Moreover, $X$ has the Skorokhod representation:
\begin{eqnarray}
dX_t = dB_t + \frac{1}{2}\nabla\log\rho(X_t)dt + \vec{n}(X_t)dL_t
\quad \hbox{for } t\geq 0,\,\P_x \hbox{-a.s. } x\in \bar{D},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{n}$ is the inward unit normal of $\partial D$ and $L$ is the positive continuous additive function (PCAF) of $X$ whose Revuz measure is $\frac{1}{2}\sigma$ (c.f.\cite{zqChen93}).
We call $L$ the boundary local time of $X$.
Next, we define $X^{\varepsilon}$ to be a continuous time random walk (CTRW) on $D^{\varepsilon}$ with exponential waiting time of parameter $\frac{d}{\varepsilon^{2}}$ and one step transition probabilities
$$
p_{xy}:= \frac{\mu_{xy}}{\sum_{y}\mu_{xy}},
$$
where $\{\mu_{xy}:\,x,y\in D^{\varepsilon}\}$ are symmetric weights (conductances) to be constructed in two steps as follows:
First, for every $x\in D^{\varepsilon}\setminus \partial D^{\varepsilon}$ and $i=1,2,\cdots,d$, define
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_{x,x+\varepsilon \vec{e_i}} &:=& \left(1+\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{\rho(x+\varepsilon \vec{e_i})}{\rho(x)}\right)\,\left(\frac{\rho(x)+\rho(x+\varepsilon \vec{e_i})}{2}\right)\,\frac{\varepsilon^{d-2}}{2} \label{E:Conductance_BaisedRW+}\\
\mu_{x,x-\varepsilon \vec{e_i}} &:=& \left(1+\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{\rho(x)}{\rho(x-\varepsilon \vec{e_i})}\right)\,\left(\frac{\rho(x)+\rho(x-\varepsilon \vec{e_i})}{2}\right)\,\frac{\varepsilon^{d-2}}{2} \label{E:Conductance_BaisedRW-}
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, $\mu_{xy}=\mu_{yx}$ for all $x,y\in D^{\varepsilon}\setminus \partial D^{\varepsilon}$.
Note that since $\rho$ is $C^1$ and strictly positive on $\bar D$, when $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small,
$\mu_{x,x+\varepsilon \vec{e_i}}$ and $\mu_{x,x-\varepsilon \vec{e_i}}$ are strictly positive for every
$x\in D^{\varepsilon}\setminus \partial D^{\varepsilon}$ and $i=1,2,\cdots,d$.
Second, we define
\begin{equation*}
\mu_{xy} :=
\begin{cases}
\mu_{yx}, &\text{ if } x\in \partial D^{\varepsilon},\,y\in D^{\varepsilon}\setminus \partial D^{\varepsilon} \\
\frac{\varepsilon^{d-2}}{2}, &\text{ if } x,y\in \partial D^{\varepsilon} \text{ are adjacent in } D^{\varepsilon}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Now $\mu_{xy}=\mu_{yx}$ for all $x,y\in D^{\varepsilon}$. A heuristic reason of the above construction can be found in \cite{wtF14}.
We call $X^{\varepsilon}$ the $\varepsilon$\textbf{-approximation} of $X$. Clearly, $X^{\varepsilon}$ is symmetric with respect to the measure $m_{\varepsilon}$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
m_{\varepsilon}(x):= \frac{\varepsilon^2}{d}\sum_{y}\mu_{xy}.
\end{equation*}
Since $\rho\in C^{1}(\bar{D})$, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Approximate_m(x)} C^{-1}\leq \inf_{x}\frac{m_{\varepsilon}(x)}{\varepsilon^d}\leq \sup_{x}\frac{m_{\varepsilon}(x)}{\varepsilon^d}\leq C.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, $\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0}\frac{m_{\varepsilon}(x^{\varepsilon})}{\varepsilon^d}= \rho(x)$ whenever $x^{\varepsilon}\in D^{\varepsilon}$ converges to $x\in D$.
A special but important case is when $\rho\equiv 1$. In this case, $X$ is simply the reflected Brownian motion on $D$, and
$X^{\varepsilon}$ is a simple random walk on the graph $D^\varepsilon$. It is proved in \cite{BC08} that $X^\varepsilon$ converges weakly
to the reflected Brownian motion $X$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.
Recall that by Assumption \ref{A:Setting}, we are given $\rho_{\pm}\in W^{(1,2)}(D_{\pm})\cap C^1(\bar{D}_{\pm})$. We denote by $X^{\pm}$ a $(I_{d\times d},\rho_{\pm})$-reflected diffusion in $D_{\pm}$, and by $X^{\varepsilon,\pm}$ the $\varepsilon$-approximation of $X^{\pm}$.
\subsubsection{Random walks with interaction}
Fix $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_j=2^{-j}$ ($j\in \mathbb{N}$) and $N=2^{jd}$ such that $N \varepsilon^d=1$. Assume there are $N$ ``+'' particles in $D^ {\varepsilon}_{+}$ and $N$ ``$-$'' particles in $D^ {\varepsilon}_{-}$ at $t=0$. Each particle moves as an independent CTRW $X^{\varepsilon,\pm}$ (see the previous subsection) in its respective domain $D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$. Let $I^{\varepsilon}$ be the finite subset of $I$ defined in Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}. For each $z\in I^{\varepsilon}$, pick an $z_{+}\in D^{\varepsilon}_{+}$ and an $z_{-} \in D^{\varepsilon}_{-}$ which are closest to $z$ (See Figure \ref{fig:KillingPairsDiscrete}). A pair of particles of opposite charges at $(z_+,z_-)$ is being killed with a certain rate to be explained. Note that for $\varepsilon$ small enough, we have $\sup_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}}|z_{\pm}-z|\leq 2M\varepsilon$, where $M$ is the Lipschitz constant of $I$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\includegraphics[scale=.22]{KillingPairsDiscrete}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{$z\in I^{\varepsilon}\subset I,\;z_{\pm}\in D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$}\label{fig:KillingPairsDiscrete}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The state space of the particle system is the collection of configurations
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.7}
E^{\varepsilon} :=\left\{ \eta^\varepsilon=(\eta^{\varepsilon, +}, \eta^{\varepsilon, -}): \eta^{\varepsilon, \pm } : D^\varepsilon_\pm\to \mathbb{N} \right\} .
\end{equation}
The state of the particle system at time $t$ is a random element $\eta^{\varepsilon}_{t}=(\eta^{\varepsilon,+}_{t},\eta^{\varepsilon,-}_{t}) \in E^{\varepsilon}$. Here $\eta^{\varepsilon,\pm}_t(x)$ stands for the number of $``\pm''$ particles at $x \in D^ {\varepsilon}_{\pm}$ at time $t$. We omit $\varepsilon$ and $N$ for convenience when there is no ambiguity. For example, we write $\eta_t$ and $m(x)$ in place of $\eta^{\varepsilon}_t$ and $m_{\varepsilon}(x)$ respectively. The function
$\xi$ such that $\xi (x)=1$ and $\xi (y)=0$ for $y\neq x$ is denoted as $\1_x$.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{DiscreteModel2.eps}
\caption{A configuration in the discrete model}\label{fig:Configuration_DiscreteModel}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{definition}\label{Def:ConfigurationProcess_eta}
$\eta_{t}$ is defined to be the unique strong Markov process which has the generator $\mathfrak{L}=\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{E:generator0}
\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}:=\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0+\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0$ is the generator of two families of independent random walks in $D^\varepsilon_+$ and $D^\varepsilon_-$, respectively,
with no annihilation between them, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0 f(\eta)
& := & \frac{d}{\varepsilon^2}\,\sum_{x,y \in D^{\varepsilon}_{+}}\eta^+(x)p^+_{xy}\{f(\eta^{+}-\1_x+\1_y,\eta^-)-f(\eta)\} \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{d}{\varepsilon^2}\,\sum_{x,y \in D^{\varepsilon}_{-}} \eta^-(x)p^-_{xy}\{f(\eta^{+},\eta^{-}-\1_x+\1_y)-f(\eta)\} \label{e:2.9}
\end{eqnarray}
and $\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}$ is the operator corresponding to annihilation between particles of opposite signs at the interface $I^\varepsilon$, namely
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.10}
\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon} f(\eta)
:= \dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \, \sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}} \,\Psi_{\varepsilon}(z)\,\eta^+(z_+)\eta^-(z_-)\,\{f(\eta^{+}-\1_{z_+},\eta^{-}-\1_{z_-})-f(\eta)\},
\end{equation}
where $p^{\pm}_{xy}$ is the one-step transition probabilities for the CTRW $X^{\varepsilon,\pm}$
on $D^\varepsilon_\pm$ (without any interaction) and
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.8}
\Psi_{\varepsilon}(z):= \frac{\sigma_{\varepsilon}(z)}{\varepsilon^{d-1}}\,\dfrac{\varepsilon^{2d}}{m(z_+)m(z_-)}
\end{equation}
with $\sigma_{\varepsilon}$ and $I^{\varepsilon}$ being constructed by Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}.
\end{definition}
The expression for $\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}$ comes from the underlying assumptions of the model: First, the term $\eta^+(z_+)\eta^-(z_-)$ is combinatorial in nature. Since there are $\eta^+(z_+)\eta^-(z_-)$ pairs of particles at position $(z_+,z_-)$, the chance of killing is proportional to the number of ways of selecting a pair of particles near the interface. Second, each pair of particles near $I$ disappears at rate $(\lambda/\varepsilon)\,\Psi_{\varepsilon}(z)$ where
$\lambda$ is a parameter. Intuitively, in the limit, the amount of annihilation in a neighborhood of a point is proportional to the surface area of the interface $I$ in that neighborhood. The scaling $1/\varepsilon$ is suggested by the observation that there are about $1/\varepsilon$ "layers" starting from the interface $I$, so that the chance for a particle to arrive near $I$ is of order $\varepsilon$. $\Psi_{\varepsilon}(z)$ is comparable to 1 and can be viewed as a normalizing constant with respect to the lattice. This choice (\ref{e:2.8}) is justified in the proof of Theorem \ref{T:hierarchy}.
\subsection{Discrete heat kernel}
Throughout this subsection, $D$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain in $\R^d$, $\rho\in W^{(1,2)}(D)\cap C^1(\bar{D})$ is strictly positive, $X$ is a $(I_{d\times d},\rho)$-reflected diffusion. It is well known (cf. \cite{BH91, GSC11} and the references therein) that $X$ has a transition density $p(t,x,y)$ with respect to the symmetrizing measure $\rho(x)dx$ (i.e., $\P_x(X_t\in dy)=p(t,x,y)\,\rho(y)dy$ and $p(t,x,y)=p(t,y,x)$), that $p$ is locally H\"older continuous and hence $p\in C((0,\infty)\times \bar{D}\times \bar{D})$, and that we have the followings: there are constants $c_1\geq 1$ and $c_2\geq 1$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:Gaussian2SidedHKE}
\dfrac{1}{c_1 t^{d/2}}\,\exp\left(\frac{-c_2 |y-x|^2}{t}\right)
\leq p(t,x,y) \leq \dfrac{c_1}{t^{d/2}}\,\exp\left(\frac{-|y-x|^2}{c_2\,t}\right)
\end{equation}
for every $(t,x,y)\in(0,\infty)\times \bar{D}\times \bar{D}$. Using (\ref{E:Gaussian2SidedHKE}) and the Lipschitz assumption for the boundary, we can check that
\begin{equation}\label{E:boundary_strip_boundedness}
\sup_{x\in\bar{D}}\,\sup_{0<\delta\leq \delta_0}\,\frac{1}{\delta}\int_{D^{\delta}}p(t,x,y)\,dy \leq \frac{C_1}{t^{1/2}}+C_2
\quad \hbox{for } t>0\quad \text{and hence}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{E:Surface_integral_boundedness}
\sup_{x\in\bar{D}}\,\int_{\partial D}p(t,x,y)\,\sigma(dy) \leq \frac{C_1}{t^{1/2}}+C_2 \quad \hbox{for } t>0,
\end{equation}
where $C_1,\,C_2,\,\delta_0>0$ are constants which depends only on $d$, $D$ and $\rho$.
On other hand, suppose $g\in \mathcal{B}_b( [0,T]\times\partial D)$. Then for $t\in[0,T]$ and $x\in \bar{D}$,
\begin{equation}\label{E:localtime_def}
\E^x\left[\int_0^tg(s,X_s)dL_s\right] = \dfrac{1}{2}\int_0^t\int_{\partial D} g(s,y)p(s,x,y) \sigma(dy)ds.
\end{equation}
Now let $X^{\varepsilon}$ be the $\varepsilon$-approximation of $X$ with symmetrizing measure $m_{\varepsilon}$.
The transition density $p^{\varepsilon}$ of $X^{\varepsilon}$ with respect to the measure $m_\varepsilon$ is
\begin{equation}
p^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) := \dfrac{\P^{x} (X^{\varepsilon}_t=y)}{ m_\varepsilon(y)}, \quad t>0,\, x,\,y\in D^{\varepsilon}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $p^{\varepsilon}$ is strictly positive and is symmetric in $x$ and $y$.
We will prove in Section \ref{S:5} that $p^{\varepsilon}$ enjoys two-sided Gaussian bound and is jointly H\"older continuous
uniform in $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$ for some $\varepsilon_0>0$,
and that $p^{\varepsilon}$ converges to $p$ uniformly on compact subsets of $(0,\infty)\times \bar{D}\times \bar{D}$. In rigorous terms, we have the following three results. The important point is that the constants involved in these results do not depend on $\epsilon$.
\begin{thm}\label{T:UpperHKE}(Gaussian upper bound)
There exist $C_k=C_k(d,D,\rho,T)>0$, $k=1, 2$, and $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0(d,D,\rho,T) \in (0, 1]$ such that for every $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$ and
$x,y \in D^{\varepsilon}$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.14}
p^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \leq \dfrac{C_1}{(\varepsilon\vee t^{1/2})^d}\,\exp\left(- C_2 \frac{|x-y|^2}{t}\right)
\quad \hbox{for } t\in [\varepsilon,T],
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.15}
p^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \leq \dfrac{C_1}{(\varepsilon\vee t^{1/2})^d}\,\exp\left(-C_2 \frac{|x-y|}{ t^{1/2}}\right)
\quad \hbox{for } t\in (0, \varepsilon).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
Observe that \eqref{e:2.14} implies that \eqref{e:2.15} also holds for $t\in [\varepsilon, T]$.
\begin{thm}\label{T:LowerHKE}(Gaussian lower bound)
There exist $C_k=C_k(d,D,\rho,T)>0$, $k=1, 2$, and $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0(d,D,\rho,T) \in (0, 1]$ such that for every $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$ and
$x,y \in D^{\varepsilon}$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.19}
p^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \geq \dfrac{C_1}{(\varepsilon\vee t^{1/2})^d}\,\exp\left(- C_2 \frac{|x-y|^2}{t}\right)
\quad \hbox{for } t\in (0,T].
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{T:HolderCts}(H\"older continuity)
There exist positive constants $\gamma=\gamma (d,D,\rho)$, $\varepsilon_0(d,D,\rho)$ and $C(d,D,\rho)$ such that for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:HolderCts2}
|p^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y)-p^{\varepsilon}(t',x',y')| \leq C\, \dfrac{ (|t-t'|^{1/2}+ |x-x'|+ |y-y'|)^\gamma }
{ (t\wedge t')^{\sigma/2}\,(1 \wedge t\wedge t')^{d/2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{T:LCLT_CTRW}(Local CLT)
$$\lim_{n \to\infty} \sup_{t\in [a,b]} \sup_{x,y \in \bar{D}}\Big|p^{(2^{-n})}(t,x,y)\,-\,p(t,x,y)\Big| =0 $$
for any compact interval $[a,b]\subset (0,\infty)$.
\end{thm}
To establish the tightness of $\{(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})\}$, we need the following uniform estimate for the heat kernel $p^{\varepsilon} (t, x, y)$ of CTRW on $D^\varepsilon$ near the boundary of $D^\varepsilon$. It is the discrete analog of \eqref{E:Surface_integral_boundedness}.
\begin{lem}\label{L:q_near_I}
There exist $C=C(d,D,\rho,T)>0$ and $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0(d,D,\rho)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{x\in D^{\varepsilon}}\,\varepsilon^{d-1}\,\sum_{y\in \partial D^{\varepsilon}}p^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \leq \frac{C}{\varepsilon \vee t^{1/2}}
\end{equation}
for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$. Here $\partial D^{\varepsilon}$ is the graph-boundary of $D^{\varepsilon}$, which is all the vertices in $ D^{\varepsilon}$ with degree less than $2d$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Fix $\theta\in[0,T]$. By the Gaussian upper bound in Theorem \ref{T:UpperHKE}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \sum_{y\in \partial D^{\varepsilon}}p^{\varepsilon}(\theta,x,y) \\
&\leq& \frac{C_1}{(\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2})^d}\,\sum_{y\in \partial D^{\varepsilon}}\exp{\left(\frac{-|y-x|}{\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2}}\right)} \\
&=& \frac{C_1}{(\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2})^d}\,\int_0^{\infty}\,|\{y\in D^{\varepsilon}:\,|f(y)|>r\}|\,dr \quad\text{by setting } f(y)=\1_{\partial D^{\varepsilon}}(y)\,\exp{\left(\frac{-|y-x|}{\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2}}\right)}\\
&=& \frac{C_1}{(\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2})^d}\,\int_0^{1}\,|\{\partial D^{\varepsilon}\cap B(x,\,(\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2})(-\ln r))\}|\,dr \quad (\text{since }f\leq 1)\\
&=& \frac{C_1}{(\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2})^{d+1}}\,\int_0^{\infty}\,|\{\partial D^{\varepsilon}\cap B(x,\,s)\}|\,\exp{\left(\frac{-s}{\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2}}\right)}\,ds
\quad (\text{where }s=(\varepsilon\vee \theta^{1/2})(-\ln r) ) \\
&\leq& \frac{C_1}{(\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2})^d}\,\vee\,\frac{C_2}{\varepsilon^{d-1}(\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2})^{d+1}}\,\int_0^{\infty} s^{d-1}\,\exp{\left(\frac{-s}{\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2}}\right)}\,ds \\
&\leq& \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{d-1}}\,\left(\frac{C_1}{\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2}}\,\vee \,\frac{C_2}{\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2}}\,\int_0^{\infty} w^{d-1}e^{-w}dw \right) \quad
( \text{ where } w= \frac{s}{\varepsilon \vee \theta^{1/2}}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $C_i$ are all constants which depend only on $d$, $D$ and $T$. Note that in the second last line, we used the fact that
$ |\{\partial D^{\varepsilon}\cap B(x,\,s)\}| \leq C((s/\varepsilon)^{d-1}\vee 1) $, which follows from Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}. The proof is now complete.
\end{pf}
In general, we use $"\pm"$ for quantities related to $X^{\pm}$. For example,
$\A^{\pm}$, $(P^{\pm}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $p^{\pm}(t,x,y)$ denote the generator, semigroup and transition density of
the reflected diffusion $X^{\pm}$ in $D_\pm$ with respect to $\rho_{\pm}(x) dx$.
In addition, we use $"\varepsilon"$ for quantities related to the CTRWs in the discrete domains $D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$. For example, $p^{\varepsilon,\pm}(t,x,y)$ denotes the transition density of the CTRW $X^{\varepsilon,\pm}$ on $D^\varepsilon_\pm$ with respect to
the measure $m_{\varepsilon}^{\pm}$. We also denote $p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})):= \prod_{i=1}^{n}p^{\varepsilon}(t,r_i,r_i') \prod_{j=1}^{m}p^{\varepsilon}(t,s_j,s_j')$ for $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_+)^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_-)^m$.
By applying Lemma \ref{L:q_near_I} to $p^{\varepsilon, \pm}(t, x, y)$, then by the boundedness of $\Phi_\varepsilon$ in \eqref{e:2.8}, Theorem \ref{T:LCLT_CTRW}, Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea} and LDCT, we have the following approximation for the local time of $X^{\pm}$ on $I$.
\begin{prop}(Discrete local time)
\begin{equation}\label{E:q_near_I}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\int_0^t \varepsilon^{d-1}\,\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}}p^{\varepsilon,\pm}(\theta,x,z_{\pm})\,\sigma_\varepsilon (z)\,d\theta = \int_0^t\int_{I} p^{\pm}(\theta,x,z)\sigma(dz)\,d\theta.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\subsection{Hydrodynamic limit: system of nonlinear PDEs}
In this subsection, we provide suitable notion of solutions for the coupled PDE (\ref{E:coupledpde:+}) and (\ref{E:coupledpde:-}), and then prove the existence and uniqueness of the solution. Throughout this subsection, $D$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain, $\rho\in W^{(1,2)}(D)\cap C^1(\bar{D})$ is strictly positive, $X$ is a $(I_{d\times d},\rho)$-reflected diffusion, $\{P_t\}$ and $p(t,x,y)$ are the semigroup and the transition density of $X$, with respect to the measure $\rho(x)dx$.
Observe that (\ref{E:coupledpde:+}) is a second order parabolic equation for $u_+$ with Robin boundary condition, and (\ref{E:coupledpde:-}) is a similar equation for $u_-$. This leads us to consider the following Robin boundary problem, where $g\in \mathcal{B}_b([0,\infty)\times \partial D)$.
\begin{align} \label{E:mixedBVP_drift}
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{2}\Delta u +\frac{1}{2}\nabla (\log \rho)\cdot\nabla u & \hbox{for } x\in D ,\, t>0, \\
\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial \vec{n}} = \frac{1}{\rho}\,gu & \hbox{for } x\in \partial D,\, t>0 , \\
u(0,x)=\varphi(x) &\hbox{for } x\in D.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
By It\'o's formula and the Skorokhod representation for $X$, we see that a classical solution of (\ref{E:mixedBVP_drift}), should it exists, has the probabilistic representation
\begin{equation}\label{E:ProbabilisticRep_Robin}
u(t,x):= \E^{x} \left[\varphi(X_t) e^{-\int_0^tg(t-s,X_s)dL_s} \right].
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the boundary local time of $X$.
\begin{definition}\label{Def:Mild_Sol_ProbabilisticRep_Robin}
$u$ defined by (\ref{E:ProbabilisticRep_Robin}) is called a probabilistic solution of (\ref{E:mixedBVP_drift}).
\end{definition}
First we show that the function $u$ defined by \eqref{E:ProbabilisticRep_Robin} is continuous.
\begin{lem}\label{L:properties_u}
Suppose $\varphi\in \mathcal{B}_b(\bar{D})$, $g\in \mathcal{B}^+_b([0,T]\times \partial D)$ and $u$ is defined by (\ref{E:ProbabilisticRep_Robin}). Then $u\in C((0,T]\times \bar{D})$. Moreover, if $\varphi\in C(\bar{D})$, then $u\in C([0,T]\times \bar{D})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Observe that for any $r\in[0,t]$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Robin_continuity}
u(t,x)
&=& \E^{x}\left[\varphi(X_t) e^{-\int_r^t g(t-s,X_s)dL_s}\, e^{-\int_0^r g(t-s,X_s)dL_s}\right] \notag\\
&=& \E^{x}\left[\varphi(X_t) e^{-\int_r^tg(t-s,X_s)dL_s}\right] + \E^{x}\left[\varphi(X_t) e^{-\int_r^tg(t-s,X_s)dL_s} \left( e^{-\int_0^r g(t-s,X_s)dL_s}-1 \right) \right] . \notag\\
\end{eqnarray}
By Markov property, the first term is
$$\E^{x} \left[ \E^{X_r}[\varphi(X_{t-r}) e^{-\int_0^{t-r} g(t-r-s,X_s)dL_s} ] \right] = \E^{x}[u(t-r,X_r)].$$
Since $X$ has the strong Feller property (see \cite{BH91}) and $u$ is bounded, $x\mapsto \E^{x}[u(t-r,X_r)]$ is continuous on $\bar{D}$ for any fixed $t>0$ and $r\in(0,t)$.
The second term of (\ref{E:Robin_continuity}) converges to 0 uniformly on $(0,T]\times \bar{D}$, as $r\to 0$. This is because its absolute value is bounded by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \|\varphi\|_\infty \E^{x}\left[ 1- e^{-\int_0^r g(t-s,X_s)dL_s} \right] \\
&\leq& \|\varphi\|_\infty
\E^{x}\left[\int_0^r g(t-s,X_s) dL_s\right] \quad \text{by mean-value theorem} \\
&\leq& \|\varphi\|_\infty \,\|g\|_\infty \,\frac{1}{2}\,\int_0^r\int_{\partial D}p(s,x,y)\,\sigma(dy)\,ds \\
&\leq& \|\varphi\|_\infty \,\|g\|_\infty \,(2C_1\sqrt{r}+C_2r).
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, $u$ is continuous in $x\in \bar{D}$.
By a similar calculation as in (\ref{E:Robin_continuity}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
u(t+a,x)-u(t,x)
&=&\E^{x}[u(t,X_a)-u(t,x)] \\
&& + \E^{x}\left[\varphi(X_{t+a}) e^{-\int_a^{t+a}g(t+a-s,X_s)dL_s}
\left(e^{-\int_0^a g(t+a-s,X_s)dL_s}-1\right) \right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& |u(t+a,x)-u(t,x)| \\
&\leq& \E^{x}[|u(t,X_a)-u(t,x)|] + \|\varphi\|_{\infty}\,\E^{x}\left[\int_0^a g(t+a-s,X_s)dL_s\right] \quad \text{by mean-value theorem} \\
&\leq& \int_{D}|u(t,z)-u(t,x)|p(a,x,z)\,dz + \|\varphi\|_\infty \,\|g\|_\infty \,\frac{1}{2}\,\int_0^a\,\int_{\partial D}p(s,x,z)\,\sigma(dz)ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Both terms go to 0 uniformly in $x\in \bar{D}$ as $a$ goes to 0. (In fact, the first term goes to 0 uniformly since the semigroup $P_t$ is strongly continuous on $C(\bar{D})$. For the second term, $\int_0^a\,\int_{\partial D}p(s,x,z)\,\sigma(dz)ds \leq 2C_1\sqrt{a}+C_2a$ also goes to 0 uniformly in $x$.) Hence $u$ is continuous in $t\in(0,T]$ uniformly in $x\in \bar{D}$. Therefore, $u\in C((0,T]\times \bar{D})$. If $\varphi\in C(\bar{D})$, we can extend the above argument to show that $u\in C([0,T]\times \bar{D})$.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark}\rm In fact, one can allow $g$ to be unbounded and show that the conclusion of Lemma \ref{L:properties_u} remains true
if $g \sigma $ satisfies a Kato class condition:
$$
\lim_{a\to 0} \sup_{x\in \bar{D}}\int_0^a\,\int_{\partial D}p(s,x,z)\, |g(t+a-s,z)|
\sigma(dz)ds = 0 .
$$
\qed
\end{remark}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:MildSol_RobinPDE}
Suppose $\varphi\in C(\bar{D})$ and $g\in \mathcal{B}^+_b([0,T]\times \partial D)$. Then
$$
u(t,x) := \E^{x} \left[\varphi(X_t) e^{-\int_0^tg(t-s,X_s)dL_s} \right]
$$
is the unique element in $C([0,T]\times \bar{D})$ that satisfies the following integral equation:
\begin{equation}
u(t,x)=P_t\varphi(x)-\dfrac{1}{2}\int_0^t \int_{\partial D}p(t-r,x,y)g(r,y)u(r,y)\,\sigma(dy)\,dr.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
By Lemma \ref{L:properties_u}, $u(t,x) := \E^{x}[\varphi(X_t) e^{-\int_0^tg(t-s,X_s)\,dL_s}]$ lies in $C([0,T]\times \bar{D})$. Moreover, by Markov property and (\ref{E:localtime_def}) we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
u(t,x) &=& \E^{x}[\varphi(X_t)] - \E^{x}[\varphi(X_t)\,(1-e^{-\int_0^t g(t-s,X_s)\,dL_s})] \\
&=& P_t\varphi(x)- \E^x\left[\varphi(X_t)\, e^{-\int_r^t g(t-s,X_s)\,dL_s}\Big|^{r=t}_{r=0} \right] \\
&=& P_t\varphi(x)- \E^x\left[\varphi(X_t)\, \int_0^t g(t-r,X_r)\,e^{-\int_r^t g(t-s,X_s)\,dL_s}\,dL_r \right] \\
&=& P_t\varphi(x)- \E^x\left[\int_0^t g(t-r,X_r)\,\E^{X_r}\left[\varphi(X_{t-r})\,e^{-\int_0^{t-r} g(t-r-s,X_s)dL_s}\right]\,dL_r \right] \\
&=& P_t\varphi(x)- \E^x\left[\int_0^t g(t-r,X_r)\,u(t-r,X_r)\,dL_r \right] \\
&=& P_t\varphi(x)- \dfrac{1}{2}\int_0^t\int_{\partial D}p(r,x,y)g(t-r,y)u(t-r,y)\,\sigma(dy)dr.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence $u$ satisfies the integral equation. It remains to prove uniqueness. Suppose $\tilde{u}\in C([0,T]\times \bar{D})$ also satisfies the integral equation. Then $w=u-\tilde{u}\in C([0,T]\times \bar{D})$ solves
\begin{equation}
w(t,x)=-\dfrac{1}{2}\int_0^t \int_{\partial D}p(t-r,x,y)g(r,y)w(r,y)\,\sigma(dy)dr.
\end{equation}
By a Gronwall type argument and (\ref{E:Surface_integral_boundedness}), we can show that $w=0$. More precisely, let $\psi(s)=\sup_{x\in\bar{D}}|w(s,x)|$. Then
$$0\leq \psi(t)\leq \int_0^t \psi(r)\left(\frac{A}{\sqrt{t-r}}+B\right)\,dr \quad\forall\,t\geq 0.$$
Note that
$$\int_0^t \psi(r)\left(\frac{A}{\sqrt{t-r}}+B\right)\,dr=
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int_0^t \psi(r)\left(2A\sqrt{t-r}+Bt\right)\,dr - \psi(t)Bt.$$
Combining the above two inequalities, we have
$$(1+Bt)\psi(t)\leq \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int_0^t \psi(r)\left(2A\sqrt{t-r}+Bt\right)\,dr. $$
Integrating both sides with respect to $t$ on the interval $[0,t_0]$, we have
$$0\leq \int_0^{t_0} (1+Bt)\psi(t)\,dt \leq \int_0^{t_0} \psi(r)\left(2A\sqrt{t_0-r}+Bt_0\right)\,dr.$$
From this we have $\psi=0$ on $[0,t_0]$, where $t_0>0$ is small enough so that $2A\sqrt{t_0}+Bt_0<1$. Let $\tilde{\psi}(t)=\psi(t+t_0)$, we can show that $$0\leq \tilde{\psi}(t)\leq \int_0^t \tilde{\psi}(r)\left(\frac{A}{\sqrt{t-r}}+B\right)\,dr \;\text{ for all }t\geq 0$$
and repeat the argument to obtain $\tilde{\psi}=0$ on $[0,t_0]$ (i.e. $\psi=0$ on $[0,2t_0]$). Inductively, we obtain $\psi=0$ on $[0,T]$.
\end{pf}
Now we come to our coupled equation.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:MildSol_CoupledPDE}
For $T>0$, consider the Banach space $\Lambda_T=C([0,T]\times\bar{D}_+)\times C([0,T]\times\bar{D}_-)$ with norm $\|(u,v)\|:= \|u\|_{\infty}+\|v\|_{\infty}$. Suppose $u_+(0)=f\in C(\bar{D}_+)$ and $u_-(0)=g\in C(\bar{D}_-)$. Then there is a unique element $(u_+,u_-)\in\Lambda_T$ which satisfies the coupled integral equation
\begin{align}\label{E:IntegralRep_CoupledPDE}
\begin{cases}
u_+(t,x)=P^+_tf(x)-\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_0^t \int_{I}p^+(t-r,x,z)[u_+(r,z)u_-(r,z)]d\sigma(z)\,dr\\
u_-(t,y)=P^-_tg(y)-\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_0^t \int_{I}p^-(t-r,y,z)[u_+(r,z)u_-(r,z)]d\sigma(z)\,dr.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Moreover, $(u_+,u_-)$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{E:ProbabilisticRep_CoupledPDE}
\begin{cases}
u_+(t,x)= \E^{x} \big[f(X^+_t)e^{-\lambda\int^t_0u_-(t-s,X^+_s)dL^+_s}\big]\\
u_-(t,y)= \E^{y}\big[g(X^-_t)e^{-\lambda\int^t_0u_+(t-s,X^-_s)dL^-_s}\big],
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $L^{\pm}$ is the boundary local time of $X^{\pm}$ on the interface $I$.
\end{prop}
Functions $(u_+, u_-)$ satisfying equation \eqref{E:IntegralRep_CoupledPDE}
will be called a weak solution of \eqref{E:coupledpde:+} and \eqref{E:coupledpde:-},
as it can be shown that they are weakly differentiable and solve the equations in the distributional sense.
\medskip
\noindent {\it Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:MildSol_CoupledPDE}}.
Define the operator $S$ on $\Lambda_T$ by
$S(u,v)=(S^+v,S^-u)$, where
$$
S^+v(t,x)=\E^{x}\left[f(X^+_t)e^{-\lambda\int^t_0v(t-s,X^+_s)dL^+_s}\right]
\quad \hbox{for } (t,x)\in [0,T]\times\bar{D}_+ ,
$$
$$S^-u(t,y)=\E^{y} \left[g(X^-_t)e^{-\lambda\int^t_0u(t-s,X^-_s)dL^-_s} \right]
\quad \hbox{for } (t,y)\in [0,T]\times\bar{D}_- .
$$
Lemma \ref{L:properties_u} implies that $S$ maps into $\Lambda_T$. Moreover, for $ (t,x)\in [0,T]\times\bar{D}_+$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
| (S^+v_1-S^+v_2)(t,x) | &=& \left| \E^{x} \left[f(X^+_t)\left(e^{-\lambda\int^t_0v_1(t-s,X_s)dL^+_s}-e^{-\lambda\int^t_0v_2(t-s,X^+_s)dL^+_s}\right) \right] \right| \\
&\leq& \|f\|_{\infty} \E^{x}\left[ \left|\lambda\int^t_0v_1(t-s,X_s)dL^+_s-\lambda\int^t_0v_2(t-s,X^+_s)\,dL^+_s \right| \right] \\
&=& \|f\|_{\infty}\lambda\, \E^{x} \left[\int^t_0|v_1(t-s,X^+_s)-v_2(t-s,X^+_s)|\,\,dL^+_s
\right] \\
&\leq& \lambda|\,\|f\|_{\infty}\,\|v_1-v_2\|_{\infty}\,\E^{x} [L^+_t]\\
&=& \lambda\,\|f\|_{\infty}\, \|v_1-v_2\|_{\infty}\,\frac{1}{2}\int^t_0\int_{I}p^+(s,x,y)\sigma(dy)ds\\
&\leq& C_1\lambda\, \sqrt{T}\|f\|_{\infty} \, \|v_1-v_2\|_{\infty} .
\end{eqnarray*}
A similar result holds for $S^-u_1-S^-u_2$. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|S(u_1,v_1)-S(u_2,v_2)\|_\infty
&=& \|S^+v_1-S^+v_2\|_{\infty} + \|S^-u_1-S^-u_2\|_{\infty} \\
&\leq& C_1\lambda\, \sqrt{T}\|u_0\|_{\infty} \, \|v_1-v_2\|_{\infty} + C_2\lambda\,\sqrt{T}\|v_0\|_{\infty} \, \|u_1-u_2\|_{\infty}\\
&\leq& \gamma \|(u_1,v_1)-(u_2,v_2)\|
\end{eqnarray*}
for some $\gamma<1$ when $T$ is small enough.
Hence there is a $T_0>0$ such that $S:\, \Lambda_{T_0}\rightarrow \Lambda_{T_0}$ is a contraction map. By Banach fixed point theorem, there is a unique element $(u^{\star},v^{\star}) \in \Lambda_{T_0}$ such that $(u^{\star},v^{\star})=S(u^{\star},v^{\star})$. By Proposition \ref{prop:MildSol_RobinPDE}, $(u^{\star},v^{\star})$ is the unique weak solution to the coupled PDE on $[0,T_0]$.
Repeat the above argument, with $u_0(\cdot)$ replaced by $u^{\star}(T_0,\cdot)$, and $v_0(\cdot)$ replaced by $v^{\star}(T_0,\cdot)$. We see that, since $\|u^{\star}(T_0,\cdot)\|_{\infty} \leq \|u_0\|_{\infty}$, $\|v^{\star}(T_0,\cdot)\|_{\infty} \leq \|v_0\|_{\infty}$ and $C_i \, (i=1,2)$ are the same, we can extend the solution of the coupled PDE uniquely to $[T_0,2T_0]$. Iterating the argument, we have for any $T>0$, the coupled PDE has a unique weak solution in $\Lambda_T$. Invoke Proposition \ref{prop:MildSol_RobinPDE} once more, we obtain the desired implicit probabilistic representation (\ref{E:ProbabilisticRep_CoupledPDE}).
Finally, by using Markov property as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:MildSol_RobinPDE}, we see that (\ref{E:ProbabilisticRep_CoupledPDE}) and (\ref{E:IntegralRep_CoupledPDE}) are equivalent. \qed
\subsection{Main results (rigorous statements)}
In this paper, we always assume the scaling $N\varepsilon^d=1$ holds, so that the interacting random walk model is parameterized by a single parameter $N$ which is the initial number of particles in each of $D^{\varepsilon}_+$ and $D^{\varepsilon}_-$.
More precisely, for each fixed $N$, we set $\varepsilon= N^{-1/d}$ and let $(\eta^{\varepsilon}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be a Markov process having generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}$ defined in \eqref{E:generator0} and having initial distribution satisfies $\sum_{x\in D^\varepsilon_+} \eta^{\varepsilon,+}_0(x)= \sum_{y\in D^\varepsilon_-} \eta^{\varepsilon,-}_0(y)=N$. We define the empirical measures
$$
\X^{N,\pm}_t(dz) := \dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{x \in D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}}\eta^{\varepsilon,\pm}_t(x)\1_x(dz).
$$
It is clear that $(\X^{N,+}_t, \X^{N,-}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a continuous time Markov process (inheriting from that of $\eta_t$) with state space
$$\mathfrak{E}:= M_{\leq 1}(\bar{D}_{+}) \times M_{\leq 1}(\bar{D}_{-}),$$ where
$M_{\leq 1}(E)$ denotes the space of non-negative Borel measures on $E$ with mass at most 1. $M_{\leq 1}(E)$ is a closed subset of $M_+(E)$, where the latter denotes the space of finite non-negative Borel measures on $E$ equipped with the following metric:
\begin{equation}\label{E:Metric_MD}
\|\mu-\nu\| := \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \dfrac{1}{2^k}\,\dfrac{|\<\mu,\phi_k\>-\<\nu,\phi_k\>|}{1+|\<\mu,\phi_k\>-\<\nu,\phi_k\>|},
\end{equation}
where $\{\phi_k : k\geq1\}$ is any countable dense subset of $C(E)$. The topology induced by this metric is equivalent to the weak topology (i.e. $\|\mu_n-\mu\|\rightarrow 0$ if and only if $\<\mu_n,\,f\> \rightarrow \<\mu,\,f\>$ for all $f\in C(E)$). Under this metric, $M_+(\bar{D})$ is a complete separable metric space, hence so are $\mathfrak{E}$ and the Skorokhod space $D([0,T], \,\mathfrak{E})$ (see e.g. Theorem 3.5.6 of \cite{EK86}). Here is our first main result.
\begin{thm}\label{T:conjecture} (Hydrodynamic Limit)
Suppose Assumption \ref{A:Setting} holds and the sequence of initial configurations $\eta^\varepsilon_0$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (i)] $\X^{N,\pm}_0 \,{\buildrel \mathcal{L} \over \longrightarrow}\, u^{\pm}_0(z)dz$ in $M_{\leq 1}(\bar{D}_{\pm})$, where $u^{\pm}_0\in C(\bar{D}_{\pm})$. (Note that $\X^{N,\pm}_0$ has unit mass for all $N$.)
\item[\rm (ii)] $\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\sup_{z\in D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}}\E \left[\left(\eta^{\varepsilon, \pm}_0(z)\right)^2\right]<\infty.$
\end{enumerate}
Then for any $T>0$, as $\varepsilon\to 0$ along the sequence $\varepsilon_j=2^{-j}$, we have
$$(\X^{N,+}, \,\X^{N,-})\,{\buildrel \mathcal{L} \over \longrightarrow}\, (\nu^+, \,\nu^-) \in D([0,T], \,\mathfrak{E}),$$
where $(\nu^+,\,\nu^-)$ is the deterministic element in $C([0,T],\,\mathfrak{E})$ such that
$$
(\nu^+_t(dx), \,\nu^-_t(dy))=(u_+(t,x)\,\rho_+(x) dx,\, u_-(t,y) \,\rho_-(y)dy)
$$
for all $t\in [0,T]$, and $(u_{+},u_{-})$ is the unique weak solution of the coupled PDEs (\ref{E:coupledpde:+}) and (\ref{E:coupledpde:-}) with initial value $(u^+_0,\,u^-_0)$.
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{T:conjecture} gives the limiting probability distribution of one particle randomly
picked in $D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}$ at time $t$. This is the $1$-particle distribution in the terminology of statistical physics.
{\bf Question}: What is the limiting joint distribution of more than one particles?
Before stating the answer, we need to introduce a standard tool in the study of stochastic particle systems: the notion of correlation functions\footnote{More precisely, we will be using correlation functions for \emph{unlabeled} particles. We refer the readers to \cite{LX80} for the relation between labeled and unlabeled correlation functions.}. Recall that the state space of $\eta^{\varepsilon}=(\eta^{\varepsilon}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is $E^{\varepsilon}$ defined in \eqref{e:2.7}. We denote by
$$
\Omega^{\varepsilon}_{n,m} := \Big\{\xi=(\xi^{+}, \xi^{-}) \in E^{\varepsilon}: |\xi^{+}|:= \sum_{x}\xi^{+}(x)=n, \ |\xi^{-}|:= \sum_{y}\xi^{-}(y)=m \Big\}
$$
the set of configurations with $n$ and $m$ particles in $D^{\varepsilon}_+$ and $D^{\varepsilon}_-$ respectively. We then define $A: E^{\varepsilon}\times E^{\varepsilon} \rightarrow \R$ in such a way that whenever $\xi\in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{n,m}$,
\begin{equation}\label{Def:A_xi_eta}
A(\xi,\eta) := A^+(\xi^+,\eta^+)A^-(\xi^-,\eta^-) := \prod_{x\in D_+}A_{\xi^+(x)}^{\eta^+(x)} \,\prod_{x\in D_-}A_{\xi^-(x)}^{\eta^-(x)},
\end{equation}
where $n\mapsto A_k^n$ is the Poisson polynomial\footnote{The notation $A_k^n$ is suggested by the fact that $\E[A_k^{\varrho}]=\theta^k$ when $\varrho$ is a Poisson random variable with mean $\theta$.} of order $k$, namely $A_0^n:= 1$ and $A_k^n :=n(n-1)\cdots (n-k+1)$ for $k\geq 1$ (in particular, $A_k^n=0$ for $k>n$).
Note that $A_k^n$ is the number of permutations of $k$ objects chosen from $n$ distinct objects.
So $A(\xi , \eta)$ is the total number of possible site to site pairings between labeled particles
having configuration $\xi$ with a subset of labeled particles having configuration $\eta$.
An alternative representation of (\ref{Def:A_xi_eta}) will be given in (\ref{E:CombinatoricCorrelation}).
\textbf{Convention: }
For $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in (D^\varepsilon_+)^n \times (D^\varepsilon_-)^m$ and $\eta \in \Omega^\varepsilon_{N, M}$, we define
$A((\vec{r},\vec{s}),\,\eta)$ to be $A(\xi, \eta)$ with
$\xi=(\sum_{i}\delta_{r_i}, \sum_{j}\delta_{s_j})$.
\begin{definition}\label{D:2.19}
Let $\P^{\eta}$ is the law of a process with generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}$ and initial distribution $\eta$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.31}
\sum_{x\in D^\varepsilon_+} \eta^{ +} (x) = \sum_{y\in D^\varepsilon_-} \eta^{-} (y)=\varepsilon^{-d}.
\end{equation}
For all $t\geq 0$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.27}
\gamma^{\varepsilon}(\xi,t):= \gamma^{\varepsilon,\,(n,m)}(\xi,t) := \dfrac{\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}\,\E^{\eta}[A(\xi,\eta_t)]
\end{equation}
for all $\xi\in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{n,m}$, where
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.29}
\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi):=m_{\varepsilon}(\vec{r},\vec{s}) := \prod_{i=1}^n m^+_{\varepsilon}(r_i)\,\prod_{j=1}^m m^{-}_{\varepsilon}(s_j).
\end{equation}
when $\xi=(\sum_{i}\delta_{r_i}, \sum_{j}\delta_{s_j})$. By convention, we also have $\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t):=\gamma^{\varepsilon}(\xi,t)$. Note that $\gamma^{\varepsilon}$ depends on the initial configuration of $\eta$.
\end{definition}
Intuitively, suppose we randomly pick $n$ and $m$ living particles in $D_+$ and $D_-$ respectively at time $t$, then $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\mapsto \gamma^{\varepsilon,(n,m)}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),\,t)$ is the joint probability density function for their positions, up to a normalizing constant.
Therefore, it is natural that $\gamma^{\varepsilon,(n,m)}$ defined by \eqref{e:2.27} is called the $(n,m)$-{\bf particle correlation function}.
The next is our second main result, \textbf{propagation of chaos}, for our system.
It says that when the number of particles tends to infinity, they appears to be independent of each other.
Mathematically, the correlation function factors out in the limit $N\to\infty$.
\begin{thm}\label{T:correlation} (Propagation of Chaos)
Under the same condition as in Theorem \ref{T:conjecture}, for all $n,\,m\in \mathbb{N}$ and any compact interval $[a,b]\subset (0,\infty)$,
$$\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} \,\sup_{(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \bar{D}_+^n\times \bar{D}_-^m }\, \sup_{t\in[a,b]} \, \Big|\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)-\prod_{i=1}^{n}u_{+}(t,r_i) \prod_{j=1}^{m}u_{-}(t,s_j)\Big| =0\,,$$
where $(u_{+},u_{-})$ is the weak solution of the coupled PDE.
\end{thm}
To investigate the intensity of killing near the interface, we define $J^{N,\pm} \in D([0,\infty),M_+(\bar{D}_{\pm}))$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{N,+}_t(A) &:=& \varepsilon^{d-1}\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}} \Psi(z)\, \eta^+_t(z_+)\eta^-_t(z_-)\,\1_A (z_+) \quad \hbox{for } A\subset \overline D_+, \label{e:2.34} \\
J^{N,-}_t(B) &:=& \varepsilon^{d-1}\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}} \Psi(z)\, \eta^+_t(z_+)\eta^-_t(z_-)\,\1_B (z_-)
\quad \hbox{for } B\subset \overline D_-. \label{e:2.35}
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, $\<J^{N, +}_t, 1\>=\<J^{N,-}_t, 1\>$, which measures the
number of encounters of the two types of particles near $I$.
An immediately corollary of Theorem \ref{T:correlation} is the following, which is what we need to identify the limit of $(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})$.
\begin{cor} \label{cor:correlation}
For any fixed $t\in(0,\infty)$ and $\phi\in C(\bar{D}_{\pm})$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{N\to\infty}\,\E[\<J^{N,\pm}_t,\phi\>] &=& \frac{1}{2}\,\int_{I}\,u_{+}(t, y)u_{-}(t, y)\,\phi(y)\,\sigma(d y), \\
\lim_{N\to\infty}\,\E[(\<J^{N,\pm}_t,\phi\>)^2]&=& \left( \frac{1}{2}\,\int_{I}\,u_{+}(t,y)u_{-}(t, y)\,\phi(y)\,\sigma(dy)
\right)^2 , \\
\lim_{N\to\infty}\,\E[\<\mathfrak{X}^{\pm,N}_t,\phi\>] &=& \int_{D_{\pm}}u_{\pm}(t, y)\,\phi(y)\,\rho_{\pm}(y)\,dy, \\
\lim_{N\to\infty}\,\E[(\<\mathfrak{X}^{\pm,N}_t,\phi\>)^2] &=& \left(\int_{D_{\pm}}u_{\pm}(t, y)\,\phi(y)\,\rho_{\pm}(y)\,dy\right)^2 .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{cor}
\begin{pf}
We only need to apply Theorem \ref{T:correlation} for the cases $(n,m)=(1,1)$ and $(n,m)=(1,0)$. By definition,
$$\gamma^{\varepsilon}(\1_{r},t)=\frac{\varepsilon^d}{m^+(r)}\,\E^{\eta}[\eta^+_t(r)] \quad \text{and} \quad \gamma^{\varepsilon}(\1_{r}+\1_{s},t)=\frac{\varepsilon^{2d}}{m^+(r)m^-(s)}\,\E^{\eta}[\eta^+_t(r)\eta^-_t(s)].$$
Using (\ref{E:Approximate_m(x)}) and Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}, we get the first two equations via Theorem \ref{T:correlation}. Using (\ref{E:Approximate_m(x)}) and the assumption that $\rho_{\pm}\in C(\bar{D}_{\pm})$, we have the last two equations again by
Theorem \ref{T:correlation}.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark} \rm (Conditions on $\eta_0$)
The two conditions for the initial configuration $\eta_0$ in Theorem \ref{T:conjecture} are mild and natural. They are satisfied, for example, when each particle has the same random initial distribution $\frac{u^{\pm}_0(z)}{\sum_{D_{\pm}}u^{\pm}_0}$. Condition (ii) guarantees that, asymptotically, there is no "blow up" of number of particles at any site. More precisely, this technical condition is imposed so that we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:Jump_SecondMoment}
\sup_{t\geq 0} \E \left[\<1,\,J^{N, +}_t\>^2\right] \leq C<\infty \quad \text{for sufficiently large }N.
\end{equation}
The above can be easily checked by comparing with the process $\bar{\eta}$ that has no annihilation (i.e. $\bar{\eta}$ has generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0$). Alternatively, we can use the comparison result (\ref{E:comparison_correlation}) to prove (\ref{E:Jump_SecondMoment}). \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{Rk:GeneralizationResults} \rm
(Generalization) We can generalize our results in a number of ways by the same argument. For example, the initial number of particles in $D_+$ and $D_-$ can be different, the condition $N\varepsilon^d=1$ can be relaxed to $\lim_{N\to \infty}N\varepsilon^d\to 1$ where $\varepsilon$ depends on $N$. The annihilation constant $\lambda$ can be replaced by a space and time dependent function $\lambda(t,x)\in C([0,\infty)\times I)$. The diffusion coefficients in $D_{+}$ and $D_{-}$ can be different. The condition ``$\X^{N,\pm}_0$ has mass one for all $N$'' can be replaced by ``the mass of $\X^{N,\pm}_0$ is uniformly bounded in $N$''. More generally, the same method can be extended to deal with similar models with more than two types of particles. \qed
\end{remark}
The remaining part of this paper is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{T:conjecture} and Theorem \ref{T:correlation}. We first prove Theorem \ref{T:correlation} because the proof of Theorem \ref{T:conjecture} relies on Theorem \ref{T:correlation}.
\section{Propagation of Chaos}
\subsection{Duality}
The starting point of our analysis is the discrete integral equation for $\gamma^{\varepsilon}$ in Lemma \ref{L:correlation_NotSelfDual}. At the heart of its proof is the dual relation in Lemma \ref{L:Duality}, which says that the two independent processes $\xi^{0}=(\xi^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $\eta^{0}=(\eta^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ of independent ransom walks \emph{with no interaction} are dual to each other with respect to the function $\frac{A(\xi,\eta)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}$, where $\xi,\,\eta \in E^{\varepsilon}$. Such kind of dual formula for the whole grid $\Z^d$ appeared in \cite{BDPP87} and in Chapter 15 of \cite{mfChen03}.
\begin{comment}
Recall that our underlying CTRWs $X^{\varepsilon,\pm}$ are symmetric with respect to the measure $m_\varepsilon^\pm$. However, to appreciate how symmetry comes into play, we will formulate and prove the following result in the more general case where $X^{\varepsilon,\pm}$ are not necessarily symmetric. We merely assume that $X^{\varepsilon,\pm}$ has an adjoint process with respect to $m$.
\end{comment}
\begin{lem}\label{L:Duality}(Duality for independent processes)
Let $\xi^{0}=(\xi^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $\eta^{0}=(\eta^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be independent continuous time Markov processes on $E^{\varepsilon}$ with generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0$ defined in Definition \ref{Def:ConfigurationProcess_eta}. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:Duality}
\E\left[\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{t},\eta^{0}_0)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{t})}\right]=\E\left[\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{0},\eta^{0}_t)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{0})}\right]\quad \text{for every }t\geq 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Assume $\xi^0_0\in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{n,m}$ and $\eta^0_0\in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{N,M}$. Then we have $\xi^0_t\in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{n,m}$ and $\eta^0_t\in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{N,M}$ for all $t\geq 0$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $N\geq n\geq 1$ and $M\geq m\geq 1$ as otherwise both sides inside expectations of (\ref{E:Duality}) are zero by the definition of $A(\xi,\eta)$.
Denote $U$ the map that sends $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m$ to $(\sum_{i}\delta_{r_i},\,\sum_{j}\delta_{s_j})\in\Omega^{\varepsilon}_{n,m}$ for any $(n,m)$. We first focus on $D_+$ in Step 1 and Step 2 below.
\textbf{Step 1. } For any $\vec{r}\in (D^{\varepsilon}_+)^n$ and $\eta^+ \in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{N,0}$, fix some $\vec{x}^+=(x^+_1, \dots, x^+_N)\in U^{-1} (\eta^+)$.
Then by the definition \eqref{Def:A_xi_eta} of $A$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Correlation_equivalentDef}
A^{+}(\vec{r},\eta^+)= \sharp\, \left\{ \vec{i}:
\vec{x}^{+}_{\vec{i}}=\vec{r} \right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $n$-tuples $\vec{i}:=(i_1,\cdots,\,i_n)$ consist of distinct positive integers in the set $\{1,\,2,\,\cdots,\,N\}$, $\vec{x}^{+}_{\vec{i}}:=(x^+_{i_i},\cdots,\,x^+_{i_n})$ and $\sharp S$ denotes the number of elements in the finite set $S$.
\textbf{Step 2. }
Denote by $\P^{\eta^+}_0$ the law of the \emph{unlabeled} process $(\eta^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ starting from $\eta^+ \in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{N,0}$ and has generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0$.
Let $\vec{x}^+=(x^+_{1},\cdots,\,x^+_{N})\in U^{-1}(\eta^+)$,
and $\vec{X}^{+,\varepsilon}_t:=(X^{+,\varepsilon}_1(t),\,\cdots,\,X^{+,\varepsilon}_N (t))$ be
independent CTRWs in $D^\varepsilon_+$ starting from $\vec{x}$,
whose law will be denoted as $\P^{\vec{x}^+}$.
Then by (\ref{E:Correlation_equivalentDef}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Duality_2}
\E^{\eta^+}_0[A(\vec{r},\,\eta^{0}_t)]
= \E[\,\sharp\, \{ \hbox{$n$-tuples } \vec{i}:
\, \vec{X}^{+, \varepsilon}_{\vec{i}}(t)=\vec{r}\}\,]
= \sum_{\vec{i}: \hbox{ $n$-tuples}}
\P^{\vec{x}^+_{\vec{i}}} (\vec{X}^{+,\varepsilon}_{\vec{i}} (t)= \vec{r}).
\end{eqnarray}
where $\P^{\vec{x}^+_{\vec{i}}}$ is the law of $\{ \vec{X}^{+,\varepsilon}_{\vec{i}} (t); t\geq 0\}$.
Denote by $p^\varepsilon (\theta, \vec{z}. \vec{w})$ the transition density of $n$ independent
CTRWs in $D^\varepsilon_+$. By Chapman-Kolmogorov equation, we have for any $\theta\in[0,t]$,
$$\P^{\vec{x}^+_{\vec{i}}}\,( \vec{X}^{+,\varepsilon}(t)= \vec{r}\,)
=\sum_{\vec{z}\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n}p^{\varepsilon}(\theta,\vec{x}^+_{\vec{i}},\vec{z})p^{\varepsilon}(t-\theta,\vec{z},\vec{r})\,m(\vec{z})\,m(\vec{r}).$$
Putting this into (\ref{E:Duality_2}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Duality_3}
\E^{\eta^+}_0[A(\vec{r},\,\eta^{0}_t)] &=&
m_\varepsilon (\vec{r})\,\sum_{\vec{z}}\sum_{\vec{i}}\P^{\vec{x}^{+,\varepsilon}_{\vec{i}}}\,
(\vec{X}^{+}_{\vec{i}}(\theta)= \vec{z}\,) \,p^{\varepsilon}(t-\theta,\vec{z},\vec{r}) \nonumber \\
&=& m_\varepsilon (\vec{r})\,\sum_{\vec{z}}\E^{\eta^+}_0[A(\vec{z},\,\eta^{0}_{\theta})]\,
p^{\varepsilon}(t-\theta,\vec{z},\vec{r})\quad\text{by }(\ref{E:Duality_2})\text{ again}
\nonumber \\
&=& m_\varepsilon (\vec{r})\,\sum_{\vec{z}}\E^{\eta^+}_0[A(\vec{z},\,\eta^{0}_{\theta})]\,
p^{\varepsilon}(t-\theta,\vec{r},\vec{z})\quad\text{by symmetry of }p^{\varepsilon} \nonumber \\
&=& m_\varepsilon (\vec{r})\,\E\,\left[\dfrac{A(\vec{Y}^{+,\varepsilon}_{t-\theta} ,\eta^{0}_{\theta})}{m_\varepsilon (\vec{Y}^{+,\varepsilon}_{t-\theta})}\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\E$ is the expectation corresponding the probability measure under which each coordinate processes of $\{\vec{Y}^{+,\varepsilon}_t; t\geq 0\}$ are independent CTRWs with $\vec{Y}^{+,\varepsilon}_0=\vec{r}$ and
are independent of $(\eta^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$.
\textbf{Step 3. }Now we work on $D_+\times D_-$. For any $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m$ and $\eta=(\eta^+,\eta^-)\in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{N,M}$, take $\vec{x}= (x^+_{1},\cdots,\,x^+_{N},\,x^-_{1},\cdots,\,x^-_{M})\in U^{-1}(\eta)$.
As in step 1, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:CombinatoricCorrelation}
A^{+}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),\,\eta ) =
\sharp\, \left\{ (\vec{i}, \vec{j}): ( \vec{x}^{+}_{\vec{j}}, \vec{x}^{-}_{\vec{j}})=(\vec{r},\vec{s}) \right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{i}$ runs over all $n$-tuples $\vec{i}:=(i_1,\cdots,\,i_n)$ consisting of distinct positive integers in the set $\{1,\,2,\,\cdots,\,N\}$, and $\vec{j}$ over all $m$-tuples $\vec{j}:=(j_1,\cdots,\,j_m)$ consisting of distinct positive integers in the set $\{1,\,2,\,\cdots,\,M\}$.
Denote by $\P^{\eta}_0$ the law of the \emph{unlabeled} process $(\eta^{0}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ starting from $\eta \in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{N,M}$ and has generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0$. Since all processes on $D^{\varepsilon}_+$ are independent of those on $D^{\varepsilon}_-$, we can proceed as in step 2 (via (\ref{E:CombinatoricCorrelation})) to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{e:3.7}
\E^{\eta}_0[A((\vec{r},\vec{s}),\,\eta^{0}_t)]= m_\varepsilon (\vec{r},\vec{s})\,\E\,\left[\dfrac{A(\vec{Y}^{\varepsilon}_{t-\theta},\eta^{0}_{\theta})}{m_\varepsilon(\vec{Y}^{\varepsilon}_{t-\theta})}\right]
\quad \hbox{for } \theta\in[0,t],
\end{equation}
where $\vec{Y}^{\varepsilon}:=(Y^{+,\varepsilon}_1,\,\cdots,\,Y^{+,\varepsilon}_n,\,Y^{-,\varepsilon}_1,\,\cdots,\,Y^{-,\varepsilon}_m)$ is independent of $\eta^0$ with $\vec{Y}^{\varepsilon}_0=(\vec{r}, \vec{s})$,
and its components are mutually independent CTRWs on $D^\varepsilon_\pm$, respectively.
The proof is now complete by taking $\theta=0$.
\end{pf}
We now formulate the discrete integral equations that we need. Recall the definition of $\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}$ from \eqref{e:2.10} and the definition of
$\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)$
from \eqref{e:2.27}.
\begin{lem}\label{L:correlation_NotSelfDual}(Discrete integral equation for $\gamma^{\varepsilon}$)
For any $\varepsilon>0$, $t>0$, $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_+)^n\times (D^{\varepsilon}_-)^m$, non-negative integers $n,\,m$ and initial distribution $\eta_0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)
&=& \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\, \gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),0)\, p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,m(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}) \nonumber \\
&& \quad + \int_0^t \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}), (\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,\E[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_s)]\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\,ds, \label{e:3.7}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}$ acts on the $\eta$-variable of $A((\vec{r},\vec{s}),\eta)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Starting from (\ref{E:Duality}), we can obtain Lemma \ref{L:correlation_NotSelfDual} by `integration by parts' as follows.
Let $\P_{(\xi^0)}$ and $\P_{(\eta^0)}$ be the laws of $\xi^0$ and $\eta^0$ respectively. (\ref{E:Duality}) is equivalent to saying that for any $\xi$ and $\eta$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:correlation_NotSelfDual_1}
\E_{(\xi^0)}\left[\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{w},\eta)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{w})}\Big|\,\xi^0_0=\xi \right]=
\E_{(\eta^0)}\left[\dfrac{A(\xi,\eta^{0}_w)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}\Big|\,\eta^0_0=\eta\right]\quad \text{for every }w\geq 0.
\end{equation}
Taking $w=t-s$, we see that (\ref{E:correlation_NotSelfDual_1}) is in turn equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{E:correlation_NotSelfDual_2}
F^{(\xi)}_s(\eta):= P^{(\xi^0)}_{t-s}\left( \dfrac{A(\cdot,\eta)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\cdot)}\right)(\xi)
=P^{(\eta^0)}_{t-s}\left( \dfrac{A(\xi,\cdot)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}\right)(\eta)=: G^{(\eta)}_s(\xi)
\quad \text{for every }s\in[0,t] \text{ and }t\geq 0,
\end{equation}
where $P^{(\xi^0)}_{t}$ and $P^{(\eta^0)}_{t}$ are the transition semigroup of $\xi^0$ and $\eta^0$, respectively, and they act on the $\xi$ and $\eta$ variables in $\frac{A(\xi,\eta)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}$, respectively. Therefore, with $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0$ acting on the $\eta$ variable, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:3.9}
\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\,F^{(\xi)}_s(\eta) = \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\,G^{(\eta)}_s(\xi)
= -\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0\,P^{(\eta^0)}_{t-s}\left( \dfrac{A(\xi,\cdot)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}\right)(\eta)
= -\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0\,F^{(\xi)}_s(\eta) .
\end{equation}
Recall that $\eta_t$ is the configuration process of our interacting system with generator $\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0+ \mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}$ (see Definition \ref{Def:ConfigurationProcess_eta}). Fix $\xi$ and consider the function $(s,\eta)\mapsto F_s(\eta):=F^{(\xi)}_s(\eta)$. We have
$$M_s:= F_s(\eta_s)-F_0(\eta_0)-\int_0^s \left(\frac{\partial F_r}{\partial r}+\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0F_r+ \mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}F_r\right)(\eta_r)\,dr$$
is a $\F^{\eta}_s$-martingale for $s\in[0,t]$. By
\eqref{e:3.9}
and the fact that $E^{\eta}[M_t]=E^{\eta}[M_0]=0$, where $\P^{\eta}$ is the law of $(\eta_t)_{t\geq 0}$ starting from $\eta$, we have
\begin{equation*}
0= \E^{\eta}\left[\dfrac{A(\xi,\eta_t)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}\right]
- P^{(\xi^0)}_{t}\left( \dfrac{A(\cdot,\eta)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\cdot)}\right)(\xi)
- \int_0^t\E^{\eta}\left[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}\,
P^{(\xi^0)}_{t-r}\left( \dfrac{A(\cdot,\eta_r)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\cdot)}\right)(\xi)
\right] \, dr
\end{equation*}
for all $\xi$ and $\eta$. This is equivalent to the stated equation in the lemma.
\begin{comment}
(Wrong proof! Beware that Time Reversal of a process is not even a Markov process in general!)
Starting from (\ref{E:Duality}), we can obtain Lemma \ref{L:correlation_NotSelfDual} by `integration by parts' as follows. From (\ref{E:Duality}), we can deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{E:Duality_1}
\E\left[L_1\,\dfrac{A(\cdot,\eta^{0}_s)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\cdot)}(\xi^{0}_{t-s}) + \mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0\,\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{t-s},\cdot)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{t-s})}(\eta^{0}_s)\right]=0
\end{equation}
for any $s\in[0,t]$ and any initial configurations for $\xi^0$ and $\eta^0$, where $L_1$ is the generator of $\{\xi^{0}_{t-s}\}_{s\in[0,t]}$ (hence $L_1=\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0$). Recall that $\eta_t$ is the configuration process of our interacting system in Definition \ref{Def:ConfigurationProcess_eta}. For any $t>0$ and $s\in(0,t)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \dfrac{d}{ds}\E\left[\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{t-s},\eta_s)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{t-s})}\right] \\
&=& \E\left[\mathcal{L}\,\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{t-s},\eta_s)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{t-s})}\right]\text{ where } \mathcal{L} \text{ is the generator of the product process } \{(\xi^{0}_{t-s},\eta_s)\}_{s\in[0,t]} \\
&=& \E\left[L_1\,\dfrac{A(\cdot,\eta_s)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\cdot)}(\xi^{0}_{t-s}) + \mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}\,\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{t-s},\cdot)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{t-s})}(\eta_s)\right]
\text{ where } \mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}=\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}_0+\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon} \text{ is the generator of } \eta_t\\
&=& \E\left[\dfrac{\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}\,A(\xi^{0}_{t-s},\cdot)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{t-s})}(\eta_s)\right] \quad \text{by (\ref{E:Duality_1}) }
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, with $\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}$ acting on $\eta$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\E\left[\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{0},\eta_t)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{0})}\right] = \E\left[\dfrac{A(\xi^{0}_{t},\eta_0)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{t})}\right] + \int_0^t\E\left[\dfrac{\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A(\xi^{0}_{t-s},\eta_s)}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}(\xi^{0}_{t-s})}\right] \, ds
\end{equation*}
for all possible value for $\xi^{0}_0$. This is equivalent to the stated equation in the lemma.
\textbf{Method 2 (using a martingale): } Consider, for $s\in[0,t]$, $$F^{(\xi)}_s(\eta):= P^{(\xi)}_{t-s}\left( \frac{1}{m_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}\,A(\xi,\eta) \right)(\xi) := \sum_{\xi'}Q^{\varepsilon}_{t-s}(\xi\to\xi')\,\dfrac{1}{m_{\varepsilon}(\xi')}\,A(\xi',\eta)$$
and the following $\F^{\eta}_s$-martingale for $s\in[0,t]$:
$$F_s(\eta_s)-F_0(\eta_0)-\int_0^s \left(\frac{\partial F_r}{\partial r}+L^{\varepsilon}_0F_r+ \mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}F_r\right)(\eta_r)\,dr$$
The key is that (\ref{E:Duality}), or equivalently (\ref{E:Duality_1}), implies $\frac{\partial F_r}{\partial r}+L^{\varepsilon}_0F_r=0$. Hence we obtain the Lemma by taking expectations of the martingale at $s=0$ and $s=t$.
\end{comment}
\end{pf}
It is clear that $\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A(\xi,\eta) \leq 0$. Hence, as an immediate consequence of Lemma \ref{L:correlation_NotSelfDual}, we have the following comparison result:
\begin{equation}\label{E:comparison_correlation}
\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t) \leq \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\, \gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),0)\, p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,m(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})
\end{equation}
for all $t>0$ and $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n\times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m$.
\subsection{Annihilation near the interface}
For any $\xi=(\xi^+,\xi^-)\in E^{\varepsilon}$, we let
$\xi^{+}_{(x)}=\xi^{+}(x)\1_{x}$, the element that has only $\xi^{+}(x)$ number of particles at $x$, and none elsewhere. Similarly, we denote $\xi^{-}(y)\1_{y}$ by $\xi^{-}_{(y)}$. Set $\xi_{(x,y)}=(\,\xi^{+}(x)\1_{x} , \xi^{-}(y)\1_{y}\,)$, the element that has only $\xi^{+}(x)$ number of particles at $x$, $\xi^{-}(y)$ number of particles at $y$, and none elsewhere.
\begin{lem} \label{L:correlation_NotSelfDualk}
Let $\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}$ be the operator defined in \eqref{e:2.10} and acts on the $\eta$-variable of $A(\xi, \eta)$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{E:correlationk}
\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A(\xi,\eta)=\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}}A(\xi-\xi_{(z_+,z_-)},\,\eta)\cdot\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A(\xi_{(z_+,z_-)},\eta) .
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $\xi\in \Xi:= \{\xi:\;\xi^{\pm}(z_{\pm})\leq 1
\hbox{ for every } z\in I^{\varepsilon}\}$, then
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A(\xi,\eta)
&=& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \, \sum_{\substack {z\in I^{\varepsilon}: \, \xi^{+}(z_+)=1}} \,\Psi_\varepsilon (z)\,A(\xi+\1_{(0, z_-)},\eta) \label{E:KA(xi,eta)_1}\\
&& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \, \sum_{\substack {z\in I^{\varepsilon}: \, \xi^{-}(z_-)=1}} \,\Psi_\varepsilon (z)\,A(\xi+\1_{(z_+, 0)},\eta) \label{E:KA(xi,eta)_2}\\
&& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \, \sum_{\substack {z\in I^{\varepsilon}: \, \xi(z_+,z_-)=(1,1)}} \,\Psi_\varepsilon (z)\,A(\xi,\eta) . \label{E:KA(xi,eta)_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Observe that $A(\xi-\xi_{(x,y)},\eta)\,A(\xi_{(x,y)},\eta)=A(\xi,\eta)$. Consequently
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \Psi_\varepsilon (z) \eta^+(z_+) \eta^-(z_- )
\left( A(\xi,\,\eta-\1_{(z_+,z_-)})-A(\xi,\eta) \right) \\
&=& \frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \Psi_\varepsilon (z) \eta^+(z_+) \eta^-(z_- )
A(\xi-\xi_{(z_+,z_-)},\eta) \left( A(\xi_{(z_+,z_-)},\eta-\1_{(z_+,z_-)})-A(\xi_{(z_+,z_-)},\eta)\right) \\
&=& A(\xi-\xi_{(z_+,z_-)},\eta) \mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A(\xi_{(z_+,z_-)},\eta).
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus \eqref{E:correlationk} holds. On other hand,
$$
\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A(\xi_{(z_+,z_-)},\eta)
=\Psi_\varepsilon (z)\,\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\,\eta^{+}(z_+)\eta^{-}(z_-) \times
\begin{cases}
-1, &\text{if } \xi(z_+,z_-)=(1,0) \text{ or } (0,1) \\
1-\eta^{+}(z_+)-\eta^{-}(z_-), &\text{if } \xi(z_+,z_-)=(1,1)
\end{cases}.
$$
Observe also that for $x\in D^\varepsilon_+$ and $y\in D^\varepsilon_-$,
$$
A \left(\xi-\xi_{(x,y)}, \,\eta\right)\,\eta^{+}(x)\eta^{-}(y)=A \left(\xi-\xi_{(x,y)}+ \1_{(x, y)}, \,\eta \right)
$$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& A(\xi-\xi_{(x,y)})\,\eta^{+}(x)^2 \, \eta^{-}(y)\\
&=& A \left(\xi-\xi_{(x,y)}, \eta \right)\, \left( \eta^{+}(x)^2-\eta^{+}(x)+\eta^{+}(x) \right)\,\eta^{-}(y)\\
&=& A(\xi-\xi_{(x,y)}, \eta )\, A (2\1_x, \eta^+ ) \,\eta^{-}(y) +A(\xi-\xi_{(x,y)}, \eta )\, \eta^{+}(x) \,\eta^{-}(y)\\
&=& A( \xi -\xi_{(x, y)}+2\1_{(x, 0)}+\1_{(0,y)}, \eta) + A(\xi, \eta ).
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly,
$$
A(\xi-\xi_{(x,y)}, \eta)\,\eta^{+}(x)\eta^{-}(y)^2 =
A( \xi -\xi_{(x, y)}+\1_{(x, 0)}+2 \1_{(0,y)}, \eta) + A(\xi, \eta ).
$$
From the above calculations and (\ref{E:correlationk}), we see that for $\xi \in \Xi$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A(\xi,\eta)
&=& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \, \sum_{\substack {z\in I^{\varepsilon}: \, \xi(z_+,z_-)=(1,0)}} \,\Psi_\varepsilon (z)\,A(\xi +\1_{(0, z_-)}, \, \eta) \\
&& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \, \sum_{\substack {z\in I^{\varepsilon}: \, \xi(z_+,z_-)=(0,1)}} \,\Psi_\varepsilon (z)\,A(\xi +\1_{(z_+, 0)}, \, \eta) \\
&& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \, \sum_{\substack {z\in I^{\varepsilon}: \, \xi(z_+,z_-)=(1,1)}} \,\Psi_\varepsilon (z)
\left( A(\xi,\eta)+A(\xi+\1_{(0, z_-)},\eta)
+A(\xi + \1_{(z_+, 0)}, \eta)\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives the desired formula.
\end{pf}
\subsection{Uniform bound and equi-continuity}
We extend to define $\gamma^{\varepsilon,(n,m)}(\cdot,t)$ continuously on $\bar{D}_{+}^n \times \bar{D}_{-}^m$ while preserving the supremum and the infinmum in each small $\varepsilon$-cube. We can accomplish this by the interpolation described in \cite{BK08} or \cite{SZ97}, or by a sequence of harmonic extensions along simplexes with increasing dimensions (described in \cite{wtF14}).
Recall that the definition of $\gamma^{\varepsilon,(n,m)}(\cdot,t)$ depends on the initial configuration
$\eta_0$ of the interacting random walks (see Definition \ref{D:2.19}), which has the normalization \eqref{e:2.31}.
\begin{thm}\label{T:equicts}
There exists $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that for any $(n,m)\in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}$, the family of functions $\{\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)\}_{\varepsilon \in(0,\varepsilon_0)}$ is uniformly bounded and equi-continuous on $\bar{D}_{+}^n \times \bar{D}_{-}^m \times (0,\infty)$, which is uniform in the initial configuration $\eta_0$ that satisfies \eqref{e:2.31}.
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
We first prove uniform boundedness. By (\ref{E:comparison_correlation}) and the Gaussian upper bound in Theorem \ref{T:UpperHKE}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t) &\leq& \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\, \gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),0)\, p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,m(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})\\
&\leq& \left(\frac{C}{t^{d/2}}\right)^{n+m}\, \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}) \in \bar{D}^n_+\times \bar{D}^m_-}\,
A \left( (\vec{r'},\vec{s'}), \eta_0\right)\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)} \quad\text{whenever } \varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the initial distribution $\eta_0=(\eta^+_0,\eta^-_0)$ has the property
that $\sum_{x\in D^\varepsilon_+} \eta^+_0 (x)= \sum_{y\in D^\varepsilon_-} \eta^-_0 (y)=
\varepsilon^{-d}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:UniformBound_eta0}
&& \sum_{(\vec{r},\vec{s}) \in \bar{D}^n_+\times \bar{D}^m_-}A((\vec{r},\vec{s}),\eta_0)\varepsilon^{d(n+m)} \nonumber \\
&=& \left(\sum_{\vec{r}\in \bar{D}^n_+}A^+(\vec{r},\eta^+_0)\right)\left(\sum_{\vec{s}\in \bar{D}^m_-}A^-(\vec{s},\eta^-_0)\right)\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)} \notag\\
&\leq& \left(\sum_{\vec{r}\in \bar{D}^n_+}\prod_{i=1}^n\eta^+_0 (r_i)\right)\left(\sum_{\vec{s}\in
\bar{D}^m_-}\prod_{j=1}^m\eta_0^-(s_j)\right)\varepsilon^{d(n+m)} \quad\text{ since } A_k^n\leq n^k \notag\\
&\leq & \prod_{i=1}^n\left(\sum_{r_i \in \bar{D}_+}\eta_0^+ (r_i)\varepsilon^d\right)\,\prod_{j=1}^m\left(\sum_{s_j \in \bar{D}_-}\eta_0^-(s_j)\varepsilon^d\right)=1 .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus there exist $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0(d,D,\rho)$ and $C=C(d,D,\rho)>0$ such that for all $t\in(0,\infty)$, $(n,m)\in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}$ and $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$,
\begin{equation}\label{E:uniformbound}
\sup_{\varepsilon\in (0,\varepsilon_0)}\sup_{\xi\in \Omega^{\varepsilon}_{n,m}} \gamma^{\varepsilon}(\xi,t) \leq \left(\frac{C}{t^{d/2}}\right)^{n+m} .
\end{equation}
We next show that both terms on the right hand side of \eqref{e:3.7} are equi-continuous. Recall that we can rewrite the equation
\eqref{e:3.7} as
\begin{equation*}
\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)= F^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)+G^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t) ,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
F^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t) &:=& \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\, \gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),0)\, p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,m(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}), \\
G^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t) &:=& \int_0^t \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}), (\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,\E[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_s)]\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\,ds .
\end{eqnarray*}
Now let $(\vec{r},\vec{s})$, $(\vec{p},\vec{q})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m$ and $0<t<\ell\leq \infty$.
For the first term,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \Big|F^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t) - F^{\varepsilon}((\vec{p},\vec{q}),\ell)\Big| \\
&=& \Big|\sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\left(p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))-p^{\varepsilon}(\ell,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\right)
\,\E[A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_0)]\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\Big|\\
&\leq& \left(\sup_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\big|p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))-p^{\varepsilon}(\ell,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\big|
\right)\E_0\left[\sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_0)\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\right]\\
&\leq& \sup_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\big|p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))-p^{\varepsilon}(\ell,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\big| ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used (\ref{E:UniformBound_eta0}) in the last line. By the uniform H\"older continuity of $p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))$ (see Theorem \ref{T:HolderCts} below) and the fact that $p^{\pm}(t,x,y)\in C((0,\infty)\times \bar{D}_{\pm}\times\bar{D}_{\pm})$, we see that $\{F^{\varepsilon}\}$ is equi-continuous at $((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)$.
For the second term, note that
\begin{equation}\label{E:equicts_G}
G^{\varepsilon}((\vec{p},\vec{q}),\ell)- G^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t) = \int_{t}^{\ell}H^{(1)}(s)\,ds + \int_0^{t}H^{(2)}(s)\,ds ,
\end{equation}
where $$H^{(1)}(s) := \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,p^{\varepsilon}(\ell-s,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,\E[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_s)]\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\text{ and }$$
$$H^{(2)}(s) := \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,\left[p^{\varepsilon}(\ell-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})) -
p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\right]\,\E[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_s)]\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)} .
$$
In the remaining, we will show that $G^{\varepsilon}$ is equi-continuous. We first deal with $H^{(1)}$ in (\ref{E:equicts_G}).
As in (\ref{E:UniformBound_eta0}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:equicts_G_1}
&&\sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_{\theta_2})\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\\
&\leq& \prod_{i=1}^n\left(\sum_{r_i'}p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,p_i,r_i')\eta^+_{\theta_2}(r_i')\varepsilon^d\right)\,
\prod_{j=1}^m\left(\sum_{s_j'}p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,q_j,s_j')\eta^-_{\theta_2}(s_j')\varepsilon^d\right). \notag
\end{eqnarray}
On other hand, using (\ref{E:comparison_correlation}), the Chapman Kolmogorov equation and assumption (ii) for $\eta_0$, in this order, we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:equicts_G_2}
\sup_{\theta_1,\,\theta_2>0}\;\sup_{a\in D^{\varepsilon}_+}\,\E\left[\left(\sum_{x\in D^{\varepsilon}_+}p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,a,x)\eta^+_{\theta_2}(x)\varepsilon^d\right)^2 \right] \leq C
\end{equation}
for large enough $N$, where $C>0$ is a constant.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,\Big|\E\left[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_{\theta_2})\right]\Big|\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\\
&\leq&
\E\left[\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\sum_{z\in I}\eta^{+}_{\theta_2}(z_+)\eta^{-}_{\theta_2}(z_-)\,
\sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,2A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_{\theta_2})\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\right]\\
&\leq&
2\E\left[\<1,\,J^N_{\theta_2}\>\,
\prod_{i=1}^n\left(\sum_{r_i'}p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,p_i,r_i')\eta^+_{\theta_2}(r_i')\varepsilon^d\right)\,
\prod_{j=1}^m\left(\sum_{s_j'}p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,q_j,s_j')\eta^-_{\theta_2}(s_j')\varepsilon^d\right)
\right]\\
&\leq& C \quad\text{uniformly for }\theta_1>0,\,\theta_2>0,\,(\vec{p},\vec{q})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m \text{ and }\varepsilon>0 \text{ small enough}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We have used (\ref{E:equicts_G_1}) for the second inequality. The last inequality follows from H\"older's inequality, (\ref{E:Jump_SecondMoment}) and (\ref{E:equicts_G_2}). Therefore for any $(n,m)$,
\begin{equation}\label{E:equicts_G_3}
\sup_{\theta_1,\,\theta_2>0}\;\sup_{(\vec{p},\vec{q})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m}\;
\sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,p^{\varepsilon}(\theta_1,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\,\Big|\E\left[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_{\theta_2})\right]\Big|\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\leq C
\end{equation}
for large enough $N$, where $C>0$ is a constant. Hence $\int_{t}^{\ell}|H^{(1)}(s)|\,ds\leq C(\ell-t)\to 0$ as $\ell\to t$, uniformly for $(\vec{p},\vec{q})$, $s\in(t,\ell)$ and $\varepsilon$ small enough. Finally, we deal with $H^{(2)}$. For any $h\in(0,t)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\bigg|\int_0^tH^{(2)}(s)\,ds \bigg| \leq \int_0^{t-h}|H^{(2)}(s)|ds+ \int_{t-h}^t|H^{(2)}(s)|ds .
\end{equation*}
By (\ref{E:equicts_G_3}), we have $\int_{t-h}^t|H^{(2)}(s)|ds\leq C\,h$. By the H\"older continuity of $p^{\varepsilon}$ (cf. Theorem \ref{T:HolderCts}),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^{t-h}|H^{(2)}(s)|ds &\leq& \int_0^{t-h}
\sup_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,\Big|p^{\varepsilon}(\ell-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})) -
p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{p},\vec{q}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'}))\Big|\,\\
&& \qquad \qquad \E\left[\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\sum_{z\in I}\eta^{+}_{s}(z_+)\eta^{-}_{s}(z_-)\,
\sum_{(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})}\,2A((\vec{r'},\vec{s'}),\eta_s)\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\right]\,ds \\
&\leq& (t-h)\,C\frac{|\ell-t|^{\sigma_1}+ \|(\vec{r},\vec{s})-(\vec{p},\vec{q})\|^{\sigma_2}}{h^{\sigma_3}}\quad\text{for sufficiently small }\varepsilon>0 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\sigma_i\,(i=1,2,3)$ are positive constants. Since $h\in(0,t)$ is arbitrary, we see that
$\bigg|\int_0^tH^{(2)}(s)\,ds \bigg|\to 0$ as $|\ell-t|+\|(\vec{r},\vec{s})-(\vec{p},\vec{q})\|\to 0$, uniformly for small enough $\varepsilon>0$. Hence $G^{\varepsilon}$ is equi-continuous at an arbitrary $((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m\times (0,\infty)$.
\end{pf}
\medskip
From Theorem \ref{T:equicts} and a diagonal selection argument, it follows that for any sequence $\varepsilon_k \to 0$ there is a subsequence along which $\gamma^{\varepsilon}$ converges on $\bar{D}_{+}^n \times \bar{D}_{-}^m \times (0,T)$, uniformly on the compacts, to some $\gamma^{(n,m)}\in C(\bar{D}_{+}^n \times \bar{D}_{-}^m \times (0,T))$, for every $(n,m)\in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}$. Our goal is to show that
$$
\gamma_t^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})=\prod_{i=1}^n u_+(t,r_i) \prod_{j=1}^m u_-(t,s_j) .
$$
We will achieve this by first showing that both $\Gamma=\{\gamma^{(n,m)}\}$ and $\Phi^{(n,m)}_t:= \prod_{i=1}^n u_+(t,r_i) \prod_{j=1}^m u_-(t,s_j)$ satisfy the same an infinite hierarchy of equations, and then establishing uniqueness of the hierarchy.
\subsection{Limiting hierarchy}
Note that $D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain in $\R^{(n+m)d}$, and that the boundary $\partial(D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m)$ contains the disjoint union $\cup_{i=1}^n \partial_+^i\,\bigcup\,\cup_{j=1}^m\partial_-^j$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_+^i &:=& \left(D_{+}\times\cdots \times (\overset{i^{th}}{\partial D_{+}}\cap I) \times \cdots \times D_{+}\right)\times D_{-}^m , \\
\partial_-^j &:=& D_{+}^n \times \left(D_{-}\times\cdots \times (\overset{j^{th}}{\partial D_{-}}\cap I) \times\cdots \times D_{-}\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
We define the function $\rho=\rho_{(n,m)}:\,D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m \rightarrow \R$ by $\rho(\vec{r},\vec{s}):= \prod_{i=1}^n\rho_+(r_i)\prod_{j=1}^m\rho_-(s_j)$. We also denote $p(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})) := \prod_{i=1}^n p^{+}(t,r_i,r_i')\prod_{j=1}^m p^{-}(t,s_j,s_j')$, where $p^{\pm}$ is the transition density of the
reflected diffusion $ X^{\pm}$ on $\bar{D}_\pm$ with respect to the measure $\rho_{\pm}(x) dx$. We now characterize the subsequential limits of $\{\gamma^{\varepsilon}\}_{\varepsilon>0}$:
\begin{thm}\label{T:hierarchy}
Let $\eta^\varepsilon_0$ be a sequence of initial configurations that satisfy
\eqref{e:2.31} with $\varepsilon= N^{-1/d}$, and the conditions of Theorem \ref{T:conjecture};
that is, their corresponding empirical measures
$\X^{N,\pm}_0$ converges weakly to $ u^{\pm}_0(z)dz$ in $M_{\leq 1}(\bar{D}_{\pm})$ for some $u^{\pm}_0\in C(\bar{D}_{\pm})$
and
\begin{equation}\label{e:3.24}
\varlimsup_{\varepsilon \to 0} \sup_{z\in D^\varepsilon_\pm} \E \left[ \eta_0^{\varepsilon, \pm} (z)^2 \right] <\infty.
\end{equation}
Denote by
$\Gamma^{\varepsilon}=\{\gamma^{\varepsilon,\,(n,m)}; \, t\geq 0, n, m \in \mathbb{N}\}$
the correlation functions for the interacting random walks
with initial configuration $\eta^\varepsilon_0$.
Let $\Gamma=\{\gamma^{(n,m)}_t; \, t\geq 0, n, m \in \mathbb{N}\}$ be any subsequential limit (as $\varepsilon\to 0$) of $\Gamma^{\varepsilon}=\{\gamma^{\varepsilon,\,(n,m)}; \,
t\geq 0, n, m \in \mathbb{N}\}$.
Then the following infinite system of hierarchical equations holds:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:hierarchy_1}
\gamma_t^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})
&=& \int_{D_+^n \times D_-^m}\,\Phi^{(n,m)}(\vec{a},\vec{b})\,p(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\rho(\vec{a},\vec{b})\, d(\vec{a},\vec{b}) \\
&& - \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_0^t\,\bigg(
\sum_{i=1}^n \int_{\partial_+^i} \gamma_{\theta}^{(n,m+1)}(\vec{a},(\vec{b},a_i)) \,p(t-\theta,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\frac{\rho(\vec{a},\vec{b})}{\rho_+(a_i)}\,d\sigma_{(n,m)}(\vec{a},\vec{b}) \notag \\
&& \quad\quad +\sum_{j=1}^m \int_{\partial_-^j} \gamma_{\theta}^{(n+1,m)}((\vec{a},b_j),\vec{b})) \,p(t-\theta,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\frac{\rho(\vec{a},\vec{b})}{\rho_-(b_j)}\,d\sigma_{(n,m)}(\vec{a},\vec{b})
\bigg)\, d\theta , \notag
\end{eqnarray}
where $d(\vec{a},\vec{b})$ is the Lebesgue measure on $\R^{n+m}$, $\sigma_{(n,m)}$ is the surface measure of $\partial(D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m)$ and $\Phi^{(n,m)}(\vec{a},\vec{b}):= \prod_{i=1}^{n}u^{+}_{0}(a_i) \prod_{j=1}^{m}u^{-}_0(b_j)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}\label{R:3.6}
\begin{description}\rm
\item{(i)} The equation expresses $\gamma_t^{(n,m)}$ as an integral in time involving $\gamma^{(n,m+1)}$ and $\gamma^{(n+1,m)}$, thus forming a coupled chain of equations. In statistical physics, it is sometimes called the BBGKY hierarchy\footnote{BBGKY stand for N. N. Bogoliubov, Max Born, H. S. Green, J. G. Kirkwood, and J. Yvon, who derived this type of hierarchy of equations in the 1930s and 1940s in a series papers.}. It describes the evolution of the limiting $(n,m)$-particle correlation functions and hence the dynamics of the particles.
\item{(ii)} By Proposition \ref{E:localtime_def}, (\ref{E:hierarchy_1}) is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{E:hierarchy_3}
\gamma_t^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s}) = \E^{(\vec{r},\vec{s})}\left[\Phi^{(n,m)}(X_{(n,m)}(t)) - \lambda\int_0^t (\Upsilon\gamma_s)^{(n,m)}(X_{(n,m)}(t-s))\, dL^{(n,m)}_s\,\right] .
\end{equation}
Here $L^{(n,m)}$ is boundary local time of $X_{(n,m)}$, the symmetric reflected diffusion on $D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m$ corresponding to $(I_{(n+m)d\times (n+m)d},\,\rho_{(n,m)})$, and $(\Upsilon v)^{(n,m)}$ is a function on $\partial(D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m)$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
\quad (\Upsilon v)^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s}) :=
\begin{cases}
v^{(n,m+1)}(\vec{r},(\vec{s},r_i))\frac{\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})}{\rho_+(r_i)} , &\text{ if } (\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \partial_+^i\, ;\\
v^{(n+1,m)}((\vec{r},s_j),\vec{s}))\frac{\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})}{\rho_-(s_j)}, &\text{ if } (\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \partial_-^j\, ;\\
0, &\text{ otherwise }.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Observe that the coordinate processes of $X_{(n,m)}$ consist of $n$ independent copies of
reflected diffusions in $\bar{D}_+$ and $m$ independent copies of reflected diffusions
in $\bar{D}_-$.
\item{(iii)} It is easy to check by using (ii) and Proposition \ref{prop:MildSol_RobinPDE}
that
$$
{\widetilde \gamma}_t^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s}) := \prod_{i=1}^{n}u_{+}(t,r_i) \prod_{j=1}^{m}u_{-}(t,s_j)$$ is a solution of (\ref{E:hierarchy_1}), where $(u_+,u_-)$ is the weak solution of the coupled PDEs \eqref{E:coupledpde:+}-\eqref{E:coupledpde:-} with initial value
$(u^+_0, u^-_0)$.
\end{description}
\end{remark}
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{T:hierarchy}}.
Recall that $\Xi:= \{\xi:\,\xi_{\pm}(z_{\pm})\leq 1 \hbox{ for every } z\in I^{\varepsilon}\}$.
We can rewrite \eqref{e:3.7} as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:correlation}
\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{r},\vec{s}),t)
&=& \sum_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})}\, \gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{a},\vec{b}),0)\, p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,m(\vec{a},\vec{b}) \notag\\
&& + \int_0^t \sum_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\notin \Xi}\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}), (\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\E[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A((\vec{a},\vec{b}),\eta_s)]\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\,ds \notag\\
&& + \int_0^t \sum_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\in \Xi}\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}), (\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\E[\mathfrak{K}^{\varepsilon}A((\vec{a},\vec{b}),\eta_s)]\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\,ds.
\end{eqnarray}
Fix any $(n,m)\in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}$, $t>0$ and $(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m$. By a simple counting argument and condition
\eqref{e:3.24} for $\eta^\varepsilon_0$, we see that the first term in (\ref{E:correlation}) equals
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \E^{\eta^\varepsilon_0}\left[\sum_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\in (D^{\varepsilon}_{+})^n \times (D^{\varepsilon}_{-})^m}p^{\varepsilon}(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\prod_{i=1}^n\eta^+(a_i)\,\prod_{j=1}^m\eta^+(b_j)\right]+ o(N)\\
&=& \E^{\eta^\varepsilon_0}\left[\prod_{i=1}^n\<\X^{N,+}_0,\,p^{\varepsilon}(t,r_i,\cdot)\>\,\prod_{j=1}^m\<\X^{N,-}_0,\,p^{\varepsilon}(t,s_j,\cdot)\>\right]+o(N),
\end{eqnarray*}
which converges to $\E^{(\vec{r},\vec{s})}[\Phi^{(n,m)}(X_{(n,m)}(t))]$ by Theorem \ref{T:LCLT_CTRW} and assumption (i) for the initial distributions. Here $\P^{(\vec{r},\vec{s})}$ is the probability measure for $X_{(n,m)}$ starting at $(\vec{r},\vec{s})$.
We now prove that the second term in (\ref{E:correlation}) tends to $0$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$. The integrand with respect to $ds$ is at most
\begin{equation}\label{E:hierarchy_2ndterm}
\E\left[\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\sum_{z\in I}\eta^{+}_{\theta}(z_+)\eta^{-}_{\theta}(z_-)\,
\sum_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\notin \Xi}\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-\theta,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,2A((\vec{a},\vec{b}),\eta_{\theta})\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\right].
\end{equation}
Note that $\{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\notin \Xi\}$ is a subset of
\begin{equation}\label{E:hierarchy_2ndterm_1}
\bigcup_{w\in I}\,\bigg[\,\left(\bigcup_{k=2}^n\{(\vec{a},\vec{b}):\,\vec{a}(w_+)=k\}\right) \bigcup \left(\bigcup_{\ell=2}^m\{(\vec{a},\vec{b}):\,\vec{b}(w_-)=\ell\} \right)\,\bigg],
\end{equation}
and that for fixed $w\in I$ and $k\in \{2,\cdots,n\}$, we further have
\begin{equation*}
\{(\vec{a},\vec{b}):\,\vec{a}(w_+)=k\} = \bigcup_{\substack{i_1,\cdots,i_k\\\text{distinct}}}\{(\vec{a},\vec{b}):\,a_{i_1}=\cdots=a_{i_k}=w_+\}.
\end{equation*}
Now we restrict the sum over $\{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\notin \Xi\}$ in (\ref{E:hierarchy_2ndterm}) to the subset $\{(\vec{a},\vec{b}):\,a_{i_1}=\cdots=a_{i_k}=w_+\}$, where $w\in I$, $k\in \{2,\cdots,n\}$ and $(i_1,\cdots,i_k)$ are fixed. Moreover, we denote $(a_1,\cdots,a_k)$
by $\vec{a_k}$ and $(a_{k+1},\cdots,a_n)$ by $\vec{a}\setminus \vec{a_k}$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{E:hierarchy_2ndterm_2}
&& \E\left[\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\sum_{z\in I}\eta^{+}_{\theta}(z_+)\eta^{-}_{\theta}(z_-)\,
\sum_{\{(\vec{a},\vec{b}):\,a_{i_1}=\cdots=a_{i_k}=w_+\}}\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-\theta,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,2A((\vec{a},\vec{b}),\eta_{\theta})\,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\right]\\
&\leq & p^{\varepsilon}(t-\theta,(r_1,\cdots,r_k),(w_+,\cdots,w_+))\,\varepsilon^{kd}\,\sum_{(\vec{a}\setminus \vec{a_k},\,\vec{b})}
p^{\varepsilon}(t-\theta,\vec{r}\setminus \vec{r_k},\vec{a}\setminus \vec{a_k})p(t-\theta,\vec{s},\vec{b})\varepsilon^{d(n+m-k)}\\
&& \quad \cdot\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\,\E\left[\sum_{z\in I}\eta^{+}_{\theta}(z_+)\eta^{-}_{\theta}(z_-)\,2A((\vec{a},\vec{b}),\eta_{\theta})\right]\\
&\leq& \frac{C\,\varepsilon^{kd}}{(t-\theta)^{kd/2}}\,\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\,\#|I^{\varepsilon}|\,\sup_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})}\E[\eta^{+}_{\theta}(z_+)\eta^{-}_{\theta}(z_-)\,2A((\vec{a},\vec{b}),\eta_{\theta})]\\
&\leq& \frac{\lambda\,\varepsilon^{(k-1)d}}{(t-\theta)^{kd/2}}\,C \quad\text{ where }C=C(n,m,\theta,d,D_{\pm})\\
&\leq& \frac{\lambda\,\varepsilon^{d}}{(t-\theta)^{kd/2}}\,C = O(\varepsilon^d) \quad \text{ since }k\geq 2.
\end{eqnarray*}
The second to the last inequality above follows from the bound $\#|{I^{\varepsilon}}|\leq C\,\varepsilon^{-(d-1)}$ (see Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea}) and the uniform upper bound (\ref{E:uniformbound}). Repeat the above argument for the other subsets of $\{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\notin \Xi\}$ and use the fact $\#|I^{\varepsilon}|\leq C\,\varepsilon^{-(d-1)}$ again (for $w\in I$ in (\ref{E:hierarchy_2ndterm_1})), we have, for any $\theta\in(0,t)$, (\ref{E:hierarchy_2ndterm}) is of order $\varepsilon$ and hence converges to 0 uniformly for $(\vec{r},\vec{s})$, as $\varepsilon\to 0$. The second term in (\ref{E:correlation}) then converges to 0, by (\ref{E:equicts_G_3}) and LDCT.
For the third term in (\ref{E:correlation}), we split the integrand with respect to $d\theta$ into three terms corresponding to (\ref{E:KA(xi,eta)_1}), (\ref{E:KA(xi,eta)_2}) and (\ref{E:KA(xi,eta)_3}) respectively. The term corresponding to (\ref{E:KA(xi,eta)_1}) equals
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\,\sum_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\in \Xi}\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}), (\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,
\sum_{\substack {z\in I^{\varepsilon} \\\vec{a}(z_+)=1}} \,\Psi(z)\,A((\vec{a},\,(\vec{b},z_-)),\,\eta_{\theta}) \,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\\
&=& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\,\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}}\sum_{\substack{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\in \Xi\\\vec{a}(z_+)=1}}p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\Psi(z)\,A((\vec{a},\,(\vec{b},z_-)),\,\eta_{\theta}) \,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\\
&=& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\,\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}}\Psi(z)\,\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{\substack{(\vec{a},\vec{b})\in \Xi\\a_i=z_+}}p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,A((\vec{a},\,(\vec{b},z_-)),\,\eta_{\theta}) \,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\\
&=& -\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\,\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}}\Psi(z)\,\sum_{i=1}^n\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,r_i,z_+)\,\sum_{(\vec{a}\setminus a_i,\,\vec{b})\in\Xi}p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r}\setminus r_i,\vec{s}),(\vec{a}\setminus a_i,\vec{b}))\\
&& \qquad \qquad \times \frac{m((\vec{a},\,(\vec{b},z_-))}{\varepsilon^{d(n+m+1)}}\,\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{a},\,(\vec{b},z_-)),\,\theta) \,\varepsilon^{d(n+m)}\\
&=& -\lambda\sum_{i=1}^n\,\sum_{(\vec{a}\setminus a_i,\,\vec{b})\in\Xi}p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,(\vec{r}\setminus r_i,\vec{s}),(\vec{a}\setminus a_i,\vec{b}))\,m(\vec{a}\setminus a_i,\vec{b})\\
&&\qquad \times \sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}}\sigma_{\varepsilon}(z)\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,r_i,z_+)\,\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{a},\,(\vec{b},z_-)),\,\theta) .
\end{eqnarray*}
By Theorem \ref{T:LCLT_CTRW} and Lemma \ref{L:DiscreteApprox_SurfaceMea},
$$
\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}}\sigma_{\varepsilon}(z)\,p^{\varepsilon}(t-s,r_i,z_+)\,\gamma^{\varepsilon}((\vec{a},\,(\vec{b},z_-)),\,\theta)
= \int_{I}p (t-s,r_i,z)\,\gamma_{\theta}(\vec{a},(\vec{b},z))\,d\sigma(z)
$$
and the convergence is uniform for $r_i\in D^{\varepsilon}_{+}$. Therefore, by applying Theorem \ref{T:LCLT_CTRW} again, the term corresponding to (\ref{E:KA(xi,eta)_1}) converges to
\begin{equation*}
-\lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \int_{\partial_+^i} \gamma_{\theta}(\vec{a},(\vec{b},a_i)) \,p(t-\theta,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\frac{\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})}{\rho_+(r_i)}\,d\vec{b}\,da_1\cdots d\sigma(a_i)\cdots da_n .
\end{equation*}
We repeat the same argument for the term corresponding to (\ref{E:KA(xi,eta)_2}). Moreover, note that the term corresponding to (\ref{E:KA(xi,eta)_3}) will not contribute to the limit as $\varepsilon\to 0$, by the same argument we used for the second term in (\ref{E:correlation}). Therefore, the integrand of the second term in (\ref{E:correlation}) converges to
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& -\lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \int_{\partial_+^i} \gamma_{\theta}(\vec{a},(\vec{b},a_i)) \,p(t-\theta,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\frac{\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{a},\vec{b})}{\rho_+(a_i)}\,
d\vec{b}\,da_1\cdots d\sigma(a_i)\cdots da_n \\
&& -\lambda \sum_{j=1}^m \int_{\partial_-^j} \gamma_{\theta}((\vec{a},b_j),\vec{b})) \,p(t-\theta,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\,\frac{\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{a},\vec{b})}{\rho_-(b_j)}\,
d\vec{a}\,db_1\cdots d\sigma(b_j)\cdots db_m .
\end{eqnarray*}
The integral for $\theta\in(0,t)$ in the third term in (\ref{E:correlation}) then converges to the desired quantity, by (\ref{E:equicts_G_3}) and LDCT. The proof is complete.
\qed
\medskip
In view of Remark \ref{R:3.6}(iii), the proof of Theorem \ref{T:correlation} (Propagation of Chaos) will be complete once we establish the uniqueness of the solution of the limiting hierarchy (\ref{E:hierarchy_1}). This will be accomplished in Theorem \ref{T:Uniqueness_hierarchy} in the next subsection.
\subsection{Uniqueness of infinite hierarchy}
Uniqueness of BBGKY hierarchy is an important issue in statistical physics. For example, it is a key step in the derivation of the cubic non-linear Schr\"odinger equation from the quantum dynamics of many body systems obtained in \cite{lEbShtY07}. Our BBGKY hierarchy (\ref{E:hierarchy_1}) is new to the literature and the proof of its uniqueness involves a representation and manipulations of the hierarchy in terms of trees. The technique is related but different from that in \cite{lEbShtY07}, which used the Feynman diagrams.
Note that, by Theorem \ref{T:hierarchy}, $\gamma^{(n,m)}_t$ can be extended continuously to $t=0$. Uniqueness of solution for the hierarchy will be established on a subset of the space
$$C([0,T], \mathcal{D}):= \bigoplus_{(n,m)\in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}}C([0,T],\,\bar{D}_+^n\times \bar{D}_-^m)$$
equipped with the product topologies induced by the uniform norm $\|\,\cdot\,\|_{(T,n,m)}$ on $[0,T]\times \bar{D}_+^n\times \bar{D}_-^m$.
\begin{thm}\label{T:Uniqueness_hierarchy}(Uniqueness of the infinite hierarchy)
Given any $T>0$. Suppose $\beta_t=\{\beta_t^{(n,m)}\}\in C([0,T], \mathcal{D})$ is a solution to the infinite hierarchy (\ref{E:hierarchy_1}) with zero initial condition (i.e. $\beta_0=\Phi=0$) and satisfies $\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(T,n,m)}\leq C^{n+m}$ for some $C\geq 0$. Then we have $\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(T,n,m)}=0$ for every $n, m\in \mathbb{N}$.
\end{thm}
The remaining of this subsection is devoted to give a proof of this theorem.
\textbf{Convention in this subsection:}
$\beta=\{\beta^{(n,m)}\}$ will always denote the functions stated in Theorem \ref{T:Uniqueness_hierarchy}. For notational simplicity, we will also assume $\lambda=2$ and $\rho_{\pm}=1$. The proof for the general case is the same.
we will also drop $T$ from the notation $\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(T,n,m)}$.
It is convenient to rewrite the infinite hierarchy (\ref{E:hierarchy_1}) in a more compact form as
\begin{equation}\label{E:hierarchy_2}
\gamma_t^{(n,m)} = P^{(n,m)}_t\Phi^{(n,m)}-\int_0^t
P^{(n,m)}_{t-s}\left(\sum_{i=1}^nV^{+}_{i}\gamma_s^{(n,m+1)}+ \sum_{j=1}^mV^{-}_{j}\gamma_s^{(n+1,m)}\right)\,ds \; ,
\end{equation}
where $V^{+}_{i}\gamma^{(n,m+1)}$ is a measure concentrated on $\partial_+^i$ defined as
\begin{eqnarray*}
V^{+}_{i}\gamma^{(n,m+1)} &:= &\gamma^{(n,m+1)}(\vec{a},(\vec{b},a_i))\,d\sigma_{(n,m)}\Big|_{\partial_+^i}(\vec{a},\vec{b})\\
&=& \gamma^{(n,m+1)}(\vec{a},(\vec{b},a_i))\,d\sigma\Big|_{I}(a_i)\,d(\vec{a}\setminus a_i)\,d\vec{b} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\sigma_{(n,m)}\Big|_{\partial_+^i}$ is the surface measure of $\partial(D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m)$ restricted to $\partial_+^i$. Similarly, $V^{-}_{j}\gamma^{(n+1,m)}$ is a measure concentrating on $\partial_-^j$ defined as
\begin{eqnarray*}
V^{-}_{j}\gamma^{(n+1,m)} &:= &\gamma^{(n+1,m)}((\vec{a},b_j),\vec{b})\,d\sigma_{(n,m)}\Big|_{\partial_-^j}(\vec{a},\vec{b})\\
&=& \gamma^{(n+1,m)}((\vec{a},b_j),\vec{b})\,d\sigma\Big|_{I}(b_j)\,d\vec{a}\,d(\vec{b}\setminus b_j) .
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsubsection{Duhamel tree expansion}
We now describe the infinite hierarchy in detail. It is natural and illustrative to represent the infinite hierarchy in terms of a tree structure, with the `root' at the top and the `leaves' at the bottom. Fix two positive integers $n$ and $m$. We construct a sequence of finite trees $\{\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_N:\;N=0,1,2,\cdots \}$ recursively as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_0$ is the root, with label $(n,m)$.
\item $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_1$ is constructed from $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_0$ by attaching $n+m$ new vertices (call them leaves of $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_1$) to it. More precisely, we attach $n+m$ new vertices to the root by drawing $n$ $`+'$ edges and $m$ $`-'$ edges from the root. Those new leaves drawn by the $`+'$ edges are labeled $(n,m+1)$, while those drawn by the $`-'$ edges are labeled $(n+1,m)$. We also label the edges as $\{+_i\}_{i=1}^n$ and $\{-_j\}_{j=1}^m$ (See Figure \ref{fig:TreeT_nm1}).
\item When $N=2$, we view each of the $n+m$ leaves of $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_1$ as a `root' (with a new label, being either $(n,m+1)$ or $(n+1,m)$), and then attach new leaves (leaves of $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_2$) to it by drawing $`\pm'$ edges. Hence there are $(m+n)(m+n+1)$ new leaves, coming from $n^2+m(n+1)$ new $`+'$ edges and $n(m+1)+m^2$ new $`-'$ edges.
\item Having drawn $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_{N-1}$, we construct $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_N$ by attaching new edges and new leaves from each leaf of $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_{N-1}$ by the same construction, viewing a leaf of $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_{N-1}$ as a `root'.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{TreeT_nm1}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{$\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_1$}\label{fig:TreeT_nm1}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\def300pt{300pt}
\input {TreeT_nm1.pdf_TeX}
\caption{$\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_1$}\label{fig:TreeT_nm1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
In $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_N$, the root is connected to each leaf by a unique path $\vec{\theta}=(\theta_1,\,\theta_2,\,\cdots,\,\theta_N)$ formed by the $`\pm'$ edges. Moreover, such a path passes through a sequence of labels formed by the leaves of $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_k$ ($k=1,2,\cdots ,N$). We denote these labels by $\vec{l}(\vec{\theta})=(l_1(\vec{\theta}),\,l_2(\vec{\theta}),\cdots,\,l_N(\vec{\theta}))$. For example, when $(n,m)=(2,5)$, $N=3$ and the path is $\vec{\theta}=(+_1,\,-_6,\,-_5)$. Then $\vec{l}(\vec{\theta})=((2,6),\,(3,6),\,(4,6))$ and the path connects the root to a leaf of $\mathbb{T}^{(2,5)}_3$ with label $(4,6)$.
Note that the label is not one-to-one. For example, $\vec{l} (+_1,\,-_6,\,-_5)
=\vec{l} (+_2,\,-_6,\,-_4)$.
For mnemonic reason, we use the same notation $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_N$ to denote the collection of paths that connect the root to a leaf in $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_N$. By induction, the total number of paths (or the total number of leaves) is
\begin{equation}\label{E:NumberOfLeaves}
(n+m)(n+m+1)\cdots (n+m+N-1)=\frac{(n+m+N-1)!}{(n+m-1)!}.
\end{equation}
Iterating (\ref{E:hierarchy_2}) $N$ times gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:hierarchy_4}
\beta_t^{(n,m)}
&=& -\int_{t_2=0}^t
P^{(n,m)}_{t-t_2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^nV^{+}_{i}\beta_{t_2}^{(n,m+1)}+ \sum_{j=1}^mV^{-}_{j}\beta_{t_2}^{(n+1,m)}\right) dt_2\notag\\
&=& \cdots \notag \\
&=& (-1)^N \int_{t_2=0}^t\int_{t_3=0}^{t_2}\cdots \int_{t_{N+1}=0}^{t_N}
dt_2 \cdots dt_{N+1} \notag \\
&&\qquad \qquad \sum_{\vec{\theta}\in \,\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_N}\,
P^{(n,m)}_{t-t_2}\,V_{\theta_1}\,P^{l_1(\vec{\theta})}_{t_2-t_3}\,V_{\theta_2}\,P^{l_2(\vec{\theta})}_{t_3-t_4}\,V_{\theta_3}\cdots P^{l_{N-1}(\vec{\theta})}_{t_N-t_{N+1}}\,V_{\theta_N}\,\beta^{l_N(\vec{\theta})}_{t_{N+1}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_{\theta_i}$ (for $i=1,\,2,\cdots,\,N$) is defined by $V_{+_i}=V^+_i$ and $V_{-_j}=V^-_j$. For example, when $(n,m)=(2,5)$, $N=3$ and the path is $\vec{\theta}=(+_1,\,-_6,\,-_5)$. Then
\begin{equation*}
P^{(n,m)}V_{\theta_1}P^{l_1(\vec{\theta})}V_{\theta_2}P^{l_2(\vec{\theta})}V_{\theta_3}\beta^{l_3(\vec{\theta})} =
P^{(2,5)}V^+_{1}P^{(2,6)}V^-_{6}P^{(3,6)}V^-_{5}\beta^{(4,6)}.
\end{equation*}
\subsubsection{Telescoping via Chapman-Kolmogorov equation}
By (\ref{E:NumberOfLeaves}), the right hand side of (\ref{E:hierarchy_4}) is a sum of $(n+m)(n+m+1)\cdots (n+m+N-1)$ terms of multiple integrals. We will apply the bound
$\|\beta_t^{(p,q)}\|_{(p, q)}\leq C^{p+q}$
to each term, and then simplify the integrand using
Chapman-Kolmogorov equation.
We demonstrate this for the twelve terms for the case $(n,m,N)=(1,2,2)$. The twelve terms on the right hand side of (\ref{E:hierarchy_4}) are
\begin{eqnarray} \label{E:Tree_122}
P^{(1,2)}_{t-t_2}\Big\{&& V^{+}_{1}P^{(1,3)}_{t_2-t_3}\left(V^{+}_{1}\,\beta^{(1,4)}_{t_3}+(V^{-}_{1}+V^{-}_{2}+V^{-}_{3})\,\beta^{(2,3)}_{t_3}\right) \notag\\
&+& V^{-}_{1}P^{(2,2)}_{t_2-t_3}\left((V^{+}_{1}+V^{+}_{2})\,\beta^{(2,3)}_{t_3}+(V^{-}_{1}+V^{-}_{2})\,\beta^{(3,2)}_{t_3}\right) \notag\\
&+& V^{-}_{2}P^{(2,2)}_{t_2-t_3}\left((V^{+}_{1}+V^{+}_{2})\,\beta^{(2,3)}_{t_3}+(V^{-}_{1}+V^{-}_{2})\,\beta^{(3,2)}_{t_3}\right)\,
\Big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The first four terms came from the leftmost leaf of the previous level, we group them together to obtain, for $(x,y_1,y_2)\in \bar{D}_+\times \bar{D}_-^2$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \Big|P^{(1,2)}_{t-t_2}V^{+}_{1}P^{(1,3)}_{t_2-t_3}\left(V^{+}_{1}\,\beta^{(1,4)}_{t_3}+(V^{-}_{1}+V^{-}_{2}+V^{-}_{3})\,\beta^{(2,3)}_{t_3}\right)
(x,\,y_1,\,y_2)\Big|\\
&\leq &
C^5 \,\int d\sigma(x')\,dy_1'\,dy_2'\;p^{(1,2)}(t-t_2,\,(x,y_1,y_2),(x',y_1',y_2'))\;\\
&& \qquad \bigg(\int d\sigma(a)\,db_1\,db_2\,db_3 + \int da\,d\sigma(b_1)\,db_2\,db_3 +\int da\,db_1\,d\sigma(b_2)\,db_3 + \int da\,db_1\,db_2\,d\sigma(b_3)
\bigg)\\
&& \qquad \qquad p^{(1,3)}(t_2-t_3,\,(x',y_1',y_2',x'),(a,b_1,b_2,b_3))\\
&=&
C^5\int d\sigma(x')\,p^{+}(t-t_2,x,x')\bigg(
\int d\sigma(a)\,p^{+}(t_2-t_3,x',a)+\int d\sigma(b_1)\,p^{-}(t-t_3,y_1,b_1)\\
&&\qquad \qquad \qquad +\int d\sigma(b_2)\,p^{-}(t-t_3,y_2,b_2)\,+\int d\sigma(b_3)\,p^{-}(t_2-t_3,x',b_3)\,
\bigg).
\end{eqnarray*}
Note the telescoping effect upon using the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation for the middle two terms in the last equality above gives rise to $t-t_3$ rather than $t_2-t_3$.
We apply (\ref{E:Surface_integral_boundedness}) to obtain
\begin{align*}
&\Big\|P^{(1,2)}_{t-t_2}V^{+}_{1}P^{(1,3)}_{t_2-t_3}\left(V^{+}_{1}\,\beta^{(1,4)}_{t_3}+(V^{-}_{1}+V^{-}_{2}+V^{-}_{3})\,\beta^{(2,3)}_{t_3}\right)
\Big\|_{(1,2)} \\
&\leq
C^{5}\,\frac{C_+}{\sqrt{t-t_2}}\,\left(\frac{C_+}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}+ \frac{2\,C_-}{\sqrt{t-t_3}}+ \frac{C_-}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}\right),
\end{align*}
where $C_{\pm}=C(D_{\pm},T)$ are positive constants. Repeat the above argument for the remaining eight terms of (\ref{E:Tree_122}), we obtain
\begin{align}\label{E:Telescoping_122}
\|\beta_t^{(1,2)}\|_{(1,2)}
&\leq
C^{5}\,\int_{t_2=0}^{t}\int_{t_3=0}^{t_2}\frac{C_+}{\sqrt{t-t_2}}\,\left(\frac{C_+}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}+ \frac{2\,C_-}{\sqrt{t-t_3}}+ \frac{C_-}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}\right) \notag\\
& \quad +\frac{2\,C_-}{\sqrt{t-t_2}}\,\left(\frac{C_+}{\sqrt{t-t_3}}+ \frac{C_+}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}+\frac{C_-}{\sqrt{t-t_3}}+ \frac{C_-}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}\right).
\end{align}
The key is to visualize the twelve terms on the right as 12 paths of $\mathbb{T}^{(1,2)}_2$ \textit{with the edges relabeled}. We denote this relabeled tree by $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_2$ (See Figure \ref{fig:TreeS_12_2}, ignoring the five leaves in $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_3$ at the moment). More precisely, since all twelve terms on the right are of the form $\frac{C_{\pm}}{\sqrt{t_{p}-t_2}}\,\frac{C_{\pm}}{\sqrt{t_{q}-t_3}}$, we only need to record the indexes $(p,q)$ and the $\pm$ sign. For example, the first four terms can be represented by $$(+_1\,+_2,\;+_1\,-_1,\;+_1\,-_1,\;+_1\,-_2).$$
Each $+_1\,-_1$ corresponds to $\frac{C_+}{\sqrt{t-t_2}}\,\frac{C_-}{\sqrt{t-t_3}}$ and hence it appears twice. In $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_2$, these four paths are formed by a $+_1$ edge followed by four edges with labels $\{+_2,\,-_1,\,-_1,\,-_2\}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{TreeS_12_2}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{$\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_2$ together with 5 leaves in $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_3$}\label{fig:TreeS_12_2}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\def300pt{300pt}
\input {TreeS_12_2.pdf_TeX}
\caption{$\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_2$ together with 5 leaves in $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_3$} \label{fig:TreeS_12_2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
In general, we obtain $\mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_N$ by relabeling the edges of $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_N$, while keeping the labels for the vertices and the $\pm$ sign for the edges. The relabeling of edges are performed as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item At level $1$, we assign the number `1' to all the edges connected to the root. Hence we have $n$ `$+_1$' edges and $m$ `$-_1$' edges, rather than the labels $\{+_i\}_{i=1}^n$ and $\{-_j\}_{j=1}^m$ (See Figure \ref{fig:TreeS_nm1} for $\mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_1$).
\item At level $k\geq 2$, consider the set $\Lambda^+ := \{+_1,\,\cdots,\,+_1,\,+_2,\,+_3,\,\cdots,\,+_k\}$ in which we have $n$ copies of $+_1$ (hence there are $n+k-1$ elements in $\Lambda^+$, in which $n$ of them are $+_1$). Similarly, let $\Lambda^- := \{-_1,\,\cdots,\,-_1,\,-_2,\,-_3,\,\cdots,\,-_k\}$ in which we have $m$ copies of $-_1$. For an arbitrary leaf $\xi$ of $\mathbb{T}^{(n,m)}_{k-1}$, let $R^{\xi}$ be the labels of (the edges of) the path from the root to $\xi$ in $\mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_{k-1}$, counting with multiplicity. Finally, the collection of new labels of the edges below $\xi$, denoted by $L^{\xi}$, is chosen in such a way that
$$ \Lambda^+ \cup \Lambda^- = R^{\xi} \cup L^{\xi}\qquad (\text{counting multiplicity}).$$
Since $|R^{\xi}|=k-1$ and $|L^{\xi}|=n+m+k-1$ (again, counting multiplicity), the cardinalities of the two sides match: $$(n+k-1)+(m+k-1)=(k-1)+(n+m+k-1).$$
Induction shows that $R^{\xi}\subset \Lambda^+ \cup \Lambda^-$ and the choice for $L^{\xi}$ is unique.
For example, for leaf $\xi =(1, 3)$ of $\mathbb{T}^{(1,2)}_1$,
$R^\xi=\{+_1\}$, $\Lambda^+ := \{+_1,\,+_2\}$ and
$\Lambda^- := \{-_1, \, ,-_1,\,-_2 \}$.
So $L^\xi=\{ +_2, \, -_1, \, ,-_1,\,-_2 \}$, which gives the new labels to the edges below $\xi$;
see Figure \ref{fig:TreeS_12_2}.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{TreeS_nm1}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{$\mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_1$}\label{fig:TreeS_nm1}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\def300pt{300pt}
\input {TreeS_nm1.pdf_TeX}
\caption{$\mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_1$}\label{fig:TreeS_nm1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
As a further illustration,
we continue to `grow' $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_2$ (see Figure \ref{fig:TreeS_12_2}) by adding suitably labeled edges to leaves of $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_2$. Precisely, let $\xi$ be a leaf of $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $R^{\xi}=\{+_1,\,+_2\}$, then $L^{\xi}=\{+_3,\,-_1,\,-_1,\,-_2,\,-_3\}$ (this is the case for the leftmost leaf, which has label $(1,4)$)
\item If $R^{\xi}=\{+_1,\,-_1\}$, then $L^{\xi}=\{+_2,\,+_3,\,-_1,\,-_2,\,-_3\}$ (shown in Figure \ref{fig:TreeS_12_2}).
\item If $R^{\xi}=\{+_1,\,-_2\}$, then $L^{\xi}=\{+_2,\,+_3,\,-_1,\,-_1,\,-_3\}$.
\item If $R^{\xi}=\{-_1,\,+_1\}$, then $L^{\xi}=\{+_2,\,+_3,\,-_1,\,-_2,\,-_3\}$.
\item If $R^{\xi}=\{-_1,\,+_2\}$, then $L^{\xi}=\{+_1,\,+_3,\,-_1,\,-_2,\,-_3\}$.
\item If $R^{\xi}=\{-_1,\,-_1\}$, then $L^{\xi}=\{+_1,\,+_2,\,+_3,\,-_2,\,-_3\}$.
\item If $R^{\xi}=\{-_1,\,-_2\}$, then $L^{\xi}=\{+_1,\,+_2,\,+_3,\,-_1,\,-_3\}$.
\end{itemize}
For mnemonic reason, we use the same notation $\mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_N$ to denote the collection of paths from the root to the leaves of $\mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_N$. Any such path is represented by the \textit{ordered} (new) labels of the edges. We now `forget' the sign of the edges and only record the integer labels. For example, the path $(-_1,\,+_1,\,-_2,\,+_3)$ is replaced by $(1,\,1,\,2,\,3)$.
Using the hypothesis
$\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(n,m)}\leq C^{n+m}$
(of Theorem \ref{T:Uniqueness_hierarchy}) and applying Chapman-Kolmogorov equation to (\ref{E:hierarchy_4}), and then applying (\ref{E:Surface_integral_boundedness}), we obtain the following lemma by the same argument that we used to obtain (\ref{E:Telescoping_122}).
\begin{lem}\label{L:beta_I_N}
\begin{equation}
\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(n,m)}
\leq C^{n+m+N}\,\,(C_+\vee C_-)^N\,I^{(n,m)}_N(t),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
I^{(n,m)}_N(t) := \int_{t_2=0}^{t}\cdots \int_{t_{N+1}=0}^{t_N}
\sum_{\vec{\upsilon}\,\in \mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_N}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(t_{\upsilon_1}-t_2)\,(t_{\upsilon_2}-t_3)\cdots(t_{\upsilon_N}-t_{N+1})}} dt_2
\cdots dt_{N+1} .
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
Our goal is to show that $I^{(n,m)}_N(t)\leq (C\,t)^{N/2}$ for some $C=C(n,m)>0$. This will imply $\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(n,m)}=0$ for $t>0$ small enough. Clearly we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
I^{(n,m)}_N(t) &\leq& \frac{(n+m+N-1)!}{(n+m-1)!} \int_{t_2=0}^{t}\cdots \int_{t_{N+1}=0}^{t_N}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{(t-t_2)\,(t_2-t_3)\cdots(t_N-t_{N+1})}} dt_2
\cdots dt_{N+1} \\
&=& \frac{(n+m+N-1)!}{(n+m-1)!}\,\frac{(\pi\,t)^{N/2}}{\Gamma(\frac{N+2}{2})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Unfortunately, this crude bound is asymptotically larger than $(Ct)^{N/2}$ for any $C>0$.
\subsubsection{Comparison with a `dominating' tree}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
I^{(1,2)}_3(t) &\leq& \int_{t_2=0}^{t}\int_{t_3=0}^{t_2}\int_{t_4=0}^{t_3}
\left(\frac{3}{\sqrt{t-t_2}}\right)\,\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}+ \frac{2}{\sqrt{t-t_3}}\right) \notag\\
&& \qquad \left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_3-t_4}}+ \frac{2}{\sqrt{t_2-t_4}}+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_4}}\right)
dt_2 \, dt_3 \, dt_4 .
\end{eqnarray*}
This is obtained by comparing the labels in $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_3$ with a `dominating'
labeling,
in which the labels of the edges below \textit{every} leaf of $\mathbb{S}^{(1,2)}_2$ is $\{3,\,3,\,2,\,2,\,1\}$ (the $\pm$ sign is discarded). This trick enables us to group the terms at each level.
For the general case, let $\xi$ be an arbitrary leaf of $\mathbb{S}^{(n,m)}_{k-1}$. Note that in $L^{\xi}$, each of the integers $2,\,3,\,\cdots,\,k$ appears at most twice and the integer $1$ appears at most $n+m$ times. We compare $L^{\xi}$ with the `dominating' label $\tilde{L}^\xi$ defined below:
\begin{tabular}{|r|c|l|}\hline
&&\\
Level $k$ & $|\tilde{L}^\xi|=|L^{\xi}|$ & $\tilde{L}^\xi$ \\
\hline\hline
1 & $n+m$ & $1,\,1,\,1,\cdots,\,1$ \\
2 & $n+m+1$ & $2,\,2,\,1,\,1,\,1,\cdots,\,1$ \\
3 & $n+m+2$ & $3,\,3,\,2,\,2,\,1,\,1,\,1,\cdots,\,1$\\
$\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots $\\
$n+m-1$ & $2(n+m)-2$ & $n+m-1,\,n+m-1,\,n+m-2,\,\cdots,\,3,\,3,\,2,\,2,\,1,\,1$\\
$n+m$ & $2(n+m)-1$ & $n+m,\,n+m,\,n+m-1,\,n+m-1,\,\cdots,\,3,\,3,\,2,\,2,\,1$\\
$n+m+1$ & $2(n+m)$ & $n+m+1,\,n+m+1,\,n+m,\,n+m,\,\cdots,\,3,\,3,\,2,\,2$\\
$n+m+2$ & $2(n+m)+1$ & $n+m+2,\,n+m+2,\,n+m+1,\,\cdots,\,3,\,3,\,2$\\
$\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots $\\
$N$ & $n+m+N-1$ & $N,\,N,\,N-1,\,N-1,\,\cdots,\,c,\,b,\,a$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
In the last row, if $n+m+N-1$ is even, then $a=b=(N-n-m+3)/2$ and $c=b+1$; if $n+m+N-1$ is odd, then $a=(N-n-m+2)/2$ and $b=c=a+1$.
We can now group the terms in each level $k$ as a sum of $k$ terms to obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
I^{(n,m)}_N(t)
&\leq& \int_{t_2=0}^{t}\int_{t_3=0}^{t_2}\cdots \int_{t_{N+1}=0}^{t_N}
\left(\frac{n+m}{\sqrt{t-t_2}}\right)\,
\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}+\frac{n+m-1}{\sqrt{t-t_3}}\right)\,\\
&& \qquad \left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_3-t_4}}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_2-t_4}}+\frac{n+m-2}{\sqrt{t-t_4}}\right)\,\cdots\\
&& \qquad \left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_{n+m}-t_{n+m+1}}}+\cdots +\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_{2}-t_{n+m+1}}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_{n+m+1}}}\right)\\
&& \qquad \prod_{k=n+m+1}^{N}
\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_{k}-t_{k+1}}}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_{k-1}-t_{k+1}}}+\cdots +\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_{2}-t_{k+1}}}\right) dt_2 \cdots dt_{N+1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
In the last term, we have used the observation that when $k>n+m$, the smallest element in $\tilde{L}^\xi$ is at least 2 and so the sum stops before reaching $1/\sqrt{t-t_{k+1}}$. From this and the simple estimates like
$$\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_3-t_4}}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{t_2-t_4}}+\frac{n+m-2}{\sqrt{t-t_4}}\leq \frac{2(n+m)}{3}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t_3-t_4}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t_2-t_4}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_4}}\right),$$
we have derived the following
\begin{lem}\label{L:I_N_J_N}
\begin{equation}
I^{(n,m)}_N(t) \leq \frac{(n+m)^{(n+m)}}{(n+m)!}\,2^N\,J_N(t),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
J_N(t) := \int_0^t \int_0^{t_2}\cdots\int_0^{t_N}\prod_{i=2}^{N+1}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}\frac{dt_i}{\sqrt{t_j-t_i}}\right) .
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{comment}
\begin{eqnarray}
I^{(n,m)}_N(t) &\leq& C(n,m)\,2^N\,\int_{t_2=0}^{t}\int_{t_3=0}^{t_2}\cdots \int_{t_{N+1}=0}^{t_N}
\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_2}}\right)\,
\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t_2-t_3}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_3}}\right)
\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t_3-t_4}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t_2-t_4}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_4}}\right)\,
\cdots\,
\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t_N-t_{N+1}}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t_{N-1}-t_{N+1}}}+\cdots+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_{N+1}}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Estimating $J_N$}
Our goal in this section is show that $J_N(t)\leq (C\,t)^{N/2}$ for some $C>0$. Our proof relies on the following recursion formula pointed out
to us by David Speyer:
\begin{equation}\label{E:Recursion_J_N(t)}
J_N(t) = \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{ \substack{n_2+n_3 + \cdots + n_{k+1} = N \\ n_2, n_3, \cdots, n_{k+1} \geq 1} }\;\prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \int_{0}^t \frac{J_{n_j-1}(t_j)}{\sqrt{t-t_j}}\,dt_j.
\end{equation}
We assume (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)}) for now and use it to establish the following lemma. The proof of (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)}) will be given immediately after it.
\begin{lem}\label{L:Rate_J_N}
$J_N(t)$ is homogeneous in the sense that
\begin{equation}
J_N(t) = J_N \cdot t^{N/2} \quad \text{where }J_N:= J_N(1).
\end{equation}
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
2^N\leq J_N \leq \frac{(N+1)^{N}\,\pi^{N/2}}{(N+1)!}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
$J_N(t) = J_N \cdot t^{N/2}$ is obvious from \eqref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)}
after a change of variable. Let $\mathcal{M}_N$ be the collection of functions $f: \{ 2,\,3,\cdots,\,N+1 \} \to \{1,\,2,\cdots,\,N \}$ satisfying $f(i)< i$. We can rewrite $J_N(t_1)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_1}
J_N(t_1)=\sum_{f\in \mathcal{M}_N}
\int_{t_2=0}^{t_1} \int_{t_3=0}^{t_2}\cdots\int_{t_{N+1}=0}^{t_N} \prod_{i=2}^{N+1}\frac{dt_i}{\sqrt{t_{f(i)}-t_i}}.
\end{equation}
This is a sum of $N!$ terms. When we put $t_1=1$, the smallest term is
$$\int_{t_2=0}^1 \int_{t_3=0}^{t_2}\cdots\int_{t_{N+1}=0}^{t_N}\prod_{j=2}^{N+1}\frac{dt_j}{\sqrt{1-t_{j}}}=\frac{1}{N!}\left(\int_0^1\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-s}}\,ds\right)^N=\frac{2^N}{N!}.$$
Hence we have the lower bound $2^N\leq J_N$. Unfortunately, the largest term is exactly
$$\int_{t_2=0}^1 \int_{t_3=0}^{t_2}\cdots\int_{t_{N+1}=0}^{t_N}\prod_{i=1}^N\frac{dt_j}{\sqrt{t_{j-1}-t_{j}}}=\frac{\pi^{N/2}}{\Gamma(\frac{N+2}{2})}.$$
which grows faster than $C^N$ for any $C\in (0,\infty)$.
Hence for the upper bound, we will employ the recursion formula (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)}). We apply the homogeneity to the right hand side of (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)}) to obtain
$$J_N = \sum_{k= 1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{\substack{ n_2+n_3 + \cdots + n_{k+1} = N \\ n_2, \cdots, n_{k+1} \geq 1 }} \;\prod_{j=2}^{k+1} J_{n_j-1} \int_{0}^1 \frac{t_j^{(n_j-1)/2}}{\sqrt{1-t_j}}\, d t_j.$$
The integrals are now simple one dimensional and can be evaluated:
\begin{equation}\label{E:Recursion_J_N}
J_N = \sum_{k= 1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{\substack{ n_2+n_3 + \cdots + n_{k+1} = N \\ n_2, \cdots, n_{k+1} \geq 1 }} \;\prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \left( J_{n_j-1} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma((n_j+1)/2)}{\Gamma((n_j+2)/2)} \right).
\end{equation}
Since $\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\, \Gamma((n_j+1)/2)}{\Gamma((n_j+2)/2)} \leq \sqrt{\pi}$, we have $J_N\leq K_N$, where $K_N$ is defined by the recursion
$$
K_N = \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{\substack{ n_2+n_3 + \cdots + n_{k+1} = N \\ n_2, \cdots, n_{k+1} \geq 1 }} \;\prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \left( K_{n_j-1} \cdot \sqrt{\pi}\right)
$$
with $K_0=1$. The generating function $\phi(x) := \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} K_N x^N$ of $K_N$ clearly satisfies $\phi(x) = \exp(\sqrt{\pi} x \phi(x))$. We thus see that $\phi(x) = W(-\sqrt{\pi}x)/(-\sqrt{\pi}x)$, where $W$ is the Lambert $W$ function. By Lagrange inversion Theorem (see Theorem 5.4.2 of \cite{rpS99}), $W(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(-k)^{k-1}z^k/k!$ (for $|z|<1/e$). Hence by comparing coefficients in the series expansion of $\phi(x)$, we have $K_N = \frac{(N+1)^{N}\,\pi^{N/2}}{(N+1)!}$ as desired.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark} \rm
By Stirling's formula, $ \frac{(N+1)^{N}\,\pi^{N/2}}{(N+1)!}\sim (\sqrt{\pi}e)^N$ (where $a(N)\sim b(N)$ means $\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{a(N)}{b(N)}=1$). Hence $J_N \leq C^N$ for some $C>0$. Monte Carlo simulations suggests that $J_N \sim \pi^N$.
The recursion (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N}) also makes it clear that $J_N$'s are all in $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ (polynomials in $\pi$ with rational coefficients) and makes it easy to compute them recursively. This is because $\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma((n_j+1)/2)}{\Gamma((n_j+2)/2)}$ is rational if $n_j$ is odd and is a rational multiple of $\pi$ if $n_j$ is even. For example, $J_1=2$, $J_2=2+\pi$ and $J_3=4+\frac{10\pi}{3}$. \qed
\end{remark}
We now turn to the proof the recursion formula (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)}) which is restated in the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{L:Recursion_J_N(t)}
\begin{equation}
J_N(t) = \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{ \substack{n_2+n_3 + \cdots + n_{k+1} = N \\ n_2, n_3, \cdots, n_{k+1} \geq 1} }\;\prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \int_{0}^t \frac{J_{n_j-1}(t_j)}{\sqrt{t-t_j}}\,dt_j
\end{equation}
provided that we set $J_0(t)=1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
The proof is based on standard combinatorial methods for working on sums over planar rooted trees (see \cite{rpS99}).
\textbf{Step 1: Summing over labeled trees. }Recall (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_1}). There are $N!$ elements in $\mathcal{M}_N$. We can visualize each of them as a rooted tree with vertex set $\{1,\,2,\,\cdots,\,N+1\}$ and a directed edge from $i$ to $f(i)$ for each $i$. For example, the 6 elements of $\mathcal{M}_3$ can be represented by
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[edge from parent/.style={draw, <-, thick},node distance=18mm, level distance=14mm]
\tikzstyle{level 1}=[sibling distance=12mm]
\node (a) {1}
child {node {2}}
child {node {3}}
child {node {4}};
\hskip 0.2truein
\node (b) [right=of a] {1}
child {node {2}
child {node {4}}
}
child {node {3}};
\node (c) [right=of b] {1}
child {node {2}}
child {node {3}
child {node {4}}
};
\node (d) [right=of c] {1}
child {node {2}
child {node {3}}
}
child {node {4}};
\node (e) [right=of d] {1}
child {node {2}
child {node {3}}
child {node {4}}
};
\node (f) [right=of e] {1}
child {node {2}
child {node {3}
child {node {4}}
}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
The trees are drawn so that arrows point upwards and the children of a given vertex are listed from left to right. Note that the second and forth tree of the list are the same up to relabeling the vertices. The idea is to group terms in (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_1}) like this together. First, we rewrite (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_1}) in terms of trees. Let $\mathcal{D}_N$ be the set of `decreasing trees', which are trees whose vertices are labeled by $\{1,\,2,\,\cdots,\,N+1\}$ and such that $i<j$ whenever there is an edge $i\leftarrow j$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_2}
J_N(t_1)=\sum_{T\in \mathcal{D}_N} \int_{t_1 \geq t_2 \geq \cdots \geq t_{N+1} \geq 0} \prod_{(i\leftarrow j) \in Edge(T)} \frac {dt_j}{\sqrt {t_i - t_j}}.
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 2: Summing over unlabeled trees. }A planar tree is a rooted unlabeled tree where, for each vertex, the children of that vertex are ordered. We draw a planar tree so that its children are ordered from left to right. Here are the 5 planar rooted trees on 3+1 vertices:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[edge from parent/.style={draw, <-, thick},node distance=20mm, level distance=14mm]
\tikzstyle{level 1}=[sibling distance=12mm]
\node (a) {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}}
child {node {$\bullet$}}
child {node {$\bullet$}};
\hskip 0.2truein
\node (b) [right=of a] {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}}
}
child {node {$\bullet$}};
\node (c) [right=of b] {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}}
child {node {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}}
};
\node (d) [right=of c] {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}}
child {node {$\bullet$}}
};
\node (e) [right=of d] {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}
child {node {$\bullet$}}
}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Let $\mathcal{T}_{k}$ be the set of planar rooted trees with $k$ vertices. In general, there are $\frac{(2N)!}{N!(N+1)!}$ (the Catalan number) elements in $\mathcal{T}_{N+1}$, see exercise 6.19 in \cite{rpS99}. We now group all the integrals in (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_2}) with the same planar tree. For example, two different labeled trees (the second and forth in our list of labeled trees) both give the same unlabeled planar tree (which is the second in the above list). We redraw this unlabeled planar tree $T_0$ below and attach letters $\{a,\,b,\,c,\,d\}$ to $T_0$ for later use.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[edge from parent/.style={draw, <-, thick}]
\node {a}
child {node {b}
child {node {d}}
}
child {node {c}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
The integrands corresponding to the second and forth labeled trees are
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dt_2 \,dt_3\, dt_4}{\sqrt{(t_1 - t_2)(t_2 - t_4)(t_1 - t_3)}} \quad\text{and}\quad \frac{dt_2\, dt_3 \,dt_4}{\sqrt{(t_1 - t_2)(t_2 - t_3)(t_1 - t_4)}}.
\end{equation*}
They are the same to
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dt_b \,dt_c \,dt_d}{\sqrt{(t_a - t_b)(t_a - t_c)(t_b - t_d)}},
\end{equation*}
once we relabel the variables by the vertices of $T_0$. That is, $(1, 2, 3, 4)\rightarrow (a, b, c, d)$ for the first term and $(1, 2, 3, 4) \rightarrow (a, b, d, c)$ for the second.
We now go back and keep track of the bounds of integration. In the first integral, they are $t_a \geq t_b \geq t_c \geq t_d$ and, in the second integral, they are $t_a \geq t_b \geq t_d \geq t_c$. We can group these together as
\begin{equation*}
t_a \geq t_b , \quad t_a \geq t_c , \quad t_b \geq t_d , \quad t_b>t_c,
\end{equation*}
which is the same as $t_a\geq t_b\geq t_c$ and $t_b\geq t_d$.
In general, the inequality constraints we have are of two types. First, whenever we have an edge $u \leftarrow v$, we get the inequality $t_u \geq t_v$. Second, if $v$ and $w$ are children of $u$ with $v$ to the left of $w$, then $t_v \geq t_w$. Let $P(T, t_1)$ be the polytope cut out by these inequalities where $t_1$ is the variable at the root. We have proved
\begin{equation}\label{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_3}
J_N(t_1) = \sum_{T\in \mathcal{T}_{N+1}} \int_{P(T, t_1)} \prod_{(u \leftarrow v) \in Edge(T)} \frac{dt_v}{\sqrt{t_u - t_v}},
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 3: Grouping terms for which the root has degree $k$. }
We abbreviate
$$\omega(T, t_1) := \prod_{(u \leftarrow v) \in Edge(T)} \frac{dt_v}{\sqrt{t_u - t_v}}$$
if $T$ has more than one vertex (otherwise $\omega(T, t_1):= 1$).
Then (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_3}) translates into
\begin{equation}\label{e:3.47}
J_N(t_1) = \sum_{T\in \mathcal{T}_{N+1}} \int_{P(T, t_1)} \omega(T, t_1).
\end{equation}
Fix an integer $k$ and let $T$ be a tree whose root has degree $k$. Removing the root leaves behind
$k$ children, denoted in chronical order by $t_2, \cdots t_{k+1}$,
and $k$ planar subtrees $T_j$ having $t_j$ as its root for $2\leq j\leq k+1$.
Then
\begin{equation*}
\int_{P(T, t_1)} \omega(T, t_1) = \int_{t_1 \geq t_2 \geq \cdots \geq t_{k+1}\geq 0} \prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \frac {dt_j}{\sqrt {t_1 - t_j}} \int_{P(T_j, t_j)} \omega(T_j, t_j).
\end{equation*}
Hence, group together the terms where the root has degree $k$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_4}
J_N(t_1)
&=& \sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{T_2, \cdots, T_{k+1}} \int_{t_1 \geq t_2 \geq \cdots \geq t_{k+1}\geq 0} \prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \frac {dt_j}{\sqrt {t_1 - t_j}} \int_{P(T_j, t_j)} \omega(T_j, t_j).
\end{eqnarray}
Here the summation conditions include that $\sum_{j=2}^{k+1}|T_j|=N$ and each different ordering of $(T_2, \,T_3,\, \cdots ,\, T_{k+1})$ are considered to be different, where $|T_j|$ is the number of vertices in $T_j$. This abbreviation applies whenever $\sum_{T_2, \, \cdots,\, T_{k+1}}$ appears.
On other hand, we have by applying \eqref{e:3.47}
to each $J_{n_j-1}(t_j)$ below that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_5}
&& \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{ \substack{n_2+n_3 + \cdots + n_{k+1} = N \\ n_2, \cdots, n_{k+1} \geq 1} }\;\prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \int_0^{t_1} \frac{J_{n_j-1}(t_j)}{\sqrt{t_1-t_j}}\,dt_j \notag \\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{\substack{n_2+n_3 + \cdots + n_{k+1} = N \\ n_2, \cdots, n_{k+1} \geq 1}}\;\prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \sum_{| T_j| = n_j} \int_0^{t_1} \frac {dt_j}{\sqrt {t_1 - t_j}} \int_{P(T_j, t_j)} \omega(T_j, t_j) \notag\\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{T_2, \cdots, T_{k+1}} \prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \int_0^{t_1} \frac {dt_j}{\sqrt {t_1 - t_j}} \int_{P(T_j, t_j)} \omega(T_j, t_j) \notag\\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{T_2, \cdots, T_{k+1}} \int_{[0, t_1]^{k+1}} \prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \frac{dt_j}{\sqrt {t_1 - t_j}} \int_{P(T_j, t_j)} \omega(T_j, t_j).
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Step 4: Identifying the integrals. }
It remains to show that (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_4}) is equal to (\ref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_5}).
Let ${\cal S}_k$ denote the space of permutations of $\{2,\,3,\,\cdots,\,k+1\}$.
Then the right hand side of \eqref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_5} is equal to
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{T_2, \cdots, T_{k+1}}
\sum_{\sigma\in {\cal S}_k} \int_{t_1\geq t_{\sigma (2)}\geq \cdots \geq t_{\sigma (k+1)}\geq 0} \prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \frac{dt_{\sigma (j)}}{\sqrt {t_1 - t_{\sigma (j)}}} \int_{P(T_{\sigma(j)}, t_{\sigma (j)})} \omega( T_{\sigma (j)}, t_{\sigma (j)}) \\
&=&\sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{\sigma \in {\cal S}_k} \sum_{T_2, \cdots, T_{k+1}}
\int_{t_1\geq s_2\geq \cdots \geq s_{k+1}\geq 0} \prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \frac{ds_j}{\sqrt {t_1 - s_j}} \int_{P(T_{\sigma(j)}, s_j)} \omega( T_{\sigma (j)}, s_j) \\
&=&\sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{\sigma \in {\cal S}_k} \sum_{T_2, \cdots, T_{k+1}}
\int_{t_1\geq s_2\geq \cdots \geq s_{k+1}\geq 0} \prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \frac{ds_j}{\sqrt {t_1 - s_j}} \int_{P(T_j, s_j)} \omega( T_j, s_j) \\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{T_2, \cdots, T_{k+1}}
\int_{t_1\geq t_2 \geq \cdots \geq t_{k+1}\geq 0} \prod_{j=2}^{k+1} \frac{dt_j}{\sqrt {t_1 - t_j}} \int_{P(T_j, t_j)} \omega( T_j, t_j),
\end{eqnarray*}
which is $J_N(t)$ by \eqref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)_4}. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{pf}
\subsubsection{Proof of uniqueness}
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{T:Uniqueness_hierarchy}}.
By Lemma \ref{L:beta_I_N}, Lemma \ref{L:I_N_J_N} and Lemma \ref{L:Rate_J_N}, we have
\begin{align}
\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(n,m)} \leq C_1(n,m)\;C_2(D_+,D_-,T)^N\;t^{N/2}
\end{align}
for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $N\in\mathbb{N}$. This implies that there is a constant $\tau>0$ so that
$\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(n,m)}=0$ for $t\leq \tau$ and for all $(n,m)\in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}$. Note that $\Tilde{\beta}_t := \beta_{\tau+t}$ also satisfies the hierarchy (\ref{E:hierarchy_2}), and that $\Tilde{\beta}_0=0$. Using the hypothesis $\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(T,n,m)}\leq C^{n+m}$, we can extend to obtain $\|\beta_t^{(n,m)}\|_{(n,m)}=0$ for $t\in[0,T]$.
\qed
\begin{comment}
\begin{lem}
$w$ is the unique solution of the hierarchy with initial condition $\prod_{i=1}^{n}u^+_{0} \prod_{j=1}^{m}u^-_{0}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
We introduce the seminorms
\[
\|v\|_{(n,m)} := \sup_{ \substack {1\leq i \leq n \\
1 \leq j \leq m}}
\sup_{(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \bar{D}_{+}^i \times \bar{D}_{-}^j}\Big|v^{(i,j)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})\Big|
\]
Then $\|\Upsilon v\|_{(n,m)} \leq \|v\|_{(n+1,m+1)}\,(\|\rho_+\|\vee \|\rho_-\|)^{n+m}$.
Suppose $\gamma_t$ and $\omega_t$, $t\in[0, T]$, are two solutions of the hierarchy in Theorem \ref{T:hierarchy} with the same initial datum. Then both of them satisfy the bound $\|u_0^+\|^{n}\|u_0^-\|^{m}$. Let $\alpha=\gamma-\omega$, then
$$\alpha_t^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s}) =
-\lambda \, \E^{(\vec{r},\vec{s})}\left[\int_0^t (\Upsilon \alpha_s)^{(n,m)}(X_{(n,m)}(t-s)) \,dL_s\right]$$
If we let $f_{(n,m)}(t) := \|\alpha_t\|_{(n,m)}$, then $\sup_{t\in[0,T]}f_{(n,m)}(t) \leq 2\|u_0^+\|^{n}\|u_0^-\|^{m}$. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& f_{(n,m)}(t) \\
&\leq & \lambda \, \sup_{(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \bar{D}_{+}^n \times \bar{D}_{-}^m}\E^{(\vec{r},\vec{s})}\left[\int_0^t f_{(n+1,m+1)}(s)\, dL_s\right] \\
&=& \frac{\lambda}{2}\,\sup_{(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \bar{D}_{+}^n \times \bar{D}_{-}^m}\, \int_0^tf_{(n+1,m+1)}(s)\int_{\partial (D_{+}^n \times D_{-}^m) }q(t-s,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{a},\vec{b}))\, d\sigma(\vec{a},\vec{b})\,ds \\
&\leq & \lambda \, \int_0^t \left(\dfrac{C}{\sqrt{t-s}}\right)\,f_{(n+1,m+1)}(s) \, ds \quad \text{for some constant }C>0
\end{eqnarray*}
Repeating the above argument for $f_{(n+1,m+1)}$, then for $f_{(n+2,m+2)}$, etc. We have for any $N\in\mathbb{N}$, the last expression is at most
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \lambda^N \,\int_0^t\int_0^{s_1}\cdots\int_0^{s_{N-1}} \left(\frac{C}{\sqrt{t-s_1}}\right)\cdots \left(\frac{C}{\sqrt{s_{N-1}-s_N}}\right) f_{(n+N,m+N)}(s_N)\,ds_N\cdots ds_1 \\
&\leq & \lambda^N\,\sup_{s_N\in[0,S_{N-1}]}f_{(n+N,m+N)}(s_N)\, (2C)^{N-1}\, \left(t^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{N+1}\\
&\leq & \|u_0^+\|^{n}\|u_0^-\|^{m}\,\left(\lambda\,\|u_0^+\|\,\|u_0^-\|(2C)t^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^N\quad \forall \,N\in\mathbb{N}. \quad \text{Here we assume } 2A>1
\end{eqnarray*}
Take $\tau$ to be any number such that $\lambda \|u_0^+\|\,\|u_0^-\|(2C)\tau^{\frac{1}{2}} <1$. Let $N\to\infty$, we see that $f_{(n,m)}(t)=0$ for all $t\in[0,\tau]$.
Let $\Tilde{\gamma_t} := \gamma_{\tau+t}$ and $\Tilde{\omega_t} := \omega_{\tau+t}$, $t\geq 0$. Then
$$\Tilde{\gamma_t}(\vec{r},\vec{s})-\Tilde{\omega_t}(\vec{r},\vec{s}) =
-\lambda \, \E^{(\vec{r},\vec{s})}\left[\int_0^t \Upsilon (\Tilde{\gamma}_s-\Tilde{\omega}_s)(X_{(n,m)}(t-s))\, dL_s\right]$$
We can therefore repeat the previous argument to show that $\gamma_{t}=\omega_{t}$ for all $t\in[\tau, 2\tau]$. The argument can be iterated until we showed that $\gamma_{t}=\omega_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\end{pf}
\subsubsection{Alternative description of the hierarchy (put in appendix)}
Let $X_{(n,m)}$ be the symmetric reflected diffusion on $D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m$ corresponding to $(I_{(n+m)d\times (n+m)d},\,\rho_{(n,m)})$, where $\rho_{(n,m)}:\,D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m \rightarrow \R$ is defined by $\rho(\vec{r},\vec{s}):= \prod_{i=1}^n\rho_+(r_i)\prod_{j=1}^m\rho_-(s_j)$. The generator of $X_{(n,m)}$ is $\A_{(n,m)}$, where $$\A_{(n,m)} := \frac{1}{2}\,\Delta_{(n,m)} + \frac{1}{2}\,\nabla \log \rho_{(n,m)}\cdot \nabla$$
Here $\Delta_{(n,m)}$ is the standard Laplacian on $\R^{(n+m)d}$. Moreover, the transition density of $X_{(n,m)}$ with respect to $\rho_{(n,m)}$ is $p(t,(\vec{r},\vec{s}),(\vec{r'},\vec{s'})) := \prod_{i=1}^n p^{+}(t,r_i,r_i')\prod_{j=1}^m p^{-}(t,s_j,s_j')$, where $p^{\pm}$ is the transition density of $X^{\pm}$ with respect to $\rho_{\pm}$.
Let $V$ be the space of infinite matrices of functions $v=(v^{n,m}(\cdot))_{n,m\in \mathbb{N}}$, where for each $(n,m)$, $v^{n,m}$ is a function on $\bar{D}_{+}^n \times \bar{D}_{-}^m$. On $V$, we consider the operator $\Upsilon$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\quad (\Upsilon v)^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s}) :=
\begin{cases}
v^{(n,m+1)}(\vec{r},(\vec{s},r_i))\frac{\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})}{\rho_+(r_i)} , &\text{ if } (\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \partial_+^i\, ;\\
v^{(n+1,m)}((\vec{r},s_j),\vec{s}))\frac{\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})}{\rho_-(s_j)}, &\text{ if } (\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \partial_+^i\, ;\\
0, &\text{ otherwise }
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
By Theorem \ref{E:localtime_def}, (\ref{E:hierarchy_1}) is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{E:hierarchy_3}
\gamma_t^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s}) = \E^{(\vec{r},\vec{s})}\left[\gamma_0^{(n,m)}(X_{(n,m)}(t)) - \lambda\int_0^t (\Upsilon\gamma_s)^{(n,m)}(X_{(n,m)}(t-s))\, dL^{(n,m)}_s\,\right]
\end{equation}
Here $L^{(n,m)}$ is boundary local time of $X_{(n,m)}$. i.e. the positive continuous additive function (PCAF) of $X_{(n,m)}$ associated with the measure $\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{(n,m)}$ (c.f.\cite{CF12}).
Here is a heuristic way to see that $\{\Phi^{(n,m)}\}_{(n,m)}$ solves the hierarchy. From the PDE solved (mildly) by $(u_+,u_-)$ and the fact that $\Upsilon \Phi_t$ is a bounded function on $(0,T)\times \partial(D^n_{+}\times D^m_{-})$, we see that $\Phi^{(n,m)}$ solves the following PDE (in $W$) mildly.
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\partial W_t(\vec{r},\vec{s})}{\partial t} = \A_{(n,m)}\,W_t(\vec{r},\vec{s}) &,(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in D_{+}^n \times D_{-}^m , t>0 \\
\dfrac{\partial W_t(\vec{r},\vec{s})}{\partial \vec{n}} = \frac{1}{\rho_{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})}\,\lambda\,(\Upsilon \Phi_t)^{(n,m)}(\vec{r},\vec{s})
&,(\vec{r},\vec{s})\in \partial(D_{+}^n\times D_{-}^m), t>0 \\
W_0(\vec{r},\vec{s})=\prod_{i=1}^{n}u^+_{0}(r_i) \prod_{j=1}^{m}u^-_{0}(s_j)
&, (\vec{r},\vec{s})\in D_{+}^n \times D_{-}^m
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $\vec{n}$ is the inward normal vector.
\end{comment}
\section{Hydrodynamic Limits}
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{T:conjecture}. Throughout this section, we assume the conditions of Theorem \ref{T:conjecture} hold.
\subsection{Constructing martingales}
Since $\eta_t=\eta^{\varepsilon}_t$ has a finite state space, we know that for all bounded function $F:\R_+\times E^\varepsilon\rightarrow \R$ that is smooth in the first coordinate with $\sup_{(s,x)}\big|\frac{\partial F}{\partial s}(s,x)\big|<C<\infty$, we have two $\mathfrak{F^{\eta}_t}$-martingales below:
\begin{equation} \label{E:mtg_MF}
M(t) := F(t,\eta_t)-F(0,\eta_0)-\int_0^t{\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial s}(s,\eta_s)+\mathfrak{L}F(s,\cdot)(\eta_s)ds}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{E:mtg_NF}
N(t) := M(t)^2-\int_0^t{\mathfrak{L}(F^2(s,\cdot))(\eta_s)-2F(s,\eta_s)\mathfrak{L}F(s,\cdot)(\eta_s)}ds ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{L}=\mathfrak{L}^\varepsilon$ is the generator defined in \eqref{E:generator0}.
See Lemma 5.1 (p.330) of \cite{cKcL98} or Proposition 4.1.7 of \cite{EK86} for a proof. We will use this fact to construct some important martingales in Lemma \ref{L:OderOfM} below.
In general, suppose $X=(X_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a CTRW in a finite state space $E$, whose one step transition probability is $p_{xy}$ and mean holding time at $x$ is $h(x)$. Its infinitesimal generator of $X$ is the discrete operator
$$\mathcal{A}f(x) := \frac{1}{h(x)}\sum_{y\in E}p_{xy}(f(y)-f(x)).$$
The formal adjoint $\mathcal{A}^{*}$ of $\mathcal{A}$ is defined by
$$
\mathcal{A}^{*}f(x) := \sum_{y\in E}\Big(\frac{1}{h(y)}p_{yx}f(y)-\frac{1}{h(x)}p_{xy}f(x)\Big).
$$
It can be easily checked that
\begin{equation}\label{E:Dual_Discrete_Generator}
\<f, \,\mathcal{A}^{*}g\>=\<\mathcal{A}f,\, g\>,\quad \text{where } \<f,g\>:= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{x \in E}{f(x)g(x)} .
\end{equation}
We denote by $\mathcal{A^{\pm}_{\varepsilon}}$ the generator of the CTRW $X^{\pm,\varepsilon}$ on $D^\varepsilon_\pm$, respectively, and by $\mathcal{A^{*,\pm}_{\varepsilon}}$ the corresponding formal adjoint. In our case, $h(x)=h_\varepsilon (x)=\varepsilon^2/d$ for all $x$. We can check that if $f\in C^2(D_{\pm})$, then
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\mathcal{A^{\pm}_{\varepsilon}}f(x^{\varepsilon}) = \mathcal{A^{\pm}} f(x) \text{ whenever }x^{\varepsilon}\in D^{\varepsilon}_{\pm}\text{ converges to } x\in D_{\pm}.
\end{equation}
\begin{lem} \label{L:OderOfM}
For any $\phi \in\mathcal{B}_b(D_+)$,
\begin{equation}\label{E:discrete}
M(t):= M^{+,N}_{\phi}(t) := \<\phi,\,\X^{N,+}_t\> - \<\phi,\,\X^{N,+}_0\>
-\int_0^t{\<\mathcal{A}^{+}_{\varepsilon} \phi,\, \X^{N,+}_s\>}ds + \lambda\,\int_0^t\<J^{N,+}_s,\,\phi\>\,ds
\end{equation}
is an $\mathfrak{F^{\eta}_t}$-martingale for $t\geq 0$, where
$J^{N,+}$ is the measure-valued process defined by \eqref{e:2.34}.
Moreover, if $\phi\in C^{1}(\bar{D}_{+})$, then there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $N$ so that
for every $T>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.6}
\E\Big[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}M^2(t)\Big]\leq \frac{C\,T}{N}.
\end{equation}
Similar statements hold for $\X^{N,-}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
The lemma follows by applying (\ref{E:mtg_MF}) and (\ref{E:mtg_NF}) to the function
$$F(s,\eta):=f(\eta):=\frac{1}{N} \sum_{x \in D_+}{\phi^+(x)\eta^+(x)}\quad,\,(s,\eta)\in [0,\infty)\times E^{\varepsilon}.$$
We spell out the details here for completeness.
Observe that $f(\eta_t)=\<\phi,\X^{N,+}_t\>$.
Fix $x_0 \in D^{\varepsilon}_+$, and define $\eta^+_{x_0}$ to be the function from $E^{\varepsilon}$ to $\R$ which maps $\eta$ to $\eta^+(x_0)$. Then by the definition of $\mathfrak{L}=\mathfrak{L}^{\varepsilon}$ in (\ref{E:generator0}),
\begin{equation}\label{E:generator1}
\mathfrak{L}\eta^+_{x_0}(\eta)=\left(\mathcal{A^{*,+}_{\varepsilon}}\eta^+\right)(x_0)-
\sum_{\{z\in I^{\varepsilon}:\,z_+=x_0\}}\,\dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\,\Psi(z)\, \eta^+_t(z_+)\eta^-_t(z_-) \, .
\end{equation}
Similarly, for $y_0 \in D^{\varepsilon}_-$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:generator2}
\mathfrak{L}\eta^-_{y_0}(\eta)=\left(\mathcal{A^{*,-}_{\varepsilon}}\eta^-\right)(y_0)-\sum_{\{z\in I^{\varepsilon}:\,z_-=y_0\}}\,\, \dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\, \Psi(z)\,\eta^+_t(z_+)\eta^-_t(z_-) .
\end{equation}
Hence, by linearity of $\mathfrak{L}$, (\ref{E:generator1}) and then (\ref{E:Dual_Discrete_Generator}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathfrak{L}f(\eta)
&=&\dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{x \in D_+}{\phi(x)(\mathfrak{L}\eta^+_{x})(\eta)}\\
&=&\dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{x \in D_+}{\phi(x)(\mathcal{A^{*,+}_{\varepsilon}}\eta^+(x))}-\dfrac{\lambda}{N\varepsilon}\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}} \,\Psi(z)\, \eta^+(z_+)\eta^-(z_-)\,\phi(z_+)\\
&=&\dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{x \in D_+}{\eta^+(x)(\mathcal{A^{+}_{\varepsilon}}\phi(x))}-\dfrac{\lambda}{N\varepsilon}\,\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}} \,\Psi(z)\,\eta^+(z_+)\eta^-(z_-)\,\phi(z_+) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
\begin{equation}\label{E:formula_for_generator}
\mathfrak{L}f(\eta_s)=\<\mathcal{A^{+}_{\varepsilon}}\phi, \X^{N,+}_s\>- \dfrac{\lambda}{N\,\varepsilon^d}\,\<J^{N,+}_s,\,\phi\>
\end{equation}
and $M(t)$ is an $\mathfrak{F^{\eta}_t}$-martingale by (\ref{E:mtg_MF}).
Next, we compute $\E[\<M\>_t]$. Note that
$$\L (f^2)(\eta)= \dfrac{1}{N^2}\sum_{a\in D^{\varepsilon}_+}\sum_{b\in D^{\varepsilon}_+}\phi^+(a)\phi^+(b)\,\L(\eta_a\eta_b)(\eta),$$
where $\L(\eta_a\eta_b)$ can be computed explicitly using (\ref{E:generator0}). Hence from (\ref{E:mtg_NF}), we can check that $$\E[M^2(t)]=\E[\<M\>_t]=\E\left[\int_0^t{\mathfrak{L}(f^2)(\eta_s)-2f(\eta_s)\mathfrak{L}f(\eta_s)}\,ds\right]=\int_0^t{\E[g(\eta_r)]}dr,$$ where
\begin{eqnarray} \label{E:OderOfM}
g(\eta)
&=& \dfrac{1}{N^2}\,\left(\sum_{y,z \in D_+}\eta^+(z)h^{-1}(z)p_{zy}(\phi(y)-\phi(z))^2 + \dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} \sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}} \,\Psi(z)\, \eta(z_+)\eta^-(z_-)\,(-\phi(z_+))^2 \right) \notag \\
&\leq& \dfrac{1}{N^2}\,\left(\varepsilon^2\|\nabla\phi\|_{\infty}^2 \sum_{x\in D_+}\eta(x)h^{-1}(x) + \dfrac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}\, \|\phi\|_{\infty}^2 \sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}} \,\Psi(z)\, \eta^+(z_+)\eta^-(z_-) \right) \notag\\
&\leq& \frac{d\,\|\nabla\phi\|_{\infty}^2}{N}+ \frac{\lambda\,\|\phi\|_{\infty}^2}{N^2}\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{z\in I^{\varepsilon}} \,\Psi(z)\, \eta^+(z_+)\eta^-(z_-)\right) . \notag
\end{eqnarray}
After taking expectation for $g(\eta_r)$, the first term is the last display is of order at most $1/N$ since $\phi\in C^{1}(\bar{D}_{+})$, while the second term inside the bracket is of order at most $1/N$, uniformly in $r\in[0,t]$, by (\ref{E:Jump_SecondMoment}). Hence $\E[M^2(t)]\leq \frac{C}{N}$ for some $C=C(\phi,d,D_{\pm},\lambda)$. Doob's maximal inequality
then gives \eqref{e:4.6}.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark} \rm
From the second term of (\ref{E:formula_for_generator}), we see that if the parameter of the killing time is of order $\lambda/\varepsilon$, then we need $N\varepsilon^d$ to be comparable to 1. \qed
\end{remark}
\subsection{Tightness}
The following simple observation is useful for proving tightness when the transition kernel of the process has a singularity at $t=0$. It says that we can break down the analysis of the fluctuation of functionals of a process on $[0,T]$ into two parts. One part is near $t=0$, and the other is away from $t=0$ where we have a bound for a higher moment. Its proof, which is based on the Prohorov's theorem, is simple and is omitted (detail can be found in \cite{wtF14}).
\begin{lem}\label{L:tightness_criteria}
Let $\{Y_N\}$ be a sequence of real valued processes such that $t\mapsto \int_0^tY_N(r)\,dr$ is continuous on $[0,T]$ a.s., where $T\in[0,\infty)$. Suppose the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] There exists $q>1$ such that $\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\E[\int_h^T\,|Y_N(r)|^q\,dr]<\infty$ for any $h>0$,\\
\item[(ii)] $\lim_{\alpha\searrow 0}\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\P(\int_0^{\alpha}\,|Y_N(r)|\,dr>\varepsilon_0)=0$ for any $\varepsilon_0>0$.
\end{itemize}
Then $\big\{\int_0^tY_N(r)\,dr; t\in [0, t]\big\}_{N\in\mathbb{N}}$ is tight in $C([0,T],\R)$.
\begin{comment}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $\varepsilon_0>0$, there exists $K(t,\varepsilon_0)>0$ such that $$\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\P\left[\,\int_0^t|Y_N(r)|\,dr>K\,\right]<\varepsilon_0,$$
\item[(b)] for all $\varepsilon_0>0$, we have
$$\lim_{\gamma\to 0}\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\P\left[\,\sup_{\substack{|t-s|<\gamma\\0\leq s,t\leq T}} \int_s^t |Y_N(r)|\,dr >\varepsilon_0\,\right]=0$$
\end{itemize}
In particular, by Prohorov's theorem, $\{\int_0^tY_N(r)\,dr\}_{N\in\mathbb{N}}$ is tight in $C([0,T],\R)$.
\end{comment}
\end{lem}
Here is our tightness result for $\{(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})\}$. We need Lemma \ref{L:tightness_criteria} in the proof mainly because we do not know if $\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\E \int_0^T \< \mathcal{A}^{+}_{\varepsilon} \,\varphi_{+},\,\X^{N,+}_s\>^2\,ds$ is finite or not.
\begin{thm}\label{T:tight}
The sequence $\{(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})\}$ is relatively compact in
$D([0,T],\mathfrak{E})$ and any subsequential limit of the laws of $\{(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})\}$
carries
on $C([0,T],\mathfrak{E})$. Moreover, for all $\varphi_{\pm}\in C^2(\bar{D}_{\pm})$,
$$\left\{\int_0^t\< J^{N,+}_s,\,\varphi_{\pm}\>\,ds\right\},\quad \left\{\int_0^t\< \mathcal{A}^{+}_{\varepsilon} \,\varphi_{+},\,\X^{N,+}_s\>\,ds\right\} \text{ and}\quad \left\{\int_0^t\<\mathcal{A}^{-}_{\varepsilon} \,\varphi_{-},\,\X^{N,-}_s\>\,ds\right\}$$
are all tight in $C([0,T],\R)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
We write $\X^{\pm}$ in place of $\X^{N,\pm}$ for convenience. By Stone-Weierstrass Theorem, $C^2(\bar{D}_{\pm})$ is dense in $C(\bar{D}_{\pm})$ in uniform topology. It suffices to check that $\{(\<\X^{+},\phi^+\>,\,\<\X^{-},\phi^-\>)\}$ is relatively compact in $D([0,T],\R^2)$ for all $\phi^{\pm} \in C^2(\bar{D}_{\pm})$ (cf. Proposition 1.7 (p.54) of \cite{cKcL98}) for this weak tightness criterion).
By Prohorov's theorem (see Theorem 1.3 and remark 1.4 of \cite{cKcL98}), $\{(\<\X^{+},\phi^+\>,\,\<\X^{-},\phi^-\>)\}$ is relatively compact in $D([0,T],\R^2)$ if (1) and (2) below holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] For all $t\in[0,T]$ and $\varepsilon_0>0$, there exists a compact set $K(t,\varepsilon_0)\subset \R^2 $ such that $$\sup_{N}\P\left(\,(\<\X^{+}_t,\phi^+\>,\,\<\X^{-}_t,\phi^-\>) \notin K(t,\varepsilon_0)\,\right)<\varepsilon_0;$$
\item[(2)] For all $\varepsilon_0>0$, $$\lim_{\delta\to 0}\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\P\left(\sup_{\substack{|t-s|<\delta\\0\leq s,t\leq T}}\Big| \Big(\<\X^{+}_t,\phi^+\>,\,\<\X^{-}_t,\phi^-\>\Big)-\Big(\<\X^{+}_s,\phi^+\>,\,\<\X^{-}_s,\phi^-\>\Big) \Big|_{\R^2} >\varepsilon_0\right)=0.
$$
\end{itemize}
We first check (1). Since $\phi^{\pm}$ is bounded on $\bar{D}_{\pm}$ and $|\<\X^{+}_t,1\>|\leq 1$ for all $t\in[0,\infty)$, we can always take $K=[-\|\phi^{+}\|_{\infty},\,\|\phi^{+}\|_{\infty}]\times[-\|\phi^{-}\|_{\infty},\,\|\phi^{-}\|_{\infty}]$.
To verify (2), since $|(x_1,y_1)-(x_2,y_2)|_{\R^2}\leq|x_1-x_2|+|y_1-y_2|$, we only need to focus on $\X^{+}$. By Lemma \ref{L:OderOfM},
\begin{equation}\label{E:tight}
\Big|\<\phi,\X^{+}_t\> - \<\phi,\X^{+}_s\>\Big|= \Big|
\int_s^t{\<\mathcal{A}^{+}_{\varepsilon} \,\phi, \X^{+}_r\>}dr
-\int_s^t{\dfrac{\lambda}{N\,\varepsilon^d}\,\<J^{N,+}_r,\,\phi\>}\,dr
+ \left(M_{\phi}(t)-M_{\phi}(s)\right)\Big| .
\end{equation}
So we only need to verify (2) with $\<\phi,\X^{+}_t\> - \<\phi,\X^{+}_s\>$ replaced by each of the 3 terms on RHS of the above equation (\ref{E:tight}).
For the first term of (\ref{E:tight}), we apply Lemma \ref{L:tightness_criteria} for the case $q=2$ and $Y_N(r)=\<\mathcal{A}^{+}_{\varepsilon}\,\phi,\,\X^{+}_r\>$. Since $\phi \in C^2(\bar{D}_{+})$, we have $$\sup_{x\in D^{\varepsilon}\setminus \partial D^{\varepsilon}}|\mathcal{A}^{+}_{\varepsilon} \phi(x)| \leq C(\phi) \text{ and } \sup_{x\in \partial D^{\varepsilon}}|\varepsilon\,\mathcal{A}^{+}_{\varepsilon} \phi(x)| \leq C(\phi)$$
for some constant $C(\phi)$ which only depends only on $\phi$. Using Lemma \ref{L:q_near_I}, we have
$$
\E \left[ \<|\A^+_{\varepsilon}\phi|,\,\X^{N,+}_r\> \right] \leq \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\,\sum_{D^{\varepsilon}}|\A^+_{\varepsilon}\phi(\cdot)|p^{\varepsilon,+}(r,x_i,\cdot)m_{\varepsilon}(\cdot)\leq C_1(d,D_+,\phi)+\frac{C_2(d,D_+,\phi)}{\varepsilon\vee r^{\frac{1}{2}}},
$$
which is in $L^1[0,T]$ as a function in $r$. This implies hypothesis (ii) of Lemma \ref{L:tightness_criteria}, via the Chebyshev's inequality. Hypothesis (i) of Lemma \ref{L:tightness_criteria} can be verified easily using the upper bound (\ref{E:uniformbound}) for the correlation function, or by direct comparison to the process without annihilation:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\E \left[ \<|\A_{\varepsilon}\phi|,\,\X^{+}_r\>^2 \right] \\
&\leq& \left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\E[\A_{\varepsilon}\phi(X^i_r)]\right)^2
+\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{i=1}^N\E \left[ (\A_{\varepsilon}\phi)^2(X^i_r) \right]-\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{i=1}^N\left(\,\E[\A_{\varepsilon}\phi(X^i_r)]\,\right)^2 \\
&\leq& C(d,D,\phi)\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}+\frac{1}{r}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
For the second term of (\ref{E:tight}), by (\ref{E:Jump_SecondMoment}) we have $\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\E\left[\int_0^T\,\<1,\,J^N_r\>^2\,dr\right]<\infty$. Hence (2) holds for this term by Lemma \ref{L:tightness_criteria}.
For the third term of (\ref{E:tight}), by Chebyshev's inequality, Doob's maximal inequality and Lemma \ref{L:OderOfM}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\P\left(\sup_{|t-s|<\delta}|M_{\phi}(t)-M_{\phi}(s)|>\varepsilon_0\right) &\leq& \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0^2}\,\E\left[\left(\sup_{|t-s|<\delta}|M_{\phi}(t)-M_{\phi}(s)|\right)^2\right]\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0^2}\,\E\left[\left(2\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|M_{\phi}(t)|\right)^2\right]\\
&\leq& 16\E[M_{\phi}(T)^2]\leq \frac{C}{N} .
\end{eqnarray*}
We have proved that (2) is satisfied. Hence $\{(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})\}$ is relatively compact. Using (2) and the metric of $\mathfrak{E}$, we can check that any subsequential limit $\mathrm{L}^{*}$ of the laws of $\{(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})\}$ concentrates on $C([0,\infty),\mathfrak{E})$.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark} \rm
In general, to prove tightness for $(X_n,\,Y_n)$ in $D([0,T], A\times B)$, it is NOT enough to prove tightness separately for $(X_n)$ and $(Y_n)$ in $D([0,T], A)$ and $D([0,T], B)$ respectively. (However, the latter condition implies tightness in $D([0,T], A)\times D([0,T], B)$ trivially). See Exercise 22(a) in Chapter 3 of \cite{EK86}.
For example, $\left(\1_{[1+\frac{1}{n},\infty)},\;\1_{[1,\infty)}\right)$ converges in $D_{\R}[0,\infty)\times D_{\R}[0,\infty)$ but not in $D_{\R^2}[0,\infty)$. The reason is that the two processes can jump at different times ($t=1$ and $t=1+\frac{1}{n}$) that become identified in the limit (only one jump at $t=1$); this can be avoided if one of the two processes is $C$-tight (i.e. has only continuous limiting values), which is satisfied in our case since $\X^{N,+}$ and $\X^{N,-}$ turns out to be both $C$-tight. \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \rm
Even without condition (ii) of Theorem \ref{T:conjecture} for $\eta_0$, we can still verify hypothesis (i) of Lemma \ref{L:tightness_criteria}. Actually, applying (\ref{E:discrete}) to suitable test functions, we have
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\alpha\to 0}\varlimsup_{N\to\infty}\E\left[\int_0^{\alpha}\<J^{N,+}_s,\,1\>\,ds\right] =0 .
\end{equation}
\qed
\end{remark}
\subsection{Identifying the limit}
Suppose $(\X^{\infty,+},\,\X^{\infty,-}) $ is a subsequential limit of $(\X^{N,+},\,\X^{N,-})$, say the convergence is along the subsequence $\{N'\}$. By the Skorokhod representation Theorem, the continuity of the limit in $t$ and \cite[Theorem 3.10.2]{EK86}, there exists a probability space $(\Omega, \mathfrak{F}, \P)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N' \to \infty} \sup_{t \in [0,T]} \Big\| (\X^{+,N'}_t,\,\X^{-,N'}_t)-(\X^{\infty,+}_t,\,\X^{\infty,-}_t) \Big\|_{\mathfrak{E}} =0 \quad \P
\hbox{-a.s},
\end{equation}
Hence we have for any $t>0$ and $\phi\in C(\bar{D}_+)$,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{N'\to\infty}\,\E[\<\mathfrak{X}^{+}_t,\phi\>]= \E[\<\mathfrak{X}^{+,\infty}_t,\phi\>] \quad \text{ and } \quad
\lim_{N'\to\infty}\,\E[(\<\mathfrak{X}^{+}_t,\phi\>)^2]= \E[(\<\mathfrak{X}^{+,\infty}_t,\phi\>)^2].
\end{equation*}
Combining with Corollary \ref{cor:correlation}, we have
$$\<\mathfrak{X}^{+,\infty}_t,\phi\>= \<u_{+}(t),\,\phi\>_{\rho_+} \quad \P \hbox{-a.s. for every } t\geq 0 \hbox{ and for } \phi.
$$
Here we have used the simple fact that if $\E[X]= (\E[X^2])^{1/2}=a$, then $X=a$ a.s.
Suppose $\{\phi_k\}$ is a countable dense subset of $C(\bar{D}_{+})$. Then for every $t\geq 0$,
$$
\<\X^{\infty,+}_t,\phi_k\>= \<u_{+}(t),\,\phi_k\>_{\rho_+}
\quad \hbox{for every } k\geq 1 \ \P \hbox{-a.s.}
$$
Since $\X^{\infty,+} \in C((0,\infty),M_+(\bar{D}_{+}))$, we can pass to rational numbers to obtain
$$
\<\X^{\infty,+}_t,\phi_k\>= \<u_{+}(t),\,\phi_k\>_{\rho_+} \quad \hbox{for every $t\geq 0$ and } k\geq 1 \ \P \hbox{-a.s.}
$$
Hence, $$\X^{\infty,+}_t(dx)= u_{+}(t,x)\,\rho_+(x) dx \quad \hbox{for every } t\geq 0 \ \quad \P \hbox{-a.s.}
$$
Similarly, $$\X^{\infty,-}_t(dy)= u_{-}(t,y)\,\rho_-(y)dy \quad \hbox{for every } t\geq 0 \ \quad \P \hbox{-a.s.}
$$
In conclusion, any subsequential limit is the dirac delta measure
$$
\delta_{u_{+}(t,x) dx, u_{-}(t,y)dy}\,\in M_1(D([0,\infty),\mathfrak{E})).
$$
This together with Theorem \ref{T:tight} completes the proof of Theorem \ref{T:conjecture}.
\section{Local Central Limit Theorem} \label{S:5}
Suppose $D\subset \R^d$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain and $\rho\in W^{1,2}(D)\cap C^1(\bar{D})$ is strictly positive. Suppose $X$ is a $(I_{d\times d},\rho)$-reflected diffusion and $X^{\varepsilon}$ be an $\varepsilon$-approximation of $X$, described
in the subsection \ref{UnderlyingMotion}. In this section, we prove the local central limit theorem (Theorem \ref{T:LCLT_CTRW}), the Gaussian upper bound (Theorem \ref{T:UpperHKE}) and the H\"older continuity (Theorem \ref{T:HolderCts}) for $p^{\varepsilon}$. The proofs
are standard once we establish a discrete analogue of a relative isoperimetric inequality (Theorem \ref{T:Isoperimetric_Discrete}) for bounded Lipschitz domains.
\subsection{Discrete relative isoperimetric inequality}
Note that any Lipschitz domain enjoys the uniform cone property and any bounded
$(d-1)$-dimensional manifold of class $C^{0,1}$ has finite perimeter. Hence, by Corollary 3.2.3 (p.165) and Theorem 6.1.3 (p.300) of \cite{vgM85}, we have the following relative isoperimetric inequality.
\begin{prop}[Relative isoperimetric inequality]\label{prop:relative_iso_ineq}
Let $D\subset \R^d$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain and $r\in(0,1]$. Then
\begin{equation}
S(r,D) := \sup_{U\in \mathfrak{G}}\dfrac{|U|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}}{\sigma(\partial U \cap D)} <\infty ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{G}$ is the collection of open subsets $U\subset D$ such that $|U|\leq r|D|$ and $\partial U \cap D$ is a manifold of class $C^{0,1}$ (i.e. each point $x\in \partial U \cap D$ has a neighborhood which can be represented by the graph of a Lipschitz function). Moreover, $S(r,D)=S(r,aD)$ for all $a>0$.
\end{prop}
In this subsection, we establish a discrete analogue for the relative isoperimetric inequality (Theorem \ref{T:Isoperimetric_Discrete}).
First, we study the scaled graph $aD^{\varepsilon}$ and gather some basic properties of a continuous time random walk on a finite set.
\subsubsection{CTRW on scaled graph $aD^{\varepsilon}$}
Recall the $m_{\epsilon}$-symmetric CTRW $X^{\varepsilon}$ on $D^{\varepsilon}$ defined in the Subsection \ref{UnderlyingMotion}. The Dirichlet form $(\D^{(\epsilon)},\, l^2(m_{\epsilon}))$ of $X^{\varepsilon}$ in $l^2(m_{\epsilon})$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:DirichletForm_CTRW}
\D^{(\epsilon)} (f,g) := \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{x,y\in D^{\epsilon}}(f(y)-f(x))(g(y)-g(x))\,\mu_{xy},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu_{xy}=\mu^{D^{\varepsilon}}_{x,y}$ are the conductance on the graph $D^{\varepsilon}$ defined in the Subsection \ref{UnderlyingMotion}. The stationary measure $\pi=\pi^{D^{\varepsilon}}$ of $X^{\varepsilon}$ is given by $\pi(x)=m_{\varepsilon}(x)/m(D^{\varepsilon})$, where $m(D^{\varepsilon}):=\sum_{x\in D^{\varepsilon}}m_{\varepsilon}(x)$.
We now consider the scaled graph $aD^{\varepsilon}= (aD)^{a\varepsilon}$, which is an approximation to the bounded Lipschitz domain $aD$ by square lattice $a\varepsilon\Z^d$. Clearly the degrees of vertices are given by $v^{aD^{\varepsilon}}{(ax)}=v^{D^{\varepsilon}}(x)$. Define the function $\rho_{(aD)}$ on $aD$ by $\rho_{(aD)}(ax):= \rho(x)$. Then define the CTRW $X^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ using $\rho_{(aD)}$ as we have done for $X^{\varepsilon}$ using $\rho$.
The mean holding time of $X^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ is
$(a \varepsilon)^2 /d$. Clearly, the symmetrizing measure $m^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ and the stationary probability measure $\pi^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$
have the scaling property $m^{aD^{\varepsilon}}(ax)=a^d\,m^{D^{\varepsilon}}(x)$ and $\pi^{aD^{\varepsilon}}(ax)=\pi^{D^{\varepsilon}}(x)$. Let $p_{aD}^{a\varepsilon}$ be the transition density of $X^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ with respect to the symmetrizing measure $m^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$. Then
\begin{equation}
a^d\,p_{aD}^{a\varepsilon}(a^2t,ax,ay)=p_{D}^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y)
\end{equation}
for every $t>0$, $\varepsilon>0$, $a>0$ and $x,y\in D^{\varepsilon}$ .
We will simply write $m$ and $\pi$ for the symmetrizing measure and the stationary probability measure when there is no ambiguity for the underlying graph.
\subsubsection{An extension lemma}
Following the notation of \cite{scL97}, we let $G$ be a finite set, $K(x,y)$ be a Markov kernel on $G$ and $\pi$ the stationary measure of $K$. Note that a Markov chain on a finite set induces a natural graph structure as follows.
Let $Q(e) := \frac{1}{2}(K(x,y)\pi(x)+K(y,x)\pi(y))$ for any $e=(x,y)\in G\times G$. Define the set of directed edges $E := \{e=(x,y)\in G\times G:\, Q(e)>0 \}$.
We use the following 2 different notions for the ``boundary'' of $A\subset G$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_e A &:=& \{ e=(x,y)\in E:\,x\in A,y\in G\setminus A \text{ or } y\in A,x\in G\setminus A \} , \\
\partial A &:=& \{x\in A:\, \exists y\in G\setminus A \text{ such that } (x,y)\in E \} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Observe that each edge in $\partial_e A$ is counted twice. Set
$$ Q(\partial_eA) := \frac{1}{2}\sum_{e\in \partial_eA} q(e)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in A,\,y\in G\setminus A}(K(x,y)\pi(x)+K(y,x)\pi(y)) .
$$
\begin{definition}\label{Def:IsoperimetricConstant}
For any $r\in(0,1)$, define
\begin{equation}
S_{\pi}(r,G):= \sup_{\{A\subset G: \pi(A)\leq r\}}\dfrac{2 |A|^{(d-1)/d}}{|\partial_eA|} \quad \hbox{ and }
\quad
\tilde{S}_{\pi}(r,G):= \sup_{\{A\subset G: \pi(A)\leq r\}}\dfrac{\pi(A)^{(d-1)/d}}{Q(\partial_e A)}.
\end{equation}
We call $1/\tilde{S}_{\pi}(r,G)$ an \textbf{isoperimetric constant} of the chain $(K,\pi)$. It provides rich information about the geometric properties of $G$ and the behavior of the chain (cf. \cite{scL97}).
\end{definition}
In our case, $G=aD^{\varepsilon}$, $\pi(x)=\frac{m(x)}{m(aD^{\varepsilon})}$ and $K(x,y)=p_{xy}$ in $aD^{\varepsilon}$, where $p_{x,y}$ is the one-step transition probabilities of $X^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ defined in subsection \ref{UnderlyingMotion}. For $a=1$ and $A\subset D^{\varepsilon}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_e A &=& \{(x,y)\in A\times D^{\varepsilon}\setminus A \cup D^{\varepsilon}\setminus A \times A:\text{ the line segment } (x,y]\subset D \}, \\
\partial A &=& \{x\in A:\, \exists y\in D^{\varepsilon}\setminus A \text{ such that } |x-y|=\varepsilon \text{ and the line segment }[x,y]\subset D\, \}, \\
\tilde{\partial} A &:=& \{x\in A:\,\exists y\in \varepsilon\Z^d \text{ such that } |x-y|=\varepsilon \text{ and } (x,y]\cap \partial D \neq \emptyset\} , \\
\Delta A &:=& \tilde{\partial}A \setminus \partial A.
\end{eqnarray*}
In this notation, we have $\partial D^{\varepsilon}=\emptyset$, $\tilde{\partial} D^{\varepsilon}=\{x\in D^{\varepsilon}:\,v(x)<2d\}$, $A\cap\tilde{\partial} D^{\varepsilon}=\tilde{\partial}A$ and $\tilde{\partial} D^{\varepsilon}= \Delta A \cup (\partial A\cap \tilde{\partial}D^{\varepsilon}) \cup (\tilde{\partial}D^{\varepsilon} \setminus A)$. See Figure \ref{fig:ExtendDomain2_1} for an illustration.
\begin{definition}
We say that $A\subset D^{\varepsilon}$ is {\it grid-connected} if $\partial_e A_1 \cap \partial_e A_2 \neq \phi$ whenever $A=A_1 \cup A_2$.
\end{definition}
It is easy to check that $A$ is grid-connected if and only if for every $ x,\,y\in A$, there exists $\{x_1=x,\,x_2,\,\cdots\,,\,x_{m-1},\,x_m=y\}\subset A$ such that each line segments $[x_j,\,x_{j+1}]\subset D$ and $|x_j-x_{j+1}|=\varepsilon$.
The following is a key lemma which allows us to derive the relative isoperimetric inequality for the discrete setting from that in the continuous setting, and hence leads us to Theorem \ref{T:Isoperimetric_Discrete}.
\begin{lem}(Extension of sub-domains)\label{L:ExtendDomain}
Let $\pi_{srw}$ be the stationary measure of the simple random walk (SRW) on $D^{\varepsilon}$.
For any $r\in(0,1)$, there exist positive constants $\varepsilon_1(d,D,r)$, $M_1(d,D,r)$ and $M_2(d,D,r)$ such that if $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_1)$, then for all grid-connected $A\subset D^{\varepsilon}$ with $\pi_{srw}(A)\leq r$, we can find a connected open subset $U\subset D$ which contains $A$ and satisfies:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] $\partial U \cap D$ is $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}$-rectifiable,
\item [(b)] $|U|\leq \frac{49r+1}{50}|D|$,
\item [(c)] $\varepsilon^{d}\,|A| \leq M_1\,|U|$,
\item [(d)] $M_2\,\varepsilon^{d-1}|\partial A| \geq \sigma(\partial U \cap D)$ .
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Since the proof for each $r\in(0,1)$ is the same, we just give a proof for the case $r=1/2$.
For $x\in \varepsilon\Z^d$, let $U_x := \prod_{i=1}^d\,(x_i-\frac{\varepsilon}{2},\,x_i+\frac{\varepsilon}{2})$ be the cube in the dual lattice which contains $x$. Since $A$ is grid-connected, we have $(W_1)^{o}$ is connected in $\R^d$, where $(W_1)^{o}$ is the interior of $W_1:= \cup_{x\in A} (\bar{U_x}\cap D)$. (See Figure \ref{fig:ExtendDomain2_1} for an illustration.)
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{ExtendDomain2_1}}
\caption{$W_1:= \cup_{x\in A} (\bar{U_x}\cap D)$ }\label{fig:ExtendDomain2_1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{ExtendDomain2_2}}
\caption{$W_3$ is the shaded part}\label{fig:ExtendDomain2_2}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[scale=.5]{ExtendDomain1_1.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[scale=.5]{ExtendDomain2_1.eps}}
\caption{$W_1:= \cup_{x\in A} (\bar{U_x}\cap D)$ }
\label{fig:ExtendDomain_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[scale=.5]{ExtendDomain1_2.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[scale=.5]{ExtendDomain2_2.eps}}
\caption{$W_3$ is the shaded part}
\label{fig:ExtendDomain_2}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
Note that we cannot simply take $U=(W_1)^o$ because (d) may fail, for example when $\Delta A$ contributes too much to $\partial U \cap D$, i.e., when $(W_1)_{\Delta}:=\partial W_1\cap \left(\bigcup_{x\in\Delta A}\partial{U_x}\right)$ is large. However, $\Delta A\subset \tilde{\partial}D^{\varepsilon}$ is close to $\partial D$ and so we can fill in the gaps between $\Delta A$ and $\partial D$ to eliminate those contributions. In this process, we may create some extra pieces for $\partial U \cap D$, but we will show that those pieces are small enough. Following this observation, we will eventually take $U=(W_1\cup W_2)^o$ where $W_2\subset D_h$ for some small enough $h>0$.
Since $D$ is a bounded Lipschitz domains, we can choose $h>0$ small enough so that $|D_h|<|D|/200$.
Moreover, $\pi_{srw}(A)<1/2$ implies $\varepsilon^d|A|\leq \varepsilon^d|\partial (D^{\varepsilon})|+m_{srw}(D^{\varepsilon})/2$. So we can choose $\varepsilon$ small enough so that $|W_1|\leq \varepsilon^d|A|\leq \frac{101}{200}|D|$. Hence $U$ satisfies (b). By Lipschitz property again, there exists $M_1>0$ such that $|U_x\cap D|\geq |U_x|/M_1=\varepsilon^d/M_1$ for any $x\in D^{\varepsilon}$. Hence (c) is satisfied.
It remains to construct $W_2$ in such a way that $W_2\subset D_h$ for some small enough $h>0$ (more precisely, for $h$ small enough so that $|D_h|<|D|/200$) and that (a) and (d) are satisfied. We will construct $W_2$ in 3 steps:
\begin{comment}Another possible construction of $U$.
Note that there is a finite set $\Lambda\subset \partial D$ such that $\cup_{\xi\in\Lambda} B(\xi,\,2\delta_0/3)\supset \Delta_1 A$.
Step 1:
Fix any $\xi\in \Lambda$. We have $B(\xi,\,\delta_0)\subset B_{i(\xi)}:= B(a_i,r_i)$ for some $i=i(\xi)\in\{1,2,\cdots,N_D\}$. For all $x\in \Delta_1 A \cap B(\xi,\,2\delta_0/3)$, we will fill in some neighboring regions of $U_x$ determined by the coordinate system of $B_{i}$ as follows. Beware that the grid structure of $D^{\varepsilon}$ may be different from the coordinate system of $B_{i}$.
Consider the line segment $$l_x:= \{x+t(0,\cdots,0,1)\in\R^d\,\text{ in coordinates of } B_i:\, |t|\leq 4\sqrt{d}(M+1)\varepsilon\}$$ and its neighborhood $$l_x^{\varepsilon}:= \{y\in \varepsilon\Z^d \text{ in the grid which defines } D^{\varepsilon}:\, \|y-\cdot\|\leq \varepsilon \text{ for some } \cdot\in l_x\}.$$ Consider the closed tube along the $d$-th coordinate of $B_i$ passing through $x$: $$T_{x,i} := \bigcup_{y\in l_x^{\varepsilon}}\bar{U_y}.$$
Let $\Theta_{x,i}$ be the union of all connected components of $T_{x,i}\cap D$ whose closure intersects $\bar{U_x}$.
Step 2:
Repeat step 1 for each of $\xi\in \Lambda$ to obtain
$$W_3:= \bigcup_{\xi\in\Lambda}\,\bigcup_{x\in \Delta_1 A \cap B(\xi,\,2\delta_0/3)}\,\Theta_{x,i} = \bigcup_{x\in\Delta_1A}\,\bigcup_{\{\xi\in\Lambda:\,x\in B(\xi,2\delta_0/3)\}}\,\Theta_{x,i}$$
\end{comment}
Step 1: (Construct $W_3$ to seal the opening between $\partial D$ and the subset of $(W_1)_{\partial}$ which are close to $\partial D$. See Figure \ref{fig:ExtendDomain2_2}.)
Write $\Delta A = \Delta_1A \cup \Delta_2 A$ where $\Delta_2 A:= \Delta A \setminus \Delta_1A$ and
$$\Delta_1A:= \{x\in \Delta A:\,\exists y\in \partial A \text{ such that } \max\{|x_i-y_i|:\,1\leq i \leq d\}=1\}.$$
Points in $\Delta_1A$ are marked in solid black in Figure \ref{fig:ExtendDomain2_2}. For $x\in \Delta_1A$, consider the following closed cube centered at $x$:
$$T_x := \bigcup_{y\in \widehat{B}(x,\,10R\varepsilon)}\bar{U_y}\quad, \text{ where } R=\sqrt{d}(M+1)$$
Let $\Theta_{x}$ be the union of all connected components of $T_{x}\cap D$ whose closure intersects $\bar{U_x}$ and define
$$W_3:= \bigcup_{x\in\Delta_1A}\,\Theta_{x}.
$$
\begin{comment}A motivation for the choice $\widehat{B}(x,\,10R\varepsilon)$ in the definition of $T_x$.
Since there is $\xi\in \partial D$ such that $|x-\xi|<\varepsilon$, there is a coordinate neighborhood near $\xi$ such that
$\partial D$ is the graph of a Lipschitz function $\phi$ and $$\{(y',y^d)\in\R^d:\,|y'-x'|\leq 2\sqrt{d}\varepsilon,\,\phi(y')\leq y^d\leq x^d+\sqrt{d}M\varepsilon\}\subset T_x$$
\end{comment}
Step 2: (Fill in the gaps between $\partial D$ and $(W_1)_{\Delta}$ near $\Delta_2$. See Figure \ref{fig:ExtendDomain2_3})
Note that $\cup_{x\in\Delta_1A}\partial U_{x}$ does not contribute to $\partial (W_1\cup W_3)\cap D$.
Let $W_4$ be the union of all connected components of $D\setminus (W_1\cup W_3)$ whose closure intersects $\bar{U_x}$ for some
$x\in \Delta_2 A$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{ExtendDomain2_3}}
\caption{$W_4$ is the shaded part}\label{fig:ExtendDomain2_3}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{ExtendDomain2_4}}
\caption{$U$ is the shaded part}\label{fig:ExtendDomain2_4}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Step 3:
Finally, take $W_2:= W_3\cup W_4$, and set $U:= (W_1\cup W_3\cup W_4)^o$. (See Figure \ref{fig:ExtendDomain2_4}.)
It is clear that $U$ is connected and $\partial U\cap D \subset \bigcup_{x\in \varepsilon \Z^d}\partial U_x$ is piecewise linear, so (a) is satisfied.
For any $W\subset D$, we have $\partial W \cap D=W_{\partial}\cup W_{\Delta} \cup W_{\nabla}$, where
$$W_{\partial}:=\partial W\cap \left(\bigcup_{x\in\partial A}\partial{U_x}\right), \quad
W_{\Delta}:=\partial W\cap \left(\bigcup_{x\in\Delta A}\partial{U_x}\right) \text{ and }
W_{\nabla}:=\partial W\setminus \left(\bigcup_{x\in\partial A\cup\Delta A}\partial{U_x}\right).
$$
Therefore, $\sigma(\partial W \cap D)\leq\sigma(W_{\partial})+ \sigma(W_{\Delta})+ \sigma(W_{\nabla})$ whenever the corresponding surface measures are defined.
It is clear that by construction we have
\begin{itemize}
\item $(W_1)_{\nabla}=\emptyset$,
\item $(W_1\cup W_3)_{\partial}\subset (W_1)_{\partial},\, (W_1\cup W_3)_{\Delta}\subset (W_1)_{\Delta_2},\,(W_1\cup W_3)_{\nabla}\subset \bigcup_{x\in \Delta_1}\bigcup_{y\in \widehat{B}(x,10R\varepsilon)} \partial U_y$ \\ where $(W_1)_{\Delta_2}$ is defined analogously as $(W_1)_{\Delta}$, with $\Delta$ replaced by $\Delta_2$,
\item $U_{\partial}\subset (W_1\cup W_3)_{\partial},\, U_{\Delta}=\emptyset,\, U_{\nabla}\subset (W_1\cup W_3)_{\nabla}$.
\end{itemize}
Now $\sigma(U_{\partial})\leq\sigma((W_1)_{\partial})\leq |\partial A|\,2d\varepsilon^{d-1}$. Moreover,
each $x\in \partial A$ is adjacent to at most $3^d-1$ points in $\Delta_1A \cup \Delta A$, and for each $x\in \Delta_1A$, there are at most $|\widehat{B}(10R\varepsilon)|\leq (20R+1)^d$ cubes in $T_x$. So we have
$$
\sigma(U_{\nabla})\leq\sigma((W_1\cup W_3)_{\nabla})\leq (3^d-1)|\partial A|\,(20R+1)^d\,2d\varepsilon^{d-1} .
$$
Hence (d) is satisfied.
Since $diam\,(T_x)<20R\sqrt{d}\varepsilon$, we have $W_3\subset D_{(20R\sqrt{d}+1)\varepsilon}$. To complete the proof, it suffices to show that $W_4\subset D_{(10R)\varepsilon}$. This is equivalent to show that any curve in $D\setminus \bar{W_1\cup W_3}$ starting from any point in $(W_1)_{\Delta_2}$ must lie in $D_{(10R)\varepsilon}$.
Let $\gamma[0,1]$ be an arbitrary continuous curve starting at an arbitrary point $p\in (W_1)_{\Delta_2}$ such that $\gamma(0,1) \subset D\setminus \bar{W_1}$ and $dist(\gamma(t),\,\partial D)>(10R)\varepsilon$ for some $t\in(0,1]$. Define $\Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}}:= \left(\bigcup_{x\in D^{\varepsilon}}\bar{U_x}\right)^o\cap D$. Since $(W_1)_{\Delta}\subset\partial(\Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}})\cap D\subset \bigcup_{z\in\tilde{\partial}D^{\varepsilon}}\partial U_z$ and $\sup_{z\in \tilde{\partial} D^{\varepsilon}}dist(z,\,\partial D)<\varepsilon$, the time when $\gamma$ first exits $D\setminus \bar{\Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}}}$ must be less than $t$ by continuity of $\gamma$. That is,
$$
\tau:= \inf\left\{s>0:\,\gamma(s)\in \left(\bigcup_{z\in\partial D^{\varepsilon}\setminus A}\partial U_z\right)\cap D\right\} <t.
$$
It suffices to show that $\gamma(0,\tau] \cap \Theta_{x}\neq\emptyset$ for some $x\in \Delta_1A$. We do so by constructing a continuous curve $\tilde{\gamma}$ which is close to $\gamma$ and passes through $\partial U_x$ for some $x\in \Delta_1A$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{ExtensionDomain_curve_new}
\caption{$\gamma$ and a corresponding continuous $\tilde{\gamma}\subset \partial (\Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}})\cap D$}\label{fig:ExtendDomain_curve}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Since $\sup_{s\in[0,\tau]}dist(\gamma(s),\,\partial D)< 2R\varepsilon$, we can choose $\varepsilon$ small enough (depending only on $D$) and split $[0,\,\tau]$ into finitely many disjoint intervals $I$'s so that the $4R\varepsilon$-tube of each $\gamma(I)$ lies in a coordinate ball $B_{(I)}$ of $D$. For $s\in I$, project $\gamma(s)$ vertically upward (along the $d$-th coordinate of $B_{(I)}$) onto $\partial (\Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}})\cap D$ to obtain $\widehat \gamma(s)$. Note that $\widehat \gamma$ maybe discontinuous even in the interior of $I$. However, it is continuous on $[0,\tau]$ except possibly for finitely many points. Let $\{0\leq s_1<s_2<\cdots<s_m\leq \tau\}$ be the collection of discontinuities for $\widehat \gamma([0,\tau])$. Then $0<|\widehat \gamma(s_j-)-\widehat \gamma(s_j+)|\leq 2R\varepsilon$ and we can connect $\widehat \gamma(s_j-)$ to $\widehat \gamma(s_j+)$ by a continuous curve $\beta_j:\,[0,1]\longrightarrow \partial (\Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}})\cap D\, \cap B(\widehat \gamma(s_j-),\,8R\varepsilon) \cap B(\widehat \gamma(s_j+),\,8R\varepsilon)$.
Define $\tilde{\gamma}:\,[0,\,\tau+m]\longrightarrow \partial (\Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}})\cap D$ to be the continuous curve obtained by concatenating $\widehat \gamma$ and $\{\beta_j:\,j=1,2,\cdots,m\}$ (See Figure \ref{fig:ExtendDomain_curve}). Then $\tilde{\gamma}(0)=\widehat \gamma(0)=p\in (W_1)_{\Delta_2}$ and $\tilde{\gamma}(\tau+m)=\widehat \gamma(\tau)=\gamma(\tau)\in \partial (\Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}})\cap D\setminus (\partial W_1 \cap D)$. By the continuity of $\tilde{\gamma}$, there is some $t_{*}\in (0,\,\tau+m)$ such that $\tilde{\gamma}(t_{*})\in (W_1)_{\Delta_1}$. (Roughly speaking, on $\tilde{\partial} D^{\varepsilon}$, $\Delta_2A$ is separated from $\tilde{\partial} D^{\varepsilon}\setminus A$ by $\Delta_1A$.)
Now for some $1\leq j\leq m$, we have $\tilde{\gamma}(t_{*})$ and $\gamma(s_j)$ are connected in $D\setminus \Omega_{D^{\varepsilon}} \subset D\setminus \bar{W_1}$, and
$$|\tilde{\gamma}(t_{*})-\gamma(s_j)|\leq |\tilde{\gamma}(t_{*})-\widehat \gamma(s_j)|+|\widehat \gamma(s_j)-\gamma(s_j)|\leq 8R\varepsilon+R\varepsilon.$$
Hence $\tilde{\gamma}(t_{*})\in \partial U_x$ for some $x\in \Delta_1 A$. We therefore have $\gamma(s_j)\in \Theta_{x}$. The proof is now complete.
\end{pf}
\subsubsection{Discrete relative isoperimetric inequality}
Let $\pi_{srw}$ be the stationary measure of the simple random walk (SRW) on the graph under consideration and recall Definition \ref{Def:IsoperimetricConstant}.
\begin{thm}[Discrete relative isoperimetric inequality]\label{T:Isoperimetric_Discrete}
For every $r\in(0,1)$, there exists $\widehat{S}_{srw}=\widehat{S}_{srw}(d,D,r)\in (0,\infty)$ and $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_1(d,D,r)\in (0,\infty)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \sup_{\varepsilon\in(0, \varepsilon_1)}S_{srw}(r,D^{\varepsilon}) \leq \widehat{S}_{srw}, \text{ and}\\
&& \tilde{S}_{srw}(r,D^{\varepsilon}) \leq \dfrac{2d\,(m_{srw}(D^{\varepsilon}))^{1/d}}{\varepsilon}\widehat{S}_{srw}
\quad \hbox{ for every }\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_1).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
We can also assume that $A$ is grid-connected. This is because
$$\dfrac{|A|^{(d-1)/d}}{|\partial_e A|} \leq \dfrac{|A_1|^{(d-1)/d}}{|\partial_e A_1|} \,\vee\,\dfrac{|A_2|^{(d-1)/d}}{|\partial_e A_2|}$$
whenever $A=A_1\cup A_2$ with $\partial_e A_1 \cap \partial_e A_2=\phi$.
From Lemma \ref{L:ExtendDomain} and Proposition \ref{prop:relative_iso_ineq}, we have
$$
\sup_{\varepsilon\in (0, \varepsilon_1)}\sup_{\{A\subset D^{\varepsilon}: \pi(A)\leq r\}}\dfrac{|A|^{(d-1)/d}}{|\partial A|} \leq\, M_2\,M_1^{(d-1/d}\,S\left(\frac{49r+1}{50},\,D\right) .
$$
We thus have the first inequality since $4d|\partial A|\geq |\partial_eA|\geq 2|\partial A|$. The second inequality follows from the first since $q(e)=\frac{(\varepsilon)^d}{2d\,m(D^{\varepsilon})}$.
\end{pf}
\medskip
For the CTRW $X^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ on $aD^{\varepsilon}$, we let $\pi$ be the stationary measure. Observe that, because $\pi^{aD^{\varepsilon}}(aA) = \pi^{D^{\varepsilon}}(A)$ and $m(aD^{\varepsilon})=a^d\,m(D^{\varepsilon})$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:Homo_Isoperimetric}
S_{\pi}(r,\,aD^{\varepsilon})= S_{\pi}(r,\,D^{\varepsilon}) \quad\text{and}\quad \tilde{S}_{\pi}(r,\,aD^{\varepsilon})= \tilde{S}_{\pi}(r,\,D^{\varepsilon})
\end{equation}
for all $a>0$ and $r>0$. Hence we only need to consider the case $a=1$. In view of Theorem \ref{T:Isoperimetric_Discrete} and (\ref{E:Approximate_m(x)}), we have (taking $r=1/2$)
\begin{cor}\label{cor:Isoperimetric_Discrete}
There exist positive constants $\widehat S= \widehat{S}(d,D,\rho)$ , $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_1(d,D,\rho)$ and $\widehat{C}=\widehat{C}(d,D,\rho)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sup_{\varepsilon\in(0, \varepsilon_1)}S_{\pi}(1/2,\,D^{\varepsilon}) \leq \widehat{S}, \text{ and} \\
&& \tilde{S}_{\pi}(1/2,\,D^{\varepsilon}) \leq \frac{\widehat{C}}{\varepsilon} \widehat{S} \quad
\ \hbox{ for every }\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_1). \label{E:Isoperimetric_Discrete2}
\label{hat{S}}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{cor}
As an immediate consequence of Corollary \ref{cor:Isoperimetric_Discrete} and (\ref{E:Homo_Isoperimetric}), we have the following Poincar\'e inequality.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:Poincare}(Poincar\'e inequality)
There exist $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_1(d,D,\rho)>0$ such that
$$ \frac{|D|\,a^{d-2}}{16\,\widehat{C}^2\,\widehat{S}^2}\,\|f-\<f\>_{\pi}\|_{l^2(\pi)}^2 \leq \D^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}(f)$$
for all $f\in l^2(aD^{\varepsilon},\pi)$, $\varepsilon\in (0, \varepsilon_1)$, $a>0$. Here $\<f\>_{\pi}:= \sum f\,\pi$, $\widehat{C}$ and $\widehat{S}$ are the same constants in Corollary \ref{cor:Isoperimetric_Discrete}, and $\D^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}$ is the Dirichlet form in $l^2(m^{aD^{\varepsilon}})$ of the CTRW $X^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ (see (\ref{E:DirichletForm_CTRW})).
\end{cor}
\begin{pf}
By Corollary \ref{cor:Isoperimetric_Discrete}, the isoperimetric constant
$$\mathcal{I}:= \inf_{\pi(A)\leq 1/2}\dfrac{Q(\partial A)}{\pi(A)} \geq 2^{1/d}\,\frac{1}{\tilde{S}}\geq 2^{1/d}\,\frac{\varepsilon}{\widehat{C}\,\widehat{S}}.$$
Hence, by the Cheeger's inequality (see \cite[Lemma 3.3.7]{scL97}),
$$ \inf_{f} \dfrac{\D^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}(f)}{\|f-\<f\>_{\pi}\|_{l^2(\pi)}^2} \geq \dfrac{d\,m(aD^{\varepsilon})}{(a\varepsilon)^2}\,\dfrac{\mathcal{I}^2}{8}\geq \frac{|D|}{16}\,\dfrac{a^{d-2}}{\widehat{C}^2\,\widehat{S}^2}
$$
when $\varepsilon>0$ is small enough.
\end{pf}
The above Poincar\'e inequality already tells us a positive lower bound for the spectral gap of $X^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ and hence gives us an estimate for the mixing time. However, we will state a stronger result in Proposition \ref{prop:mixing} in the next subsection.
\subsection{Nash's inequality and Poincar\'e inequality}
The discrete relative isoperimetric inequality leads to the following two functional inequalities; namely, a Poincar\'e inequality and a Nash inequality that are uniform in $\varepsilon$ and in scaling $D\mapsto aD$. The uniformity in scaling helps proving the near diagonal lower bound for $p^{\varepsilon}$.
\begin{thm}(Nash's inequality and Poincar\'e inequality uniform in $\varepsilon$ and in scaling)
There exist $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_1(d,D,\rho)>0$ and $C=C(d,D,\rho)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:Nash_a1}
\|f-\<f\>_{\pi}\|_{l^2(\pi)}^{2(1+2/d)}\leq 8\,\tilde{S}_{\pi}(1/2,\,D^{\varepsilon})^2 \,\left( \dfrac{(a\,\varepsilon)^2}{d\,m(aD^{\varepsilon})}\,\D^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}(f) \right)\,\|f\|_{l^1(\pi)}^{4/d}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{E:Nash_a2}
\|f\|_{l^2(m)}^{2(1+2/d)}\leq C\,\left(\D^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}(f) + \,(\widehat{C}\,\widehat{S}\,a)^{-2}\,\|f\|_{l^2(m)}^2 \right)\,\|f\|_{l^1(m)}^{4/d}
\end{equation}
for every $ f\in l^2(aD^{\varepsilon})$, $\varepsilon\in (0,\varepsilon_1)$ and $a\in(0,\infty)$, where $\widehat{C}$ and $\widehat{S}$ are the same constants in Corollary \ref{cor:Isoperimetric_Discrete}; $\<f\>_{\pi}:= \sum f\,\pi$ and $\D^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}$ is the Dirichlet form in $l^2(m^{aD^{\varepsilon}})$ of the CTRW $X^{aD^{\varepsilon}}$ (see (\ref{E:DirichletForm_CTRW})).
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
Note that $ \dfrac{(a\,\epsilon)^2}{d\,m(aD^{\epsilon})}\,\D^{a\epsilon}_{aD}(f)$ is the Dirichlet form of the unit speed CTRW with the same one-step transition probabilities as that of $X^{aD^{\epsilon}}$. Hence (\ref{E:Nash_a1}) follows directly from \cite[Theorem 3.3.11]{scL97} and (\ref{hat{S}}). For (\ref{E:Nash_a2}), let $R=(2^{\frac{1}{d}}\delta\,a\,\varepsilon)^{-1}$ with $\delta \geq (\widehat{C}\,\widehat{S}\,a)^{-1}$.
For any nonempty subset $A\subset aD^{\varepsilon}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dfrac{Q(\partial A)+\frac{1}{R}\pi(A)}{\pi(A)^{\frac{d-1}{d}}} &\geq& \dfrac{1}{\widehat{S}} \wedge \dfrac{1}{R}\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{d}}
\geq \left((\widehat{C}\,\widehat{S})^{-1}\wedge a\,\delta \right)\,\varepsilon
= (\widehat{C}\,\widehat{S})^{-1}\,\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{E:NashAssumption}
\sup_{A\subset aD^{\varepsilon}}\dfrac{\pi(A)^{\frac{d-1}{d}}}{Q(\partial A)+\frac{1}{R}\pi(A)} \leq
\dfrac{\widehat{C}\,\widehat{S}}{\varepsilon}.
\end{equation}
By \cite[Theorem 3.3.10]{scL97},
$$\|f\|_{l^2(\pi)}^{2(1+2/d)}\leq 16\,(\dfrac{C}{\varepsilon})^2\left( \dfrac{(a\,\varepsilon)^2}{d\,m(aD^{\varepsilon})}\,\D^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}(f) + \dfrac{1}{8R^2}\|f\|_{l^2(\pi)}^2 \right)\,\|f\|_{l^1(\pi)}^{4/d}.$$
Using the relations $\|f\|_{l^2(\pi)}^2=(m(aD^{\varepsilon}))^{-1}\|f\|_{l^2(m)}^2$, $\|g\|_{l^1(\pi)}=(m(aD^{\varepsilon}))^{-1}\|f\|_{l^1(m)}$ and (\ref{E:Approximate_m(x)}), we get the desired inequality (\ref{E:Nash_a2}).
\end{pf}
\subsection{Mixing time}
By the Poincar\'e inequalities in (\ref{E:Nash_a1}) and \cite[Corollary 2.3.2]{scL97}, we obtain an estimate on the time needed to reach stationarity.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:mixing}(Mixing time estimate)
There exists $C>0$ which depends only on $d$ such that
$$\Big|p^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}\left(t, x, y \right) - \dfrac{1}{ m(aD^{\varepsilon})\,}\Big| \leq C\,\min\bigg\{\,(a\,\widehat{C}\,\widehat{S})^d\,{t}^{-d/2},\; \frac{1}{(a\,\varepsilon)^d}\,\exp{\Big(\frac{-d\,t}{8\,(a\widehat{C}\widehat{S})^2}\Big)} \,\bigg\} $$
for every $t>0$, $ x,\,y\in aD^{\varepsilon}$, $\varepsilon\in (0, \varepsilon_1)$ and $a>0$.
Here $\widehat{C}$ and $\widehat{S}$ are the constants in Corollary \ref{cor:Isoperimetric_Discrete}.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
By (\ref{E:Nash_a1}) and Theorem 2.3.1 of \cite{scL97}, we have
$$\Big| m(aD^{\varepsilon})\,p^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}\left(\frac{(a\varepsilon)^2}{d}t, x, y \right) - 1\Big| \leq \left(\dfrac{d\,(8\,\tilde{S}^2)}{2t} \right)^{d/2}$$
After simplification and using (\ref{E:Isoperimetric_Discrete2}), we obtain the upper bound which is of order ${t}^{-d/2}$. On other hand, by Corollary \ref{cor:Poincare} and \cite[Lemma 2.1.4]{scL97}, we obtain the exponential term on the right hand side.
\end{pf}
\subsection{Gaussian bound and uniform H\"older continuity of $p^{\varepsilon}$}
Equipped with the Nash inequality (\ref{E:Nash_a2}) and the Poincar\'e inequality (\ref{E:Nash_a1}), one can follow a now standard procedure (see, for example, \cite{CKS86} or \cite{tD99}) to obtain two sided Gaussian estimates for $p^{\varepsilon}$. In the following, $C_1$, $C_2$ and $\varepsilon_0$ are positive constants which depends only on $d,\,D,\,\rho$ and $T$.
More precisely, we only need the Nash inequality (\ref{E:Nash_a2}) and Davies' method to obtain the following Gaussian upper bound.
\begin{thm}\label{T:UpperHKE_a}
There exist constants $C_i=C_i(d,D,\rho,T)>0$, $i=1,2$, and $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0(d,D,\rho,T) \in (0, 1]$ such that
\begin{equation*}
p^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}(t,x,y) \leq \dfrac{C_1}{(a\varepsilon\vee t^{1/2})^d}\,\exp\left(\frac{C_2}{a^2}t-\frac{|y-x|^2}{(a\varepsilon)^2\vee t}\right)
\end{equation*}
for every $t\geq a\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$, $a>0$ and $x,y \in aD^{\varepsilon}$.
Moreover, the following weaker bound holds for all $t>0$:
\begin{equation*}
p^{a\varepsilon}_{aD}(t,x,y) \leq \dfrac{C_1}{(a\varepsilon\vee t^{1/2})^d}\,\exp\left(\frac{C_2}{a^2}t-\frac{|y-x|}{a\varepsilon\vee t^{1/2}}\right).
\end{equation*}
In particular, this implies the upper bound in Theorem \ref{T:UpperHKE} which is the case when $a=1$.
\end{thm}
We can then apply the Poincar\'e inequality (\ref{E:Nash_a1}) and argue as in section 3 of \cite{tD99} to obtain the near diagonal lower bound. A more comprehensive proof is given in \cite{wtF14}.
\begin{lem}\label{L:NearDiagonalLowerBound}
\begin{equation*}
p^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \geq \dfrac{C_2}{(\varepsilon\vee t^{1/2})^d}
\end{equation*}
for every $(t,x,y)\in(0,\infty)\times D^{\varepsilon}\times D^{\varepsilon}$ with $|x-y|\leq C_1\,t^{1/2}$ and $\varepsilon\in (0,\varepsilon_0)$.
\end{lem}
The Gaussian lower bound for $p^{\varepsilon}$ in Theorem \ref{T:LowerHKE} then follows from the Lipschitz property of $D$ and a well-known chaining argument (see, for example, page 329 of \cite{dS88}). Therefore, we have the two-sided Gaussian bound for $p^{\varepsilon}$ as stated in Theorem \ref{T:UpperHKE} and Theorem \ref{T:LowerHKE}. It then follows from a standard `oscillation' argument (cf. Theorem 1.31 in \cite{SZ97} or Theorem II.1.8 in \cite{dS88}) that $p^{\varepsilon}$ is H\"older continuous in $(t,x,y)$, \emph{uniformly in $\varepsilon$}. More precisely,
\begin{thm}\label{T:HolderCts}
There exist positive constants $\gamma=\gamma (d,D,\rho)$, $\varepsilon_0(d,D,\rho)$ and $C(d,D,\rho)$ such that for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:HolderCts2}
|p^{\varepsilon}(t,x,y)-p^{\varepsilon}(t',x',y')| \leq C\, \dfrac{ (|t-t'|^{1/2}+\|x-x'\|+\|y-y'\|)^\gamma }
{ (t\wedge t')^{\sigma/2}\,[1 \wedge (t\wedge t')^{d/2}] } .
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\subsection{Proof of local CLT}
The following weak convergence result for RBM with drift is a natural generalization of \cite[Theorem 3.3]{BC08}.
\begin{thm}\label{T:WeakConvergence_RBMDrift}
Let $D\subset \R^d$ be a bounded domain whose boundary $\partial D$ has zero Lebesque measure. Suppose $D$ also satisfies:
$$C^{1}(\bar{D}) \text{ is dense in } W^{1,2}(D).$$
Suppose $\rho\in W^{1,2}(D)\cap C^1(\bar{D})$ is strictly positive. Then for every $T>0$, as $k\rightarrow \infty$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $(X^{2^{-k}},\,\P_{m})$ converges weakly to the stationary process $(X,\,\P_{\rho})$ in the Skorokhod space $D([0,T],\bar{D})$.
\item[(ii)] $(X^{2^{-k}},\,\P_{x_k})$ converges weakly to $(X,\,\P_{x})$ in the Skorokhod space $D([0,T],\bar{D})$ whenever $x_k$ converges to $x\in D$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
For (i), the proof follows from a direct modification of the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.3]{BC08}.
Recall the definition of the one-step transition probabilities $p_{xy}$, defined in the paragraph that contains (\ref{E:Conductance_BaisedRW+}) and (\ref{E:Conductance_BaisedRW-}).
Observe that, since $\rho\in C^1(\bar{D})$, approximations using Taylor's expansions in the proofs of \cite[Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 2.2]{BC08} continue to work with the current definition of $p_{xy}$. Thus we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\,\D^{2^{-k}}(f,f) &=& \frac{1}{2}\,\int_{D}|\nabla f(x)|^2\,\rho(x)dx, \quad \forall\,f\in C^{1}(\bar{D}), \quad \text{and}\\
\lim_{k\to\infty}\,L^{(2^{-k})}f &=& \frac{1}{2}\,\Delta f + \frac{1}{2}\nabla (\log \rho)\cdot\nabla f \quad \text{uniformly in } D,\quad \forall\,f\in C^{\infty}_{c}(D) .
\end{eqnarray*}
The process $X^{\varepsilon}$ has a L\'evy system $(N^{\varepsilon}(x,dy),\,t)$, where for $x\in D^{\varepsilon}$,
$$N^{\varepsilon}(x,dy)= \frac{d}{\varepsilon^2}\,\sum_{z:\,z\leftrightarrow x}\,p_{xz}\delta_{\{z\}}(dy).$$
Following the same calculations as in the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.3]{BC08}, while noting that \cite[Theorem 6.6.9]{CF12} (in place of \cite[Theorem 1.1]{BC08}) can be applied to handle general symmetric reflected diffusions as in our present case, we get part (i). Part (ii) follows from part (i) by a localization argument (cf. \cite[Remark 3.7]{BC11}).
\end{pf}
\medskip
We can now present the proof of the local CLT.
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{T:LCLT_CTRW}}.
For each $\varepsilon>0$ and $t>0$, we extend $p^{\varepsilon}(t,\cdot,\cdot)$ to $\bar{D}\times \bar{D}$ in such a way that $p^{\varepsilon}$ is nonnegative and continuous on $(0,\infty)\times\bar{D}\times\bar{D}$, and that both the maximum and the minimum values are preserved on each cell in the grid $\varepsilon \Z^d$.
This can be done in many ways, say by the interpolation described in \cite{BK08}, or a sequence of harmonic extensions along the simplexes (described in \cite{wtF14}).
Consider the family $\{t^{d/2}p^\varepsilon\}_{\varepsilon}$ of continuous functions on $(0, \infty)\times \bar{D} \times \bar{D}$. Theorem \ref{T:UpperHKE} and Theorem \ref{T:HolderCts} give us uniform pointwise bound and equi-continuity respectively. By Arzela-Ascoli Theorem, it is relatively compact. i.e. for any sequence $\{\varepsilon_n\}\subset (0,1]$ which decreases to $0$, there is a subsequence $\{\varepsilon_{n'}\}$ and a continuous $q:\,(0,\infty)\times \bar{D}\times \bar{D}\longrightarrow [0,\infty)$ such that $p^{\varepsilon_{n'}}$ converges to $q$ locally uniformly.
On other hand, by part (ii) of Theorem \ref{T:WeakConvergence_RBMDrift}, if the original sequence $\{\varepsilon_k\}$ is a subsequence of $\{2^{-k}\}$, then $q=p$. More precisely, the weak convergence implies that for all $t>0$,
$$
\int_{D} \phi(y)p(t,x,y)dy=\int_{D} \phi(y)q(t,x,y)dy \quad \text{for all }\phi\in C_c(D) \text{ and } x\in D.
$$
Then by the continuity of both $p$ and $q$ in the second coordinate, we have $q=p$ on $(0,\infty)\times D\times \bar{D}$. Since $p(t,\cdot,\cdot)$ and $q(t,\cdot,\cdot)$ are continuous on $\bar{D}\times \bar{D}$ (cf. \cite{BH91}), we obtain $p=q$ on $(0,\infty)\times \bar{D}\times \bar{D}$. In conclusion, we have $p^{\varepsilon}$ converges to $p$ locally uniformly through the sequence $\{\varepsilon_n=2^{-n}; n\geq 1\}$.
\qed
\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledgements}: We thank Krzysztof Burdzy, Rekhe Thomas and Tatiana Toro for helpful discussions.
In particular, we are grateful to David Speyer for pointing out the recurrence relation \eqref{E:Recursion_J_N(t)} to us.
We also thank Guozhong Cao, Samson A. Jenekhe, Christine Luscombe, Oleg Prezhdo and Rudy Schlaf
for discussions on solar cells. Financial support from NSF Solar Energy Initiative grant DMR-1035196 as well as NSF grant DMS-1206276
is gratefully acknowledged.
|
\section{Introduction}
Renormalization is a major problem for calculations of moments of generalized
parton distribution functions (GPDs) in lattice QCD.
The lattice breaks rotational symmetry, causing operators of different mass
dimension to mix. This mixing complicates
the renormalization of high moments of GPDs and therefore only calculations
of a few low moments exist in the literature.
Smearing has long been used as a tool to aid renormalization
on the lattice~\cite{Bernard:1999kc,Narayanan:2006rf}. Recent developments of
Gradient Flow (GF) methods~\cite{Luscher:2010iy,Luscher:2011bx,Luscher:2013cpa}
in both the gauge and fermion sectors offer an opportunity to improve current
renormalization methods for the twist-2 operators relevant to moments of
GPDs. Using smearing to alleviate the mixing of lattice twist-2 operators with
lower dimensional operators was recently discussed
in~\cite{Davoudi:2012ya}.
In this work we explore the possibility of using the Gradient Flow to define a
new renormalization scheme.
This nonperturbative scheme potentially provides a simple way to calculate
the mixing coefficients required to subtract power divergent lower
dimensional operators from lattice twist-2 matrix elements.
We propose a method that extends the approach taken in~\cite{Fodor:2012td},
which uses the Gradient Flow to define a renormalized
QCD coupling constant in finite volume, to compute
the scale dependence of twist-2 operators as well as the mixing coefficients.
Here we outline our proposal and, as a first step
towards understanding the effectiveness of our approach, we compute the
step-scaling function for the pseudo-scalar density.
\section{The Gradient Flow}
L\"uscher introduced the Gradient Flow method for both
fermions and gauge fields, which corresponds to
smearing all degrees of freedom in a new, continuous flow~time direction
$s$~\cite{Luscher:2013cpa}.
The flow equations can be written as
\begin{equation}
\partial_s V_\mu(x,s) = -g_0^2\partial_{V_\mu(x,s)} S_w V_\mu(x,s),\quad
\partial_s \psi(x,s) = \vec{\Delta} \psi(x,s),\quad \mathrm{and}\quad
\partial_s \overline{ \psi}(x,s) = \overline{\psi}(x,s) \cev{\Delta},
\end{equation}
where $S_w$ is the Wilson gauge action and the derivative
$\partial_{V_\mu(x,s)}$, taken with respect to the smeared gauge links
$V_\mu(x,s)$, is defined as in~\cite{Luscher:2010iy}. We denote the smeared
fermion fields $\psi(x,s)$ and $\overline{\psi}(x,s)$,
and define the lattice Laplacian as $\Delta = \nabla^{\dagger}_\mu
\nabla_\mu$, where
$\nabla_\mu$ is the covariant backward lattice derivative.
The smeared fields satisfy the
boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
V_\mu(x,0)=U_\mu(x),\qquad \psi(x,0)=q(x),\quad
\mathrm{and}\quad\overline{\psi}(x,0)=\overline{q} (x).
\end{equation}
Here the $U_\mu(x)$ are the unsmeared gauge fields and $\overline{q}(x)$ and
$q(x)$ the unsmeared quark fields.
If the underlying theory, defined as a path integral over the unsmeared
fields, is renormalized, then correlation functions of the gauge
fields require no additional renormalization, as shown
in~\cite{Luscher:2011bx}. At finite flow time the smeared fermion fields
require one additional wave function renormalization~\cite{Luscher:2013cpa}.
One way to easily understand this is to notice that the effective
smearing range, which is proportional to $\sqrt{s}$, acts as a regulator that
eliminates additional divergences at non-zero flow time.
\section{Finite Volume Renormalization Scheme}
We define the renormalization constant $Z_{{\cal O}_\Gamma}(\mu)$ of an
operator ${\cal O}_{\Gamma}$ at a scale $\mu$ as\vspace*{-0.2\baselineskip}
\begin{equation}
Z_{{\cal O}_\Gamma}(g_0,\mu) = {\cal N} \frac{\sum_x \langle V_\nu(x,s)
V_\nu(0,0)\rangle}{\sum_x \langle {\cal O}_\Gamma(x,s) {\cal
O}_\Gamma(0,0)\rangle},
\label{eq:renormFact}
\end{equation}
where $g_0$ is the bare gauge coupling constant and
\begin{equation}
V_\nu(x,s) = \bar \psi(x,s) \gamma_\nu \psi(x,s)\, ,\qquad \mathrm{and}\qquad
{\cal
O}_{\Gamma}(x,s) = \bar\psi(x,s) \Gamma \psi(x,s).
\end{equation}
Here $\Gamma$ is some gamma matrix.
We choose a novel normalization factor, ${\cal
N}$, that is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal N} = \frac{\sum_x \langle {\cal O}_\Gamma(x,s) {\cal
O}_\Gamma(0,0)\rangle_{{\rm cg}}}{\sum_x \langle V_\nu(x,s)
V_\nu(0,0)\rangle_{{\rm cg}}}\,,
\label{eq:normFact}
\end{equation}
where the subscript ${\rm cg}$ signifies that we evaluate the
expectation value of the matrix element over an ensemble of
constant gauge fields. Our choice of normalization removes the need to account
for gauge
zero modes, which would otherwise require a nonperturbative treatment when
matching
perturbatively to the $\overline{MS}$ scheme.
We calculate the correlation
functions in
finite volume of size $L^4$ and set $\mu=1/L$. Following~\cite{Fodor:2012td}
we set the flow time to
\begin{equation}
s = c^2\; \frac{L^2}{8},
\end{equation}
where $c$ is a constant that defines the renormalization scheme. In this work we
investigate a range of values for the constant $c$. The optimum value is
$c\simeq 0.3$, as discussed in \cite{Fodor:2012td}, and is determined by the
interplay of statistical errors and systematic uncertainties from cut-off
effects. On the one hand, large values of
$c$ increase statistical errors in the determination of the renormalization
factor. On the other hand, small values of $c$
lead to renormalized couplings that have large discretization errors and are
only weakly dependent on the bare
coupling (see Figure \ref{fig:gbar}), which entails a prohibitively large
spread of bare coupling values for the step-scaling procedure.
We would like to highlight the four following features of our definition of
the renormalization factor, $Z_{{\cal O}_\Gamma}(g_0,\mu)$, in Equation
\eqref{eq:renormFact}.\vspace*{-0.2\baselineskip}
\paragraph{Mixed smeared and unsmeared fields} The denominator in
Equation~\eqref{eq:renormFact} is a correlation function between the local
(un-smeared) quark bilinear operator, ${\cal O}_\Gamma(0,0)$, and the smeared
operator at some non-zero flow time, ${\cal
O}_\Gamma(x,s)$.\vspace*{-0.2\baselineskip}
\paragraph{Wave function renormalization cancellation} This
correlation function only requires a renormalization factor for the local
quark bilinear. In principle the smeared quark bilinear requires an additional
wave function renormalization, as discussed
in~\cite{Luscher:2013cpa}. We have, however, chosen the numerator of
Equation \eqref{eq:renormFact} so that the wave
function renormalization parameters at both zero and non-zero flow time
cancel.\vspace*{-0.2\baselineskip}
\paragraph{Constant field normalization} We adopt the renormalization
condition of Equation \eqref{eq:normFact} so that
the perturbative expansion of the renormalization constant receives no
contributions at tree level from insertions of the gauge zero modes. This
simplifies the perturbative expansion in finite volume at one loop level, at
the cost of having to evaluate the contributions from zero
modes nonperturbatively. The authors of \cite{Fodor:2012td} treat these zero
mode contributions
analytically. We evaluate Equation \eqref{eq:normFact} numerically. We
work in a finite volume with anti-periodic boundary conditions for fermions, so
there are no fermionic zero modes and correlation functions can be evaluated
with massless fermions. For this exploratory work we use Wilson
fermions and fix the bare quark mass to the critical
mass.\vspace*{-0.2\baselineskip}
\paragraph{Local vector current} We use the local vector current in
Equations~\eqref{eq:renormFact} and \eqref{eq:normFact}. We intend to use the
conserved vector current in the future, because this simplifies the
renormalization condition. This work is a proof of principle calculation,
so it is
sufficient to study our renormalization scheme using the
simpler local vector current.
\section{Coupling constant and operator scale dependence}
Following the approach taken in \cite{Fodor:2012td}, we examine the
discrete $\beta$-function, defined as
\begin{equation*}
{\cal B}(\mu) = \frac{\overline{g}^2(\mu/2) - \overline{g}^2(\mu)}{2\log 2}
\end{equation*}
for a step size of two. Here $\overline{g}^2(\mu)$ is the renormalized
coupling defined in \cite{Fodor:2012td}. Our numerical results can be
compared to the universal $\beta$-function at one
loop in perturbation theory:
${\cal B}(\mu) = 11\overline{g}^4(\mu)/(16\pi^2)$.
The relation
between $\overline{g}^2(\mu)$ and, for example, the $\overline{MS}$ coupling,
contains odd powers of $\overline{g}(\mu)$. Therefore, as noted in
\cite{Fodor:2012td}, only the one loop coefficient is scheme independent.
Higher order corrections to the perturbative
$\beta$-function have not been calculated yet,
so direct comparison with analytic results is not possible.
In common with other finite volume renormalization schemes, such as the
Schr\"odinger functional method, we study the scale dependence of the
renormalization parameter $Z_{{\cal O}_\Gamma}(\mu)$ via the continuum
step-scaling function $\sigma$.
We use a step factor of two for an
operator ${\cal O}$ and first define the discrete step-scaling function,
$\Sigma$, as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigdis}
\Sigma(\overline{g}^2(\mu),a/L) = \frac{Z_{\cal O}(g_0,\mu/2,a/L)}{Z_{\cal
O}(g_0,\mu,a/L)}.
\end{equation}
Then the continuum step-scaling
function $\sigma$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigcon}
\sigma(\overline{g}^2(\mu)) = \lim_{a/L\rightarrow
0}\Sigma(\overline{g}^2(\mu),a/L).
\end{equation}
\section{Numerical tests}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=0.9\textwidth]{gcvar}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=0.9\textwidth]{beta}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{ (Left) Dependence of the renormalized gauge coupling on the choice
of the $c$ parameter at fixed lattice extent $L/a=8$. (Right) The discrete
$\beta$-function, ${\cal B}(\mu)$, as a function of the renormalized
coupling. Here the step size is two and we plot three different pairs of
lattice extents with constant $c=0.3$. We include the one loop
prediction for comparison (solid purple line). }
\label{fig:gbar}
\end{figure}
We calculated the discrete $\beta$-function and the step-scaling function for
the pseudoscalar density using the Wilson gauge and fermion actions in the
quenched approximation.
We generated ensembles for eight lattice sizes, from $L/a = 6$ to $L/a
= 24$, with a range of bare couplings, from $\beta = 6/g_0^2 = 6.6$ to $\beta
= 12$. Our analysis uses ensembles with 100 configurations for each lattice volume, generated with
500 updates of one heat bath step followed by three steps of over-relaxation.
We determined the renormalized coupling in the gradient flow finite
volume scheme of \cite{Fodor:2012td}. We present our results as a
function of the bare coupling, $\beta$, in Figure \ref{fig:gbar} for different
choices of the
constant $c$ (left-hand plot). In the right-hand plot of Figure \ref{fig:gbar}
we plot the discrete $\beta$-function for this coupling constant, with the one
loop prediction shown for comparison. Deviations from this prediction at small
coupling represent discretization effects.
We determine the continuum step-scaling
function of Equation \eqref{eq:sigcon} as follows:\vspace*{-8pt}
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength{\itemsep}{-2pt}
\item Calculate $\overline{g}^2(\mu)$ and the pseudoscalar
renormalization parameter, $Z_p(g_0,\mu,a/L)$, at a fixed choice of bare
coupling,
say $\beta = 6.6$, for a specific lattice, say, $L/a = 6$. This sets the
physical scale, $\mu=1/L$.
\item Keep the bare coupling (and therefore the lattice spacing) fixed,
double the number of lattice points, \emph{e.g.}~set $L^\prime/a =
2L/a=12$, and calculate $Z_p(g_0,\mu/2,a/L)$.
\item Determine the discrete step-scaling function using Equation
\eqref{eq:sigdis}, \emph{i.e.}~calculate
the ratio $Z_p(g_0,\mu/2,a/L)/Z_p(g_0,\mu,a/L)$.
\item Now fix the renormalized coupling. For the example of $L/a = 6$ with
$\beta = 6.6$, this is $\overline{g}^2(\mu) = 1.158(7)$ . Choose a new lattice
extent, say $L/a^\prime = 8$ and tune the bare coupling such that the
renormalized coupling is constant, $\overline{g}^2(\mu) =1.158(7)$. This
adjusts the lattice spacing on the new lattice so that the physical extent
remains constant.
\item Repeat steps one to four.
\item Extract the continuum step-scaling function, Equation \eqref{eq:sigcon},
from a linear fit to $a/L$ using the results of steps one to
give.
\item Repeat steps one to six with a different initial choice of bare
coupling, say $\beta = 7.0$, which sets another initial physical scale
$\mu^\prime$. Repeated application of this algorithm gives the continuum
step-scaling function at a range of physical scales.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=0.9\textwidth]{sigma1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=0.9\textwidth]{sigmaband}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Continuum extrapolation of the step-scaling function of the pseudo
scalar
density at several values of the renormalized gauge coupling with $c=0.3$.
(Left) We plot the numerical data, with statistical uncertainties only, and
include the continuum values as circular points. The lines are fits linear in
$a/L$. (Right) Estimated
systematic uncertainties. Estimates include both uncertainties from the
continuum extrapolation and the critical mass mis-tuning, which are
approximately 5-10\% for the lowest
scale (in red), decreasing to less than 1\% for the highest scale (in blue). }
\label{fig:sigma}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{-0.2\baselineskip}We plot the discrete
step-scaling function, with the continuum limit at $a/L=0$, in the left-hand
plot of Figure \ref{fig:sigma}. We include only systematic
uncertainties in the plotted errorbars and in the fit. The red data
points correspond to the lowest physical scale, the green to an intermediate
scale and the blue to the highest physical scale. On the right-hand side of
Figure \ref{fig:sigma} we illustrate our estimate for the systematic
uncertainty from the continuum extrapolation and the critical mass
mis-tuning.
The spread of data points at each scale
demonstrates that at higher scales the continuum extrapolation is
better controlled. This is largely caused by the
improved tuning of the critical mass at higher values of the bare coupling. The
red data points correspond to bare coupling values between $\beta = 6.6$ and
$\beta = 7.4$. As we discuss in the next section, these data suffer from
systematic uncertainties due to mis-tuning of the critical mass that are
approximately $5-10$\%. In contrast, the blue data have bare couplings in
the range $\beta = 9.6$ to $\beta = 10.8$, with corresponding critical
mass tuning uncertainties of less than 1\%.
\subsection{Tuning the critical mass}
We determined the critical mass for each value of the bare coupling constant
using the two-loop cactus improved critical mass of \cite{Panagopoulos:2001fn}.
We estimate that the resulting value of the critical mass is
mis-tuned by approximately
18\% at $\beta = 6.0$, 15\% at $\beta = 6.1$ and 12\% at $\beta =
6.3$, by comparing the perturbative predictions to the nonperturbative results
quoted in~\cite{Follana:2000mn}. The smallest $\beta$ value we use is 6.6, for
which we estimate a critical mass
mis-tuning of approximately 10\%. Ref.~\cite{Panagopoulos:2001fn} suggests that
this mis-tuning is reduced to $\ll$ 1\% for the highest values of $\beta$ in
this work, $11 < \beta < 12$.
To estimate the resulting error in the renormalization parameter we determined
$Z_p$ at $\beta = 6.1$ and $6.3$, using both the perturbative and
nonperturbative values of the critical mass. We find that the resulting
uncertainty is approximately 18\% and 13\% for $\beta = 6.1$ and
$6.3$ respectively, Uncertainties for the $\beta = 6.0$ ensemble were too large
to use for this analysis.
Nonperturbatively tuned values of the critical mass are not available at larger
values of the bare coupling. We therefore estimated the uncertainties in the
renormalization factor by varying the critical mass by around 10\% at higher
beta values (8.0 to 12.0). This resulted in variations of $Z_p$ of around 1\%.
Since the mis-tuning of the
critical mass is likely to be significantly less than 10\% at these values of
the bare coupling, we conclude that the systematic effects of the critical mass
tuning are much less than
1\% for the high $\beta$ range. At $\beta = 6.6$, we estimate the systematic
uncertainty to be around 10\%.
\subsection{Other sources of uncertainty}
The systematic uncertainties due to the critical mass tuning dominate the
uncertainties in $Z_p$ and consequently in $\sigma(\overline{g}^2(\mu))$,
particularly at low scales. The
continuum extrapolation, which is linear in the lattice spacing, because we use unimproved Wilson fermions, is the next
most significant source of systematic error and the corresponding uncertainties
are approximately 1-2\%. Statistical errors in $Z_p(g_0,\mu,a/L)$ were
calculated
from jackknife estimates to include correlations between the correlation
functions of the pseudoscalar and vector currents and were $\sim 0.5$\%.
We determined that the bias in these uncertainties from the jackknife
procedure was negligible. We estimated that uncertainties due to
mis-tuning of the renormalized coupling were $\sim 0.5$\%.
\section{Conclusions}
We have introduced a new finite volume renormalization scheme. We define this
scheme through two point correlation
functions of smeared and local operators, using the Gradient Flow to smear both
fermion and gauge fields. We remove any dependence on the wave function
renormalization for smeared fermions by considering an appropriate ratio of
correlation functions. Thus the renormalization parameter of this ratio
includes only the renormalization factor of the local operator.
Our scheme therefore provides a simple way to compute the renormalization
parameters of lattice operators.
We adopt a normalization condition that restricts the path integral to constant
gauge fields. We compute these constant gauge field correlation functions
numerically. This condition simplifies the matching to the $\overline{MS}$
scheme. Furthermore, with our
scheme one can nonperturbatively determine the scale dependence of the local
operator using a step-scaling
procedure.
Here we have demonstrated the basic features of our scheme using Wilson
fermions in the quenched approximation and concentrating on the pseudo-scalar
quark bilinear operator. In the future we will pursue unquenched, $O(a)$
improved calculations.
The ultimate goal of this work is to calculate
nonperturbatively the renormalization constants, mixing coefficients and
scale dependence of twist-2 matrix elements relevant to hadron structure
calculations. Extracting phenomenologically relevant results requires matching
to the $\overline{MS}$ scheme and work to carry out these matching calculations
is underway.
|
\section{Introduction and preliminaries}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The Lie algebroids, \cite{Mack, Mack2}, are generalizations of Lie algebras and integrable distributions. In fact a Lie algebroid is an anchored vector bundle with a Lie bracket on module of sections. The cotangent bundle of a Poisson manifold has a natural structure of a Lie algebroid and between Poisson structures and Lie algebroids are many other connections, as for instance for every Lie algebroid structure on an anchored vector bundle there is a specific linear Poisson structure on the corresponding dual vector bundle and conversely. In the last decades the Lie algebroids are intensively studied by many authors, see for instance \cite{C-M, Fe, H-M, Kos, L-M-M, Mack, Ma1, Ma3}, from more points of view in the context of some different categories in differential geometry. Recently, in the category of complex analytic geometry and of the $C^\infty$--foliated category, a general study of holomorphic Lie algebroids and of foliated Lie and Courant algebroids is due to \cite{L-S-X, L-S-X2} and \cite{Va3,Va2}, respectively. Also, in the category of Banach geometry the study of Lie algebroids was initiated in \cite{An2, An3} and some significant developments are given in \cite{Ca-Pe}. On the other hand, the study of Riemannian geometry of Lie algebroids is introduced and intensively studied in \cite{Bo} and a first treatment of (para) K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroids can be found in \cite{L-T-W}. Other important structures as symplectic, hypersymplectic or Poisson structures on Lie algebroids are studied, see for instance \cite{A-C-N, I-M-D-M-P, Kos}.
The notion of almost complex Lie algebroids over almost complex manifolds was introduced in \cite{B-R} as a natural extension of the notion of an almost complex manifold to that of an almost complex Lie algebroid. This generalizes the definition of an almost complex Poisson manifold given in \cite{C-F-I-U}, where some examples are also given. In \cite{B-R} this notion is used in order to obtain some cohomology theories for skew-holomorphic Lie algebroids. Starting from the definition of an almost complex Lie algebroid, \cite{B-R}, but also from the general interest in the study of Lie algebroids, we have to consider that a general study of almost complex geometry in the almost complex Lie algebroids framework can be of some interest. However, for our purpose we will consider the almost complex Lie algebroids over smooth manifolds, not necessarily almost complex.
The paper is organized as it follows. In the preliminary section we briefly recall some basic facts about Lie algebroids. For more, see for instance \cite{C-M, Fe, H-M, Mack, M, Po}. In the second section we define almost complex Lie algebroids over smooth manifolds, we present some examples and we obtain a Newlander-Nirenberg type theorem (Theorem \ref{t1}). Also the particular case when the base manifold is almost complex is discussed. In the third section we make a general approach about almost Hermitian Lie algebroids and sectional curvature of K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroids over smooth manifolds in relation with corresponding notions from the geometry of almost complex manifolds \cite{G-O, Ya}. In particular we obtain a Schur type theorem for transitive K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroids (Theorem \ref{Schur}). In the four section, the Hermitian metrics and linear connections compatible with such metrics on the associated complex Lie algebroid are studied and we present the Levi-Civita connection associated to such metrics. Also, we describe some $E$-Chern forms of $E^{1,0}$ associated to an almost complex connection $\nabla$ on $E$ in terms of the matrix $J_ER$, where $J_E$ is the almost complex structure of $E$ and $R$ is the curvature of $\nabla$ (Theorem \ref{Chern}). Finally, we consider a metric product connection associated to an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid and a $2$--form section for $E^{0,1}$ similar to the second fundamental form of complex distributions is studied in our setting. In particular, we prove that the mean curvature section of $E^{0,1}$ vanishes and the second fundamental $2$--form section of $E^{0,1}$ vanishes iff the Lie algebroid is Hermitian (Corollary \ref{curvsection}).
We notice that the present paper can be considered as an introduction of basic elements of almost complex geometry in the almost complex Lie algebroids framework. Some of these notions are continued in \cite{Po2} where almost complex Poisson structures on almost complex Lie algebroids are studied, but ohter problems related to almost complex geometry or complex (holomorphic) geometry as for instance: Laplacians or vanishing theorems are still open in the framework of Lie algebroids, as well as the study of anti-Hermitian (K\"{a}hlerian) Lie algebroids. Also taking into account the role of almost complex geometry in the study of almost contact geometry the present notions can be useful in the study of almost contact or contact structures on Lie algebroids.
\subsection{Basic notions on Lie algebroids}
\begin{definition}
We say that $p:E\rightarrow M$ is an \textit{anchored} vector bundle if there exists a vector bundle morphism $\rho:E\rightarrow TM$. The morphism $\rho$ will be called the anchor map.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Let $(E,p,M)$ and $(E^{\prime},p^\prime,M^\prime)$ be two anchored vector bundles over the same base $M$ with the anchors $\rho:E\rightarrow TM$ and $\rho^\prime:E^\prime\rightarrow TM$. A morphism of anchored vector bundles over $M$ or a \textit{$M$--morphism of anchored vector bundles} between $(E,\rho)$ and $(E^\prime,\rho^\prime)$ is a morphism of vector bundles $\varphi:(E,p,M)\rightarrow(E^\prime,p^\prime,M)$ such that $\rho^\prime\circ\varphi=\rho$.
\end{definition}
The anchored vector bundles over the same base $M$ form a category. The objects are the pairs $(E,\rho_E)$ with $\rho_E$ the anchor of $E$ and a morphism $\phi:(E,\rho_E)\rightarrow(F,\rho_F)$ is a vector bundle morphism $\phi:E\rightarrow F$ which verifies the condition $\rho_F\circ\phi=\rho_E$.
Let $p:E\rightarrow M$ be an anchored vector bundle with the anchor $\rho:E\rightarrow TM$ and the induced morphism $\rho_E:\Gamma(E)\rightarrow \mathcal{X}(M)$. Assume there exists defined a bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_E$ on the space $\Gamma(E)$ that provides a structure of real Lie algebra on $\Gamma(E)$.
\begin{definition}
The triplet $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ is called a \textit{Lie algebroid} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] $\rho_E:(\Gamma(E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)\rightarrow(\mathcal{X}(M),[\cdot,\cdot])$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism, that is
$\rho_E([s_1,s_2]_E)=[\rho_E(s_1),\rho_E(s_2)]$;
\item[ii)] $[s_1,fs_2]_E=f[s_1,s_2]_E+\rho_E(s_1)(f)s_2$, for every $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$ and $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
A Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ is said to be \textit{transitive}, if $\rho_E$ is surjective.
There exists a canonical cohomology theory associated to a Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ over a smooth manifold $M$. The space $C^{\infty}(M)$ is a $\Gamma(E)$-module relative to the representation $\Gamma(E)\times C^{\infty}(M)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M),\,\,(s,f)\mapsto\rho_E(s)f$.
Following the well-known Chevalley-Eilenberg cohomology theory \cite{C-E}, we can introduce a cohomology complex associated to the Lie algebroid as follows. A $p$-linear mapping $\omega:\Gamma(E)\times\ldots\times\Gamma(E)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M)$ is called a $C^{\infty}(M)$-valued $p$-cochain. Let $\mathcal{C}^p(E)$ denote the vector space of these cochains. The operator $d_E:\mathcal{C}^p(E)\rightarrow \mathcal{C}^{p+1}(E)$ given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
d_E\omega (s_0, \ldots, s_r)=\sum\limits_{i=0}^r(-1)^i\rho _E(s_i)(\omega (s_0, \ldots, \widehat{s_i}, \ldots, s_r)) \\
\,\, & \,\, \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,+\sum\limits_{i<j=1}^r(-1)^{i+j}
\omega ([s_i, s_j]_E, s_0, \ldots, \widehat{s_i}, \ldots, \widehat{s_j}, \ldots, s_r)
\end{array}
\label{I11}
\end{equation}
for $\omega\in \mathcal{C}^p(E)$ and $s_0,\ldots,s_p\in\Gamma(E)$, defines a coboundary since
$d_E\circ d_E=0$. Hence, $(\mathcal{C}^p(E),d_E)$, $p\geq1$ is a differential complex and the
corresponding cohomology spaces are called the cohomology groups of $\Gamma(E)$ with coefficients in $C^{\infty}(M)$. We notice that if $\omega\in \mathcal{C}^p(E)$ is skew-symmetric and $C^{\infty}(M)$-linear, then $d_E\omega$ also is skew-symmetric.
From now on, the subspace of skew-symmetric and $C^{\infty}(M)$-linear cochains of the space $\mathcal{C}^p(E)$ will be denoted by $\Omega^p(E)$ and its elements will be called \textit{$p$--forms} on $E$. The \textit{Lie algebroid cohomology} $H^p(E)$ of $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ is the cohomology of the subcomplex $(\Omega^p(E),d_E)$, $p\geq 1$.
\begin{definition}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ and $(E^\prime,\rho_{E^\prime},[\cdot,\cdot]_{E^\prime})$ be two Lie algebroids over $M$. A
\textit{morphism of Lie algebroids} over $M$, is a morphism $\varphi:(E,\rho_E)\rightarrow(E^\prime,\rho_{E^\prime})$ of anchored
vector bundles with property that:
\begin{equation}
\label{I1}
d_E\circ \varphi^*=\varphi^*\circ d_{E^{\prime}},
\end{equation}
where $\varphi^*:\Omega^p(E^{\prime})\rightarrow\Omega^p(E)$ is defined by
\begin{displaymath}
(\varphi^*\omega^{\prime})(s_1,\ldots,s_p)=\omega^{\prime}(\varphi(s_1),\ldots,\varphi(s_p)),\,\omega^{\prime}\in\Omega^p(E^{\prime}),\,s_1,\ldots,s_p\in\Gamma(E).
\end{displaymath}
We also say that $\varphi$ is a \textit{$M$--morphism of Lie algebroids}.
\end{definition}
Alternatively, we say that $\varphi:(E,\rho_E)\rightarrow(E^\prime,\rho_{E^\prime})$ is a \textit{$M$--morphism of Lie algebroids} if
$\varphi\left([s_1,s_2]_E\right)=\left[\varphi(s_1),\varphi(s_2)\right]_{E^\prime}\,,\,\,\forall \,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$.
The Lie algebroids over the same manifold $M$ and all $M$--morphisms of Lie
algebroids form a category, which is, via a forgetful functor, a subcategory of the category of anchored vector bundles over $M$.
If we consider $(x^{i})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$ a local coordinates system on $U\subset M$ and $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ a local basis of sections on the bundle $E$ over $U$, where $\dim M=n$ and ${\rm rank}\,E=m$, then $(x^{i},y^{a})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ are local coordinates on $E$.
In a such local coordinates system, the anchor $\rho_E$ and the Lie bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_E$ are expressed by the smooth functions $\rho^{i}_a$ and $C^a_{bc}$, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{I2}
\rho_E(e_a)=\rho^{i}_a\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}\,\,{\rm and}\,\,[e_a,e_b]_E=C^c_{ab}e_c\,,\,i=1,\ldots,n,\,a,b,c=1,\ldots,m.
\end{equation}
The functions $\rho^{i}_a\,,\,C^{a}_{bc}\in C^\infty(M)$ given by the above relations are called the \textit{structure functions} of Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ in the given local coordinates system and their verify the following relations:
\begin{equation}
\label{I3}
\rho^j_a\frac{\partial\rho^{i}_b}{\partial x^j}-\rho^j_b\frac{\partial\rho^{i}_a}{\partial x^j}=\rho^{i}_cC^c_{ab}\,,\,C^c_{ab}=-C^c_{ba}\,,\,\sum_{cycl(a,b,c)}\left(\rho^{i}_a\frac{\partial C^d_{bc}}{\partial x^{i}}+C^{e}_{ab}C^d_{ce}\right)=0.
\end{equation}
The equations \eqref{I3} are called the \textit{structure equations} of Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$.
\subsection{Linear connections. Torsion and curvature}
\begin{definition}
A \textit{linear connection} on the Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ over $M$, is a map $\nabla:\Gamma(E)\times\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma(E)$, $(s_1,s_2)\mapsto\nabla(s_1,s_2):=\nabla_{s_1}s_2\in\Gamma(E)$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $\nabla$ is $\mathbb{R}$--bilinear;
\item[(2)] $\nabla_{fs_1}s_2=f\nabla_{s_1}s_2$, for all $f\in C^\infty(M)$ and $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$;
\item[(3)] $\nabla_{s_1}(fs_2)=(\rho_E(s_1)f)s_2+f\nabla_{s_1}s_2$, for all $f\in C^\infty(M)$ and $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
A linear connection on a Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ is in fact an $E$--connection in the vector bundle $E$. See for instance \cite{Fe} for the definition of an $E$-connection in a general vector bundle $F$.
\end{remark}
For every $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$, the section $\nabla_{s_1}s_2\in\Gamma(E)$ is called the \textit{covariant derivative of the section $s_2$ with respect to section $s_1$}. If $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ a local basis of sections on $E$ over $U\subset M$ then a linear connection $\nabla$ on $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ is locally defined by a set of \textit{coefficient functions} $\Gamma^c_{ab}\in C^\infty(M)$ given by $\nabla_{e_a}e_b=\Gamma^c_{ab}e_c$. Then for every sections $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$ locally given by $s_1=s_1^{a}e_a$, $s_2=s_2^{b}e_b$, the covariant
derivative of the section $s_2$ with respect to section $s_1$ is given by $\nabla_{s_1}s_2=\left(s_1^{a}\rho_a^{i}\frac{\partial s_2^c}{\partial x^{i}}+\Gamma^c_{ab}s_1^{a}s_2^b\right)e_c$.
If $\nabla$ is a linear connection on the Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$, the map $T:\Gamma(E)\times\Gamma(E)\rightarrow \Gamma(E)$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{I7}
T(s_1,s_2)=\nabla_{s_1}s_2-\nabla_{s_2}s_1-[s_1,s_2]_E\,,\,\,\forall\,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E),
\end{equation}
is called the \textit{torsion} of $\nabla$. We have that $T$ defined above is a tensor of type $(2,1)$ on $E$ which is $C^\infty(M)$--bilinear and antisymmetric.
Also, for a given linear connection $\nabla$ on the Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ we consider the map
$R:\Gamma(E)\times\Gamma(E)\times\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma(E)\,,\,(s_1,s_2,s_3)\mapsto R(s_1,s_2,s_3)=R(s_1,s_2)s_3$,
where the section $R(s_1,s_2)s_3$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{I9}
R(s_1,s_2)s_3=\nabla_{s_1}\nabla_{s_2}s_3-\nabla_{s_2}\nabla_{s_1}s_3-\nabla_{[s_1,s_2]_E}s_3\,,\,\,\forall\,s_1,s_2,s_3\in\Gamma(E).
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that the map $R$ is $C^\infty(M)$--linear in every argument and it is antisymmetric with respect to the first two arguments, that is $R(s_1,s_2,s_3)=-R(s_2,s_1,s_3)\,,\,\,\forall\,s_1,s_2,s_3\in\Gamma(E)$. The map $R$ defined by \eqref{I9} is called the \textit{curvature} of the linear connection $\nabla$.
\begin{remark}
A linear connection $\nabla$ the Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ can be viewed as a map denoted again by $\nabla$ from $\Gamma(E)$ in $\Omega^1(E)\otimes\Gamma(E)$. More exactly, if $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is a local basis for the sections of $E$, with respect to this basis, we can associate to the connection $\nabla$ the matrix $\theta=(\theta^b_a)$, $a,b=1,\ldots,m$ with elements $1$--forms on $E$ such that $\nabla_se_a=\sum\limits_{b=1}^m\theta_a^b(s)\otimes e_b$, $a=1,\ldots,m$.
Similarly, for the curvature of $\nabla$ we can associate in local basis $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ a matrix $(R^b_a)$, $a,b=1,\ldots,m$ with elements $2$--forms on $E$.
\end{remark}
We notice that for a given linear connection $\nabla$ on a Lie algebroid the exterior derivative $d_E$ can be usually expressed in terms of covariant derivative with respect to $\nabla$ and torsion of $\nabla$. Also the usual Bianchi identities hold in the Lie algebroid framework, see for instance \cite{Fe}.
\section{Almost complex Lie algebroids}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we define almost complex Lie algebroids over smooth manifolds, we present some examples and we obtain a Newlander-Nirenberg type theorem. Also the particular case when the base manifold is almost complex is discussed.
\subsection{Basic definitions, examples and results}
Let us consider a smooth manifold $M$, not necessarily almost complex, and a Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ over $M$ such that ${\rm rank}\,E=2m$.
\begin{definition} An \textit{almost complex structure $J_E$} on $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ is an endomorphism $J_E:\Gamma(E)\rightarrow \Gamma(E)$, over the identity, such that $J_E^2=-{\rm id_{\Gamma(E)}}$ and a Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E)$ endowed with such a structure will be called an \textit{almost complex Lie algebroid}.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Let $(M,J)$ be an almost complex manifold. Then its tangent bundle $TM$ is an almost complex Lie algebroid over $M$ with anchor the identity of $TM$ and with usual Lie bracket of vector fields.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{e2.2}
Let $(M,J,\pi^{2,0})$ be an almost complex Poisson manifold, see \cite{C-F-I-U}. Then $(M,\pi)$ is a real Poisson manifold, where $\pi=\pi^{2,0}+\overline{\pi^{2,0}}$. Then $\left(T^*M,\pi^{\#},\{\cdot,\cdot\}_{\pi}, J^*\right)$ is an almost complex Lie algebroid, where $J^*$ is the natural almost complex structure induced by $J$, $\pi^{\#}:\Gamma(T^*M)\rightarrow\Gamma(TM)$ is defined by $\pi^{\#}(\alpha)(\beta)=\pi(\alpha,\beta)$ and $\{\alpha,\beta\}_{\pi}=\mathcal{L}_{\pi^{\#}(\alpha)}\beta-\mathcal{L}_{\pi^{\#}(\beta)}\alpha-d\pi(\alpha,\beta)$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{e2.1}
(Complete lift to the prolongation of a Lie algebroid). For a Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ with ${\rm rank}\,E=m$ we can consider the prolongation of $E$, see \cite{H-M, Ma1, Ma3}, which is a vector bundle $p_L:\mathcal{L}^p(E)\rightarrow E$ of ${\rm rank}\,\mathcal{L}^p(E)=2m$ which has a Lie algebroid structure over $E$. More exactly, $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ is the subset of $E\times TE$ defined by $\mathcal{L}^p(E)=\{(u,z)\,|\,\rho_E(u)=p_*(z)\}$, where $p_*:TE\rightarrow TM$ is the canonical projection. The projection on the second factor $\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}:\mathcal{L}^p(E)\rightarrow TE$, given by $\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}(u,z)=z$ will be the anchor of the prolongation Lie algebroid $\left(\mathcal{L}^p(E),\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}\right)$ over $E$. For a smooth function $f\in C^\infty(M)$ its \textit{complete} and \textit{vertical lift} to $E$, $f^c$ and $f^v$ respectively, are given by $f^c(u)=\rho_E(u)f$ and $f^v(u)=(f\circ p)(u)$ for every $u\in E$. According to \cite{Ma1,Ma3}, we can consider the \textit{vertical lift} $s^v$ and the \textit{complete lift} $s^c$ of a section $s\in\Gamma(E)$ as sections of $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ as follows. The local basis of $\Gamma(\mathcal{L}^p(E))$ is given by $\left\{\mathcal{X}_a(u)=\left(e_a(p(u)),\rho_a^{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}|_u\right),\mathcal{V}_a=\left(0,\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{a}}\right)\right\}$, where $\left\{\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}},\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{a}}\right\}$, $i=1,\ldots,n=\dim M$, $a=1\ldots,m={\rm rank}\,E$, is the local basis on $TE$. Then, the vertical and complete lifts, respectively, of a section $s=s^{a}e_a\in\Gamma(E)$ are given by
\begin{displaymath}
s^v=s^{a}\mathcal{V}_a\,,\,s^c=s^{a}\mathcal{X}_a+\left(\rho_E(e_c)(s^{a})-C^{a}_{bc}s^b\right)y^c\mathcal{V}_a.
\end{displaymath}
In particular, $e_a^v=\mathcal{V}_a$ and $e_a^c=\mathcal{X}_a-C^b_{ac}y^c\mathcal{V}_b$.
Now, if ${\rm rank}\,E=2m$ and $J_E$ is an almost complex structure on the Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$, then $J_E^c$ is an almost complex structure on $\left(\mathcal{L}^p(E),\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}\right)$ (because one of the properties of the complete lift is: for $p(T)$ a polynomial, then $p(T^c)=p(T)^c$), and moreover, $J_{E}^{c}s^{v}=(J_{E}s)^{v}$ and $J_{E}^{c}s^{c}=(J_{E}s)^{c}$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{e2.4}
Let us consider the prolongation Lie algebroid $\left(\mathcal{L}^p(E),\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}\right)$ over $E$ from Example \ref{e2.1}. Let $\nabla$ a linear connection on the Lie algebroid $E$ (in particular a Riemannian Lie algebroid $(E,g)$ and the Levi-Civita connection, see the next section). Then, the connection $\nabla$ leads to a natural decomposition of $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ into vertical and horizontal subbundles, namely $\mathcal{L}^p(E)=H\mathcal{L}^p(E)\oplus V\mathcal{L}^p(E)$, where $V\mathcal{L}^p(E)=\mathrm{span}\,\{\mathcal{V}_a\}$ and $H\mathcal{L}^p(E)=\mathrm{span}\,\{\mathcal{H}_a=\mathcal{X}_a-\Gamma^b_{ac}y^c\mathcal{V}_b\}$, where $\Gamma^b_{ac}(x)$ are the local coefficients of the linear
connection $\nabla$. We notice that, the above decomposition can be obtained also by a nonlinear (Ehresmann) connection, see for instance \cite{PoL1}. The horizontal lift $s^h$ of a section $s=s^{a}e_a\in\Gamma(E)$ to $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ is locally given by
$s^h=s^{a}\mathcal{H}_a=s^{a}(\mathcal{X}_a-\Gamma^b_{ac}y^c\mathcal{V}_b)$.
Every section $\sigma\in\Gamma(\mathcal{L}^p(E))$ can be written as $\sigma=\sigma^h+\sigma^v$, accordingly to previous decomposition. Then a natural almost complex structure on $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ is defined by
\begin{displaymath}
J_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}:\Gamma(\mathcal{L}^p(E))\rightarrow \Gamma(\mathcal{L}^p(E))\,,\,J_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}(\sigma^h)=-\sigma^v\,,\,J_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}(\sigma^v)=\sigma^h
\end{displaymath}
and $\left(\mathcal{L}^p(E),\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}, J_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}\right)$ is an almost complex Lie algebroid over $E$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $M$ be a differentiable manifold of dimension $2m + n$ endowed with a
codimension $n$ foliation $\mathcal{F}$ (then the dimension of $\mathcal{F}$ is $2m$). According to \cite{E-K2}, the foliation $\mathcal{F}$ is said to be \textit{complex} if it can be defined by an open cover $\{U_i\},\,i\in I$, of $M$ and diffeomorphisms $\phi_i:\Omega_i\times\mathcal{O}_i\rightarrow U_i$ (where $\Omega_i$ is an open polydisc in $\mathbb{C}^m$ and $\mathcal{O}_i$ is an open ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$) such that, for every pair $(i,j)\in I\times I$ with $U_i\cap U_j\neq \phi$, the coordinate change
\begin{displaymath}
\phi_{ij}=\phi_j^{-1}\circ\phi_i:\phi_i^{-1}(U_i\cap U_j)\rightarrow\phi_j^{-1}(U_i\cap U_j)
\end{displaymath}
is of the form $(z^{'}, x^{'})=(\phi_{ij}^1(z,x), \phi_{ij}^2(x))$ with $\phi_{ij}^1(z,x)$ holomorphic in $z$ for $x$ fixed.
If we set $z^k=u^k+iv^k$, $k=1,\ldots,m$, then the \textit{almost complex structure along the leaves} $J_{\mathcal{F}}:T\mathcal{F}\rightarrow T\mathcal{F}$, is given by
$J_{\mathcal{F}}(\frac
\partial {\partial u ^k})=\frac \partial {\partial v ^k}$, $J_{\mathcal{F}}(\frac \partial {\partial v^k})=-\frac \partial
{\partial u^k}$, $k=1,\ldots,m$.
Then $\left(T\mathcal{F},i_{\mathcal{F}},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{F}},J_{\mathcal{F}}\right)$ is an almost complex Lie algebroid with anchor the inclusion $i_{\mathcal{F}}:T\mathcal{F}\rightarrow TM$ and the usual Lie bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{F}}$ of the vector fields tangent to $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{e2.5}
(Direct product structure). The direct product of two Lie algebroids $\left(E_1,\rho_{E_1},[\cdot,\cdot]_{E_1}\right)$ over $M_1$ and $\left(E_2,\rho_{E_2},[\cdot,\cdot]_{E_2}\right)$ over $M_2$ is defined in, \cite{Mack2} pg. 155, as a Lie algebroid structure $E_1\times E_2\rightarrow M_1\times M_2$. Let us briefly recall this construction. The general sections of $E_1\times E_2$ are of the form $s=\sum (f_i\otimes s_i^1)\oplus\sum(g_j\otimes s_j^2)$, where $f_i,g_j\in C^\infty(M_1\times M_2)$, $s_i^1\in\Gamma(E_1)$, $s_j^2\in\Gamma(E_2)$, and the anchor map is defined by
\begin{displaymath}
\rho_E\left(\sum (f_i\otimes s_i^1)\oplus\sum(g_j\otimes s_j^2)\right)=\sum(f_i\otimes\rho_{E_1}(s_i^1))\oplus\sum(g_j\otimes\rho_{E_2}(s_j^2)).
\end{displaymath}
Imposing the conditions
\begin{displaymath}
[1\otimes s^1,1\otimes t^1]_E=1\otimes[s^1,t^1]_{E_1}\,,\,[1\otimes s^1,1\otimes t^2]_E=0,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
[1\otimes s^2,1\otimes t^2]_E=1\otimes[s^2,t^2]_{E_2}\,,\,[1\otimes s^2,1\otimes t^1]_E=0,
\end{displaymath}
for every $s^1,t^1\in\Gamma(E_1)$ and $s^2,t^2\in\Gamma(E_2)$, it follows that for $s=\sum (f_i\otimes s_i^1)\oplus\sum(g_j\otimes s_j^2)$ and $s^{\prime}=\sum (f_k^{\prime}\otimes s_k^{\prime 1})\oplus\sum(g^{\prime}_l\otimes s_l^{\prime 2})$, we have, using Leibniz condition, the following expression for bracket on $E=E_1\times E_2$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
[s,s^\prime]_E&=&\left(\sum f_if^\prime_k\otimes[s_i^1,s_k^{\prime 1}]_{E_1}+\sum f_i\rho_{E_1}(s_i^1)(f_k^\prime)\otimes s_k^{\prime 1}-\sum f_k^\prime\rho_{E_1}(s_k^{\prime 1})(f_i)\otimes s_i^1\right)\\
&&\oplus\left(\sum g_jg^\prime_l\otimes[s_j^2,s_l^{\prime 2}]_{E_2}+\sum g_j\rho_{E_2}(s_j^2)(g_l^\prime)\otimes s_l^{\prime 2}-\sum g_l^\prime\rho_{E_2}(s_l^{\prime 2})(g_j)\otimes s_j^2\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, if $E_1$ and $E_2$ are endowed with almost complex structures $J_{E_1}$ and $J_{E_2}$, respectively, then an almost complex structure $J_E$ on $E=E_1\times E_2$ can be defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{C1}
J_E(s)=\sum (f_i\otimes J_{E_1}(s_i^1))\oplus\sum(g_j\otimes J_{E_2}(s_j^2)).
\end{equation}
\end{example}
Complexifying the real vector bundle $E$ we obtain the complex vector bundle $E_{\mathbb{C}}:=E\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}\rightarrow M$ and by extending the anchor map and the Lie bracket $\mathbb{C}$--linearly, we obtain a complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},[\cdot,\cdot]_E,\rho_E)$ with the anchor map $\rho_E:\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})\rightarrow\Gamma(TM_{\mathbb{C}})$, that is, a homomorphism of the complexified of corresponding Lie algebras, and $[s_1,fs_2]_E=f[s_1,s_2]_E+\rho_E(s_1)(f)s_2$, for every $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})$ and $f\in C^\infty(M)_{\mathbb{C}}= C^{\infty}(M)\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}$. Also, extending $\mathbb{C}$--linearly the almost complex structure $J_E$, we obtain the almost complex structure $J_E$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$.
As usual, we have a splitting
\begin{displaymath}
E_{\mathbb{C}}=E^{1,0}\oplus E^{0,1}
\end{displaymath}
according to the eigenvalues $\pm i$ of $J_E$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$. We also have
\begin{equation}
\label{II1}
\Gamma(E^{1,0})=\{s-iJ_Es\,|\,s\in\Gamma(E)\}\,,\,\Gamma(E^{0,1})=\{s+iJ_Es\,|\,s\in\Gamma(E)\}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, we have the splitting
\begin{displaymath}
E^*_{\mathbb{C}}:=E^*\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}=(E^{1,0})^*\oplus (E^{0,1})^*
\end{displaymath}
according to the eigenvalues $\pm i$ of $J^*_E$ on $E^*_{\mathbb{C}}$, where $J_E^*$ is the natural almost complex structure induced on $E^*$. We also have
\begin{equation}
\label{II2}
\Gamma((E^{1,0})^*)=\{\omega-iJ^*_E\omega\,|\,\omega\in\Gamma(E^*)\}\,,\,\Gamma((E^{0,1})^*)=\{\omega+iJ^*_E\omega\,|\,\omega\in\Gamma(E^*)\}.
\end{equation}
We set
\begin{displaymath}
\bigwedge^{p,q}(E)=\bigwedge^p(E^{1,0})^*\otimes\bigwedge^q(E^{0,1})^* \,\,{\rm and}\,\,\Omega^{p,q}(E)=\Gamma\left(\bigwedge^{p,q}(E)\right).
\end{displaymath}
Then, the differential $d_E$ of the complex $\Omega^{\bullet}(E)=\bigoplus_{p,q}\Omega^{p,q}(E)$ splits into the sum
\begin{displaymath}
d_E=\partial^\prime_E+\partial_E+\overline{\partial}_E+\partial^{\prime\prime}_E,
\end{displaymath}
where
\begin{displaymath}
\partial^\prime_E:\Omega^{p,q}(E)\rightarrow\Omega^{p+2,q-1}(E)\,,\,\partial_E:\Omega^{p,q}(E)\rightarrow\Omega^{p+1,q}(E),
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\overline{\partial}_E:\Omega^{p,q}(E)\rightarrow\Omega^{p,q+1}(E)\,,\,\partial^{\prime\prime}_E:\Omega^{p,q}(E)\rightarrow\Omega^{p-1,q+2}(E).
\end{displaymath}
For an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ we can consider the Nijenhuis tensor of $J_E$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{2.1}
N_{J_E}(s_1,s_2)=[J_Es_1,J_Es_2]_E-J_E[s_1,J_Es_2]_E-J_E[J_Es_1,s_2]_E-[s_1,s_2]_E\,,\,\forall\,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E).
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
If we consider $\{e^{a}\}$, $a=1,\ldots,2m$ the dual basis of $\{e_{a}\}$, $a=1,\ldots,2m$, then the Nijenhuis tensor $N_{J_E}$ is locally defined by $N_{J_E}=N^c_{ab}e_c\otimes e^{a}\otimes e^b$, and its local coefficients are given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
N^c_{ab}&=&\rho_b^{i}\frac{\partial J_a^d}{\partial x^{i}}J_d^c-\rho_a^{i}\frac{\partial J_b^e}{\partial x^{i}}J_e^c+\rho_d^{i}\frac{\partial J_b^c}{\partial x^{i}}J_a^d-\rho_e^{i}\frac{\partial J_a^c}{\partial x^{i}}J_b^e\\
&&+J_a^dJ_e^cC^{e}_{bd}-J_b^dJ_e^cC^{e}_{ad}+J_b^eJ_a^dC^{c}_{de}-C^c_{ab},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $J_E=J_a^be_b\otimes e^{a}$ is the local expression of the almost complex structure $J_E$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}
An almost complex structure $J_E$ on the Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ of ${\rm rank}\,E=2m$ is called \textit{integrable} if $N_{J_E}=0$.
\end{definition}
Now, using a standard procedure from almost complex geometry, \cite{G-O,Hs,Ya}, we can prove the following Newlander-Nirenberg type theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{t1}
For an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ over a smooth manifold $M$ the following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] If $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E^{1,0})$ then $[s_1,s_2]_E\in\Gamma(E^{1,0})$;
\item[(ii))] If $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E^{0,1})$ then $[s_1,s_2]_E\in\Gamma(E^{0,1})$;
\item[(iii)] $d_E\Omega^{1,0}(E)\subset \Omega^{2,0}(E)+\Omega^{1,1}(E)$ and $d_E\Omega^{0,1}(E)\subset \Omega^{1,1}(E)\oplus\Omega^{0,2}(E)$;
\item[(iv)] $d_E\Omega^{p,q}(E)\subset \Omega^{p+1,q}(E)+\Omega^{p,q+1}(E)$;
\item[(v)] the real Nijenhuis $N_{J_E}$ from \eqref{2.1} vanish, namely $J_E$ is integrable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The above Newlander-Nirenberg type theorem says that for any integrable almost complex structure $J_E$ on an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ we have the usual decomposition
\begin{displaymath}
d_E=\partial_E+\overline{\partial}_E.
\end{displaymath}
From $d_E^2=d_E\circ d_E=0$ we obtain the following identities:
\begin{equation}
\label{II5}
\partial_E^2=\overline{\partial}_E^2=\partial_E\overline{\partial}_E+\overline{\partial}_E\partial_E=0.
\end{equation}
Hence, in this case we obtain a Dolbeault type Lie algebroid cohomology as the cohomology of the complex $(\Omega^{p,\bullet}(E),\overline{\partial}_E)$.
\begin{remark}
In \cite{B-R} the integrability of the almost complex structure $J_E$ is defined in order to obtain a reduction to a holomorphic Lie algebroid which is equivalent to vanishing of a suitable Nijenhuis tensor on $E$.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
Let $\left( E^{\prime },\rho _{E^{\prime }},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{E^{\prime}}\right) $ be a Lie algebroid over a base manifold $M^{\prime }$ and $(E,\rho _{E},$ $[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{E})$ be a Lie subalgebroid. Let us denote as $i:M\rightarrow M^{\prime }$ and $I:E\rightarrow E^{\prime \prime }=i^{\ast}E^{\prime}$ be the inclusions; notice that $i$ is an inclusion submanifold
and $I$ is the incusion of a vector subbundle over $M$. Consider a projector $\Pi $ in the fibers of $E^{\prime\prime}$ such that the image of $\Pi$ is $E$, i.e. $\Pi \left( E^{\prime \prime }\right) =E$. A such projector $\Pi $ can be the ortogonal projection according to a Riemannian metric $g^{\prime \prime }$ in the fibers of $E^{\prime \prime }$, that can be
induced particularly by a metric $g^{\prime \prime }$ in the fibers of $E^{\prime }$. We can define an anchor $\rho _{E^{\prime \prime }}=\rho_{E}\circ \Pi :E^{\prime \prime }\rightarrow TM$ and a $\rho _{E^{\prime\prime }}$--bracket
\begin{equation}
\lbrack s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime \prime }}=[\Pi
\left( s_1^{\prime \prime }\right) ,\Pi \left( s_2^{\prime \prime }\right)
]_{E},\,\forall\,s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }\in \Gamma \left(
E^{\prime \prime }\right) . \label{form-br}
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that $\left( E^{\prime \prime },\rho _{E^{\prime \prime}},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{E^{\prime \prime }}\right) $ is a Lie algebroid. Indeed, if $s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }\in \Gamma \left( E^{\prime \prime
}\right) $, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho _{E^{\prime \prime }}\left( [s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime\prime }]_{E^{\prime \prime }}\right) &=&\rho _{E}\circ \Pi ([\Pi \left(s_1^{\prime \prime }\right) ,\Pi \left( s_2^{\prime \prime }\right) ]_{E})=\rho _{E}([\Pi \left( s_1^{\prime \prime }\right) ,\Pi \left( s_2^{\prime \prime}\right) ]_{E})\\
&=&[\rho _{E}\circ \Pi \left( s_1^{\prime \prime }\right)
,\rho _{E}\circ \Pi \left( s_2^{\prime \prime }\right) ]_{TM}=[\rho
_{E^{\prime \prime }}\left( s_1^{\prime \prime }\right) ,\rho _{E^{\prime\prime }}\left( s_2^{\prime \prime }\right) ]_{TM},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{TM}$ denotes the usual Lie bracket.
Also, $\sum\limits_{cycl.}[[s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime
}]_{E^{\prime \prime }},s_3^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime \prime }}=\sum\limits_{cycl.}[[\Pi \left( s_1^{\prime \prime }\right) ,\Pi \left(s_2^{\prime \prime }\right) ]_{E},\Pi \left(s_3^{\prime \prime }\right) ]_{E}=0$, since $[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{E}$ is a bracket of a Lie algebroid.
If $J_{E^{\prime }}$ is an almost complex structure in the fibers of $E^{\prime }$, then its restriction to $M$ gives an almost complex structure $J_{E^{\prime \prime }}$ in the fibers of $E^{\prime \prime }$.
If $s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }\in \Gamma \left( E^{\prime \prime}\right) $, then for every $s_1^{\prime },s_2^{\prime }\in \Gamma \left(E^{\prime }\right) $ that extend $s_1^{\prime\prime}$ and $s_2^{\prime\prime}$, respectively, then the
restriction of $[s_1^{\prime },s_2^{\prime }]_{E^{\prime }}$ to $M$ does not depend on the extensions and it defines a section in $\Gamma \left(E^{\prime \prime }\right) $, that we denote as $[s_1^{\prime \prime},s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime }}^{\prime }$; it is not a bracket, but a restriction of $[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{E^{\prime }}$ to $M$. We say that the projection $\Pi $ is \emph{flat} if $[\Pi \left( s_1^{\prime \prime }\right),\Pi \left( s_2^{\prime \prime }\right) ]_{E}=\Pi \left( \lbrack s_1^{\prime\prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right) $.
Let us suppose that the projection $\Pi $ is flat. If $J_{E^{\prime }}$ is integrable and $\Pi\circ J_{E^{\prime\prime}}=J_{E^{\prime\prime}}\circ\Pi$ then $J_{E^{\prime \prime }}$ is integrable as well. Indeed,
\begin{eqnarray*}
N_{J_{E^{\prime\prime }}}(s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime })&=&[J_{E^{\prime \prime}}s_1^{\prime \prime },J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime\prime }}-[s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime \prime}}-J_{E^{\prime\prime}}[J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime\prime }}-J_{E^{\prime\prime}}[s_1^{\prime \prime },J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_2^{\prime \prime}]_{E^{\prime \prime }}\\
&=&[\Pi J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_1^{\prime \prime },\Pi J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E}-[\Pi s_1^{\prime \prime },\Pi s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E}-J_{E^{\prime\prime}}[\Pi J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_1^{\prime \prime },\Pi s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E}-J_{E^{\prime\prime}}[\Pi s_1^{\prime \prime },\Pi J_{E^{\prime \prime}}s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E}\\
&=&\Pi ([J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_1^{\prime \prime },J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime }}^{\prime }-[s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime }}^{\prime }-J_{E^{\prime\prime}}[J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }]_{E^{\prime}}^{\prime }-J_{E^{\prime\prime}}[s_1^{\prime \prime },J_{E^{\prime \prime }}s_2^{\prime\prime }]_{E^{\prime }}^{\prime })\\
&=&\Pi ([J_{E^{\prime }}s_1^{\prime },J_{E^{\prime }}s_2^{\prime }]_{E^{\prime }}-[s_1^{\prime },s_2^{\prime}]_{E^{\prime }}-J_{E^{\prime}}[J_{E^{\prime }}s_1^{\prime },s_2^{\prime }]_{E^{\prime}}-J_{E^{\prime}}[s_1^{\prime },J_{E^{\prime }}s_2^{\prime }]_{E^{\prime }})_{|M}\\
&=&N_{J_{E^{\prime }}}\left( s_1^{\prime },s_2^{\prime }\right) _{|M}=0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $s_1^{\prime \prime },s_2^{\prime \prime }\in \Gamma \left( E^{\prime \prime}\right) $ are the restrictions to $M$ of $s_1^{\prime },s_2^{\prime }\in \Gamma\left( E^{\prime }\right) $ and we have used that $N_{J_{E^{\prime}}}=0$.
An example of such a case is when the algebroids are the tangent spaces $E=TS^{2n-1}\subset E^{\prime }=TI\!\!R^{2n}$ and $\Pi $ is the orthogonal projection according to the euclidean metric (see \cite{Po2}). It can be easily proved that $\Pi $ is flat, thus the canonical complex structure on $I\!\!R^{2n}$ gives an integrable almost complex structure on the algebroid $E=S^{2n-1}\times I\!\!R^{2n}$. The anchor of $E$ is the orthogonal projection on the tangent hyperplane, along on $S^{2n-1}$, and the bracket is given by a similar formula (\ref{form-br}).
\end{example}
We notice that in more situations in this paper we will consider the case when $J_E$ is integrable.
Let us consider now $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ and $(E^\prime,\rho_{E^\prime},[\cdot,\cdot]_{E^\prime},J_{E^\prime})$ be two almost complex Lie algebroids over a smooth manifold $M$.
A $M$--morphism $\varphi$ of almost complex Lie algebroids is naturally extended by $\mathbb{C}$--linearity to $\varphi:(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,J_E)\rightarrow(E^\prime_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_{E^\prime},J_{E^\prime})$ over $M$ and it is called \textit{almost complex} if
\begin{equation}
\label{II6}
\varphi\circ J_E=J_{E^\prime}\circ\varphi.
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
If $\varphi:(E,\rho_E,J_E)\rightarrow(E^\prime,\rho_{E^\prime},J_{E^\prime})$ is a $M$--morphism of almost complex Lie algebroids over $M$, then the following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] If $s_1\in\Gamma(E^{1,0})$ then $\varphi(s_1)\in\Gamma(E^{\prime 1,0})$;
\item[(ii)] If $s_1\in\Gamma(E^{0,1})$ then $\varphi(s_1)\in\Gamma(E^{\prime 0,1})$;
\item[(iii)] If $\omega^{\prime}\in\Omega^{p,q}(E^{'})$ then $\varphi^*\omega^{\prime}\in\Omega^{p,q}(E)$, where
\begin{displaymath}
(\varphi^*\omega^\prime)(s_1,\ldots,s_p,t_1,\ldots,t_q)=\omega^\prime(\varphi(s_1),\ldots,\varphi(s_p),\varphi(t_1),\ldots,\varphi(t_q))
\end{displaymath}
for any $s_1,\ldots,s_p\in\Gamma(E^{1,0})$ and $t_1,\ldots,t_q\in\Gamma(E^{0,1})$.
\item[(iv)] The morphism $\varphi$ is almost complex.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It follows using a standard argument from the almost complex geometry.
\end{proof}
If we consider $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ be a local basis of $\Gamma(E^{1,0})$ and $\{e_{\overline{b}}=\overline{e_b}\}$, $b=1,\ldots,m$ be a local basis of $\Gamma(E^{0,1})$, then we have
\begin{displaymath}
[e_a,e_b]_E=C^c_{ab}e_c+C^{\overline{c}}_{ab}\overline{e_c}\,,\,[e_a,e_{\overline{b}}]_E=C^c_{a\overline{b}}e_c+C^{\overline{c}}_{a\overline{b}}\overline{e_c},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
[e_{\overline{a}},e_b]_E=C^c_{\overline{a}b}e_c+C^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}b}\overline{e_c}\,,\,[e_{\overline{a}},e_{\overline{b}}]_E=C^c_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}e_c+C^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}\overline{e_c},
\end{displaymath}
where $\overline{C^{a}_{bc}}=C^{\overline{a}}_{\overline{b}\,\overline{c}}$, $\overline{C^{\overline{c}}_{ab}}=C^{c}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}$, $\overline{C^{c}_{\overline{a}b}}=C^{\overline{c}}_{a\overline{b}}$ and $\overline{C^{c}_{a\overline{b}}}=C^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}b}$, since $\overline{[s_1,s_2]_E}=[\overline{s_1},\overline{s_2}]_E$, for every $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})$ and they are antisymmetric in below indices.
\begin{remark}
By Newlander-Nirenberg theorem, if $J_E$ is integrable then $C^{\overline{c}}_{ab}=C^c_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}=0$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ be an almost complex Lie algebroid over $M$. A $M$-diffeomorphism $\varphi:(E,\rho_E,J_E)\rightarrow(E,\rho_E,J_{E})$ such that $\varphi\circ J_E=J_E\circ\varphi$ is called an \textit{automorphism} of the almost complex structure $J_E$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{infinitezimal}
A section $s_1\in\Gamma(E)$ is called an \textit{infinitesimal automorphism} of $J_E$ if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{II7}
[s_1,J_E(s_2)]_E-J_E\left([s_1,s_2]_E\right)=0,
\end{equation}
for any section $s_2\in\Gamma(E)$.
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that the set of all infinitesimal automorphisms of $J_E$ is a Lie subalgebra of the Lie algebra of sections of $E$. Also, the following remarks hold:
\begin{remark}
If $s_1$ is an infinitesimal automorphism of $J_E$ then
\begin{displaymath}
N_{J_E}(s_1,s_2)=[J_E(s_1),J_E(s_2)]_E-J_E([J_E(s_1),s_2]_E)\,,\,\,\forall\,s_2\in\Gamma(E).
\end{displaymath}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If $N_{J_E}=0$ then $s$ and $J_E(s)$ are simultaneously infinitesimal automorphisms of $J_E$.
\end{remark}
Extending the Definition \ref{infinitezimal} for the sections of $E_{\mathbb{C}}$ with respect to the almost complex $J_E$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$, we obtain
\begin{proposition}
Let $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ be a local basis of $E^{1,0}$. If all this sections are infinitesimal automorhisms of $J_E$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$, then the sections $\{e_{\overline{b}}\}$, $b=1,\ldots,m$, that give a local basis of $E^{0,1}$, are also infinitesimal automorphisms of $J_E$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ are infinitesimal automorphisms of $J_E$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$, then from $[e_a,J_E(e_b)]_E=J_E([e_a,e_b]_E)$ we obtain $C^{\overline{c}}_{ab}=0$ and from $[e_a,J_E(e_{\overline{b}})]_E=J_E([e_a,e_{\overline{b}}]_E)$ we obtain $C^c_{a\overline{b}}=0$. Then, by conjugation, we have $C^{c}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}=C^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}b}=0$ which implies $[e_{\overline{a}},J_E(e_b)]_E=J_E([e_{\overline{a}},e_b]_E)$ and $[e_{\overline{a}},J_E(e_{\overline{b}})]_E=J_E([e_{\overline{a}},e_{\overline{b}}]_E)$.
\end{proof}
In the end of this subsection we prove that if $J_E$ is an integrable almost complex structure on $E$ then $(E^{1,0},E^{0,1})$ is a matched pairs of complex Lie algebroids. The notion of matched pairs of Lie algebroids was introduced in \cite{Lu} and further studied \cite{Mack3, Mo} and other authors.
\begin{definition}
\label{dmp}
A \textit{matched pair} of Lie algebroids is a pair of (complex or real) Lie algebroids $E_1$ and $E_2$ over the same base manifold $M$, where $E_2$ is an $E_1$-module and $E_1$ is an $E_2$-module such that the following identities hold:
\begin{equation}
\label{mp1}
\left[\rho_{E_1}(s),\rho_{E_2}(t)\right]=-\rho_{E_1}\left(\nabla_ts\right)+\rho_{E_2}(\nabla_st),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{mp2}
\nabla_s[t_1,t_2]_{E_2}=\left[\nabla_st_1,t_2\right]_{E_2}+\left[t_1,\nabla_st_2\right]_{E_2}+\nabla_{\nabla_{t_2}s}t_1-\nabla_{\nabla_{t_1}s}t_2,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{mp3}
\nabla_t[s_1,s_2]_{E_1}=\left[\nabla_ts_1,s_2\right]_{E_1}+\left[s_1,\nabla_ts_2\right]_{E_1}+\nabla_{\nabla_{s_2}t}s_1-\nabla_{\nabla_{s_1}t}s_2,
\end{equation}
where $s,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_1)$ and $t,t_1,t_2\in\Gamma(E_2)$. Here $\rho_{E_1}$ and $\rho_{E_2}$ are the anchor maps of $E_1$ and $E_2$, respectively, and $\nabla$ denotes both $E_1$-connection on $E_2$ and $E_2$-connection on $E_1$, respectively
\begin{displaymath}
\Gamma(E_1)\times\Gamma(E_2)\rightarrow\Gamma(E_2)\,,\,(s,t)\mapsto\nabla_st\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\Gamma(E_2)\times\Gamma(E_1)\rightarrow\Gamma(E_1)\,,\,(t,s)\mapsto\nabla_ts.
\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E)$ be an almost complex Lie algebroid over a smooth manifold $M$ such that $J_E$ is integrable and $E_{\mathbb{C}}=E^{1,0}\oplus E^{0,1}$ its complexification. We consider the natural projections $p^{1,0}:E_{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow E^{1,0}$ and $p^{0,1}:E_{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow E^{0,1}$ from $E_{\mathbb{C}}$ onto $E^{1,0}$ and $E^{0,1}$, respectively, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{m1}
p^{1,0}=\frac{1}{2}(I_E-iJ_E)\,,\,p^{0,1}=\frac{1}{2}(I_E+iJ_E).
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{proposition}
\label{pmp}
If $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E)$ is an almost complex Lie algebroid over a smooth manifold $M$ such that $J_E$ is integrable then $(E^{1,0},E^{0,1})$ is a matched pair, where the actions are given by
\begin{displaymath}
\nabla_{s^{0,1}}s^{1,0}=p^{1,0}\left[s^{0,1},s^{1,0}\right]_{E}\,\,{\rm and}\,\,\nabla_{s^{1,0}}s^{0,1}=p^{0,1}\left[s^{1,0},s^{0,1}\right]_E
\end{displaymath}
for every $s^{1,0}\in\Gamma(E^{1,0})$ and $s^{0,1}\in\Gamma(E^{0,1})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is sufficient to verify the Definition \ref{dmp} in the local bases $\{e_a\}$, $a=1\ldots,m$ of $\Gamma(E^{1,0})$ and $\{\overline{e_a}\}$, $a=1\ldots,m$ of $\Gamma(E^{0,1})$. If $J_E$ is integrable we have $C^{\overline{c}}_{ab}=C^{c}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}=0$. Let us consider $\rho^{1,0}:E^{1,0}\rightarrow T_{\mathbb{C}}M$, $\rho^{0,1}:E^{0,1}\rightarrow T_{\mathbb{C}}M$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{mp4}
\rho^{1,0}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho_E-i\rho_E\circ J_E)\,,\,\rho^{0,1}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho_E+i\rho_E\circ J_E),
\end{equation}
and $[\cdot,\cdot]^{1,0}:\Gamma(E^{1,0})\times\Gamma(E^{1,0})\rightarrow\Gamma(E^{1,0})$, $[\cdot,\cdot]^{0,1}:\Gamma(E^{0,1})\times\Gamma(E^{0,1})\rightarrow\Gamma(E^{0,1})$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{mp5}
[\cdot,\cdot]^{1,0}=\frac{1}{2}([\cdot,\cdot]_E-iJ_E\circ [\cdot,\cdot]_E)\,,\,[\cdot,\cdot]^{0,1}=\frac{1}{2}([\cdot,\cdot]_E+iJ_E\circ [\cdot,\cdot]_E).
\end{equation}
Then locally, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{mp6}
\rho^{1,0}(e_a)=\rho_E(e_a)\,,\,\rho^{0,1}(\overline{e_a})=\rho_E(\overline{e_a})\,,\,[e_a,e_b]^{1,0}=[e_a,e_b]_E\,,\,[e_{\overline{a}},e_{\overline{b}}]^{0,1}=[e_{\overline{a}},e_{\overline{b}}]_E
\end{equation}
and using the Lie algebroid structure of $E$ it follows that $\left(E^{1,0},\rho^{1,0},[\cdot,\cdot]^{1,0}\right)$ and $\left(E^{0,1},\rho^{0,1},[\cdot,\cdot]^{0,1}\right)$ are complex Lie algebroids over $M$.
Now, the fact that $(E^{1,0},E^{0,1})$ is matched pair follows by direct verification of the Definition \ref{dmp} in the local bases $\{e_a\}$ and $\{\overline{e_a}\}$, where for \eqref{mp2} and \eqref{mp3} we use the Jacobi identity
$\sum\limits_{(a,\overline{b},\overline{c})}\left[e_a,\left[e_{\overline{b}},e_{\overline{c}}\right]_E\right]_E=0$ and its conjugate.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Almost complex Lie algebroids over almost complex manifolds}
In \cite{B-R} is given the definition of almost complex Lie algebroids over almost complex manifolds, which generalizes the definition of almost complex Poisson manifolds, see \cite{C-F-I-U}. In this subsection we consider the almost complex Lie algebroids over almost complex manifolds and in the particular case when the base manifold is complex, we describe some properties of the structure functions of the associated complex Lie algebroid.
Consider $M$ a $2n$--dimensional almost complex manifold with an almost complex structure $J_M:\Gamma(TM)\rightarrow \Gamma(TM)$ and $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ be a Lie algebroid over $M$ with ${\rm rank}\,E=2m$.
\begin{definition}
\cite{B-R} An \textit{almost complex structure $J_E$} on $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ is an endomorphism $J_E:\Gamma(E)\rightarrow \Gamma(E)$ such that $J_E^2=-{\rm id_{\Gamma(E)}}$ and $J_M\circ\rho_E=\rho_E\circ J_E$.
\end{definition}
A real Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ endowed with such a structure will be called \textit{almost complex Lie algebroid over $(M,J_M)$}.
We notice that by the relation $\rho_E\circ J_E=J_M\circ\rho_E$ the complexified anchor map $\rho_E:\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})\rightarrow\Gamma(TM_{\mathbb{C}})$ has the properties: $\rho_E(E^{1,0})\subset\Gamma(T^{1,0}M)$ and $\rho_E(E^{0,1})\subset\Gamma(T^{0,1}M)$, where $TM_{\mathbb{C}}=T^{1,0}M\oplus T^{0,1}M$ is the complexified of the real tangent bundle $TM$, and $T^{1,0}M={\rm span}\,\{Z_i\}$ and $T^{0,1}M={\rm span}\,\{\overline{Z_i}\}$ are the tangent bundles of complex vector of type $(1,0)$ and of type $(0,1)$, respectively. Then we can write
\begin{displaymath}
\rho_E(e_a)=\rho_a^{i}(z)Z_i\,,\,\rho_E(\overline{e_a})=\rho_{\overline{a}}^{\overline{i}}(z)\overline{Z_i},
\end{displaymath}
where $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is a local basis of $\Gamma(E^{1,0})$ and $\{e_{\overline{b}}=\overline{e_b}\}$, $b=1,\ldots,m$ is a local basis of $\Gamma(E^{0,1})$.
If $(M,J_M)$ is a complex manifold, then we can consider the complex coordinates $(z^1,\ldots,z^n)$ on $M$ and then $T^{1,0}M={\rm span}\,\{\frac{\partial}{\partial z^{i}}\}$ and $T^{0,1}M={\rm span}\,\{\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{z}^{i}}\}$ are the holomorphic and antiholomorphic tangent subbundles, respectively. Then, the above relations becomes
\begin{displaymath}
\rho_E(e_a)=\rho_a^{i}(z)\frac{\partial}{\partial z^{i}}\,,\,\rho_E(\overline{e_a})=\rho_{\overline{a}}^{\overline{i}}(z)\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{z}^{i}}.
\end{displaymath}
\begin{proposition}
If $(M,J_M)$ is a complex manifold, then the structure functions of the complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},[\cdot,\cdot]_E,\rho_E)$ over $(M,J_M)$ satisfy the following relations:
\begin{displaymath}
\rho^j_a\frac{\partial\rho^{i}_b}{\partial z^j}-\rho^j_b\frac{\partial\rho^{i}_a}{\partial z^j}=\rho^{i}_cC^c_{ab}\,,\,C^{\overline{c}}_{ab}\rho_{\overline{c}}^{\overline{i}}=0\,,\,C^c_{a\overline{b}}\rho_c^{i}=-\rho_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{j}}\frac{\partial \rho_a^{i}}{\partial\overline{z}^j}\,,\,C^{\overline{c}}_{a\overline{b}}\rho_{\overline{c}}^{\overline{i}}=\rho_a^j\frac{\partial\rho_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{i}}}{\partial z^j},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\rho^{\overline{j}}_{\overline{a}}\frac{\partial\rho^{\overline{i}}_{\overline{b}}}{\partial \overline{z}^j}-\rho^{\overline{j}}_{\overline{b}}\frac{\partial\rho^{\overline{i}}_{\overline{a}}}{\partial \overline{z}^j}=\rho^{\overline{i}}_{\overline{c}}C^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}\,,\,C^{c}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}\rho_{c}^{i}=0\,,\,C^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}b}\rho_{\overline{c}}^{\overline{i}}=-\rho_{b}^{j}\frac{\partial \rho_{\overline{a}}^{\overline{i}}}{\partial z^j}\,,\,C^{c}_{\overline{a}b}\rho_{c}^{i}=\rho_{\overline{a}}^{\overline{j}}\frac{\partial\rho_{b}^{i}}{\partial \overline{z}^j}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Follows by direct calculations in the relation $\rho_E\left([e_a,e_b]_E\right)=[\rho_E(e_a),\rho_E(b)]$ and similarly for the other sections of $E_{\mathbb{C}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem 3.2}
Taking into account the relations $\rho_E\circ J_E=J_M\circ\rho_E$ and $\rho_E([s_1,s_2]_E)=[\rho_E(s_1),\rho_E(s_2)]$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{II4}
\rho_E\left(N_{J_E}(s_1,s_2)\right)=N_{J_M}(\rho_E(s_1),\rho_E(s_2)),
\end{equation}
which says that if the almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ over $(M,J_M)$ is transitive and $J_E$ is integrable then $J_M$ is integrable, that is $M$ is a complex manifold.
\end{remark}
It is well known, see \cite{N-W,Va3}, that there is an one-to-one correspondence between Lie algebroid structures on the vector bundle $p:E\rightarrow M$ and specific Poisson structures on the total space of the corresponding dual bundle $E^*\rightarrow M$, called the \textit{dual Poisson structures}, defined by the following brackets of basic and fiber-linear functions (with respect to foliation by fibres of $E^*$):
\begin{equation}
\label{Pos1}
\{p^*f_1,p^*f_2\}=0\,,\,\{p^*f,l_s\}=-p^*(\rho_E(s)f)\,,\,\{l_{s_1},l_{s_2}\}=l_{[s_1,s_2]_E},
\end{equation}
where $f,f_1,f_2\in C^\infty(M)$, $s,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$ and $l_s$ is the evaluation of the fiber of $E^*$ on $s$. If $(x^{i})$ are local coordinates on $M$ and $(\zeta_a)$ are the fiber coordinates on $E^*$ with respect to the dual of a local basis $\{e_{a}\}$ of sections of $E$, then the corresponding Poisson bivector field is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Pos2}
\Lambda=\frac{1}{2}C^{a}_{bc}\zeta_a\frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta_b}\wedge\frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta_c}+\rho_b^{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta_b}\wedge\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}.
\end{equation}
Conversely, formulas \eqref{Pos2} together with \eqref{I2} produce an anchor $\rho_E$ and a bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_E$ and the Poisson condition $[\Lambda,\Lambda]=0$ implies the Lie algebroid axioms.
Now if $(M,J_M)$ is an almost complex manifold with $\dim M=2n$ and $(E,J_E)$ is an almost complex Lie algebroid over $(M,J_M)$, ${\rm rank}\,E=2m$, then the total space of $E^*$ has a natural structure of almost complex manifold with almost complex structure $\mathcal{J}$ induced naturally by $J_M$ and $J_E$. In this case, the real Poisson bivector field $\Lambda$ from \eqref{Pos2} admits the decomposition $\Lambda=\Lambda^{2,0}+\Lambda^{1,1}+\overline{\Lambda^{2,0}}$, according to bigraduation $\mathcal{V}^r(E^*,\mathcal{J})=\bigoplus_{p+q=r}\mathcal{V}^{p,q}(E^*,\mathcal{J})$ of multivector fields on $(E^*,\mathcal{J})$. A natural question to ask is if $\Lambda^{2,0}\in\mathcal{V}^{2,0}(E^*,\mathcal{J})$ defines an almost complex Poisson structure on $(E^*,\mathcal{J})$, that is $[\Lambda^{2,0},\Lambda^{2,0}]=0$ and $[\Lambda^{2,0},\overline{\Lambda^{2,0}}]=0$. If $\Lambda^{1,1}=0$ then it is true when $\mathcal{J}$ is integrable or otherwise, if moreover the real bivector field $\Lambda^{\prime}=i(\Lambda^{2,0}-\overline{\Lambda^{2,0}})$ is also real Poisson, (see Proposition 3.2 from \cite{C-F-I-U}).
\section{Almost Hermitian Lie algebroids}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we make a general approach about almost Hermitian Lie algebroids and sectional curvature of K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroids over smooth manifolds in relation with corresponding notions from the geometry of almost complex manifolds.
Firstly we notice that if the vector bundle $(E,p,M)$ is endowed with a Riemannian metric $g$ then, according to \cite{Bo, C-M}, there exists an unique linear connection $D$ in the Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ such that
$D$ is compatible with $g$ and it is torsion free. It is given by the formula
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
2g_E(D_{s_1}s_2, s_3)=\rho _E(s_1)(g_E(s_2, s_3))+\rho _E(s_2)(g_E(s_1, s_3))-\rho _E(s_3)(g_E(s_1, s_2)) \\
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,+g_E([s_3,s_1]_E,s_2)+g_E([s_3,s_2]_E,s_1)+g_E([s_1,s_2]_E,s_3).
\end{array}
\label{III4}
\end{equation}
and its local coefficients are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{III5}
\Gamma^{a}_{bc}=\frac{1}{2}g^{ad}\left(\rho_E(e_b)(g_{cd})+\rho_E(e_c)(g_{bd})-\rho_E(e_d)(g_{bc})+C^{e}_{dc}g_{eb}+C^{e}_{db}g_{ec}-C^{e}_{bc}g_{ed}\right),
\end{equation}
where $g_{ab}=g(e_a,e_b)$ and $(g^{ba})$ is the inverse matrix of $(g_{ab})$. The connection $D$ given by \eqref{III4} is called the Levi-Civita connection of $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ endowed with a Riemannian metric $g$.
In the following we consider an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E)$ over a smooth manifold $M$.
\begin{definition}
A Hermitian metric on an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ is a Riemannian metric $g$ on $E$ invariant by $J_E$, that is
\begin{equation}
g(J_E(s_1),J_E(s_2))=g(s_1,s_2)\,,\,\forall\,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)
\label{VII1}
\end{equation}
and an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ endowed with a Hermitian metric $g$ is called \textit{almost Hermitian Lie algebroid} and denote $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E, g)$. Moreover if $N_{J_E}=0$ then it is called \textit{Hermitian Lie algebroid}.
\end{definition}
We notice that if an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ admits a Riemannian metric $g$, then a Hermitian metric on $E$ can be usually defined by $h(s_1,s_2)=g(s_1,s_2)+g(J_E(s_1),J_E(s_2))$ for every $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$.
\begin{example}
\label{e3.1}
The complete lift $g^c$ to $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ of almost Hermitian metric $g$ on $E$ is defined by
$g^c(s_1^c,s_2^c)=(g(s_1,s_2))^c$, and it is easy to see that $g^c(J_E^c(s_1^c),J_E^c(s_2^c))=g^c(s_1^c,s_2^c)$, that is $g^c$ is almost Hermitian metric on $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ too with respect to $J_E^c$. Furthermore, since
\begin{equation*}
[s_1^v,s_2^v]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}=0\,,\,[s_1^v,s_2^c]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}=[s_1,s_2]^v_{E}\,,\,[s_1^c,s_2^c]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}=[s_1,s_2]^c_{E},
\end{equation*}
see \cite{Ma}, it follows $N_{J_{E}^{c}}=\left(N_{J_{E}}\right) ^{c}$. Thus $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ is a Hermitian Lie algebroid iff $(\mathcal{L}^p(E),\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}, J^c_E,g^c)$ is also Hermitian.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{e3.2}
Let us consider the almost complex Lie algberoid $\left(\mathcal{L}^p(E),\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}, J_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}\right)$ from Example \ref{e2.4}. Then, we can define the Sasaki type metric $g_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}$ on $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ by
\begin{equation*}
g_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}(s_1^h,s_2^h)=g_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}(s_1^v,s_2^v)=(g_E(s_1,s_2))^v\,,\,g_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}(s_1^h,s_2^v)=0,
\end{equation*}
for every $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$ and it is easy to see that this metric is Hermitian with respect to $J_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}$. Moreover since the Levi-Civita connection of the Riemannian metric $g$ on $E$ is torsion free, then $J_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}$ is integrable iff the horizontal bundle $H\mathcal{L}^p(E)$ is integrable.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{e3.3}
If $(E_1,\rho_{E_1},[\cdot,\cdot]_{E_1}, J_{E_1}, g_1)$ and $(E_2,\rho_{E_2},[\cdot,\cdot]_{E_2}, J_{E_2}, g_2)$ are two almost Hermitian Lie algebroids then the metric
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&g\left(\left(\sum(f_i\otimes s_i^1)\oplus\sum(g_j\otimes s_j^2)\right),\sum (f_k^{\prime}\otimes s_k^{\prime 1})\oplus\sum(g^{\prime}_l\otimes s_l^{\prime 2})\right)\\
&&=\sum f_if_k^\prime\otimes g_{1}(s_i^1,s_k^{\prime 1})\oplus\sum g_jg_l^{\prime}\otimes g_{2}(s_j^2,s_{l}^{\prime 2})
\end{eqnarray*}
is a Hermitian metric on the almost complex Lie algebroid given by direct product $E=E_1\times E_2$ from Example \ref{e2.5} with respect to almost complex structure $J_E$ given by \eqref{C1}.
\end{example}
A Hermitian metric $g$ on an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ defines a $2$--form $\Phi\in\Omega^2(E)$ by
\begin{equation}
\Phi(s_1,s_2)=g(s_1,J_E(s_2))\,,\,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E).
\label{VII3}
\end{equation}
Indeed, is easy to see that $\Phi(s_1,s_2)=-\Phi(s_2,s_1)$. Since $g$ is invariant with respect to $J_E$ we obtain that $\Phi$ is also invariant by $J_E$, namely $\Phi(J_E(s_1),J_E(s_2))=\Phi(s_1,s_2)$.
Since the Hermitian metric $g$ is a particular case of a Riemannian metric on an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$, we can consider the associated Levi-Civita connection.
Using the calculus on Lie algebroids, by a similar argument as in geometry of almost Hermitian manifolds we have:
\begin{proposition}
\label{pIII1}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ be an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid, $N_{J_E}$ the Nijenhuis tensor of $J_E$, $\Phi$ the $2$-form associated to $g$ and $D$ the Levi-Civita connection associated to $g$. Then
\begin{equation}
2g((D_{s_1}J_E)s_2,s_3)=d_E\Phi(s_1,J_E(s_2),J_E(s_3))-d_E\Phi(s_1,s_2,s_3)+g(N_{J_E}(s_2,s_3),J_E(s_1))
\label{VII5}
\end{equation}
for every $s_1,s_2,s_3\in\Gamma(E)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}
A linear connection $\nabla$ on an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ is called \textit{almost complex connection} if the covariant derivative of $J_E$ with respect to $\nabla$ vanishes, that is
\begin{equation}
(\nabla_{s_1}J_E)s_2=\nabla_{s_1}(J_Es_2)-J_E(\nabla_{s_1}s_2)=0\,,\,\forall\,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E).
\label{V1}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The Proposition \ref{pIII1} says that the Levi-Civita connection of an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid is not an almost complex one. But, using also the Proposition \ref{pIII1} we can prove
\begin{theorem}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ be an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid. The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] the Levi-Civita connection is an almost complex connection;
\item[ii)] the almost complex structure $J_E$ is integrable and the associated $2$--form $\Phi$ is $d_E$--closed.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
When $J_E$ is integrable then $\Phi$ is $d_E$--closed if and only if the Levi-Civita connection is almost complex.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
An almost Hermitian Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ is said to be \textit{almost K\"{a}hlerian} if the fundamental $2$--form $\Phi$ is $d_E$--closed and, if moreover the almost complex structure $J_E$ is integrable then it is said to be \textit{K\"{a}hlerian}.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\label{e3.4}
Let us consider the Hermitian Lie algebroid $(\mathcal{L}^p(E),\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}, J^c_E,g^c)$ from Example \ref{e3.1} associated to a given Hermitian Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$. As usual for tangent bundle case, see \cite{Ya-I}, the complet lift of the Levi-Civita $D$ of $g$ is defined by $D^c_{s_1^c}s_2^c=(D_{s_1}s_2)^c$ and it is the Levi-Civita connection of $g^c$ on $\mathcal{L}^p(E)$. Now it is easy to see that if $DJ_E=0$ then $D^cJ_E^c=0$ which says that $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ is a K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid iff $(\mathcal{L}^p(E),\rho_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)},[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathcal{L}^p(E)}, J^c_E,g^c)$ is also K\"{a}hlerian.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
Since a Hermitian metric $g$ on an almost complex Lie algebroid is a particular case of a Riemannian metric it is nondegenerated. On the other hand the almost complex structure $J_E$ is also nondegenerated, hence the associated $2$--form $\Phi$ is nondegenerated on $E$. Thus, every almost complex Lie algebroid admits a structure of almost symplectic Lie algebroid \cite{I-M-D-M-P} and a nondegenerate Poisson structure \cite{Po2}.
\end{remark}
Let us consider now a K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ over a smooth manifold $M$, $D$ the associated Levi-Civita connection and $R$ its curvature tensor.
The Riemann curvature tensor of the K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ is usually defined as a $4$--linear map $\mathcal{R}:\Gamma(E)\times\Gamma(E)\times\Gamma(E)\times\Gamma(E)\rightarrow C^\infty(M)$ given by
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{R}(s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4)=g(R(s_3,s_4)s_2,s_1).
\end{displaymath}
The standard properties of this map follows the classical ones from K\"{a}hlerian geometry. Also the sectional curvature of a K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid can be introduced as follows:
For every $x\in M$ and a given $2$--plane $P$ of $E_x$ ($2$-dimensional space in $E_x$) we define the function $K(P)$ by $K(P)=\mathcal{R}(s_1,s_2,s_1,s_2)$, where $\{s_1,s_2\}$ is an orthonormal frame in $P$.
We will consider the restriction of $K$ to all $2$--planes from $E_x$ which are invariant by $J_E$, that is, for every section $s\in E_x$ we have $J_E(s)\in E_x$.
\begin{definition}
For a given K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$, the sectional curvature of $E$ in direction of the $J_E$ invariant $2$--plane $P$ is defined as usual by
\begin{displaymath}
K(P)=\frac{\mathcal{R}(s_1,s_2,s_1,s_2)}{g(s_1,s_1)g(s_2,s_2)-g^2(s_1,s_2)}
\end{displaymath}
and is called the \textit{holomorphic sectional curvature in direction of $P$} of $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$. The restriction of sectional curvature to all $J_E$ invariant $2$-planes $P$, is called \textit{holomorphic sectional curvature} of $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$.
\end{definition}
For a given $J_E$ invariant $2$--plane $P$, we can consider orthonormal frames of the form $\{s,J_E(s)\}$, where $s$ are unitary sections in $E_x$. Then the holomorphic sectional curvature is then given by
\begin{displaymath}
K(P)=\mathcal{R}(s,J_E(s),s,J_E(s))
\end{displaymath}
and the Riemann curvature tensor of a K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ is completely determined by the holomorphic sectional curvature defined for all $J_E$ invariant planes.
If the function $K$ is constant for all $J_E$ invariant $2$--planes from $E_x$ and for every $x\in M$ then the K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ is said to be of \textit{constant holomorphic sectional curvature}.
We have the following Schur type theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{Schur}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ be a K\"{a}hlerian transitive Lie algebroid with ${\rm rank\,}E=2m\geq 4$. If the holomorphic sectional curvature depends only of $x\in M$ (it is independent of the $J_E$-invariant $2$-plane $P$) then $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E,g)$ is of constant holomorphic sectional curvature.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Follows in the same manner as in Schur theorem for K\"{a}hler manifolds.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}If the hypothesis of the theorem does not make the assumption that the anchor is surjective, then the real function given by the sectional curvature is constant on every leaf of the singular foliation of the Lie algebroid.
\end{remark}
\section{Hermitian metrics on the associated complex Lie algebroid and some related structures}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section the Hermitian metrics and linear connections compatible with such metrics on the associated complex Lie algebroid are studied and we present the Levi-Civita connection associated to a such metric. Also, we describe some $E$-Chern forms of $E^{1,0}$ associated to an almost complex connection $\nabla$ on $E$. Finally, we consider a metric product connection associated to an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid and a $2$--form section for $E^{0,1}$ similar to the second fundamental form of complex distributions is studied in our setting.
\subsection{Linear connections compatible with Hermitian metrics on the associated complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$}
A linear connection $\nabla$ on the almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ over a smooth manifold $M$ extend by $\mathbb{C}$-linearity to a connection on the complexified Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$, \cite{W}, as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $\nabla$ is $\mathbb{C}$--bilinear;
\item[(2)] $\nabla_{fs_1}s_2=f\nabla_{s_1}s_2$, for all $f\in C^\infty(M)_{\mathbb{C}}$ and $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})$;
\item[(3)] $\nabla_{s_1}(fs_2)=(\rho_E(s_1)f)s_2+f\nabla_{s_1}s_2$, for all $f\in C^\infty(M)_{\mathbb{C}}$ and $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})$.
\end{enumerate}
If $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is a local basis of $E^{1,0}$ and $\{\overline{e_a}\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is a local basis of $E^{0,1}$, then a linear connection $\nabla$ on the complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ is locally given by
\begin{displaymath}
\nabla_{e_a}e_b=\Gamma^c_{ab}e_c+\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{ab}\overline{e_c}\,,\,\nabla_{e_a}\overline{e_b}=\Gamma^c_{a\overline{b}}e_c+\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{a\overline{b}}\overline{e_c},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\nabla_{\overline{e_a}}e_b=\Gamma^c_{\overline{a}b}e_c+\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}b}\overline{e_c}\,,\,\nabla_{\overline{e_a}}\overline{e_b}=\Gamma^c_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}e_c+\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}\overline{e_c}.
\end{displaymath}
By $\mathbb{C}$--linearity condition it follows that $\nabla$ satisfies $\overline{\nabla_{s_1}s_2}=\nabla_{\overline{s_1}}\overline{s_2}$, hence we get
\begin{displaymath}
\Gamma^c_{ab}=\overline{\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}}\,,\,\Gamma^c_{a\overline{b}}=\overline{\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}b}}\,,\,\Gamma^c_{\overline{a}b}=\overline{\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{a\overline{b}}}\,,\,\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{ab}=\overline{\Gamma^c_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}}.
\end{displaymath}
On the other hand we have $J_E(e_a)=ie_a$ and $J_E(\overline{e_b})=i\overline{e_b}$, thus $\nabla$ is almost complex if and only if
$\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{ab}=\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}b}=\Gamma^{c}_{a\overline{b}}=\Gamma^{c}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}=0$. Indeed, from $\nabla_{e_a}J_E(e_b)=J_E(\nabla_{e_b}e_b)$ we obtain $\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{ab}=0$. Similarly, we get the vanishing of the others coefficients. Thus, in this case we have
\begin{displaymath}
\nabla_{e_a}e_b=\Gamma^c_{ab}e_c\,,\,\nabla_{e_a}\overline{e_b}=\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{a\overline{b}}\overline{e_c}\,,\,\nabla_{\overline{e_a}}e_b=\Gamma^c_{\overline{a}b}e_c\,,\,\nabla_{\overline{e_a}}\overline{e_b}=\Gamma^{\overline{c}}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}\overline{e_c},
\end{displaymath}
which says that an almost complex connection on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$ preserves the distributions of $J_E$.
If we consider a Hermitian metric $g$ on the almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E, J_E)$ over a smooth manifold $M$, then we can naturally extend it to a Hermitian metric on the complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$.
\begin{remark}
If $\Phi$ is the associated fundamental $2$--form, as usual we can prove that $\Phi\in\Omega^{1,1}(E)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Let $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m\}$ a basis of $E^{1,0}$ over $\mathbb{C}$ and $\{e^1,\ldots,e^m\}$ its dual basis on $(E^{1,0})^*$ such that $\{\overline{e_1},\ldots,\overline{e_m}\}$ is a basis of $E^{0,1}$ over $\mathbb{C}$ and $\{\overline{e^1},\ldots,\overline{e^m}\}$ is the dual basis on $(E^{0,1})^*$. If we denote by $g_{a\overline{b}}=g(e_a,\overline{e_b})$, $a,b=1,\ldots,m$ then
$g_{a\overline{b}}=\overline{g_{b\overline{a}}}$ and $\Phi=-i\sum\limits_{a,b=1}^mg_{a\overline{b}}e^a\wedge\overline{e^b}$,
where the exterior product is that in Lie algebroids framework, see \cite{M}.
\end{remark}
Similarly to Riemannian Lie algebroids case, we have
\begin{definition}
A linear connection on the complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ over $M$ is said to be \textit{compatible} with the Hermitian metric $g$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$ if $\nabla_sg=0$, $\forall\,s\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})$, that is, for every two sections $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{II.3.5}
(\nabla_sg)(s_1,s_2)=\rho_E(s)(g(s_1,s_2))-g(\nabla_ss_{1},s_2)-g(s_1,\nabla_ss_2)=0.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
The curvature $R$ of a linear connection $\nabla$ on $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E)$ over $M$, which is compatible with the Hermitian metric $g$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$, satisfies
\begin{displaymath}
g(R(s_1,s_2)s,s^{'})=-\overline{g(R(s_1,s_2)s^{'},s)}\,,\,\forall\,s,s^{'}s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}}).
\end{displaymath}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Follows by direct calculation, using the relation \eqref{II.3.5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{rcurv}
If $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is a local orthonormal frame on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$, the matrix of curvature $2$--forms $(R^b_a)$ with respect to this frame has the property $R^b_a(s_1,s_2) =-\overline{R^a_b(s_1,s_2)}$ or $R=-\overline{R^t}$ in matrix notation.
\end{remark}
In the following of this subsection we describe the Levi-Civita connection on complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ over $M$, when $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E,g)$ is almost Hermitian or K\"{a}hlerian. Let us put $g_{a\overline{b}}=g(e_a,\overline{e_b})$ and $g(e_a,e_b)=g(\overline{e_a},\overline{e_b})=0$. Then, we have
\begin{proposition}
\label{coef}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E,g)$ be an almost Hermitian Lie algebroids over $M$. Then the local coefficients of the Levi-Civita connection on the associated Hermitian complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma^{d}_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\overline{c}d}\left(\rho_E(e_a)( g_{b\overline{c}})+\rho_E(e_b)(g_{a\overline{c}})+C^{e}_{ab}g_{e\overline{c}}-C^{\overline{e}}_{b\overline{c}}g_{a\overline{e}}+C^{\overline{e}}_{\overline{c}a}g_{b\overline{e}}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma^{d}_{a\overline{b}}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\overline{c}d}\left(\rho_E(e_{\overline{b}})(g_{a\overline{c}})-\rho_E(e_{\overline{c}})(g_{a\overline{b}})+C^{e}_{a\overline{b}}g_{e\overline{c}}-C^{\overline{e}}_{\overline{b}\,\overline{c}}g_{a\overline{e}}+C^{e}_{\overline{c}a}g_{e\overline{b}}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma^{d}_{\overline{a}b}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\overline{c}d}\left(\rho_E(e_{\overline{a}})(g_{b\overline{c}})-\rho_E(e_{\overline{c}})(g_{b\overline{a}})+C^{e}_{\overline{a}b}g_{e\overline{c}}-C^{e}_{b\overline{c}}g_{e\overline{a}}+C^{\overline{e}}_{\overline{c}\,\overline{a}}g_{b\overline{e}}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\overline{d}c}\left(C^{\overline{e}}_{ab}g_{c\overline{e}}-C^{\overline{e}}_{bc}g_{a\overline{e}}+C^{\overline{e}}_{ca}g_{b\overline{e}}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
and their conjugates, where $(g^{\overline{b}a})$ is the inverse matrix of $(g_{a\overline{b}})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Follows by direct calculus, taking in the formula \eqref{III4} which gives the Levi-Civita connection, the following combinations: $s_1=e_a,s_2=e_b,s_3=\overline{e_c}$, $s_1=e_a,s_2=\overline{e_b},s_3=\overline{e_c}$, $s_1=\overline{e_a},s_2=e_b,s_3=\overline{e_c}$ and $s_1=e_a,s_2=e_b,s_3=e_c$, respectively.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If the almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E,g)$ over $M$ is K\"{a}hlerian then the possible nonzero coefficients of the Levi-Civita connection on the associated complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ are
\begin{displaymath}
\Gamma^d_{ab}=g^{\overline{c}d}\left(\rho_E(e_a)(g_{b\overline{c}})+C^{\overline{e}}_{\overline{c}a}g_{b\overline{e}}\right)\,,\,\Gamma^d_{\overline{a}b}=C^d_{\overline{a}b}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ is K\"{a}hlerian, we have that $J_E$ is integrable and $d_E\Phi=0$. Then from Newlander-Nirenberg theorem we have $C^{\overline{c}}_{ab}=0$ and then $\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{ab}=0$. Also, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
0=id_E\Phi&=&\left(\rho_E(e_c)(g_{a\overline{b}})-\rho_E(e_a)(g_{c\overline{b}})-C^d_{ca}g_{d\overline{b}}-C^{\overline{d}}_{c\overline{b}}g_{a\overline{d}}+C^{\overline{d}}_{a\overline{b}}g_{c\overline{d}}\right)e^c\wedge e^{a}\wedge \overline{e^b}\\
&&+\left(\rho_E(e_{\overline{c}})(g_{a\overline{b}})-\rho_E(e_{\overline{b}})(g_{a\overline{c}})-C^d_{\overline{c}a}g_{d\overline{b}}-C^{\overline{d}}_{\overline{c}\,\overline{b}}g_{a\overline{d}}-C^{d}_{a\overline{b}}g_{d\overline{c}}\right)\overline{e^c}\wedge e^{a}\wedge \overline{e^b}
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies
\begin{displaymath}
\rho_E(e_b)(g_{a\overline{c}})=\rho_E(e_a)(g_{b\overline{c}})+C^d_{ba}g_{d\overline{c}}+C^{\overline{d}}_{b\overline{c}}g_{a\overline{d}}-C^{\overline{d}}_{a\overline{c}}g_{b\overline{d}},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\rho_E(e_{\overline{b}})(g_{a\overline{c}})=\rho_E(e_{\overline{c}})(g_{a\overline{b}})-C^d_{\overline{c}a}g_{d\overline{b}}-C^{\overline{d}}_{\overline{c}\,\overline{b}}g_{a\overline{d}}-C^{d}_{a\overline{b}}g_{d\overline{c}}.
\end{displaymath}
Now, replacing the above relations in the expression of coefficients of Levi-Civita connection we get
\begin{displaymath}
\Gamma^d_{ab}=g^{\overline{c}d}\left(\rho_E(e_a)(g_{b\overline{c}})+C^{\overline{e}}_{\overline{c}a}g_{b\overline{e}}\right)\,,\,\Gamma^d_{a\overline{b}}=0\,,\,\Gamma^d_{\overline{a}b}=C^d_{\overline{a}b}.
\end{displaymath}
which ends the proof.
\end{proof}
Also, by direct calculus, we have
\begin{proposition}
If the almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E,g)$ over $M$ is K\"{a}hlerian then the nonzero curvatures of the Levi-Civita connection on the associated complex Lie algebroid $(E_{\mathbb{C}},\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&R^d_{ab,c}=\rho_E(e_a)(\Gamma^d_{bc})-\rho_E(e_b)(\Gamma^d_{ac})+\Gamma^{e}_{bc}\Gamma^d_{ae}-\Gamma^{e}_{ac}\Gamma^d_{be}-C^{e}_{ab}\Gamma^d_{ec},\\
&&R^{\overline{d}}_{a\overline{b},\overline{c}}=\rho_E(e_{a})(\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{\overline{b\,\overline{c}}})-C^{\overline{e}}_{a\overline{b}}\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{\overline{e}\,\overline{c}},\,R^{\overline{d}}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b},\overline{c}}=\overline{R^d_{ab,c}}\,,\,R^d_{a\overline{b},c}=-\overline{R^{\overline{d}}_{b\overline{a},\overline{c}}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have put $R(e_a,e_b)e_c=R^d_{ab,c}e_d$ and similarly for the other components of curvature.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{L-T-W} the (complex) para-K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid is defined as a (complex) symplectic Lie algebroid $(E,\omega)$ with a splitting $E=E^{1,0}\oplus E^{0,1}$ as the direct sum a two polarizations, where a polarization of $(E,\omega)$ means a lagrangian subalgebroid of $E$, i.e. a subbundle which is closed under brackets and maximal isotropic with respect to $\omega$. Then for a para-K\"{a}hlerian Lie algebroid is proved that there is a unique torsion-free $E$--connection $\nabla$ on $E$ (called para-K\"{a}hlerian connection), for which covariant differentiation leaves the para-K\"{a}hler structure invariant, i.e. for every $s_1,s_2,s_3\in\Gamma(E)$, $\nabla_{s_1}$ leaves the splitting invariant, and $\rho_E(s_1)(\omega(s_2,s_3))=\omega(\nabla_{s_1}s_2,s_3)+\omega(s_2,\nabla_{s_1}s_3)$. The curvature of this connection is in $\left((E^{1,0})^*\wedge(E^{0,1})^*\right)\otimes End(E)$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Chern forms of $E^{1,0}$ associated to an almost complex connection}
There exists a general construction of characteristic classes of a Lie algebroid $E$ \cite{Fe}, which mimics the Chern-Weil theory. More exactly, if we take a vector bundle $F\rightarrow M$ of rank $r$ and $\nabla:\Gamma(E)\times\Gamma(F)\rightarrow\Gamma(F)$ an $E$-connection on $F$, as well as we seen, the curvature operator of $\nabla$ denoted by $R_\nabla$ is a $F\otimes F^*$-valued $E$-form section of degree $2$. Let us consider $I^k(Gl(r,\mathbb{R}))$ the space of real, $ad$-invariant, symmetric, $k$-multilinear functions on the Lie algebra $gl(r,\mathbb{R})$. Then for every $\phi\in I^k(Gl(r,\mathbb{R}))$ the $2k$-forms on $E$ given by $\phi(R_\nabla)=\phi(R_\nabla,\ldots,R_\nabla)\in\Omega^{2k}(E)$ are $d_E$-closed, called the \textit{$E$-Chern forms of order $k$ of $F$}, and their define the $E$-cohomology classes $[\phi(R_\nabla)]\in H^{2k}(E)$ which are the \textit{$E$-principal characteristic classes of order $k$} of $F$, called also the \textit{$E$-Chern classes of $F$}. The characteristic classes are spanned by the classes $[c_k(R_\nabla)]$, where $c_k(R_\nabla)$ is the sum of the principal minors of order $k$ in $\det(R_\nabla-\lambda I)$, and do not depend on the choice of the connection $\nabla$.
In this subsection, following some ideas from \cite{N-O}, we use a real representation of an almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E)$ to get some real $d_E$-closed forms on $E$ such that their $E$-cohomology classes generate the $E$-Chern ring of the complex vector bundle $E^{1,0}$. These forms are obtained using the almost complex structure $J_E$ on $E$ and the curvature forms of a (real) almost complex connection on $E$. These forms are called \textit{$E$-Chern forms} of $E^{1,0}$ associated to $\nabla$.
Let $\nabla$ be an almost complex connection on the almost complex Lie algebroid $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,J_E)$. Then as well as we seen $\nabla$ can be usually extended to a connection $\nabla^{\mathbb{C}}$ on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$ and the property $\nabla J_E=0$ of $\nabla$ implies that the covariant derivatives of the sections of $E^{1,0}$ are also section in $E^{1,0}$. We also consider $\{e_a,J_E(e_a)\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ be a local frame for the sections of $E$ over $U\subset M$, and for a better presentation of the notions in this subsection we shall denote $J_E(e_a)=e_{a^*}$, $a=1\ldots,m$. Then $\{e^{1,0}_a=e_a-ie_{a^*}\}$, $a=1\ldots,m$ is a local frame of $E^{1,0}\subset E_{\mathbb{C}}$.
Let $R$ be the curvature tensor section of $\nabla$ and let $R^{\mathbb{C}}$ be the curvature tensor section of $\nabla^{\mathbb{C}}$. Then, we easily get that
\begin{displaymath}
R^{\mathbb{C}}(s_1,s_2)e^{1,0}_a=R(s_1,s_2)e_a-iR(s_1,s_2)e_{a^*},
\end{displaymath}
for every real sections $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E)$.
Since $\nabla J_E=0$ we easily have $J_ER(s_1,s_2)=R(s_1,s_2)J_E$ and let $\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
R^{a}_b & -R^{a^*}_b \\
R^{a^*}_b & R^{a}_b
\end{array}
\right)$, $a,b=1\ldots,m$, be the matrix of $J_ER$ with respect to the local basis $\{e_a,e_{a^*}\}$, $a=1\ldots,m$, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray*}
J_ER(s_1,s_2)e_a&=&\sum_{b=1}^m(R^b_a(s_1,s_2)e_b+R^{b^*}_a(s_1,s_2)e_{b^*}),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
(J_ER)(s_1,s_2)e_{a^*}&=&(J_ER)(s_1,s_2)J_E(e_a)=J_E(J_ER)(s_1,s_2)e_a\\
&=&\sum_{b=1}^m(-R^{b^*}_a(s_1,s_2)e_b+R^{b}_a(s_1,s_2)e_{b^*}).
\end{eqnarray*}
The curvature matrix $\Phi$ of the restriction of $\nabla^{\mathbb{C}}$ to $E^{1,0}\subset E_{\mathbb{C}}$, with respect to the local basis $\{e^{1,0}_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{b=1}^m\Phi_a^b(s_1,s_2)e^{1,0}_b&=&R^{\mathbb{C}}(s_1,s_2)e^{1,0}_a=R(s_1,s_2)e_a-iR(s_1,s_2)e_{a^*}\\
&=&-(J_ER)(s_1,s_2)e_{a^*}-i(J_ER)(s_1,s_2)e_a\\
&=&\sum_{b=1}^m(R^{b^*}_a(s_1,s_2)e_b-R^b_a(s_1,s_2)e_{b^*}-iR^b_a(s_1,s_2)e_b-iR^{b^*}_a(s_1,s_2)e_{b^*})\\
&=&\sum_{b=1}^m(R^{b^*}_a(s_1,s_2)(e_b-ie_{b^*})-iR^b_a(s_1,s_2)(e_b-ie_{b^*}))\\
&=&\sum_{b=1}^m(R^{b^*}_a(s_1,s_2)-iR^b_a(s_1,s_2))e^{1,0}_b.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{B1}
\Phi^b_a=R^{b^*}_a-iR^{b}_a=-i(R^b_a+iR^{b^*}_a).
\end{equation}
Suppose now, that $\nabla$ is compatible with a Hermitian metric $g$ on $E$. If $\{e_a,e_{a^*}\}$, $a=1\ldots,m$ is an orthonormal local basis of sections of $E$ with respect to this metric then the matrix $\Phi$ has the property $\Phi^t=-\overline{\Phi}$, see Remark \ref{rcurv}.
Thus, the $E$-Chern forms of $E^{1,0}$ are essentially determined by the matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{B2}
i\Phi=R+iR^*
\end{equation}
and every element $\phi\in I^k(Gl(m,\mathbb{C}))$ obtained from $\det(A-\lambda I)$, where $A\in gl(m,\mathbb{C})$.
We denoted by $R$ the $m\times m$ matrix with entries the $2$-forms $R^b_a$ and $R^*$ the $m\times m$ matrix with entries the $2$-forms $R^{b^*}_a$. On the other hand it is well known that the elements of $I^k(Gl(m,\mathbb{C}))$ are also generated by the polynomials
\begin{displaymath}
{\rm trace}\,A^k\,,\,k=0,1,\ldots,m\,,\,A\in gl(m,\mathbb{C}).
\end{displaymath}
These polynomials can be used to construct some $d_E$-closed forms on $E$ which are called \textit{$E$-Chern forms of $E^{1,0}$ associated to $\nabla$}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Chern}
The $E$-Chern forms of $E^{1,0}$ given by ${\rm trace}\,(i\Phi)^k$ are, up to a constant factor the forms on $E$, given by ${\rm trace}\,\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
R & -R^{*} \\
R^{*} & R
\end{array}
\right)^k$, i.e. they can be constructed using the matrix of $J_ER$, where $J_E$ is the almost complex structure on $E$ and $R$ is the curvature of an almost complex connection $\nabla$ on $E$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We use an orthonormal local basis $\{e_a,e_{a^*}\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ with respect to a Hermitian metric on $E$. Then we have
\begin{displaymath}
R^t+iR^{*t}=(i\Phi)^t=\overline{i\Phi}=R-iR^*.
\end{displaymath}
Thus, $R$ is a symmetric matrix and $R^*$ is a skew-symmetric matrix. The form ${\rm trace}\,(i\Phi)^k$ is real since we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{{\rm trace}\,(i\Phi)^k}&=&{\rm trace}\,\overline{(i\Phi)^k}={\rm trace}\,((i\Phi)^t)^k={\rm trace}\,((i\Phi)^k)^t={\rm trace}\,(i\Phi)^k.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is well known that to the complex matrix $i\Phi=R+iR^*$ it corresponds its real representation $\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
R & -R^{*} \\
R^{*} & R
\end{array}
\right)$, and to $(i\Phi)^k=\Pi+i\Pi^*$ corresponds $\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\Pi & -\Pi^{*} \\
\Pi^{*} & \Pi
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
R & -R^{*} \\
R^{*} & R
\end{array}
\right)^k$.
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\rm trace}\,(i\Phi)^k&=&{\rm trace}\,(\Pi+i\Pi^*)={\rm trace}\,\Pi=\frac{1}{2}{\rm trace}\,\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\Pi & -\Pi^{*} \\
\Pi^{*} & \Pi
\end{array}
\right)=\frac{1}{2}{\rm trace}\,\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
R & -R^{*} \\
R^{*} & R
\end{array}
\right)^k.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the $E$-Chern forms of $E^{1,0}$ do not depend on the local frame used for their local representation, it follows that we can use the matrices associated to $J_ER$ to get them.
\end{proof}
The result obtained above can be extended to the case of an almost complex connection $\nabla$ on $E$ which is not necessarily compatible with a Hermitian metric on $E$. In this case the imaginary part of the form ${\rm trace}\,(i\Phi)^k$ is a $d_E$-exact form on $E$ and the corresponding $E$-Chern form of order $k$ of $E^{1,0}$ is the real part of $(i\Phi)^k$. Then the $E$-Chern form of order $k$ of $E^{1,0}$ given by trace of the $k$-power of the matrix associated with $J_ER$ in an arbitrary local frame of $E$.
\subsection{A metric product connection}
In this subsection we consider a metric product connection associated to an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid, following some arguments from the theory of complex distributions, see \cite{Va-Iasi}.
Also, a $2$--form section for $E^{0,1}$ similar to the second fundamental form of complex distributions is studied in our setting.
Let $E_{\mathbb{C}}=E^{1,0}\oplus E^{0,1}$ be the complexification of an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid. We consider the natural projections $p^{1,0}:E_{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow E^{1,0}$ and $p^{0,1}:E_{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow E^{0,1}$ defined in \eqref{m1}.
It is easy to see that $E^{1,0}$ is the $h$-orthogonal of $E^{0,1}$ in $E_{\mathbb{C}}$ and conversely, where $h$ is the Hermitian metric on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$ defined by $h(s_1,s_2)=g(s_1,\overline{s_2})$, for every $s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})$. We define the \textit{metric product connection} $\widetilde{D}$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{m2}
\widetilde{D}_{s_1}s_2=p^{0,1}D_{s_1}p^{0,1}s_2+p^{1,0}D_{s_1}p^{1,0}s_2=D_{s_1}s_2+\frac{1}{2}\left(D_{s_1}J_E\right)J_E(s_2),\,\forall\,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}}),
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the Levi-Civita connection on $E_{\mathbb{C}}$. We notice that $\widetilde{D}$ satisfies the conditions
\begin{equation}
\label{m3}
\widetilde{D}p^{1,0}=\widetilde{D}p^{0,1}=\widetilde{D}h=0
\end{equation}
and has the torsion
\begin{equation}
\label{m4}
T_{\widetilde{D}}(s_1,s_2)=p^{0,1}\left(D_{s_2}p^{1,0}s_1-D_{s_1}p^{1,0}s_2\right)+p^{1,0}\left(D_{s_2}p^{0,1}s_1-D_{s_1}p^{0,1}s_2\right)
\end{equation}
or, by using \eqref{m1}, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{m5}
T_{\widetilde{D}}(s_1,s_2)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(D_{s_1}J_E\right)J_E(s_2)-\left(D_{s_2}J_E\right)J_E(s_1)\right).
\end{equation}
If $\{e_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is a local basis of $E^{1,0}$ and $\{\overline{e_a}\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is a local basis of $E^{0,1}$then, we have
\begin{displaymath}
\widetilde{D}_{e_a}e_b=\Gamma^d_{ab}e_d\,,\,\widetilde{D}_{e_a}\overline{e_b}=\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{a\overline{b}}\overline{e_d}\,,\,\widetilde{D}_{\overline{e_a}}e_b=\Gamma^d_{\overline{a}b}e_d\,,\,\widetilde{D}_{\overline{e_a}}\overline{e_b}=\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}\overline{e_d}
\end{displaymath}
and
\begin{displaymath}
T_{\widetilde{D}}(e_a,e_b)=C^{\overline{d}}_{ba}\overline{e_d}\,,\,T_{\widetilde{D}}(e_a,\overline{e_b})=(C^d_{\overline{b}a}-\Gamma^d_{\overline{b}a})e_d+(\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{a\overline{b}}-C^{\overline{d}}_{a\overline{b}})\overline{e_d},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}T_{\widetilde{D}}(\overline{e_a},e_b)=-T_{\widetilde{D}}(e_b,\overline{e_a})=\overline{T_{\widetilde{D}}(\overline{e_a},e_b)}\,,\,T_{\widetilde{D}}(\overline{e_a},\overline{e_b})=\overline{T_{\widetilde{D}}(e_a,e_b)},
\end{displaymath}
where $\Gamma^\cdot_{\cdot\cdot}$ are the coefficients of the Levi-Civita connection from Proposition \ref{coef}.
As in the classical theory of submanifolds, the tensor section
\begin{equation}
\label{m6}
B^{0,1}(s_1,s_2)=-\frac{1}{2}\left(D_{p^{0,1}s_1}J_E\right)J_E(p^{0,1}s_2)=p^{1,0}\left(D_{p^{0,1}s_1}p^{0,1}s_2\right)
\end{equation}
will be called the \textit{second fundamental form section} of $E^{0,1}$ and the equations:
\begin{equation}
\label{m7}
D_{p^{0,1}s_1}p^{0,1}s_2=\widetilde{D}_{p^{0,1}s_1}p^{0,1}s_2-\frac{1}{2}\left(D_{p^{0,1}s_1}J_E\right)J_E(p^{0,1}s_2),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{m8}
D_{p^{0,1}s_1}p^{1,0}s_2=\widetilde{D}_{p^{0,1}s_1}p^{1,0}s_2-\frac{1}{2}\left(D_{p^{0,1}s_1}J_E\right)J_E(p^{1,0}s_2)
\end{equation}
will be called the \textit{Gauss-Weingarten equations} of $E^{0,1}$.
Locally, $B^{0,1}$ is given by $B^{0,1}(e_a,e_b)=B^{0,1}(e_a,\overline{e_b})=B^{0,1}(\overline{e_a},e_b)=0\,,\,B^{0,1}(\overline{e_a},\overline{e_b})=\Gamma^d_{\overline{a}\,\overline{b}}e_d$.
\begin{remark}
If $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ is Hermitian then the integrability of $J_E$ implies $C^{\overline{d}}_{ab}=0$ and taking into account the expression of the coefficients $\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{ab}$ from Proposition \ref{coef} it follows that $B^{0,1}$ vanishes. In the end of this subsection we obtain that conversely is also true.
\end{remark}
Similarly, the operators $W^{0,1}_s\in End_{\mathbb{C}}(E_{\mathbb{C}})$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{m10}
W^{0,1}_{s_2}s_1:=\frac{1}{2}\left(D_{p^{0,1}s_1}J_E\right)J_E(p^{1,0}s_2)=-p^{0,1}D_{p^{0,1}s_1}p^{1,0}s_2\,,\,\forall\,s_1,s_2\in\Gamma(E_{\mathbb{C}})
\end{equation}
will be called the \textit{Weingarten operators} for $E^{0,1}$ and the metric character of $\widetilde{D}$ implies
\begin{equation}
\label{m11}
h(W^{0,1}_{s_3}s_1,s_2)=h(s_3,B^{0,1}(s_1,s_2)).
\end{equation}
Locally, we have $W^{0,1}_{e_b}e_a=W^{0,1}_{\overline{e_b}}e_a=W^{0,1}_{\overline{e_b}}\overline{e_a}=0\,,\,W^{0,1}_{e_b}\overline{e_a}=-\Gamma^{\overline{d}}_{\overline{a}b}\overline{e_d}$.
The relation \eqref{m5} says that the second fundamental form section $B^{0,1}$ of $E^{0,1}$ is symmetric iff $E^{0,1}$ is integrable, and, in this case, $\widetilde{D}|_{E^{0,1}}$ may be seen as a metric torsionless connection along $E^{0,1}$. Of course, as usual, we can relate the curvature tensors of the connections $D$ and $\widetilde{D}$ and then the analogue formulas for Gauss, Ricci and Codazzi equations can be obtained for our case.
Also, the second fundamental form section $B^{0,1}$ provides a \textit{mean curvature section} $H^{0,1}$ of $E^{0,1}$, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{m13}
H^{0,1}=H(E^{0,1})={\rm tr}\,B^{0,1}=\sum_{a,b=1}^mB^{0,1}(f_a,\overline{f_b})\in\Gamma(E^{1,0}),
\end{equation}
where $\{f_a\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ is an arbitrary, $h$-unitary local basis of $E_{\mathbb{C}}$.
The relation between $H^{0,1}$ and Weingarten operators is provided by the $h$-dual $1$--form section $k^{0,1}$ of $H^{0,1}$ which is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{m14}
k^{0,1}(s)=\sum_{a=1}^mh(W^{0,1}_sf_a,\overline{f_a}).
\end{equation}
As usual, will we say that $E^{0,1}$ is \textit{totally geodesic} if its second fundamental form section $B^{0,1}$ vanishes and it is \textit{minimal} if $H^{0,1}=0$. If there exists a section $s\in\Gamma(E^{1,0})$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{m15}
B^{0,1}(s_1,s_2)=g(p^{0,1}s_1,p^{0,1}s_2)s,
\end{equation}
the subbundle $E^{0,1}$ is \textit{totally umbilical}.
\begin{remark}
Taking into account that $g(p^{0,1}s_1,p^{0,1}s_2)=0$ it follows that $E^{0,1}$ is totally geodesic iff it is totally umbilical and in this case it is also minimal.
\end{remark}
Similar calculations as in the proof of Proposition 2.1 from \cite{Va-Iasi} leads to
\begin{proposition}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ be an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid over a smooth manifold $M$. The second fundamental form section $B^{0,1}$ of $E^{0,1}$ is given by the formulas
\begin{displaymath}
{\rm Im}\,B^{0,1}(s_1,s_2)={\rm Re}\,B^{0,1}(s_1,J_E(s_2))\,\,{\rm and}\,\,g({\rm Re}\,B^{0,1}(s_1,s_2),s_3)=
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
\label{m16}
=\frac{1}{16}\left[g(N_{J_E}(s_1,s_2),s_3)+g(N_{J_E}(s_2,J_E(s_3)),J_E(s_1))-g(N_{J_E}(J_E(s_3),s_1),J_E(s_2))\right]
\end{equation}
where $s_1,s_2,s_3\in\Gamma(E)$.
\end{proposition}
By direct calculations we have the following equivalent form of the second formula of \eqref{m16}:
\begin{equation}
\label{m17}
g({\rm Re}\,B^{0,1}(s_1,s_2),s_3)=-\frac{1}{8}\left[(D_{J_{E}(s_1)}\Phi)(s_2,s_3)+(D_{s_1}\Phi)(J_E(s_2),s_3)\right].
\end{equation}
Also, it is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\label{m18}
B^{0,1}(J_E(s_1),J_E(s_2))=-B^{0,1}(s_1,s_2),
\end{equation}
which yields the following interpretation of the Nijenhuis tensor, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{m19}
N_{J_E}=16{\rm Re}\,(alt\,B^{0,1}).
\end{equation}
\begin{corollary}
\label{curvsection}
Let $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ be an almost Hermitian Lie algebroid over a smooth manifold $M$. The mean curvature section $H^{0,1}$ of $E^{0,1}$ is zero. The second fundamental form section $B^{0,1}$ of $E^{0,1}$ vanishes iff $(E,\rho_E,[\cdot,\cdot]_E,g)$ is Hermitian.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Taking into account the definition \eqref{m13} of $H^{0,1}$ with an orthonormal basis of the form $\{e_a,J_E(e_a)\}$, $a=1,\ldots,m$ and using \eqref{m18}, we obtain $H^{0,1}=0$. The formulas \eqref{m19} and \eqref{m16} implies that $B^{0,1}=0$ iff $N_{J_E}=0$.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Low mass dark matter (DM) anomalies have, to this point, shown remarkable resilience to experimental constraints. Old anomalies have remained and new ones appeared, all while new constraints have continued to close the allowed parameter space for an elastically scattering light DM particle in the 7-12 GeV mass window that can explain the signals. The first anomaly appeared from DAMA, which reported a high significance modulation consistent with light DM recoiling off Sodium Iodide crystals \cite{Bernabei:2008yi,Bernabei:2010mq}. The CoGeNT experiment subsequently reported an excess of events at low energy consistent with light DM scattering off Germanium \cite{Aalseth:2010vx}; later it was found that approximately half of these events were from surface contamination \cite{Aalseth:2012if}.
These anomalies became the target for searches of light DM, and the null results from XENON10, XENON100, PICASSO, COUPP, CDMS germanium low energy and CDMSLite constrained the region \cite{Angle:2011th,Aprile:2012nq,Archambault:2012pm,Behnke:2012ys,Ahmed:2010wy,Agnese:2013lua}. The strongest constraints are derived from XENON in the spin-independent case, though the robustness of these limits is subject to nuclear recoil energy calibration uncertainties near threshold, encapsulated in the ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ and $Q_y$ parameters (see, for example, \cite{Sorensen:2010hq,Sorensen:2012ts} for a discussion) which made their constraints controversial. In the end, however, these constraints appeared to be so strong that even non-standard models of WIMP DM scattering ({\em e.g.} \cite{Chang:2009yt,Fitzpatrick:2010br,Kopp:2011yr,DelNobile:2012tx,DelNobile:2013cta,Boehm:2013qva,Buckley:2013gjo,Frandsen:2013cna}) did not evade the constraints. Implementing different velocity distributions also did not relieve the tension \cite{Fitzpatrick:2010br,Fox:2010bz,Gondolo:2012rs,DelNobile:2013cta}.
Interest revived, however, when CDMS reported an excess of three events in Silicon data at threshold consistent with a light DM candidate \cite{Agnese:2013rvf}. The preferred region is also naively consistent with the CoGeNT excess, though again marginally in conflict with the XENON constraint. Since the targets in DAMA, CoGeNT, and CDMS are different than in XENON, the constraints may not be compared in a model-independent fashion. For example, an effort to tune away the XENON constraint via isospin violation, which reduces the DM scattering cross-section off of Xenon, can successfully reduce the tension (though the tension with the CDMS germanium and CDMSLite results remains) \cite{Feng:2011vu}.
Most recently, LUX has weighed in on the light DM fray with a low nuclear recoil energy constraint, their result \cite{Akerib:2013tjd} reaching to a nuclear recoil threshold of 3 keV. For an interpretation of the CDMS three events with spin-independent scattering, with equal DM coupling to the proton and neutron, at a cross-section $2 \times 10^{-41} \mbox{ cm}^2$, LUX would see approximately 1500 events. Given the presence of few electron recoil events leaking into the nuclear recoil band, LUX is able to put a strong constraint on the entire preferred region of the CDMS-Silicon three events.
The purpose of the present paper is to project the LUX, as well as XENON10, XENON100, CDMS germanium low energy, CDMSLite, COUPP and PICASSO constraints onto the space for scattering through standard and non-standard types of interactions, looking beyond the usual spin-independent and -dependent scattering operators. In many models of DM, the leading interactions may be momentum (or velocity) dependent \cite{Bagnasco:1993st,Sigurdson:2004zp,Chang:2009yt,Feldstein:2009np,Feldstein:2009tr,Banks:2010eh,An:2010kc,Barger:2010gv,Belanger:2013tla}. The simplest cases to consider are interactions through the DM anapole and dipole operators \cite{Fitzpatrick:2010br}, or through pseudoscalars.
In particular, the operators we consider are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal O}_a & = & \bar{\chi} \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 \chi {A'}_\mu \label{eq: anapole op}\\
{\cal O}_d & = & \bar{\chi} \sigma^{\mu \nu} \chi {F^{(')}}_{\mu \nu} \label{eq; mag dipole op}\\
{\cal O}_\phi & = & \bar{\chi}(a + b \gamma_5) \chi \phi. \label{eq: scalar mediator op}
\end{eqnarray}
The first two operators are the anapole and dipole, respectively. The gauge field may or may not be the Standard Model (SM) $U(1)$ in the dipole case. One attractive scenario arises when a dark gauge field ($A'$) mixes with hypercharge. The anapole is attractive because it is the leading operator through which Majorana DM can couple to the nucleus through a vector interaction. The dipole couples the DM spin to the field strength, and naturally arises in some models of composite DM \cite{Banks:2010eh,Bagnasco:1993st}.
Given an effective nucleon interaction of the form $\phi \bar{N}(c + d \gamma_5)N$, the following effective operators are generated when $\phi$ is integrated out:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}_1&=\bar{\chi} \gamma^5 \chi \bar{N} N \label{eq: q2SI op}\\
\mathcal{O}_2&=\bar{\chi} \chi \bar{N}\gamma^5 N \label{eq: q2SD op} \\
\mathcal{O}_3&=\bar{\chi}\gamma^5 \chi \bar{N}\gamma^5 N \label{eq: q4SD op}
\end{align} in addition to the standard spin-independent operator $\bar{\chi} \chi \bar{N} N$. If $a=0$ and/or $c=0$, say, for symmetry reasons, then the standard spin-independent operator is absent. The operators of Eqs.~\eqref{eq: q2SI op}-\eqref{eq: q4SD op} were highlighted in \cite{Chang:2009yt} as leading to WIMP-nucleus interactions with leading $q^2$ dependence. $\mathcal{O}_1$ leads to a $q^2$-suppressed, spin-independent interaction; $\mathcal{O}_2$ to a $q^2$-suppressed, spin-dependent interaction; and $\mathcal{O}_3$ to a $q^4$-suppressed, spin-dependent interaction.
On the other hand, the momentum and velocity dependence for the anapole and magnetic dipole operators are more subtle, and depend on the way in which the gauge field ${A'}^\mu$ couples to the nucleus. In particular when the field coupling to the nucleus is the photon, via kinetic mixing with a dark photon, the anapole and dipole operators give rise to an effective interaction of the form
\begin{equation}
\lag_\text{int}^\text{Anapole}= {f_a \over M^2-q^2} \bar{\chi} \gamma^\mu \gamma^5 \chi \sum_{N=n,p} \bar{N} \left(F_1^N \gamma_\mu + F_2^N {i \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu \over 2 m_N} \right)N
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{magdip lint}
\lag_\text{int}^\text{Magnetic Dipole}={f_d \over M^2-q^2} \bar{\chi} {i \sigma^{\mu \nu} q_\nu \over \Lambda} \chi \sum_{N=n,p} \bar{N} \left(F_1^N \gamma_\mu + F_2^N {i \sigma_{\mu \rho} q^\rho \over 2 m_N} \right)N
\end{equation}
where $F_i^N$ are the appropriate electromagnetic form factors, $M$ is the mediator mass and $q$ is four-momentum transfer \eqref{eq; mag dipole op}.\footnote{Note that the effective higher-dimension operator $\bar{\chi} \gamma^\mu \gamma^5 \chi \partial^\nu F_{\mu \nu}$, which is sometimes also referred to as ``the anapole operator'', may also be generated \cite{Ho:2012bg}.} The magnetic dipole operator in particular was shown in previous work to alleviate the tension between the constraints from the XENON100 experiment and the putative signals \cite{Fitzpatrick:2010br}.
The goal of the present paper is to re-examine the parameter space for light elastically scattering DM in light of the recent results from LUX, and the earlier constraints released from XENON100, XENON10 S2 only, CDMS Ge Low-Energy, COUPP, and PICASSO. We overlay CDMSlite bounds for the standard spin-independent case for reference. CDMSlite data is not yet available to responsibly adopt their constraints to the operators considered in this paper. We do not include constraints from experiments such as Edelweiss \cite{Armengaud:2012pfa} and TEXONO \cite{Li:2013fla} whose limits are comparable to or surpassed in the low-mass region we consider by other experiments with the same nuclear target and similar low-energy thresholds (the Ge-target CDMS II low-energy analysis for these examples). We also consider the constraints on isospin violating models \cite{Chang:2009yt,Feng:2011vu}, which modify the relative couplings to neutrons and protons to tune away the coupling to Xenon. We limit our attention to \emph{elastic} scattering of WIMPs off of nuclei; analysis of models with inelastic scattering is beyond the scope of this paper.
We find that, unsurprisingly, LUX rules out the CDMS Silicon and CoGeNT regions of interest for all of the underlying WIMP-nucleon interactions we consider. If a more conservative choice for the nuclear recoil energy conversion is taken for the Xenon experiments, we find that small portions of the CDMS Silicon and CoGeNT regions of interest can survive the Xenon constraints, though typically in those regions other constraints enter that close the window. Under a more conservative assumption on nuclear recoil energy calibration, XENON100 and LUX constraints can be shifted up by 1-2 GeV in the $m_\text{DM}\sim 6$-$10$ GeV range. Of the models we consider, Anapole and Magnetic Dipole interactions do the best job of bringing the DAMA (assuming scattering primarily off of Sodium with quenching factor $Q_\text{Na}=0.3$), CoGeNT, and CDMS Silicon regions of interest into alignment: the three regions significantly overlap for anapole interactions and come close for the dipole. Even with the conservative assumption about nuclear recoil energy calibration, LUX still rules out the region where all three overlap for the Anapole interaction; PICASSO, XENON10 S2 and CDMS Ge low-energy are also competitive in this range. In addition to considering alternative energy calibration assumptions, we consider alternative halo models. The alternative assumptions we consider do little to weaken the LUX constraint relative to the CDMS Si and CoGeNT regions of interest.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In \S\ref{sec: rates} we specify nuclear scattering cross-sections for models we consider. Then in \S\ref{sec: xenon constraints} we extract constraints for these models in parallel with the light DM CDMS Si, CoGeNT, and DAMA regions of interest. For the Xenon target experiments, we discuss and implement a very conservative alternative extrapolation of nuclear recoil energies. In \S\ref{sec: astrophysics}, we briefly discuss the effect of the halo model on our results. We conclude in \S\ref{sec: conclusions}.
\section{Rates and Conventions for Light Momentum Dependent Dark Matter \label{sec: rates}}
We briefly review scattering rates to define our conventions. The details of how we have derived the constraint or preferred region for each experiment are given in the appendix. The rate for scattering is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d R}{d E_R} = N_T \frac{\rho_\text{DM}}{m_{\rm DM}} \int_{|\vec{v} | > v_\text{min}} d^3v v f(\vec{v},\vec{v}_e) \frac{d \sigma}{d E_R},
\end{equation}
where $v_\text{min} = \frac{\sqrt{2 m_N E_R}}{2 \mu_N}$ and $\mu_N$ is the DM-nucleus reduced mass. To calculate rates we model the DM velocity distribution as a truncated Maxwellian distribution,
\begin{equation}
f(\vec{v}) \propto \left( e^{-(\vec{v}+\vec{v}_\text{e})^2/v_0^2} - e^{-v_\text{esc}^2/ v_0^2} \right) \Theta(v_\text{esc}^2 - (\vec{v}+\vec{v}_\text{e})^2), \label{eq: halo v distribution}
\end{equation}
where Earth's speed relative to the galactic halo is $v_\text{e} = v_\odot + v_\text{orb} \cos \gamma \cos[ \omega (t-t_0)]$, $v_0$ is mean WIMP speed relative to the galaxy, and $\vec{v}_\text{esc}$ is the galactic escape velocity. We also use a standard value for DM density, $\rho_\text{DM}$.
Specifically, we take
$
v_0=220~\text{km/s},~
v_\odot = 232~\text{km/s},~
v_\text{esc} = 544~\text{km/s},~
v_\text{orb} = 30~\text{km/s},~
\rho_\text{DM} = 0.3~\text{GeV}/c^2 / \text{cm}^3 ,~
\cos \gamma = 0.51,
$ though as noted in \cite{Fitzpatrick:2010br}, modifying these parameters shifts the regions somewhat but does not alter the conclusions. In the next section we consider in particular the effect of modifying the escape velocity on the constraints.
The differential rate is related to the scattering cross section off of a nucleus via
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \sigma}{d E_R} = \frac{m_N \sigma_N}{2 \mu_N^2 v^2}.
\end{equation}
For the standard spin-independent case, this is related to the scattering off protons $\sigma_p$ via
\begin{equation}
\sigma_N^\text{SI} = \sigma_p \frac{\mu_N^2}{\mu_n^2}\frac{[f_p Z + f_n(A-Z)]^2}{f_p^2} F^2(E_R),
\label{eq:spin-independent}
\end{equation}
where $\mu_n,~\mu_N$ are the nucleon-WIMP and nucleus-WIMP reduced masses, $f_p,~f_n$ are the proton and neutron couplings, $Z$ and $A$ are the atomic number and weight of the target nucleus, and we take the form factor $F(E_R)$ to be the Helm form factor. For the standard spin-dependent case, we take
\begin{equation}
\sigma_N^\text{SD} = \sigma {\mu_N^2 \over \mu_n^2}{4 \over 3}{J+1 \over J}{(a_p \langle S_p \rangle + a_n \langle S_n \rangle)^2 \over (|a_p|+|a_n|)^2}
\label{eq:spin-dependent}
\end{equation} where $\sigma = (\sqrt{\sigma_p}+\sqrt{\sigma_n})^2$, with $\sigma_{p,n}$ the scattering cross-sections off protons and neutrons. For $\langle S_{p,n} \rangle$ we take the values as in Table 1 of \cite{Cannoni:2012jq}.
Here we are justified in neglecting the momentum-dependence of the spin-dependent nuclear form factor because we are specializing to the case of light ($m_{\rm DM} \lesssim 20 \text{GeV}$) DM where only small $|\vec{q}| b$, where $b$ is nuclear size, is relevant. For the anapole and dipole cases, WIMPs couple to the electromagnetic current and lead to spin-independent, orbital-angular-momentum- and spin-dependent couplings.\footnote{See e.g. the appendix of \cite{Fitzpatrick:2012ib}.} The nuclear scattering cross-sections are
\begin{align}
\sigma_N^a &= f_a^2{{\mu_{N}^2} \over \pi M^4} \left( Z^2 F^2(A;\vec{q}^2) \left( \vec{v}^2 - {\vec{q}^2 \over 4 \mu_N^2}\right) + {J+1 \over 3 J} {b_N^2 \over b_n^2} A^2 { \vec{q}^2 \over 2 m_N^2} \right) \label{eq: anapole rate} \\
\sigma_N^d &= f_d^2{{\mu_{N}^2} \over \pi M^4} {\vec{q}^2 \over \Lambda^2} \left( Z^2 F^2(A;\vec{q}^2) \left( \vec{v}^2 - {\vec{q}^2 \over 4 \mu_N^2} +{\vec{q}^2 \over 4 m_{\rm DM}^2} \right) + {J+1 \over 3 J} {b_N^2 \over b_n^2} A^2 { \vec{q}^2 \over 2 m_N^2}\right), \label{eq: magdip rate}
\end{align}
where $J$ is the spin of the nucleus, $b_N$ is the nucleus magnetic moment and $b_n=e/2 m_p$ is the nuclear magneton.
When reporting cross-sections, we use the convention $\tilde{\sigma} = f_a^2 \mu_n^2/\pi M^4$ for the anapole and $\tilde{\sigma} = f_d^2 \mu_n^2/\pi M^4$, $\Lambda=1$ GeV for the magnetic dipole. In addition, while recent work has suggested that the inclusion of proper nuclear responses may be important \cite{Fitzpatrick:2012ix,Anand:2013yka}, we have explicitly checked that, for the low momentum transfer relevant for light DM scattering, their momentum dependence is negligible. Hence we proceed with only the usual spin-independent form factor. For the $\vec{q}^2$ and $\vec{q}^4$ momentum dependent operators $\mathcal{O}_1-\mathcal{O}_3$, as done in \cite{Chang:2009yt} we will take the standard spin-independent scattering cross-section in \eqref{eq:spin-independent} (for $\mathcal{O}_1$) or the spin-dependent scattering cross-section in \eqref{eq:spin-dependent} (for $\mathcal{O}_2, \mathcal{O}_3$) and rescale it by a reference momentum-dependent factor, $(\vec{q}^2/\vec{q}_\text{ref}^2)^n$, where $n=1,~2$. By default we take $|\vec{q}_\text{ref}|=1$ GeV. If the mediator mass is comparable to the momentum transfer, other important effects could occur, which we neglect here.
\section{Light Momentum Dependent Dark Matter versus Xenon constraints}\label{sec: xenon constraints}
Our results are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig: sig mDM plot AP}-\ref{fig: sig mDM plot SD} for spin-independent, anapole, dipole, spin-dependent, isospin-violating, and momentum-dependent DM. We include fits to the CoGeNT \cite{Aalseth:2012if}, CDMS Silicon \cite{Agnese:2013rvf}, and DAMA results \cite{Bernabei:2010mq}, and constraints from the CDMS germanium low-energy analysis \cite{Ahmed:2010wy}, the XENON10 S2 only analysis \cite{Angle:2011th}, XENON100 \cite{Aprile:2012nq}, COUPP \cite{Behnke:2012ys} and PICASSO \cite{Archambault:2012pm}.
The CDMSlite constraint of \cite{Agnese:2013lua} is shown on the spin-independent plot; we did not rescale the CDMSlite constraints for other forms of interactions because the collaboration has not yet released their data, and the shift in the constraint should mirror the shift in the CDMS germanium constraint.
As is well known, the Xenon-target detector results are particularly sensitive to threshold effects and energy calibration issues, which we describe in more detail in the appendix. Uncertainties in ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ have been included in the constraint curves corresponding to XENON100 and LUX. In the plots the dark blue and black curves correspond to the ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ used by the XENON100 \cite{Aprile:2012nq} and LUX \cite{Akerib:2013tjd} collaborations, respectively, while the light blue and black curves correspond to a linear extrapolation of the average expected number of photo-electrons $\nu(E_R)={S_\text{nr} \over S_\text{ee}} L_y E_R {\cal L}_\text{eff}(E_R)$ for the $-1 \sigma$ boundaries of the ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ measurement made by Manzur et al.~\cite{PhysRevC.81.025808}. We effectively assume ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ drops to zero at the lowest data point ($4$ keV). We show in Fig.~\ref{fig: leffs} in the appendix the ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$s we have used.
For the S2 only XENON10 analysis, the dark red curve corresponds to the Lindhard model ionization yield $Q_y$ used by the collaboration in their analysis, and the light red curve corresponds to a variation of $Q_y$ as follows: We extrapolated from the $-1$ $\sigma$ boundaries of the ionization yield data points with $E_R>10$keVnr from the measurement by Manzur at $E_d=1$ kV/cm \cite{PhysRevC.81.025808}. We do a linear interpolation of $\{ \text{Log}E_R, Q_y \}$ including the point $Q_y(0)=0$.\footnote{More precisely, we set $Q_y(10^{-3} \text{keV})=10^{-3}e^-/\text{keV}$ for the log extrapolation.} We believe this is an appropriately conservative case to consider given that (1) the Lindhard model is suspected to be a crude approximation at low energies for liquid Xenon, (2) there is significant disagreement between different measurements below about 10 keV, and (3) generic theoretical expectations are that the ionization yield should fall off at low energies. For DAMA we have taken a quenching factor $Q_\text{Na} = 0.3$ for the most optimistic agreement with CoGeNT and CDMS-Si, though \cite{Collar:2013gu} suggests a lower $Q_\text{Na}\approx0.15$, which would shift the DAMA region to the right.
For COUPP, we draw constraints under the two different assumptions about Fluorine efficiency adopted by the collaboration, as detailed in the appendix.
Fig.~\ref{fig: sig mDM plot SI SD} establishes a baseline, showing all of the constraints we consider in the $\sigma$-$m_\text{DM}$ plane for isospin-conserving spin-independent and -dependent interactions. All constraints except for CDMSlite are derived independently, following the procedures laid out in the appendix. In subsequent plots we will show only an appropriately representative subset of constraints.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{allExperiments-SI-SD-SigMplot.pdf}
\caption{Regions of interest and exclusion curves for experiments and parameters as listed in Table \ref{summary experiments}, assuming a standard, spin-independent \eqref{eq:spin-independent} or -dependent \eqref{eq:spin-dependent}, isospin-conserving Nucleon-WIMP interaction. A standard Maxwellian distribution is assumed, as explained in the text. All constraint curves are 90\% C.L.~as explained in the appendix. We overlay the CDMSlite bound for reference; all other curves were generated as described in the appendix. We show both a weak and strong COUPP bound, as described in the appendix, and the choice of alternative ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ for the Xenon experiments is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: leffs} in the appendix.}\label{fig: sig mDM plot SI SD}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{STD-AP-MM-LightDM-SigMplot.pdf}
\caption{Regions of interest and exclusion curves for relevant experiments and parameters as listed in Table \ref{summary experiments}, assuming an anapole \eqref{eq: anapole rate} or magnetic dipole \eqref{eq: magdip rate} Nucleon-WIMP interaction. We checked that the strong COUPP bound is weaker than the combination of LUX + PICASSO. Refer to Fig.~\ref{fig: sig mDM plot SI SD}.}\label{fig: sig mDM plot AP}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{q2-SI-LightDM-SigMplot.pdf}
\caption{ Regions of interest and exclusion curves for relevant experiments and parameters as listed in Table \ref{summary experiments}, assuming spin-independent Nucleon-WIMP interactions. We include constraints for a momentum-suppressed interaction (with $q_\text{ref}=1$ GeV) arising from scalar exchange as well as for some Xenonphobic isospin benchmarks in addition to the ``standard'' isospin-conserving case.}\label{fig: sig mDM plot SI}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{q2-SD-LightDM-SigMplot.pdf}
\caption{ Regions of interest and exclusion curves for relevant experiments and parameters as listed in Table \ref{summary experiments}, assuming momentum-suppressed spin-dependent Nucleon-WIMP interaction arising from scalar exchange. We checked that the strong COUPP bound is weaker than the combination of LUX + PICASSO.}\label{fig: sig mDM plot SD}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig: sig mDM plot AP} shows constraints and regions of interest for DM interacting via the anapole \eqref{eq: anapole rate} and magnetic dipole \eqref{eq: magdip rate} interactions, in the $\sigma$-$m_\text{DM}$ plane. Since both the anapole and dipole have spin- and orbital-angular-momentum- dependent scattering components, we include the constraint from PICASSO as well, and we checked that the COUPP constraint is weaker than the PICASSO+XENON bound throughout the region. Both the anapole and dipole interactions bring the three regions of interest into good or marginal agreement, but the Xenon bounds do not loosen for the anapole in the region of interest relative to the spin-independent case. For the magnetic dipole, more of the CoGeNT preferred region is consistent with the LUX bounds, while remaining constrained by XENON10 S2 only.
Fig.~\ref{fig: sig mDM plot SI} shows constraints and regions of interest for other spin-independent interactions, including momentum-suppressed interactions arising from Eq.~\eqref{eq: q2SI op} and isospin-violating interactions (see \cite{Feng:2011vu,Feng:2013vaa}), Eq.~\eqref{eq:spin-independent} with $f_n \neq f_p$. Even given the ``xenophobic'' choice, $f_n/f_p = -0.7$, which minimizes DM coupling to Xenon, LUX still rules out all of the DAMA and most of the CoGeNT regions of interest, and much of the CDMS Silicon region of interest. Furthermore, while older studies emphasized that the xenophobic isospin choice brings the CoGeNT and DAMA regions of interest into ``agreement'', we can see that the 99\% C.L. regions for CoGeNT and DAMA are much closer than in the isospin-conserving case, but do not overlap with each other or with the CDMS Silicon region of interest. For the momentum-suppressed spin-independent interaction, the regions of interest shift towards lower masses to compensate for the momentum suppression, while XENON100 and LUX constraints shift relatively less since the larger target mass implies a larger momentum transfer in the scattering at a given nuclear recoil energy.
This shift is not enough, however, to bring LUX into agreement with even the 99\% C.L. boundary of the CoGeNT region. Taking the very conservative choice for ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ that we discuss opens up a corner of an overlapping CDMS/CoGeNT region of interest.
Fig.~\ref{fig: sig mDM plot SD} includes constraints for spin-dependent interactions \eqref{eq:spin-dependent}, including the most extreme momentum-suppressed interactions arising from \eqref{eq: q4SD op} and a couple of different choices for relative DM coupling to neutrons and protons. The LUX and XENON100 bounds are very constraining even for spin-dependent interactions, regardless of whether the interactions are momentum-suppressed. We find a similar shifting of bounds and regions of interest in the momentum-suppressed cases as in \cite{Chang:2009yt}. The spin-dependent bound from PICASSO 2012 is obviously very strong; it shifts relative to DAMA in the momentum-suppressed case, but not enough to bring the results into agreement.
To summarize, using the rather conservative assumption for ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ discussed above and in the appendix significantly loosens the XENON100 bound in all cases---enough to open up significant portions of the CDMS and CoGeNT (and in some cases, the DAMA) regions of interest. The LUX bound is also loosened, yet still strongly constrains most of the CDMS and CoGeNT regions of interest (and all of the DAMA region of interest except in the case of $a_n=0$ spin-dependent interactions) in all of the cases we consider. Unless ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ or another aspect of deducing expected rates at LUX is severely misunderstood, and/or some alternative astrophysics is playing a dramatic role, a light DM elastic scattering explanation for the DAMA, CoGeNT and CDMS-Si anomalies appears to be substantially obstructed.
In all cases one should keep in mind that the quenching factor $Q_\text{Na}=0.3$ we used for setting the DAMA regions has recently been claimed to bee too high especially for very low-energy recoils \cite{Collar:2013gu}. As noted above, lowering the quenching factor moves the preferred DAMA regions to higher masses---into worse agreement with CoGeNT and CDMS Si regions of interest.
\section{Astrophysical Dependence of Light Momentum Dependent Dark Matter Parameter Space}\label{sec: astrophysics}
To conclude our discussion about a light DM elastic scattering explanation for anomalies, we consider the effects of modest changes in the assumptions of the standard halo model. Fig.~\ref{fig:g plots} indicates how the high-velocity tail of the assumed velocity distribution can significantly affect light DM. The figure shows the velocity moment $g(v_\text{min}) = \int_{v_\text{min}}^\infty {1 \over v^2} v f(\vec{v}) d^3 v$ given a standard distribution as in Eq.~\eqref{eq: halo v distribution} with standard choices of velocity parameters as described in the text, alongside the fractional difference for $g$ assuming several other velocity distributions: given a smaller galactic escape velocity, an additional ``stream'' component modeled on the Sagittarius stream discussed in \cite{Savage:2006qr}, a stream designed to increase the modulation amplitude for DAMA, and the non-Maxwellian distribution of \cite{Bhattacharjee:2012xm}. Except in the case of leading velocity dependence in $\sigma_N$ for, {\em e.g.}, the anapole and magnetic dipole interactions,\footnote{These interactions depend also on the moment, $h(v_\text{min}) = \int_{v_\text{min}}^\infty v f(\vec{v}) d^3 v$ due to the leading velocity dependence in the interactions.} the differential rate as a function of recoil energy is proportional to $g(v_\text{min}(E_R))$, which contains all of the astrophysics dependence in the rate \cite{Fox:2010bz,Gondolo:2012rs}. For order $10$ GeV DM, $v_\text{min}$ at the lowest recoil energies probed by LUX and XENON100 sits at the tail of $g$, as indicated on the figure. Thus the predicted rates for XENON100 and LUX for light DM depend highly on the high-velocity tail of the velocity distribution. It stands to reason that cutting the tail off at lower $v_\text{min}$---{\em e.g.} by lowering $v_\text{esc}$---could weaken the LUX and XENON100 constraints for light DM.
It has been noted that alternative halo distributions can affect modulation amplitudes quite dramatically while changing absolute rates very little \cite{Savage:2006qr}. This is because the modulation amplitude is sensitive to a different quantity: the change in $g$ at two opposite times of year. In Fig.~\ref{fig:g plots} we show this annual modulation difference assuming the alternate halo models discussed above. A stream with small dispersion can contribute a substantial peak even with modest density (in our examples, 5\%$\rho_\text{DM}$). Our ``designer stream'' is modeled as an untruncated Maxwellian distribution with $v_\odot=510$km/s, $v_0=25$m/s, and is in phase with the primary distribution. The DAMA modulation data points assuming $m_\text{DM}=8$ GeV (in order to convert to $v_\text{min}$) are overlaid on the $\Delta g$ plot to show that one can shift the DAMA preferred region towards a particular mass (in our example, 8 GeV) by tuning the velocity parameters of the stream. The light orange points show the spectrum for 10 GeV dark matter. Fig.~\ref{fig: alt halo} shows that the preferred DAMA regions shift much more dramatically (toward 8 GeV) than the Xenon constraint curves given our designer stream.
We find that while reducing $v_\text{esc}$ to the marginally plausible value $v_\text{esc}=490$ km/s (see \cite{Smith:2006ym}) does weaken LUX and XENON100 bounds, it also moves the regions of interest so that increased agreement is not obtained. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: alt halo}. The cut-off of the high-velocity tail at lower velocity shifts the preferred regions towards higher masses at the same time that it weakens the Xenon constraint at a given mass. Since the Xenon bounds are nearly vertical in the relevant mass region, the weakening of the Xenon bounds does not win over the region-of-interest shift towards higher masses.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{haloWithVmin.pdf}
\caption{\emph{Left:} velocity moment, $g_\text{SHM}(v_\text{min})$, for our standard halo model alongside the fractional difference ${g_\text{non-standard}\over g_\text{SHM}}-1$ for the ``non-standard'' distributions we consider, as indicated by the legend. Also shown is a dotted line at $v_\text{min} = \sqrt{2 m_N E_R^\text{min}}/2\mu_N$ for $m_{\rm DM}=10$GeV where $E_R^\text{min}$ is equal to the average expectation for nuclear recoil energy at the low end of the signal range for a given experiment. In other words, the dotted lines sit at the approximate minimum $v_\text{min}$ probed for $m_{\rm DM}=10$ GeV. For smaller (larger) $m_{\rm DM}$, the lines shift right (left). \emph{Right:} Annual modulation difference, $g|_\text{June 2} - g|_{\text{Dec 1}}$ relevant for modulation amplitudes for several different halo models as indicated by the legend. Each stream is assumed to have density 5\% of the standard halo distribution. The ``designer stream'' is assumed to be in phase with the SHM and has characteristic velocities chosen to match the DAMA spectrum for $m_\text{DM}=8$ GeV. Overlaid is the spectrum of modulated DAMA events as a function of $v_\text{min}$ assuming $m_\text{DM}=8$ GeV. The lighter points indicate the spectrum assuming $m_\text{DM}=10$ GeV.}\label{fig:g plots}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{AltHaloCompare.pdf}
\caption{ LUX bounds alongside regions of interest for CDMS Si and DAMA given (thin, darker) the standard truncated Maxwellian distribution with $v_\text{esc}=544$km/s, (thicker, lighter) a truncated Maxellian distribution with $v_\text{esc}=0.9\times544$ km/s, with $v_0=220$km/s and $v_\text{e}=232$ m/s fixed, and (thick, light, dotted) including a designer stream as in Fig.~\ref{fig:g plots}, modeled as an untruncated Maxwellian distribution with $v_\odot=510$km/s, $v_0=25$m/s, in phase with the primary distribution. We truncate the dotted designer stream LUX bound lines in two of the plots in order to reveal the overlap between the designer stream and SHM bounds for LUX.}\label{fig: alt halo}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec: conclusions}
We examined the parameter space for an elastically scattering light DM candidate to explain the DAMA, CoGeNT and CDMS-Si anomalies, through standard spin-independent and -dependent interactions, as well as anapole, dipole, and other momentum-dependent interactions. In all cases, elastic scattering is in strong tension with the LUX results. The tension is relaxed with a choice for the scintillation yield ${\cal L}_\text{eff}$ which is in the $-1 \sigma$ range as measured by Manzur et al \cite{PhysRevC.81.025808}, though most of the parameter space is still constrained. In particular, the anapole operator effectively brings all three anomaly-preferred regions into agreement, while not easing the constraints from the Xenon experiments; the dipole operator is most effective at reducing the tension with the Xenon constraints though not bringing the preferred regions of the anomalies into agreement.
We conclude that, absent a severe misunderstanding of experimental constraints at low recoil energy, the elastic DM scattering explanation of these anomalies is obstructed, and if a new physics explanation is to be found, more exotic types of scenarios should be sought. At the same time, DM with mass below 10 GeV remains theoretically well-motivated ({\em e.g.} from models of Asymmetric DM and hidden sector models) and under-constrained in comparison to a 100 GeV DM candidate. Thus further experimental investigation pushing to lower masses and smaller cross-sections continues to be warranted and compelling.
\acknowledgments
The work of KZ is supported by NASA astrophysics theory grant NNX11AI17G and by NSF CAREER award PHY 1049896.
|
\section*{Appendix A.}
\begin{abstract}
We describe an asynchronous parallel stochastic coordinate descent
algorithm for minimizing smooth unconstrained or separably constrained
functions. The method achieves a linear convergence rate on functions
that satisfy an essential strong convexity property and a sublinear
rate ($1/K$) on general convex functions. Near-linear speedup on a
multicore system can be expected if the number of processors is
$O(n^{1/2})$ in unconstrained optimization and $O(n^{1/4})$ in the
separable-constrained case, where $n$ is the number of variables. We
describe results from implementation on 40-core processors.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
Asynchronous Parallel Optimization, Stochastic Coordinate Descent
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Consider the convex optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn_mainproblem}
\min_{x \in \Omega} \, \quad f(x),
\end{equation}
where $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a closed convex set and $f$
is a smooth convex mapping from an open neighborhood of $\Omega$ to
$\mathbb{R}$. We consider two particular cases of $\Omega$ in this
paper: the unconstrained case $\Omega= \mathbb{R}^n$, and the
separable case
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sep}
\Omega = \Omega_1 \times \Omega_2 \times \dotsc \times
\Omega_n,
\end{equation}
where each $\Omega_i$, $i=1,2,\dotsc,n$ is a closed subinterval of the
real line.
Formulations of the type (\ref{eqn_mainproblem},\ref{eq:sep}) arise in
many data analysis and machine learning problems, for example, support
vector machines (linear or nonlinear dual formulation)
\citep{CortesVapnik95}, LASSO (after decomposing $x$ into positive and
negative parts) \citep{Tibshirani96LASSO}, and logistic
regression. Algorithms based on gradient and approximate or partial
gradient information have proved effective in these settings. We
mention in particular gradient projection and its accelerated variants
\citep{nesterov2004introductory}, accelerated proximal gradient
methods for regularized objectives \citep{BeckT09}, and stochastic
gradient methods \citep{Nemirovski09, Shamir2013icml}. These methods
are inherently serial, in that each iteration depends on the result of
the previous iteration. Recently, parallel multicore versions of
stochastic gradient and stochastic coordinate descent have been
described for problems involving large data sets; see for example
\citet{Hogwild11nips, Richtarik12arXiv, Avron13arXiv}.
This paper proposes an asynchronous stochastic coordinate descent
($\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$) algorithm for convex optimization. Each step of $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$
chooses an index $i \in \{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$ and subtracts a short,
constant, positive multiple of the $i$th partial gradient $\nabla_i
f(x) := \partial f / \partial x_i$ from the $i$th component of
$x$. When separable constraints \eqnok{eq:sep} are present, the update
is ``clipped'' to maintain feasibility with respect to
$\Omega_i$. Updates take place in parallel across the cores of a
multicore system, without any attempt to synchronize computation
between cores.
We assume that there is a bound $\tau$ on the age of the updates, that
is, no more than $\tau$ updates to $x$ occur between the time at which
a processor reads $x$ (and uses it to evaluate one element of the
gradient) and the time at which this processor makes its update to a
single element of $x$. (A similar model of parallel asynchronous
computation was used in {\sc Hogwild!}~\citep{Hogwild11nips}.) Our
implementation, described in Section~\ref{sec_exp}, is a little more
complex than this simple model would suggest, as it is tailored to the
architecture of the Intel Xeon machine that we use for experiments.
We show that linear convergence can be attained if an ``essential
strong convexity'' property \eqnok{eq:esc} holds, while sublinear
convergence at a ``$1/K$'' rate can be proved for general convex
functions. Our analysis also defines a sufficient condition for
near-linear speedup in the number of cores used. This condition
relates the value of delay parameter $\tau$ (which relates to the
number of cores / threads used in the computation) to the problem
dimension $n$. A parameter that quantifies the cross-coordinate
interactions in $\nabla f$ also appears in this relationship. When the
Hessian of $f$ is nearly diagonal, the minimization problem can almost
be separated along the coordinate axes, so higher degrees of
parallelism are possible.
We review related work in
Section~\ref{sec_relatedwork}. Section~\ref{sec_alg} specifies the
proposed algorithm. Convergence results for unconstrained and
constrained cases are described in Sections~\ref{sec_unconstrained}
and \ref{sec_constrained}, respectively, with proofs given in the
appendix. Computational experience is reported in
Section~\ref{sec_exp}. We discuss several variants of $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ in
Section~\ref{sec_extension}. Some conclusions are given in
Section~\ref{sec_conclusion}.
\subsection*{Notation and Assumption}\label{sec_NA}
We use the following notation.
\begin{itemize}
\item $e_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ denotes the $i$th natural basis vector $(0,
\dotsc,0,1,0,\dotsc,0)^T$ with the `''$1$'' in the $i$th position.
\item $\| \cdot \|$ denotes the Euclidean norm $\|\cdot \|_2$.
\item $S \subset \Omega$ denotes the set on which $f$ attains its
optimal value, which is denoted by $f^*$.
\item $\mathcal{P}_{S}(\cdot)$ and $\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\cdot)$ denote Euclidean projection onto
$S$ and $\Omega$, respectively.
\item We use $x_i$ for the $i$th element of $x$, and $\nabla_i f(x)$
for the $i$th element of the gradient vector $\nabla f(x)$.
\item We define the following {\em essential strong convexity}
condition for a convex function $f$ with respect to the optimal set
$S$, with parameter $l>0$:
\begin{equation}
f(x) - f(y) \geq \langle \nabla f(y), x-y \rangle + {l\over 2}\|x-y\|^2 \quad
\mbox{for all $x, y \in \Omega$ with $\mathcal{P}_{S}(x)=\mathcal{P}_{S}(y)$.} \label{eq:esc}
\end{equation}
This condition is significantly weaker than the usual strong convexity
condition, which requires the inequality to hold for {\em all} $x, y
\in \Omega$. In particular, it allows for non-singleton solution sets
$S$, provided that $f$ increases at a uniformly quadratic rate with
distance from $S$. (This property is noted for convex quadratic $f$
in which the Hessian is rank deficient.) Other examples of
essentially strongly convex functions that are not strongly convex
include:
\begin{itemize}
\item $f(Ax)$ with arbitrary linear transformation $A$, where
$f(\cdot)$ is strongly convex;
\item $f(x) = \max(a^Tx - b, 0)^2$, for $a \neq 0$.
\end{itemize}
\item Define $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}$ as the {\em restricted Lipschitz constant} for
$\nabla f$, where the ``restriction'' is to the coordinate
directions: We have
\[
\| \nabla f(x) - \nabla f(x+te_i)\| \leq L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}} |t|, \quad
\mbox{for all $i=1,2,\dotsc,n$ and $t \in \mathbb{R}$, with $x, x+t e_i \in \Omega$.}
\]
\item Define $L_i$ as the {\em coordinate Lipschitz constant} for
$\nabla f$ in the $i$th coordinate direction: We have
\[
f(x+te_i) - f(x) \leq \langle \nabla_if(x),~t \rangle + {L_i\over 2}t^2,
\quad \mbox{for $i \in \{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$, and $x,x+t e_i \in \Omega$,}
\]
or equivalently
\[
|\nabla_if(x) - \nabla_if(x+te_i)| \leq L_i|t|.
\]
\item $L_{\max}:=\max_{i=1,2,\dotsc,n} L_i$.
\item For the initial point $x_0$, we define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:R0.def}
R_0 := \| x_0 - \mathcal{P}_{S}(x_0) \|.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
Note that $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}\geq L_{\max}$.
We use $\{ x_j \}_{j=0,1,2,\dotsc}$ to denote the sequence of iterates
generated by the algorithm from starting point $x_0$. Throughout the
paper, we assume that $S$ is nonempty.
\subsection*{Lipschitz Constants}
The nonstandard Lipschitz constants $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}$, $L_{\max}$, and $L_i$,
$i=1,2,\dotsc,n$ defined above are crucial in the analysis of our
method. Besides bounding the nonlinearity of $f$ along various
directions, these quantities capture the interactions between the
various components in the gradient $\nabla f$, as quantified in the
off-diagonal terms of the Hessian $\nabla^2 f(x)$ --- although the
stated conditions do not require this matrix to exist.
We have noted already that $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}/L_{\max} \ge 1$. Let us consider upper
bounds on this ratio under certain conditions. When $f$ is twice
continuously differentiable, we have
\[
L_{\max} = \sup_{x \in \Omega} \, \max_{i=1,2,\dotsc,n} \, [\nabla^2
f(x)]_{ii}.
\]
Since $\nabla^2 f (x) \succeq 0$ for $x \in \Omega$, we have that
\[
| [\nabla^2 f(x)]_{ij} | \le \sqrt{L_i L_j} \le L_{\max}, \quad \forall \, i,j=1,2,\dotsc,n.
\]
Thus $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}$, which is a bound on the largest column norm for
$\nabla^2 f(x)$ over all $x \in \Omega$, is bounded by $\sqrt{n}
L_{\max}$, so that
\[
\frac{L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}}{L_{\max}} \le \sqrt{n}.
\]
If the Hessian is structurally sparse, having at most $p$ nonzeros per
row/column, the same argument leads to $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}/L_{\max} \le \sqrt{p}$.
If $f(x)$ is a convex quadratic with Hessian $Q$, we have
\[
L_{\max} = \max_i \, Q_{ii}, \quad
L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}} = \max_i \| Q_{\cdot i} \|_2,
\]
where $Q_{\cdot i}$ denotes the $i$th column of $Q$. If $Q$ is
diagonally dominant, we have for any column $i$ that
\[
\| Q_{\cdot i} \|_2 \le Q_{ii} + \| [Q_{ji}]_{j \neq i} \|_2 \le
Q_{ii} + \sum_{j \neq i} |Q_{ji}| \le 2 Q_{ii},
\]
which, by taking the maximum of both sides, implies that $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}/L_{\max}
\le 2$ in this case.
Finally, consider the objective $f(x)=\frac12 \|Ax-b\|^2$ and assume
that $A\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ is a random matrix whose entries are
i.i.d from $\mathcal{N}(0, 1)$. The diagonals of the Hessian are
$A_{\cdot i}^T A_{\cdot i}$ (where $A_{\cdot i}$ is the $i$th column
of $A$), which have expected value $m$, so we can expect $L_{\max}$ to be
not less than $m$. Recalling that $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}$ is the maximum column norm of
$A^TA$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} (\|A^TA_{\cdot i}\|) & \leq \mathbb{E} (|A_{\cdot i}^TA_{\cdot i} |) +
\mathbb{E} (\| [ A_{\cdot j}^T A_{\cdot i}]_{j \neq i} \|) \\
& = m + \mathbb{E} \sqrt{\sum_{j\neq i}|A_{\cdot j}^TA_{\cdot i} |^2} \\
& \leq m + \sqrt{\sum_{j\neq i}\mathbb{E}|A_{\cdot j}^T A_{\cdot i} |^2} \\
& = m + \sqrt{(n-1)m},
\end{align*}
where the second inequality uses Jensen's inequality
and the final equality uses
\[
\mathbb{E} (|A_{\cdot j}^TA_{\cdot i} |^2) = \mathbb{E}(A_{\cdot j}^T\mathbb{E}(A_{\cdot
i}A_{\cdot i}^T) A_{\cdot j})
=\mathbb{E}(A_{\cdot j}^TI A_{\cdot
j})=\mathbb{E}(A_{\cdot j}^TA_{\cdot j})=m.
\]
We can thus estimate the upper bound on $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}/L_{\max}$ roughly by $1+
\sqrt{n/m}$ for this case.
\section{Related Work}\label{sec_relatedwork}
This section reviews some related work on coordinate relaxation and
stochastic gradient algorithms.
Among {\em cyclic coordinate descent} algorithms, \citet{Tseng01}
proved the convergence of a block coordinate descent method for
nondifferentiable functions with certain conditions. Local and global
linear convergence were established under additional assumptions, by
\citet{LuoTseng92} and \citet{WangLin13}, respectively. Global linear
(sublinear) convergence rate for strongly (weakly) convex optimization
was proved by \citet{Beck13}. Block-coordinate approaches based on
proximal-linear subproblems are described by
\citet{TseY06,TseY07a}. \citet{Wright12} uses acceleration on reduced
spaces (corresponding to the optimal manifold) to improve the local
convergence properties of this approach.
{\em Stochastic coordinate descent} is almost identical to cyclic
coordinate descent except selecting coordinates in a random
manner. \citet{Nesterov12} studied the convergence rate for a
stochastic block coordinate descent method for unconstrained and
separably constrained convex smooth optimization, proving linear
convergence for the strongly convex case and a sublinear $1/K$ rate
for the convex case. Extensions to minimization of composite functions
are described by \citet{Richtarik11} and \citet{LuXiao13}.
{\em Synchronous parallel methods} distribute the workload and data
among multiple processors, and coordinate the computation among
processors. \citet{Ferris94} proposed to distribute variables among
multiple processors and optimize concurrently over each subset. The
synchronization step searches the affine hull formed by the current
iterate and the points found by each processor. Similar ideas appeared
in \citep{Mangasarian95}, with a different synchronization
step. \citet{Ma12} considered a multiple splitting algorithm for
functions of the form $f(x) = \sum_{k=1}^N f_k(x)$ in which $N$ models
are optimized separately and concurrently, then combined in an
synchronization step. The alternating direction method-of-multiplier
(ADMM) framework \citep{Boyd11} can also be implemented in parallel.
This approach dissects the problem into multiple subproblems (possibly after
replication of primal variables) and optimizes concurrently, then
synchronizes to update multiplier estimates. \citet{Duchi12} described
a subgradient dual-averaging algorithm for partially separable
objectives, with subgradient evaluations distributed between cores and
combined in ways that reflect the structure of the objective. Parallel
stochastic gradient approaches have received broad attention; see
\citet{AgarwalD12} for an approach that allows delays between
evaluation and update, and \citet{Cotter11} for a minibatch stochastic
gradient approach with Nesterov
acceleration. \citet{Shalev-Shwartz2013} proposed an accelerated
stochastic dual coordinate ascent method.
Among {\em synchronous parallel methods for (block) coordinate
descent}, \citet{Richtarik12arXiv} described a method of this type
for convex composite optimization problems. All processors update
randomly selected coordinates or blocks, concurrently and
synchronously, at each iteration. Speedup depends on the sparsity of
the data matrix that defines the loss functions. Several variants
that select blocks greedily are considered by \citet{ScherrerTHH12}
and \citet{Yin13}. \citet{Yang13} studied the parallel stochastic dual
coordinate ascent method and emphasized the balance between
computation and communication.
We turn now to {\em asynchronous parallel
methods}. \citet{Bertsekas89} introduced an asynchronous parallel
implementation for general fixed point problems $x = q(x)$ over a
separable convex closed feasible region. (The optimization problem
\eqnok{eqn_mainproblem} can be formulated in this way by defining
$q(x) := \mathcal{P}_\Omega[(I - \alpha \nabla f)(x)]$ for some fixed
$\alpha>0$.) Their analysis allows inconsistent reads for $x$, that
is, the coordinates of the read $x$ have different ``ages.'' Linear
convergence is established if all ages are bounded and $\nabla^2 f(x)$
satisfies a diagonal dominance condition guaranteeing that the
iteration $x=q(x)$ is a maximum-norm contraction mapping for
sufficient small $\alpha$. However, this condition is strong ---
stronger, in fact, than the strong convexity condition. For convex
quadratic optimization $f(x) = {1\over 2}x^TAx + bx$, the contraction
condition requires diagonal dominance of the Hessian: $A_{ii} >
\sum_{i\neq j}|A_{ij}|$ for all $i=1,2,\dotsc,n$. By comparison,
$\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ guarantees linear convergence rate under the essential strong
convexity condition \eqnok{eq:esc}, though we do not allow
inconsistent read. (We require the vector $x$ used for each evaluation
of $\nabla_i f(x)$ to have existed at a certain point in time.)
{\sc Hogwild!}~\citep{Hogwild11nips} is a lock-free, asynchronous parallel
implementation of a stochastic-gradient method, targeted to a
multicore computational model similar to the one considered here. Its
analysis assumes consistent reading of $x$, and it is implemented
without locking or coordination between processors. Under certain
conditions, convergence of {\sc Hogwild!}~approximately matches the
sublinear $1/K$ rate of its serial counterpart, which is the
constant-steplength stochastic gradient method analyzed in
\citet{Nemirovski09}.
We also note recent work by \citet{Avron13arXiv}, who proposed an
asynchronous linear solver to solve $Ax=b$ where $A$ is a symmetric
positive definite matrix, proving a linear convergence rate. Both
inconsistent- and consistent-read cases are analyzed in this paper,
with the convergence result for inconsistent read being slightly
weaker.
The $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ algorithm described in this paper was extended to solve
the composite objective function consisting of a smooth convex
function plus a separable convex function in a later work
\citep{liu2014asynchronous}, which pays particular attention to the
inconsistent-read case.
\section{Algorithm}\label{sec_alg}
In $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$, multiple processors have access to a shared data structure
for the vector $x$, and each processor is able to compute a randomly
chosen element of the gradient vector $\nabla f(x)$. Each processor
repeatedly runs the following coordinate descent process (the
steplength parameter $\gamma$ is discussed further in the next
section):
\begin{itemize}
\item[R:] Choose an index $i \in \{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$ at random, read $x$,
and evaluate $\nabla_i f(x)$;
\item[U:] Update component $i$ of the shared $x$ by taking a step of
length $\gamma/L_{\max}$ in the direction $-\nabla_i f(x)$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{algorithm}[ht!]
\caption{Asynchronous Stochastic Coordinate Descent Algorithm $x_{K+1}=\mbox{\sc AsySCD}(x_0, \gamma, K)$}
\label{alg_ascd}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $x_0\in\Omega$, $\gamma$, and $K$
\ENSURE $x_{K+1}$
\STATE Initialize $j \leftarrow 0$;
\WHILE{$j \leq K$}
\STATE Choose $i(j)$ from $\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ with equal probability;
\STATE $x_{j+1} \leftarrow \mathcal{P}_{\Omega}\left(x_j-\frac{\gamma}{L_{\max}} e_{i(j)} \nabla_{i(j)}f(x_{k(j)})\right)$; \label{step_proj}
\STATE $j \leftarrow j +1$;
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Since these processors are being run concurrently and without
synchronization, $x$ may change between the time at which it is read
(in step R) and the time at which it is updated (step U). We capture
the system-wide behavior of $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg_ascd}.
There is a global counter $j$ for the total number of updates; $x_j$
denotes the state of $x$ after $j$ updates. The index $i(j) \in
\{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$ denotes the component updated at step $j$. $k(j)$
denotes the $x$-iterate at which the update applied at iteration $j$
was calculated. Obviously, we have $k(j) \le j$, but we assume that
the delay between the time of evaluation and updating is bounded
uniformly by a positive integer $\tau$, that is, $j-k(j) \le \tau$ for
all $j$. The value of $\tau$ captures the essential parallelism in the
method, as it indicates the number of processors that are involved in
the computation.
The projection operation $P_{\Omega}$ onto the feasible set is not
needed in the case of unconstrained optimization. For separable
constraints \eqnok{eq:sep}, it requires a simple clipping operation on
the $i(j)$ component of $x$.
We note several differences with earlier asynchronous approaches.
Unlike the asynchronous scheme in \citet[Section 6.1]{Bertsekas89},
the {\em latest} value of $x$ is updated at each step, not an earlier
iterate. Although our model of computation is similar to
{\sc Hogwild!}~\citep{Hogwild11nips}, the algorithm differs in that each
iteration of $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ evaluates a single component of the gradient
exactly, while {\sc Hogwild!}~ computes only a (usually crude) estimate of
the full gradient. Our analysis of $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ below is comprehensively
different from that of \citet{Hogwild11nips}, and we obtain stronger
convergence results.
\section{Unconstrained Smooth Convex Case} \label{sec_unconstrained}
This section presents results about convergence of $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ in the
unconstrained case $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n$. The theorem encompasses both the
linear rate for essentially strongly convex $f$ and the sublinear rate
for general convex $f$. The result depends strongly on the delay
parameter $\tau$. (Proofs of results in this section appear in
Appendix~\ref{app:unc}.) In Algorithm~\ref{alg_ascd}, the indices
$i(j)$, $j=0,1,2,\dotsc$ are random variables. We denote the
expectation over all random variables as $\mathbb{E}$, the conditional
expectation in term of $i(j)$ given $i(0), i(1), \cdots, i(j-1)$ as
$\mathbb{E}_{i(j)}$.
A crucial issue in $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ is the choice of steplength parameter
$\gamma$. This choice involves a tradeoff: We would like $\gamma$ to
be long enough that significant progress is made at each step, but not
so long that the gradient information computed at step $k(j)$ is stale
and irrelevant by the time the update is applied at step $j$. We
enforce this tradeoff by means of a bound on the ratio of expected
squared norms on $\nabla f$ at successive iterates; specifically,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ratio_unc}
\rho^{-1}\leq\frac{\mathbb{E}\|\nabla f(x_{j+1})\|^2}{\mathbb{E}\|\nabla f(x_{j})\|^2}\leq \rho,
\end{equation}
where $\rho > 1$ is a user defined parameter.
The analysis becomes a delicate balancing act in the choice of $\rho$
and steplength $\gamma$ between aggression and excessive
conservatism. We find, however, that these values can be chosen to
ensure steady convergence for the asynchronous method at a {\em
linear} rate, with rate constants that are almost consistent with
vanilla short-step full-gradient descent.
We use the following assumption in some of the results of this
section.
\begin{assumption} \label{ass_1}
There is a real number $R$ such that
\[
\| x_j - \mathcal{P}_{S}(x_j) \| \le R, \quad \mbox{for all $j=0,1,2,\dotsc$.}
\]
\end{assumption}
Note that this assumption is not needed in our convergence results in
the case of strongly convex functions. in our theorems below, it is
invoked only when considering {\em general} convex functions.
\begin{theorem} \label{AsySCD:thm_1}
Suppose that $\Omega=\mathbb{R}^n$ in \eqnok{eqn_mainproblem}. For any
$\rho>1$, define the quantity $\psi$ as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:defpsi}
\psi := 1+ \frac{2 \tau \rho^{\tau} L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}}{\sqrt{n} L_{\max}}.
\end{equation}
Suppose that the steplength parameter $\gamma>0$ satisfies the following
three upper bounds:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:boundgamma}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:boundgamma.1}
\gamma & \le \frac{1}{\psi}, \\
\label{eq:boundgamma.2}
\gamma & \le \frac{(\rho-1) \sqrt{n} L_{\max}}{2 \rho^{\tau+1} L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}}, \\
\label{eq:boundgamma.3}
\gamma & \le \frac{(\rho-1) \sqrt{n} L_{\max}}{L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}} \rho^{\tau} (2+\frac{L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}}{\sqrt{n} L_{\max}})}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Then we have that for any $j\geq 0$ that
\begin{equation}
\rho^{-1}\mathbb{E}(\|\nabla f(x_j)\|^2) \leq {\mathbb{E} (\|\nabla f(x_{j+1})\|^2)}\leq \rho \mathbb{E}(\|\nabla f(x_j)\|^2).
\label{eqn_thm_1}
\end{equation}
Moreover, if the essentially strong convexity property \eqnok{eq:esc}
holds with $l>0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} (f(x_{j}) - f^*) \leq \left(1 - \frac{2l\gamma}{nL_{\max}}
\left( 1-\frac{\psi}{2} \gamma \right)\right)^{j} (f(x_{0})-f^*). \label{eqn_thm_2}
\end{equation}
For general smooth convex functions $f$, assuming additionally
that Assumption~\ref{ass_1} holds, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} (f(x_j) - f^*) \leq \frac{1}{(f(x_{0}) -f^*)^{-1} +
j \gamma (1-\frac{\psi}{2} \gamma) /(n L_{\max} R^2) }. \label{eqn_thm_3}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This theorem demonstrates linear convergence \eqnok{eqn_thm_2} for
$\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ in the unconstrained essentially strongly convex case. This
result is better than that obtained for
{\sc Hogwild!}~\citep{Hogwild11nips}, which guarantees only sublinear
convergence under the stronger assumption of strict convexity.
The following corollary proposes an interesting particular choice of
the parameters for which the convergence expressions become more
comprehensible. The result requires a condition on the delay bound
$\tau$ in terms of $n$ and the ratio $L_{\max}/L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}$.
\begin{corollary} \label{co:thm_1}
Suppose that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:boundtau}
\tau + 1 \leq \frac{\sqrt{n} L_{\max}}{2eL_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}}.
\end{equation}
Then if we choose
\begin{equation} \label{eq:choicerho}
\rho=1+{2eL_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}\over \sqrt{n}L_{\max}},
\end{equation}
define $\psi$ by \eqnok{eq:defpsi}, and set $\gamma=1/\psi$,
we have for the essentially
strongly convex case \eqnok{eq:esc} with $l>0$ that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn_thm_2_good}
\mathbb{E} (f(x_j)-f^*) \le \left( 1-\frac{l}{2nL_{\max}} \right)^j (f(x_0)-f^*).
\end{equation}
For the case of general convex $f$, if we assume additionally
that Assumption~\ref{ass_1} is satisfied, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn_thm_3_good}
\mathbb{E} (f(x_j)-f^*) \le \frac{1}{(f(x_0)-f^*)^{-1} + {j}/(4n L_{\max} R^2)}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
We note that the linear rate \eqnok{eqn_thm_2_good} is broadly
consistent with the linear rate for the classical steepest descent
method applied to strongly convex functions, which has a rate constant
of $(1-2l/L)$, where $L$ is the standard Lipschitz constant for
$\nabla f$. If we assume (not unreasonably) that $n$ steps of
stochastic coordinate descent cost roughly the same as one step of
steepest descent, and note from \eqnok{eqn_thm_2_good} that $n$ steps
of stochastic coordinate descent would achieve a reduction factor of
about $(1-l/(2 L_{\max}))$, a standard argument would suggest that
stochastic coordinate descent would require about $4 L_{\max}/L$ times
more computation. (Note that $L_{\max}/L \in [1/n,1]$.)
The stochastic approach may gain an advantage from the parallel
implementation, however. Steepest descent requires
synchronization and careful division of gradient evaluations, whereas the
stochastic approach can be implemented in an asynchronous fashion.
For the general convex case, \eqnok{eqn_thm_3_good} defines a
sublinear rate, whose relationship with the rate of the steepest
descent for general convex optimization is similar to the previous
paragraph.
As noted in Section~\ref{sec:intro}, the parameter $\tau$ is closely
related to the number of cores that can be involved in the
computation, without degrading the convergence performance of the
algorithm. In other words, if the number of cores is small enough such
that \eqref{eq:boundtau} holds, the convergence expressions
\eqref{eqn_thm_2_good}, \eqref{eqn_thm_3_good} do not depend on the
number of cores, implying that linear speedup can be expected. A small
value for the ratio $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}} / L_{\max}$ (not much greater than $1$)
implies a greater degree of potential parallelism. As we note at the
end of Section~\ref{sec:intro}, this ratio tends to be small in some
important applications --- a situation that would allow $O(\sqrt{n})$
cores to be used with near-linear speedup.
We conclude this section with a high-probability estimate for
convergence of the sequence of function values.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:co1}
Suppose that the assumptions of Corollary~\ref{co:thm_1} hold,
including the definitions of $\rho$ and $\psi$. Then for any
$\epsilon \in (0,f(x_0)-f^*)$
and $\eta\in(0,1)$, we have that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:thm:co1_2}
\mathbb{P}\left(f(x_j)-f^*\le \epsilon \right) \ge 1-\eta,
\end{equation}
provided that either of the following sufficient conditions hold for
the index $j$. In the essentially strongly convex case~\eqnok{eq:esc}
with $l>0$, it suffices to have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def_j1}
j \geq \frac{2nL_{\max}}{l} \left( {\log{f(x_0)-f^*\over \epsilon\eta}}\right).
\end{equation}
For the general convex case, if we assume additionally that
Assumption~\ref{ass_1} holds, a sufficient condition is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def_j2}
j \geq 4nL_{\max} R^2\left({1\over \epsilon\eta} - {1\over f(x_0)-f^*}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\section{Constrained Smooth Convex Case}\label{sec_constrained}
This section considers the case of separable constraints
\eqnok{eq:sep}. We show results about convergence rates and
high-probability complexity estimates, analogous to those of the
previous section. Proofs appear in Appendix~\ref{app:con}.
As in the unconstrained case, the steplength $\gamma$ should be chosen
to ensure steady progress while ensuring that update information does
not become too stale. Because constraints are present, the ratio
\eqnok{eq:ratio_unc} is no longer appropriate. We use instead a ratio
of squares of expected differences in successive primal iterates:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathbb{E}\|x_{j-1}-\bar{x}_j\|^2 }{\mathbb{E} \|x_j-\bar{x}_{j+1}\|^2}, \label{eq:cn_ratio}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{x}_{j+1}$ is the hypothesized full update obtained by
applying the single-component update to {\em every} component of
$x_j$, that is,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def.xbar}
\bar{x}_{j+1} := \arg\min_{x\in\Omega} \, \langle \nabla f(x_{k(j)}),
x-x_j \rangle + \frac{L_{\max}}{2\gamma}\|x-x_j\|^2.
\end{equation}
In the unconstrained case $\Omega=\mathbb{R}^n$, the ratio \eqref{eq:cn_ratio}
reduces to
\[
\frac{\mathbb{E}\|\nabla f(x_{k(j-1)})\|^2}{\mathbb{E}\|\nabla f(x_{k(j)})\|^2},
\]
which is evidently related to \eqnok{eq:ratio_unc}, but not identical.
We have the following result concerning convergence of the expected
error to zero.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm_2}
Suppose that $\Omega$ has the form \eqnok{eq:sep} and that $n \ge
5$. Let $\rho$ be a constant with
$\rho>\left(1-2/\sqrt{n}\right)^{-1}$, and define the quantity $\psi$
as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:defpsic} \psi:=
{1+\frac{L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}\tau\rho^{\tau}}{\sqrt{n}L_{\max}}\left({2
+{L_{\max}\over \sqrt{n}L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}} + {2\tau\over n}}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Suppose that the steplength parameter $\gamma>0$ satisfies the
following two upper bounds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:boundgammac}
\gamma \le {1\over \psi},\quad \gamma
\le \left(1-{1\over \rho}-{2\over
\sqrt{n}}\right)\frac{\sqrt{n}L_{\max}}{4L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}\tau\rho^{\tau}}.
\end{equation}
Then we have
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\|x_{j-1}-\bar{x}_j\|^2 \leq \rho \mathbb{E} \|x_j-\bar{x}_{j+1}\|^2,
\quad j=1,2,\dotsc. \label{eqn_thm2_1}
\end{equation}
If the essential strong convexity property~\eqref{eq:esc}
holds with $l>0$, we have for $j=1,2,\dotsc$ that
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E} \|x_{j} - \mathcal{P}_{S}(x_{j})\|^2 + \frac{2\gamma}{L_{\max}}(\mathbb{E} f(x_{j}) - f^*) \label{eqn_thm2_3}
\\
&\leq \left(1- \frac{l} {n(l+\gamma^{-1}L_{\max})} \right)^{j} \left( R_0^2 + \frac{2\gamma}{L_{\max}}(f(x_0) - f^*)\right) \nonumber
\end{align}
where $R_0$ is defined in \eqref{eq:R0.def}.
For general smooth convex function $f$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn_thm2_2}
\mathbb{E} f(x_{j})- f^* \leq \frac{n(R_0^2L_{\max}+ 2\gamma(f(x_0)- f^*))}{2\gamma (n+j)}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Similarly to the unconstrained case, the following corollary proposes
an interesting particular choice for the parameters for which the
convergence expressions become more comprehensible. The result
requires a condition on the delay bound $\tau$ in terms of $n$ and the
ratio $L_{\max}/L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}$.
\begin{corollary} \label{co:thm_2}
Suppose that $\tau \ge 1$ and $n\ge 5$ and that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:boundtauc}
\tau(\tau + 1) \leq \frac{\sqrt{n} L_{\max}}{4eL_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}}.
\end{equation}
If we choose
\begin{equation} \label{eq:choicerhoc}
\rho=1+{4e\tau L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}\over \sqrt{n}L_{\max}},
\end{equation}
then the steplength $\gamma=1/2$ will satisfy the bounds
\eqnok{eq:boundgammac}. In addition, for the essentially strongly
convex case \eqnok{eq:esc} with $l>0$, we have for $j=1,2,\dotsc$ that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn_thm_2_good_c}
\mathbb{E} (f(x_j)-f^*)
\le \left( 1-\frac{l}{n(l+2L_{\max})} \right)^j (L_{\max} R_0^2 + f(x_0)-f^*),
\end{equation}
while for the case of general convex $f$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn_thm_3_good_c}
\mathbb{E} (f(x_j)-f^*) \le \frac{n(L_{\max} R_0^2 + f(x_0)-f^*)}{j+n}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
Similarly to Section~\ref{sec_unconstrained}, and provided $\tau$
satisfies \eqnok{eq:boundtauc}, the convergence rate is not affected
appreciably by the delay bound $\tau$, and near-linear speedup can
be expected for multicore implementations when \eqnok{eq:boundtauc}
holds. This condition is more restrictive than \eqnok{eq:boundtau} in
the unconstrained case, but still holds in many problems for
interesting values of $\tau$. When $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}/L_{\max}$ is bounded
independently of dimension, the maximal number of cores allowed is of
the the order of $n^{1/4}$, which is smaller than the
$O(n^{1/2})$ value obtained for the unconstrained case.
We conclude this section with another high-probability bound, whose
proof tracks that of Theorem~\ref{thm:co1}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:co2}
Suppose that the conditions of Corollary~\ref{co:thm_2} hold,
including the definitions of $\rho$ and $\psi$. Then for $\epsilon>0$
and $\eta\in(0,1)$, we have that
\[
\mathbb{P}\left(f(x_j)-f^*\le \epsilon \right) \ge 1-\eta,
\]
provided that one of the following conditions holds: In the
essentially strongly convex case~\eqnok{eq:esc} with $l>0$, we require
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def2_j1}
j \geq \frac{n(l+2L_{\max})}{l} \left|{\log{L_{\max} R_0^2 + f(x_0)-f^*\over \epsilon\eta}}\right|, \nonumber
\end{equation}
while in the general convex case, it suffices that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def2_j2}
j \geq \frac{n(L_{\max} R_0^2+f(x_0)-f^*)}{\epsilon\eta} - n. \nonumber
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\section{Experiments}\label{sec_exp}
We illustrate the behavior of two variants of the stochastic
coordinate descent approach on test problems constructed from several
data sets. Our interests are in the efficiency of multicore
implementations (by comparison with a single-threaded implementation)
and in performance relative to alternative solvers for the same
problems.
All our test problems have the form \eqnok{eqn_mainproblem}, with
either $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n$ or $\Omega$ separable as in
\eqnok{eq:sep}. The objective $f$ is quadratic, that is,
\[
f(x) = \frac12 x^TQx + c^Tx,
\]
with $Q$ symmetric positive definite.
Our implementation of $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ is called DIMM-WITTED (or DW for
short). It runs on various numbers of threads, from 1 to 40, each
thread assigned to a single core in our 40-core Intel Xeon
architecture. Cores on the Xeon architecture are arranged into four
sockets --- ten cores per socket, with each socket having its own
memory. Non-uniform memory access (NUMA) means that memory accesses to
local memory (on the same socket as the core) are less expensive than
accesses to memory on another socket. In our DW implementation, we
assign each socket an equal-sized ``slice'' of $Q$, a row
submatrix. The components of $x$ are partitioned between cores, each
core being responsible for updating its own partition of $x$ (though
it can read the components of $x$ from other cores). The components of
$x$ assigned to the cores correspond to the rows of $Q$ assigned to
that core's socket. Computation is grouped into ``epochs,''
where an epoch is defined to be the period of computation during which
each component of $x$ is updated exactly once. We use the parameter
$p$ to denote the number of epochs that are executed between
reordering (shuffling) of the coordinates of $x$. We investigate both
shuffling after every epoch ($p=1$) and after every tenth epoch
($p=10$). Access to $x$ is lock-free, and updates are performed
asynchronously. This update scheme does not implement exactly the
``sampling with replacement'' scheme analyzed in previous sections,
but can be viewed as a high performance, practical adaptation of the
$\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ method.
To do each coordinate descent update, a thread must read the latest
value of $x$. Most components are already in the cache for that core,
so that it only needs to fetch those components recently changed. When
a thread writes to $x_i$, the hardware ensures that this $x_i$ is
simultaneously removed from other cores, signaling that they must
fetch the updated version before proceeding with their respective
computations.
Although DW is not a precise implementation of $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$, it largely
achieves the consistent-read condition that is assumed by the
analysis. Inconsistent read happens on a core only if the following
three conditions are satisfied simultaneously:
\begin{itemize}
\item A core does not finish reading recently changed coordinates of
$x$ (note that it needs to read no more than $\tau$ coordinates);
\item Among these recently changed coordinates, modifications take
place both to coordinates that {\em have been read} and that are
{\em still to be read} by this core;
\item Modification of the already-read coordinates happens earlier
than the modification of the still-unread coordinates.
\end{itemize}
Inconsistent read will occur only if at least two coordinates of $x$
are modified twice during a stretch of approximately $\tau$ updates to
$x$ (that is, iterations of Algorithm~\ref{alg_ascd}). For the DW
implementation, inconsistent read would require repeated updating of a
particular component in a stretch of approximately $\tau$ iterations
that straddles two epochs. This event would be rare, for typical
values of $n$ and $\tau$. Of course, one can avoid the inconsistent
read issue altogether by changing the shuffling rule slightly,
enforcing the requirement that no coordinate can be modified twice in
a span of $\tau$ iterations. From the practical perspective, this
change does not improve performance, and detracts from the simplicity
of the approach. From the theoretical perspective, however, the
analysis for the inconsistent-read model would be interesting and
meaningful, and we plan to study this topic in future work.
The first test problem {\tt QP} is an unconstrained, regularized least
squares problem constructed with synthetic data. It has the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:uncqp}
\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^n} \; f(x):={1\over 2}\|Ax-b\|^2 + {\alpha\over
2}\|x\|^2.
\end{equation}
All elements of $A\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$, the true model
$\tilde{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, and the observation noise vector
$\delta\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ are generated in i.i.d. fashion from the Gaussian
distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$, following which each column in $A$ is
scaled to have a Euclidean norm of $1$. The observation
$b\in\mathbb{R}^m$ is constructed from $A\tilde{x} + \delta
\|A\tilde{x}\|/(5 m)$.
We choose $m=6000$,
$n=20000$, and $\alpha=0.5$. We therefore have
$L_{\max}=1+\alpha=1.5$ and
\[
\frac{L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}}{L_{\max}} \approx {1+\sqrt{n/m}+\alpha \over 1+\alpha} \approx 2.2.
\]
With this estimate, the
condition~\eqref{eq:boundtau} is satisfied when delay parameter $\tau$
is less than about $95$. In Algorithm~\ref{alg_ascd}, we set the
steplength parameter $\gamma$ to $1$, and we choose initial iterate to
be $x_0=\bold{0}$. We measure convergence of the residual norm $\|
\nabla f(x) \|$.
Our second problem {\tt QPc} is a bound-constrained version of
\eqnok{eq:uncqp}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bcqp}
\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^n_+}\quad f(x):={1\over
2}(x-\tilde{x})^T(A^TA+\alpha I)(x-\tilde{x}).
\end{equation}
The methodology for generating $A$ and $\tilde{x}$ and for choosing
the values of $m$, $n$, $\gamma$, and $x_0$ is the same as for
\eqnok{eq:uncqp}. We measure convergence via the residual $\|x-\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(x-
\nabla f(x))\|$, where $\Omega$ is the nonnegative orthant
$\mathbb{R}^n_{+}$. At the solution of \eqnok{eq:bcqp}, about half the
components of $x$ are at their lower bound of $0$.
Our third and fourth problems are quadratic penalty functions
for linear programming relaxations of vertex cover problems on large
graphs. The vertex cover problem for an undirected graph with edge set $E$ and
vertex set $V$ can be written as a binary linear program:
\[
\min_{y \in \{0,1\}^{|V|}} \, \sum_{v \in V} y_v \quad \mbox{subject to} \;\;
y_u+y_v \ge 1, \quad \forall \, (u,v) \in E.
\]
By relaxing each binary constraint to the interval $[0,1]$,
introducing slack variables for the cover inequalities, we obtain a
problem of the form
\[
\min_{y_v \in [0,1], \, s_{uv} \in [0,1]} \,
\sum_{v \in V} y_v \quad \mbox{subject to} \;\;
y_u+y_v -s_{uv} = 0, \quad \forall \, (u,v) \in E.
\]
This has the form
\[
\min_{x \in [0,1]^n} \, c^Tx \quad \mbox{subject to} \;\; Ax=b,
\]
for $n=|V|+|E|$. The test problem \eqnok{eq:vc} is a regularized
quadratic penalty reformulation of this linear program for some
penalty parameter $\beta$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:vc}
\min_{x\in [0,1]^n} \quad
c^Tx+{\beta \over 2} \|Ax-b\|^2 + {1\over 2\beta} \|x\|^2,
\end{equation}
with $\beta=5$.
Two test data sets {\tt Amazon} and {\tt DBLP} have dimensions
$n=561050$ and $n=520891$, respectively.
We tracked the behavior of the residual as a function of the number of
epochs, when executed on different numbers of
cores. Figure~\ref{fig:conv} shows convergence behavior for each of
our four test problems on various numbers of cores with two different
shuffling periods: $p=1$ and $p=10$. We note the following points.
\begin{itemize}
\item The total amount of computation to achieve any level of
precision appears to be almost independent of the number of cores,
at least up to 40 cores. In this respect, the performance of the
algorithm does not change appreciably as the number of cores is
increased. Thus, any deviation from linear speedup is due not to
degradation of convergence speed in the algorithm but rather to
systems issues in the implementation.
\item When we reshuffle after every epoch ($p=1$), convergence is
slightly faster in synthetic unconstrained {\tt QP} but slightly
slower in {\tt Amazon} and {\tt DBLP} than when we do occasional
reshuffling ($p=10$). Overall, the convergence rates with different
shuffling periods are comparable in the sense of epochs. However,
when the dimension of the variable is large, the shuffling operation
becomes expensive, so we would recommend using a large value for $p$
for large-dimensional problems.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/QP_conv.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/QP_conv10.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/CQP_conv.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/CQP_conv10.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/AM_conv.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/AM_conv10.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/DBLP_conv.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/DBLP_conv10.eps}
\caption{Residuals vs epoch number for the four test problems. Results
are reported for variants in which indices are reshuffled after
every epoch ($p=1$) and after every tenth epoch ($p=10$).}
\label{fig:conv}
\end{figure}
Results for speedup on multicore implementations are shown in
Figures~\ref{fig:speedup12} and \ref{fig:speedup34} for DW with
$p=10$. Speedup is defined as follows:
\[
\frac{\text{runtime a single core using DW}}{\text{runtime on $P$ cores}}.
\]
Near-linear speedup can be observed for the two QP problems with
synthetic data. For Problems 3 and 4, speedup is at most 12-14; there
are few gains when the number of cores exceeds about 12.
We believe that the degradation is due mostly to memory
contention. Although these problems have high dimension, the matrix
$Q$ is very sparse (in contrast to the dense $Q$ for the synthetic
data set). Thus, the ratio of computation to data movement / memory
access is much lower for these problems, making memory contention
effects more significant.
Figures~\ref{fig:speedup12} and \ref{fig:speedup34} also show results
of a global-locking strategy for the parallel stochastic coordinate
descent method, in which the vector $x$ is locked by a core whenever
it performs a read or update. The performance curve for this strategy
hugs the horizontal axis; it is not competitive.
Wall clock times required for the four test problems on $1$ and $40$
cores, to reduce residuals below $10^{-5}$ are shown in
Table~\ref{ta:times}. (Similar speedups are noted when we use a
convergence tolerance looser than $10^{-5}$.)
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/QP_speedup.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/CQP_speedup.eps}
\caption{Test problems 1 and 2: Speedup of multicore
implementations of DW on up to 40 cores of an Intel Xeon
architecture. Ideal (linear) speedup curve is shown for
reference, along with poor speedups obtained for a
global-locking strategy.}
\label{fig:speedup12}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/AM_speedup.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{newfig/DBLP_speedup.eps}
\caption{Test problems 3 and 4: Speedup of multicore implementations
of DW on up to 40 cores of an Intel Xeon architecture. Ideal
(linear) speedup curve is shown for reference, along with poor
speedups obtained for a global-locking strategy.}
\label{fig:speedup34}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|cc|}
\hline
Problem & 1 core & 40 cores \\ \hline
\texttt{QP} & 98.4 & 3.03 \\
\texttt{QPc} & 59.7 & 1.82 \\
\texttt{Amazon} & 17.1 & 1.25 \\
\texttt{DBLP} & 11.5 & .91 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Runtimes (seconds) for the four test problems on $1$ and $40$ cores.}
\label{ta:times}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|cc|}
\hline
\#cores & Time(sec) & Speedup \\ \hline
1 & 55.9 & 1 \\
10 & 5.19 & 10.8 \\
20 & 2.77 & 20.2 \\
30 & 2.06 & 27.2 \\
40 & 1.81 & 30.9 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Runtimes (seconds) and speedup for multicore implementations
of DW on different number of cores for the weakly convex
\texttt{QPc} problem (with $\alpha=0$) to achieve a residual below
$0.06$.}
\label{ta:weaklyconvex}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[tp!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|cc|}
\hline
\#cores & Time(sec) & Speedup \\
& $\mbox{\sc SynGD}$ / $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ & $\mbox{\sc SynGD}$ / $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ \\
\hline
1 & 96.8 / 27.1 & 0.28 / 1.00 \\
10 & 11.4 / 2.57 & 2.38 / 10.5 \\
20 & 6.00 / 1.36 & 4.51 / 19.9 \\
30 & 4.44 / 1.01 & 6.10 / 26.8 \\
40 & 3.91 / 0.88 & 6.93 / 30.8 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Efficiency comparison between $\mbox{\sc SynGD}$ and $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ for the
{\tt QP} problem. The running time and speedup are based on the
residual achieving a tolerance of $10^{-5}$.}
\label{ta:SynGD}
\end{table}
\begin{table} [tp!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | c | r r | r r |}
\hline
Dataset & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\# of} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\# of}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Train time(sec)} \\
& Samples & Features & LIBSVM & $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ \\
\hline
\textsf{adult} & 32561 & 123 & 16.15 & 1.39\\
\textsf{news} & 19996 & 1355191 & 214.48 & 7.22\\
\textsf{rcv} & 20242 & 47236 & 40.33 & 16.06\\
\textsf{reuters} & 8293 & 18930 & 1.63 & 0.81\\
\textsf{w8a} & 49749 & 300 & 33.62 & 5.86\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Efficiency comparison between LIBSVM and $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ for kernel
SVM using 40 cores using homogeneous kernels ($K(x_i, x_j) = (x_i^Tx_j)^2$). The running time and speedup are
calculated based on the ``residual'' $10^{-3}$. Here, to make both
algorithms comparable, the ``residual'' is defined by
$\|x-\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(x-\nabla
f(x))\|_\infty$.\label{ta:kernelSVM}}
\end{table}
All problems reported on above are essentially strongly convex. Similar speedup properties can be obtained in the weakly convex case as well. We show speedups for the {\tt QPc} problem with $\alpha=0$. Table~\ref{ta:weaklyconvex} demonstrates similar speedup to the essentially strongly convex case shown in Figure~\ref{fig:speedup12}.
Turning now to comparisons between $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ and alternative algorithms,
we start by considering the basic gradient descent method. We
implement gradient descent in a parallel, synchronous fashion,
distributing the gradient computation load on multiple cores and
updating the variable $x$ in parallel at each step. The resulting
implementation is called $\mbox{\sc SynGD}$. Table~\ref{ta:SynGD} reports
running time and speedup of both $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ over $\mbox{\sc SynGD}$, showing a
clear advantage for $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$. A high price is paid for the
synchronization requirement in $\mbox{\sc SynGD}$.
Next we compare $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ to LIBSVM \citep{LIBSVM11} a popular multi-thread parallel solver for kernel support vector machines (SVM). Both algorithms are run on 40 cores to solve the dual formulation of kernel SVM, without an intercept term. All data sets used in~\ref{ta:kernelSVM}
except \textsf{reuters} were obtained from the LIBSVM dataset repository\footnote{\url{http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvmtools/datasets/}}. The dataset \textsf{reuters} is a sparse binary text classification dataset constructed as a one-versus-all version of Reuters-2159\footnote{\url{http://www.daviddlewis.com/resources/testcollections/reuters21578/}}. Our comparisons, shown in Table~\ref{ta:kernelSVM}, indicate that $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ outperforms LIBSVM on these test sets.
\section{Extension}\label{sec_extension}
The $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ algorithm can be extended by partitioning the coordinates
into blocks, and modifying Algorithm~\ref{alg_ascd} to work with these
blocks rather than with single coordinates. If $L_i$, $L_{\max}$, and
$L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}$ are defined in the block sense, as follows:
\begin{align*}
\|\nabla f(x)-\nabla f(x+E_{i}t)\| &\leq L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}\|t\|\quad\forall x, i, t\in\mathbb{R}^{|i|},\\
\|\nabla_i f(x)-\nabla_i f(x+E_{i}t)\| &\leq L_i\|t\|\quad \forall x, i, t\in\mathbb{R}^{|i|},\\
L_{\max} &= \max_{i}L_i,
\end{align*}
where $E_i$ is the projection from the $i$th block to $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $|i|$
denotes the number of components in block $i$, our analysis can be
extended appropriately.
To make the $\mbox{\sc AsySCD}$ algorithm more efficient, one can redefine the
steplength in Algorithm~\ref{alg_ascd} to be $\frac{\gamma}{L_{i(j)}}$
rather than $\frac{\gamma}{L_{\max}}$. Our analysis can be applied to
this variant by doing a change of variables to $\tilde{x}$, with
${x}_i=\frac{L_i}{L_{\max}}\tilde{x}_i$ and defining $L_i$, $L_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize res}}$,
and $L_{\max}$ in terms of $\tilde{x}$.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec_conclusion}
This paper proposes an asynchronous parallel stochastic coordinate
descent algorithm for minimizing convex objectives, in the
unconstrained and separable-constrained cases. Sublinear convergence
(at rate $1/K$) is proved for general convex functions, with stronger
linear convergence results for functions that satisfy an essential
strong convexity property. Our analysis indicates the extent to which
parallel implementations can be expected to yield near-linear speedup,
in terms of a parameter that quantifies the cross-coordinate
interactions in the gradient $\nabla f$ and a parameter $\tau$ that
bounds the delay in updating. Our computational experience confirms
the theory.
\acks{This project is supported by NSF Grants DMS-0914524,
DMS-1216318, and CCF-1356918; NSF CAREER Award IIS-1353606; ONR
Awards N00014-13-1-0129 and N00014-12-1-0041; AFOSR Award
FA9550-13-1-0138; a Sloan Research Fellowship; and grants from
Oracle, Google, and ExxonMobil. }
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Surface and structural properties of deposition aggregates are of
multidisciplinary interest. Deposition structures
occur in various physical, chemical and biological systems
and processes. The surface and bulk properties of deposition
aggregates are closely related to a wide variety of
equivalent problems, such as, fluid flow, adsorption and diffusion in
porous structures, directed polymers in random
media and propagation of flame fronts \cite{family1}.
The relation between the geometry and morphology of deposition structures
and their formation mechanism has important applications. In recent years, technological
advancement and the consequent access to small yet powerful computers have
contributed greatly to simulation and numerical studies of deposition structures.
Such studies help to develop better understanding
and control over the formation of specific forms and surfaces
suited to specific purposes. It is of practical relevance
in the fabrication of nanomaterials with important applications to
industry and medicine, such as, the manufacture of
sophisticated optical and electronic nanostructures and nanodevices,
magnetic carbon nanostructures for drug delivery \cite{med1} and
smart nanostructures for monitoring, diagnoses, repair and
treatment of human biological systems \cite{med2}.
Ballistic deposition (BD) is a simple growth model, originally proposed for describing sedimentation and aggregation in colloids \cite{vold,sutherland,famvic85,family86}. This model and its variants give rise to complex porous structures useful for studying
formation of sedimentary rock structures and dust agglomerates.
The growing surface is quantitatively expressed in terms of a
surface width $W$, associated with the roughness of the surface,
and is defined as,
\beq
W(L,t) = \sqrt{ \frac{1}{L} \sum_{i=1}^{L} \left[ h(i,t) -
\langle h(t) \rangle \right]^2 }
\label{surfwid}
\eeq
where $L$ is the system size and $t$ is the growth time.
The surface width obeys a dynamic scaling law \cite{barabasi},
\beq
W(L,t) \sim L^{\alpha}f\left(\frac{t}{L^{z}}\right)
\label{scalinglaw}
\eeq
The exponents $\alpha$ and $\beta$ describe the growth of surface width
with system size and time.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width = 0.15\textwidth]
{fig1a.pdf}\label{fig1a}}
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width = 0.11\textwidth]
{fig1b.pdf}\label{fig1b}}
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.11\textwidth]
{fig1c.pdf}\label{fig1c}}
\caption{(a) Random deposition, (b) nearest neighbor (NN) ballistic deposition, (c) next-nearest neighbor (NNN) ballistic deposition}
\label{nnbd}
\end{figure}
In random deposition (RD), a site on the surface is selected at random.
A particle drops vertically and deposits on top of the selected column (Fig. \ref{fig1a}).
In nearest neighbor (NN) ballistic deposition, a particle
travels in a vertical trajectory towards the randomly chosen site and
deposits onto the first surface it encounters. This may be the top of the
chosen column or the side of the nearest neighbor column, whichever is
higher. In the next-nearest neighbor (NNN) variant of BD, the new particle deposits at the first corner or side or top of column encountered by the particle along its vertical path of descent. Fig. \ref{fig1b} and Fig.
\ref{fig1c} illustrate the NN and NNN ballistic deposition.
In ballistic deposition, the particles are assumed to be strongly
adhering and stick to the first point of contact whereas in random deposition,
the particle deposits when it cannot go down any further.
The roughness of the growing surface grows without bound in RD, while in
BD, correlation among neighboring columns, causes the surface roughness
to eventually saturate.
Unlike random deposition, where the surface
growth is only along the upward vertical direction, in the ballistic
deposition, the surface grows laterally (for NN) and diagonally (for NNN)
as well.
In this work, we investigate the surface properties and bulk
structure of a modified BD model where the deposition method
interpolates between NN and NNN ballistic and the random deposition (RD)
models. The depositing particles are allowed to have varying degrees of stickiness ranging uniformly from
rigid, non-sticky to strongly adhering. The role of two types of attractive forces between the adhering particles
in the formation of the aggregate is also studied. Depending on the stickiness,
the attractive force and the surface profile of the deposit, the incoming
particles may stick to the corner or side
of the nearest neighbor columns or slide down to deposit on top
of the column at the randomly selected site.
It is a more realistic model for study of porous deposits formed in nature.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Possible sticking positions in the present model.}
\label{deprule}
\end{figure}
The growth of surface roughness with time exhibits
four distinct regions. The stickiness of the particles is observed to have
the most dominant effect on the surface roughness, especially in the intermediate stages
of growth of deposit. The surface roughness increases at a far steeper rate than random
or KPZ \cite{KPZ86} growth. Beyond a certain crossover time, which also varies with
the stickiness parameter, the growth of surface roughness slows down to KPZ-like \cite{KPZ86}
and eventually saturates. Changing the nature of the attractive force between particles from Coulomb
to van der Waals, has negligible effect on the behavior of surface width. However, the porosity
of the deposit is strongly influenced by the attractive force between particles as well
as the stickiness parameter.
\section{Formulation of the model}
\label{mbd}
In the model discussed in this article, deposition of particles takes place on a one
dimensional substrate. Particles drop one by one vertically onto sites selected at random. Two
factors contribute to final deposition of the particle. One is the stickiness of the particle which
is varied by means of a parameter denoted by $a_{p}$ \cite{guptaetal}. The second
is an inter-particle attractive force proportional to the center to center distance (denoted here by $r$)
between particles. The parameter $a_{p}$ is assigned values between $0$ and $1$, attributing stickiness to the particles. The former value corresponds to no adhesiveness and the latter to maximum stickiness. We have assumed two types of attractive forces, the Coulomb type with an inverse square dependence on $r$ and the van der Waals type proportional to $r^{-6}$. The final sticking position of a newly
arriving particle is decided by a sticking probability defined as
\beq
p_{st} = \frac{a_p}{r^n } \; \;
\label{stickrule}
\eeq
where, $n$ is $2$ for Coulomb interaction and $6$ for van der Waals interaction.
We assume the particles to be unit squares, so that the center-to-center
distance is 1 along the side and $\sqrt{2}$ along the diagonal. A very sticky particle may
stick to either the first encountered corner or surface of a neighboring occupied site.
A particle which is less sticky, may not stick at the first corner or surface and may slide further down, before final deposition. A new particle may deposit at the top, side or corner of an existing column depending on the sticking probability as illustrated in Fig. \ref{deprule}. Thus, in addition to vertical and lateral
growth, the surfaces also grows along an incline of angle $45^\circ$ or $135^\circ$ to the horizontal \cite{guptaetal}.
Simulations are performed starting with an empty substrate for system sizes $L$ $\simeq$ $32,64,128,256,512 and 1024$. A value for the sticking parameter is chosen and for a given type of inter-particle attractive force, the probabilities for corner and side sticking are determined from Eq. \ref{stickrule}. Particles are dropped onto randomly chosen sites on the substrate. If the
particle falls on a column that is higher than its nearest neighbors, it deposits onto the top of that column.
If the neighboring columns are higher, the particle may stick to the corner or side of the tallest neighboring column, provided, the corresponding sticking probability is larger than a random number generated from a
uniform distribution between 0 and 1. Else, it slides down vertically till it encounters the next corner or surface, where a similar comparison is made. The process is repeated until deposition occurs.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Logarithmic plot of interface width with time for different $a_{p}$.}
\label{lnwt_ap}
\end{figure}
The numerical simulations were performed for system sizes
mentioned above at various values of stickiness parameter ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 in
$(1+1)$ dimension. A logarithmic plot of the interface width versus time
at different values of $a_{p}$ is shown in Fig. \ref{lnwt_ap}.
For comparison, the plot for ballistic deposition is also shown in the
same figure.
At $a_p=0.0$, the particles deposit onto top of columns randomly. The surface roughness increases
without bound as more particles deposit.
For $a_p >0$, four distinct regions
may be identified in the plot. An initial linear region that coincides
with RD followed by a steep increment of interface width up to a
certain time $t_{k}$ (see Fig. \ref{lnwt_ap}).
Thereafter, $\ln W$ increases, albeit at a much slower rate
and eventually, beyond a time $t_{sat}$, it saturates.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the surface height in the present model}
\label{surfprof}
\end{figure}
The physical reason for this behavior
may be understood as follows. Initially, the deposition
process is random as there are few particles and hence for most of
the selected sites, there are no neighbors. As more particles get deposited,
new arriving particles encounter the corners and
sides of those already deposited. The possibility
of corner sticking results in the rapid growth of the interface width. The surface roughness thus increases with time as shown in Fig. \ref{surfprof}.
The deviation of the interface width from random deposition is shown in Fig. \ref{eddevfromrd} for two different values of $a_{p}$. Further deposition slows down the rate of increase of surface roughness.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{Deviation from random growth for early times for $a_p=0.5$ and $a_p=0.8$.}
\label{eddevfromrd}
\end{figure}
This deviation of the interface width increases with $a_{p}$ as the possibility of corner sticking increases.
For example, when $a_{p}$ = $0.1$, the probability for corner sticking
is $0.05$ and that for side sticking is $0.1$, whereas at $a_{p}$ = $0.5$,
the corner sticking probability increases to 0.25 and that for
side sticking increases to 0.5. Chances of sticking to corner or side, both increase with $a_{p}$.
Hence, the growth along both lateral and diagonal directions increases
with $a_{p}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{Variation of interface width with time for different system sizes
with $a_{p}=0.5$.}
\label{lnwap_fixed}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7.pdf}
\caption{Variation of interface width with time in the saturated region for $L=1024$.}
\label{satreg_1024}
\end{figure}
With further deposition, the increase in surface roughness slows down. Unlike the previous region, this second slower growth region shows a decreasing slope with increase in $a_{p}$. Increase in $a_{p}$, causes more correlations among neighboring columns as
the chances of sticking to corner(s) as well as to side(s) increases.
As a result, the interface grows at a slower rate.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of average height at different $a_{p}$ for $L = 256$ and Coulomb type interaction.}
\label{avgh}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig9.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of average height at different $a_{p}$ for $L = 256$ and van der Waals type interaction.}
\label{avghvand}
\end{figure}
Thereafter, with further deposition of particles, the interface width
saturates after a time $t_{sat}$.
The saturated value of the interface width varies with both system size
and $a_{p}$.
For a given value of $a_{p}$, the saturated width W$_{sat}$
and the time of saturation, $t_{sat}$ increase with system size. For a fixed $a_{p}$, the evolution of the interface width
for different system sizes is shown in Fig. \ref{lnwap_fixed}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10.pdf}}
\caption{Variation of $\beta$ (solid line) and $\beta^{'}$ (dashed line) with $a_{p}$
for $L = 1024$}
\label{betaprimeap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig11.pdf}}
\caption{Saturated width versus $a_{p}$ for $L = 256$ (solid line) and $1024$ (dashed line).}
\label{wsatap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig12.pdf}
\caption{Variation of $\alpha$ with $a_{p}$}
\label{alpap}
\end{figure}
With the system size kept fixed, the saturated width decreases with increase
in $a_{p}$ and so does the time of saturation. There is a marked decrease in saturated width when $a_{p}$ is increased from $0.1$ to $0.3$. Thereafter, the value of the saturated width shows a very small decrease with further increase in $a_{p}$. This behavior is due to the increase in correlation length as the stickiness parameter increases. However, the correlation length cannot exceed the system size.
Hence the decrease in saturated width is most prominent at low values of $a_p$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig13.pdf}
\caption{Logarithmic plot of crossover time $t_k$ with $a_{p}$.}
\label{tkap}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{satreg_1024} shows the variation of the saturated interface width $a_{p}$ for system size $1024$ and Coulomb type interaction. It is also observed that the interface width saturates at earlier time with increase in $a_{p}$. When the inter-particle force is switched to van der Waals type, there is negligible change in growth and the saturation of interface width.
Fig. \ref{avgh} and \ref{avghvand} show the evolution of the average height of the surface for Coulomb and van der Waals type interaction respectively. Though the qualitative nature of the above plots are the same, the average surface height for van der Waals type of interaction is much less than that for Coulomb type interaction.
However, for both type of forces, the average height at any time is larger and grows faster
for larger values of $a_p$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Values of $\beta^{'}$ for different $a_{p}$}
\label{tab2}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline \hline
$L$ & $a_{p} = 0.1$ & $a_{p} = 0.3$ & $a_{p} = 0.5$ & $a_{p} = 0.8$ & $a_{p} = 1.0$ \\
\hline
128 & 0.55 & 0.60 & 0.63 & 0.66 & 0.67 \\
256 & 0.55 & 0.60 & 0.63 & 0.67 & 0.67 \\
512 & 0.55 & 0.60 & 0.63 & 0.66 & 0.68 \\
1024 & 0.55 & 0.60 & 0.63 & 0.66 & 0.68 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig14.pdf}
\caption{Saturation time $t_{sat}$ versus $a_{p}$
in log-log scale.}
\label{tsatap}
\end{figure}
For $t \ll 1$, the roughness of interface grows with exponent $\sim 0.5$ as for random growth.
Further deposition causes a sharp increase in the roughness. The
values of this growth exponent, denoted by $\beta'$,
are tabulated below (Table \ref{tab2}) for different
system sizes and $a_{p}$. For a fixed system size, $\beta^{'}$
increases with $a_p$. However, at any given value of $a_p$, $\beta^{'}$
does not change with the system size. This behavior is observed for both Coulomb type and van der Waals type attractive forces.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig15.pdf}
\caption{Growth of porosity at different $a_{p}$}
\label{pore}
\end{figure}
This rapid growth of roughness is not sustained beyond a certain time $t_{k}$. The rate of increase of roughness slows down to a KPZ like growth with a different exponent denoted by $\beta$.
This exponent, unlike $\beta'$, decreases with $a_p$. For a
fixed $a_p$, $\beta$ increases with the system size approaching a value $0.31$.
In Table \ref{tabalbe}, values of $\beta$ (exponent for KPZ like growth) are tabulated for different system sizes and $a_{p}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig16.pdf}
\caption{Growth of porosity for Coulomb and van der Waals type interaction.}
\label{comppore}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{betaprimeap}, $\beta$ and $\beta'$ are plotted versus $a_p$ for system size 1024 and a third degree polynomial.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig17.pdf}
\caption{Saturated Porosity variation with $a_{p}$ for Coulomb (solid line) and van der Waals type (dashed line) interaction.}
\label{satpore}
\end{figure}
The saturated width at any value of $a_{p}$ in the present model is larger than the saturated width in ballistic deposition. At any value of $a_p$, saturated width is larger for larger system sizes as shown in Fig. \ref{wsatap}. The saturated width W$_{sat}$ approaches a limiting value as $a_p \to 1$ for a fixed system size.
This limiting value is size dependent as shown in Fig. \ref{wsatap}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Values of $\beta$ for different $a_{p}$}
\label{tabalbe}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline \hline
$L$ & $a_{p} = 0.1$ & $a_{p} = 0.3$ & $a_{p} = 0.5$ & $a_{p} = 0.8$ &
$a_{p} = 1.0$ \\
\hline
128 & 0.2911 & 0.271721 & 0.250261 & 0.24836 & 0.228566 \\
256 & 0.289875 & 0.286438 & 0.261282 & 0.25338 & 0.247328 \\
512 & 0.29726 & 0.287251 & 0.270889 & 0.265053 & 0.259155 \\
1024 & 0.298774 & 0.297451 & 0.280052 & 0.275126 & 0.270122 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Fig. \ref{alpap} reveals a power law variation of the roughness exponent
$\alpha$ with $a_p$. The variation appears to follow a fourth order polynomial.
Corresponding to the four distinct regions, three transition times may be
associated. The transition to the rapid growth region from the initial
linear RD region is denoted by $t_r$.
This first transition time, for a given system, is observed to decrease
with increase in $a_{p}$. The deviation from RD is due to the fact that the value of the variance determining the roughness of the interface width increases as particles stick more to corners.
Increase in $a_p$ translates into increased possibility of sticking to corners.
Hence, the deviation from RD begins sooner.
With further deposition of particles, the growth of interface width slows down
and shows a KPZ-like growth. The time for this transition is denoted by $t_k$.
Fig. \ref{tkap} shows the power law dependence of crossover time
$t_{k}$ on $a_{p}$. The logarithmic plot shows $t_{k} \sim a_{p}^{-0.4\pm0.04}$ for large system size.
The saturated crossover time, $t_{sat}$, scales both with the system size $L$ and $a_{p}$ (\ref{tsatap}). It is observed that,
\begin{equation}
t_{sat} \sim L^{z} \;\;\; {\rm where} \;\;\; z = \frac{\alpha}{\beta}
\;\;\; {\rm and} \;\;\; t_{sat} \sim a_{p}^{0.7 \pm 0.03}
\end{equation}
The $z$ value obtained by the linear fit of $t_{sat}$ with system size is
$\sim$ 1.4.
Vacancies or holes in the bulk of the deposit give rise to a porous
structure. The porosity may be defined as the fraction of holes (unoccupied
sites) in the deposit.
For Coulomb type interaction between particles, it is observed that, for any given value of $a_{p}$, the porosity
rapidly increases with time and then saturates as shown in Fig. \ref{pore}. For van der Waals type of interaction, the qualitative nature of the plot is the same. Quantitatively however, the value of porosity is less than that for Coulomb type interaction as shown in Fig. \ref{comppore}.
The saturated porosity is found to be independent of the system size. For a fixed system size, it increases with $a_{p}$. The variation of saturated porosity with $a_{p}$ for both Coulomb and van dr Waals type of interaction is depicted in Fig. \ref{satpore}. The deposit structure formed with van der Waals type of interaction is less porous. A fourth order polynomial gives a good fit to the plot of saturated porosity.
\section{Conclusion}
To summarize, we have studied the bulk and surface properties of deposits formed by particles with varying degrees of stickiness and different inter-particle attractive forces. The stickiness parameter has a more dominant effect on the surface roughness whereas the porosity is rather strongly influenced by the nature of the inter-particle attractive force. In the intermediate stages of growth the surface roughness shows a far steeper rate of increase than in the random or KPZ growth. It would be interesting to derive a continuum stochastic equation corresponding to this growth model and ascertain the role of sticking probability on the coefficient of the various terms of the stochastic equations.
|
\section*{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Analogous to the fact that in generic Hamiltonian systems equilibrium points form a set of isolated points, in generic Hamiltonian systems with symmetry, for each value of the momentum the relative equilibria are isolated. It is therefore reasonable to parametrize the set of relative equilibria by the momentum value, at least locally. As the momentum value varies, one would then expect to see bifurcations occur, and many of these have similar descriptions to bifurcations occurring at equilibria in generic (non-symmetric) Hamiltonian systems, such as saddle-node, pitchfork and Hamiltonian-Hopf bifurcations (see \cite{BLM05} for a review). However there is one class of transition that is due to the `geometry of reduction' and which occurs as a result of the momentum passing through a non-regular value in the dual of the Lie algebra, which for the group $\SO(3)$ means passing through 0. This type of geometric bifurcation was first investigated in \cite{Mo97} in the case where the angular velocity is non-zero even though the angular momentum vanishes. This was extended in \cite{MR99} to zero angular velocity, where there is also an application to the dynamics of molecules.
In this paper we describe these geometric transitions in more detail for the symmetry group $\SO(3)$. The results also apply to other compact Lie groups, where the momentum value passes through a generic point of a reflection hyperplane in the Cartan subalgebra, but not to more degenerate points (see Remark\,\ref{rmk:other groups}). There are two cases to consider, the first is the `generic' one, where the velocity at the zero-momentum relative equilibrium is non-zero (a \emph{transverse relative equilibrium} in the terminology of Patrick and Roberts \cite{PR00}) and in this case the set of relative equilibria forms a smooth curve in the orbit space, as shown by Patrick \cite{Pa99}, and the curve can be naturally parametrized by the momentum. The other case is where the relative equilibrium in question consists of equilibria. Although non-generic in the universe of all symmetric Hamiltonian systems, this is the situation in systems governed by kinetic and potential energies. In this case the set of relative equilibria generically forms three smooth curves in the orbit space, as is familiar from Euler's equations for the rigid body.
The question we address here is how the two are related: start with a relative equilibrium $p$ with zero momentum and zero velocity (that is, a zero-momentum equilibrium), and perturb the Hamiltonian so that the zero momentum relative equilibrium no longer has zero velocity. How does the set of relative equilibria change? We find in particular that in the class of all Hamiltonian systems with $\SO(3)$ symmetry, the zero-momentum equilibrium is of codimension 3: generically it would only be seen in 3-parameter families of such systems.
The most familiar example of an $\SO(3)$-invariant system is the rigid body, with Euler's equations mentioned above, where the reduced picture (in $\so(3)^*\simeq\RR^3$) of the set of relative equilibria consists of three lines through the origin corresponding to the three principal axes of the body, and it follows from results in \cite{MR99} that this persists when the rigid body motion is coupled to shape deformations. Now add terms with the effect that the zero momentum relative equilibrium is no longer an equilibrium. For most deformations, the three lines deform to three non-intersecting curves as shown in Figure\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,(vi), and the branches `reconnect' in different ways according to the specific deformation. This is analogous to how the two lines in the plane with equation $xy=0$ break up and reconnect to form the two branches of a hyperbola with equation $xy=\varepsilon$, and which half-branch connects to which depends on the sign of $\varepsilon$.
In the rigid body, it is well known that two of the branches are Lyapunov stable and one is unstable (even linearly unstable). When coupled with shape oscillations, one of the Lyapunov stable branches becomes linearly stable (elliptic) but not necessarily Lyapunov stable (this is provided the potential energy has a local minimum as a function of shape). The stability type can be followed in the deformation of the Hamiltonian, and we show where the transitions of stability occur in the deformations; one transition (between Lyapunov stable and elliptic) occurs at the point of zero momentum, and the others occur at points on the other branches.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section\,\ref{sec:reduction} we outline the approach we use for calculating relative equilibria based on the energy-Casimir method and the splitting lemma; it is the same method used in \cite{Mo97} and other papers since. In Section\,\ref{sec:family of RE} we state Theorem\,\ref{thm:versal} which uses singularity theory to reduce the calculations of the geometry of the family of relative equilibria for a general family $\kH$ of Hamiltonians, to those of a particularly simple family $\kG$, and we find the relative equilibria for that family.
In Section\,\ref{sec:stability} we study the stabilities of the bifurcating relative equilibria, and in Section\,\ref{sec:rotors} we consider an example of a rigid body (such as a satellite) equipped with three rotors, one parallel to each of the principal axes of inertia to find the family of relative equilibria when the rotors are given either fixed momenta or fixed speeds of rotation.
The paper concludes with Section\,\ref{sec:singularity theory} on singularity theory; this begins with a description of Damon's $\KV$-equivalence, which is the singularity theoretic equivalence required for the proof of Theorem\,\ref{thm:versal}, and then finishes with the proof of that theorem.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank J.E.~Marsden and P.S.~Krishnaprasad for suggesting the example of the system of a rigid body with rotors, which is discussed in Section \ref{sec:rotors}. This paper was completed during a stay at the Centre Interfacultaire Bernoulli (EPFL, Lausanne) and I would like to thank Tudor Ratiu and the staff of the centre for organizing such a productive environment, and for the financial support during my stay. I would also like to thank the referees for their helpful suggestions.
\section{Reduction and slice coordinates}
\label{sec:reduction}
Let $(\kP,\omega)$ be a symplectic manifold with a Hamiltonian action of
$\SO(3)$, which throughout we assume to be a free action. The momentum map is denoted $\JJ:\kP\to\so(3)^*$, which without loss of generality can be assumed to be equivariant with respect to the coadjoint action on $\so(3)^*$, \cite{Mo97,OrtegaRatiu}. Since the action is free, $\JJ$ is a submersion. Given an element $\xi\in\so(3)$ (the Lie algebra), we write $\xi_\kP$ for the associated vector field on $\kP$. Finally, let $H:\kP\to \RR$ be a smooth $\SO(3)$-invariant function, the Hamiltonian.
Throughout this paper we assume we are given a relative equilibrium $p_e$ of this system, with $\JJ(p_e)=0$. That is, at $p_e$ there is an element $\xi\in\so(3)$ for which the Hamiltonian vector field at $p_e$ coincides with $\xi_P(p_e)$. This is equivalent to the group orbit $\SO(3)\cdot p_e$ being invariant under the Hamiltonian dynamics. See for example \cite{Marsden92} or \cite{BLM05} for details.
Since we are interested in existence and bifurcations of relative equilibria near $p_e$, we describe the local normal form for Hamiltonian actions near such a point, and then we will use the normal form then on.
Since $\JJ(p_e)=0$ one has by equivariance that $\JJ(g\cdot p_e)=0$ and hence $\d\JJ(\xi_\kP(p_e))=0$ (for all $\xi\in\so(3)$). It follows that the tangent space to the group orbit $\so(3)\cdot p_e\subset\ker\d\JJ(p_e)$. Let $\kS$ be a slice to the group orbit $\SO(3)\cdot p_e$ at $p_e$ inside the submanifold $\JJ^{-1}(0)$. It turns out (see for example \cite{GLS96}) that the pull-back of the symplectic form to $\kS$ is non-degenerate so that $\kS$ is symplectic (at least, in a neighbourhood of $p_e$). Since the action is free, the normal form of Marle-Guillemin-Sternberg states that there is an $\SO(3)$-invariant neighbourhood of $p_e$ which is $\SO(3)$-symplectomorphic to an invariant neighbourhood $U$ of the point $(e,0,0)$ in the symplectic space $Y$ with momentum map $\JJ_Y:Y\to\so(3)^*$ given by,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MGS}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Y&=&\SO(3)\times \so(3)^* \times \kS,\\[6pt]
\JJ_Y(g,\,\rho,\,v) &=& \mathop\mathrm{Coad}\nolimits_g\rho.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The $\SO(3)$-action on $Y$ is simply $g'\cdot(g,\,\rho,\,v) = (g'g,\,\rho,\,v)$. Since a neighbourhood of $p_e$ in $\kP$ is diffeomorphic to $U\subset Y$, the Hamiltonian $H$ on $\kP$ defines a Hamiltonian on $U$, which we also denote by $H$. This material is standard, and can be found for instance in the book of Ortega and Ratiu \cite{OrtegaRatiu}. {Since all results of this paper are local, from now on we replace $\kP$ by the open set $U$ in $Y$, but then denote it $\kP$. }
Here $\mathop\mathrm{Coad}\nolimits$ is the coadjoint action of $\SO(3)$, and is defined by
$\left<\mathop\mathrm{Coad}\nolimits_g\mu,\,\xi\right> = \left<\mu,\,\mathop\mathrm{Ad}\nolimits_{g^{-1}}\xi\right>$; note that $\mathop\mathrm{Coad}\nolimits_g$ is often written $\mathop\mathrm{Ad}\nolimits_{g^{-1}}^*$. If we consider $\mu\in\so(3)^*\simeq\RR^3$ as a column vector, then $\mathop\mathrm{Coad}\nolimits_g\mu=g \mu$, where the latter is just matrix multiplication.
In practice $\kS$ can often be interpreted as the phase space associated to `shape space', so corresponding to vibrational motions of the system, and $\SO(3)\times\so(3)^*$ as the phase space corresponding to rotational motions. The two types of motion are of course coupled.
We now proceed to pass to the quotient by the free group action, obtaining
\begin{equation} \label{eq:quotient}
\kP/\SO(3) \simeq \so(3)^* \times \kS
\end{equation}
and the \defn{orbit momentum map} is denoted $\jj:\so(3)^*\times\kS\to \RR$ and is independent of $s\in\kS$, just as the momentum map itself
is. For $\SO(3)$, $\jj(\mu,s) = \|\mu\|^2$ for a coadjoint-invariant norm on $\so(3)^*$; {when using coordinates we take $\|\mu\|^2={\textstyle \frac12}(x^2+y^2+z^2)$.} The reduced space $\kP_\mu\subset \kP/\SO(3)$ is then
$$\kP_\mu=\jj^{-1}(\|\mu\|^2) = \kO_\mu\times\kS,$$
where $\kO_\mu\subset \so(3)^*$ is the coadjoint orbit through $\mu$, which is the 2-sphere containing $\mu$ if $\mu\neq0$ and degenerates to a point when $\mu=0$.
\paragraph{Energy-Casimir method} Now let $H$ be an $\SO(3)$-invariant smooth Hamiltonian on $\kP$. It descends to a smooth function on the orbit space $H:\kP/\SO(3)\to\RR$. Write $H_\mu$ for the restriction of $H$ to the reduced space $\kP_\mu$; this is called the reduced Hamiltonian on $\kP_\mu$. Since $H(\mu,s)=H(g,\mu,s)$ (which by hypothesis is independent of $g$), from now on we abuse notation and do not distinguish $H$ from $H$.
\defH{H}
Relative equilibria of the Hamiltonian system are solutions of the Lagrange multiplier problem $\d H - \xi\,\d\JJ$ on $\kP$; moreover the Lagrange multiplier $\xi\in(\so(3)^*)^*\simeq\so(3)$ can be interpreted as the angular velocity of the relative equilibrium. Equivalently, they are critical points of the reduced Hamiltonian $H_\mu$, for the appropriate value of $\mu$. See for example \cite{Marsden92} for details.
At points where $\mu\neq0$, $\jj$ is nonsingular so the critical points of $H_\mu$ are solutions of the \emph{reduced} Lagrange multiplier problem
\begin{equation} \label{eq:LagrangeMultiplier}
\d H - \lambda\, \d\jj=0
\end{equation}
for some $\lambda\in\RR$. Since $\jj(\mu,s)=\|\JJ(g,\mu,s)\|^2$ it follows that $\d\jj=2\,\JJ\cdot\d\JJ$ and comparing the two Lagrange multiplier equations one finds that $\xi$ and $\lambda$ are related by $\xi = 2\lambda\mu$, whenever $\mu\neq0$. Note that as $\mu\to0$ one may have $\lambda\to\infty$ so allowing $\xi\neq0$ with $\mu=0$.
On the other hand, at points where $\mu=0$, the restriction $H_0$ of $H$ to $\kP_0 = \{0\}\times\kS$ has a critical point wherever $\d_s H=0$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:non-degenerate}
A relative equilibrium at $\bar p\in\kP_\mu$ is said to be \emph{non-degenerate} if the hessian $\d^2H_\mu(\bar p)$ is non-degenerate.
This is equivalent to $\d_s^2H(p)$ being non-degenerate.
\end{definition}
We will be interested in the family of relative equilibria in a neighbourhood of a non-degenerate relative equilibrium with zero momentum. Under this non-degeneracy assumption, it follows from the implicit function theorem that in a neighbourhood of $\bar p_e=(0,s_e)$ in $\kP/\SO(3)$ we can solve the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defn of s of mu}
\d_sH(\mu,s) = 0
\end{equation}
uniquely for $s=s(\mu)$. In other words $\d_s H(\mu,s(\mu)) \equiv 0$, and these are the only zeros of $\d_s H(\mu,s)$ in a neighbourhood of $(0,s_e)$.
Now define the function,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defn of h}
\begin{array}{rcl}
h:\so(3)^* &\longrightarrow & \RR \\
\mu\; &\longmapsto& H(\mu,s(\mu)).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In fact this $h$ is only defined in a neighbourhood of the origin in $\so(3)^*$, but to save on notation we will ignore that here and continue to write $h:\so(3)^*\to\RR$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:reduced re}
Assume $\mu\neq0$.
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x=(\mu,s(\mu))\in\kP/\SO(3)$ is a relative equilibrium of the Hamiltonian system,
\item the map $(h,\,\jj):\so(3)^*\to\RR^2$ is singular at $\mu$,
\item $\d h(\mu) - \lambda\,\d\jj(\mu)=0$ for some $\lambda\in\RR$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Note that at $\mu=0$, (1) and (2) are equivalent, while (3) might not be. Furthermore, at any relative equilibrium, the differential $\d h(\mu) \in (\so(3)^*)^*\simeq \so(3)$, and can be identified with the velocity of the relative equilibrium (which is also an element of $\so(3)$). Details are in \cite{Mo97}.
\begin{proof}
At $x=(\mu,s(\mu))$ one has $\d H = (\d_\muH,0) = (\d h,0)$, so (\ref{eq:LagrangeMultiplier}) is satisfied if and only if $\d h=\lambda \,\d\jj$, which is equivalent to $(h,\,\jj)$ being singular at $x$ since $\jj$ is non-singular when $\mu\neq0$.
\end{proof}
Applications of this approach can be found in \cite{MR99} (to relative equilibria of molecules) and in \cite{LMR01} (to relative equilibria of point vortices).
\paragraph{Parametrized version}
We will be interested in a parametrized family $H_u$ of $\SO(3)$-invariant Hamiltonians, with parameter $u\in U$, where $U$ is an open subset of $\RR^d$ for some $d$.
Write $\kH(z;u) = H_u(z)$ for such a family. We assume $\kH$ is a smooth $\SO(3)$-invariant function on $\kP\times U$, where $\SO(3)=\SO(3)$ acts trivially on $U$. Assume $0\in U$ and $H_0$ has a non-degenerate relative equilibrium at $p_e=(0,s_e)$.
The arguments of the previous paragraph can be extended to a parametrized family with no difficulty. For example the map $s$ obtained from solving (\ref{eq:defn of s of mu}) is now a map $s:\so(3)^*\times U\to \kS$, and one defines in the same way a smooth family of functions,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defn of h family}
\begin{array}{rcl}
h:\so(3)^*\times U &\longrightarrow & \RR \\
(\mu,\,u)\; &\longmapsto& H(\mu,s(\mu,u),u).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
And as in Proposition \ref{prop:reduced re}, the map $(h_u,\,\jj):\so(3)^*\to\RR^2$ is singular at $\mu\neq0$ if and only if the point $(\mu,\,s(\mu,\,u))$ is a relative equilibrium of $H_u$.
Notice that there are two types of parameter in this problem: firstly for a given Hamiltonian $H=H(g,\mu,s)$ (which is independent of $g$) there is a family of relative equilibria which is essentially parametrized by $\mu\in\so(3)^*$ (an \emph{internal} parameter), and secondly we consider a \emph{family} of such Hamiltonians, parametrized by an \emph{external} parameter $u\in U$. The family of relative equilibria parametrized by $\mu$ (i.e.\ those of $H_\mu$) will then vary from one value of $u$ to another, and the aim of this paper is to study precisely how a particular type of family varies with an external parameter. The particular type of family in question being one with a generic relative equilibrium with zero momentum and zero velocity deforming to one with non-zero velocity. {It should perhaps be pointed out that there is a potential conflict of notation: $H_\mu$ is the reduced Hamiltonian (and $h_\mu$ is similar) while $H_u$ (and $h_u$) is the element of a family. Which is used at any time should be clear from the context (in fact, $H_\mu$ and $h_\mu$ are only used again in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:stability xi neq 0}), and in particular, the $H_0$ used in the next section refers to $H_u$ with $u=0$.}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:other groups}
The analysis in this paper is also valid for systems with symmetry group $\SU(2)$. Moreover, it is also applicable to systems with compact symmetry group of rank greater than 1, provided the action on $\kP$ is free and the momentum value lies in a generic point of a wall of the Weyl chamber. The argument is briefly as follows. Let $G$ be a compact Lie group of rank $\ell$ say, and $p\in \kP$ is such that $\JJ(p)=\alpha\in\gg^*$ then one can find a symplectic cross section $R$ (see \cite{GLS96} or \cite{MT03}) which reduces the original system to a system invariant under $G_\alpha$. Let $Z_\alpha\lhd G_\alpha$ be its centre, which is a (submaximal) torus of dimension $r$ say. By reducing by $Z_\alpha$ one obtains a system invariant under $K:=G_\alpha/Z_\alpha$, with $\JJ_K(p)=0$ and we have $\mathop\mathrm{rk}\nolimits(K)=\ell-r$. In particular, if $\alpha$ is a generic point of one of the reflection hyperplanes of the Weyl group action then $r=\ell-1$, so $K$ is a group of rank 1, which means it is isomorphic to either $\SO(3)$ or $\SU(2)$.
Finding a description of the geometry of the set of relative equilibria in an analogous family near points deeper in the walls of the Weyl chamber (points fixed by subgroups of the Weyl group larger than $\ZZ_2$) remains an open problem. However, the set of relative equilibria near such a momentum value but with generic (regular) velocity is described in \cite{Pa95} and \cite{Mo97} {(in the first of these it is shown that the set of nearby relative equilibria forms a smooth submanifold, and in the second that for each nearby momentum value, the number of relative equilibria with that momentum value is equal to the order of an appropriate Weyl group).}
\end{remark}
\section{The family of relative equilibria}
\label{sec:family of RE}
The main aim of this paper is to determine the behaviour of the family of relative equilibria in a neighbourhood of a non-transverse (relative) equilibrium when the Hamiltonian is deformed, so making it transverse in the sense of Patrick and Roberts \cite{PR00}.
For the organizing centre of our family, we consider an invariant Hamiltonian $H=H_0$ which has an \emph{equilibrium} $p_e$ with zero momentum value $\JJ(p_e)=0$, and we assume the equilibrium is non-degenerate in the sense of Definition \ref{def:non-degenerate}. {Applying the procedure described after that definition, we have a function $h=h_0$ on $\so(3)^*$ whose linear part vanishes}. So after rotating the axes if necessary, the Taylor series of $h_0$ begins,
$$h_0(x,y,z) = ax^2+by^2+cz^2 + O(3),$$
where $\mu=(x,y,z)$, and $O(3)$ represents terms of order 3. The genericity assumption we make throughout is that the coefficients $a,b,c$ are distinct, and we will assume $a>b>c$.
The set $\kR_0=\kR(H_0)$ of relative equilibria near $(0,0)\in\so(3)^*\times\kS$ coincides with the set of critical points of $(h_0,\,\jj):\so(3)^*\to \RR^2$. That is,
$$\kR_0 = \left\{\mu\in\so(3)^* \mid \mathop\mathrm{rk}\nolimits F(\mu)\leq1\right\},$$
where $F(\mu)$ is the Jacobian matrix at $\mu$ of $(h_0,\,\jj)$, and $\mathop\mathrm{rk}\nolimits F(\mu)$ is the rank of that matrix.
The aim now is to study the geometry of the set of relative equilibria of any deformation of $H_0$ and hence of $h_0$. Consider any family of $\SO(3)$-invariant Hamiltonian systems containing $H_0$ as above, and let $\kH$ be the resulting deformation of $H_0$ parametrized by $u\in U$, and for each $u\in U$ write $h_u$ for the corresponding reduced Hamiltonian on $\so(3)^*$ as constructed above---see (\ref{eq:defn of h}).
To study the family $\kR(\kH)$ of relative equilibria of any given family $\kH$, we describe an auxilliary `universal' 3-parameter family $\kG$ of functions $G_{\bm{\alpha}}$ on $\so(3)^*$, with $\bm{\alpha}\in\RR^3$, based on the function $G_0$ which is just the quadratic part of the given $h_0$. Using singularity theory techniques we show that the family $\kR(\kH)$ of relative equilibria for the given deformation $\kH$ is the inverse image under a smooth map $\varphi$ of the family $\kR(\kG)$ of `relative equilibria' of $\kG$ (that is of critical points of $(G_{\bm{\alpha}},\jj)$), and then in Section~\ref{sec:study-univ-family} below we study the geometry of this universal family.
Thus, given $h_0(\mu)=ax^2+by^2+cz^2+O(3)$ as above, with $a>b>c$, we define
$$G_0(\mu) = ax^2+by^2+cz^2$$
where $\mu=(x,y,z)$, and a deformation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G family}
\kG(x,y,z;\,\alpha,\beta,\gamma) = G_0(x,y,z) + \alpha x +\beta y+\gamma z\,;
\end{equation}
for brevity we write $\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ for the parameter, so we have $G_{\bm{\alpha}}(\mu) = \kG(\mu;\,\bm{\alpha})$. Although the functions $G_{\bm{\alpha}}$ are an artefact of the problem, and not related directly to the dynamics of $H_u$, we do refer to their relative equilibria as if they did arise as Hamiltonians. Notice that the relative equilibria of the family $\kG$ correspond to critical points of $(G_{\bm{\alpha}},\,\jj)$, {which by Lagrange multiplier theory are the points of tangency of the ellipsoid/hyperboloid $G_{\bm{\alpha}}(\mu)=\mathrm{const}.$ with the sphere $\jj=\mathrm{const}$.}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:versal}
Let $H_0$ be an $\SO(3)$-invariant Hamiltonian with zero linear part as above (in particular, $a,b,c$ distinct), and let $\kH$ be an $\SO(3)$-invariant deformation of $H_0$ with parameter space $U$. With the construction above, defining the family\/ $\kG$ from $H_0$, there exists a neighbourhood $U'$ of\/ $0$ in $U$, and a smooth map
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Phi:\so(3)^*\times U'&\longrightarrow& \so(3)^*\times\RR^3\\
(\mu,\,u) &\longmapsto & (\Phi_1(\mu,\,u),\,\varphi(u))
\end{eqnarray*}
with $\varphi(0)=0$, such that $(\mu,u)\in\kR(\kH)$ if and only if\/ $\Phi(\mu,u)\in\kR(\kG)$.
In particular, if for each $u\in U'$, we define $\Phi_u:\so(3)^*\to \so(3)^*$, by $\Phi_u(\mu) := \Phi_1(\mu,u)$ then $\Phi_u$ is a diffeomorphism which identifies the set $\kR(H_u)$ with the set $\kR(G_{\varphi(u)})$.
\end{theorem}
In other words, the family $\kG$ provides in some sense a \emph{versal} deformation of $H_0$, and in particular the set $\kR(H_u)$ of relative equilibria of a perturbation $H_u$ of $H_0$ is diffeomorphic to the set of relative equilibria of $G_{\varphi(u)}$. The precise sense of `versal' here is with respect to the $\kK_V$-equivalence of the map $F=\d(h,\,\jj)$, where $V$ is the set of $2\times3$ matrices of rank at most 1. A description of this equivalence and the proof of the theorem are given in Section \ref{sec:singularity theory}.
The structure of the set $\kR(\kH)$ is therefore derived from that of $\kR(\kG)$, and the geometry of the latter is described in the remainder of this section. The stabilities of the relative equilibria arising in the perturbed Hamiltonians $H_u$ are discussed in Section\,\ref{sec:stability}.
\subsection{Study of the `universal' family \texorpdfstring{$\kG$}{G}} \label{sec:study-univ-family}
Let $\kG(x,y,z)$ be as given in (\ref{eq:G family}), with $a>b>c$ distinct, as in the theorem above. The relative equilibria $\kR(\kG)$ for this family occur at points where $(G_{\bm{\alpha}},\jj)$ is singular, by Proposition \ref{prop:reduced re}, where $\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$. Then
$$\RE(\kG) = \left\{(\mu,\,\bm{\alpha})\in\RR^6\mid
\mathop\mathrm{rk}\nolimits\,F_{\bm{\alpha}}(\mu)\leq1\right\}.$$
where $F_{\bm{\alpha}}$ is the Jacobian matrix of $(G_{\bm{\alpha}},\,\jj)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:F-alpha}
F_{\bm{\alpha}}(x,y,z) = \pmatrix{2ax+\alpha & 2by+\beta & 2cz+\gamma \cr x & y & z }.
\end{equation}
Here we have taken $\jj(\mu)=\|\mu\|^2={\textstyle \frac12}(x^2+y^2+z^2)$.
Thus $\kR(\kG)$ is given by the vanishing of the three minors of the matrix, so by the three equations
$$\begin{array}{lcl}
2(b-c)yz + \beta z - \gamma y &=& 0\\
2(c-a)zx + \gamma x -\alpha z &=& 0\\
2(a-b)xy + \alpha y -\beta x &=& 0.
\end{array}$$
If these three minors are denoted $A,B$ and $C$ respectively, then there is an algebraic relation, namely $xA + yB + zC =0$ (as there is between the minors of any matrix).
When $\bm{\alpha}=0$, the equations become $xy=yz=zx=0$, whose solutions form the three coordinate axes, see Figure\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,(i) (the colours in the figure refer to stability of different branches, which is discussed in Section\,\ref{sec:stability}).
For each $\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha,\,\beta,\,\gamma)\in\RR^3$, we have the smooth map $F_{\bm{\alpha}}:\RR^3\to \Mat(2,3)$ (the space of $2\times3$ matrices). Notice that the origin in $\RR^6$ is the only point $(\mathbf{x},\bm{\alpha})$ where $F(\mathbf{x},\bm{\alpha})$ is a matrix of rank less than 1. Let $V\subset\Mat(2,3)$ consist of those matrices of rank at most 1, and let $V^\circ$ denote its relative interior; that is, the set of matrices of rank equal to 1. So $V$ is the union of $V^\circ$ and the zero matrix. The set of relative equilibria for $G_{\bm{\alpha}}$ is
$\kR_{\bm{\alpha}} = F_{\bm{\alpha}}^{-1}(V).$
Now, $V^\circ$ is a (locally closed) submanifold of $\Mat(2,3)$ of dimension 4 and codimension 2; indeed the Lie group $\GL(2)\times\GL(3)$ acts by change of bases on $\Mat(2,3)$ and has three orbits corresponding to the rank of the matrix: the origin, $V^\circ$ and $\Mat(2,3)\setminus V$. If we can show that $F$ or $F_{\bm{\alpha}}$ is transverse to $V$, then it follows that away from the origin $\kR(\kG)$ is a submanifold of $\RR^6$, or respectively $\kR(G_{\bm{\alpha}})$ is a submanifold of $\so(3)^*\simeq\RR^3$, in both cases of codimension 2.
\begin{lemma}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The map $F:\RR^6\to \Mat(2,3)$ is an invertible linear map and hence transverse to $V$; consequently $\kR(\kG)$ is smooth (of dimension 4) except at the origin.
\item For $\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)\in\RR^3$, the map $F_{\bm{\alpha}}:\RR^3\to\Mat(2,3)$ is transverse to $V$ if and only if\/ $\alpha,\beta$ and $\gamma$ are all nonzero.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
This lemma tells us that the \emph{discriminant} $\Delta=\Delta(\kG)$ of the family $\kG$ is the subset of the unfolding space $\RR^3$ where $\alpha\beta\gamma=0$, which is the union of the three coordinate planes, see Figure\,\ref{fig:discriminant}, and for $\bm{\alpha}\not\in\Delta$ the set $\kR_{\bm{\alpha}}$ of relative equilibria is a smooth 1-dimensional submanifold of $\so(3)^*$; that is, it is a union of smooth curves.
\begin{figure}
\centering\psset{unit=0.9}
\begin{pspicture}(-3,-2.5)(3,3)
\psline(-2,0)(-2,2)(2,2)(2,-2)(0,-2)
\psline(-2,-0.5)(-2,-2)(-1,-2)
\psline(0,-2)(-1,-2.5)(-1,1.5)(1,2.5)(1,2)
\psline(-2,0)(-3,-0.5)(1,-0.5)(3,0.5)(2,0.5)
\rput(1.7,-1.7){$\Delta_2$}
\psline{->}(0,0)(0,2.5) \rput(-0.2,2.6){$\gamma$} \psline(0,-0.5)(0,-2)
\rput(0.3,1){$\Delta_1$}
\psline{->}(0,0)(2.5,0) \rput(2.6,-0.2){$\beta$} \psline(-1,0)(-2,0)
\psline{->}(0,0)(-1.5,-0.75) \rput(-1.4,-0.95){$\alpha$}
\end{pspicture}
\caption{The discriminant $\Delta$ in parameter space is the union of three planes} \label{fig:discriminant}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof} (1) This is obvious from (\ref{eq:F-alpha}) above.
(2) Let $\hat\mathbf{x}=(\hat x,\,\hat y,\, \hat z)\in T_{\mu}\RR^3\simeq\RR^3$. Then
$$\d F_{\bm{\alpha}}(\hat\mathbf{x}) = \pmatrix{a\hat x & b\hat y & c\hat z \cr \hat x & \hat y& \hat z}.$$
Now, if $A\in V^\circ$ then $\mathop\mathrm{rk}\nolimits A=1$ and the tangent space to $V$ at $A$ is
$$T_AV = \{B\in\Mat(2,3) \mid \mathbf{q} BK=0\}$$
where $\mathbf{q}\in\RR^2$ is a non-zero row-vector with $\mathbf{q} A=0$, and $K$ is a $3\times2$ matrix whose image spans $\ker A$.
To see this, let $A(t)$ be a smooth curve in $V$ with tangent vector $B$ at $A=A(0)$, and let $\mathbf{q}(t)$ and $K(t)$ be the corresponding row-vector and matrix. Differentiating the condition $\mathbf{q}(t)A(t)=0$ gives $\dot\mathbf{q} A+\mathbf{q} B=0$ and multiplying on the right by $K$ implies $\mathbf{q} BK=0$; this shows that $T_AV$ is a subset of the $B$ with $\mathbf{q} BK=0$, and a dimension count shows they are in fact equal.
Because $\d F_{\bm{\alpha}}$ is injective, in order to show $F_{\bm{\alpha}}$ is transverse to $V$ one needs to find two independent vectors $\hat\mathbf{x}_1, \hat\mathbf{x}_2$ such that $B_j := \d F_{\bm{\alpha}}(\hat\mathbf{x}_j)\not\in T_AV,\;(j=1,2)$. The choice of the $\hat\mathbf{x}_j$ depends on the point $\mu$ in question.
A series of straightforward calculations in different cases ($x\neq0$, $\alpha\neq0$,\dots) show that indeed for $\bm{\alpha}\not\in\Delta$, $F_{\bm{\alpha}}$ is transverse to $V$ and $F_{\bm{\alpha}}(\mu)\neq0$. If on the other hand $\alpha=0$ but $\beta\gamma\neq0$ then $F_{\bm{\alpha}}$ fails to be transverse to $V$ at the point
$$\mu=\left(0,\,\frac{\beta}{2(a-b)},\, \frac{\gamma}{2(a-c)}\right).$$
which is therefore the singular point of $F_{\bm{\alpha}}^{-1}(V)$---it is in fact a crossing of two components of the curve. A similar scenario occurs if $\beta=0,\,\alpha\gamma\neq0$ or if $\gamma=0,\,\alpha\beta\neq0$.
Furthermore, if $\alpha=\beta=0$ but $\gamma\neq0$ then there are two points where transversality fails:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pitchfork points}
\mu=\left(0,\,0,\,\frac{\gamma}{2(b-c)}\right),\quad\mbox{and}\quad \mu=\left(0,\,0,\,\frac{\gamma}{2(a-c)}\right).
\end{equation}
Similarly if $\beta=\gamma=0$ or $\alpha=\gamma=0$ there are two singular points, given by analogous expressions. In the case $\alpha=\gamma=0$ the two pitchfork points arise one on each side of the origin, at
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pitchfork points2}
\mu=\left(0,\,-\frac{\beta}{2(b-c)},\,0\right),\quad\mbox{and}\quad \mu=\left(0,\,\frac{\beta}{2(a-b)},\,0\right).
\end{equation}
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:deformations}\,(iv). Recall that we take $a>b>c$.
\end{proof}
With $\Delta$ the discriminant, let $\Delta_0 = \{0\}$, $\Delta_1$ be the set consisting of the points where precisely two of the planes intersect (ie, the union of the three axes without $\Delta_0$), and $\Delta_2$ the remaining points of $\Delta$. Then,
$$\Delta = \Delta_0 \cup \Delta_1 \cup \Delta_2,$$
this being a disjoint union. $\Delta_1$ has 6 connected components, while $\Delta_2$ has 12. The geometry of the singular set of the deformation $(G_{\bm{\alpha}},\jj)$ (that is, the set of relative equilibria) depends on which stratum $\bm{\alpha}$ is in, as shown in the proof above. The descriptions are as follows (refer to Figure\,\ref{fig:deformations}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\psset{unit=0.85,linewidth=1.5pt}
\centering
\begin{pspicture}(-2,-3)(3,2)
\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,-1.7)(0,2)
\psline[linecolor=Unstable](-2,0)(2,0)
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](-1.4,-0.7)(1.4,0.7)
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(0,-2.5){(i) $\bm{\alpha} = (0,0,0)$}
\end{pspicture}
\quad
\begin{pspicture}(-3,-3)(2,2)
\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](-0.6,-2)(-0.6,1.6)
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](1.4,0.7)(0,0)
\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,0)(-0.6,-0.3)
\psline[linecolor=Unstable](-0.6,-0.3)(-1.2,-0.6)
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](-1.2,-0.6)(-2,-1)
\pscircle[fillcolor=white,linecolor=white,fillstyle=solid](-0.6,-0.6){0.1}%
\psline[linecolor=Unstable](-3.2,-0.6)(0.8,-0.6)
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(-0.6,-2.5){(ii) $\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha,0,0)$}
\end{pspicture}
\quad
{\begin{pspicture}(-2,-3)(2,2.5)
\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,0)(0,2)
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](0,0)(0,-0.5)
\psline[linecolor=Unstable](0,-0.5)(0,-1)
\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,-1)(0,-2.2)
\psline[linecolor=Unstable](-2,-1)(2,-1)
\pscircle[fillcolor=white,linecolor=white,fillstyle=solid](-1,-1){0.3}
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](-1.6,-1.3)(1.4,0.2)
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(0,-2.5){(iii) $\bm{\alpha}=(0,0,\gamma)$
\end{pspicture}}
\begin{pspicture}(-3,-4.5)(2,2)
\psline[linecolor=Unstable](-2,0)(-0.5,0)
\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](-0.5,0)(0,0)
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](0,0)(0.7,0)
\psline[linecolor=Unstable](0.7,0)(2,0)
\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](-0.5,-1.7)(-0.5,2)
\pscircle[fillcolor=white,linecolor=white,fillstyle=solid](-0.5,-0.6){0.15}%
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](-0.7,-0.7)(2.1,0.7)
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(-0.6,-3.5){(iv) $\bm{\alpha}=(0,\beta,0)$}
\end{pspicture}
{\begin{pspicture}(-4,-5)(3,2)
\psplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{0.18}{0.7}{x 0.1 sub -1 exp x mul -1.5 mul}
\psplot[linecolor=Unstable]{0.7}{2}{x 0.1 sub -1 exp x mul -1.5 mul}
\psplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{0}{0.05}{x 0.1 sub -1 exp x mul -1.5 mul
\psplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{-0.1}{0}{x 0.1 sub -1 exp x mul -1.5 mul
\psplot[linecolor=Unstable]{-2.2}{-0.1}{x 0.1 sub -1 exp x mul -1.5 mul
\pscircle[linecolor=white,fillcolor=white,fillstyle=solid](-1.6,-1.4){0.2}
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](-2,-1.6)(1.3,-0.05)
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(0,-4){(v) $\alpha=0,\; \gamma>\beta>0$}
\end{pspicture}}
{\begin{pspicture}(-3,-5)(2,2)
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{-2.0}{-0.3}{t 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.2 mul t add t 2 mul 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.5 mul t 0.5 mul add}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Unstable]{-0.3}{-0.11}{t 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.2 mul t add t 2 mul 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.5 mul t 0.5 mul add}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Unstable]{-0.09}{-0.07}{t 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.2 mul t add t 2 mul 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.5 mul t 0.5 mul add}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{-0.07}{-0.055}{t 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.2 mul t add t 2 mul 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.5 mul t 0.5 mul add}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{-0.043}{0}{t 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.2 mul t add t 2 mul 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.5 mul t 0.5 mul add}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{0}{2.0}{t 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.2 mul t add t 2 mul 0.1 add -1 exp t mul -0.5 mul t 0.5 mul add}
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(0,-4){(vi) $\gamma>\beta>\alpha>0$}
\end{pspicture}}
\caption{Deformations of $\kR_0$. Each diagram shows $\kR_{\bm{\alpha}}$ (up to diffeomorphism) for the corresponding values of $\bm{\alpha}$. The large dot on one of the curves in each diagram represents the origin $\mu=0$.
(i) corresponds to $\bm{\alpha}=0$, (ii), (iii) and (iv) to $\bm{\alpha}$ in three different components of $\Delta_1$, (v) to $\bm{\alpha}$ in one of the components of $\Delta_2$ and (vi) to $\bm{\alpha}\not\in\Delta$. The colours of the branches refer to their stability: red for Lyapunov stable, green for elliptic and brown for linearly unstable, see Sec.\,\ref{sec:stability}.} \label{fig:deformations}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item For $\bm{\alpha}\not\in\Delta$ (so away from the discriminant: i.e.\ a generic deformation) the set $\RE_{\bm{\alpha}}$ of relative equilibria is formed of three smooth disjoint curves; see Figure\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,(vi). (The almost-corners in the figure are artefacts of the projection.) Before deformation when $\bm{\alpha}=0$, there are 3 lines through the origin or 6 `rays', and on deformation the rays are reconnected in such a way that opposite rays are no longer connected together. There are 8 possible ways this can be done, corresponding to the 8 components in the complement of the discriminant (the 8 octants). The origin must always lie on one of the 3 curves and is marked by the dot in the figure. For such a Hamiltonian, for small values of $\mu$ there are precisely two relative equilibria, both lying on the component passing through $0$, and as $\|\mu\|$ is increased there are two saddle-centre bifurcations, each creating a pair of relative equilibria. These bifurcations occur at the points closest to the origin on each of the other two components (i.e., where the sphere $\kO_\mu$ of the appropriate radius first touches the curve as $|\mu|$ increases from 0). See Fig.\,\ref{fig:bifurcations} for an illustration of the different types of bifurcation.
\item For $\bm{\alpha}\in\Delta_2$ ---a generic point of the discriminant--- two of the branches of $\RE_{\bm{\alpha}}$ intersect at a single singular point; see Figure\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,(v). The system determined by such a deformation undergoes a pitchfork bifurcation at this singular point and a saddle-centre bifurcation on the other branch as $\|\mu\|$ is increased from 0.
\item For $\bm{\alpha}\in\Delta_1$ there are two crossings in $\RE_{\bm{\alpha}}$: the curve through $\mu=0$ meets both the other curves (at different points). There are therefore two pitchfork bifurcations in this system as $\|\mu\|$ is increased from 0. Since $a,b,c$ are distinct it follows from equation (\ref{eq:pitchfork points}) that the two bifurcations occur at different values of $\|\mu\|$. See Figures\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,(ii)--(iv).
\end{itemize}
Theorem \ref{thm:versal} shows that the family or relative equilibria for $\kH$ is diffeomorphic to that from $\kG$ (or more generally can be induced from it by a map $\varphi$ on parameters). However, this does not imply that where one has, for example, a sub-critical pitchfork so does the other---in fact it is not straightforward to match the stability types. This is however proved in Theorem \ref{thm:stability xi=0}, so the conclusions above are relevant to a wider class of $\kH$ and not just to $\kG$.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{fish1.ps}\qquad
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{fish0.ps}\qquad
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{fish-1.ps}
Saddle-centre bifurcation
\vskip 5mm
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{subpitch-1.ps}\qquad
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{subpitch0.ps}\qquad
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{subpitch1.ps}
\centerline{Subcritical pitchfork bifurcation}
\vskip 5mm
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{suppitch1.ps}\qquad
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{suppitch0.ps}\qquad
\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=2cm]{suppitch-1.ps}
\centerline{Supercritical pitchfork bifurcation}
\caption{Illustration of the three bifurcation types that occur}
\label{fig:bifurcations}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The energy-momentum discriminant of \texorpdfstring{$\kG$}{G}}
\begin{figure}[p]
\psset{linewidth=1.5pt,unit=0.9}
\centering
{\begin{pspicture}(-1,-4)(3.5,2)
\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](0,0)(2,2)
\psline[linecolor=Unstable](0,0)(2.8,0)
\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,0)(2,-2)
\rput(1,-3.1){(i) ${\bm{\alpha}}=0$}
\psdot(0,0)
\end{pspicture}}
{\begin{pspicture}(-1,-4)(3.5,2)
\psset{unit=.5}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{-2.2}{0}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub -1 mul}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{0}{1}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub -1 mul}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{1}{3.2}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub -1 mul}
\rput(0.125,-.375){\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,0)(3.5,-3.5)}
\rput(0.5,-0.55){\psline[linecolor=Unstable](0,0)(4,0)}
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(3,-6.2){(ii) ${\bm{\alpha}}=(\alpha,0,0)\in\Delta_1$}
\end{pspicture}}
{\begin{pspicture}(-0.5,-3.5)(4,3)
\psset{unit=3}
\rput(0,0.3){
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{-0.5}{0}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub -1 mul}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{0}{0.55}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub -1 mul}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Unstable]{0.5}{1}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub -1 mul}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{1}{1.6}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub -1 mul}
\rput(0.12,-.375){\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,0)(0.5,-0.5)}
\rput(0.5,-0.507){\psline[linecolor=Unstable](0,0)(0.8,0.01)}
\psdot(0,0)}
\rput(0.7,-0.85){(ii') ${\bm{\alpha}}=(\alpha,0,0)\in\Delta_1$}
\end{pspicture}}
{\begin{pspicture}(-1,-4)(3.5,2)
\psset{unit=.5}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{-2.2}{0}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{0}{1}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{1}{3.2}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub}
\rput(0.125,.375){\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](0,0)(3.5,3.5)}
\rput(0.5,0.55){\psline[linecolor=Unstable](0,0)(4,0)}
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(3,-6.2){(iii) ${\bm{\alpha}}=(0,0,\gamma)\in\Delta_1$}
\end{pspicture}}
{\begin{pspicture}(-0.5,-3.5)(4,3)
\psset{unit=3}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{-0.5}{0}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{0}{0.55}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Unstable]{0.5}{1}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{1}{1.6}{t 2 exp 2 div t t 2 exp 2 div sub}
\rput(0.12,.375){\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](0,0)(0.5,0.5)}
\rput(0.5,0.507){\psline[linecolor=Unstable](0,-0.01)(0.8,-0.01)}
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(0.7,-0.85){(iii') ${\bm{\alpha}}=(0,0,\gamma)\in\Delta_1$}
\end{pspicture}}
{\begin{pspicture}(-1,-3.8)(3.5,3)
\psset{unit=0.5}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Unstable]{-3}{-1}{t 2 exp 2 div t}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{-1}{0}{t 2 exp 2 div t}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{0}{1}{t 2 exp 2 div t}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Unstable]{1}{3}{t 2 exp 2 div t}
\rput(0.5,1){\psline[linecolor=Elliptic](0,0)(3.5,3.5)}
\rput(0.5,-1){\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,0)(3.5,-3.5)}
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(3,-6){(iv) ${\bm{\alpha}}=(0,\beta,0)\in\Delta_1$}
\end{pspicture}}
{\begin{pspicture}(-1,-3.8)(3.5,3)
\psset{unit=3}
\def\alphaiszero{ 2 t 2 exp mul 10 t mul 1 sub 2 exp div %
t 2 exp 2 div add
t 2 exp 2 div %
2 t mul 5 10 t mul 1 sub mul div add %
t 10 div sub}
\rput(0.02125, -0.04375){\psline[linecolor=Lyapunov](0,0)(0.7,-0.7)
\parametricplot[plotpoints=200,linecolor=Elliptic]{-1.2}{0}{\alphaiszero}%
\parametricplot[plotpoints=200,linecolor=Lyapunov]{0}{0.05}{\alphaiszero}%
\parametricplot[plotpoints=200,linecolor=Unstable]{0.06}{0.087}{\alphaiszero}%
\parametricplot[plotpoints=100,linecolor=Unstable]{.117}{0.3}{\alphaiszero}%
\parametricplot[plotpoints=100,linecolor=Elliptic]{0.25}{1.3}{\alphaiszero}%
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(0.4,-1){(v) ${\bm{\alpha}}=(0,\beta,\gamma)\in\Delta_2$}
\end{pspicture}}
{\begin{pspicture}(-1,-3.8)(3.5,3)
\psset{unit=3}
\def\generalcase{
4.5 t 2 exp mul 20 t mul 1 sub 2 exp div %
2 t 2 exp mul 10 t mul 1 sub 2 exp div add %
0.5 t 2 exp mul add
4.5 t 2 exp mul 20 t mul 1 sub 2 exp div %
0.5 t 2 exp mul sub %
0.9 t mul 20 t mul 1 sub div sub %
0.4 t mul 10 t mul 1 sub div sub %
0.1 t mul add}
\parametricplot[plotpoints=100,linecolor=Lyapunov]{-1}{0}{\generalcase}
\parametricplot[plotpoints=100,linecolor=Elliptic]{0}{0.0435}{\generalcase}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Unstable]{0.1168}{0.3}{\generalcase}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Lyapunov]{0.3}{1.1389}{\generalcase}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Elliptic]{0.056}{0.07}{\generalcase}
\parametricplot[linecolor=Unstable]{0.07}{0.087}{\generalcase}
\psdot(0,0)
\rput(0.4,-1){(vi) ${\bm{\alpha}}=(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)\not\in\Delta$}
\end{pspicture}}
\caption{Energy-momentum discriminants for the family $\kG$: the magnitude of the momentum increases to the right in each diagram. The curves are the images of the sets of relative equilibria for the different values of $\bm{\alpha}$. (ii$^\prime$) is an expanded view of (ii), and similarly (iii') of (iii).
\emph{Caveat}: see Remark \ref{rmk:double lines}\,(1). The colours refer to the stability of the relative equilibria, as in Figure\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,---\,see also \S\,\ref{sec:stability}.}
\label{fig:EM-discriminants}
\end{figure}
The map $(h_{\bm{\alpha}},\jj)$ we are considering is the reduced energy-momentum map, and its singular set is the set $\kR_{\bm{\alpha}}$ of relative equilibria. Its \emph{discriminant} is the image $(h_{\bm{\alpha}},\jj)(\kR_{\bm{\alpha}})\subset\RR^2$, and the fibres of the reduced energy-momentum map are diffeomorphic within each connected component of the complement of this discriminant. It is therefore useful to know what this discriminant looks like.
It is important to be aware that the $\kK_V$-equivalence we use to reduce a general family to $\kG$ by a change of coordinates, does not respect the discriminant; that is, two maps which are equivalent in our sense do not necessarily have diffeomorphic discriminants. Bearing that in mind, the discriminants of the universal family $\kG$ are shown in Figure\,\ref{fig:EM-discriminants}, and a brief description of how they might appear for other families is given in Remark\,\ref{rmk:double lines}\,(1) below.
For the universal family $\kG$, the discriminant of $(G_0,\,\jj)$ consists of 3 rays as in Figure\,\ref{fig:EM-discriminants}\,(i). On a perturbation along the singular set $\Delta_1$ of the unfolding discriminant it may look like (ii), (iii) or (iv) (depending on the component); for a generic point of the unfolding discriminant the perturbation may be of the form in (v), while a generic deformation is shown in (vi).
\begin{remarks}\label{rmk:double lines}
(1) In general, if $H_0$ has higher order terms, the straight lines in Figure\,\ref{fig:EM-discriminants} may not be straight. Moreover, in the diagrams these lines are doubly covered by the energy-momentum map $(h_0,\jj)$, in that each point on one of the lines corresponds to 2 distinct relative equilibria. If $H_0$ is not an even function they would be expected to `open up' and become cusps of some order. For example, comparing Figures\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,(i) and \ref{fig:EM-discriminants}\,(i) (both with $\bm{\alpha}=0$) each line in the first maps 2--1 to the corresponding ray in the second, and for a Hamiltonian which is not even, the rays in the latter figure would become cusps.
\smallskip
\noindent(2) It would be natural to attempt a classification of the reduced energy-momentum maps via \emph{left-right equivalence} ($\mathcal{A}$-equivalence), which consists of equivalence via diffeomorphisms in source and target. The diffeomorphism in the source would then relate the singular sets of the two maps and the one in the target would relate the discriminants. However, the map $(\jj,G_0)$ is of infinite codimension with respect to this equivalence, because the map from the singular set $\RE$ to the discriminant is not 1--1 (it is in fact 2--1 away from the origin as pointed out above). If we were to add appropriate cubic terms to $H_0$ or $G_0$, the $\mathcal{A}$-codimension of the map would become finite (though considerably higher than 3) but calculations would be harder, and would also not be valid in settings where the higher order terms are absent, as in the example of \S\ref{sec:rotors}.
\noindent(3) There has been no mention of what happens to the equilibrium in the family. Since an equilibrium corresponds to a critical point of the Hamiltonian, and for $\bm{\alpha}=0$ the Hamiltonian (or the reduced function $h$) has a non-degenerate critical point at the origin, under any perturbation this non-degenerate critical point must persist. Though it will no longer be at the origin, it will necessarily lie on one of the branches of the set of relative equilibria. However, the $\KV$-equivalence we use does not respect critical points of $h$ (only critical points of $h$ relative to $\jj$) so we cannot use the universal family $\kG$ to determine its location. The (unique) equilibrium will lie at some general point of one of the curves, and not, as might first be thought, at a bifurcation point. Calculations suggest that which curve it is on depends on the signs of $a,b,c$, and that in the most physical case where all are positive, it lies on the branch that contains the point with zero momentum, and moreover it lies on the Lyapunov stable side of the zero momentum point. But this has not been proved in general.
\end{remarks}
\section{Stability of the relative equilibria}
\label{sec:stability}
There are well-developed methods for proving the Lyapunov stability of relative equilibria, based on Dirichlet's criterion for the stability of an equilibrium. Since we are assuming the original action of $\SO(3)$ is free, the reduced spaces are smooth manifolds---indeed, we have seen they are of the form $\kO_\mu\times\kS$---and the Dirichlet criterion for \emph{reduced Lyapunov stability} (that is, Lyapunov stability on the reduced space) is that the Hessian of the reduced Hamiltonian $h_\mu$ should be positive or negative definite at the (relative) equilibrium in question. Under this hypothesis, the relative equilibrium in the full phase space $\kP$ is $G$-Lyapunov stable \cite{Marsden92}, and it is shown by Lerman and Singer \cite{LS99}, based on work of Patrick \cite{Pa92}, that moreover it is Lyapunov stable relative to the possibly smaller group $G_\mu$, where $\mu$ is its momentum value, see also \cite{OrtegaRatiu}. In \cite{Mo97,MT03} it is shown that if the Hessian is definite (in which case the relative equilibrium is \emph{extremal}) then on each nearby reduced space there is also an extremal (hence stable) relative equilibrium.
If the momentum $\mu$ is non-zero, then the coadjoint orbits form a smooth foliation near $\mu$, and hence so do the reduced spaces near $(\mu,s)$. Furthermore, if the reduced Hamiltonian has a non-degenerate critical point at $(\mu,s)$ then it does so for nearby reduced spaces as well (as observed essentially by Arnold \cite[Appendix 2]{MMCM}, at least in the case $\kS=0$), and if one Hessian is definite so are all nearby ones.
On the other hand, if $p$ is a non-degenerate relative equilibrium with momentum $\mu=0$, then the local structure depends on the value of the velocity $\xi$. If $\xi\neq0$ the situation was first studied by Patrick \cite{Pa95}, also by the author \cite{Mo97} and again in more detail by Patrick \cite{Pa99}, where he considers the eigenvalues of the linear approximations to the flow at such relative equilibria. We begin by considering the stability of nearby relative equilibria in this case, and afterwards we consider the case where both $\mu$ and $\xi$ are zero.
Returning to the decomposition (\ref{eq:quotient}), and the Hamiltonian $H(\mu,s)$, the Poisson Hamiltonian system on $\kP/G\simeq \so(3)^*\times\kS$ is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reduced equations}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
\dot\mu &=& -\mathop\mathrm{coad}\nolimits_{D_\muH}\mu,\\
\dot s &=& J D_sH.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Here $J$ is the usual symplectic/Poisson structure matrix on $\kS$. Linearizing these equations at the origin gives
$$\pmatrix{\dot\mu\cr \dot s} = L\pmatrix{\mu\cr s},$$
with
$$L = \pmatrix{-\mathop\mathrm{coad}\nolimits_\xi& 0\cr C & J D^2_sH}$$
and where $\xi=D_\mu H(0,0)\in\so(3)$, and $C=J D^2_{s\mu}H(0,0)$ which is a linear map $\so(3)\to\kS$. The spectrum of $-\mathop\mathrm{coad}\nolimits_\xi$ is equal to $\bigl\{0,\pm\ii|\xi|\bigr\}$. More details can be found in \cite{Pa99,PR00}.
Write $L_0 = J D_s^2H(0,0)$. If the spectra of $L_0$ and of $-\mathop\mathrm{coad}\nolimits_\xi$ are disjoint, then a change of coordinates (or choice of symplectic slice) can be chosen to eliminate the matrix $C$. If on the other hand, the spectra are not disjoint, one says there is a rotation-vibration resonance, and the matrix $C$ contributes a nilpotent term to the linear system. See Remark \ref{rmk:stability}\,(c) below for further comments.
Recall \cite{MHO} that an infinitesimally symplectic matrix is said to be,
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{spectrally stable} if its spectrum is pure imaginary,
\item \emph{linearly stable} or \emph{elliptic} if it is spectrally stable with zero niloptent part,
\item \emph{strongly linearly stable} if it lies in the interior of the set of linearly stable matrices,
\item \emph{linearly unstable} if it has an eigenvalue with non-zero real part.
\end{itemize}
An equilibrium is said to be spectrally stable, elliptic, strongly linearly stable or linearly unstable if the linear part of the Hamiltonian vector field has the corresponding property. Note that if an equilibrium point is linearly unstable then it is also nonlinearly unstable. In any continuous family of (relative) equilibria, no matter how it is parametrized, the transitions from one stability type to another occur only at points where the spectrum has a double eigenvalue. This could be at zero, in the transition between spectrally stable and unstable, and where the Hessian matrix of the Hamiltonian becomes degenerate, or a double imaginary eigenvalue (with mixed sign) resulting usually in a Hamiltonian-Hopf bifurcation and a change again from spectrally stable to unstable. The difference between linear stability and Lyapunov stability (in the full nonlinear system) lies with the `Krein sign' of the linear vector field, which is a question of whether the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian is positive definite or not---this is Dirichlet 's criterion for (Lyapunov) stability. If the Hamiltonian is definite (positive or negative) then the equilibrium is strongly stable, and if a pair of complex conjugate eigenvalues crosses the origin but remains on the imaginary axis, then there is a transition from Lyapunov stable to elliptic. See \cite{BLM05} for more details.
\subsection{Zero momentum, non-zero velocity}
We now present the first stability theorem appropriate for relative equilibria with zero momentum but non-zero velocity.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:stability xi neq 0}
Suppose $G=\SO(3)$ acts freely on $\kP$ as before, with equivariant momentum map $\JJ$. Suppose that $p_0\in \kP_0$ (zero momentum) is a non-degenerate relative equilibrium with non-zero angular velocity $\xi\in\so(3)$. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item there is a neighbourhood of $p_0$ in $\kP/G$ such that the relative equilibria in the neighbourhood form a smooth curve through $p_0$ intersecting each nearby reduced space in precisely 2 points;
\item if the Hessian of the reduced Hamiltonian $\d^2H_0(p_0)$ is definite then on one side of $p_0$ on the curve the relative equilibrium will be Lyapunov stable, and if there is no rotation-vibration resonance then on the other it will be elliptic.
\item if $p_0$ is strongly linearly stable and there is no rotation-vibration resonance then throughout a neighbourhood of $p_0$ on the curve the equilibrium will be elliptic;
\item if $p_0$ is linearly unstable, then throughout the curve (in a neighbourhood of $p_0$), the relative equilibria will all be linearly unstable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remarks} \label{rmk:stability}
(a) The transition between Lyapunov stable and elliptic relative equilibria described in part (2) can be seen in Figure\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,(ii)--(vi), where the black dot represents the point $\mu=0$.\\
(b) In the case that $\kP_0$ is just a point (so $\kS=0$), the relative equilibria will be Lyapunov stable throughout the curve; see the example of the rigid body with rotors described in \S\ref{sec:rotors}.\\
(c) The rotation-vibration resonance was introduced in \cite{Pa99}. If there is a rotation-vibration resonance and $C\neq0$ then it might be expected to see a singular Hamiltonian-Hopf bifurcation along the curve of relative equilibria (singular because it occurs at $\mu=0$, where the dimension of the reduced space changes). This possibility was also suggested at the very end of \cite{Mo97}, and to the author's knowledge has not yet been investigated as a bifurcation. An example of this phenomenon can be found in systems of point vortices---see \cite[\S 9]{LMR11}.
\end{remarks}
\begin{proof}
(1). Except for the intersection with reduced spaces, this is proved in \cite{Pa95}. Here we summarize the argument using the constructions described here in Section\,\ref{sec:reduction}.
We define the function $h:\so(3)^*\to\RR$ as in (\ref{eq:defn of h}), and we have $\d h(0)=\xi\neq0$. Now $h_\mu$ is the restriction of $h$ to the sphere through $\mu$ and it follows that for small $\mu$ there are precisely two critical points of $h_\mu$, and as $\mu$ varies these form a smooth curve through $\mu=0$.
\noindent(2) and (3). For each small, non-zero value of $\mu$, the function $h_\mu$ has an isolated minimum and an isolated maximum on the sphere $\kO_\mu$, and no other critical points. Suppose for (2) that $D_s^2H(p_0)$ is \emph{positive} definite (the argument for negative definite being similar), then the point which is a local minimum of $h_\mu$ will be Lyapunov stable, because at that point the reduced Hamiltonian on $P_\mu$ will also have a non-degenerate local minimum.
On the other hand, for the local maximum $\nu$ of $h_\mu$, and for both critical points in case (3), the function $H_\mu$ will have a critical point at $p=(\nu,s(\nu))$ for which the Hessian is indefinite. However, the spectrum of $L_\mu=L\restr{T_pP_\mu}$ will be a perturbation of the union of the spectra of $L_0$ and $\mathop\mathrm{coad}\nolimits_\xi$ excluding the zero, and by hypothesis these are purely imaginary and disjoint. Moreover, in (2) the assumption that $\d^2H_0(p)$ is positive definite implies that $L_0$ is strongly linearly stable. Thus in both (2) and (3) any sufficiently small perturbation of it has purely imaginary eigenvalues. It follows that the spectrum of $L_\mu$ will also be pure imaginary for $\mu$ sufficiently small.
\noindent (4). This follows a similar argument. The spectrum of $L_\mu$ will contain perturbations of the spectrum of $L_0$, and as the latter has a non-zero real part, so will the former.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Zero momentum, zero velocity}
We now turn to the unfolding of the relative equilibrium $p$ with $\mu=0$ and $\xi=0$, as in Theorem \ref{thm:versal}. Now, the equivalence relation used for the theorem only respects the set of relative equilibria; it does not respect dynamics, nor even the level sets of the energy-momentum map so one cannot \emph{a priori} deduce the stability of the bifurcating relative equilibria from studying the normal form $\kG$.
On the other hand, stability only changes (along a branch of relative equilibria) through one of the two scenarios as described above.
Recall that the unfolding discriminant $\Delta$ of $\kG$ consists of three planes in $\RR^3$, that $\Delta_2$ denotes the open strata (regular points of $\Delta$) and $\Delta_1$ the points where two planes intersect; that is, $\Delta$ is the disjoint union of $\Delta_2$, $\Delta_1$ and the origin (see Figure\,\ref{fig:discriminant}). It follows from Theorem \ref{thm:versal} that the unfolding discriminant of any other family based on $H_0$ is pulled back from this $\Delta$ by some smooth map $\Phi$. The following theorem justifies the pictures and stabilities shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:deformations}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:stability xi=0}\parindent=0pt
Let $\kH$ be a family of\/ $\SO(3)$-invariant Hamiltonians, with parameter $u\in U$, and with $H_0$ having a non-degenerate relative equilibrium at $p_0\in\kP_0$ with $D_s^2H_0(p_0)$ positive definite, and with $D_\nu H_0(p_0) = 0$ (so the velocity is zero). Assume moreover that $D^2_\nu H_0(p_0)$ is a quadratic form whose three eigenvalues (with respect to an $\SO(3)$-invariant inner product on $\so(3)^*$) are distinct. (This is the setting of Theorem\,\ref{thm:versal}.) Let $\varphi:U\to\RR^3$ be the map given by Theorem\,\ref{thm:versal}, inducing $\kH$ from $\kG$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a neighbourhood of $p_0$ in $\kP/G$ in which the set of relative equilibria for $H_0$ consists of three curves; along one of these the relative equilibria are Lyapunov stable, along another they are elliptic and along the third they are linearly unstable.
\item There is a neighbourhood $M$ of the origin in $\so(3)^*$ such that, for
$u\in U$ with $\varphi(u)\neq0$,
(i) if $\mu\in M$ is sufficiently small there are two relative equilibria as in Theorem \ref{thm:stability xi neq 0}, of which one is Lyapunov stable and the other elliptic;
For parts (ii)--(iv) we assume the Hamiltonian is analytic:
(ii) for $\varphi(u)\not\in\Delta$, as $\|\mu\|$ is increased, there are two saddle-centre bifurcations, one producing a Lyapunov stable relative equilibrium (\textsc{re}) and an unstable \textsc{re}, while the other produces an elliptic \textsc{re}\ and an unstable \textsc{re};
(iii) for $\varphi(u)\in\Delta_2$ and $\mu\in M$, as $\|\mu\|$ is increased further, again one of the \textsc{re}\ persists, and the other undergoes a supercritical\footnote{after a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation, a stable \textsc{re}\ becomes two stable \textsc{re} s and one unstable one, see Fig.\,\ref{fig:bifurcations}} pitchfork bifurcation; there is also a saddle-centre bifurcation. Whether it is the Lyapunov stable or elliptic \textsc{re}\ that bifurcates depends on which connected component of\/ $\Delta_2$ contains $\varphi(u)$\,;
(iv) for $\varphi(u)\in\Delta_1$, as $\|\mu\|$ is increased, one \textsc{re}\ persists, while the other undergoes two successive supercritical pitchfork bifurcations. Which persists and which bifurcates will depend on which component of\/ $\Delta_1$ contains $\varphi(u)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
In Figures\,\ref{fig:deformations} and\,\ref{fig:EM-discriminants}, (i) corresponds to part (1) of the theorem, (ii)--(iv) to part 2(iv), (v) to part 2(iii) and (vi) to part 2(ii). Note that the theorem does not imply that all these cases arise for every family: it is certainly possible that the image of $\varphi$ is contained in $\Delta_1$, for example.
\begin{proof}
(1) The existence of the three curves is part of the calculations in \S\,\ref{sec:study-univ-family}.
And the stability part is proved in \cite[Section 2.5]{MR99}.
\noindent(2)
(i) For $u\neq0$ we have $D_\nu H_u(0)\neq0$, consequently the relative equilibrium has non-zero velocity ($\xi\neq0$), and since $\xi$ is continuous function of $u$, it follows that for $u$ sufficiently small there is no rotation-vibration resonance, so this follows from Theorem \ref{thm:stability xi neq 0}.
\noindent(ii)
For each perturbation $H_u$, with $u\not\in\Delta$ the set $\kR$ consists of three disjoint curves, as described in \S\,\ref{sec:study-univ-family}. By Lemma\,\ref{lemma:multiplicity} below, the restriction of the function $\jj$ to the curve $R_\alpha$ has at most 4 critical points in a fixed neighbourhood of the origin (for sufficiently small values of $\alpha$). Now in this fixed neighbourhood of the origin, $\jj$ is increasing and on each curve reaches its maximum at the ends (for sufficiently small values of $\alpha$). The function therefore has at least one minimum on each branch, and in general an odd number of critical points (counting multiplicity) on each branch. The only way that is compatible with the upper bound of 4 is that there is a single non-degenerate critical point of $\jj$ on each branch, and so 3 in all. Now one of the branches passes through the origin, where $\jj$ reaches its minimum value of $0$, while on the other two branches, the minimum will be a point where the branch is tangent to the momentum sphere (coadjoint orbit), so producing a saddle-centre bifurcation point. These will be the two points of bifurcation mentioned in the theorem.
There remains to show that the saddle-centre bifurcations involve the creation of critical points with the stated stability properties. This is true for the model family $\kG$ by direct calculation. Now consider a 1-parameter family of systems perturbing $\kG$ to $\kH$. By the multiplicity argument above, no other critical points are introduced, so the index of each critical point is the same for $\kG$ as the corresponding one for $\kH$, and the stability type depends only on the index.
\noindent(iii), (iv). Here the proof is analogous to part (ii), but more straightforward as the pitchfork bifurcations will correspond to points where the map $\d(h,\jj)$ is not transverse to $V$, a property preserved by the equivalence we use in the proof above of Theorem\,\ref{thm:versal}, so is clearly preserved by the diffeomorphism. If the pitchfork bifurcations were transcritical rather than sub- or super-critical then this would involve extra critical points which we know from the lemma below cannot happen. The type of pitchfork and stability properties is the same in the family $\kH$ as for $\kG$ by the homotopy argument given above.
That there are no other bifurcations or loss of stability, except those involving an eigenvalue becoming zero, follows because there is no rotation-vibration resonance, so the spectra from the rotation part and the shape part are disjoint, and so can be continued with no extra multiple eigenvalues occurring.
\end{proof}
\begin{remarks}
(i) If the hypothesis that $D^2_sH_0$ is positive definite is replaced by that of $L_0=JD^2_sH_0$ being strongly linearly stable, then the conclusions of the theorem are the same, but with Lyapunov stable replaced by elliptic throughout. On the other hand, if $L_0$ is linearly unstable, then all the existence and bifurcation statements are the same except that all the \textsc{re}\ are likewise linearly unstable.\\
(ii) In the proof of 2(ii) we need to assume the Hamiltonian is analytic in order to use methods of commutative algebra to estimate the number of critical points (see Lemma\,\ref{lemma:multiplicity} below); it would be surprising if this were an essential hypothesis.
\end{remarks}
In the proof above we used the following lemma, which we prove using some commutative algebra based on ideas of Bruce and Roberts \cite{BR88}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:multiplicity}
There is a neighbourhood $U_1$ of the origin in $\so(3)^*$ and a neighbourhood $U_2$ of\/ $0$ in $\RR^3$ such that for all $\alpha\in U_2$ the restriction of the function $\jj$ to $\kR_\alpha$ has at most 4 critical points in $U_1$, counting multiplicity.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $f$ be a smooth function on a manifold $M$. The restriction of $f$ to a submanifold $X$ has a critical point at $x\in X$ if the graph of the differential 1-form $\d f$ intersects the conormal variety $N^*X$ at a point over $x$ (this is all in the cotangent bundle $T^*M$). The conormal variety is the bundle over $X$, given by
$$\left\{(x,\lambda)\in T^*M \mid x\in X,\; \lambda\in (T_xX)^\circ\right\}.$$
Here $(T_xX)^\circ$ is the annihilator of the tangent space $T_xX$. The total space of this bundle has the same dimension as the ambient manifold $M$. The multiplicity of the critical point is equal to the intersection number of the graph and the conormal bundle. This multiplicity can be defined using modules of vector fields tangent to $X$, or using the sum of the ideals defining the graph of $\d f$ and the conormal bundle of $X$.
When $X$ is singular, the conormal bundle is replaced by the so-called logarithmic characteristic variety $LC^-(X)$ which is essentially the union over the (logarithmic) strata of $X$ of the closure of the conormal bundle to each stratum, see \cite{BR88} for details. Under certain algebraic conditions (namely $LC^-(X)$ should be Cohen-Macaulay), and providing everything is complex analytic, the multiplicity is preserved in deformations of the function, and without this algebraic condition the multiplicity is upper semicontinuous \cite[Proposition 5.11]{BR88}.
We need to extend this by allowing the variety to deform as well as the function, but the semicontinuity is a general algebraic property, regardless of how the data deforms (provided the dimensions are constant).
To return to our setting, first consider the central case with $\alpha=0$, and neglect the higher order terms in the Hamiltonian, so we are in the setting of \S\,\ref{sec:study-univ-family}, and consider everything complex. The variety $\kR_0$ consists of the three axes in $\CC^3$, and the function $\jj={\textstyle \frac12}(x^2+y^2+z^2)$. We are interested in critical points of $\jj$ restricted to $\kR_0$ (and later to $\kR_\alpha$).
This clearly has a single critical point, namely the origin, so we need to understand its multiplicity.
The variety $LC^-(\kR_0)\subset T^*\CC^3\simeq\CC^6$ consists of a 3-dimensional subspace for each of the axes, and a further one for the stratum $\{0\}$. Explicitly, if we use the coordinates $(k,\ell,m)$ in the dual space (to form $T^*\CC^3$) then the union of the four 3-dimensional subspaces is,
$$LC^-(\kR_0)=\{x=y=m=0\}\cup\{y=z=k=0\}\cup\{z=x=\ell=0\}\cup\{x=y=z=0\}.$$
The ideal of this variety is $\left<xy,yz,zx,xk,y\ell,zm\right>$. Now the graph of $\d \jj$ is the set $\{k=x,\;\ell=y,\;m=z\}$, and a calculation shows that the algebraic intersection number is 4 (in fact the variety $LC^-(\kR_0)$ is Cohen-Macualay so the algebraic and geometric multiplicities coincide). That is, $\jj$ has a critical point of multiplicity 4 at the origin.
Now we wish to deform the set $\kR_0$ to $\kR_\alpha$ (which is smooth as $\alpha\not\in\Delta$), and take the new conormal variety but defined with the higher order terms of $H$ included and at the same time add in the higher order terms to $H$.
Under this deformation, the multiplicity cannot increase (it remains constant if the whole family of conormal varieties is Cohn-Macaulay \cite{BR88}, but this turns out not to be the case here, explaining why the 4 ultimately drops to 3 in the course of the proof of Theorem\,\ref{thm:stability xi=0}). It follows that in the deformed setting there are at most 4 (complex) critical points, and therefore at most 4 real ones, as claimed.
\end{proof}
\section{Example: rigid body with rotors}
\label{sec:rotors}
We give an application to the system consisting of a free rigid body with three freely rotating rotors attached so that their respective axes lie along the three principal axes of the body \cite{K85,BKMS92,MaSc93}. The configuration space for this system is the Lie group $G=\SO(3)\times\TT^3$, where $\TT^3=S^1\times S^1\times S^1$ which acts by rotation of the three rotors. A matrix $A\in \SO(3)$ corresponds to the attitude of the rigid body, while the components of $\bm{\theta}=(\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3) \in\TT^3$ are the angles of rotation of the three rotors, relative to the body.
The Lagrangian of this system is given by the kinetic energy, which in a principal basis is
$$L={\textstyle \frac12} \bm{\omega}^T (\II-\II_r)\bm{\omega} + {\textstyle \frac12}(\bm{\omega}+\dot{\bm{\theta}})^T\II_r(\bm{\omega}+\dot{\bm{\theta}}).$$
Here $\II_r$ is the diagonal matrix whose entries are the respective moments of inertia of the rotors about their axes, $\II$ is the inertia tensor of the rigid body with the rotors locked to the body and $\bm{\omega}\in \RR^3\simeq\so(3)$ is the angular velocity vector in the body; we assume $\II-\II_r$ is invertible. For details see Sec.~3 of \cite{BKMS92}, where $\bm{\omega}$ is denoted $\Omega$ and $\dot{\bm{\theta}}$ is denoted $\Omega_r$.
The corresponding momenta are therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rotors Legendre}
\begin{array}{rclcl}
\bm{\mu} &=& \partial L/\partial\bm{\omega} &=& \II\,\bm{\omega} + \II_r\dot{\bm{\theta}}\,,\\
\bm{\sigma} &=& \partial L/\partial\bm{\dot\theta} &=& \II_r(\bm{\omega}+\dot{\bm{\theta}}).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Here $\bm{\mu}\in\so(3)^*$ is the angular momentum in the body, and $\bm{\sigma}\in\tt^*=\RR^3$ is the \emph{gyrostatic momentum} ($\bm{\mu}$ is denoted $m$ and $\bm{\sigma}$ is denoted $\ell$ in \cite{BKMS92}). The Hamiltonian is then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rotor hamiltonian}
H = {\textstyle \frac12}(\bm{\mu}-\bm{\sigma})^T(\II-\II_r)^{-1}(\bm{\mu}-\bm{\sigma}) + {\textstyle \frac12} \bm{\sigma}^T\II_r^{-1}\bm{\sigma}
\end{equation}
The momentum map for the $G$-action is
$\JJ(A,\bm{\theta},\bm{\mu},\bm{\sigma}) = (A\bm{\mu},\,\bm{\sigma})$.
Indeed, $A\bm{\mu}$ is the angular momentum of the body in space, and $\bm{\sigma}$ is the conserved quantity due to the $\TT^3$-symmetry of the system, the gyrostatic momentum.
\subsection{The free system}
As a first step to analyzing the system as it is (with no external constraints), we reduce by the free $\TT^3$-action putting $\bm{\sigma}$ constant. This gives the reduced Hamiltonian on $T^*\SO(3)$,
$$H_{\bm{\sigma}}(A,\bm{\mu}) = {\textstyle \frac12}(\bm{\mu}-\bm{\sigma})^T(\II-\II_r)^{-1}(\bm{\mu}-\bm{\sigma}) $$
(the other term in (\ref{eq:rotor hamiltonian}) is now a constant so can be ignored). When $\bm{\sigma}=0$, $H_0$ is the usual rigid body Hamiltonian ${\textstyle \frac12} \bm{\mu}^T(\II-\II_r)^{-1} \bm{\mu}$ which is homogeneous of degree 2, as is $G_0$ ---see prior to Theorem \ref{thm:versal}.
Varying $\bm{\sigma}$ gives a straightforward example of the family $\kG$. Indeed if $(\II-\II_r)^{-1}=\mathrm{diag}[a,b,c]$ and $\bm{\sigma}=-(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ then $H_{\bm{\sigma}}$ here is precisely $G_{\bm{\alpha}}$ from Theorem \ref{thm:versal} with $\bm{\alpha}=-\bm{\sigma}$, so it does not depend on Theorems \ref{thm:versal} or \ref{thm:stability xi=0}, just on the calculations of Section\,\ref{sec:family of RE}.
For the stability, let $\bm{\mu}=(x,y,z)$ and $(\II-\II_r)^{-1} = \mathrm{diag}[a,b,c]$ with $a>b>c$. Then with $\bm{\sigma}=0$ the $x$- and $z$-axes consist of stable relative equilibria, and the $y$-axis of linearly unstable relative equilibria, as for the ordinary free rigid body. Note that here the $\TT^3$-reduced system is a phase space of dimension 6 so the symplectic slice at $\bm{\mu}=0$ reduces to 0 and we are in the situation of Remark\,\ref{rmk:stability}\,(b), so all elliptic \textsc{re}\ are in fact Lyapunov stable.
Now suppose we consider $\bm{\sigma}=(\sigma_1,0,0)$ with $\sigma_1\neq0$. In other words we have `activated' the rotor along the principal direction of lowest moment of inertia (although looking at (\ref{eq:rotors Legendre}) shows the idea of `activation' is not entirely accurate) This will give a family of relative equilibria as in Fig.\,\ref{fig:deformations}\,(ii) (and with all green curves being made red). This means that if the satellite is given a small angular momentum, there are two relative equilibria, both rotating about the axis with the activated rotor, and both are stable. As the angular momentum is increased, one of these (the one of lower energy) will undergo a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation---see Fig.\,\ref{fig:bifurcations}---so that the rotation about the axis becomes unstable, while there are two new relative equilibria, rotating about axes initially close to the given axis. As the angular momentum increases further, the unstable \textsc{re}\ stabilizes again, and two new unstable \textsc{re}\ appear.
A similar scenario occurs if we activate the rotor along the axis of greatest moment of inertia, except here it is the \textsc{re}\ with greater energy (for given angular momentum) that loses stability in a supercritical bifurcation, before stabilizing again.
If instead the rotor along the middle axis is activated, there are again two stable \textsc{re}\ and as $\|\bm{\mu}\|$ is increased, they both lose stability in supercritical pitchfork bifurcations; which one occurs first depends on the relative values of $a,b,c$ (if $a-b=b-c$ then they occur simultaneously).
The reader is invited to supply the storyline if two or three of the rotors are activated, following Fig.\,\ref{fig:deformations}. But in every case, it should be noted that \textsc{re}\ with sufficiently small angular momentum $\bm{\mu}$ are always stable if $\bm{\sigma}\neq0$, which is the setting of Theorem\,\ref{thm:stability xi neq 0}.
Note that the energy-momentum discriminants in Figure\,\ref{fig:EM-discriminants} are in fact accurate for this system, as the Hamiltonian is of degree 2.
\subsection{A controlled version}
Now suppose the rotors are used as control mechanisms, and their angular velocities relative to the body can be fixed. That is, put $\dot\theta_i = u_i$, fixed (a constraint). The Lagrangian is then
$$L={\textstyle \frac12} \bm{\omega}^T (\II-\II_r)\bm{\omega} + {\textstyle \frac12}(\bm{\omega}+{\bm{u}})^T\II_r(\bm{\omega}+{\bm{u}}),$$
where $\mathbf{u}\in\RR^3$ is constant.
The corresponding Hamiltonian, with variables $A, \bm{\mu}$ is
$$H(A,\bm{\mu}) = {\textstyle \frac12}\bm{\mu}^T\II^{-1}\bm{\mu} - \bm{\mu}^T\II^{-1}\bm{\alpha}
$$
where $\bm{\alpha} = \II_r\dot{\bm{\theta}}$ (a constant vector whose components are the angular momenta of the spinning rotors).
The three components of $\bm{\alpha}$ give three coefficients in place of $\dot{\bm{\theta}}$, which unfold the singularity occurring when $\bm{\alpha}=0$, and provided the three principal moments of inertia of the rigid body are distinct, we obtain the same unfolding as described above, and again the Hamiltonian is of degree 2 so the energy-momentum discriminants shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:EM-discriminants} are accurate.
\section{Singularity theory and deformations}
\label{sec:singularity theory}
In this section we use techniques from singularity theory to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:versal}. Recall from Section~\ref{sec:reduction} that given an $\SO(3)$-invariant Hamiltonian $H$ on $\kP$ we define the reduced Hamiltonian $h:\so(3)^*\to\RR$, and the set $\RE\subset \so(3)^*$ of relative equilibria coincides with the set of critical points of the energy-Casimir map
$$(h,\jj) = \left(h(x,y,z),\,{\textstyle \frac12}(x^2+y^2+z^2)\right).$$
Thus $\RE$ is the set where the rank of the Jacobian matrix,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:d(phi,h)}
F(x,y,z) = \d(\jj,h) = \left[\matrix{h_x& h_y& h_z\cr x&y&z}\right]
\end{equation}
is at most 1. Let $V\subset \Mat(2,3)$ consist of all $2\times3$ matrices of rank at most 1. Then $\RE=F^{-1}(V)$. {Here $h$ is a single (reduced) Hamiltonian, so corresponds to $h_0$ from earlier sections, and similarly $F$ corresponds to $F_0$ (ie, with $\bm{\alpha}=0$).}
Perturbations of the Hamiltonian $H$ produce perturbations of the Jacobian matrix $F$, and hence deformations of $\kR=F^{-1}(V)$. Singularity theory provides a technique for deciding which deformations of $F^{-1}(V)$ arise by perturbing $F$, and the appropriate equivalence relation on $F$ is called $\KV$-equivalence and was introduced by Damon \cite{Damon-1987}, see also \cite{Damon-1991}. We recall this briefly before continuing with the proof.
Let $F,G:X\to Y$, and let $V\subset Y$ (everything in sight should be considered as germs). Then $F$ and $G$ are said to be $\KV$-equivalent if there is a diffeomorphism $\psi$ of $X$ and a diffeomorphism $\Psi$ of $X\times Y$ preserving $X\times V$ and of the form $\Psi(x,y) = (\psi(x),\, \psi_1(x,y))$, such that
$$\Psi(x,\, F(x)) = (\psi(x),\, G(\psi(x)))\,;$$
that is, $\Psi$ maps the graph of $F$ to the graph of $G$. It follows in particular that $\psi(F^{-1}(V))=G^{-1}(V)$, so that these two sets are diffeomorphic. If $V$ is just a point, then this reduces to ordinary $\mathcal{K}$-equivalence.
There are several rings and modules we need to consider. For $F:X\to Y$, let $\kE_X$ and $\kE_Y$ be the rings of germs at 0 of $C^\infty$ functions on $X$ and on $Y$ respectively. Similarly, $\theta_X$ and $\theta_Y$ are the modules over $\kE_X$ and $\kE_Y$ of germs of vector fields on $X$ and $Y$ respectively. For $V\subset Y$ we write $\theta_V$ for the submodule of $\theta_Y$ consisting of vector fields tangent to $V$ (often denoted $\mathrm{Derlog}(V)$ in the singularity theory literature). And finally one writes $\theta(F)$ for the $\kE_X$-module of `vector fields along $F$', meaning sections of the pull back of $TY$ to $X$ via $F$, or more prosaically if $X$ and $Y$ are linear spaces, $\theta(F)$ is the $\kE_X$ module of all germs at $0$ of maps $X\to Y$
In our setting, $X=\RR^3$, $Y=\Mat(2,3)$, and $V\subset Y$ is the set of matrices of rank at most 1. Now, there is a natural action of $\GL(3)\times\GL(2)$ on $\Mat(2,3)$ given by $(A,B)\cdot M = A M B^{-1}$, and of course this action preserves $V$; indeed, $V$ consists of just two orbits of this action: the origin and the set of matrices of rank equal to 1. The infinitesimal version of this action gives a map $\gl(2)\times\gl(3)\to \theta_Y$, whose image therefore lies in $\theta_V$. Write $\theta_V'\subset\theta_V$ for the $\kE_Y$-module generated by these vector fields. (It seems likely that $\theta_V'=\theta_V$, though for the computations we will see that in fact $\theta_V'$ suffices.)
Now, $\dim(\gl(3)\times\gl(2))=13$, but the element $(I,-I)$ acts trivially, so that $\theta_V'$ has 12 generators; they are vector fields such as
$$\pmatrix{a_{11}&a_{12}&a_{13}\cr 0&0&0}, \quad \pmatrix{0&0&0 \cr a_{11} &a_{12}&a_{13}}, \quad \pmatrix{0&a_{11}&0\cr 0&a_{21}&0},\quad\dots
$$
Here the matrix $(u_{ij})$ refers to the vector field $\sum_{i,j} u_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial a_{ij}}$. In words, the generators are obtained by taking a single row $\pmatrix{a_{i1}&a_{i2}&a_{i3}}$ of $A$ and placing it in either row with 0s in the other row (there are 4 such vector fields), and then taking a single column $\pmatrix{a_{1j}\cr a_{2j}}$ and placing it in any column and filling the remaining 2 columns with zeros (9 such vector fields).
Given any $\kE_Y$-module $\theta$ of vector fields on $Y$, one defines two $\kK_\theta$ tangent spaces of a map $F:X\to Y$ to be the $\kE_X$-submodules of $\theta(F)$, the $\kK_\theta$-tangent space
$$T\,\kK_\theta\cdot F = tF(\maxid_X\theta_X) + F^*\theta,$$
and the extended $\kK_\theta$-tangent space
$$T\,\kK_{\theta,e}\cdot F = tF(\theta_X) + F^*\theta.$$
Here
\begin{itemize}
\item $tF(\theta_X)$ means the $\kE_X$-module generated by the partial derivatives of $F$, and so $tF(\maxid_X\theta_X)$ is the maximal ideal $\maxid_X$ times $tF(\theta_X)$, and
\item $F^*\theta=\kE_X\left\{v\circ F\mid v\in\theta\right\}$, the $\kE_X$-module generated by the vector fields in $\theta$ composed with $F$.
\end{itemize}
The ordinary tangent space is used for finite determinacy properties while the extended one is used for versal deformations.
Now consider the map $F$ defined in (\ref{eq:d(phi,h)}). The partial derivatives of $F$ lead to
$$tF(\theta_X) =\kE_X\left\{\pmatrix{h_{xx}&h_{xy}&h_{xz}\cr 1&0&0},\; \pmatrix{ h_{yx}&h_{yy}&h_{yz}\cr 0&1&0},\; \pmatrix{h_{zx}&h_{zy}&h_{zz}\cr 0&0&1} \right\},$$
where subscripts refer to partial derivatives. The second term in $T\kK_V\cdot F$ contains 12 generators such as
$$\pmatrix{h_x&h_y&h_z\cr 0&0&0},\quad \pmatrix{x&y&z\cr 0&0&0},\quad \pmatrix{0&0&h_y\cr 0&0&y}.$$
Now apply this to the function $h(x,y) = {\textstyle \frac12}(ax^2+by^2+cz^2)$, with $a,b,c$ distinct. We obtain $T\kK_V\cdot F = \maxid_X\theta(F)$, and
$$T\kK_{V,e}\cdot F = \maxid_X \theta(F) + \RR\left\{\pmatrix{1&0&0\cr 0&0&0},\; \pmatrix{0&1&0\cr 0&0&0},\;\pmatrix{0&0&1\cr 0&0&0} \right\},
$$
where $\maxid_X$ is the maximal ideal of functions on $X=\RR^3$ that vanish at 0, so $\maxid_X=\left<x,\,y,\,z\right>$.
Here we have used $\theta_V'$ rather than $\theta_V$ and \emph{a priori} the expression above is for the corresponding module $T\kK_V'\cdot F$. However, the fact that the vector fields tangent to $V$ all vanish at the origin in $\Mat(2,3)$ implies there are no other elements of $T\kK_V\cdot F$, so that for this function $h$ one has indeed that $T\kK_V'\cdot F=T\kK_V\cdot F$, and similarly for the extended tangent spaces.
We are now in a position to prove Theorem \ref{thm:versal}.
\begin{proofof}{Theorem \ref{thm:versal}}
Since $\kK_V$-equivalence is one of Damon's geometric subgroups of $\kK$, it follows that the usual finite determinacy and versal deformation theorems hold \cite{Damon-1984,Damon-1991}. In particular, with the family $\kG$ as in the statement of the theorem, one has that
$$\theta(F) = T\kK_{V,e}\cdot F + \RR\cdot\left\{\frac{\partial \kG}{\partial \alpha},\; \frac{\partial \kG}{\partial \beta},\; \frac{\partial \kG}{\partial \gamma}\right\}.$$
Consequently, by Damon's theorems, the family $\kG_{\bm{\alpha}}$ (with $\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$) is a $\kK_V$-versal deformation of $F$, which is what is required for the theorem.
Furthermore, $\maxid_X\theta(F)\subset T\kK_V\cdot F$ implies that $F$ is 1-determined w.r.t.\ $\kK_V$-equivalence. It follows that if $h(x,y,z)$ has the same 2-jet as $g$ then the map $F$ associated to $\kG$ and $\kH$ have the same 1-jet so are $\kK_V$-equivalent; consequently $g$ is in this sense $2$-determined.
\end{proofof}
\begin{remark}
The vector field constructions of singularity theory will all produce diffeomorphisms whose linear part at the origin is the identity. However, allowing more general diffeomorphisms, one can show further that $\kH$ is equivalent to the version of $\kG$ with coefficients $a=1,\,b=0,\,c=-1$ say. Indeed, one can be obtained from the other by row operations on the matrix in (\ref{eq:d(phi,h)}).
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Other singularities}
We considered above the $\KV$-equivalence arising from a quadratic Hamiltonian at the origin. To understand the equivalence better, two further examples are worth considering:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] If $\d h(0,0,0)\neq0$, we have $h(x,y,z) = ax+by+cz+\cdots$ with $(a,b,c)\neq(0,0,0)$. In this case $T\KV\cdot F = \theta(F)$, so $h$ is `stable' in the appropriate sense: any sufficiently small deformation $h'$ of $h$ gives rise to a map $F'$ which is $\KV$-equivalent to $F$, so having diffeomorphic sets of relative equilibria (this is not surprising: we know it is just a non-singular curve through the origin).
\medskip
\item[(2)] At points away from $0$ in $\RR^3$, $\KV$-equivalence is more familiar: choose local coordinates so that $\jj(x,y,z) = z$ (this is possible in a neighbourhood of a point with $\d\jj\neq0$), then locally
$$F=\pmatrix{h_x&h_y&h_z\cr 0&0&1}.$$
Thus $F(x,y,z)\in V$ if and only if $h_x=h_y=0$. That is, this approach is finding critical points of $h$ as a function of $(x,\,y)$ with parameter $z$, and the $\kK_V$-equivalence of $F$ corresponds to $\kK$-equivalence of 1-parameter families of gradients of functions. This is not the same as unfolding equivalence (or bifurcation-equivalence), as the relation does not distinguish $z$ as a parameter. For example the differentials of the maps $(h,\jj) = (x^2-y^2,z)$ and $(xz,z)$ are $\KV$-equivalent.
\end{itemize}
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
Since the early work of Sobol \citep{Sobol93}, global sensitivity analysis (GSA) has received a lot of attention in the computer code
experiments community. These days variance-based sensitivity indices are common tools in the analysis of complex
physical phenomena. Several statistical estimators have been proposed \citep{cukier73,saltelli10, tarantola06, janon13, owen13} and their asymptotic
properties are now well understood \citep{tissot12, sdv13, janon13}. In addition, the case of
computationally expensive codes has been investigated thoroughly with the introduction of several dedicated surrogate models
\citep{OOH04, marrel09, sdv09, blatman10, touzani12, durrande12}.
However, even if they are extremely popular and informative importance measures, variance-based indices suffer from theoretical and practical limitations. First, by definition they only study the impact of the input parameters on the variance of the output. Since this is a restricted summary of the output distribution, this measure happens to be inadequate for many case studies. Alternative approaches include for example density-based indices \citep{borgonovo07}, derivative-based measures \citep{sobol09}, or goal-oriented dedicated indices \citep{fort13}.
Second, variance-based indices do not generalize easily to the case of a multivariate output \citep{gamboa13}. Unfortunately, computer code outputs often consist of several scalars or even time-dependent curves, which limits severely the practical use of standard indices.
Finally for high-dimensional problems, a preliminary screening procedure is usually mandatory before the analysis of the computer code or the modeling with a surrogate. The computational cost of GSA is in general too high to envision its use for screening purposes and more qualitative approaches are thus needed, e.g. the Morris method \citep{morris91} or group screening \citep{moon12}.
In this paper, we propose a completely original point of view in order to overcome these limitations. Starting from the general
framework of GSA and the concept of dissimilarity measure, we introduce a new class of sensitivity indices which comprises as a special case the density-based index of \citet{borgonovo07}. We propose an estimation procedure relying on density ratio estimation and show that it gives access to several different indices for the same computational cost. More importantly, we highlight that other special cases lead to well-known dependence measures, including the mutual information. This link motivates us to investigate the potential of recent state-of-the-art dependence measures as new sensitivity indices, such as the distance correlation \citep{dcor07} or the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion \citep{gretton05a}. An appealing property of such measures is that they can handle multivariate random variables very easily. We also discuss how feature selection methods based on these measures can effectively replace standard screening procedures.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{dissim}, we introduce the general GSA framework based on dissimilarity measures and discuss the use of Csisz\'ar f-divergences. We also emphasize the link with mutual information and propose an estimation procedure. In Section \ref{Indep}, we give a review of some dependence measures and show how they can be used as new sensitivity indices. We also provide examples of feature selection techniques in which they are involved. Screening will then be seen as an equivalent to feature selection in machine learning. Finally, several numerical experiments are conducted in Section \ref{secexp} on both analytical and industrial applications. In particular, we illustrate the potential of dependence measures for GSA.
\section{From dissimilarity measures to sensitivity indices} \label{dissim}
Denote $Y = \eta(X^1,\ldots,X^p)$ the computer code output which is a function of the $p$ input random variables $X^k$, $k=1,\ldots,p$
where $\eta:\mathbb{R}^p\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is assumed to be continuous.
In standard global sensitivity analysis, it is further assumed that the $X^k$ have a known distribution and are independent.
As pointed out by \citet{baucells13}, a natural way of defining the impact of a given input $X^k$ on $Y$ is to consider a
function which measures the similarity between the distribution of $Y$ and that of $Y|X^k$.
More precisely, the impact of $X^k$ on $Y$ is given by
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k} = \mathbb{E}_{X^k} \left(d(Y,Y|X^k)\right) \label{Si}
\end{equation}
where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes a dissimilarity measure between two random variables.
The advantage of such a formulation is that many choices for $d$ are available, and we will see in what follows that some natural
dissimilarity measures yield sensitivity indices related to well known quantities.
However before going further, let us note that the naive dissimilarity measure
\begin{equation}
d(Y,Y|X^k) = \left(\mathbb{E}(Y) - \mathbb{E}(Y|X^k)\right)^2 \label{naive}
\end{equation}
where random variables are compared only through their mean values produces the unnormalized Sobol first-order sensivity index
$S_{X^k}^1 = \textrm{Var}\left(\mathbb{E}(Y|X^k)\right)$.
\subsection{Csisz\'ar f-divergences} \label{fdiv}
Assuming all input random variables have an absolutely continuous distribution with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}$,
the f-divergence \citep{fdiv67} between $Y$ and $Y|X^k$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
d_f(Y||Y|X^k) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} f\left(\frac{p_Y(y)}{p_{Y|X^k}(y)}\right)p_{Y|X^k}(y) dy
\end{equation*}
where $f$ is a convex function such that $f(1)=0$ and $p_Y$ and $p_{Y|X^k}$ are the probability distribution functions of $Y$ and $Y|X^k$, respectively.
Standard choices for function $f$ include for example
\begin{itemize}
\item Kullback-Leibler divergence: $f(t) = -\ln(t)$ or $f(t) = t\ln(t)$;
\item Hellinger distance: $f(t) = \left(\sqrt{t}-1\right)^2$;
\item Total variation distance: $f(t) = \vert t - 1 \vert$;
\item Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence: $f(t) = (t-1)^2$ or $f(t)= t^2-1$;
\item Neyman $\chi^2$ divergence: $f(t) = (t-1)^2/t$ or $f(t) = (1-t^2)/t$.\\
\end{itemize}
Plugging this dissimilarity measure in (\ref{Si}) yields the following sensitivity index:
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k}^f = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} f\left(\frac{p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x)}{p_{X^k,Y}(x,y)}\right)p_{X^k,Y}(x,y) dxdy \label{Sif}
\end{equation}
where $p_{X^k}$ and $p_{X^k,Y}$ are the probability distribution functions of $X^k$ and $(X^k,Y)$, respectively.
First of all, note that inequalities on Csisz\'ar f-divergences imply that such sensitivity indices are positive and equal zero when $Y$ and $X_k$ are independent.
Also, it is important to note that given the form of $S_{X^k}^f$, it is invariant under any smooth and uniquely invertible
transformation of the variables $X^k$ and $Y$, see the proof for mutual information in \citet{kraskov04}. This is a major advantage
over variance-based Sobol sensitivity indices, which are only invariant under linear transformations.\\
It is easy to see that the total variation distance with $f(t) = \vert t - 1 \vert$ gives a sensivity index equal to the one proposed by \citet{borgonovo07}:
\begin{equation*}
S_{X^k} ^f= \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \lvert p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x) - p_{X^k,Y}(x,y)\rvert dxdy.
\end{equation*}
In addition, the Kullback-Leibler divergence with $f(t) = -\ln(t)$ yields
\begin{equation*}
S_{X^k}^f = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} p_{X^k,Y}(x,y) \ln\left(\frac{p_{X^k,Y}(x,y)}{p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x)}\right)dxdy,
\end{equation*}
that is the mutual information $I(X^k;Y)$ between $X^k$ and $Y$. A normalized version of this sensitivity index was studied by \citet{krzy01}.
Similarly, the Neyman $\chi^2$ divergence with $f(t) = (1-t^2)/t$ leads to
\begin{equation*}
S_{X^k}^f = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \left(\frac{p_{X^k,Y}(x,y)}{p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x)}-1\right)^2 p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x)dxdy,
\end{equation*}
which is the so-called squared-loss mutual information between $X^k$ and $Y$ (or mean square contingency).
These results show that some previously proposed sensitivity indices are actually special cases of more general indices defined through
Csisz\'ar f-divergences. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work in which this link is highlighted. Moreover,
the specific structure of equation (\ref{Sif}) makes it possible to envision more efficient tools for the estimation of these sensitivity indices.
Indeed, it only involves approximating a density ratio rather than full densities. This point is investigated in the next subsection.
But more importantly, we see that special choices for $f$ define sensivity indices that are actually well-known dependence measures
such as the mutual information. This paves the way for completely new sensitivity indices based on recent state-of-the-art dependence measures, see Section \ref{Indep}.
\subsection{Estimation}
Coming back to equation (\ref{Sif}), the goal is to estimate
\begin{equation*}
S_{X^k}^f = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} f\left(\frac{1}{r(x,y)}\right)p_{X^k,Y}(x,y) dxdy = \mathbb{E}_{(X^k,Y)}f\left(\frac{1}{r(X^k,Y)}\right)
\end{equation*}
where $r(x,y) = p_{X^k,Y}(x,y)/(p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x))$ is the ratio between the joint density of $(X^k,Y)$ and the marginals.
Of course, straightforward estimation is possible if one estimates the densities $p_{X^k,Y}(x,y)$, $p_{X^k}(x)$ and $p_Y(y)$ with e.g.
kernel density estimators. However, it is well known that density estimation suffers from the curse of dimensionality. This limits the
possible multivariate extensions we discuss in the next subsection. Besides, since only the ratio function $r(x,y)$ is needed, we expect
more robust estimates by focusing only on it.
Let us assume now that we have a sample $(X^k_i,Y_i)_{i=1,\ldots,n}$ of $(X^k,Y)$, the idea is to build first an estimate $\hat{r}(x,y)$ of the ratio.
The final estimator $\hat{S}_{X^k}^f$ of $S_{X^k}^f$ will then be given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}_{X^k}^f = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n f\left(\frac{1}{\hat{r}(X^k_i,Y_i)}\right).
\end{equation}
Powerful estimating methods for ratios include e.g. maximum-likelihood estimation \citep{sugi08}, unconstrained least-squares importance fitting \citep{sugi09}, among others \citep[see][]{sugibook}. A k-nearest neighbors strategy dedicated to mutual information is also discussed in \cite{kraskov04}.
\subsection{Multivariate extensions}
Given our approach focusing only on densities, it is straightforward to extend the definition of the sensitivity index in equation (\ref{Sif})
to any number of input and output variables. We can then study the impact of a given group of input variables $X^{u}=\left\{X^k\right\}_{k\in u}$
where $u$ is a subset of $\{1,\ldots,p\}$ on a multivariate output $Y\in \mathbb{R}^q$ with the sensitivity index given by
\begin{equation*}
S_{X^{u}}^f = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{\vert u\vert} \times \mathbb{R}^q} f\left(\frac{p_{Y}(y)p_{X^u}(x)}
{p_{X^u,Y}(x,y)}\right)p_{X^u,Y}(x,y) dxdy.
\end{equation*}
This favorable generalization was already mentioned for the special cases of the total-variation distance and mutual information by \citet{borgonovo07} and \citet{auder08}, respectively.
However, in the high-dimensional setting, estimation of such sensitivity indices is infeasible since even the ratio trick detailed above fails.
This is thus a severe limitation for screening purposes. We examine efficient alternatives in Section \ref{Indep}.
Moreover, note that extending the naive dissimilarity measure (\ref{naive}) to the multivariate output case naturally leads to consider $ d(Y,Y|X^k) = \Vert\mathbb{E}(Y) - \mathbb{E}(Y|X^k)\rVert_2^2$. Straightforward calculations reveal that the corresponding sensitivity index is then the sum of Sobol first-order sensitivity indices on each output. \citet{gamboa13} showed that this multivariate index is the only one possessing desired invariance properties in the variance-based index family.
\subsection{On the use of other dissimilarity measures}
We focused above on Csisz\'ar f-divergences but other dissimilarity measures exist to compare probability distributions.
In particular, integral probability metrics \citep[IPM,][]{muller97} are a popular family of distance measures on probabilities given by
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{\mathcal{F}}(\mathbb{P},\mathbb{Q}) = \sup_{f\in\mathcal{F}} \left\vert \int_S fd\mathbb{P} - \int_S fd\mathbb{Q} \right\vert \label{IPM}
\end{equation}
for two probability measures $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ and where $\mathcal{F}$ is a class of real-valued bounded measurable functions on $S$. Just as the choice of function $f$ in Csisz\'ar f-divergences gives rise to different measures, the choice of $\mathcal{F}$ generates different IPMs, e.g. the Wasserstein distance, the Dudley metric or the total variation distance. It is interesting to note that Csisz\'ar f-divergences and IPMs are very distinct classes of measures, since they only intersect at the total variation distance \citep{sri12}. Unfortunately, plugging the general expression (\ref{IPM}) of an IPM in equation (\ref{Si}) no longer yields a closed-form expression for a sensitivity index. However, we plan to study such indices in a future work since estimation of IPMs appears to be easier than for Csisz\'ar f-divergences and is independent of the dimensionality of the random variables \citep{sri12}.
Finally, let us mention the recent work of \citet{fort13} on goal-oriented measures, where they introduce a new class of sensitivity indices
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k}^{\psi} = \mathbb{E}\psi(Y;\theta^*)-\mathbb{E}_{(X^k,Y)}\psi(Y;\theta_k(X^k)) \label{contrast}
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is the contrast function associated to the features of interest $\theta^* = \arg\min_{\theta} \mathbb{E}\psi(Y;\theta)$ and $\theta_k(x) = \arg\min_{\theta} \mathbb{E}(\psi(Y;\theta)|X^k=x)$ of $Y$ and $Y$ conditionally to $X^k=x$, respectively (note that we only give here the unnormalized version of the index). It is easy to check that (\ref{contrast}) is a special case of (\ref{Si}).
\section{Dependence measures and feature selection} \label{Indep}
Given two random vectors $X$ in $\mathbb{R}^p$ and $Y$ in $\mathbb{R}^q$, dependence measures aim at
quantifying the dependence between $X$ and $Y$ in arbitrary dimension, with the property that the measure equals zero if
and only if $X$ and $Y$ are independent. In particular, they are useful when one wants to design a statistical test for independence.
Here, we focus on the long-known mutual information criterion, as well as on the novel distance correlation measure \citep{dcor07}.
Recently, \citet{sejdi13} showed that it shares deep links with distances between embeddings of distributions to reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHS) and especially the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion \citep[HSIC,][]{gretton05a} which will also be discussed. Finally, we will review feature selection techniques introduced in machine learning which make use of these dependence measures.
\subsection{Mutual information}
Mutual information \citep[MI,][]{shannon48} is a symmetric measure of dependence which is related to the entropy.
Assuming $X$ and $Y$ are two random vectors which are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^p$ and $\mathbb{R}^q$ with density functions $p_X(x)$ and $p_Y(y)$, respectively, one can define their marginal entropy:
\begin{equation*}
H(X) = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^p} p_X(x) \ln(p_X(x)) dx
\end{equation*}
and $H(Y)$ similarly. Denoting $p_{X,Y}(x,y)$ their joint density function, the joint entropy between $X$ and $Y$ writes
\begin{equation*}
H(X,Y) = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^{p+q}} p_{X,Y}(x,y) \ln(p_{X,Y}(x,y)) dxdy.
\end{equation*}
MI is then formally defined as
\begin{align*}
I(X;Y) &= H(X) + H(Y) - H(X,Y) \\
&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{p+q}} p_{X,Y}(x,y) \ln\left(\frac{p_{X,Y}(x,y)}{p_Y(y)p_{X}(x)}\right)dxdy.
\end{align*}
Interestingly, MI equals zero if and only if $X$ and $Y$ are independent. This implies that MI is able to detect nonlinear
dependencies between random variables, unlike the correlation coefficient.
It is also easy to check that $I(X;Y) \geq 0$ with Jensen's inequality. Further note that it is not a distance since it does not obey
the triangle inequality. A simple modified version yielding a distance, the variation of information (VI), is given by
\begin{equation*}
VI(X;Y) = H(X,Y) - I(X;Y) = H(X) + H(Y) - 2I(X;Y).
\end{equation*}
Another variant is the squared-loss mutual information \citep[SMI,][]{suzuki09}:
\begin{equation}
SMI(X;Y) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{p+q}} \left(\frac{p_{X,Y}(x,y)}{p_Y(y)p_{X}(x)}-1\right)^2 p_Y(y)p_{X}(x)dxdy \label{SMI}
\end{equation}
which is again a dependence measure verifying $SMI(X;Y)\geq0$ with equality if and only if $X$ and $Y$ are independent.
Applications of MI, VI and SMI include independent component analysis \citep{hyva00}, image registration \citep{pluim03} and hierarchical clustering \citep{meilua07}, among many others.\\
In the context of global sensitivity analysis, we have seen in Section \ref{fdiv} that MI and SMI arise as sensitivity indices when specific
Csisz\'ar f-divergences are chosen to evaluate the dissimilarity between the output $Y$ and the conditional output $Y|X^k$ where $X^k$ is one of the input variables. We will then study the two following sensitivity indices:
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k}^{MI} = I(X^k;Y) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} p_{X^k,Y}(x,y) \ln\left(\frac{p_{X^k,Y}(x,y)}{p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x)}\right)dxdy \label{Smi}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k}^{SMI} = SMI(X^k;Y) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \left(\frac{p_{X^k,Y}(x,y)}{p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x)}-1\right)^2 p_Y(y)p_{X^k}(x)dxdy. \label{Ssmi}
\end{equation}
A normalized version of $S_{X^k}^{MI}$ given by $I(X^k;Y)/H(Y)$ has already been proposed by \citet{krzy01} and compared to Sobol sensitivity indices by \citet{auder08}.
\subsection{Distance correlation}
The distance correlation was introduced by \citet{dcor07} to address the problem of testing dependence between two random vectors $X$ in $\mathbb{R}^p$ and $Y$ in $\mathbb{R}^q$. It is based on the concept of distance covariance which measures the distance between the joint
characteristic function of $(X,Y)$ and the product of the marginal characteristic functions.
More precisely, denote $\phi_X$ and $\phi_Y$ the characteristic function of $X$ and $Y$, respectively, and $\phi_{X,Y}$ their joint
characteristic function. For a complex-valued function $\phi(\cdot)$, we also denote $\bar{\phi}$ the complex conjugate of $\phi$ and
$\lvert \phi\rvert^2 = \phi\bar{\phi}$. The distance covariance (dCov) $\mathcal{V}(X,Y)$ between $X$ and $Y$ with finite first moment is then defined as a weighted $L_2$-distance between $\phi_{X,Y}$ and $\phi_X\phi_Y$ given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^2(X,Y) &= \lVert \phi_{X,Y} - \phi_X\phi_Y \rVert_w^2 \nonumber \\
&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{p+q}} \lvert \phi_{X,Y} (t,s) - \phi_X(t)\phi_Y(s)\rvert^2 w(t,s)dtds \label{dcov}
\end{align}
where the weight function $w(t,s) = (c_pc_q \lVert t\rVert_2^{1+p}\lVert s\rVert_2^{1+q})^{-1}$ with constants $c_l = \pi^{(1+l)/2}/\Gamma((1+l)/2)$ for $l\in\mathbb{N}$ is chosen to ensure invariance properties, see \citet{dcor07}. The distance correlation (dCor) $\mathcal{R}(X,Y)$ between $X$ and $Y$ is then naturally defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}^2(X,Y) = \frac{\mathcal{V}^2(X,Y)}{\sqrt{\mathcal{V}^2(X,X)\mathcal{V}^2(Y,Y)}} \label{dcor}
\end{equation}
if $\mathcal{V}^2(X,X)\mathcal{V}^2(Y,Y) > 0$ and equals $0$ otherwise. Important properties of the distance correlation introduced in (\ref{dcor}) include that $0\leq\mathcal{R}(X,Y)\leq 1$ and $\mathcal{R}(X,Y)=0$ if and only if $X$ and $Y$ are independent. Interestingly, the distance covariance in (\ref{dcov}) can be computed in terms of expectations of pairwise Euclidean distances, namely
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^2(X,Y) &= \mathbb{E}_{X,X',Y,Y'} \lVert X-X' \rVert_2 \lVert Y-Y' \rVert_2 \nonumber \\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{X,X'} \lVert X-X' \rVert_2 \mathbb{E}_{Y,Y'} \lVert Y-Y' \rVert_2 \nonumber \\
&-2 \mathbb{E}_{X,Y} \left[ \mathbb{E}_{X'} \lVert X-X' \rVert_2 \mathbb{E}_{Y'} \lVert Y-Y' \rVert_2\right] \label{dcovE}
\end{align}
where $(X',Y')$ is an i.i.d. copy of $(X,Y)$. Concerning estimation, let $(X_i,Y_i)_{i=1,\ldots,n}$ be a sample of the random vector $(X,Y)$. Following equation (\ref{dcovE}), an estimator $\mathcal{V}^2_n(X,Y)$ of $\mathcal{V}^2(X,Y)$ is then given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^2_n(X,Y) & = \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{i,j=1}^n \lVert X_i-X_j \rVert_2 \lVert Y_i-Y_j \rVert_2 \nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{i,j=1}^n \lVert X_i-X_j \rVert_2 \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{i,j=1}^n\lVert Y_i-Y_j \rVert_2 \nonumber \\
& - \frac{2}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \left[ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n\lVert X_i-X_j \rVert_2 \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n\lVert Y_i-Y_j \rVert_2\right] . \label{dcovemp}
\end{align}
Denoting $a_{ij} = \lVert X_i-X_j \rVert_2$, $\bar{a}_{i\cdot} = \sum_j a_{ij}/n$, $\bar{a}_{\cdot j} = \sum_i a_{ij}/n$, $\bar{a}_{\cdot\cdot}=\sum_{ij}a_{ij}/n^2$, $A_{ij} = a_{ij} - \bar{a}_{i\cdot} - \bar{a}_{\cdot j} + \bar{a}_{\cdot\cdot}$ and similarly $B_{ij} = b_{ij} - \bar{b}_{i\cdot} - \bar{b}_{\cdot j} + \bar{b}_{\cdot\cdot}$ for $b_{ij} = \lVert Y_i-Y_j \rVert_2$, \citet{dcor07} show that equation (\ref{dcovemp}) can be written as
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}^2_n(X,Y) = \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{i,j=1}^n A_{ij}B_{ij}
\end{equation*}
and is also equal to equation (\ref{dcov}) if one uses the empirical characteristic functions computed on the sample $(X_i,Y_i)_{i=1,\ldots,n}$. The empirical distance correlation $\mathcal{R}_n(X,Y)$ is then
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R}_n^2(X,Y) = \frac{\mathcal{V}_n^2(X,Y)}{\sqrt{\mathcal{V}_n^2(X,X)\mathcal{V}^2_n(Y,Y)}}
\end{equation*}
and satisfies $0\leq\mathcal{R}_n(X,Y)\leq 1$. Although $\mathcal{V}^2_n(X,Y)$ is a consistent estimator of $\mathcal{V}^2(X,Y)$, it is easy to see that it is biased. \citet{dcor13b} propose an unbiased version of $\mathcal{V}^2_n(X,Y)$ and a specific correction for the high-dimensional case $p,q \gg 1$ is investigated in \citet{dcor13a}.
Further note that \citet{dcor07} also study $\mathcal{V}^{2(\alpha)}(X,Y)$ defined as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^{2(\alpha)}(X,Y) &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{p+q}} \lvert \phi_{X,Y} (t,s) - \phi_X(t)\phi_Y(s)\rvert^2 w_{\alpha}(t,s)dtds \nonumber \\
&= \mathbb{E}_{X,X',Y,Y'} \lVert X-X' \rVert_2^{\alpha} \lVert Y-Y' \rVert_2^{\alpha} \nonumber \\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{X,X'} \lVert X-X' \rVert_2^{\alpha} \mathbb{E}_{Y,Y'} \lVert Y-Y' \rVert_2^{\alpha} \nonumber \\
&-2 \mathbb{E}_{X,Y} \left[ \mathbb{E}_{X'} \lVert X-X' \rVert_2^{\alpha} \mathbb{E}_{Y'} \lVert Y-Y' \rVert_2^{\alpha}\right] \label{dcova}
\end{align}
with the new weight function $w_{\alpha}(t,s) = (C(p,\alpha)C(q,\alpha) \lVert t\rVert_2^{\alpha+p}\lVert s\rVert_2^{\alpha+q})^{-1}$ and constants $C(l,\alpha) = \frac{2\pi^{l/2}\Gamma(1-\alpha/2)}{\alpha 2^{\alpha}\Gamma((l+\alpha)/2)}$ as soon as $\mathbb{E}(\lVert X\rVert_2^{\alpha} + \lVert Y\rVert_2^{\alpha} ) < \infty$ and $0 < \alpha < 2$. Distance covariance is retrieved for $\alpha=1$. The very general case of $X$ and $Y$ living in metric spaces has been examined by \citet{lyons13}. More precisely, let $(\mathcal{X},\rho_\mathcal{X})$ and $(\mathcal{Y},\rho_\mathcal{Y})$ be metric spaces of negative type \citep[see][]{lyons13}, the generalized distance covariance
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^{2}_{\rho_\mathcal{X},\rho_\mathcal{Y}}(X,Y) & = \mathbb{E}_{X,X',Y,Y'} \rho_\mathcal{X}(X,X')\rho_\mathcal{Y}(Y,Y' )\nonumber \\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{X,X'} \rho_\mathcal{X}(X,X') \mathbb{E}_{Y,Y'} \rho_\mathcal{Y}(Y,Y' ) \nonumber \\
&-2 \mathbb{E}_{X,Y} \left[ \mathbb{E}_{X'} \rho_\mathcal{X}(X,X') \mathbb{E}_{Y'} \rho_\mathcal{Y}(Y,Y' )\right] \label{dcovmetric}
\end{align}
characterizes independence between $X\in\mathcal{X}$ and $Y\in\mathcal{Y}$.\\
Coming back to sensitivity analysis, just like we defined a new index based on mutual information, we can finally introduce an index based on distance correlation, i.e.
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k}^{dCor} = \mathcal{R}(X^k,Y) \label{Sdcor}
\end{equation}
which will measure the dependence between an input variable $X^k$ and the output $Y$. Since distance correlation is designed to detect nonlinear relationships, we except this index to quantify effectively the impact of $X^k$ on $Y$. Besides, considering that distance covariance is defined in arbitrary dimension, this index generalizes easily to the multivariate case:
\begin{equation*}
S_{X^u}^{dCor} = \mathcal{R}(X^u,Y)
\end{equation*}
for evaluating the impact of a group of inputs $X^u$ on a multivariate output $Y$.
\begin{remark}
\label{remPF}
The limiting case $\alpha \rightarrow 2$ in (\ref{dcova}) interestingly leads to $\mathcal{V}^{2(2)}(X,Y) = \textrm{Cov}(X,Y)^2$, see \citet{dcor07}.
This turns out to be another original way for defining a new sensitivity index. Indeed, recall that Sobol first-oder sensitivity index actually equals $\textrm{Cov}(Y,Y_{X^k})/\textrm{Var}(Y)$ where $Y_{X^k}$ is an independent copy of $Y$ obtained by fixing $X^k$, see \citet{janon13}. The idea is then to replace the covariance (obtained with $\alpha \rightarrow 2$) by dCov (with $\alpha=1$):
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k}^{dCorPF} = \mathcal{R}(Y,Y_{X^k}), \label{SdcorPF}
\end{equation}
where PF stands for pick-and-freeze, since this index generalizes the pick-and-freeze estimator proposed by \citet{janon13} and is able to detect nonlinear dependencies, unlike the correlation coefficient.
\end{remark}
\subsection{HSIC} \label{secHSIC}
\subsubsection{Definition}
The Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion proposed by \citet{gretton05a} builds upon kernel-based approaches for detecting dependence, and more particularly on cross-covariance operators in RKHSs. Here, we only give a brief summary and introduction on this topic and refer the reader to \citet{berlinet04,gretton05a,smola07} for details.
Let the random vector $X\in\mathcal{X}$ have distribution $P_X$ and consider a RKHS $\mathcal{F}$ of functions $\mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with kernel $k_\mathcal{X}$ and dot product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\mathcal{F}$. Similarly, we can also define a second RKHS $\mathcal{G}$ of functions $\mathcal{Y}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with kernel $k_\mathcal{Y}$ and dot product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\mathcal{G}$ associated to the random vector $Y\in\mathcal{Y}$ with distribution $P_Y$. By definition, the cross-covariance operator $C_{XY}$ associated to the joint distribution $P_{XY}$ of $(X,Y)$ is the linear operator $\mathcal{G}\rightarrow \mathcal{F}$ defined for every $f\in\mathcal{F}$ and $g\in\mathcal{G}$ as
\begin{equation*}
\langle f,C_{XY}g\rangle_\mathcal{F} = \mathbb{E}_{XY}[f(X)g(Y)] -\mathbb{E}_Xf(X)\mathbb{E}_Yg(Y).
\end{equation*}
In a nutshell, the cross-covariance operator generalizes the covariance matrix by representing higher order correlations between $X$ and $Y$ through nonlinear kernels.
For every linear operator $C:\mathcal{G}\rightarrow \mathcal{F}$ and provided the sum converges, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of $C$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\lVert C\rVert_{HS}^2 = \sum_{k,l} \langle u_k,Cv_l\rangle_\mathcal{F}
\end{equation*}
where $u_k$ and $v_l$ are orthonormal bases of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$, respectively. This is simply the generalization of the Frobenius norm on matrices. The HSIC criterion is then defined as the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the cross-covariance operator:
\begin{align}
HSIC(X,Y)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}} & = \lVert C_{XY}\rVert_{HS}^2 \nonumber \\
& = \mathbb{E}_{X,X',Y,Y'} k_\mathcal{X}(X,X')k_\mathcal{Y}(Y,Y' )\nonumber \\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{X,X'} k_\mathcal{X}(X,X') \mathbb{E}_{Y,Y'} k_\mathcal{Y}(Y,Y' ) \nonumber \\
&-2 \mathbb{E}_{X,Y} \left[ \mathbb{E}_{X'} k_\mathcal{X}(X,X') \mathbb{E}_{Y'} k_\mathcal{Y}(Y,Y' )\right] \label{HSIC}
\end{align}
where the last equality in terms of kernels is proven in \citet{gretton05a}. An important property of $HSIC(X,Y)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}$ is that it equals $0$ if and only if $X$ and $Y$ are independent, as long as the associated RKHSs $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ are universal, i.e. they are dense in the space of continuous functions with respect to the infinity norm \citep{gretton05b}. Examples of kernels generating universal RKHSs are e.g. the Gaussian and the Laplace kernels \citep{sri09}.
It is interesting to note the similarity between the generalized distance covariance of equation (\ref{dcovmetric}) and the HSIC criterion (\ref{HSIC}). Actually, \citet{sejdi13} recently studied the deep connection between these approaches and show that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}^{2}_{\rho_\mathcal{X},\rho_\mathcal{Y}}(X,Y) = 4\ HSIC(X,Y)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}
\end{equation*}
if the kernels $k_\mathcal{X}$ and $k_\mathcal{Y}$ generate the metrics $\rho_\mathcal{X}$ and $\rho_\mathcal{Y}$, respectively \citep[see][]{sejdi13}. In particular, the standard distance covariance (\ref{dcovE}) is retrieved with the (universal) kernel $k(z,z') = \frac{1}{2}(\lVert z \rVert_2 + \lVert z' \rVert_2 - \lVert z - z'\rVert_2 )$ which generates the metric $\rho(z,z') = \lVert z - z'\rVert_2$.
Assume now that $(X_i,Y_i)_{i=1,\ldots,n}$ is a sample of the random vector $(X,Y)$ and denote $K_\mathcal{X}$ and $K_\mathcal{Y}$ the Gram matrices with entries $K_\mathcal{X}(i,j) = k_\mathcal{X}(X_i,X_j)$ and $K_\mathcal{Y}(i,j) = k_\mathcal{Y}(Y_i,Y_j)$. \citet{gretton05a} propose the following consistent estimator for $HSIC(X,Y)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}$:
\begin{equation*}
HSIC_n(X,Y)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}} = \frac{1}{n^2} \textrm{Tr}\left(K_\mathcal{X} H K_\mathcal{Y} H \right)
\end{equation*}
where $H$ is the centering matrix such that $H(i,j) = \delta_{ij} - \frac{1}{n}$. Besides, it is easy to check that $HSIC_n(X,Y)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}$ can be expressed just like the empirical distance covariance (\ref{dcovemp}):
\begin{align*}
HSIC_n(X,Y)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}} & = \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{i,j=1}^n k_\mathcal{X}(X_i,X_j) k_\mathcal{Y}(Y_i,Y_j)\\
& + \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{i,j=1}^n k_\mathcal{X}(X_i,X_j) \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{i,j=1}^n k_\mathcal{Y}(Y_i,Y_j)\\
& - \frac{2}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \left[ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n k_\mathcal{X}(X_i,X_j) \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n\ k_\mathcal{Y}(Y_i,Y_j)\right].
\end{align*}
An unbiased estimator is also introduced by \citet{song12}.\\
We can finally propose a sensitivity index generalizing (\ref{Sdcor}):
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}} = \mathcal{R}(X^k,Y)_ {\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}} \label{Shsic}
\end{equation}
where the kernel-based distance correlation is given by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R}^2(X,Y)_ {\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}} = \frac{HSIC(X,Y)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}} }{\sqrt{HSIC(X,X)_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F}} HSIC(Y,Y)_{\mathcal{G},\mathcal{G}} }}
\end{equation*}
and the kernels inducing $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ have to be chosen within the class of universal kernels. The multivariate extension of $S_{X^k}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ is straightforward. The impact of the choice of kernels has previously been studied by \citet{sri09} in the context of independence hypothesis tests.
\begin{remark}
Instead of working with the cross-covariance operator $C_{XY}$, \citet{fuku07} work with the normalized cross-covariance operator (NOCCO) $V_{XY}$ defined as $C_{XY} = C_{YY}^{1/2} V_{XY} C_{XX}^{1/2}$, see \citet{fuku07} for the existence of this representation. Just as the HSIC criterion, the associated measure of dependence is given by $I^{NOCCO}(X,Y)=\lVert V_{XY} \rVert_{HS}^2$. Interestingly, $I^{NOCCO}(X,Y)$ is independent of the choice of kernels and is actually equal to the squared-loss mutual information (\ref{SMI}) under some assumptions, see \citet{fuku08}. Despite the advantage of being kernel-free, using $I^{NOCCO}$ in practice unfortunately requires to work with an estimator with a regularization parameter, which has to be selected \citep{fuku07}. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to use this approach for approximating SMI efficiently, since dimensionality limitations related to density function estimation no longer apply.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The pick-and-freeze estimator defined in Remark \ref{remPF} can be readily generalized with kernels:
\begin{equation}
S_{X^k}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF} = \mathcal{R}(Y,Y_{X^k})_ {\mathcal{G},\mathcal{G}} \label{ShsicPF}
\end{equation}
where this time only the kernel acting on $\mathcal{Y}$ needs to be specified.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Going beyond $Y\in\mathbb{R}^q$} \label{secFunc}
The kernel point of view in HSIC also provides an elegant and powerful framework for dealing with categorical inputs and outputs, as well as functional ones.
The categorical case is common practice in feature selection, since the target output is often represented as labels. Appropriate kernels include for example $k_\mathcal{Y}(y,y') = \delta_{yy'}/n_y$ where $n_y$ is the number of samples with label $y$, see e.g. \citet{song12,yamada13}.
From a GSA perspective, this implies that we can evaluate the impact of the inputs on level sets of the output by a simple change of variable
$Z = \mathds{1}\{Y > t\}$ for a given threshold $t$. We can note the resemblance with the approach of \citet{fort13} if one uses a contrast function adapted to exceedance probabilities.
As a matter of fact, it is also possible to design dedicated semi-metrics for functional data which can be incorporated in the definition of the kernels, see e.g. \citet{ferraty06}.
For example, let $\Delta(\cdot,\cdot)$ be such a semi-metric defined on $\mathcal{Y}\times\mathcal{Y}$ when the output variable is of functional type. The kernel associated to $\mathcal{Y}$ is then given by $k_\mathcal{Y}(y,y') = k(\Delta(y,y'))$ where $k$ is a kernel acting on $\mathbb{R}$. The same scheme applies to functional inputs as well, see \citet{gin12} for an illustration in the context of surrogate modeling where the semi-metric is a cheap and simplified computer code. However, a theoretical shortcoming lies in our current inability to check if such semi-metric kernels are universal, which implies that we can not claim that independence can be detected. Despite this deficiency, we show in Section \ref{secexp} that from a practical perspective, the use of a semi-metric based on principal components can efficiently deal with a functional output given as a 2D map.
\subsection{Feature selection as an alternative to screening} \label{secfs}
In machine learning, feature selection aims at identifying relevant features (among a large set) with respect to a prediction task. The goal is to detect irrelevant or redundant features which may increase the prediction variance without reducing its bias. As a matter of fact, this closely resembles the objective of factor screening in GSA. The main difference is that in GSA, input variables are usually assumed to be independent, whereas in feature selection redundant features, i.e. highly dependent factors, precisely have to be filtered out. This apparently naive distinction actually makes feature selection an interesting alternative to screening when some input variables are correlated. But it is important to note that it is also a powerful option even in the independent case.
We do not intend here to give an exhaustive review of feature selection techniques, but rather detail some approaches which make use of the dependence measures we recapped above. We hope that it will illustrate how they can be used as new screening procedures in high dimensional problems.\\
Literature on feature selection is abundant and entails many approaches. In the high dimensional setting, model-based techniques include for example the Lasso \citep{tib96} or sparse additive models \citep{ravi09}, see \citet{fan10} for a selective overview. Generalizations for the ultra-high dimensional case usually replace penalty-based techniques to focus on marginal regression, where an underlying model is still assumed (e.g. linear \citet{fan08} or non-parametric additive \citet{fan11}). Another line of work for the ultra-high dimensional setting are model-free methods, where only dependence measures are used to identify relevant features. Except for the very specific HSIC Lasso technique \citep{yamada13}, here we only focus on pure dependence-based approaches.
Let us first introduce the concept of Max-Dependency \citep{peng05}. Denote $X^1,\ldots,X^p$ the set of available features, $Y$ the target output to predict and $D(\cdot,\cdot)$ any measure quantifying the dependence between two random vectors. The Max-Dependency scheme for feature selection involves finding $m$ features $X^{i_1},\ldots,X^{i_m}$ which jointly have the largest dependency with $Y$, i.e. one has to solve the following optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\max_{ \left\{i_1,\ldots,i_m\right\} \subset \left\{1,\ldots,p\right\} } D(\left\{X^{i_1},\ldots,X^{i_m}\right\},Y). \label{MaxD}
\end{equation}
Solving (\ref{MaxD}) is however computationally infeasible when $m$ and $p$ are large for cardinality reasons. Near-optimal solutions are then usually found by iterative procedures, where features are added one at a time in the subset $X^{i_1},\ldots,X^{i_m}$ (forward selection). On the other hand, the dependence measure $D(\cdot,\cdot)$ must also be robust to dimensionality, which is hard to achieve in practice when the number of samples is less than $m$. Consequently, marginal computations which only involve $D(X^k,Y)$ terms are usually preferred. The Max-Relevance criterion \citep{peng05} serves in this context as a proxy to Max-Dependency, where the optimization problem writes
\begin{equation}
\max_{ \left\{i_1,\ldots,i_m\right\} \subset \left\{1,\ldots,p\right\} } \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k=1}^m D(X^{i_k},Y). \label{MaxR}
\end{equation}
But when the features are dependent, it is likely that this criterion will select redundant features. To limit this effect, one can add a condition of Min-Redudancy expressed as
\begin{equation}
\min_{ \left\{i_1,\ldots,i_m\right\} \subset \left\{1,\ldots,p\right\} } \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{k,l=1}^m D(X^{i_k},X^{i_l}). \label{MinR}
\end{equation}
The final scheme combining (\ref{MaxR}) and (\ref{MinR}), called minimal-redundancy-maximal-relevance (mRMR), is given by
\begin{equation}
\max_{ \left\{i_1,\ldots,i_m\right\} \subset \left\{1,\ldots,p\right\} } \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k=1}^m D(X^{i_k},Y) - \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{k,l=1}^m D(X^{i_k},X^{i_l}) . \label{mrmr}
\end{equation}
Forward and backward procedures for mRMR are investigated by \citet{peng05} where $D(\cdot,\cdot)$ is chosen as the mutual information. Similarly, forward and backward approaches where MI is replaced with HSIC is introduced by \citet{song12}.
A purely marginal point of view is studied by \citet{li12} where the authors propose the dCor criterion (\ref{dcor}). In a nutshell, the dCor measure is computed between $Y$ and each factor $X^k$, $k=1,\ldots,p$ and only the features with dCor above a certain threshold are retained. A sure screening property of this approach is also proven. \citet{bala13} extend this work by considering a modified version of the HSIC dependence measure (supremum of HSIC over a family of universal kernels, denoted sup-HSIC). Even if the sure screening procedure of this generalized method is proven, the authors mention that every feature selection technique based on marginal computations fails at detecting features that may be marginally uncorrelated with the output but are in fact jointly correlated with it. As a result, they propose the following iterative approach:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute the marginal sup-HSIC measures between $Y$ and each feature $X^k$, $k=1,\ldots,p$ and select the inputs with a measure above a given threshold. Let $u\subset \left\{1,\ldots,p\right\} $ be the subset of selected features.
\item Compute sup-HSIC between $Y$ and $\left(X^{u},X^k\right)$ for each $k \notin u$. Augment $u$ with features having a measure greater than the sup-HSIC criterion between $Y$ and $X^{u}$.
\item Repeat until the subset of selected features stabilizes or when its cardinality reaches a given maximum value.
\end{enumerate}
As pointed out previously, another drawback of marginal computations which is not taken care of by the above scheme is that redundant variables are not eliminated. But \citet{bala13} design another iterative procedure to deal with this case.
Finally, let us note that in the examples of Section \ref{secexp}, we will only study the above iterative technique since we focus on independent input factors. We plan to investigate in particular the full mRMR approach for problems with correlated inputs in a future work.
Instead of working with forward and backward approaches, \citet{yamada13} propose a combination of the Lasso and the HSIC dependence measure. Denote $\tilde{K}^k_\mathcal{X} = HK^k_\mathcal{X}H$ for $k=1,\ldots,p$ and $\tilde{K}_\mathcal{Y} = HK_\mathcal{Y}H$ the centered Gram matrices computed from a sample $\left(X^1_i,\ldots,X^p_i,Y_i\right)_{i=1,\ldots,n}$ of $\left(X^1,\ldots,X^p,Y\right)$ following the notations of Section \ref{secHSIC}. The HSIC Lasso solves the following optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\min_{\alpha\in \mathbb{R}^p} \frac{1}{2} \lVert \tilde{K}_\mathcal{Y} -\sum_{k=1}^p \alpha_k \tilde{K}^k_\mathcal{X}\rVert^2_{\textrm{Frob}} + \lambda \lVert \alpha \rVert_1 \label{hsiclasso}
\end{equation}
with constraints $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p \geq 0$ and where $\lVert \cdot \rVert_{\textrm{Frob}}$ stands for the Frobenius norm and $\lambda$ is a regularization parameter. Interestingly, the first term of equation (\ref{hsiclasso}) expands as
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2n^2} \lVert \tilde{K}_\mathcal{Y} -\sum_{k=1}^p \alpha_k \tilde{K}^k_\mathcal{X}\rVert^2_{\textrm{Frob}} &=
\frac{1}{2} HSIC_n(Y,Y) - \sum_{k=1}^p \alpha_k HSIC_n(X^k,Y) \\
& + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k,l=1}^p \alpha_k \alpha_l HSIC_n(X^k,X^l)
\end{align*}
using that $\tilde{K}^k_\mathcal{X}$, $\tilde{K}_\mathcal{Y}$ are symmetric and $H$ is idempotent, which highlights the strong correspondence with the mRMR criterion (\ref{mrmr}). The authors show that (\ref{hsiclasso}) can be recast as a standard Lasso program and propose a dual augmented Lagrangian algorithm to solve the optimization problem. They also discuss a variant based on the $I^{NOCCO}$ dependence measure.
\begin{remark}
We mentioned before that feature selection techniques based on dependence measures have been particularly designed for the ultra-high dimensional case, which is not the common setting of screening problems in GSA. Nevertheless, we illustrate in Section \ref{secexp} that they perform remarkably well on complex benchmark functions, while requiring very few samples of the output variable. This reveals their high potential for preliminary screening of expensive computer codes.
\end{remark}
\section{Experiments} \label{secexp}
In this Section, we finally assess the performance of all the new sensitivity indices introduced before on a series of benchmark analytical functions and two industrial applications. All benchmark functions can be found in the Virtual Library of Simulation Experiments available at \url{http://www.sfu.ca/~ssurjano/index.html}. For easier comparison, we first summarize the proposed indices in Table \ref{tabSI} (SI stands for sensitivity index and see \citet{tarantola06} for RBD-FAST).
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
& & \\
Index & Origin & Notes \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
$S_{X}^1$ & Sobol first-order SI & Normalized version (RBD-FAST est.)\\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
$S_{X}^{TOT}$ & Sobol total SI & Normalized version (RBD-FAST est.)\\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
$S_{X}^f$ (eq. (\ref{Sif})) & Csisz\'ar f-divergences & Includes as special case \citet{borgonovo07}, \\
& & $S_{X}^{MI}$ (eq. (\ref{Smi})) and $S_{X}^{SMI}$ (eq. (\ref{Ssmi})) \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
$S_{X}^{dCor}$ (eq. (\ref{Sdcor})) & Distance correlation & \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
$S_{X}^{dCorPF}$ (eq. (\ref{SdcorPF})) & Pick-and-freeze distance correlation & Generalization of \citet{janon13} \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
$S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ (eq. (\ref{Shsic}) & HSIC & Can be extended to categorical/functional data \\
& & \\
\hline
& & \\
$S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF}$ (eq. (\ref{ShsicPF}) & Pick-and-freeze HSIC & Generalization of \citet{janon13} \\
& & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Summary of sensitivity indices.} \label{tabSI}
\end{table}
\subsection{Analytical functions}
\paragraph{Standard GSA.} For the first experiments, we focus on GSA problems where the dimensionality is not too large (less than $10$ input variables). The objective is to compare the information given by the new indices with Sobol first-order and total indices.
\begin{itemize}
\item \citet{link06} decreasing function
\[\eta_1(X) = 0.2X_1 + \frac{0.2}{2}X_2 + \frac{0.2}{4}X_3 + \frac{0.2}{8}X_4 + \frac{0.2}{16}X_5 + \frac{0.2}{32}X_6 + \frac{0.2}{64}X_7 + \frac{0.2}{128}X_8\]
with $X_i\sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$, $i=1,\ldots,10$.
\end{itemize}
We compute the sensitivity indices based on Csisz\'ar f-divergences, dCor, pick-and-freeze dCor, HSIC and pick-and-freeze HSIC (Gaussian kernels) with a sample of size $n=500$ and we repeat this calculation 100 times. Here we use a simple kernel density estimator since we only study first-order indices. Results are given in Figure \ref{figLink}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Link}
\caption{First-order SI, $S_{X}^f$, $S_{X}^{dCor}$, $S_{X}^{dCorPF}$, $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF}$ for function $\eta_1$, $n=500$, 100 replicates.} \label{figLink}
\end{figure}
Analytical first-order SIs are $S_{X_k}^1 = S_{X_k}^{TOT} = \frac{3}{4} \left(\frac{1}{4}\right)^{i-1}/(1-(\frac{1}{4})^{10})$ for $i=1,\ldots,10$, which is coherent with the estimates at the top left. As expected, indices given by Csisz\'ar f-divergences, $S_{X}^{dCor}$, $S_{X}^{dCorPF}$, $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF}$ provide the same information as variance-based ones in this simple case of a linear model. However, let us note that dCor and HSIC detect non-influential factors very easily and robustly.
\begin{itemize}
\item \citet{loep13} function
\[\eta_2(X) = 6X_1 + 4X_2+5.5X_3+3X_1X_2+2.2X_1X_3+1.4X_2X_3+X_4+0.5X_5+0.2X_6+0.1X_7\]
with $X_i\sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$, $i=1,\ldots,10$ (the original function has constraint $\sum_{i=1}^{10} X_i=1$ but we do not consider it here).
\end{itemize}
Conclusions are similar for the \citet{loep13} function, where only the first three inputs have a large impact on the output with very small interactions (total SIs almost equal first-order SIs), see Figure \ref{figLoep}. Note that $S_{X}^{dCorPF}$ and $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF}$ recover $S_X^1$ since interactions are small. Again, dCor and HSIC clearly identify inputs which are independent of the output.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Loep}
\caption{First-order SI, $S_{X}^f$, $S_{X}^{dCor}$, $S_{X}^{dCorPF}$, $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF}$ for function $\eta_2$, $n=500$, 100 replicates.} \label{figLoep}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item Ishigami function \citep{ishigami90}
\[\eta_3(X) = \sin(X_1) + 5\sin^2(X_2) + 0.1 (X_3)^4 \sin(X_1)\]
with $X_i\sim \mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$, $i=1,\ldots,3$ and constants taken from \citet{borgonovo07}.
\end{itemize}
This time we also compute $S_X^{TOT}$ since $\eta_3$ encompasses a strong iteration term. We use a sample of size $n=200$ for computing
$S_X^1$, $S_{X}^f$, $S_{X}^{dCor}$ and $S_{X}^{dCorPF}$, but now we also need a sample of size $n\times p = 200\times 3=600$ for $S_X^{TOT}$ with RBD-FAST. Estimates obtained with 100 replications are reported in Figure \ref{figIshi1}. While first-order SIs indicate that $X_3$ has a negligible impact, it actually influences the output through an interaction term which is naturally accounted for by the total index. Is is interesting to note that all other indices detect the impact of $X_3$, as was pointed out by \citet{borgonovo07} for the total-variation index. However, one can observe the striking adequacy between $S_X^{TOT}$ and $S_{X}^{dCor}$ (unlike $S_X^f$). This clearly shows that distance correlation has the potential to detect any interaction effect since it is specifically designed for nonlinear dependence. An additional appealing property is that its estimation does not depend on the number of inputs, unlike $S_X^{TOT}$. This is a major advantage for expensive computer codes. Finally, $S_{X}^{dCorPF}$ tends to bring the same information as $S_X^f$. But recall that it has the same limitation as $S_X^{TOT}$ concerning computational cost due to the pick-and-freeze technique. The same comments apply to $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Ishigami1}
\caption{First-order SI, total SI, $S_{X}^f$, $S_{X}^{dCor}$, $S_{X}^{dCorPF}$, $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF}$ for function $\eta_3$, $n=200$, 100 replicates.} \label{figIshi1}
\end{figure}
We also investigate HSIC on level sets of the Ishigami function to compare our results with \citet{fort13}. More precisely, we use a categorical kernel and use the change of variable $Z = \mathds{1}\{\eta_3(X)>10\}$. Figure \ref{figIshi2} shows that we can recover the fact that input factor $X_3$ is more important than $X_1$ and $X_2$ for this level set function, as was observed by \citet{fort13}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Ishigami2}
\caption{$S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}PF}$ for function $\mathds{1}\{\eta_3>10\}$, $n=200$, 100 replicates.} \label{figIshi2}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Screening.} We now propose to study the performance of feature selection as an alternative to screening for problems where the number of input variables is large (more than $20$). We will deliberately limit the number of samples in order to be as close as possible to a real test case on an expensive code.
\begin{itemize}
\item \citet{morris06} function
\[\eta_4(X) = \alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \left( X_i + \beta \prod_{i<j=2}^k X_iX_j\right)\]
where $\alpha = \sqrt{12} -6\sqrt{0.1(k-1)}$, $\beta=\sqrt{12}\sqrt{0.1(k-1)}$, $X_i\sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$, $i=1,\ldots,30$ and $1\leq k\leq 10$ is an integer controlling the number of influential inputs.
\end{itemize}
We select $n=50$, $k=5$ and compute $S_X^1$, $S_X^f$, $S_{X}^{dCor}$ and $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ since all other indices are too expensive to compute in this setting (recall that $p=30$). First remark that first-order SIs identify the influential inputs in mean, but there are many replicates for which they are confounded with non-influential ones. On the contrary, $S_X^f$ completely fails ate detecting them: it will then be excluded from the other tests on screening. Notably, dCor and HSIC perfectly discriminate the first five factors and identify the remaining ones as independent from the output. We also use the HSIC Lasso (\ref{hsiclasso}), where for each replicate we use a bootstrap procedure to evaluate the probability of selection of each input factor. Here, HSIC Lasso performs very well since it selects the first 5 inputs factors almost every time.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Morris1}
\caption{First-order SI, $S_{X}^f$, $S_{X}^{dCor}$, $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and HSIC Lasso for function $\eta_4$, $n=50$, 100 replicates.} \label{figMorris1}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item \citet{sobol99} function
\[\eta_5(X) =\exp\left(\sum_{i=1}^{20} b_iX_i\right) - \prod_{i=1}^p \frac{\exp(b_i)-1}{b_i}\]
with $X_i\sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$, $i=1,\ldots,20$ and $b_i$ are taken from \citet{moon12}. Only the first eight factors are influential.
\end{itemize}
Here we also illustrate the feature selection method based on the iterative HSIC scheme detailed in Section \ref{secfs}.
Results for $n=50$ are given in Figure \ref{figSoblev1}. As expected, $S_X^1$ is unable to detect correctly the impact of the inputs. On the other hand, dCor and HSIC accurately estimate higher dependence for the first input factors than for the remaining ones. Similarly, HSIC Lasso never selects the last inputs as influential ones. The iterative feature selection based on HSIC performs well but tends to select more inputs than necessary.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Soblev1}
\caption{First-order SI, $S_{X}^f$, $S_{X}^{dCor}$, $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and HSIC Lasso for function $\eta_5$, $n=50$, 100 replicates.} \label{figSoblev1}
\end{figure}
To go further and to compare our results with the ones obtained by \citet{moon12}, we repeat this experiment with $n=100$ (approximately the sample size used by \citet{moon12}). This time first-order SIs slightly detect the influential inputs, but the more interesting fact is that dCor, HSIC and HSIC Lasso give even better results and almost perfectly identifies them. Finally, the iterative HSIC scheme now almost always discards the non-influential inputs.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Soblev2}
\caption{First-order SI, $S_{X}^f$, $S_{X}^{dCor}$, $S_{X}^{HSIC_{\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}}}$ and HSIC Lasso for function $\eta_5$, $n=100$, 100 replicates.} \label{figSoblev2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Industrial applications}
\paragraph{Acquisition strategy for reservoir characterization.}
In the petroleum industry, reservoir characterization aims at reducing the uncertainty on some unknown physical parameters of an oil reservoir by using all the data collected on the field, e.g. well logs, seismic images or dynamic data at the wells (pressures, ...). Basically, engineers solve a Bayesian inverse problem where an initial prior distribution assumed on the parameters is updated by incorporating all field observations to produce a posterior distribution. In the end, this posterior distribution is used to predict the expected oil recovery of the reservoir in the future.
However, it may be expensive to collect data and usually one wants to gather relevant observations only. This principle is at the core of so-called data acquisition strategies. For example, given the prior distribution, a natural idea is to get data which, when incorporated in the Bayesian procedure, will reduce the most the uncertainty of the obtained posterior distribution. It is easy to see that this idea actually corresponds to performing a sensitivity analysis of the parameters when data varies, where the difference between the prior and the posterior distribution is given by the measure of uncertainty reduction one chooses, i.e. the dissimilarity function $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ in equation (\ref{Si}). Since the number of both uncertain parameters and observations can be large, we can greatly capitalize on the advantages of dCor and HSIC measures in arbitrary dimension to perform this task.
Our example here makes use of the Punq reservoir test case, which is an oil reservoir model derived from real field data \citep{manceau01}. In this simplified model, seven variables which are characteristic of media, rocks, fluids or aquifer activity, are considered as uncertain (permeability multipliers, residual oil saturations, ...) and are assigned a uniform prior distribution. For illustration purposes, we assume that collectable data only consist of gas-oil ratios measurements at a given well. We generate a sample of size $n=100$ of the prior distribution, and propagate them through a fluid-flow simulator to get a sample of the simulated gas-oil ratios at the well over 10 years. They are given in Figure \ref{figpunq}, top. For each day in these 10 years, we compute the dCor measure between the parameters and the simulated ratio, see Figure \ref{figpunq}, bottom. This information makes it possible to pick up the days where measurements should be collected in order to reduce as much as possible the uncertainty on the parameters: at the beginning of the reservoir production (before 500 days) or around 3 years after. Obviously, this procedure generalizes to any number of measurements and can be performed sequentially on many observations thanks to the properties of dCor.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Punq}
\caption{Sample of size $n=100$ of the collectable data (top) and dCor measure between the parameters and the data at each time step (bottom) for the Punq test case.} \label{figpunq}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Screening for contamination migration in waste storage site.}
The Marthe test case investigated here concerns prediction of the transport of strontium 90 in a porous water-saturated medium for evaluating the contamination of an aquifer in a temporary storage of radioactive waste \citep{volkova08}. Twenty input parameters mainly representative of the geological uncertainty are considered as random, and a set of 300 simulations is available at \url{http://www.gdr-mascotnum.fr/benchmarks.html}. Accessible outputs are strontium 90 concentrations simulated at ten different wells, as well as the concentrations on a complete 2D map of the area (discretized on $64\times 64 = 4096$ pixels). We place ourselves in a screening setting where we use only $n=50$ simulations to identify the influential inputs. To estimate the variability of our results, we pick at random these 50 samples among the 300 available and repeat the procedure 100 times. We use the HSIC dependence measure with a Gaussian kernel first in its standard form by considering the vector of concentrations at the 10 observation wells. But we also take advantage of a kernel designed for the 2D maps as was mentioned in Section \ref{secFunc}. Namely we use the PCA semi-metric \citep{ferraty06} and vary the number of principal components (1, 5 and 20 explaining $50\%$, $80\%$ and $95\%$ of the total variance, respectively). Results are given in Figure \ref{figmarthe}. First note that they are coherent with the ones obtained by \cite{volkova08} where the authors used the 300 simulations to build a surrogate model. Here, we then get the same detection of influential inputs but with only 50 simulations (parameters i3, kd1, kd2). In addition, the PCA kernel leads to more discriminating indices as soon as the explained variance is sufficient (5 PCs). This clearly illustrates the potential of HSIC for functional data.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Marthe}
\caption{HSIC measure between the parameters and the data for the Marthe test case (10 observation wells and 2D maps with a PCA kernel with 1, 5 and 20 principal components).} \label{figmarthe}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we introduced a new class of sensitivity indices based on dependence measures which overcomes the insufficiencies of variance-based methods in GSA.
We demonstrated that when the output distribution is compared with its conditional counterpart through Csisz\'ar f-divergences, sensitivity indices arise as well-known dependence measures between random variables. We then extended these indices by using recent state-of-the-art dependence measures, such as distance correlation and the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion. We also emphasized the potential of feature selection techniques relying on such dependence measures as alternatives to screening in high dimension.
Interestingly, these new sensitivity indices are very robust to dimensionality, have low computational cost and can be elegantly extended to functional and categorical output or input variables. This opens the door to new and powerful tools for GSA and factors screening for high dimensional and expensive computer codes.
\bibliographystyle{agsm}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:intro}
Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are believed to be produced by the
relativistic jets released from the compact central engines, however
the composition of jets and the energy dissipation and radiation
mechanism at work are still far from clear. In the widely used
internal shock model (\cite{Rees94}), the energy dissipation in GRBs
is caused by collisions between different parts of the unsteady
outflow. These collisions produce shocks which accelerate electrons
and generate magnetic field, and the GRB prompt emission is produced
by the synchrotron radiation from the accelerated electrons. The
internal shock model can generally match the gamma-ray properties of
GRBs. For typical model parameters, the internal shock synchrotron
model can naturally explain the complexity of GRB light curves
(\cite{Koba97}), the spectral break energy around MeV range, and the
high energy photon index of $\beta\sim-2$ (see review of
\cite{waxman03})\footnote{Note, there are also the other energy
dissipation model involving magnetic energy dissipation by
reconnection and turbulence etc. (e.g., \cite{usov94,
thompson94,Lyu03,narayan,zhangyan}) and the other radiation
mechanism, e.g., thermal radiation (\cite{mr00,beloborodov10}).}.
Moreover the "fast cooling problem" of the low energy photon index
can also be reconciled by involving postshock magnetic field decay
in the internal shock model (\cite{peer06,zhaoli13}).
The observations of GRB prompt emission outside the MeV energy range
will further help to diagnose the jet properties and the central
engine activity. The Fermi-LAT observations of bright GRBs reveal
that the GRB emission in GeV range also shows short timescale,
$\la1$~s, variabilities in both long and short GRBs (e.g.,
\cite{Ad09a,Ad09b}), implying the similar origin related to MeV
emission. However, the temporal delay of GeV emission relative to
MeV one implies larger radii of GeV emission than that of MeV ones
(\cite{li10}). Moreover, the fact that the GeV emission is dominated
by MeV one supports that the radiation mechanism at work for MeV
emission is synchrotron radiation other than inverse-Compton
scattering (\cite{wang09}; see also \cite{derishev02,piran09}). On
the other hand, the prompt optical emission during the gamma-ray
emission is detected in some GRBs (e.g., GRB 990123, \cite{Aker99};
GRB 041219A, \cite{Vest05}; GRB 051109A and GRB 051111,
\cite{Yost07}; GRB 061121, \cite{Page07}; see also
\cite{kobayashi13}, and references therein). The bright optical
emission also implies that the radius of the optical emission region
is larger than MeV one, in order to avoid the synchrotron self
absorption (Li \& Waxman~\cite{lw08,fan09,shenzhang,zou}). However
the temporal optical properties in short time scale, $\la1$~s, are
not clear due to the low time resolution in optical observations.
By luck, the detection of the naked-eye burst, GRB 080319B, presents
the only and best-sampled case hitherto for analyzing the overall
temporal structure of the lightcurves of GRBs (\cite{Rac08};
Beskin et al.~\cite{Besk10}). The high (sub-second) temporal resolution data,
acquired from the onset of the optical transient to the end, makes
the burst possible for revealing the detailed structure of the
optical emission, shedding light on the behavior of the burst
internal engine (Beskin et al.~\cite{Besk10}). There are two main temporal
properties in the optical light curve of GRB 080319B. First, the
onset of the optical emission is delayed relative to the gamma-ray
one by $\sim10$s; Second, in the plateau phase the optical light
curve is correlated to gamma-ray one but with a time lag of
$\sim2$s. The former property may be due to the effect of
environment, e.g., the dust effect in the molecular cloud
(\cite{cui13}), while the latter is more likely tracking the time
history of the central engine, which is the focus of this paper.
As pointed out in Li \& Waxman~(\cite{lw08}), within the context of the internal
shock models, after the first generation collisions producing
gamma-ray emission, collisions continue to happen in larger and
larger radii with smaller and smaller relative velocities. These
"residual collisions" produce longer and longer wavelength
emission, which can avoid the strong synchrotron absorption in
gamma-ray emission region and produce strong optical emission as
observed. Because of the larger emission radii, the optical emission
is expected to systemically delay relative to the gamma-ray one.
Moreover the correlation between optical and gamma-ray light curves
in GRB 080319B implies a large timescale modulation in the central
engine activity.
In this paper we carry out numerical simulations of internal shocks
to produce multi-band, including gamma-ray and optical, light
curves, with focus on the effect of non-single timescale activities
of the central engines. In Section 2, we provide a general
description of the model we use. In Section 3, based on the model,
we perform several simulation tests with different initial Lorentz
factor distributions, following which we derive both optical and
gamma-ray lightcurves with different temporal structures. In Section
4, we compare the model results with the observational data of GRB
080319B. We discuss the implications on the central engine
activity in Section 5, and draw our conclusions in Section 6.
\section{Model}\label{sect:mod}
The GRB unsteady outflow can be approximated by a set of individual
shells with the initial position $r_i$, mass $m_i$, Lorentz factor
$\gamma_i$ and width $\Delta_i$ ($i=1,...,N$) at time $t=0$. The
initial widths can be taken to be the size of the source,
$\Delta_{1,...,N}=\Delta_0\approx10^6$cm. Given the initial
condition of the shells, the dynamical evolution afterward will be
totally fixed. Two neighboring shells $i$ and $i+1$ which satisfy
$v_{i+1}>v_i$ may collide at a time of $t+\Delta t$, where $\Delta
t=(r_i-r_{i+1})/(v_{i+1}-v_i)$, and the colliding radius is
$r_c=r_i+v_i\Delta t=r_{i+1}+v_{i+1}\Delta t$. The pair of shells
with smaller $\Delta t$ will collide first and merge into a new
shell.
For the pair of colliding shells, the velocity of center of momentum
(c.m.) is $\beta_{cm}=\sum\gamma_i\beta_im_i/\sum\gamma_im_i=\sum
m_i\sqrt{\gamma_i^2-1}/\sum\gamma_im_i$ and the relevant Lorentz
factor (LF) is $\gamma_{cm}=1/\sqrt{1-\beta_{cm}^2}$. They are also
the velocity and LF of the merged shell, respectively. In the case
of $\gamma_{i,i+1}\gg1$, the c.m. LF can be approximated by
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{cm}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma_im_i+\gamma_{i+1}m_{i+1}}{m_i/\gamma_i+m_{i+1}/\gamma_{i+1}}}.
\end{equation}
The shell may expand and change the shell width. Before collision at
$r_c$, the width of a shell is
$\Delta_i=\max(\Delta_i,~r_c/\gamma_{cm}^2)$ (\cite{guetta01}).
Because of compression by the shocks, the width of the merged shell
right after shock crossing, $\Delta_c$, is smaller than the sum of
the shell widths right before the collision
$\Delta_c<\Delta_i+\Delta_{i+1}$ (We derive $\Delta_c$ in the
appendix). After merging, the parameters for merged shell are the
position $r_c$, mass $m_i+m_{i+1}$, LF $\gamma_{cm}$ and width
$\Delta_c$. Collisions continue to occur, and they will only stop
when the shell velocities are increasing with radius after
enough collisions and momentum exchanges between shells.
The internal energy generated in this collision is
\begin{equation}
E_{in}/c^2=(\gamma_im_i+\gamma_{i+1}m_{i+1})-\gamma_{cm}(m_i+m_{i+1})
\end{equation}
which is released by synchrotron radiation. The emission appears as
a pulse in the light curve. For simplicity we assume the shape of
the pulse as a rectangle with a width of $\delta
t=r_c/2\gamma_{cm}^2c$. So the luminosity of the light curve pulse
is $L=E_{in}/\delta t$. Actually, a pulse with fast rise and
slower decline in lightcurves can be produced due to the effect of
equal arrival time surface (e.g., \cite{Koba97,Shen05,Hua07}).
However, the time resolution of the observed lightcurves in the
prompt phase is not sufficient to tell the detailed pulse shapes.
Thus we adopt a simple shape for each pulse and this assumption does
not affect our temporal analysis of the lightcurves. In
observation, the starting time of the pulse is at a observer time of
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm obs} = t-r_c/c .
\end{equation}
For the numerous collisions taking place between multiple shells, we
superimpose pulses produced by each collision according to their
time sequence.
Let us calculate the characteristic energy of the synchrotron
photons. The shell $i$'s velocity and LF in c.m. frame are
\begin{equation}
\beta'=\frac{\beta_i-\beta_{cm}}{1-\beta_i\beta_{cm}},
~~\gamma'=\gamma_i\gamma_{cm}(1-\beta_i\beta_{cm}).
\end{equation}
The characteristic postshock electron LF is
\begin{equation}
\gamma_e\approx(\gamma'-1)\epsilon_em_p/m_e+1,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_e$ is the fraction of postshock energy carried by
electrons. The magnetic field in the shock frame is given by
\begin{equation}
B=\sqrt{\frac{2\epsilon_BE_{in}}{\gamma_{cm}^2r_c^2\Delta_c}},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_B$ is the fraction of postshock energy carried by
magnetic field. Note here we use the shock-compressed width
$\Delta_c$ (derived in the appendix) to calculate $B$. The
synchrotron photon energy is then
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{syn}\approx\gamma_{cm}\gamma_{e}^2\frac{heB}{2\pi m_ec}=\gamma_{e}^2\frac{he}{2\pi m_ec}\sqrt{\frac{2\epsilon_BE_{in}}{r_c^2\Delta_c}}
\end{equation}
independent of $\gamma_{cm}$. The equipartition values
$\epsilon_e=\epsilon_B=1/3$ will be used in the following numerical
simulation.
For long wavelength emission, the synchrotron absorption may be
important. Following Li \& Waxman~(\cite{lw08}) to calculate the synchrotron
absorption frequency when $\epsilon_a>\epsilon_{syn}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{a}=2(\epsilon_BE_{in})^{1/14}\gamma_{cm}^{4/7}\gamma'^{2/7}(m_i+m_{i+1})^{2/7}(cr_c)^{-5/7}\Delta_c^{-5/14}\rm
keV,
\end{equation}
where a flat electron distribution of $p=2$ is used. The energy
spectrum will peak at $\epsilon=\max(\epsilon_{syn},\epsilon_a)$.
For simplicity let us assume a $\delta$ function for the spectrum,
i.e., the radiation is emitted at $\epsilon$.
In order to inspect the temporal correlation between the prompt
optical and gamma-ray emission, the radiation produced by two shell
collisions is decomposed into different frequency ranges, gamma-ray
($>100$~keV), X-ray ($1-10$~keV) and optical emission ($1-10$~eV),
according to the energy band at which the synchrotron emission
peaks.
\section{Simulation tests}
\label{sect:Lit}
In order to show the effect of multi-timescale variabilities on the
dynamics of the outflow, we carry out simulations for both cases of
single- and two-timescale variabilities for comparison. We consider
a series of individual material shells $i = 1, 2, ...,N$, with total
shell number $N$, released in a duration of $T = 20$~s, so that the
interval between two nearby shells is $\tau_1=T/N$. The shells have
equal masses but different LFs. We carry four simulation tests as
below. For Test 1, we use $N=2000$, thus $\tau_1=10$~ms, and the
bulk LF of each shell follows
\begin{equation}
\log\gamma_i=\log50+\xi_i\log10+(2\xi_i-1)\log2,
\end{equation}
where $\xi_i$ is the random number between zero and unity. This is
the case with only a single timescale of $\tau_1=10$~ms. For Test 2,
there are two timescales in the LF evolution. Beside the
$\tau_1=10$~ms variability ($N=2000$), there is an additional slow
modulation of $\tau_2=5$~s,
\begin{equation}
\log\gamma_i=\log50+\xi_i\log10+\sin[\frac{2\pi}{\tau_2}(i-1)\tau_1-1.5]\log2.
\end{equation}
We also test Test 3 and 4 similar to Test 2 but with different
values of $\tau_1$ or $\tau_2$: $\tau_1=10$~ms and $\tau_2=3.3$~s in
Test 3; while $\tau_1=40$~ms (i.e., $N=500$) and $\tau_2=5$~s in
Test 4.
\paragraph{Test 1.}
To examine the dependence of the temporal structure of lightcurves
on the initial velocity variations inside the ejecta, we first
perform a simulation test using a succession of initial Lorentz
factors with only a rapid random variability component. We consider
the case with uniformly distributed LFs presented in
Fig.~\ref{fig:test1}. Note that here we only display the first 20\,s
of the optical lightcurve for a clear comparison with the gamma-ray one.
It is straightforward to show that the
short-scale variability features of the LFs are imprinted on both
the optical and gamma-ray lightcurves (Fig.~\ref{fig:test1}). In
contrast to the broad periodic component seen in the following
simulation tests, there are only stochastic spikes existing in the
lightcurves.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{1LF.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{1opta.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{1gam.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{1ccf.eps}
\renewcommand{\captionlabelfont}{\bf}
\captionsetup{labelsep=space}
\caption{\small Results of Test 1. Top panel: the initial Lorentz factor distribution.
Second panel: the optical light curve Third panel: the gamma-ray
lightcurve in 50 ms time bin. Bottom panel: the cross-correlation
function between the gamma-ray and optical lightcurves.
}\label{fig:test1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{2LF.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{2opta.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{2gam.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{2ccf.eps}
\renewcommand{\captionlabelfont}{\bf}
\captionsetup{labelsep=space} \caption{\small Results of Test 2.
}\label{fig:test2}
\end{minipage}%
\end{figure}
In addition, Fig.~\ref{Fig:5tgr} shows the complete optical
lightcurves from our five simulation tests. Logarithmic luminosity
is used here due to the weak optical emission after $t_{\rm obs}
>20$~s. The optical emission clearly has a more variable temporal
profile in the early 20\,s than the rest part (also see Table 1),
i.e., the variability time in the late time is larger than the
early, $<20$s, emission.
\paragraph{Test 2.}
We start with a simple two-component Lorentz factor distribution of
the shells. Fig.~\ref{fig:test2} presents the distribution of the
initial LFs of the shells with indices from one to $N$. In our
calculations, the $N$th shell is the first shell emitted by the
inner engine, indicating the outer edge of the ejecta. The overall
duration of the burst is $T=20$\,s in the observer frame. The slow
and periodic variability existing in the LFs is on a time scale of
$\tau_2=5$\,s, and the overlapping rapid and irregular variations
have $\tau_1=10$\,ms time scale. Fig.~\ref{fig:test2} shows the
corresponding optical and gamma-ray lightcurves produced by a
Monte-Carlo simulation of the dynamic process of the colliding
shells we described in Section~\ref{sect:mod}.
By comparing these two lightcurves, we find they both show a
superposition of two variability components: a slow periodic
component with a duration of $\sim$ 5\,s and a fast component with
stochastic short pulse widths. But in contrast to the smoother
profile in optical band, the gamma-ray lightcurve is obviously
highly variable with more rapid short-scale variabilities (see Table
1). To have a better comparison with the observed data, we rebinned
the optical and gamma-ray lightcurves with a 0.13 s and 50 ms bin
size, respectively (Beskin et al.~\cite{Besk10}), and performed a
cross-correlation analysis between them. Fig.~\ref{fig:test2}
displays the normalized cross-correlation sequence between the
optical and gamma-ray lightcurves as a function of optical delay
time.The correlation coefficient reaches its highest value ($\sim$ 0.50)
when the optical flux is delayed by 1.9 s with respect to the
gamma-ray emission. Since our results are just based on the simple
modeling of the internal shock dynamics, the time delay naturally
results from the evolution of Lorentz factor fluctuations of the
fast moving shells. At first, gamma-ray emission originates from the
outflow with highly variable LFs at a small radius. As the flow
moves forward to a larger radius, the variance of the Lorentz
factors of the remained shells decreases, leading to the decrease of
the radiated energy after collisions, and the characteristic
frequency of the emission as well (Li \& Waxman~\cite{lw08}).
The average ratio of the optical and gamma-ray fluxes indicates relatively bright optical
emission accompanying gamma-ray emission, which is consistent with
optical detections. The bright optical emission can be naturally
explained in the framework of the residual collisions model, since
optical emission can be produced at large radii, where the optical
depth to optical photons is low (Li \& Waxman~\cite{lw08}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{3LF.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{3opta.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{3gam.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{3ccf.eps}\\
\renewcommand{\captionlabelfont}{\bf}
\captionsetup{labelsep=space}
\caption{\small Results of Test 3. }\label{fig:test3}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{4LF.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{4opta.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{4gam.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{4ccf.eps}\\
\renewcommand{\captionlabelfont}{\bf}
\captionsetup{labelsep=space}
\caption{\small Results of Test 4. }\label{fig:test4}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Test 3.}
Next, we test the cases with different timescales of the two
variability components of the initial LFs respectively. This is the
same as Test 2, except the period of the slow variability component
is changed to 3.3\,s. Fig.~\ref{fig:test3} shows the consequential
optical and gamma-ray lightcurves. Similar results to those
presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:test2} can be found for both lightcurves.
With narrower slow component duration ($\sim$ 3.3\,s), the
lightcurves contain the same number of periodic variability seen in
the initial LFs.
\paragraph{Test 4.}
We then increase the timescale of the rapid variability of the
initial LFs by reducing the number of shells. Correspondingly, the
irregular short-scale variabilities in both lightcurves clearly have
larger timescales. We find the total energy emitted over the
gamma-ray band obviously decreases due to fewer collisions at small
radii (see Fig. \ref{fig:test4}). Fewer gamma-ray data
also lead to lower correlation between the two lightcurves.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{5LF.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{5opta.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{5gam.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm]{5ccf.eps}\\
\renewcommand{\captionlabelfont}{\bf}
\captionsetup{labelsep=space}
\caption{\small Results of Test 5, as a comparison with GRB 080319B (figure 2 in
Beskin et al.~(\cite{Besk10})).}\label{fig:test5}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Table 1 lists the parameters for the above simulation tests.
Here we do not consider the redshift of the source, or all the
timescales in Table 1 should be increased by $1+\emph{z}$. As can be
seen from our simulation tests, the temporal behavior of prompt
optical and gamma-ray emission is sensitive to the changes of the
initial velocity variations inside the ejecta. The variability
features exhibited in lightcurves tend to strictly track the
temporal structure of the initial LFs of the shells.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption[]{Parameters and results of the simulation tests.
}\label{Tab:par} \setlength\tabcolsep{2.3pt}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\toprule
& $N$\tnote{1} & $\tau_1$\,(s)\tnote{2} & $\tau_2$\,(s)\tnote{3} & $r$\tnote{4} & $\Delta t$\,(s)\tnote{5} & $\delta t_o$\,(s)\tnote{6}& $\delta t_{o,1}$\,(s)\tnote{7} & $\delta t_{o,2}$\,(s)\tnote{8} & $\delta t_\gamma$\,(s)\tnote{9} \\
\midrule
Test 1 & 2000 & 0.01 & $-$ & 0.56 & 0.8 & 2.8 & 1.4 & 12.9 & 0.004 \\
Test 2 & 2000 & 0.01 & 5 & 0.50 & 1.9 & 3.0 & 1.3 & 15.0 & 0.004 \\
Test 3 & 2000 & 0.01 & 3.3 & 0.65 & 1.4 & 2.3 & 1.4 & 13.5 & 0.006 \\
Test 4 & 500 & 0.04 & 5 & 0.21 & 2.7 & 6.0 & 1.9 & 22.0 & 0.012 \\
Test 5 & 2000 & 0.01 & 5 & 0.64 & 1.2 & 2.8 & 1.7 & 11.7 & 0.005 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\footnotesize
\item[1] The number of shells.
\item[2] The timescales of the fast variability components existing in initial LFs.
\item[3] The timescales of the slow variability components existing in initial LFs.
\item[4] The highest correlation coefficient between optical and gamma-ray lightcurves.
\item[5] The time lag between optical and gamma-ray emission.
\item[6] The average timescale of variability in optical
emission.
\item[7] The average timescale of variability in optical emission for $t_{\rm obs} \leq 20$~s.
\item[8] The average timescale of variability in optical emission for $t_{\rm obs} >20$~s.
\item[9] The average timescale of variability in gamma-ray
emission.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\section{Comparison with GRB 080319B}
\label{sect:com} The high temporal resolution detection of the
prompt optical emission of GRB 080319B and its gamma-ray counterpart
serve as the only available observed data to test our model.
Periodic variability on a few seconds time scale may exist in both
optical and rebinned gamma-ray lightcurves during the prompt phase
of the emission (Beskin et al.~\cite{Besk10}). Besides the four similar peaks,
short time-scale variability can be seen in the realistic
lightcurves, including the rapid optical variability on time scales
from several seconds to subseconds and a large amount of stochastic
variability in the gamma-ray emission (Beskin et al.~\cite{Besk10}).
In align with the observations, the simulated lightcurves capture
both the underlying equidistant broad component and the short-scale
variability features. The detected time delay ($\sim$ 2\,s in the observer frame,
Beskin et al.~\cite{Besk10}) between the optical and gamma-ray emission has the
same order of magnitude as $\Delta$ \emph{t} shown in Table 1 (after
multiplied by $1+\emph{z}$). Despite the time lag, a clear
similarity exists between the optical and gamma-ray lightcurves, as
indicated in Beskin et al.~(\cite{Besk10}). This temporal correlation shows the
emission in the optical and gamma-ray ranges is generated by a
common mechanism, but at different locations.
Since our model can be applied to general GRB events by modifying
the initial Lorentz factor distribution of the ejected shells, in
order to construct the temporal structure of this specific burst, we
also present a slightly modified version of Test 2 (see Test 5 in
Table 1 and Fig. \ref{fig:test5}) as a comparison with figure 2 in
Beskin et al.~(\cite{Besk10}). Note that the initial LFs in Test 5
have the same variability timescales as those in Test 2, but the
adjusted Lorentz factor distribution leads to different lightcurves
characterized mainly by four overlapping peaks
(Fig.~\ref{fig:test5}) instead of separated pulses
(Fig.~\ref{fig:test2}).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{5tgr.eps}
\renewcommand{\captionlabelfont}{\bf}
\captionsetup{labelsep=space}
\caption{\small The complete optical lightcurves from all simulation tests.}
\label{Fig:5tgr}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
The simple model we proposed is able to explain the basic temporal
structure of diverse GRB prompt emission. By adjusting the initial
velocity variations, i.e., the initial Lorentz factor distribution
in the outflow, our simulations can reproduce the complex
variability features in realistic lightcurves. One can predict the
highly variable temporal profile by controlling the initial variance
of the shell velocities, and more importantly, inspecting the
observational temporal features in the lightcurves of separate
energy bands allows us to assess the central engine activity in
detail.
The central engine activity and its detailed properties
regulate the temporal variations displayed in the sequence of shells
injected from the central engine, which are then reflected in the
observed variability components in the lightcurves. For GRB 080319B,
we require at least two timescales of the central engine activity to
reproduce the observed optical light curve, which is an important
implication of its central engine. In current situation we are not
able to identify what causes these two timescales. However,
following the common picture of the collapsar model a new black
hole, with a surrounding torus, is born in the center of the
progenitor star. For a black hole of $\sim3m_3M_\odot$, the
accretion time of material at the innermost radius $r_{\rm in}$ of
the torus is $t_{\rm acc}\sim2m_3$~ms (e.g., \cite{narayan01}),
comparable to the small timescale we require, whereas the accretion
time at the outer radius $r_{\rm out}\sim10^2r_{\rm in}$ is $t_{\rm
acc}\sim4m_3(r_{\rm out}/10^2r_{\rm in})^{3/2}$s (\cite{narayan01}),
similar to the larger timescale. This may imply that the material
supply at the outer edge of the torus is non-stable.
An important feature shown in our simulation results is the
time delay between the optical and gamma-ray lightcurves due to the
larger radius of the optical emission region. The delay time is
about 1~s in all the tests. The optical delay has been predicted by
Li \& Waxman (\cite{lw08}) in the single timescale case. They show
that for optical emission to avoid the synchrotron self absorption,
the outflow needs to expand to larger radii of
$R\sim10^{15}R_{15}$cm, and hence the optical delay time is $\Delta
t\sim
R/2\langle\Gamma\rangle^2c\sim1R_{15}(\langle\Gamma\rangle/10^2)^{-2}$s,
where $\langle\Gamma\rangle$ is the average value of initial Lorentz
factors of the ejected shells. This is comparable to the resulted
delay time in the tests. However, since many factors can influence
the delay time, more systematic simulations are required to
investigate the dependence of the delay time on the input parameters
in the future work.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sect:conc} Starting with a two-component Lorentz factor
distribution of the shells injected from the central engine, our
simulations generated the optical and gamma-ray lightcurves both as
a superposition of two variability components with different time
scales. The slow component has the same time scale as that exhibited
in the initial LFs, while the time scale of the fast component has a
trend with energy: the gamma-ray lightcurve has much more and faster
short-scale variabilities than its optical counterpart. Moreover,
the time scale of the fast variability changes with time in the
simulated optical lightcurve. The value in the first 20\,s of the
lightcurve is one order of magnitude smaller than that of the rest
part, which is in agreement with the finding in \cite{Marg08}.
The similarity between the optical and gamma-ray lightcurves, and
the time delay between them, provide strong evidence that the
emission has a common origin, but is generated at different radii
from the central engine. Further discussions show that the
lightcurves of prompt emission actually provide the temporal
information to clarify the physical nature of the central engine.
The different variability components seen in the lightcurves depend
on the intrinsic variability with different time scales of the
internal engine. Detailed temporal analysis of the simulated
lightcurves is necessary and will be performed in our future work.
Hopefully, more high temporal resolution observations of both prompt
optical emission from GRBs will be acquired by future telescopes,
e.g., UFFO-Pathfinder (\cite{uffo}) and SVOM-GWAC (\cite{gwac}).
These well-sampled bursts will further test the validity of our
model and provide a deeper insight into the source behavior.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work has been supported in part by the NSFC (11273005), the MOE
Ph.D. Programs Foundation, China (20120001110064), the CAS Open
Research Program of Key Laboratory for the Structure and Evolution
of Celestial Objects, and the National Basic Research Program (973
Program) of China (2014CB845800).
\section*{appendix}
We derive the width of the merged shell after shock crossings.
Consider two colliding shells, with the lab-frame width $\Delta_i$
and LF $\gamma_i$, where $i=1,2$. Shell 2 is faster, and overtakes
shell 1. There are double shocks and 4 regions in the interaction.
The unshocked shell 1 and 2 have number densities $n_1$ and $n_2$,
respectively, in their own rest frame. The densities in forward and
reverse shock regions are $n_f=4\gamma_fn_1$ and $n_r=4\gamma_rn_2$,
respectively, in their own rest frame, where $\gamma_{f,r}$ are the
LFs of the shocked fluid relative to unshocked shell 1 and 2,
respectively,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_f=\gamma_1\gamma_{cm}(1-\beta_1\beta_{cm}),
~~\gamma_r=\gamma_2\gamma_{cm}(1-\beta_2\beta_{cm}).
\end{equation}
Note there is no relative motion between forward and reverse shock
regions.
Now consider everything in one frame, which is better to be the lab
frame. In the lab frame, the unshocked shell 1, shocked fluid (both
forward and reverse shock regions) and unshocked shell 2 have LFs
$\gamma_1$, $\gamma_{cm}$ and $\gamma_2$. So in the lab frame, the
densities of the 4 regions are, inner going, $\gamma_1n_1$,
$\gamma_{cm}n_f$, $\gamma_{cm}n_r$ and $\gamma_2n_2$. The
compression factor, i.e. the factor the density is enhanced by
shock, is
$k_f=\gamma_{cm}n_f/(\gamma_1n_1)=4\gamma_f\gamma_{cm}/\gamma_1$ for
forward shock region, or
$k_r=\gamma_{cm}n_r/(\gamma_1n_1)=4\gamma_r\gamma_{cm}/\gamma_2$ for
reverse shock region. Thus the shock-compressed, merged shell has a
width, right after merging without spreading, of
\begin{equation}
\Delta_c=\frac{\Delta_1}{k_f}+\frac{\Delta_2}{k_r}=\frac{\Delta_1\gamma_1}{4\gamma_f\gamma_{cm}}+\frac{\Delta_2\gamma_2}{4\gamma_r\gamma_{cm}}
=\frac1{4\gamma_{cm}^2}\left(\frac{\Delta_1}{1-\beta_1\beta_{cm}}+\frac{\Delta_2}{1-\beta_2\beta_{cm}}\right).
\end{equation}
|
\section{Introduction}
Edge Localised Modes (ELMs) are instabilities that occur at the edge
of tokamak plasmas \cite{Wesson}.
They are thought to be triggered by an ideal Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD)
instability of the plasma's edge \cite{EPED1,WebsterNF}, and are
presently found in nearly all high confinement tokamak
plasmas \cite{Keilhacker84,Zohm, Kamiya}.
Large ELMs such as those that are predicted to occur in ITER
\cite{Aymar,Lipschultz,Loarte},
will need to be reduced in size or avoided entirely if plasma-facing
components are to have a reasonable lifetime.
One way to reduce ELM size is by ``pacing'' the ELMs at
higher frequencies than their natural rate of occurrence
\cite{Liang,LangPacing},
because
they are expected to occur with a lower energy due to the empirically
observed relationship between ELM energy ($\delta E$) and ELM
frequency ($f$) of $\delta E \propto 1/f$ \cite{Hermann}.
The ELM frequency is usually reported
as an average over all ELMs in a given pulse, and is identical to
one divided by the
average waiting time between the ELMs.
In contrast to the relationships between the average ELM energy and
average ELM frequency, the relationship between an individual ELM's energy
and its individual ``frequency''
(often defined as one divided by its waiting
time since the previous ELM), is rarely reported.
It is this topic that is considered here.
Since 2011 the JET tokamak has been operating with its previously
Carbon plasma-facing components replaced with the metal ITER-like wall
\cite{Rudi}.
This has led to differences in plasma confinement and ELM properties,
as discussed for example in \cite{Rudi, Maddison} and references
therein.
This paper focuses its attention on a set of 150 JET plasmas produced
over a two week period in July 2012, 120 of which were nearly
identical, providing $\sim$10,000 statistically equivalent ELMs.
Such high quality statistical information on ELM properties has never
previously been available.
The pulses are 2 Tesla 2 Mega Amp H-mode plasmas with approximately
12MW of NBI heating, a fuelling rate of 1.4$\times 10^{22}$ Ds$^{-1}$,
Z$_{eff}$=1.2, and
a triangularity of $\delta$=0.2, see \cite{NewRef2} for further
details, including a large selection of time traces.
The plasmas each have
approximately 6 seconds of steady H-mode, 2.3 seconds of which between
11.5 and 13.8 seconds is exceptionally steady and is what we consider
here and in previous work \cite{EPSResonances, Resonances}.
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{CPS13.1929-4c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{Tree}
The probability density function (pdf) for the waiting time between
ELM events, determined from the ELM waiting time data from 120
equivalent pulses (see text for details).
Each line corresponds to data from an individual pulse.
Reproduced from Ref. \cite{Resonances}.
}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{figure*}
The large quantities of extremely high quality steady-state data that
these plasmas provide, allows statistical methods to
observe details that could not otherwise be seen, such as an
unexpected series of maxima and minima in the probability density
function (pdf) for the waiting times between ELMs that was created
from the experimental data (see figure \ref{Tree}, reproduced from
Ref. \cite{Resonances}).
The series of maxima and minima in figure \ref{Tree} are not due to
different ELM frequencies in different pulses, but arise from a
sequence of statistically almost independent ELM events, whose
resulting probability distribution is in figure \ref{Tree}.
The cause of this phenomenon is not fully understood, and is presently
under investigation, preliminary results are in
Refs. \cite{EPSResonances} and \cite{Resonances}.
A question that motivated this paper was whether the maxima and minima
in figure \ref{Tree} had a similar distribution of "quantised" ELM
energies.
The answer we will find is no, but the excellent statistical
information has led to a number of other surprising results that we
will report here.
It is worth noting that it requires of order 250-500 ELMs to clearly
observe the 4-5 maxima and minima of figure 1.
This
typically will require pulses to
be repeated 4-5 times, and considerably more if we are to ensure that
the statistical noise is kept small.
It also requires pulses that are
extremely steady.
Such large quantities of high quality data are not
generally available, and as a result, it is not possible at present to
be certain about how common the phenomenon is, or whether it is only
present in ITER-like wall plasmas.
We will find no evidence that the phenomenon is affecting the ELM
energies at all, it seems solely to affect the times at which ELMs are
triggered.
Therefore the phenomenon is not discussed further here, but seems likely to
be important for understanding how ELMs are triggered.
The outline of the paper is as follows.
In Section \ref{define} we describe how we determine and define
individual ELM sizes.
In Section \ref{ELMstats} we describe the statistical properties of
the ELMs.
Section \ref{dtp} considers the average evolution of the edge
temperature and pressure,
and in Section \ref{Concs} we discuss the results and
propose our conclusions.
\section{Defining the energy and density drop due to an
ELM}\label{define}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{CPS13.1771-1c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{Signals}
From top to bottom: i) The Be II (527nm) signal measured at the inner
divertor, that is used to identify ELMs from the sharp spikes in
radiation. ii) The estimated thermal energy stored in
the plasma, which is calculated by EFIT using magnetic measurements to
reconstruct the MHD equilibrium and infer the plasma's pressure. The
thermal energy is $3/2$ times the volume integral of the plasma pressure,
sometimes referred to as the plasma's ``kinetic'' energy. iii) The
line-integrated plasma number density at the
plasma's edge.
For each ELM there is a sharp spike in Be II emission, shortly
followed by a drop in density to a minimum at around 0.005s after the
ELM started, and a drop in the plasma's thermal energy to a minimum
some time around 0.01s after the ELM started.
}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{figure*}
The main purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between
the losses of plasma energy or density due to ELMs, and the waiting
times between the ELMs.
The signals that are used are the line integrated edge plasma density,
which is a direct line-integrated measure of the density at the plasma's
edge, and the plasma's thermal energy as inferred from a collection
of magnetic diagnostics using EFIT \cite{EFIT,EFIT2},
both of which are checked and compared with independent Thompson
scattering measurements.
The Beryllium II (527nm) radiation that is measured at the inner
divertor is used to determine when ELMs occur, using
the method described in \cite{WebsterDendyPRL}, that detects the statistically
large spikes in radiation that are associated with ELMs.
For the type I ELMs in the H-mode plasmas considered here, the ELMs
are easy to identify with this method.
All the signals just described are standard and widely used JET
signals.
An advantage of the signals chosen is that they are independent
measurements for: the line integrated density, the Be II light emissions,
and the thermal energy losses inferred from magnetic measurements; and the
former two measurements are direct measurements requiring minimal
reconstruction from diagnostic data.
Following an ELM there is a small radial plasma motion by 7-8mm, that
in principle can affect measurements.
Appendix \ref{ROG} confirms that for the plasmas studied here at
least, this can be neglected in comparison to the much larger changes in
the post-ELM measurements.
Next we will firstly discuss the measured changes to the line
integrated plasma density, we will find that similar remarks
apply to changes in the plasma's energy.
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-2c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{PostELMdensity}
The fall in line-integrated edge density with time since each ELM is
plotted for a typical pulse in the set (pulse number 83790).
There is a clearly visible minima at around 0.005 seconds.
Beyond about 0.012 seconds there are a small number of additional
drops in density due to ELMs that occur within the 0.03 second time
interval that is plotted.
}
\vspace{1.5cm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-3c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{PostELMEnergy}
The fall in the plasma's thermal energy with time since each ELM is
plotted for a typical pulse in the set (pulse number 83790).
There are two clearly visible minima, one between 0.002 and 0.005
seconds, and another at around 0.01 seconds.
Beyond about 0.012 seconds there are a small number of additional
drops in energy due to ELMs that occur within the 0.03 second time
interval that is plotted.
}
\end{figure*}
Following an ELM, the line integrated plasma density falls, then
recovers again (see figure \ref{Signals}).
The losses associated with the ELM have
a duration of order 0.005 seconds, that
combined with fluctuations in the signal can make it difficult to define
the density loss due to the ELM.
For example, figure \ref{PostELMdensity} shows the fall in edge
density with time since an ELM for ELMs in the typical pulse 83790.
There is clearly a minimum in the line integrated signal at around
0.005 seconds, or in equivalent words, there is a maximum drop in
line integrated edge density at around 0.005 seconds.
The exact time
and magnitude of the minimum is not always the same.
Here we define the density drop due to an ELM ($\delta n$) as the
maximum observed
drop in the line-integrated density within a small time interval
$t_m$ after an ELM (see figure \ref{dn-tm}).
Note that figures \ref{Signals}, \ref{PostELMdensity}, and
\ref{PostELMEnergy} discuss time traces in which there
are minima in line-integrated density or thermal energy after an ELM,
whereas from figure \ref{dn-tm} onwards we consider the maximum energy
and density lost after an ELM, which is a positive quantity.
Figure \ref{dn-tm} shows that if $\delta n$ is defined in this way
then provided $t_m$ is greater than about 0.005
seconds, which is much less than the 0.012 second waiting time to the
most frequent ELMs \cite{EPSResonances,Resonances}, then $\delta n$ is
independent of $t_m$.
Consequently provided $t_m$ is greater than 0.005 seconds, then
$\delta n$ is independent of $t_m$ and is well
defined.
For plots involving drops in edge density we use $t_m =$ 0.01 seconds,
and for plots involving drops in energy we will specify whether we are
discussing results with $t_m=$ 0.01 or $t_m=$0.005 seconds.
Similar remarks apply to the plasma's thermal energy, which is defined
as $3/2$ times the volume integral of the plasma's pressure, with the
pressure here
obtained from an ideal MHD reconstruction of the equilibrium using
EFIT \cite{EFIT,EFIT2}.
The thermal energy is sometimes referred to as ``kinetic energy'', but
does not include the energy due to macroscopic flows in the plasma.
The drop in thermal
energy ($\delta E$) is defined as the minimum energy in some time
period $t_m$ immediately following an ELM.
A difference is that
there are now two timescales that can clearly be observed (see figures
\ref{PostELMEnergy} and \ref{dE-tm}).
The first minimum in energy occurs between 0.002 and 0.005 seconds,
which tends to be before
the minima at 0.005s found in figure \ref{dn-tm}.
However, unlike the density, there is a second minimum at around
0.01 seconds (see figure \ref{PostELMEnergy}).
The possible causes of the different timescales are discussed in
greater detail later.
Beyond 0.01 seconds the average of $\delta E$ is approximately
independent of $t_m$, allowing $\delta E$ to be defined as either the
minimum thermal energy in the time interval between an ELM and $t_m =
0.005$ seconds or between an ELM and $t_m$=0.01 seconds (see
figure \ref{dE-tm}).
Both of these are less than the time of the first maxima in the ELM
waiting time distribution \cite{EPSResonances,Resonances}, that is at
approximately 0.012 seconds.
This suggests two possible definitions for the ELM energy, as either the
maximum energy lost over the 0.005 second timescale during which
particle loss is also leading to a reduction in the edge density (see
figures \ref{dn-tm} and \ref{dE-tm}), or
as the total reduction in stored thermal energy over 0.01 seconds.
Both will be reported and discussed here, and both can be observed in
the time traces in figure
\ref{Signals}, with a small minimum in $\delta E$ prior to the minimum
in the density, followed by a much larger minimum in $\delta E$ on the
larger timescale of $\sim 0.01$ seconds.
Two timescales have previously been reported in conjunction with the
edge electron temperature during the post-ELM pedestal recovery in
ITER-like wall plasmas
\cite{Beurskens,Frassinetti}, an important difference is that here
the two timescales are observed with every ELM.
It is possible that the two timescales relate to a similar sequence of
processes - rapid energy losses followed by slower transport
processes.
The timescale for the initial fall in
edge temperature reported in Refs. \cite{Beurskens,Frassinetti} is
only about 0.002 seconds, whereas the drop in edge density (figures
\ref{PostELMdensity} and \ref{dn-tm}), is over a 0.005 second
timescale.
Two timescales have also been reported in conjunction with infra red
(IR) images of JET's divertor during Carbon-wall JET experiments
\cite{Eich1}.
In this latter work the two timescales arose from the shape of the ELM
power deposition curve with respect to time, and are much shorter than
those discussed so far.
The timescales characterise the initial rapid rise in ELM power
deposition, over a timescale time
$\tau_{rise}\sim 0.0002-0.0005$ seconds,
and a slower $\tau_{decay}\sim 0.001-0.0025$ seconds
that characterises the subsequent fall in the power deposition.
The work referred to above and the results here are consistent with,
and possibly extend, the proposed sequence of steps by which energy is
lost during an ELM \cite{Loarte}.
Firstly there is a rapid rise in heat flux that for Carbon-wall
plasmas was found over a timescale of order
0.2-0.5 milliseconds \cite{Eich1}, with heat being lost predominately
by electrons.
In ITER-like wall plasmas, after of order 1-2 milliseconds the edge
temperature is found to fall to a minimum
\cite{Beurskens,Frassinetti}, something we find here also in Section
\ref{dtp}.
This process of energy loss is referred to as ``conduction''
\cite{Loarte}.
Next, for the plasmas described here at least, there is a loss of
ions that is completed within a timescale of order 5 milliseconds (figure
\ref{dn-tm}), in a process referred to as ``convection''
\cite{Loarte}.
Finally we find an additional timescale of order 10 milliseconds after an
ELM (figure \ref{dE-tm}), during which EFIT \cite{EFIT,EFIT2} suggests
that the thermal plasma energy relaxes to a minimum, before starting
to rise again.
As discussed in Section \ref{dtp}, EFIT's reconstructed measurements are
consistent with direct Thompson scattering measurements over the 0-5
millisecond time period, but disagree between 5-10 milliseconds when
EFIT suggests that the thermal energy continues to fall.
Appendix \ref{relax} explores the timescales associated with a
resistive relaxation of the pedestal at the plasma's edge
\cite{Frassinetti2}, and finds a timescale of 8 milliseconds,
very similar to the 10 millisecond timescale observed in figures
\ref{PostELMEnergy} and \ref{dE-tm}.
Consequently it is possible that a resistive mechanism is allowing the
plasma to relax to a new post-ELM equilibrium, and
that one or more non-ideal affects are
making EFIT's ideal-MHD equilibrium reconstruction unreliable over
this longer time period.
Similarly, resistive effects can only become important over timescales
approaching 8 milliseconds, which may explain why EFIT's calculated
pressure agrees with that measured by Thompson scattering over the
shorter 0-5 millisecond timescale (see Section \ref{dtp}).
It is interesting to note that 8 milliseconds is the approximate time
between the maxima and minima observed in the ELM waiting time pdf in
figure \ref{Tree}
\cite{EPSResonances,Resonances}, that will be observed later in the
time periods between the clusters of
ELMs in figures \ref{dE-dt}, \ref{dE-dt-0.005s}, and
\ref{dn-dt}.
We do not know whether this is a coincidence or not.
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-4c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{dn-tm}
The maximum drop in line integrated plasma density ($\delta n$) following
an ELM (vertical axis), is plotted against the (maximum) time $t_m$
since the ELM (horizontal axis), over which the maximum drop is
calculated.
For each plasma $\delta n$ is averaged over all the ELMs in a given
pulse (plotted points), and its standard deviation
calculated (vertical lines).
This is repeated for each maximum time $t_m$ since the ELM, and for
each plasma pulse.
There is a comparatively small scatter of about 15-20\% between the
average value's of $\delta n$ for the 120 different pulses, confirming
that the pulses are quite similar.
Consequently if $t_m$ is taken to be greater than about 0.005 seconds
then there is a well defined $\delta n$ that is independent of $t_m$.
The timescale of 0.005 seconds is much less than the time between ELMs.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-5c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{dE-tm}
For $t_m$ from 0 to 0.03 seconds and for all 120 pulses, the minimum
thermal energy within time $t_m$ after an ELM is averaged over all
ELMs in a pulse (plotted points), and the standard deviation about
this average is calculated also (vertical lines).
The 120 sets of averages (plotted points) and standard deviations (red
lines) have been plotted
over one another so as to present them on a single graph.
Two time scales are evident. The first at 0.005 seconds is the same as
found in figure \ref{dn-tm}. The second timescale is at 0.01 seconds,
beyond which the average value of $\delta E$ is approximately
constant, independent of $t_m$.
}
\end{figure*}
\section{Statistical properties of ELMs}\label{ELMstats}
Next we look at how these measures of the density and energy losses
associated with the ELMs are influenced by the waiting times between
the ELMs (see figures \ref{dE-dt}, \ref{dE-dt-0.005s}, and \ref{dn-dt}).
The most obvious characteristic of both figures is the vertical
clustering of ELM times.
This is due to the waiting-time probability density function (pdf) in
figure \ref{Tree}, which is discussed in detail in
Refs. \cite{EPSResonances,Resonances}, and shows a series of maxima
and zeros at approximately 0.08 second intervals starting from the
first maxima at 0.012 seconds and continuing until 0.04 seconds when
the distribution becomes comparatively smooth.
The pdf was unexpected, and contrasts with large sets of ELM
waiting time pdfs that have only a single maxima
\cite{WebsterDendyPRL}.
The cause of the unexpected form of pdf is unknown, and presently
under investigation.
The next striking characteristic of figures \ref{dE-dt} and
\ref{dn-dt}, that is particularly noticeable for the ELM energies, is
that beyond a waiting time of about 0.02 seconds the ELM energies are
similar and independent of the waiting time between the ELMs.
In other words, the distribution of ELM energies that occur
after a waiting time of 0.02 seconds is almost identical to those of
ELMs with waiting times of 0.05 seconds or more.
This is clearly different to the usual relationship of ELM energy
being inversely proportional to ELM frequency \cite{Hermann}, that
would lead to the
ELM energy being linearly proportional to the ELM waiting time.
It is also despite a continual gradual increase in edge density that
is suggested by figures \ref{PostELMdensity} and \ref{dn-dt}.
The first large group of ELMs are observed at 0.012 seconds, and these
have an average energy that is roughly 60\% of the ELMs in later
groups.
Similar results have been observed during pellet-triggering
experiments.
For the specific AUG plasma scenarios reported
in Ref. [22], a minimum waiting time of 0.007-0.01 seconds
was required before ELMs could successfully be triggered by pellets,
and beyond roughly 0.01 seconds the triggered ELMs appear to have
statistically similar energies.
In the JET plasmas considered here, it is not known if ELMs can be
regularly triggered with waiting times less than the 0.012 second
waiting time of ELMs in the group with the highest ELM frequency
observed in figure 1.
Pellet pacing experiments in similar 2T 2MA JET plasmas
\cite{LangJETpellets}, found a strong increase in triggering
probability for pellets at least 0.01-0.02 seconds after an ELM.
Due to technical limitations of the pellet launcher, it was not
possible to test whether pellets could consistently pace ELMs with
waiting times of order 0.012 seconds, but the possibility of
triggering ELMs within those timescales was demonstrated.
Therefore presuming ELMs can be paced at this 0.012
second waiting-time frequency, then an average reduction in ELM energy by
about 40\% seems a reasonable possibility.
However there is a large scatter about the average ELM energy
for all the ELMs, independent of their waiting time, with
standard deviations that are about 1/4 of their
average energy.
Consequently some of the ELMs in the 0.012 seconds waiting-time group
have ELM sizes comparable with the larger ELM sizes in the group with
longer waiting times of 0.02 seconds or more.
Similar remarks apply to figure \ref{dE-dt-0.005s} where $t_m =$ 0.005
seconds has been used.
The time of $t_m =$ 0.005 seconds corresponds to the first plateau of
$\delta E$ with $t_m$ in figure \ref{dE-tm}, and is the timescale over
which the edge density is lost (see figure \ref{dn-tm}).
The group of ELMs at 0.012 seconds are about half the energy of later
ones, which is comparatively less than for figure \ref{dE-dt}, and the
overall ELM energies for waiting times greater than about 0.02 seconds
are of order 40,000 Joules.
Figure \ref{dn-dt} shows the drop in density ($\delta n$) due to the
ELMs. Similar remarks apply as to those for the energy losses
(figure \ref{dE-dt}), although in this case a
weak dependence of $\delta n$ on $\delta t$ remains.
So why does the observed relation between ELM energy and ELM waiting
times disagree with published studies \cite{Hermann} that find the ELM
energy ($\delta E$) to be inversely proportional to ELM frequency
($f$), with $\delta E \propto 1/f$ ?
It is possible that it is due to differences in behaviour between
Carbon and ITER-like wall plasmas, this remains to be determined, but
there is a simpler statistical reason that we discuss next.
The most important observation to make is that previous
studies are usually
plotting a pulse's average ELM energy against its average
ELM frequency, and plotting these quantities for a variety of
different pulse types.
In contrast, here we are plotting the individual ELM energies against
their waiting times (that can be regarded as defining 1/f for any
given ELM), and doing this for these almost identical 2T, 2MA, pulses.
If we plot $\langle \delta E \rangle$ against $\langle \delta t
\rangle$ for each of these pulses (see figures \ref{AvE} and
\ref{AvE-0.005s}), we find a simple
linear relationship that
is consistent with $\langle \delta E \rangle \propto 1/f$,
due to small differences in $\langle \delta E \rangle$ and
$\langle \delta t \rangle$ in the different pulses.
The usual scaling between ELM energy and frequency, such as that
plotted in figure 18 of Ref. \cite{Hermann}, has
$\langle \delta E \rangle /E
\sim 1/f \tau_E$, where $\tau_E$ is the energy confinement time of the
pulse, $\langle \delta E \rangle$ is the average thermal energy lost by
ELMs, and $E$ is the (average) thermal energy stored in the plasma.
For the plasmas considered here, $E \sim$ 2.8$\times$ 10$^6$ J,
giving for ELM energies calculated within a 5 millisecond time period
$\langle \delta E \rangle \sim$ (0.4 $\pm$ 0.2).10$^5$ J,
$\langle \delta E \rangle /E \sim$ (1.3 $\pm$ 0.7).10$^{-2}$,
$\tau_E \sim$ 0.244 $\pm$ 0.004, and $f \sim$ 31 $\pm$ 9.0, giving $f
\tau_E \sim$ 7.6 $\pm$ 2.2, which is slightly below the scaling in
fig. 18 of Ref. \cite{Hermann}, but the scaling is within the error
bars.
Figure 18 of \cite{Hermann} covers roughly 2 orders of
magnitude.
So for average ELM frequencies
at least, the results here seem consistent with the usual scaling, even if
it is not found to hold for individual ELMs within the pulses
considered here.
We note that $E/\tau_E$ is the average rate of energy loss
from the plasma, and $f\langle \delta E \rangle$ is the average rate
of energy loss by ELMs.
Therefore if either the majority or a fixed
fraction of the energy losses are by ELMs, then the scaling of
$E/\tau_E \sim f \langle \delta E \rangle$ (i.e. that
$\langle \delta E \rangle/E \sim 1/f\tau_E$), is what you would
expect; only the constant of proportionality that determines the
fraction of energy that is lost by ELMs would be expected to to change.
However this argument only holds for the {\sl average} properties of ELMs,
not for the individual ELM energies and their individual frequencies
(the inverse of their individual waiting times), the topic that we are
most interested in here.
Exploring the statistical properties of figure \ref{AvE-0.005s} in
more detail:
Figures \ref{dE-tm} and \ref{dE-dt-0.005s} show that $\delta E$
has a standard deviation of order (0.2).10$^5$ Joules.
The ELM waiting times in
figure \ref{Tree} have a standard deviation of order 0.02 seconds.
The central limit theorem ensures that if all pulses are statistically
equivalent, then the average of n ELMs should range over an interval
whose standard deviation is a factor of $1/\sqrt{n}$ smaller in width.
For the roughly 50 ELMs in each pulse this would lead us to expect a
range of values of $\langle \delta E \rangle$ with a standard
deviation of order (0.3).10$^4$ Joules, and values of $\langle \delta t
\rangle$ to have a standard deviation of order 0.003 seconds.
This is similar to what is observed (figure \ref{AvE-0.005s}).
Equivalent remarks apply to figure \ref{AvE}.
It could be argued that the observed linear relationship between
$\langle \delta E \rangle$
and $\langle \delta t \rangle$ in figure \ref{AvE-0.005s} is not
surprising.
For the pulses here the spread of values of $\langle \delta t \rangle$
is small, with $\langle \delta t \rangle$ varying by no more than
about $\pm$ 0.01 seconds.
Consequently it would be unsurprising if a Taylor expansion of
$\langle \delta E \rangle (\langle \delta t \rangle)$ were accurate
with only the linear terms in $\langle \delta t \rangle$ being kept,
consistent with
the linear relationship observed in figure \ref{AvE-0.005s}.
In principle the observed linear relationship could reflect numerous
possible different functions of $\langle \delta t \rangle$, not just a
linear one.
It is possible that if the pulses were of different types with very
different values of $\langle \delta E \rangle$ and $\langle \delta t
\rangle$, then plots of $\langle \delta E \rangle$ against $\langle
\delta t \rangle$ would continue to show the linear relationship
expected if $\langle \delta E \rangle \propto 1/f$.
However, what is clearly highlighted here is that even if the
relationship of $\langle \delta E \rangle \propto 1/f$ does hold
between different types of plasma pulses, for the plasmas studied here
at least, within a particular pulse the individual ELM energies can be
independent of their waiting times (and the frequencies that they
define).
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-6c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{dE-dt}
The drop in the plasma's thermal energy is plotted against waiting
time since the previous ELM, with $\delta E$ calculated using
$t_m =$ 0.01 seconds.
The vertical clustering is due to the unusual ELM waiting time pdf
described in references \cite{EPSResonances,Resonances}, and shown in
figure \ref{Tree}.
The total stored thermal energy was of order (2.8)$\times$10$^6$
Joules, so the drop in thermal energy is of order 0.04\% of the
plasma's total thermal energy.
Beyond 0.02 seconds the drops in energy are approximately independent of
the waiting time between the ELMs.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\vspace{1.0cm}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-7c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{dE-dt-0.005s}
The drop in the plasma's thermal energy is plotted against waiting
time since the previous ELM, as in figure \ref{dE-dt}. Here however,
$\delta E$ has been calculated using $t_m =$ 0.005 seconds, the time
of the first plateau in $\delta E$ versus $t_m$ in figure \ref{dE-tm},
and the time beyond which the drop in edge density has ended.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-8c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{dn-dt}
The drop in line integrated edge density is plotted against waiting time
since previous ELM.
Similarly to the plot of energy against waiting time, the
vertical clustering is due to the unusual ELM waiting time pdf of the
ELMs in these pulses, as
described in references \cite{EPSResonances,Resonances}.
The line-integrated edge density was of order (4.5).10$^{19}$, suggesting
that roughly 20\% of the edge density is lost per ELM.
Beyond about 0.005 seconds the minimum observed drop
in density is independent of $t_m$.
Beyond 0.02
seconds the drop in edge density due to an ELM is only very weakly
dependent on the waiting time between ELMs.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-9c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{AvE}
For each of the 120 pulses, the average of the thermal energy lost per ELM is
calculated using the minimum drop in energy within 0.01
seconds of the start of each ELM, and is
plotted against the average ELM waiting time for that pulse. The
scatter is similar to what would be expected from the central
limit theorem and the roughly 50 ELMs per pulse, indicating that the
pulses are approximately statistically equivalent. The linear
relationship observed between $\langle \delta E \rangle$ and $\langle
\delta t \rangle$ is as expected if $\langle \delta E \rangle \propto
1/f$, but for the small range of $\langle \delta t \rangle$ here it is also
what would be expected from a simple Taylor expansion of $\langle
\delta E \rangle (\delta t)$, and could in principle reflect numerous
possible functions of $\delta t$.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{CPS13.1771-17c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{AvE-0.005s}
For each of the 120 pulses, the average of the thermal energy lost per ELM is
calculated using the minimum drop in energy within 0.005
seconds of the start of each ELM, and is
plotted against the average ELM waiting time for that pulse. The
scatter is similar to what would be expected from the central
limit theorem and the roughly 50 ELMs per pulse, indicating that the
pulses are approximately statistically equivalent.
The linear
relationship observed between $\langle \delta E \rangle$ and $\langle
\delta t \rangle$ is as expected if $\langle \delta E \rangle \propto
1/f$, but for the small range of $\langle \delta t \rangle$ here it is also
what would be expected from a simple Taylor expansion of $\langle
\delta E \rangle (\delta t)$, and could in principle reflect numerous
possible functions of $\delta t$.
}
\end{figure*}
A related question is whether the energies of subsequent ELMs are
related to each other, or are independent.
For example, we might expect a large ELM to be followed by a smaller
ELM and vice versa.
Figures \ref{Ena} and \ref{Enb} plot the energy of the nth ELM versus
the energy of the (n+1)th ELM.
If a large ELM is followed by a smaller ELM and vice versa, then we
would expect the plotted values to cluster around a
line that is perpendicular to the diagonal.
The symmetric clustering about an average ELM energy suggests that
the ELM energies (surprisingly) are independent.
The same result was found for $t_m=0.01$ seconds and $t_m=0.005$
seconds, and when examining $t_{n+m}$ versus $t_n$ for $m=1$ to
$m=5$.
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{CPS13.1771-10c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{Ena}
The energy of successive ELMs are plotted, with energies calculated
using $t_m =0.01$.
Surprisingly, the clustering of subsequent ELM energies around a
single point
indicates that the energies of subsequent ELMs are independent.
If a large ELM were followed by a small ELM and vice versa, then we
would expect a spread of ELM energies in a perpendicular
direction to the diagonal.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{CPS13.1771-11c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{Enb}
The energy of successive ELMs are plotted, with energies calculated
using $t_m =0.005$.
Surprisingly, the clustering of subsequent ELM energies around a
single point
indicates that the energies of subsequent ELMs are independent.
If a large ELM were followed by a small ELM and vice versa, then we
would expect a spread of ELM energies in a perpendicular
direction to the diagonal.
}
\end{figure*}
\section{Edge Temperature and Pressure Evolution}\label{dtp}
For the plasmas considered here, the edge plasma properties prevented
JET's ECE diagnostic from providing reliable edge-temperature
measurements.
Thompson scattering can also provide edge temperature measurements,
but at present only every 50 milliseconds, that compares
with the average time between ELMs of about 30-40 milliseconds for
these pulses.
This prevents us from determining whether the temperature
and pressure drops after individual
ELMs are dependent on the waiting time since the previous ELM.
However we can get an approximate estimate for the {\sl average}
changes in edge temperature and pressure before and after ELMs by
synchronising the Thompson scattering data to the ELM times and then
combining all the data into a single plot.
These plots of temperature, density, and pressure, are in figures
\ref{dens}, \ref{temp}, and \ref{pres}.
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{CPS13.1771-14c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\caption{ \label{dens}
The Thompson scattering measurement of particle number density,
averaged over the plasma edge region
(between 3.74m and 3.80m along its line of sight to the magnetic
axis), from all
ELMs and plasma pulses, synchronised to the ELM times to allow an
estimate for the density's pre- and post-ELM evolution to be made.
Brown circles are individual measurements, the thick black line is
their average, and the dashed black lines are their average $\pm$
the standard deviation.
The number of particles per unit volume (vertical axis) are in units
of m$^{-3}$, and the horizontal time axis is in seconds.
Notice that there is a minimum at around 3-5 milliseconds, as was
previously observed in the line-integrated measurement (figure
\ref{PostELMdensity}).
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{CPS13.1771-15c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\caption{ \label{temp}
The Thompson scattering measurement of temperature, averaged over the
plasma edge region
(between 3.74m and 3.80m along its line of sight to the magnetic
axis), from all
ELMs and plasma pulses, synchronised to the ELM times to allow an
estimate for the temperature's pre- and post-ELM evolution to be made.
Brown circles are individual measurements, the thick black line is
their average, and the dashed black lines are their average $\pm$
the standard deviation.
Units are eV (vertical axis), and seconds (horizontal
axis).
Notice that there is a minimum at around 2 milliseconds, as was
similarly found in Refs. \cite{Beurskens,Frassinetti}.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{CPS13.1771-16c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\caption{ \label{pres}
The Thompson scattering measurement of pressure, averaged over the
plasma edge region
(between 3.74m and 3.80m along its line of sight to the magnetic
axis), from all
ELMs and plasma pulses, synchronised to the ELM times to allow an
estimate for the pressure's pre- and post-ELM evolution to be made.
Brown circles are individual measurements, the thick black line is
their average, and the dashed black lines are their average $\pm$
the standard deviation.
Units are eV m$^{-3}$ (vertical axis), and seconds (horizontal
axis).
After 20 milliseconds the pressure is approximately the same as its
pre-ELM value. This partly explains why after 20 milliseconds the ELM
energies are statistically the same.
}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{figure*}
The measurements shown are an average of the Thompson scattering
measurements between 3.74m and 3.80m along its line of sight to
the magnetic axis, which
crosses a similar region to the line-integrated measurements
of figure \ref{PostELMdensity} (that passes vertically downwards
perpendicularly through the midplane at 3.73m), and
ignores measurements from the outermost edge where the Thompson
scattering errors are large.
The density measurements shown in figure \ref{dens} are consistent
with figure \ref{PostELMdensity} (the line integrated density cuts
through $\sim$1m of plasma, see Appendix \ref{ROG} for more details),
and a minimum in the post-ELM edge density is
again seen at around 3-5 milliseconds after the ELM.
The temperature shown in figure \ref{temp} falls to a minimum at
around 2 milliseconds after an ELM, as was similarly found in
Refs. \cite{Beurskens,Frassinetti}.
Following an ELM, figures \ref{dens}-\ref{pres} give the average drop
in density to be of order
(0.5 $\pm$ 0.5).10$^{19}$m$^{-3}$, the drop in temperature to be of order
(75 $\pm$ 75)eV, and the drop in pressure to be of order
(0.5 $\pm$ 0.5).10$^{22}$eVm$^{-3}$, where the error bars are the standard
deviation.
The volume of edge plasma that the measurements cover is of order
15m$^3$, so for a plasma pressure $p$ and volume $V$, the thermal
(``kinetic'')
energy lost from the region is $(3/2)\int p dV \sim$
(3/2)(15).10$^{22}$(1.6).10$^{-19}$J$\sim$36kJ.
The estimate may be a bit smaller than it should be because we have
only considered changes in energy between the flux surfaces that cut
3.74m and 3.8m along the Thompson scattering's line of sight to the
magnetic axis.
Note however that a 36kJ loss over 2-5 milliseconds is consistent with
the time and magnitude of the first minimum in figure
\ref{PostELMEnergy}, suggesting that EFIT's estimate for the loss in
thermal (``kinetic'') plasma energy is approximately correct during
the first 0-5 milliseconds of an ELM.
This is reassuring. Any random errors in EFIT's calculation for the
plasma pressure will be eliminated by the subsequent averaging over
large numbers of data sets; the agreement with the Thompson scattering
measurement suggest that any systematic errors over this 0-5
millisecond post-ELM time-period are reasonably small.
Note that the plasmas here have smaller current, smaller toroidal
magnetic field, smaller heating, and consequently smaller ELMs than
those in Ref. \cite{Frassinetti}.
The second minima in figure \ref{PostELMEnergy} at 10 milliseconds
requires a further drop in energy by 70-100 kJ.
Because the direct measurement of plasma pressure (figure \ref{pres}),
disagrees with EFIT's calculated plasma pressure during the 5-10
millisecond time period after an ELM, it seems likely that EFIT's
calculations for the pressure during this time period are incorrect.
As mentioned previously, the cause of the difference between the
direct Thompson scattering measurements and EFIT's calculated pressure
are likely to be due to non-ideal, possibly resistive processes, that
occur while the plasma is relaxing to a new post-ELM equilibrium.
Returning to figures \ref{dens}, \ref{temp}, and \ref{pres}, it is
clear that after about 20 milliseconds the edge pressure has returned
to very close to its pre-ELM value.
There continues to be a small increase in
pressure from 20
milliseconds until the next ELM, but this is small compared with the
scatter in the data.
This suggests a picture for these pulses where the edge pedestal is
largely restored after 20 milliseconds, which helps to explain why the
ELM energies are statistically similar after 20 milliseconds
(figs. \ref{dE-dt}, \ref{dE-dt-0.005s}, \ref{dn-dt}, \ref{Gauss1}, and
\ref{Gauss2}).
It also supports a picture where the ELM energy is determined by the
maximum edge pressure.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}\label{Concs}
We have used the line integrated edge density and the thermal energy
calculated with EFIT to
study the properties of the $\sim$10,000 ELMs produced from 120 (of
150) almost identical JET pulses, and have used Thompson
scattering to check these results by observing the average evolution
of the edge temperature and pressure in these plasmas.
It is found that:
i) There are clear timescales associated with the
ELMs,
with a loss of edge temperature over 2 milliseconds, a loss of density
and pressure over 5 milliseconds,
and an additional 10 millisecond timescale over which non-ideal
affects appear to make EFIT's equilibrium reconstruction unreliable.
The energy losses over the shorter 2-3 milliseconds timescale
appear to be associated with the loss of thermal plasma energy
(``kinetic'' energy), with
minima in edge temperature, pressure, and density occurring within a
2-5 millisecond timescale after an ELM.
The 0.005-0.01 second timescale is a previously unreported timescale
during which the (ideal-MHD) plasma pressure reconstructed by EFIT
disagrees with Thompson scattering measurements,
and is a similar timescale to the 8 milliseconds resistive timescale
of JET's plasma pedestal (see Appendix \ref{relax}).
This suggests that after an ELM there are non-ideal, possibly
resistive processes occurring over a 5-10 millisecond timescale, as the
plasma pressure and edge pedestal
recover towards their pre-ELM values.
It also helps to explain why for timescales of order 0-5 milliseconds,
EFIT's calculations and the Thompson scattering measurements agree.
ii) Following an ELM, no ELMs are
observed until approximately 0.012 seconds later, when they are
statistically about 60\% of the size of ELMs observed in the next
cluster at approximately 0.02 seconds.
Similar remarks apply regardless of whether the shorter or longer
timescales of $t_m =$ 0.005 seconds or $t_m =$ 0.01 seconds are used
to define the energy drop due to an ELM.
iii) From 0.02 seconds onwards, the ELM
energies are all statistically similar, with an approximately Gaussian
distribution that is independent of the waiting times between the
ELMs, and a standard deviation that is about 1/4
of the average ELM energy (see figures \ref{Gauss1} and
\ref{Gauss2}).
Although the edge pressure appears to increase until an ELM, it
changes very little compared with its rapid recovery in the 20
milliseconds after an ELM.
This suggests that the edge pedestal is largely recovered 20
milliseconds after an ELM, consistent with the similarities in ELM
energies from 20 milliseconds onwards.
If the edge pressure and ELM properties are so similar from 20
milliseconds after an ELM, there are some interesting questions about:
what triggers the next ELM? the proximity of the edge plasma to
marginal stability? and whether the ELM trigger is better regarded as
a statistical or deterministic process?
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{CPS13.1771-12c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{Gauss1}
The probability density of ELM energies calculated with $t_m=0.01$ is
plotted, along with a
simple Gaussian fit (dotted black curve).
Even without excluding the ELMs that arise with
waiting times less than roughly 0.02 seconds, the distribution of ELM
energies is approximately Gaussian, with an average ELM energy of
(1.06)10$^5$
Joules and a standard deviation of (0.26)10$^5$ Joules, giving a
co-efficient of variation of 0.25 for the spread of ELM energies.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{CPS13.1771-13c-X.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{Gauss2}
The probability density of ELM energies calculated with $t_m=0.005$ is
plotted, along with a
simple Gaussian fit (dotted black curve).
Even without excluding the ELMs that arise with
waiting times less than roughly 0.02 seconds, the distribution of ELM
energies is approximately Gaussian, with an average ELM energy of
(3.55)10$^4$
Joules and a standard deviation of (1.35)10$^4$ Joules, giving a
co-efficient of variation of 0.38 for the spread of ELM energies.
}
\end{figure*}
The first point (i),
helps to clarify the processes taking place during an ELM that need to be
better understood, and includes the observation of an extra relaxation
time during the ELM process.
Points (ii)-(iii) have clear consequences for ELM mitigation, at least
for plasmas similar to those discussed here.
The maximum (natural) ELM frequency that is observed has an ELM waiting
time of approximately 0.012 seconds.
ELMs with waiting times of $\simeq$ 0.012 seconds have an average
energy loss associated with the ELM that is roughly 60\% that of the
ELMs with waiting times of 0.02 seconds or longer.
So presuming that ELM pacing techniques can
consistently pace ELMs with waiting times of
0.012 seconds or less, then a reduction in average ELM
energy by at least 40\% seems likely to be possible, or 50\% if we
presume that the
shorter timescale of $t_m =$ 0.005 seconds determines the peak heat
fluxes onto surfaces.
In principle JET can trigger ELMs with ``vertical kicks'' \cite{NewRef},
with frequencies up to about 100Hz, so it would be possible
to test this experimentally at JET using 83Hz kicks.
Although we caution that even at 83Hz, the spread of the ELM energies
observed in figures 6 and 7 can include energies significantly above
the average observed value.
To the authors' knowledge, no vertical kick experiments have yet been
done at this frequency.
If a resistive process is responsible for the
0.01 second timescale, then it might allow the energy to be lost more
uniformly in the form of plasma filaments for example,
possibly helping to reduce the peak heat fluxes at the divertor.
The maximum heat fluxes (gradients) in figure \ref{PostELMEnergy}
are between 0-2 milliseconds and 5-8 milliseconds,
although only the heat flux calculated over 0-2 milliseconds is
thought to be a reliable estimate.
The results summarised in figure \ref{dE-dt} clearly fail to satisfy
the often quoted relationship of $\delta E\propto 1/f$.
This may be partly because the relationship that is measured in such
papers is actually
$\langle \delta E \rangle \propto 1/ \langle f \rangle$, and
consequently refers to average properties
of possibly very different plasmas, and not to the properties of
individual ELMs within similar plasmas.
Unfortunately it is this latter quantity, the relationship between ELM
size and ELM waiting time that is important for ELM mitigation by pacing
techniques.
Without a reduction in ELM energy, mitigation techniques will need to
reduce either the peak heat flux or increase the wetted area onto
which energy is deposited.
The results presented here also only represent one particular type of
pulse in one tokamak, JET.
It is entirely possible that different pulse types or different
machines might have very different ELM statistics.
The purpose of the analysis here is to provide a robust
analysis of these 2T 2MA pulses for which such large numbers of
(almost) statistically equivalent ELMs
are available, providing a clear indication of ELM behaviour
for this particular pulse type at least.
The hope was that the excellent
statistics might indicate new or unexpected ELM physics.
One of the unexpected results is the observed
independence of ELM
size and waiting time for waiting times greater than about 0.02
seconds.
The generality of these results remains to be
determined, and may require dedicated new experiments to ensure a
robust answer.
The results here have consequences for the correct
construction of models for ELMs and ELMing behaviour.
For the pulses discussed here,
beyond the group of ELMs with $\sim$0.012 seconds waiting time, the ELM
waiting times and
energies are independent.
Consequently for such ELMs, models to describe their waiting times and
ELM-energy probability distributions can be treated independently.
Even more surprisingly perhaps, is that figures \ref{Ena} and
\ref{Enb} suggest that the energies of subsequent ELMs are
independent, so that a large ELM is as likely to be followed by
another large ELM as by a small ELM.
Surprising as this may be, it is likely to make the statistical
modelling of ELM energies considerably easier.
Clearly, the statistical relationships observed here need to be
reproducable by any
simulation that is correctly modelling these plasmas.
Similar remarks apply to the relaxation of the plasma's energy, and
the sequence of processes and timescales by which the plasma loses
energy due to an ELM.
To conclude, we have presented the analysis of an unprecedentedly
large number of statistically equivalent 2T 2MA JET ITER-like wall
H-mode plasmas.
This has led to the observation of an extra 0.01 second timescale
associated with the ELM process, that is consistent with a resistive
mechanism that allows the plasma to relax to a new post-ELM
equilibrium.
For the plasmas discussed here, surprising
results are reported about the independence of ELM energy
and frequency, and the independence of energies of consecutive
ELMs.
Whether the results found here are more generally true
is unknown, it may be some time before equivalently large datasets for
different pulse types or from different machines become available.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We would like to thank the referees for
helping to improve the paper, and to: Joanne
Flanagan for help with Thompson scattering data,
Martin Valovic for help with resistivity estimates, Ian
Chapman for comments on the paper, and
to Howard Wilson and Fernanda Rimini for raising the question
of how the ELM energies are
related to the waiting times for this set of pulses.
The experiments were planned by S. Brezinsek,
P. Coad,
J. Likonen, and
M. Rubel.
This work, part-funded by the European Communities under the
contract of Association between EURATOM/CCFE was carried out within
the framework of the European Fusion Development Agreement.
For further information on the contents of this paper please contact
<EMAIL>.
The views and opinions expressed
herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.
This work was also part-funded by the RCUK Energy Programme [grant
number EP/I501045].
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Lattice gauge theories have made fundamental contributions to our
understanding of strongly correlated systems. In particle physics, the
$SU(3)$ lattice gauge theory with Wilson and staggered fermions, and more
recently with twisted mass, overlap, and domain wall fermions, are extensively used
to investigate the properties of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). In condensed
matter physics, the study of deconfined quantum critical points, as well as
of spin liquids, employ $U(1)$ lattice gauge theories. The toric code studied in the
condensed matter and the quantum information community is a $\mathbf{Z}(2)$
lattice gauge theory.
Non-perturbative studies of lattice gauge theories almost exclusively use
Monte Carlo simulations in Euclidean space-time.
The conventional formulation is due to Wilson, using parallel transporter matrices
on the links of the lattice and matter fields on the sites. This method has been
very successful in several respects, such as in the ab-initio calculation of the
hadron spectrum as well as the nature of the finite temperature transition of
strongly interacting matter in QCD. However, there are certain important problems
where this method fails. Two of the most important examples are the physics at
non-zero baryon density and the real-time evolution of quantum systems. In these
cases, the weights to be sampled with Monte Carlo become negative, or even
complex. The importance sampling fails, thus leading to a sign problem.
The rapid development of the field of ultra-cold atoms in optical lattices
suggests a remarkable way out of this problem. The basic idea that the use of
quantum variables could speed up the simulation tremendously was conceived early on
\cite{Fey82}. Special purpose quantum computers, known as
quantum simulators \cite{Cir95}, are used as digital \cite{Llo96} or
analog devices \cite{Jak98} to simulate strongly coupled quantum systems.
Recently, the use of quantum simulators to study the real-time evolution in
gauge theories and their phase structure in the context of particle physics
has been proposed
\cite{Zoh11,Szi11,Liu12,Zoh12,Ban12,Ban13,Zoh13a,Zoh13b,Wie13}. The idea
behind the quantum simulator constructions is that the quantum mechanical
nature of quarks and gluons can be embodied by ultra-cold atoms in optical lattices. The
interactions between the atoms can be tuned, so that they follow a properly
designed Hamiltonian. The quantum degrees of freedom evolve according to this
Hamiltonian and the sign problem does not arise. A number of important models, such as
the Bose-Hubbard model and the toric code, have already been quantum simulated
using similar methods \cite{Gre02,Bar11}.
In this context, the use of alternative formulations of gauge theories is
highly desirable, the principal motivation being the identification of models
with a finite-dimensional Hilbert space at each link or site which can be
realized with a few quantum states of a cold atom system. The Hamiltonian
formulation of Wilson's lattice gauge theory has an infinite-dimensional
Hilbert space at each link due to the use of continuously varying fields.
Quantum link models (QLMs) provide such an alternative formulation of gauge theories
\cite{Hor81,Orl90,Cha97,Bro99,Bro04} which realize continuous gauge symmetry
with generalized quantum spins associated with the links of a lattice.
They constitute an extension of the Wilsonian formulation of lattice gauge theories.
Indeed, in certain limiting cases, Wilson's lattice gauge theories can
be obtained from quantum link models \cite{Sch00}.
Because they use discrete degrees of freedom, the Hilbert space of quantum link models
at every link is finite-dimensional in a completely gauge invariant way.
This enables a direct connection with ultra-cold atoms in optical lattices,
where the generalized quantum spins can be represented by these atoms.
Therefore, quantum link models are ideal candidates to be implemented
in cold atom systems.
The regularization of a $d$-dimensional quantum field theory formulated with
discrete quantum variables in $(d+1)$-dimensions (instead of using classical fields) is
known as the D-theory formulation \cite{Bro04}. The classical fields in the
$d$-dimensional quantum field theory emerge as low-energy effective degrees of
freedom of the discrete variables when the $(d+1)$-dimensional theory has a
massless Coulomb phase. When the extra Euclidean dimension is made small in
units of the correlation length, a $d$-dimensional theory emerges by
dimensional reduction. For example, in the D-theory formulation of QCD, the
confining gluon field emerges by dimensional reduction from a deconfined Coulomb
phase of a $(4+1)$-d $SU(3)$ quantum link model. Chiral quarks can be included
naturally as domain wall fermions located at the two 4-d sides of a $(4+1)$-d
slab \cite{Bro99}.
Quantum link models also provide a platform for developing efficient
simulation algorithms. As they are formulated with discrete variables, they are
natural candidates to develop cluster algorithms. The phase diagrams of these
models are obviously interesting to study. Since they are generalized
lattice gauge theories, new phases arise, which have not been observed in
Wilson-type lattice gauge theories. Also, once quantum simulators are being built,
they need to be validated against controlled
classical computations. By developing methods to simulate quantum link
models, static quantities can be calculated to benchmark the quantum
simulators. Finally, methods developed for simulating link models might be
applicable to solve some of the sign problems in traditional Wilson-type
theories at non-zero density.
In this article, we report on a study of the $(2+1)$-dimensional $U(1)$ quantum link
model and show that, despite its structural simplicity, it has a very rich
phase diagram \cite{Ban13a}. This model has exotic confining
phases where the confining string joining a static charge-anti-charge pair
splits into distinct fractionalized flux $\frac{1}{2}$ strands. There are two
such phases, each characterized by a distinct pattern of discrete symmetry
breaking, separated by a weak first-order transition. Around the phase
transition point, there is a spontaneously broken approximate global $SO(2)$
symmetry arising dynamically. The resulting pseudo-Goldstone boson can be
described via an effective field theory. When realized
with quantum simulators, this model would be able to demonstrate the power of
gauge theory simulators by quantum simulating the dynamics of the confining
string and the pseudo-Goldstone boson.
\section{The $(2+1)$-d Quantum Link Model}
In the Wilson formulation of $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory, the Hamiltonian takes the
form
\begin{gather}
H = \frac{g^2}{2} \sum_{x,i} e^2_{x,i} - \frac{1}{2g^2}\sum_{\square} ( u_{\square}
+ u_{\square}^{\dagger} ),
\end{gather}
where the second sum is over all plaquettes and the plaquette variables are
$u_{\square} = u_{x,i}u_{x+\hat{i},j}u_{x+\hat{j},i}^{\dagger}u_{x,j}^{\dagger}$,
$u_{x,i} = \exp(i \varphi_{x,i}) \in U(1)$.
In this formulation they are operators acting in an infinite-dimensional
Hilbert space for each link. The electric field operator $e_{x,i}$ describes
the kinematics of $u_{x,i}$,
\begin{gather}
e_{x,i} = -i \partial_{\varphi_{x,i}}, \qquad [e_{x,i},u_{y,j}] = u_{x,i} \delta_{xy}\delta_{ij}, \qquad
[e_{x,i},u_{y,j}^{\dagger}] = -u_{x,i}^{\dagger}\delta_{xy}\delta_{ij}, \qquad [u_{x,i},u_{y,j}^{\dagger}]
= 0.
\end{gather}
The Hamiltonian is invariant under gauge transformations since it commutes
with their generators $G_x = \sum_i (e_{x,i} - e_{x-\hat{i},i})$. A general gauge
transformation takes the form $u_{x,i}' = e^{i\alpha_x} u_{x,i}
e^{-i\alpha_{x+\hat{i}}}$.
The $(2+1)$-d $U(1)$ quantum link model is formulated in a similar way. Its
Hamiltonian can be written as
\begin{gather}
H = \frac{g^2}{2} \sum_{x,i} E^2_{x,i} -J \sum_{\square} \left[ U_{\square} +
U_{\square}^{\dagger} - \lambda \left( U_{\square} + U_{\square}^{\dagger}
\right)^2\right]
\label{H_QLM}
\end{gather}
where the sum is over all plaquettes and the plaquette variables are defined
in terms of quantum link operators,
$U_{\square} := U_{x,i}U_{x+\hat{i},j}U_{x+\hat{j},i}^{\dagger}U_{x,j}^{\dagger}$.
In contrast to Wilson's lattice gauge theory, the operators in the $U(1)$ QLM are
given by a finite-dimensional representation of the embedding algebra $SU(2)$,
thus leading to a finite-dimensional Hilbert space per link \cite{Cha97}.
The quantum link variables are quantum spin raising operators
$U_{x,i} = S_{x,i}^1 + i S_{x,i}^2 = S^+_{x,i}$ for the electric fluxes $E_{x,i} =
S^3_{x,i}$,
while the operators $U_{x,i}^{\dagger}$ are flux lowering operators $S_{x,i}^-$.
The operators $U_{x,i}$, $U_{x,i}^{\dagger}$ and $E_{x,i}$ obey the same commutation
relations as their counterparts in Wilson's lattice gauge theory, except
that the quantum link operators do not commute with their adjoint, i.e.
$[U_{x,i}, U_{x,i}^{\dagger}] = 2\, E_{x,i}$. The Hamiltonian in (\ref{H_QLM})
is again gauge invariant as it commutes with the generators of infinitesimal $U(1)$
gauge transformations,
\begin{gather}
G_x = \sum_i \left( E_{x,i} - E_{x-\hat{i},i}\right).
\end{gather}
The link operators transform as $U_{x,i}' = e^{i\alpha_x} U_{x,i}
e^{-i\alpha_{x+\hat{i}}}$ under gauge transformations.
Physical states $|\psi\rangle$ again have to be gauge invariant,
i.e.\ they obey the Gauss law $G_x |\psi\rangle = Q_x | \psi\rangle$, where $Q_x$
is zero unless one places a static charge at the point $x$.
In this work we consider the simplest possible representation for the quantum links,
namely the spin $\frac{1}{2}$ representation. This leads to a 2-dimensional
Hilbert space per link, thereby ensuring the feasibility of exact
diagonalization studies, as will be explained below. The $E_{x,i}^2$ term then becomes a
trivial additive constant and is therefore omitted in the following. The second
term in the Hamiltonian (\ref{H_QLM}) flips loops of electric fluxes flowing
around elementary plaquettes and annihilates non-flippable plaquettes
as depicted in Fig.\ \ref{ActionOfH}. In the spin $\frac{1}{2}$ representation,
the third term, proportional to $\lambda$, is known as the
Rokhsar-Kivelson (RK) term which counts flippable plaquettes. This can be seen by
noting that $U_{\square}^2 = \left(U_{\square}^{\dagger}\right)^2 = 0$, since a
single spin $\frac{1}{2}$
cannot be raised more than once. The remaining terms are of the form
$U_{\square} U_{\square}^{\dagger}$, i.e. they project onto the subspace of
flippable plaquettes.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{ActionOfHamiltonian_Line.pdf}
\caption{Action of the plaquette operator on flippable plaquettes (left) and
non-flippable plaquettes (right). The arrows indicate the direction of the electric
flux $E_{x,i} = \pm \frac{1}{2}$.}
\label{ActionOfH}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The Gauss law together with the finite-dimensional link Hilbert space
reduces the number of allowed states per site from $2^4 = 16$ down to the
6 configurations shown in Fig.\ \ref{GaussLaw}. Adding static charges reduces this
number even further. Without this reduction, it would not be practical to apply
exact diagonalization methods on reasonably large lattices.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{GaussLawU1.pdf}
\caption{All gauge invariant configurations of fluxes at a site $x$.}
\label{GaussLaw}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The Hamiltonian respects the usual geometric symmetries of the
square lattice, e.g. it is invariant under translations by multiples
of the lattice spacing $a$ and under 90 degrees rotations. For our purposes,
it suffices to consider translations T only. The lattice translation invariance
characterizes each energy eigenstate by its lattice momentum
$p = (p_1,p_2) \in (-\pi,\pi]^2$. Additionally, the charge conjugation C
symmetry is also present. It replaces $U_{x,i}$ by $U_{x,i}^{\dagger}$
and reverses all electric fluxes, i.e. $E_{x,i}$ goes to $-E_{x,i}$.
The associated quantum number is the charge conjugation parity $C = \pm$.
Another important global symmetry is the $U(1)$ center symmetry on periodic
lattices associated with ``large'' gauge transformations.
These are given by transformations that commute with the Hamiltonian
but cannot be expressed through ``small'' periodic gauge transformations.
On an $L_1 \times L_2$ lattice they are generated by
\begin{gather}
E_i = \frac{1}{L_i} \sum_x E_{x,i}.
\end{gather}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{NrStates.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The total number of states in the $(2+1)$-d $U(1)$ quantum link model,
both with and without imposing Gauss' law (denoted by green "$\times$" and red "+"
respectively). Even though the Gauss law constraint drastically decreases the
number of states, the rise in the
number of states is still exponential in the volume. The number of states in individual
flux sectors are shown by blue stars and filled squares. Only lattices with an
even extent allow the flux sectors $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$.}
\label{states}
\end{figure}
\section{Exact Diagonalization and Cluster Algorithm Tools}
We have studied the model using both Exact Diagonalization (ED) and Quantum
Monte Carlo simulations (QMC). Exact Diagonalization studies were performed on lattices with spatial
extents $4 \times 4$, $4 \times 6$ and $6 \times 6$. These systems comprise of 32, 48, and 72
quantum link spins, respectively. While the sizes may seem
small, this already competes with the largest spin systems that have been
subjected to ED on PC clusters. Naively, this would have implied Hilbert
spaces with $2^{32}$, $2^{48}$, and $2^{72}$ states, respectively.
The Gauss law constraint, however, reduces the number of states considerably,
which makes the study of systems with as many as 72 spins feasible.
Fig.\ \ref{states} shows the number of states as a function of the volume
with and without applying Gauss' law. In these studies, the Hamiltonian was
separately diagonalized in each flux winding number sector,
thereby reducing the Hilbert space further than with imposing only the Gauss
law constraint.
We also developed an efficient cluster algorithm to simulate the model in the
dual representation. A duality transformation can be used to transform the
Hamiltonian of the $(2+1)$-d quantum link model
into that of a $(2+1)$-d quantum height model. This transformation is an
exact rewriting of the partition function in terms of new degrees of freedom,
which are quantum $\mathbb{Z}(2)$ variables located at the centers of
the plaquettes. As shown in Fig.\ \ref{OP}(a), every flux configuration
can be mapped to a height configuration. A configuration of quantum height
variables
\begin{equation}
h^A_{\widetilde x} = 0,1;~~h^B_{\widetilde x} = \pm \frac{1}{2},
\end{equation}
located at the dual sites $\widetilde x = (x_1 + \frac{1}{2},x_2 + \frac{1}{2})$,
is associated with a flux configuration
\begin{equation}
E_{x,x+\hat i} = [h^X_{\widetilde x} - h^{X'}_{\widetilde x+ \hat i - \hat 1 - \hat 2}]
\mbox{mod} 2 = \pm \frac{1}{2};~~X,X' \in \{A,B\}.
\end{equation}
The cluster algorithm is then constructed by dividing the lattice into
two sublattices $A$ and $B$ (illustrated by shaded and unshaded squares in Fig.\
\ref{OP} (a)).
The $U(1)$ Gauss law constraint is implemented in the cluster building rules,
which ensure that only the configurations with net zero charge at the
vertices are generated. The details of the dualization procedure as well as the
algorithm will be presented elsewhere \cite{BanXX}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{int9.pdf}
\hspace{1.2cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{phdiag1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) Mapping of an electric flux configuration (shown with arrows on
the links) to a height configuration (shown with $+$ and $-$ variables at the
centers of the plaquettes). Every time one crosses a flux pointing right or upwards,
the orientation of the plaquette variable is changed, while it remains
unchanged if a left or downward pointing flux is crossed. (b) The effect
of the symmetry transformations C and T on the two-component order parameter
$(M_A,M_B)$. The former is equivalent to a reflection on the $M_A$ axis, while the
latter is an anti-clockwise rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$. Performing T twice is
equivalent to rotating by $\pi$, and leads back to the starting
configuration, since $-(M_A,M_B)$ is an equivalent "gauge" copy of $(M_A,M_B)$.}
\label{OP}
\end{figure}
We define a 2-component order parameter $(M_A,M_B)$, associated with the
even and odd sublattices $A$ and $B$, to characterize the different phases of
the model. These distinguish the two different symmetry breaking patterns
we encountered in our study. In terms of the height variables
associated with the center of the plaquettes, they are defined as
\begin{equation}
M_X = \sum_{\widetilde x \in X} s^X_{\widetilde x} h^X_{\widetilde x};
~~ \textrm{where}~~ s^A_{\widetilde x} = (-1)^{(\widetilde x_1 - \widetilde x_2)/2}
~~ \textrm{and}~~ s^B_{\widetilde x} = (-1)^{(\widetilde x_1 - \widetilde x_2 + 1)/2}.
\end{equation}
Under C and T they transform as $^C M_A = M_A$,
$^C M_B = - M_B$, $^T M_A = - M_B
$, $^T M_B = M_A$. It should be pointed out that $\pm (M_A,M_B)$ represents the
same physical configuration because shifting the height variables to
$h^X_{\widetilde x}(t)' = [h^X_{\widetilde x}(t) + 1] \mbox{mod} 2$ leaves
the electric flux configuration unchanged. The various transformations are
illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{OP}(b).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{T_lambda.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic sketch of the $\lambda-T$ phase diagram. The insets
indicate the location of the peaks in the probability distribution of
the order parameter $p(M_A,M_B)$.}
\label{phdiag}
\end{figure}
\section{Phase Diagram, Order Parameters and Confining Strings}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{statecrossing.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Energy gaps of the four lowest states on the $(6 \times 6)$ lattice as
a function of $\lambda$ relative to the ground state energy. The states with energies
$E_+$ and $E_-$ both have non-zero momenta $(\pi,\pi)$, and are degenerate with the ground state
(which has zero momentum and positive C parity) in the infinite volume limit.
The state with energy $E_-$ has negative C parity and the state with energy $E_+$
has positive C parity. This implies that the spontaneous symmetry breaking pattern
changes as one crosses $\lambda_c$. The next higher states have energies $E^\prime_\pm$
and carry momentum $(0,0)$. They have C parity $\pm$ and are used
to determine the parameters of the effective theory, as described in Section 5.}
\label{statecross}
\end{figure}
The phase diagram of the model, shown in Fig.\ \ref{phdiag}, was studied as
a function of both $\lambda/J$ and $T/J$, where $T$ is the temperature.
For convenience, we work with
units in which $J=1$. At zero temperature, the model has two phases
characterized by different symmetry breaking patterns for C and T. For large
negative $\lambda$, both C and T are spontaneously broken. As $\lambda$ is
increased beyond a critical value $\lambda_c$, the model undergoes a weak
first order phase transition into a phase where T, but not C,
is spontaneously broken.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Lambda_-1.pdf}
\hspace{1.2cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Lambda_0.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Finite-volume energy spectrum of the two lowest excitations above the ground
state. At $\lambda~=~-1$, the state with quantum numbers $p=(\pi,\pi)$ and
$C=-$ degenerates with the ground state (left). At $\lambda~=~0$, the state with
quantum numbers $p=(\pi,\pi)$ and $C=+$ degenerates with the ground state (right). The
ground state has positive C parity and zero momentum.}
\label{finV}
\end{figure}
It is interesting to note that the ED results provide important insights into
the phase diagram. Fig.\ \ref{statecross} shows the energy gaps of the four
lowest energy states. For $\lambda < 1$, the ground state has momentum $(0,0)$ and
is even under charge conjugation (i.e. $C~=~+$). For $\lambda < \lambda_c$,
the first excited state has quantum numbers $C = -$, $p = (\pi,\pi)$. Its energy
gap to the ground state, $E_- \sim \exp(- \sigma_- L_1 L_2)$, decreases
exponentially with the volume $L_1 L_2$, thus indicating the spontaneous
breakdown of charge conjugation C and the translation T by one lattice spacing
(in either direction). For $\lambda > \lambda_c$, another state
$|C=+,p = (\pi,\pi)\rangle$ degenerates with the ground state in the infinite volume
limit, i.e.\
$E_+ \sim \exp(- \sigma_+ L_1 L_2)$, indicating that C is now restored, while T
remains spontaneously broken. The finite-volume scaling of the spectrum
indicating these symmetry breaking patterns is shown in Fig.\ \ref{finV}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig1a_bold.pdf}
\hspace{1.2cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig1c_bold.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig1b_bold.pdf}
\hspace{1.2cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig1d_bold.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of the order parameter $(M_A,M_B)$ at $\lambda = -1$,
$\lambda_c$, and 0 at $T = 0$ (a,b,c), and at $\lambda = 0$, $T>T_c$ (d).}
\label{probdist}
\end{figure}
These symmetry breaking patterns are clearly distinguished by the
two-component order parameter $M=(M_A,M_B)$. The probability distribution $p(M)$
has been measured very accurately
with the cluster algorithm and is shown in Fig.\ \ref{probdist}
for the different cases. At $\lambda=-1$,
both sublattices are ordered, giving rise to peaks at the corners of the
two-dimensional order parameter plane. At $\lambda=0$, only one sublattice is ordered,
which exhibits peaks on the axes. At $\lambda=\lambda_c$, there is an emergent approximate
global $SO(2)$ symmetry, which manifests itself by an order parameter
distribution that is nearly circular. There is an
emergent pseudo-Goldstone boson which can be described in terms of a low-energy
effective theory. This is a remarkable phenomenon which mimics some
features of \emph{deconfined quantum criticality}, widely discussed in the
condensed matter literature \cite{Sen04,Sen04a,San07,Mel08,Jia08,Che13,Tan13,
Dam13,Alb11,Zhu12,Gan13}. At $\lambda=1$ the model reaches its Rokhsar-Kivelson point.
At this point electric flux condenses in the vacuum and the theory deconfines already
at zero temperature.
\begin{wrapfigure}{l}{7.5cm}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig5v3.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The potential between two static charges $\pm 2$ separated by the
distance $(x,x)$ along a lattice diagonal, for $\lambda=-1,\lambda_c$, and 0, at
$T=0$, and at $\lambda = \lambda_c$ for $T=2J$.}
\label{fluxpot}
\vspace{-1.0cm}
\end{wrapfigure}
The phase diagram can also be studied as a function of temperature.
Based on universality arguments, we expect that, the
system undergoes a Berezinski-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition into a deconfined
Coulomb phase above a temperature $T_c$. However, translation invariance
still remains broken as evidenced by the corresponding order parameter
distribution shown in Fig.\ \ref{probdist}(d). At very high temperatures, we
expect all breaking of translation invariance to disappear.
Since the quantum link model is a gauge theory in $(2+1)$-dimension, we expect that it
is linearly confining for $\lambda < 1$ and $T=0$ \cite{Pol75,Goe81}. A
standard way of demonstrating this is to place a static charge-anti-charge pair
at a certain distance $r$, and then study the static potential $V(r)$ as a
function of $r$. A linearly increasing potential is an unambiguous sign for
confinement. The string tension $\sigma$ is given by the slope of the static
potential at large distances. We have studied this by placing
static charges $Q = \pm 2$ along the lattice diagonal. Our results shown in Fig.\
\ref{fluxpot} exhibit linear confinement at large distances, even at the
phase transition, albeit with a small string tension $\sigma_2 = 0.156(14) J/a $
(compared to $\sigma_2 = 1.97(1) J/a$ at $\lambda=-1$).
Since we insert the charges explicitly in the simulation,
our results for the static potential do not suffer from an
exponentially small signal-to-noise ratio at larger charge-anti-charge separations.
Since translation invariance by a single lattice spacing is spontaneously broken in both
the phases at $\lambda < \lambda_c$ and at $\lambda > \lambda_c$, the resulting
confined phases are crystalline. The energy density
$-J \langle U_\Box + U_\Box^\dagger\rangle$ in the presence of two charges $\pm 2$
illustrates the nature of the bulk phases. The flux string connecting the
charges, shown in Fig.\ \ref{halfstrands}, separates into four strands of
flux $\frac{1}{2}$ that repel each other. The interior of the strands
consists of the phase that is stable on the other side of the transition. Near
$\lambda_c$ the flux string undergoes topology change by wrapping one strand
over the periodic boundary and materializing an additional strand at the edge of
the system, whose interior then expands to become the new bulk phase (cf. Fig.\
\ref{halfstrands}(b)). Viewed as interfaces separating bulk phases, the strands
display the universal phenomenon of complete wetting.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig6.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Energy density
$-J \langle U_\Box + U_\Box^\dagger\rangle$ in the presence of two charges $\pm 2$
for $\lambda = - 1$ (a), $\lambda = \lambda_c$ (b), and $\lambda = 0$ (c) at
$T = 0$, as well as for $\lambda = 0$ at $T > T_c$ (d).}
\label{halfstrands}
\end{figure}
\section{Low-energy effective theory near the phase transition}
The results for the histograms of the order parameter $(M_A,M_B)$ naturally
lead to the formulation of an effective theory with an approximate $SO(2)$
symmetry in terms of a unit-vector field
$\vec{e}(x) = (\cos \varphi(x),\sin\varphi(x))$ representing the direction
of $(M_A, M_B)$. The action then takes the form
\begin{gather}
S[\varphi] \! = \! \int \! d^3x \frac{1}{c} \! \left[ \frac{\rho}{2} \partial_\mu
\varphi \partial_\mu \varphi \! + \!
\delta \cos^2(2 \varphi) \! + \! \varepsilon \cos^4(2 \varphi)\right],
\end{gather}
where we used $\partial_3 = \partial_{ct}$. Here $\rho$ is the spin stiffness
and $c$ is the velocity of an emergent pseudo-Goldstone boson. The $\delta$-term
breaks the symmetry down to $\mathbb{Z}(4)$ and leads to a small Goldstone boson
mass $M c = 2\sqrt{2|\delta|/\rho}$. The last term ensures that the string
tension remains proportional to $\sqrt{\epsilon \rho}$, even at the phase transition.
It is thus non-vanishing because in the effective theory the phase transition happens at
$\delta_c + \epsilon_c = 0$. The fact that $(M_A,M_B)$ is equivalent to $-(M_A,
M_B)$ reduces the emergent symmetry from $SO(2)$ to $\mathbb{R}P(1)$. Therefore only states
invariant against sign changes of $\vec{e}(x)$ belong to the physical Hilbert space.
By applying the Ginsburg-Landau-Wilson paradigm to the $\delta$- and $\epsilon$-terms,
in mean field theory one obtains the phase diagram shown in Fig.\ \ref{ET_PhaseDiagram}.
The two phases realized in the QLM both have four peaks in the order parameter
distribution $p(M_A,M_B)$, and are separated by a weak first order phase transition.
In addition, there is an intermediate phase with eight peaks, separated from the
other phases by second order phase transitions \cite{Ban13a}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{deltaepsilon.pdf}
\caption{Phase diagram as a function of $\delta$ and $\varepsilon$. The insets indicate the location
of the peaks in the distribution $p(M_A,M_B)$. The fat and dashed lines are first and second order
phase transitions, respectively. The curved line indicates a possible path taken in the QLM when varying $\lambda$.}
\label{ET_PhaseDiagram}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison of the effective theory with the exact diagonalization results}
Looking at the energy spectrum obtained by the exact diagonalization calculations
(cf. Fig.\ \ref{statecross}), near $\lambda_c$ we observe an approximate finite-volume rotor
spectrum $E_m = \frac{m^2c^2}{2\rho L_1L_2}$ for even values of $m$.
In the effective theory at the phase transition we get the same spectrum. Analyzing the eigenstates for
their quantum numbers, we obtain $C = +, p = (0,0)$ for the ground state $m = 0$,
$C = \pm, p = (\pi,\pi)$ for the next two states $m = \pm 2$ and $C = \pm, p = (0,0)$
for the $m = \pm 4$ states. All of this is consistent with the spectrum at
$\lambda_c$ shown in Fig.\ \ref{statecross}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{CombinedPlot.pdf}
\caption{Global fit of the energy gaps near $\lambda_{pc}$ for
$E_{\pm}$ and $E'_{\pm}$ (left) and of the $L_1L_2$-dependence of
the crossing points $\lambda_{pc}$, $\lambda'^+_{pc}$, $\lambda'^-_{pc}$ (right).}
\label{GlobalFit}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
By expanding in powers of $\delta L_1L_2$ and $\epsilon L_1 L_2$, we obtain predictions
for the energy gaps as functions of the parameters,
\begin{align}
E_+ &= \frac{2 c^2}{\rho L_1L_2} + \frac{L_1L_2}{4}(\delta + \epsilon) + \frac{\rho
L_1^3 L_2^3}{256 c^2}\left( 3\delta^2 + \frac{11}{2}\delta\epsilon +
\frac{119}{48}\epsilon^2\right) + O(\epsilon^3,\, \delta^3) \\
E_- &= \frac{2 c^2}{\rho L_1L_2} - \frac{L_1L_2}{4}(\delta + \epsilon) + \frac{\rho
L_1^3 L_2^3}{256 c^2}\left( 3\delta^2 + \frac{13}{2}\delta\epsilon +
\frac{167}{48}\epsilon^2\right) + O(\epsilon^3,\, \delta^3) \\
E'_+ &= \frac{8 c^2}{\rho L_1L_2} + \frac{L_1L_2}{16} \epsilon + \frac{\rho L_1^3
L_2^3}{128 c^2}\left( \frac{11}{3}(\delta+\epsilon)^2 +
\frac{3}{128}\epsilon^2\right) + O(\epsilon^3,\, \delta^3) \\
E'_- &= \frac{8 c^2}{\rho L_1L_2} - \frac{L_1L_2}{16} \epsilon + \frac{\rho L_1^3
L_2^3}{128 c^2}\left( \frac{5}{3}(\delta+\epsilon)^2 +
\frac{3}{128}\epsilon^2\right) + O(\epsilon^3,\, \delta^3) \\
E''_+ &= \frac{18 c^2}{\rho L_1L_2} + \frac{\rho L_1^3 L_2^3}{512 c^2}\left(
9\delta^2 + 19\delta\epsilon + \frac{409}{40}\epsilon^2\right) + O(\epsilon^3,\,
\delta^3) \\
E''_- &= \frac{18 c^2}{\rho L_1L_2} + \frac{\rho L_1^3 L_2^3}{512 c^2}\left(
9\delta^2 + 17\delta\epsilon + \frac{329}{40}\epsilon^2\right) + O(\epsilon^3,\,
\delta^3),
\end{align}
where the notation is the same as in Fig.\ \ref{statecross} and $E''_{\pm}$ refer to
the energy gaps of the next excited states. From the exact diagonalization results
we can also extract the level crossing points $\lambda_{pc}$ (crossing of $E_+$
and $E_-$), $\lambda'^+_{pc}$ and $\lambda'^-_{pc}$ (the two crossings of $E'_+$ and
$E'_-$). According to the effective theory, they should behave as
\begin{gather}
\lambda_{pc} = \lambda_c + \frac{A}{(L_1L_2)^2} + O(\frac{1}{L_1^3L_2^{3}}), \\
\lambda'^{\pm}_{pc} = \lambda_c \pm \frac{1}{L_1L_2}\sqrt{-\frac{8}{c_1c_2^2} (c_3
+ \lambda_c c_4) + \frac{16 c_4^2}{c_1^2c_2^4 L_1^2L_2^2}} - \frac{4
c_4}{c_1c_2^2L_1^2L_2^2} + O(\frac{1}{L_1^3L_2^{3}}),
\end{gather}
where we used the representations $\frac{\rho}{c^2} = c_1$, $\delta + \epsilon =
c_2(\lambda - \lambda_c)$ and $\epsilon = (c_3 + \lambda c_4)$. Both the energy gaps
and the behavior of the different $\lambda_{pc}$ are in quantitative agreement with
the exact diagonalization results. A global fit yields
$\lambda_c = -0.359(5)$, $\delta_c = -\epsilon_c = 0.01(1) \, J/a^2$, $\rho =
0.45(3)\, J$ and $c = 1.5(1)\, Ja$, where $a$ is the lattice spacing. Fig.\
\ref{GlobalFit} shows two exemplary comparisons of the fitted functions with
the values extracted from exact diagonalization.
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown that even the simplest quantum link model has highly non-trivial
physics involving multi-stranded confining strings and an emergent $SO(2)$ symmetry. The
quantum link model studied here is very closely related to a class of models studied
in condensed matter physics with connections to high-$T_c$ superconductivity,
known as the quantum dimer models. Our methods and numerical algorithms can be
straightforwardly extended to the dimer model. The corresponding investigation
is in progress. Our results also encourage the application of dualization
techniques to quantum Hamiltonians for other theories, and, in particular,
to Hamiltonians of quantum link models in higher dimensions. The development of a
quantum simulator using optical lattices to study the dynamical features
of this model would be a very welcome and non-trivial step on the road
to quantum simulate QCD.
|
\section{Introduction}
Many organisms collectively gather resources for survival. For a lone animal looking for sources of food, the foraging efficiency is decided by its searching strategy and the distribution of the targets \cite{levy-opt,oft}. However, when others are around the interactions between them may become important in determining the behaviour of the group as a whole. For example, an animal which is unsuccessful in locating food by searching on its own, can instead locate other distant members who are successful and join them. Such behaviour is well documented across different species \cite{fish,sea-bird,optimal}. However, what would be the ideal nature of such interaction being most advantageous for the group? Traditionally, this problem has been studied in behavioural ecology under the paradigms of information sharing and producer-scrounger games \cite{optimal,vickery}. The information sharing theory, in its canonical form, considers foragers simultaneously searching for food as well as looking for opportunities to join others. In the producer-scrounger games the simultaneous execution of the above activities is not possible.
With the advancement of different data logging techniques in animal experiments \cite{levy-data,sims} it has been possible to record the trajectories of animals searching for food. The information from such experiments have allowed for detailed statistical analysis and have helped in shedding light on the possible relationship between movement patterns and efficiency of search. The emergence of heavy tails in the walk-length distributions have prompted physicists to explain the foraging movement of animals in terms of L\'evy walks and flights \cite{foraging-book-1}. Such motion of foragers for specific distribution of the resources is supposed to optimize the rates of the encounters with food items \cite{levy-opt}.
In general, the success with which a group forages and the observed patterns in the movement of foragers depends on several factors like, the ratio of the amount of resources available to the number of foragers, the nature of forager-forager interaction, the nature of distribution of resources, forager-target interaction and the strategy adopted by foragers. Several field studies and theoretical models have investigated the importance of one or more of these factors. The producer-scrounger paradigm was used to model the collective behaviour of foragers \cite{beauchamp-main,tania}. Cooperation in foraging was shown to develop in a stochastic environment \cite{couzin}. Explanation for observed scale-free move lengths observed in spider monkeys \cite{spider-monkey-exp} have been based on their social behaviour \cite{monkey-model}. Such mobility patterns of foragers was modelled in \cite{zhou} with the agents having unbounded velocities. The role of information transfer in the recruitment of foragers have been studied in colonies of social insects \cite{honeybee,honeybee-model,ant}. Very recently, the influence of communication on the foraging pattern of gazelles was investigated \cite{gazelle}. The study showed that communication over intermediate length scales result in faster searches.
In this paper we develop a minimal model of collective foraging where the motion of the individual foragers would be random in the absence of any interaction. We investigate the effect of interaction on the search efficiency and the spatio-temporal scaling that emerges in the movement of foragers. The foragers are walkers on a two dimensional square lattice while targets are immobile but regenerative. The foragers have local information about the distribution of the targets. A forager independently searching for targets executes a random walk (RW) on the lattice. However, the foragers possess global information about the state of other foragers, {\it i.e.}, whether they have been successful in locating targets. We characterize the interaction between foragers through the parameter $\alpha$. This parameter controls the propensity of a forager, who is unsuccessful in finding a target in its locality, to approach the nearest site where targets have been discovered by others. We call such a movement, a targeted walk (TW).
We expect that when targets regenerate in the absence of any spatial correlations, the aggregation of foragers would provide no additional advantage as compared to independent searching. This aspect becomes clear from our results. However, when the reappearance of the targets is guided by spatial correlations which result in spatially heterogeneous distribution of the targets in patches \cite{oft,patch-2} we find that the efficiency attains a maximum for intermediate values of $\alpha$. This implies that for foragers who are momentarily unsuccessful in identifying targets, sometimes joining others who are successful, can be beneficial. This is the main result of our paper. Also, the fact that we obtain scale-free TWs under certain conditions suggests collective behaviour as one of the possible mechanisms responsible for the emergence of L\'evy walks in foraging patterns found in the real-world.
\section{The Model}
\label{def}
Below we describe our model in all details. We consider a two dimensional square lattice of size $L$ with periodic boundary conditions. There are $N_F$ foragers which are initially distributed randomly on this lattice. The targets (food) are regenerative such that at every time step the total (amount) is $N_T$. We define the neighbourhood of a forager as a circular region of radius $R$ centred on it. We assume that at any instant of time, a forager is able to determine which are the foragers in its neighbourhood that have been successful in identifying and consuming food. However, a forager is only able to detect targets at the site where it has arrived. Let $(x^t_i,y^t_i)$ be the position of a forager $i$ on the lattice at time $t$ and let $j$ be the nearest of the all the foragers in the neighbourhood which have consumed one target at time $t$. The rules governing the behaviour of $i$ are the following:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If there are targets at $(x^t_i,y^t_i)$ then the forager stays at that site and consumes one. Let $h(x^t,y^t)$ denote the number of targets at a site $(x,y)$ at time $t$. Thus, $h(x^{t+1}_i,y^{t+1}_i)=h(x^t_i,y^t_i)-1$ and $(x^{t+1}_i,y^{t+1}_i)=(x^t_i,y^t_i)$. If at any instant of time the number of foragers at any site exceeds the number of targets available, then the targets are distributed randomly between the foragers.
\item If the site $(x^t_i,y^t_i)$ is empty with the forager having arrived at this site by taking a {\it random step} (defined below), or the forager being there in presence of food (at time $t-1$) then the movement of the forager is decided according to the following rules.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If there is no successful forager in the neighbourhood then the forager takes a random step, that is, $(x^{t+1}_i,y^{t+1}_i)$ becomes equal to one of the nearest neighbour coordinates $(x^t_i\pm 1,y^t_i)$ or $(x^t_i,y^t_i\pm 1)$ with equal probability.
\item If there is a successful forager $j$ in the neighbourhood then with a probability $p_i$ the forager `moves' in the direction of the former and with a probability $1-p_i$ moves out by taking a random step. Here, $p_i=\exp(-\alpha d_{ij})$, where $d_{ij}$ is the Euclidean distance between
$(x^t_i,y^t_i)$ and $(x^t_j,y^t_j)$. The movement in the direction of $j$ implies moving to a nearest neighbour site such that the distance between $(x^{t+1}_i,y^{t+1}_i)$ and $(x^t_j,y^t_j)$ becomes less than $d_{ij}$. We term this movement as a {\it targeted step} in contrast to a random step and let the forager remember this distance as ${\tilde{d}}^t_i=d_{ij}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item If the site $(x^t_i,y^t_i)$ is empty and if the forager has arrived at this site by taking a targeted step then the movement of the forager is decided as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Same as (ii)(a).
\item If there is a forager $j$ in the neighbourhood and $d_{ij} < {\tilde{d}}^{t-1}_i$ then the forager takes targeted step towards $j$ and ${\tilde{d}}^t_i=d_{ij}$.
\item If there is a forager $j$ in the neighbourhood and $d_{ij}\geq {\tilde{d}}^{t-1}_i$ then same as (ii)(b).
\end{enumerate}
\item This rule pertains to the regeneration of targets at every instant. Let $\Delta N(t)$ be the number of targets that have been consumed at any instant of time $t$. We randomly select one of the remaining $N_T-\Delta N(t)$ targets. At a distance $d$ ($1\le d\le L/\sqrt{2}$) from the location of this target a new target is placed, in a random direction. The distance $d$ is chosen from a distribution $P(d)\sim d^{-\gamma}$, where $\gamma$ is a parameter. This process is repeated another $\Delta N(t)-1$ times. Thus, the total number of targets at the beginning of time step $t+1$ again becomes $N_T$.
\end{enumerate}
We choose such a scheme for the regeneration of targets with a two-fold view. Firstly, it ensures that at any instant the distribution of resources is heterogeneous. The power-law form for $P(d)$ generates targets distributed in well separated clusters. A similar scheme was used to model the spacings between marine food patches in \citep{sims}. Secondly, it provides the scope of simulating the foraging activity as a steady state process in time. A more realistic model would allow the simulation in an infinite lattice where the patches need not regenerate at every time step. In effect our model provides a method to produce a foraging environment that is highly variable in space and time \cite{couzin,monkey-model-2,hierarchical-patch}.
We call a consecutive sequence of random steps a RW and a consecutive sequence of targeted steps a TW. A forager which searches independently executes a RW until it encounters a target. However, there is a finite probability that such a forager may decide moving towards sites where foragers have already encountered food assuming that targets are clustered in space. It is natural that this probability is distance dependent as there is an energy cost associated with the movement of a forager \cite{cost1}. Also, travelling over large distances take more time during which the targeted patch becomes increasingly exploited \cite{cost2}. Therefore, nearer the location of the sites, larger is the probability of relocation. This fact is quantified through the definition of $p$ in (ii)(b). In the limit $\alpha\to\infty$ the trajectories of the foragers are essentially RWs. The tendency of foragers to travel towards distant locations, where targets have been discovered, increases with decrease in the value of $\alpha$. Thus, trajectories become mixture of RWs and TWs.
Note that a TW, when initiated, is not aimed at a particular individual but towards a particular site. The variable ${\tilde{d}}^t$ ensures that forager has a memory of the distance to the targeted site and therefore the instantaneous movement of the forager is in a direction so as to minimize this distance. On appearance of another site, where food gets detected, closer than the original, the TW gets directed towards it and ${\tilde{d}}^t$ is accordingly modified. In case the last targeted site is exhausted and some feeding site in the neighbourhood gets detected at a distance larger compared to the distance to the former then the forager probabilistically adopts that target depending on the distance. This rule accounts for the fact that when forager that has adopted a strategy of moving towards targets detected by others, will not easily abandon it and return to searching independently. Also, a forager actually approaching a cluster of sites should not get deterred if one of the sites gets emptied. A model with somewhat similar but rather deterministic rules for the movement of the foragers was considered in \cite{gurney} where the effect of group size on foraging rate was studied. The randomness in our model is naturally built in by the probabilistic choice of the step directions of the foragers and the scheme used for the regrowth of the targets.
In the present study we assume that $R$ is larger than the system size, {\it i.e.}, at any instant, a forager is informed about state of all other foragers. However, it is obvious that the actual use of this information is manifested through the distance dependent probability $p$. Also, we take $N_F=N_T=N$ which would correspond to the case of targets being rather scarce at the same time this equality also ensures that the maximum possible value of targets encountered per unit time per forager is unity.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig-1.eps,width=15cm}}
\caption{The figure shows the snapshots during evolution of the model for $N=128$, $L=128$, $\gamma=2.5$ and $\alpha=0.0$ at times $t=0$, $194$, $281$, $747$, $802$ and $979$. The foragers are marked with blue circles and the targets are marked with green squares. The path of a typical forager is drawn. The red steps belong to random walks and the black steps belong to targeted walks. The fact that a single lattice site may be multiply occupied by foragers or targets is not separately colour coded.}
\label{fig-1}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{results}
In general, not only the regeneration process but the interaction with the foragers is supposed to influence the distribution of targets at long times. However, with the parameters used in this paper, our simulations reveal that the heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of targets at all times is qualitatively independent of $\alpha$ and is controlled through $\gamma$. The larger the value of $\gamma$ the more clustered the targets become and the power-law form for $P(d)$ resulting in rare but very large values of $d$, gives rise to large separation between clusters.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig-2.eps,width=12cm}}
\caption{(a) Variation of the efficiency, $\eta$, with $\alpha$ for $L=512$. The different colours used are for $N=1024$, $\gamma=2.5$ (red); $N=512$, $\gamma=2.5$ (blue); $N=256$, $\gamma=2.5$ (orange); $N=512$, $\gamma=2.0$ (magenta) and $N=512$, random regeneration of targets (green). The inset of (a) corresponds to $N=512$ and $\gamma=3.5$. (b) Scaling collapse of $\eta$ for different values of $N$ with $\gamma=2.5$ and $L=512$. The collapse results with $\beta_1=0.15$ and $\beta_2=0.70$. The inset of (b) shows the dependence of $\alpha_m$ on $N$ in a log-log plot. The straight line in red, having slope $\zeta=0.65$, shows the power-law nature of the variation.}
\label{fig-2}
\end{figure*}
In the figure 1 we show the time evolution of the model for the parameters $N=128$, $L=128$, $\gamma=2.5$ and $\alpha=0.0$. The dynamics is deterministic to a certain extent because $\alpha$ is zero. Initially, (Fig.~\ref{fig-1}(a)) the targets appear to be distributed in two well-separated clusters and the foragers are mostly away from these targets. At a later time (Fig.~\ref{fig-1}(b)) the foragers are found to have aggregated over one of the clusters. This happens as soon as one of the foragers is successful in detecting a target belonging to that cluster. The trajectory of a typical foragers is shown. Once the targets in the region, where the foragers are present, gets depleted there is a searching phase (Fig.~\ref{fig-1}(c)). The trajectory of the foragers at this stage are mostly RWs. The search ends as soon as a site in the second cluster is detected by any forager and all the others relocate towards the site. The trajectory during this relocation mostly comprises of TWs (Fig.~\ref{fig-1}(d) and (e)). Eventually, the second cluster is also consumed and another searching phase follows (Fig.~\ref{fig-1}(f)). The simultaneous development of clusters of targets in other regions of the lattice is also visible in the figure.
We assume that the cost involved in foraging is proportional to the distance travelled by the foragers. The efficiency of searching \cite{levy-opt}, defined as the ratio of the total number of targets consumed to the total distance travelled by all the foragers, is given by
\begin{equation}
\eta=\left\langle\frac{\sum_{t=1}^{\mathcal{T}}\Delta N(t)}{\sum_{t=1}^{\mathcal{T}}N_\textrm{W}(t)}\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where, $N_\textrm{W}(t)$ is the number of walkers at time $t$. The statistics is collected in the stationary state for $\mathcal{T}=10^6$ time steps in each configuration and $\langle\cdots\rangle$ denotes the average over $200$ configurations. In Fig.~\ref{fig-2}(a) we plot $\eta$ as a function of $\alpha$. For $N=512$ and $L=512$ we are able to compare the efficiency of the searches for targets distributions at different degrees of patchiness characterized by $\gamma$. When targets regenerate randomly across the lattice we find $\eta$ to increase with $\alpha$ and then saturate to a value in the limit of $\alpha\to\infty$. Thus, searching independently is overall beneficial. However, for values of $\gamma=2.0$, $2.5$ and $3.5$, the efficiency is found to be maximum for different values of $\alpha$, respectively. When targets are clustered in space we expect that a forager travelling to a region where targets have already been discovered increases its own chance of encountering a target. However, indiscriminately taking such decisions may not be beneficial. Travelling to distant clusters increases the cost and by the time the forager reaches the region, it is depleted of targets. Therefore, joining others when clusters are discovered nearby and opting to search independently, otherwise is found to be most efficient. Unlike the scenario described in Fig.~\ref{fig-1} this intermediate strategy may amount to the simultaneous discovery and exploitation of more than one cluster or faster discovery of newly generated clusters. For extremely clustered distributions ($\gamma=3.5$) the efficiency in the limit $\alpha\to0$ is larger than that of the $\alpha\to\infty$ limit unlike for lesser values of $\gamma$. This is because the regenerated clusters appear very close to each other and as such aggregation allows the foragers to move from one cluster to another with least amount of exploration. A comparison between different values of $N=256$, $512$ and $1024$ shows that the maximum value of efficiency is larger for larger values of $N$. We quantify this effect by scaling collapse of $\eta$ versus $\alpha$ plots for five different values of $N$ in Fig.~\ref{fig-2}(b) with $L=512$ and $\gamma=2.5$. The collapse reveals that the width of the maximum in $\eta$ scales as $N^{\beta_1}$, where $\beta_1=0.15$ and the maximum value of the efficiency, $\eta_m$ scales as $N^{\beta_2}$ with $\beta_2=0.70$. We define $\alpha_m$ as the value of $\alpha$ for which $\eta=\eta_m$. The values $\alpha_m$ for which the collapse becomes possible is plotted against $N$ in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig-2}(b). The plot shows that $\alpha_m\sim N^{\zeta}$ with $\zeta=0.65$.
Interestingly, near the maximum of efficiency we find that there is a maximum for the fraction of walkers executing TWs. In Fig.~\ref{fig-3}(a) we plot the
averaged quantity, $f_t$, defined as the ratio of the number of foragers executing TWs to the total number of walkers at any instant. As expected $f_t$ goes to zero as $\alpha\to\infty$ since the foragers do not follow each other.
Also, $f_t$ is large as $\alpha\to0$. The activity of the foragers in this limit is similar to the scenario illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig-1}. The dominant activity is searching (through RWs) in-between the discovery of clusters and the simultaneous discovery of clusters are rare. The TWs only occur in short bouts. For intermediate values of $\alpha$, when there is a possibility that a cluster can be detected while another one is being exploited, the TWs take place more frequently. This results in $f_t$ having a maximum. When targets regenerate randomly across the lattice the TWs are not beneficial in terms of the efficiency as already seen from Fig~\ref{fig-2}(a). Decrease in the value of $\alpha$ favours the increase in aggregation of the foragers through TWs whereas the aggregation reduces the number of forager-target encounters. This competition results in the maximum of $f_t$ for random regeneration. The effect of random reappearance of targets coupled to extreme aggregation for $\alpha\to 0$ and the fact that we use PBC, gives rise to a stable moving band in the steady state as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-4}(a). The band travels parallel to either of the axis.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig-3.eps,width=12cm}}
\caption{Plots of the fraction of walkers executing targeted walks at any instant, $f_t$ (a) and the flocking order parameter, $\Phi$ (b) against $\alpha$ for $L=512$. The different parameter sets denoted by the different colours in the main areas and the insets are the same as that in the Fig~\ref{fig-2}(a).}
\label{fig-3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig-4.eps,width=12cm}}
\caption{Snapshots of two different patterns exhibited by the model corresponding to regrowth rules for targets and for the parameters $N=512$, $L=512$ and $\alpha=0.0$. A stable moving band observed when targets regenerate randomly across the lattice (a); and wedge formation for $\gamma=3.5$ (b) (only the section of the lattice where foragers and targets are concentrated is shown). In (a) the foragers are marked with blue and the targets are marked with green. The path of typical forager is marked with red. The arrow points to the direction of motion of the band. The multiple occupation of sites by foragers or targets is not colour coded. The inset shows a section of the trajectory where the RWs appear in red and TWs in black. In (b) the foragers are marked with blue (multiple occupation ignored) and the path of a typical forager is shown with a color scheme similar to the inset of (a). A colouring scheme for the multiple occupation of sites by targets is used (provided in legend).}
\label{fig-4}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig-5.eps,width=13cm}}
\caption{The plots of probability distribution, $P(l)$, of the length of targeted walks. The figures (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond to the different sets of values of $N$, $L$, $\gamma$ and $\alpha$, as indicated in the legends. The dashed line in (a) is a guide to the eye and indicates the power-law nature in the region for the curve with $N=512$, $L=512$, $\gamma=2.5$ and $\alpha=0.0$. Regression fit with $P(l)\sim l^{-\mu}$ gives the value of $\mu=2.80$. In (c) the values of $\mu$ corresponding to different values of $N(=L)$ resulting from regression fits are provided in legend.}
\label{fig-5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=fig-6.eps,width=13cm}}
\caption{The plots of probability distribution, $P(\tau)$, of waiting times between forager-target encounters. The figures (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond to different sets of values of $N$, $L$, $\gamma$ and $\alpha$, as indicated in the legends. The dashed line in (a) is a guide to the eye and indicates the power-law nature in the region for the curves with $N=512$, $L=512$, $\gamma=2.5$ and with the values of $\alpha=0.0, 5.0\times10^{-4}, 5.0\times10^{-3}$. Regression fits with $P(\tau)\sim\tau^{-\delta}$ gives the value of $\delta=1.67$ for all three values of $\alpha$. In (c) the values of $\delta$ corresponding to different values of $N(=L)$ resulting from regression fits are provided in legend.}
\label{fig-6}
\end{figure}
When a forager comes across a site $(x,y)$ having targets, the time spent at that site, before it moves away, is in general equal to the number of targets present, $h(x,y)$ (unless other foragers are also present at the site). Large values of $\gamma$, result in sites with $h(x,y)>>1$. As a result the presence of a forager at such a site is of longer duration. Now, if $\alpha$ is also small then such a forager, at any instant, draws towards the site a large number of foragers who execute TWs. During the time the former spends consuming targets, the TWs of the latter align. Such an alignment of the paths of a set of moving foragers generates an overall pattern of a moving column. Such a case is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig-4}(b) where two such perpendicular columns are seen giving rise to a wedge. Such a formation persists and as a whole travels until the adjacent targets are not depleted.
The observation of different patterns encouraged us to investigate the general nature of collective motion. We measured the order parameter popularly used to characterize motion of flocks of self-propelled particles \cite{vicsek}. As the motion of the foragers is restricted to the lattice, the order parameter is
\begin{equation}
\Phi=\left\langle{\sqrt{(f_{x+}-f_{x-})^2+(f_{y+}-f_{y-})^2}}\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $f_{x+}$ denotes the fraction of foragers moving towards the positive $x$-direction at any instant and likewise. Temporal and configuration averaging is denoted by $\langle\cdots\rangle$ and is similar to the calculation of $\eta$. In Fig.~\ref{fig-3}(b) the plot $\Phi$ versus $\alpha$ is shown. We find that the maximum of $\eta$ is accompanied by a transition from a regime where the value of $\Phi$ is dominated by fluctuations due to random movement of the foragers to a higher values of $\Phi$. The higher values of $\Phi$ occur when foragers migrate from one cluster to another. However, the actual values of the order parameter are low because of the movement on the lattice and that just after the depletion of a cluster, the forager diffuse in all directions.
The influence of the collective searching on the movement of individual foragers is evidenced in the distribution of lengths of TWs. The tendency to search independently is less when $\alpha$ is small and long TWs are probable. In Fig.~\ref{fig-5} we plot the probability distribution of $P(l)$ of length of TWs of length $l$. We find that TWs become scale-free in the limit of $\alpha\to0$ for patchy distributions. For $N=512$, $L=512$, $\gamma=2.5$ and $\alpha=0.0$ we find $P(l)\sim l^{-\mu}$ with $\mu=-2.80$ (using regression analysis \cite{grace}). As $\alpha$ increases the TWs become shorter and the distribution falls off faster. These are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-5}(a). For random distribution of targets and extremely clustered distribution ($\gamma=3.5$) which correspond to moving bands and columns, respectively, there is a deviation from power-law (Fig.~\ref{fig-5}(b)). In the limit $\alpha\to0$ we generally find that scale-free TWs arise for values of $N$ which are either equal to $L$ or larger but close to $L$ (Fig.~\ref{fig-5}(c) and (d)). For $N\gg L$ the distribution is fat-tailed but not a power-law. In case of $N<L$ the clusters are exploited so fast that long TWs become rare.
The interdependence is also evident in the temporal behaviour of model. When targets are clustered there is usually a waiting time corresponding to the searching phase between the discovery of clusters. We define $\tau$ as the time between successive encounters with targets by the group as a whole. In Fig.~\ref{fig-6} we plot the probability distribution $P(\tau)$. With the decrease in the value of $\alpha$ the states of the foragers become increasingly correlated. This is reflected in the power-law nature of $P(\tau)$. For $N=512=L$ and $\gamma=2.5$ we find $P(\tau)\sim\tau^{-\delta}$ with $\delta=-1.67$ for values of $\alpha$ between $5.0\times 10^{-3}$ to $0.0$ (Fig~\ref{fig-6}(a)). We find the power-law form for $P(\tau)$ to be retained for larger values of $\gamma$ as well. The value of $\gamma$ becoming lesser finally leading to a random distribution of targets makes $P(\tau)$ fall faster (Fig~\ref{fig-6}(b)). Faster decay of $P(\tau)$ also occurs when $N>L$ (Fig.~\ref{fig-6}(c) and (d)). This is because when both targets as well as foragers are abundant the long waiting times become rear.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sum}
Our model shows that the presence of interactions within a group of foragers can help maximize the efficiency of searching. The decision of an individual as well as the cost is assumed to depend on distances between members. The optimal strategy, from which the group is benefited as a whole, is a mixture of searching independently and joining other members. The dependence of the efficiency on the parameter $\alpha$ and the fact that the $\alpha$ is the inverse of a length scale also supports the notion that the exchange of information above a length scale may not be really useful for the group as a whole \cite{gazelle}.
We also find that such interactions can lead to scale-free walks by the foragers in certain limits. Interdependence between foragers also correlates the states of the foragers which manifest in power-law distributed waiting times. The model also shows that under certain conditions stable and transient patterns of collective motion can emerge. A natural extension of the model would be to consider L\'evy walks for motion of foragers searching independently. It would be also interesting to incorporate flock cohesion in the model and study its influence on the efficiency of foraging. We believe that our model can help understand overall foraging patterns of animal groups in terms of simple strategies at the level of the individual animals. In addition it can provide guiding principles in design of artificial foraging swarms \cite{robot}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge the support from the FP7 ERC COLLMOT grant. K.B. acknowledges the support from the BITS Research Initiation Grant Fund. K.B. is also thankful to A.K. Nandi for helpful discussions during the course of this research.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
A common problem in optimization is to find a vector $\mathbf x^* \in \mathcal R^M$ which minimizes a function $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$, where $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$ is a sum of $N$ computationally cheaper differentiable subfunctions $f_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq F}
F\left(\mathbf x\right) &= \sum_{i=1}^N f_i\left(\mathbf x\right), \\
\label{eq Fmin}
\mathbf x^* &= \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_{\mathbf x} F\left(\mathbf x\right)
.
\end{align}
Many optimization tasks fit this form \cite{boyd2004convex}, including training of autoencoders, support vector machines, and logistic regression algorithms, as well as parameter estimation in probabilistic models.
In these cases each subfunction corresponds to evaluating the objective on a separate data minibatch, thus the number of subfunctions $N$ would be the datasize $D$ divided by the minibatch size $S$.
This scenario is commonly referred to in statistics as M-estimation \cite{Huber81}.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hspace{-0.07\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{figures/figure_cartoon_pane_A.pdf} \vspace{-2mm} \\
(a)
\end{tabular}
&
\hspace{-0.04\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{figures/figure_cartoon_pane_B.pdf} \vspace{-2mm} \\
(b)
\end{tabular}
&
\hspace{-0.06\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{figures/figure_cartoon_pane_C.pdf} \vspace{-2mm} \\
(c)
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
A cartoon illustrating the proposed optimization technique. {\em (a)} The objective function $F\left( x\right)$ (solid blue line) consists of a sum of two subfunctions (dashed blue lines), $F\left( x\right) = f_1\left(x\right) + f_2\left(x\right)$. At learning step $t-1$, $f_1\left(x\right)$ and $f_2\left(x\right)$ are approximated by quadratic functions $g^{t-1}_1\left(x\right)$ and $g^{t-1}_2\left(x\right)$ (red dashed lines). The sum of the approximating functions $G^{t-1}\left( x\right)$ (solid red line) approximates the full objective $F\left( x\right)$. The green dots indicate the parameter values at which each subfunction has been evaluated {\em (b)} The next parameter setting $x^t$ is chosen by minimizing the approximating function $G^{t-1}\left( x\right)$ from the prior update step. See Equation \ref{eq x^t}. {\em (c)} After each parameter update, the quadratic approximation for one of the subfunctions is updated using a second order expansion around the new parameter vector $x^t$. See Equation \ref{eq subf upd}. The constant and first order term in the expansion are evaluated exactly, and the second order term is estimated by performing BFGS on the subfunction's history. In this case the approximating subfunction $g^{t}_1\left(x\right)$ is updated (long-dashed red line). This update is also reflected by a change in the full approximating function $G^{t}\left( x\right)$ (solid red line).
Optimization proceeds by repeating these two illustrated update steps. In order to remain tractable in memory and computational overhead, optimization is performed in an adaptive low dimensional subspace determined by the history of gradients and iterates.
}
\label{fig cartoon}
\end{figure*}
There are two general approaches to efficiently optimizing a function of this form. The first is to use a quasi-Newton method \cite{Dennis1977}, of which BFGS \cite{Broyden1970,Fletcher1970,Goldfarb1970,Shanno1970} or LBFGS \cite{Liu1989} are the most common choices. Quasi-Newton methods use the history of gradient evaluations to build up an approximation to the inverse Hessian of the objective function $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$. By making descent steps which are scaled by the approximate inverse Hessian, and which are therefore longer in directions of shallow curvature and shorter in directions of steep curvature, quasi-Newton methods can be orders of magnitude faster than steepest descent. Additionally, quasi-Newton techniques typically require adjusting few or no hyperparameters, because they use the measured curvature of the objective function to set step lengths and directions. However, direct application of quasi-Newton methods requires calculating the gradient of the full objective function $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$ at every proposed parameter setting $\mathbf x$, which can be very computationally expensive
The second approach is to use a variant of Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) \cite{Robbins1951,Bottou}. In SGD, only one subfunction's gradient is evaluated per update step, and a small step is taken in the negative gradient direction. More recent descent techniques like IAG \cite{Blatt2007}, SAG \cite{Roux2012}, and MISO \cite{Mairal2013,Mairal2014} instead take update steps in the average gradient direction. For each update step, they evaluate the gradient of one subfunction, and update the average gradient using its new value. \cite{Bach2013} averages the iterates rather than the gradients. If the subfunctions are similar, then SGD can also be orders of magnitude faster than steepest descent on the full batch. However, because a different subfunction is evaluated for each update step, the gradients for each update step cannot be combined in a straightforward way to estimate the inverse Hessian of the full objective function. Additionally, efficient optimization with SGD typically involves tuning a number of hyperparameters, which can be a painstaking
and frustrating process. \cite{Ngiam2011} compares the performance of stochastic gradient and quasi-Newton methods on neural network training, and finds both to be competitive.
Combining quasi-Newton and stochastic gradient methods could improve optimization time, and reduce the need to tweak optimization hyperparameters.
This problem has been approached from a number of directions.
In \cite{Schraudolph2007,Sunehag2009} a stochastic variant of LBFGS is proposed. In \cite{Martens2010}, \cite{Byrd2011}, and \cite{Vinyals2011} stochastic versions of Hessian-free optimization are implemented and applied to optimization of deep networks.
In \cite{Lin2008} a trust region Newton method is used to train logistic regression and linear SVMs using minibatches.
In \cite{Hennig2013} a nonparametric quasi-Newton algorithm is proposed based on noisy gradient observations and a Gaussian process prior.
In \cite{Byrd2014} LBFGS is performed, but with the contributing changes in gradient and position replaced by exactly computed Hessian vector products computed periodically on extra large minibatches.
Stochastic meta-descent \cite{Schraudolph1999}, AdaGrad \cite{Duchi2010}, and SGD-QN \cite{Bordes2009} rescale the gradient independently for each dimension, and can be viewed as accumulating something similar to a diagonal approximation to the Hessian.
All of these techniques treat the Hessian on a subset of the data as a noisy approximation to the full Hessian. To reduce noise in the Hessian approximation, they rely on regularization and very large minibatches to descend $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$.
Thus, unfortunately each update step requires the evaluation of many subfunctions and/or yields a highly regularized (i.e. diagonal) approximation to the full Hessian.
We develop a novel second-order quasi-Newton technique that only requires the evaluation of {\it a single} subfunction per update step. In order to achieve this substantial simplification, we treat the full Hessian of each subfunction as a direct target for estimation, thereby maintaining a separate quadratic approximation of each subfunction. This approach differs from all previous work, which in contrast treats the Hessian of each subfunction as a noisy approximation to the full Hessian. Our approach allows us to combine Hessian information from multiple subfunctions in a much more natural and efficient way than previous work, and avoids the requirement of large minibatches per update step to accurately estimate the full Hessian. Moreover, we develop a novel method to maintain computational tractability and limit the memory requirements of this quasi-Newton method in the face of high dimensional optimization problems (large $M$). We do this by storing and manipulating the subfunctions in a shared, adaptive low dimensional subspace, determined by the recent history of the gradients and iterates.
Thus our optimization method can usefully estimate and utilize powerful second-order information
while simultaneously combatting two potential sources of computational intractability: large numbers of subfunctions (large N) and a high-dimensional optimization domain (large M). Moreover, the use of a second order approximation means that minimal or no adjustment of hyperparameters is required. We refer to the resulting algorithm as Sum of Functions Optimizer (SFO).
We demonstrate that the combination of techniques and new ideas inherent in SFO results in faster optimization on seven disparate example problems. Finally, we release the optimizer and the test suite as open source Python and MATLAB packages.
\section{Algorithm}
Our goal is to combine the benefits of stochastic and quasi-Newton optimization techniques. We first describe the general procedure by which we optimize the parameters $\mathbf x$. We then describe the construction of the shared low dimensional subspace which makes the algorithm tractable in terms of computational overhead and memory for large problems.
This is followed by a description of the BFGS method by which an online Hessian approximation is maintained for each subfunction. Finally, we end this section with a review of implementation details.
\subsection{Approximating Functions}\label{sec approx}
We define a series of functions $G^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$ intended to approximate $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$,
\begin{align}
G^t\left(\mathbf x\right) = \sum_{i=1}^N g^t_i\left(\mathbf x\right)
\label{eq approximating functions}
,
\end{align}
where the superscript $t$ indicates the learning iteration. Each $g^t_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$ serves as a quadratic approximation to the corresponding $f_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$. The functions $g^t_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$ will be stored, and one of them will be updated per learning step.
\subsection{Update Steps}\label{sec update}
As is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig cartoon}, optimization is performed by repeating the steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{minG} Choose a vector $\mathbf x^t$ by minimizing the approximating objective function $G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x\right)$,
\begin{align}
\mathbf x^t = \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_{\mathbf x} G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x\right)
.
\label{eq x^t}
\end{align}
Since $G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x\right)$ is a sum of quadratic functions $g_i^{t-1}\left( \mathbf x \right)$, it can be exactly minimized by a Newton step,
\begin{align}
\mathbf x^t = \mathbf x^{t-1} - \eta^t \left( \mathbf H^{t-1}\right)^{-1} \pd{G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x^{t-1} \right)}{\mathbf x}
,
\label{eq newton step}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf H^{t-1}$ is the Hessian of $G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x\right)$. The step length $\eta^t$ is typically unity, and will be discussed in Section \ref{sec bad up}.
\item \label{update_subfunc} Choose an index $j \in \{1...N\}$, and update the corresponding approximating subfunction $g_i^{t}\left( \mathbf x \right)$ using a second order power series around $\mathbf x^t$, while leaving all other subfunctions unchanged,
\nobreak \end{enumerate} \nobreak
\begin{align}
\label{eq subf upd}
g_i^t\left( \mathbf x \right)
=
\left\{\begin{array}{lcrl}
g_i^{t-1}\left( \mathbf x \right) & & i\neq j \\ \\
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
f_i\left( \mathbf x^t \right) \\ \quad
+ \left( \mathbf x - \mathbf x^t \right)^T {f'_i\left( \mathbf x^t \right)} \\ \quad
+ \frac{1}{2} \left( \mathbf x - \mathbf x^t \right)^T
\mathbf H_i^t \
\left( \mathbf x - \mathbf x^t \right)
\end{array}
\right]
& & i = j &
\end{array}\right.
.
\end{align}
The constant and first order term in Equation \ref{eq subf upd} are set by evaluating the subfunction and gradient, $f_j\left(\mathbf x^t\right)$ and $f'_j\left(\mathbf x^t\right)$.
The quadratic term $\mathbf H_j^t$ is set by using the BFGS
algorithm to generate an online approximation to the true Hessian
of subfunction $j$ based on its history of gradient evaluations (see Section \ref{sec online hessian}).
The Hessian of the summed approximating function $G^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$ in Equation \ref{eq newton step} is the sum of the Hessians for each $g^t_j\left(\mathbf x\right)$, $\mathbf H^t = \sum_j \mathbf H^t_j$.
\subsection{A Shared, Adaptive, Low-Dimensional Representation}
\label{sec subspace}
The dimensionality $M$ of $\mathbf x \in \mathcal R^M$ is typically large. As a result, the memory and computational cost of working directly with the matrices $\mathbf H_i^t \in \mathcal R^{M\times M}$ is typically prohibitive, as is the cost of storing the history terms $\Delta {f'}$ and $\Delta \mathbf x$ required by BFGS (see Section \ref{sec online hessian}). To reduce the dimensionality from $M$ to a tractable value, all history is instead stored and all updates computed in a lower dimensional subspace, with dimensionality between $K_{min}$ and $K_{max}$. This subspace is constructed such that it includes the most recent gradient and position for every subfunction, and thus $K_{min} \geq 2N$. This guarantees that the subspace includes both the steepest gradient descent direction over the full batch, and the update directions from the most recent Newton steps (Equation \ref{eq newton step}).
For the results in this paper, $K_{min} = 2 N$ and $K_{max} = 3 N$. The subspace is represented by the orthonormal columns of a matrix $\mathbf P^t \in \mathcal R^{M \times K^t}$, $\left(\mathbf P^t\right)^T \mathbf P^t = \mathbf I$. $K^t$ is the subspace dimensionality at optimization step $t$.
\subsubsection{Expanding the Subspace with a New Observation}
At each optimization step, an additional column is added to the subspace, expanding it to include the most recent gradient direction. This is done by first finding the component in the gradient vector which lies outside the existing subspace, and then appending that component to the current subspace,
\begin{align}
\mathbf q_\text{orth} &= f'_j\left( \mathbf x^t \right) - \mathbf P^{t-1} \left(\mathbf P^{t-1}\right)^T f'_j\left( \mathbf x^t \right), \\
\label{eq subfunction append}
\mathbf P^{t} &= \left[ \mathbf P^{t-1}\quad \frac{\mathbf q_\text{orth}}{\left|\left| \mathbf q_\text{orth} \right| \right|} \right]
,
\end{align}
where $j$ is the subfunction updated at time $t$. The new position $\mathbf x^t$ is included automatically, since the position update was computed within the subspace $\mathbf P^{t-1}$. Vectors embedded in the subspace $\mathbf P^{t-1}$ can be updated to lie in $\mathbf P^t$ simply by appending a $0$, since the first $K^{t-1}$ dimensions of $\mathbf P^t$ consist of $\mathbf P^{t-1}$.
\subsubsection{Restricting the Size of the Subspace}
\label{sec subspace collapse}
In order to prevent the dimensionality $K^t$ of the subspace from growing too large, whenever $K^t > K_{max}$, the subspace is collapsed to only include the most recent gradient and position measurements from each subfunction. The orthonormal matrix representing this collapsed subspace is computed by a QR decomposition on the most recent gradients and positions. A new collapsed subspace is thus computed as,
\begin{align}
\mathbf P' &= \text{orth}\left(\left[
f'_1\left( \mathbf x^{\tau_1^t} \right) \cdots f'_N\left( \mathbf x^{\tau_N^t} \right) \quad
\mathbf x^{\tau_1^t} \cdots \mathbf x^{\tau_N^t}
\right]\right)
\label{eq subspace collapse}
,
\end{align}
where $\tau_i^t$ indicates the learning step at which the $i$th subfunction was most recently evaluated, prior to the current learning step $t$.
Vectors embedded in the prior subspace $\mathbf P$ are projected into the new subspace $\mathbf P'$ by multiplication with a projection matrix $\mathbf T = \left(\mathbf P'\right)^T \mathbf P$. Vector components which point outside the subspace defined by the most recent positions and gradients are lost in this projection.
Note that the subspace $\mathbf P'$ lies within the subspace $\mathbf P$. The QR decomposition and the projection matrix $\mathbf T$ are thus both computed within $\mathbf P$, reducing the computational and memory cost (see Section \ref{sec comp cost}).
\subsection{Online Hessian Approximation}
\label{sec online hessian}
An independent online Hessian approximation $\mathbf H_j^t$ is maintained for each subfunction $j$. It is computed by performing BFGS on the history of gradient evaluations and positions for that single subfunction\footnote{We additionally experimented with Symmetric Rank 1 \cite{Dennis1977} updates to the approximate Hessian, but found they performed worse than BFGS. See Supplemental Figure \ref{fig design choices}.}.
\subsubsection{History Matrices}
For each subfunction $j$, we construct two matrices, $\Delta {f'}$ and $\Delta \mathbf x$. Each column of $\Delta {f'}$ holds the change in the gradient of subfunction $j$ between successive evaluations of that subfunction, including all evaluations up until the present time. Each column of $\Delta \mathbf x$ holds the corresponding change in the position $\mathbf x$ between successive evaluations. Both matrices are truncated after a number of columns $L$, meaning that they include information from only the prior $L+1$ gradient evaluations for each subfunction. For all results in this paper, $L=10$ (identical to the default history length for the LBFGS implementation used in Section \ref{sec results}).
\subsubsection{BFGS Updates}
\label{sec bfgs updates}
The BFGS algorithm functions by iterating through the columns in $\Delta {f'}$ and $\Delta \mathbf x$, from oldest to most recent. Let $s$ be a column index, and $\mathbf B_s$ be the approximate Hessian for subfunction $j$ after processing column $s$. For each $s$, the approximate Hessian matrix $\mathbf B_s$ is set so that it obeys the secant equation $\Delta {f'}_s = \mathbf B_s \Delta \mathbf x_s$, where $\Delta {f'}_s$ and $\Delta \mathbf x_s$ are taken to refer to the $s$th columns of the gradient difference and position difference matrix respectively.
In addition to satisfying the secant equation, $\mathbf B_s$ is chosen such that the difference between it and the prior estimate $\mathbf B_{s-1}$ has the smallest weighted Frobenius norm\footnote{The weighted Frobenius norm is defined as $\left| \left| \mathbf E \right| \right|_{F, \mathbf W} = \left| \left| \mathbf W \mathbf E \mathbf W \right| \right|_{F}$. For BFGS, $\mathbf W = \mathbf B_s^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ \cite{BFGShistory}. Equivalently, in BFGS the unweighted Frobenius norm is minimized after performing a linear change of variables to map the new approximate Hessian to the identity matrix.}. This produces the standard BFGS update equation
\begin{align}
\mathbf B_s
& =
\mathbf B_{s-1} + \frac{
\Delta {f'}_s \Delta {f'}_s^T
}{
\Delta {f'}_s^T \Delta \mathbf x_s
}
- \frac{
\mathbf B_{s-1} \Delta \mathbf x_s \Delta \mathbf x_s^T \mathbf B_{s-1}
}{
\Delta \mathbf x_s^T \mathbf B_{s-1} \Delta \mathbf x_s
}
.
\label{eq bfgs}
\end{align}
The final update is used as the approximate Hessian for subfunction $j$, $\mathbf H_j^t = \mathbf B_{\max(s)}$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\em Optimizer & \em Computation per pass & \em Memory use \\
\hline \\ \vspace{-6mm} \\
SFO & $\mathcal O\left( QN + M N^2 \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$ \\
SFO, `sweet spot' & $\mathcal O\left( QN \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$ \\
LBFGS & $\mathcal O\left( QN + ML \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( M L \right)$ \\
SGD & $\mathcal O\left( QN \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( M \right)$ \\
AdaGrad & $\mathcal O\left( QN \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( M \right)$ \\
SAG & $\mathcal O\left( QN \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Leading terms in the computational cost and memory requirements for SFO and several competing algorithms. $Q$ is the cost of computing the value and gradient for a single subfunction, $M$ is the number of data dimensions, $N$ is the number of subfunctions, and $L$ is the number of history terms retained. ``SFO, `sweet spot''' refers to the case discussed in Section \ref{sec ideal} where the minibatch size is adjusted to match computational overhead to subfunction evaluation cost. For this table, it is assumed that $M \gg N \gg L$.
\label{tb cost compare}
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hspace{-5mm}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.05\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\linewidth]{figures/figure_overhead_fixedN.pdf}
\hspace{-0.47\linewidth}(a)\hspace{0.47\linewidth}
\hspace{-0.06\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\linewidth]{figures/figure_overhead_fixedM.pdf}
\hspace{-0.47\linewidth}(b)\hspace{0.47\linewidth}
\vspace{5mm}
\\
\hspace{-0.06\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figures/figure_num_minibatches_protein-logistic-regression_legend.pdf} \\
\hspace{-0.06\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/figure_num_minibatches_protein-logistic-regression_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/figure_num_minibatches_Hopfield_diff.pdf}
\hspace{-0.99\linewidth}(c)\hspace{0.99\linewidth}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
An exploration of computational overhead and optimizer performance, especially as the number of minibatches or subfunctions $N$ is adjusted.
{\em (a)} Computational overhead required by SFO for a full pass through all the subfunctions as a function of dimensionality $M$ for fixed $N=100$. {\em (b)} Computational overhead of SFO as a function of $N$ for fixed $M=10^6$. Both plots show the computational time required for a full pass of the optimizer, excluding time spent computing the target objective and gradient. This time is dominated by the $\mathcal O\left( M N^2 \right)$ cost per pass of $N$ iterations of subspace projection.
{\em CPU} indicates that all computations were performed on a 2012 Intel i7-3970X CPU (6 cores, 3.5 GHz).
{\em GPU} indicates that subspace projection was performed on a GeForce GTX 660 Ti GPU.
{\em (c)} Optimization performance on the two convex problems in Section \ref{sec results} as a function of the number of minibatches $N$. Note that near maximal performance is achieved after breaking the target problem into only a small number of minibatches.
}
\label{fig overhead}
\end{figure}
\section{Implementation Details}\label{sec imp det}
Here we briefly review additional design choices that were made when implementing this algorithm. Each of these choices is presented more thoroughly in Appendix \ref{app implementation}. Supplemental Figure \ref{fig design choices} demonstrates that the optimizer performance is robust to changes in several of these design choices.
\subsection{BFGS Initialization}
\label{sec bfgs init}
The first time a subfunction is evaluated (before there is sufficient history to run BFGS), the approximate Hessian $\mathbf H_j^t$ is set to the identity times the median eigenvalue of the average Hessian of the other active subfunctions. For later evaluations, the initial BFGS matrix is set to a scaled identity matrix, $\mathbf B_0 = \beta \mathbf I$, where $\beta$ is the minimum eigenvalue found by solving the squared secant equation for the full history. See Appendix \ref{app bfgs init} for details and motivation.
\subsection{Enforcing Positive Definiteness}
It is typical in quasi-Newton techniques to enforce that the Hessian approximation remain positive definite. In SFO each $\mathbf H^t_i$ is constrained to be positive definite by an explicit eigendecomposition and setting any too-small eigenvalues to the median positive eigenvalue. This is computationally cheap due to the shared low dimensional subspace (Section \ref{sec subspace}). This is described in detail in Appendix \ref{app pos def}.
\subsection{Choosing a Target Subfunction}\label{sec order}
The subfunction $j$ to update in Equation \ref{eq subf upd} is chosen to be the one farthest from the current location $\mathbf x^t$, using the current Hessian approximation as the metric. This is described more formally in Appendix \ref{app subf choose}. As illustrated in Supplemental Figure \ref{fig design choices}, this distance based choice outperforms the commonly used random choice of subfunction.
\subsection{Growing the Number of Active Subfunctions}
\label{sec active growth}
For many problems of the form in Equation \ref{eq F}, the gradient information is nearly identical between the different subfunctions early in learning. We therefore begin with only two active subfunctions, and expand the active set whenever the length of the standard error in the gradient across subfunctions exceeds the length of the gradient. This process is described in detail in Appendix \ref{app grow active}. As illustrated in Supplemental Figure \ref{fig design choices}, performance only differs from the case where all subfunctions are initially active for the first several optimization passes.
\subsection{Detecting Bad Updates}
\label{sec bad up}
Small eigenvalues in the Hessian can cause update steps to overshoot severely (ie, if higher than second order terms come to dominate within a distance which is shorter than the suggested update step). It is therefore typical in quasi-Newton methods such as BFGS, LBFGS, and Hessian-free optimization to detect and reject bad proposed update steps, for instance by a line search. In SFO, bad update steps are detected by comparing the measured subfunction value $f_j\left( \mathbf x^t \right)$ to its quadratic approximation $g_j^{t-1}\left( \mathbf x^t \right)$. This is discussed in detail in Section \ref{app bad up}.
\section{Properties}
\subsection{Computational Overhead and Storage Cost}
\label{sec comp cost}
Table \ref{tb cost compare} compares the cost of SFO to competing algorithms. The dominant computational costs are the $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$ cost of projecting the $M$ dimensional gradient and current parameter values into and out of the $\mathcal O\left(N\right)$ dimensional active subspace for each learning iteration, and the $\mathcal O\left( Q \right)$ cost of evaluating a single subfunction. The dominant memory cost is $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$, and stems from storing the active subspace $\mathbf P^t$. Table \ref{tb cost} in the Supplemental Material provides the contribution to the computational cost of each component of SFO. Figure \ref{fig overhead} plots the computational overhead per a full pass through all the subfunctions associated with SFO as a function of $M$ and $N$. If each of the $N$ subfunctions corresponds to a minibatch, then the computational overhead can be shrunk as described in Section \ref{sec ideal}.
Without the low dimensional subspace, the leading term in the computational cost of SFO would be the far larger $\mathcal O\left( M^{2.4} \right)$ cost per iteration of inverting the approximate Hessian matrix in the full $M$ dimensional parameter space, and the leading memory cost would be the far larger $\mathcal O\left( M^2N \right)$ from storing an $M\times M$ dimensional Hessian for all $N$ subfunctions.
\subsubsection{Ideal Minibatch Size}
\label{sec ideal}
Many objective functions consist of a sum over a number of data points $D$, where $D$ is often larger than $M$. For example, $D$ could be the number of training samples in a supervised learning problem, or data points in maximum likelihood estimation. To control the computational overhead of SFO in such a regime, it is useful to choose each subfunction in Equation \ref{eq approximating functions} to itself be a sum over a minibatch of data points of size $S$, yielding $N=\frac{D}{S}$. This leads to a computational cost of evaluating a single subfunction and gradient of $\mathcal O\left(Q\right) = \mathcal O\left(MS\right)$. The computational cost of projecting this gradient from the full space to the shared $N$ dimensional adaptive subspace, on the other hand, is $\mathcal O\left(MN\right) = \mathcal O\left(M\frac{D}{S}\right)$. Therefore, in order for the costs of function evaluation and projection to be the same order, the minibatch size $S$ should be proportional to $\sqrt{D}$, yielding
\begin{align}
N &\propto \sqrt{D}
.
\end{align}
The constant of proportionality should be chosen small enough that the majority of time is spent evaluating the subfunction. In most problems of interest, $\sqrt{D} \ll M$, justifying the relevance of the regime in which the number of subfunctions $N$ is much less than the number of parameters $M$. Finally, the computational and memory costs of SFO are the same for sparse and non-sparse objective functions, while Q is often much smaller for a sparse objective. Thus the ideal $S$ ($N$) is likely to be larger (smaller) for sparse objective functions.
Note that as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig overhead}c and Figure \ref{fig results} performance is very good even for small $N$.
\begin{figure*
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hspace{-5mm}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_protein-logistic-regression_legend.pdf} \\
(a)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_protein-logistic-regression_diff.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Contractive-Autoencoder_legend.pdf} \\
(b)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Contractive-Autoencoder_true.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_ICA_legend.pdf} \\
(c)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_ICA_true.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\\ \\
\hspace{-5mm}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.30692307692307697\linewidth]{figures/figure_Hopfield_legend.pdf} \\
(d)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Hopfield_diff.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_MLP-soft_legend.pdf} \\
(e)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_MLP-soft_true.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Pylearn_conv_legend.pdf} \\
(f)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Pylearn_conv_true.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
A comparison of SFO to competing optimization techniques for six objective functions.
The bold lines indicate the best performing hyperparameter for each optimizer. Note that unlike all other techniques besides LBFGS, SFO does not require tuning hyperparameters (for instance, the displayed SGD+momentum traces are the best out of 32 hyperparameter configurations). The objective functions shown are {\em (a)} a logistic regression problem, {\em (b)} a contractive autoencoder trained on MNIST digits, {\em (c)} an Independent Component Analysis (ICA) model trained on MNIST digits,
{\em (d)} an Ising model / Hopfield associative memory trained using Minimum Probability Flow,
{\em (e)} a multi-layer perceptron with sigmoidal units trained on MNIST digits, and {\em (f)} a multilayer convolutional network with rectified linear units trained on CIFAR-10. The logistic regression and MPF Ising objectives are convex, and their objective values are plotted relative to the global minimum.
}
\label{fig results}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Convergence}
Concurrent work by \cite{Mairal2013} considers a similar algorithm to that described in Section \ref{sec update}, but with $\mathbf H_i^t$ a scalar constant rather than a matrix. Proposition 6.1 in \cite{Mairal2013} shows that in the case that each $g_i$ majorizes its respective $f_i$, and subject to some additional smoothness constraints, $G^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$ monotonically decreases, and $\mathbf x^*$ is an asymptotic stationary point. Proposition 6.2 in \cite{Mairal2013} further shows that for strongly convex $f_i$, the algorithm exhibits a linear convergence rate to $\mathbf x^*$. A near identical proof should hold for a simplified version of SFO, with random subfunction update order, and with $\mathbf H_i^t$ regularized in order to guarantee satisfaction of the majorization condition.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec exp results}
\label{sec results}
We compared our optimization technique to several competing optimization techniques for seven objective functions. The results are illustrated in Figures \ref{fig results} and \ref{fig hf}, and the optimization techniques and objectives are described below. For all problems our method outperformed all other techniques in the comparison.
Open source code which implements the proposed technique and all competing optimizers, and which directly generates the plots in Figures \ref{fig cartoon}, \ref{fig overhead}, and \ref{fig results}, is provided at \url{https://github.com/Sohl-Dickstein/Sum-of-Functions-Optimizer}
\subsection{Optimizers}
{\em SFO} refers to Sum of Functions Optimizer, and is the new algorithm presented in this paper.
{\em SAG} refers to Stochastic Average Gradient method, with the trailing number providing the Lipschitz constant. {\em SGD} refers to Stochastic Gradient Descent, with the trailing number indicating the step size. {\em ADAGrad} indicates the AdaGrad algorithm, with the trailing number indicating the initial step size. {\em LBFGS} refers to the limited memory BFGS algorithm. {\em LBFGS minibatch} repeatedly chooses one tenth of the subfunctions, and runs LBFGS for ten iterations on them. {\em Hessian-free} refers to Hessian-free optimization.
For {\em SAG}, {\em SGD}, and {\em ADAGrad} the hyperparameter was chosen by a grid search. The best hyperparameter value, and the hyperparameter values immediately larger and smaller in the grid search, are shown in the plots and legends for each model in Figure \ref{fig results}. In {\em SGD+momentum} the two hyperparameters for both step size and momentum coefficient were chosen by a grid search, but only the best parameter values are shown. The grid-searched momenta were 0.5, 0.9, 0.95, and 0.99, and the grid-searched step lengths were all integer powers of ten between $10^{-5}$ and $10^2$. For {\em Hessian-free}, the hyperparameters, source code, and objective function are identical to those used in \cite{Martens2010}, and the training data was divided into four ``chunks.'' For all other experiments and optimizers the training data was divided into $N = 100$ minibatches (or subfunctions).
\subsection{Objective Functions}
A detailed description of all target objective functions in Figure \ref{fig results} is included in Section \ref{sec supp objective} of the Supplemental Material. In brief, they consisted of:
\begin{itemize}
\item A logistic regression objective, chosen to be the same as one used in \cite{Roux2012}.
\item A contractive autoencoder with 784 visible units, and 256 hidden units, similar to the one in \cite{Rifai2011}.
\item An Independent Components Analysis (ICA) \cite{Bell1995} model with Student's t-distribution prior.
\item An Ising model / Hopfield network trained using code from \cite{Hillar2012} implementing MPF \cite{MPF_ICML,SohlDickstein2011a}.
\item A multilayer perceptron with a similar architecture to \cite{Hinton:2012tv}, with layer sizes of 784, 1200, 1200, and 10. Training used Theano \cite{Bergstra2010}.
\item A deep convolutional network with max pooling and rectified linear units, similar to \cite{Goodfellow2013}, with two convolutional layers with 48 and 128 units, and one fully connected layer with 240 units. Training used Theano and Pylearn2 \cite{Goodfellow2013a}.
\end{itemize}
The logistic regression and Ising model / Hopfield objectives are convex, and are plotted relative to their global minimum. The global minimum was taken to be the smallest value achieved on the objective by any optimizer.
In Figure \ref{fig hf}, a twelve layer neural network was trained on cross entropy reconstruction error for the CURVES dataset. This objective, and the parameter initialization, was chosen to be identical to an experiment in \cite{Martens2010}.
\section{Future Directions}
We perform optimization in an $\mathcal O\left(N \right)$ dimensional subspace. It may be possible, however, to drastically reduce the dimensionality of the active subspace without significantly reducing optimization performance. For instance, the subspace could be determined by accumulating, in an online fashion, the leading eigenvectors of the covariance matrix of the gradients of the subfunctions, as well as the leading eigenvectors of the covariance matrix of the update steps. This would reduce memory requirements and computational overhead even for large numbers of subfunctions (large $N$).
Most portions of the presented algorithm are naively parallelizable. The $g_i^t\left( \mathbf x \right)$ functions can be updated asynchronously, and can even be updated using function and gradient evaluations from old positions $\mathbf x^\tau$, where $\tau < t$. Developing a parallelized version of this algorithm could make it a useful tool for massive scale optimization problems. Similarly, it may be possible to adapt this algorithm to an online / infinite data context by replacing subfunctions in a rolling fashion.
Quadratic functions are often a poor match to the geometry of the objective function \cite{Pascanu2012}. Neither the dynamically updated subspace nor the use of independent approximating subfunctions $g_i^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$ which are fit to the true subfunctions $f_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$ depend on the functional form of $g_i^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$. Exploring non-quadratic approximating subfunctions has the potential to greatly improve performance.
Section \ref{sec bfgs init} initializes the approximate Hessian using a diagonal matrix. Instead, it might be effective to initialize the approximate Hessian for each subfunction using the average approximate Hessian from all other subfunctions. Where individual subfunctions diverged they would overwrite this initialization. This would take advantage of the fact that the Hessians for different subfunctions are very similar for many objective functions.
Recent work has explored the non-asymptotic convergence properties of stochastic optimization algorithms \cite{Moulines2011}. It may be fruitful to pursue a similar analysis in the context of SFO.
Finally, the natural gradient \cite{Amari1998} can greatly accelerate optimization by removing the effect of dependencies and relative scalings between parameters. The natural gradient can be simply combined with other optimization methods by performing a change of variables, such that in the new parameter space the natural gradient and the ordinary gradient are identical \cite{Sohl-Dickstein2012b}. It should be straightforward to incorporate this change-of-variables technique into SFO.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figures/figure_SFO_vs_HF.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
A comparison of SFO to Hessian-free optimization for a twelve layer neural network trained on the CURVES dataset.
This problem is identical to an experiment in \cite{Martens2010}, and the Hessian-free convergence trace was generated using source code from the same paper. SFO converges in approximately one tenth the number of effective passes through the data as Hessian-free optimization.
}
\label{fig hf}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented an optimization technique which combines the benefits of LBFGS-style quasi-Newton optimization and stochastic gradient descent. It does this by using BFGS to maintain an independent quadratic approximation for each contributing subfunction (or minibatch) in an objective function. Each optimization step then alternates between descending the quadratic approximation of the full objective, and evaluating a single subfunction and updating the quadratic approximation for that single subfunction. This procedure is made tractable in memory and computational time by working in a shared low dimensional subspace defined by the history of gradient evaluations.
\scriptsize
\section{Introduction}
A common problem in optimization is to find a vector $\mathbf x^* \in \mathcal R^M$ which minimizes a function $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$, where $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$ is a sum of $N$ computationally cheaper differentiable subfunctions $f_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq F}
F\left(\mathbf x\right) &= \sum_{i=1}^N f_i\left(\mathbf x\right), \\
\label{eq Fmin}
\mathbf x^* &= \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_{\mathbf x} F\left(\mathbf x\right)
.
\end{align}
Many optimization tasks fit this form \cite{boyd2004convex}, including training of autoencoders, support vector machines, and logistic regression algorithms, as well as parameter estimation in probabilistic models.
In these cases each subfunction corresponds to evaluating the objective on a separate data minibatch, thus the number of subfunctions $N$ would be the datasize $D$ divided by the minibatch size $S$.
This scenario is commonly referred to in statistics as M-estimation \cite{Huber81}.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hspace{-0.07\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{figures/figure_cartoon_pane_A.pdf} \vspace{-2mm} \\
(a)
\end{tabular}
&
\hspace{-0.04\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{figures/figure_cartoon_pane_B.pdf} \vspace{-2mm} \\
(b)
\end{tabular}
&
\hspace{-0.06\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{figures/figure_cartoon_pane_C.pdf} \vspace{-2mm} \\
(c)
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
A cartoon illustrating the proposed optimization technique. {\em (a)} The objective function $F\left( x\right)$ (solid blue line) consists of a sum of two subfunctions (dashed blue lines), $F\left( x\right) = f_1\left(x\right) + f_2\left(x\right)$. At learning step $t-1$, $f_1\left(x\right)$ and $f_2\left(x\right)$ are approximated by quadratic functions $g^{t-1}_1\left(x\right)$ and $g^{t-1}_2\left(x\right)$ (red dashed lines). The sum of the approximating functions $G^{t-1}\left( x\right)$ (solid red line) approximates the full objective $F\left( x\right)$. The green dots indicate the parameter values at which each subfunction has been evaluated {\em (b)} The next parameter setting $x^t$ is chosen by minimizing the approximating function $G^{t-1}\left( x\right)$ from the prior update step. See Equation \ref{eq x^t}. {\em (c)} After each parameter update, the quadratic approximation for one of the subfunctions is updated using a second order expansion around the new parameter vector $x^t$. See Equation \ref{eq subf upd}. The constant and first order term in the expansion are evaluated exactly, and the second order term is estimated by performing BFGS on the subfunction's history. In this case the approximating subfunction $g^{t}_1\left(x\right)$ is updated (long-dashed red line). This update is also reflected by a change in the full approximating function $G^{t}\left( x\right)$ (solid red line).
Optimization proceeds by repeating these two illustrated update steps. In order to remain tractable in memory and computational overhead, optimization is performed in an adaptive low dimensional subspace determined by the history of gradients and iterates.
}
\label{fig cartoon}
\end{figure*}
There are two general approaches to efficiently optimizing a function of this form. The first is to use a quasi-Newton method \cite{Dennis1977}, of which BFGS \cite{Broyden1970,Fletcher1970,Goldfarb1970,Shanno1970} or LBFGS \cite{Liu1989} are the most common choices. Quasi-Newton methods use the history of gradient evaluations to build up an approximation to the inverse Hessian of the objective function $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$. By making descent steps which are scaled by the approximate inverse Hessian, and which are therefore longer in directions of shallow curvature and shorter in directions of steep curvature, quasi-Newton methods can be orders of magnitude faster than steepest descent. Additionally, quasi-Newton techniques typically require adjusting few or no hyperparameters, because they use the measured curvature of the objective function to set step lengths and directions. However, direct application of quasi-Newton methods requires calculating the gradient of the full objective function $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$ at every proposed parameter setting $\mathbf x$, which can be very computationally expensive
The second approach is to use a variant of Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) \cite{Robbins1951,Bottou}. In SGD, only one subfunction's gradient is evaluated per update step, and a small step is taken in the negative gradient direction. More recent descent techniques like IAG \cite{Blatt2007}, SAG \cite{Roux2012}, and MISO \cite{Mairal2013,Mairal2014} instead take update steps in the average gradient direction. For each update step, they evaluate the gradient of one subfunction, and update the average gradient using its new value. \cite{Bach2013} averages the iterates rather than the gradients. If the subfunctions are similar, then SGD can also be orders of magnitude faster than steepest descent on the full batch. However, because a different subfunction is evaluated for each update step, the gradients for each update step cannot be combined in a straightforward way to estimate the inverse Hessian of the full objective function. Additionally, efficient optimization with SGD typically involves tuning a number of hyperparameters, which can be a painstaking
and frustrating process. \cite{Ngiam2011} compares the performance of stochastic gradient and quasi-Newton methods on neural network training, and finds both to be competitive.
Combining quasi-Newton and stochastic gradient methods could improve optimization time, and reduce the need to tweak optimization hyperparameters.
This problem has been approached from a number of directions.
In \cite{Schraudolph2007,Sunehag2009} a stochastic variant of LBFGS is proposed. In \cite{Martens2010}, \cite{Byrd2011}, and \cite{Vinyals2011} stochastic versions of Hessian-free optimization are implemented and applied to optimization of deep networks.
In \cite{Lin2008} a trust region Newton method is used to train logistic regression and linear SVMs using minibatches.
In \cite{Hennig2013} a nonparametric quasi-Newton algorithm is proposed based on noisy gradient observations and a Gaussian process prior.
In \cite{Byrd2014} LBFGS is performed, but with the contributing changes in gradient and position replaced by exactly computed Hessian vector products computed periodically on extra large minibatches.
Stochastic meta-descent \cite{Schraudolph1999}, AdaGrad \cite{Duchi2010}, and SGD-QN \cite{Bordes2009} rescale the gradient independently for each dimension, and can be viewed as accumulating something similar to a diagonal approximation to the Hessian.
All of these techniques treat the Hessian on a subset of the data as a noisy approximation to the full Hessian. To reduce noise in the Hessian approximation, they rely on regularization and very large minibatches to descend $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$.
Thus, unfortunately each update step requires the evaluation of many subfunctions and/or yields a highly regularized (i.e. diagonal) approximation to the full Hessian.
We develop a novel second-order quasi-Newton technique that only requires the evaluation of {\it a single} subfunction per update step. In order to achieve this substantial simplification, we treat the full Hessian of each subfunction as a direct target for estimation, thereby maintaining a separate quadratic approximation of each subfunction. This approach differs from all previous work, which in contrast treats the Hessian of each subfunction as a noisy approximation to the full Hessian. Our approach allows us to combine Hessian information from multiple subfunctions in a much more natural and efficient way than previous work, and avoids the requirement of large minibatches per update step to accurately estimate the full Hessian. Moreover, we develop a novel method to maintain computational tractability and limit the memory requirements of this quasi-Newton method in the face of high dimensional optimization problems (large $M$). We do this by storing and manipulating the subfunctions in a shared, adaptive low dimensional subspace, determined by the recent history of the gradients and iterates.
Thus our optimization method can usefully estimate and utilize powerful second-order information
while simultaneously combatting two potential sources of computational intractability: large numbers of subfunctions (large N) and a high-dimensional optimization domain (large M). Moreover, the use of a second order approximation means that minimal or no adjustment of hyperparameters is required. We refer to the resulting algorithm as Sum of Functions Optimizer (SFO).
We demonstrate that the combination of techniques and new ideas inherent in SFO results in faster optimization on seven disparate example problems. Finally, we release the optimizer and the test suite as open source Python and MATLAB packages.
\section{Algorithm}
Our goal is to combine the benefits of stochastic and quasi-Newton optimization techniques. We first describe the general procedure by which we optimize the parameters $\mathbf x$. We then describe the construction of the shared low dimensional subspace which makes the algorithm tractable in terms of computational overhead and memory for large problems.
This is followed by a description of the BFGS method by which an online Hessian approximation is maintained for each subfunction. Finally, we end this section with a review of implementation details.
\subsection{Approximating Functions}\label{sec approx}
We define a series of functions $G^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$ intended to approximate $F\left(\mathbf x\right)$,
\begin{align}
G^t\left(\mathbf x\right) = \sum_{i=1}^N g^t_i\left(\mathbf x\right)
\label{eq approximating functions}
,
\end{align}
where the superscript $t$ indicates the learning iteration. Each $g^t_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$ serves as a quadratic approximation to the corresponding $f_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$. The functions $g^t_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$ will be stored, and one of them will be updated per learning step.
\subsection{Update Steps}\label{sec update}
As is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig cartoon}, optimization is performed by repeating the steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{minG} Choose a vector $\mathbf x^t$ by minimizing the approximating objective function $G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x\right)$,
\begin{align}
\mathbf x^t = \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_{\mathbf x} G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x\right)
.
\label{eq x^t}
\end{align}
Since $G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x\right)$ is a sum of quadratic functions $g_i^{t-1}\left( \mathbf x \right)$, it can be exactly minimized by a Newton step,
\begin{align}
\mathbf x^t = \mathbf x^{t-1} - \eta^t \left( \mathbf H^{t-1}\right)^{-1} \pd{G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x^{t-1} \right)}{\mathbf x}
,
\label{eq newton step}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf H^{t-1}$ is the Hessian of $G^{t-1}\left(\mathbf x\right)$. The step length $\eta^t$ is typically unity, and will be discussed in Section \ref{sec bad up}.
\item \label{update_subfunc} Choose an index $j \in \{1...N\}$, and update the corresponding approximating subfunction $g_i^{t}\left( \mathbf x \right)$ using a second order power series around $\mathbf x^t$, while leaving all other subfunctions unchanged,
\nobreak \end{enumerate} \nobreak
\begin{align}
\label{eq subf upd}
g_i^t\left( \mathbf x \right)
=
\left\{\begin{array}{lcrl}
g_i^{t-1}\left( \mathbf x \right) & & i\neq j \\ \\
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
f_i\left( \mathbf x^t \right) \\ \quad
+ \left( \mathbf x - \mathbf x^t \right)^T {f'_i\left( \mathbf x^t \right)} \\ \quad
+ \frac{1}{2} \left( \mathbf x - \mathbf x^t \right)^T
\mathbf H_i^t \
\left( \mathbf x - \mathbf x^t \right)
\end{array}
\right]
& & i = j &
\end{array}\right.
.
\end{align}
The constant and first order term in Equation \ref{eq subf upd} are set by evaluating the subfunction and gradient, $f_j\left(\mathbf x^t\right)$ and $f'_j\left(\mathbf x^t\right)$.
The quadratic term $\mathbf H_j^t$ is set by using the BFGS
algorithm to generate an online approximation to the true Hessian
of subfunction $j$ based on its history of gradient evaluations (see Section \ref{sec online hessian}).
The Hessian of the summed approximating function $G^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$ in Equation \ref{eq newton step} is the sum of the Hessians for each $g^t_j\left(\mathbf x\right)$, $\mathbf H^t = \sum_j \mathbf H^t_j$.
\subsection{A Shared, Adaptive, Low-Dimensional Representation}
\label{sec subspace}
The dimensionality $M$ of $\mathbf x \in \mathcal R^M$ is typically large. As a result, the memory and computational cost of working directly with the matrices $\mathbf H_i^t \in \mathcal R^{M\times M}$ is typically prohibitive, as is the cost of storing the history terms $\Delta {f'}$ and $\Delta \mathbf x$ required by BFGS (see Section \ref{sec online hessian}). To reduce the dimensionality from $M$ to a tractable value, all history is instead stored and all updates computed in a lower dimensional subspace, with dimensionality between $K_{min}$ and $K_{max}$. This subspace is constructed such that it includes the most recent gradient and position for every subfunction, and thus $K_{min} \geq 2N$. This guarantees that the subspace includes both the steepest gradient descent direction over the full batch, and the update directions from the most recent Newton steps (Equation \ref{eq newton step}).
For the results in this paper, $K_{min} = 2 N$ and $K_{max} = 3 N$. The subspace is represented by the orthonormal columns of a matrix $\mathbf P^t \in \mathcal R^{M \times K^t}$, $\left(\mathbf P^t\right)^T \mathbf P^t = \mathbf I$. $K^t$ is the subspace dimensionality at optimization step $t$.
\subsubsection{Expanding the Subspace with a New Observation}
At each optimization step, an additional column is added to the subspace, expanding it to include the most recent gradient direction. This is done by first finding the component in the gradient vector which lies outside the existing subspace, and then appending that component to the current subspace,
\begin{align}
\mathbf q_\text{orth} &= f'_j\left( \mathbf x^t \right) - \mathbf P^{t-1} \left(\mathbf P^{t-1}\right)^T f'_j\left( \mathbf x^t \right), \\
\label{eq subfunction append}
\mathbf P^{t} &= \left[ \mathbf P^{t-1}\quad \frac{\mathbf q_\text{orth}}{\left|\left| \mathbf q_\text{orth} \right| \right|} \right]
,
\end{align}
where $j$ is the subfunction updated at time $t$. The new position $\mathbf x^t$ is included automatically, since the position update was computed within the subspace $\mathbf P^{t-1}$. Vectors embedded in the subspace $\mathbf P^{t-1}$ can be updated to lie in $\mathbf P^t$ simply by appending a $0$, since the first $K^{t-1}$ dimensions of $\mathbf P^t$ consist of $\mathbf P^{t-1}$.
\subsubsection{Restricting the Size of the Subspace}
\label{sec subspace collapse}
In order to prevent the dimensionality $K^t$ of the subspace from growing too large, whenever $K^t > K_{max}$, the subspace is collapsed to only include the most recent gradient and position measurements from each subfunction. The orthonormal matrix representing this collapsed subspace is computed by a QR decomposition on the most recent gradients and positions. A new collapsed subspace is thus computed as,
\begin{align}
\mathbf P' &= \text{orth}\left(\left[
f'_1\left( \mathbf x^{\tau_1^t} \right) \cdots f'_N\left( \mathbf x^{\tau_N^t} \right) \quad
\mathbf x^{\tau_1^t} \cdots \mathbf x^{\tau_N^t}
\right]\right)
\label{eq subspace collapse}
,
\end{align}
where $\tau_i^t$ indicates the learning step at which the $i$th subfunction was most recently evaluated, prior to the current learning step $t$.
Vectors embedded in the prior subspace $\mathbf P$ are projected into the new subspace $\mathbf P'$ by multiplication with a projection matrix $\mathbf T = \left(\mathbf P'\right)^T \mathbf P$. Vector components which point outside the subspace defined by the most recent positions and gradients are lost in this projection.
Note that the subspace $\mathbf P'$ lies within the subspace $\mathbf P$. The QR decomposition and the projection matrix $\mathbf T$ are thus both computed within $\mathbf P$, reducing the computational and memory cost (see Section \ref{sec comp cost}).
\subsection{Online Hessian Approximation}
\label{sec online hessian}
An independent online Hessian approximation $\mathbf H_j^t$ is maintained for each subfunction $j$. It is computed by performing BFGS on the history of gradient evaluations and positions for that single subfunction\footnote{We additionally experimented with Symmetric Rank 1 \cite{Dennis1977} updates to the approximate Hessian, but found they performed worse than BFGS. See Supplemental Figure \ref{fig design choices}.}.
\subsubsection{History Matrices}
For each subfunction $j$, we construct two matrices, $\Delta {f'}$ and $\Delta \mathbf x$. Each column of $\Delta {f'}$ holds the change in the gradient of subfunction $j$ between successive evaluations of that subfunction, including all evaluations up until the present time. Each column of $\Delta \mathbf x$ holds the corresponding change in the position $\mathbf x$ between successive evaluations. Both matrices are truncated after a number of columns $L$, meaning that they include information from only the prior $L+1$ gradient evaluations for each subfunction. For all results in this paper, $L=10$ (identical to the default history length for the LBFGS implementation used in Section \ref{sec results}).
\subsubsection{BFGS Updates}
\label{sec bfgs updates}
The BFGS algorithm functions by iterating through the columns in $\Delta {f'}$ and $\Delta \mathbf x$, from oldest to most recent. Let $s$ be a column index, and $\mathbf B_s$ be the approximate Hessian for subfunction $j$ after processing column $s$. For each $s$, the approximate Hessian matrix $\mathbf B_s$ is set so that it obeys the secant equation $\Delta {f'}_s = \mathbf B_s \Delta \mathbf x_s$, where $\Delta {f'}_s$ and $\Delta \mathbf x_s$ are taken to refer to the $s$th columns of the gradient difference and position difference matrix respectively.
In addition to satisfying the secant equation, $\mathbf B_s$ is chosen such that the difference between it and the prior estimate $\mathbf B_{s-1}$ has the smallest weighted Frobenius norm\footnote{The weighted Frobenius norm is defined as $\left| \left| \mathbf E \right| \right|_{F, \mathbf W} = \left| \left| \mathbf W \mathbf E \mathbf W \right| \right|_{F}$. For BFGS, $\mathbf W = \mathbf B_s^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ \cite{BFGShistory}. Equivalently, in BFGS the unweighted Frobenius norm is minimized after performing a linear change of variables to map the new approximate Hessian to the identity matrix.}. This produces the standard BFGS update equation
\begin{align}
\mathbf B_s
& =
\mathbf B_{s-1} + \frac{
\Delta {f'}_s \Delta {f'}_s^T
}{
\Delta {f'}_s^T \Delta \mathbf x_s
}
- \frac{
\mathbf B_{s-1} \Delta \mathbf x_s \Delta \mathbf x_s^T \mathbf B_{s-1}
}{
\Delta \mathbf x_s^T \mathbf B_{s-1} \Delta \mathbf x_s
}
.
\label{eq bfgs}
\end{align}
The final update is used as the approximate Hessian for subfunction $j$, $\mathbf H_j^t = \mathbf B_{\max(s)}$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\em Optimizer & \em Computation per pass & \em Memory use \\
\hline \\ \vspace{-6mm} \\
SFO & $\mathcal O\left( QN + M N^2 \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$ \\
SFO, `sweet spot' & $\mathcal O\left( QN \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$ \\
LBFGS & $\mathcal O\left( QN + ML \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( M L \right)$ \\
SGD & $\mathcal O\left( QN \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( M \right)$ \\
AdaGrad & $\mathcal O\left( QN \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( M \right)$ \\
SAG & $\mathcal O\left( QN \right)$ & $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Leading terms in the computational cost and memory requirements for SFO and several competing algorithms. $Q$ is the cost of computing the value and gradient for a single subfunction, $M$ is the number of data dimensions, $N$ is the number of subfunctions, and $L$ is the number of history terms retained. ``SFO, `sweet spot''' refers to the case discussed in Section \ref{sec ideal} where the minibatch size is adjusted to match computational overhead to subfunction evaluation cost. For this table, it is assumed that $M \gg N \gg L$.
\label{tb cost compare}
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hspace{-5mm}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.05\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\linewidth]{figures/figure_overhead_fixedN.pdf}
\hspace{-0.47\linewidth}(a)\hspace{0.47\linewidth}
\hspace{-0.06\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\linewidth]{figures/figure_overhead_fixedM.pdf}
\hspace{-0.47\linewidth}(b)\hspace{0.47\linewidth}
\vspace{5mm}
\\
\hspace{-0.06\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figures/figure_num_minibatches_protein-logistic-regression_legend.pdf} \\
\hspace{-0.06\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/figure_num_minibatches_protein-logistic-regression_diff.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/figure_num_minibatches_Hopfield_diff.pdf}
\hspace{-0.99\linewidth}(c)\hspace{0.99\linewidth}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
An exploration of computational overhead and optimizer performance, especially as the number of minibatches or subfunctions $N$ is adjusted.
{\em (a)} Computational overhead required by SFO for a full pass through all the subfunctions as a function of dimensionality $M$ for fixed $N=100$. {\em (b)} Computational overhead of SFO as a function of $N$ for fixed $M=10^6$. Both plots show the computational time required for a full pass of the optimizer, excluding time spent computing the target objective and gradient. This time is dominated by the $\mathcal O\left( M N^2 \right)$ cost per pass of $N$ iterations of subspace projection.
{\em CPU} indicates that all computations were performed on a 2012 Intel i7-3970X CPU (6 cores, 3.5 GHz).
{\em GPU} indicates that subspace projection was performed on a GeForce GTX 660 Ti GPU.
{\em (c)} Optimization performance on the two convex problems in Section \ref{sec results} as a function of the number of minibatches $N$. Note that near maximal performance is achieved after breaking the target problem into only a small number of minibatches.
}
\label{fig overhead}
\end{figure}
\section{Implementation Details}\label{sec imp det}
Here we briefly review additional design choices that were made when implementing this algorithm. Each of these choices is presented more thoroughly in Appendix \ref{app implementation}. Supplemental Figure \ref{fig design choices} demonstrates that the optimizer performance is robust to changes in several of these design choices.
\subsection{BFGS Initialization}
\label{sec bfgs init}
The first time a subfunction is evaluated (before there is sufficient history to run BFGS), the approximate Hessian $\mathbf H_j^t$ is set to the identity times the median eigenvalue of the average Hessian of the other active subfunctions. For later evaluations, the initial BFGS matrix is set to a scaled identity matrix, $\mathbf B_0 = \beta \mathbf I$, where $\beta$ is the minimum eigenvalue found by solving the squared secant equation for the full history. See Appendix \ref{app bfgs init} for details and motivation.
\subsection{Enforcing Positive Definiteness}
It is typical in quasi-Newton techniques to enforce that the Hessian approximation remain positive definite. In SFO each $\mathbf H^t_i$ is constrained to be positive definite by an explicit eigendecomposition and setting any too-small eigenvalues to the median positive eigenvalue. This is computationally cheap due to the shared low dimensional subspace (Section \ref{sec subspace}). This is described in detail in Appendix \ref{app pos def}.
\subsection{Choosing a Target Subfunction}\label{sec order}
The subfunction $j$ to update in Equation \ref{eq subf upd} is chosen to be the one farthest from the current location $\mathbf x^t$, using the current Hessian approximation as the metric. This is described more formally in Appendix \ref{app subf choose}. As illustrated in Supplemental Figure \ref{fig design choices}, this distance based choice outperforms the commonly used random choice of subfunction.
\subsection{Growing the Number of Active Subfunctions}
\label{sec active growth}
For many problems of the form in Equation \ref{eq F}, the gradient information is nearly identical between the different subfunctions early in learning. We therefore begin with only two active subfunctions, and expand the active set whenever the length of the standard error in the gradient across subfunctions exceeds the length of the gradient. This process is described in detail in Appendix \ref{app grow active}. As illustrated in Supplemental Figure \ref{fig design choices}, performance only differs from the case where all subfunctions are initially active for the first several optimization passes.
\subsection{Detecting Bad Updates}
\label{sec bad up}
Small eigenvalues in the Hessian can cause update steps to overshoot severely (ie, if higher than second order terms come to dominate within a distance which is shorter than the suggested update step). It is therefore typical in quasi-Newton methods such as BFGS, LBFGS, and Hessian-free optimization to detect and reject bad proposed update steps, for instance by a line search. In SFO, bad update steps are detected by comparing the measured subfunction value $f_j\left( \mathbf x^t \right)$ to its quadratic approximation $g_j^{t-1}\left( \mathbf x^t \right)$. This is discussed in detail in Section \ref{app bad up}.
\section{Properties}
\subsection{Computational Overhead and Storage Cost}
\label{sec comp cost}
Table \ref{tb cost compare} compares the cost of SFO to competing algorithms. The dominant computational costs are the $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$ cost of projecting the $M$ dimensional gradient and current parameter values into and out of the $\mathcal O\left(N\right)$ dimensional active subspace for each learning iteration, and the $\mathcal O\left( Q \right)$ cost of evaluating a single subfunction. The dominant memory cost is $\mathcal O\left( MN \right)$, and stems from storing the active subspace $\mathbf P^t$. Table \ref{tb cost} in the Supplemental Material provides the contribution to the computational cost of each component of SFO. Figure \ref{fig overhead} plots the computational overhead per a full pass through all the subfunctions associated with SFO as a function of $M$ and $N$. If each of the $N$ subfunctions corresponds to a minibatch, then the computational overhead can be shrunk as described in Section \ref{sec ideal}.
Without the low dimensional subspace, the leading term in the computational cost of SFO would be the far larger $\mathcal O\left( M^{2.4} \right)$ cost per iteration of inverting the approximate Hessian matrix in the full $M$ dimensional parameter space, and the leading memory cost would be the far larger $\mathcal O\left( M^2N \right)$ from storing an $M\times M$ dimensional Hessian for all $N$ subfunctions.
\subsubsection{Ideal Minibatch Size}
\label{sec ideal}
Many objective functions consist of a sum over a number of data points $D$, where $D$ is often larger than $M$. For example, $D$ could be the number of training samples in a supervised learning problem, or data points in maximum likelihood estimation. To control the computational overhead of SFO in such a regime, it is useful to choose each subfunction in Equation \ref{eq approximating functions} to itself be a sum over a minibatch of data points of size $S$, yielding $N=\frac{D}{S}$. This leads to a computational cost of evaluating a single subfunction and gradient of $\mathcal O\left(Q\right) = \mathcal O\left(MS\right)$. The computational cost of projecting this gradient from the full space to the shared $N$ dimensional adaptive subspace, on the other hand, is $\mathcal O\left(MN\right) = \mathcal O\left(M\frac{D}{S}\right)$. Therefore, in order for the costs of function evaluation and projection to be the same order, the minibatch size $S$ should be proportional to $\sqrt{D}$, yielding
\begin{align}
N &\propto \sqrt{D}
.
\end{align}
The constant of proportionality should be chosen small enough that the majority of time is spent evaluating the subfunction. In most problems of interest, $\sqrt{D} \ll M$, justifying the relevance of the regime in which the number of subfunctions $N$ is much less than the number of parameters $M$. Finally, the computational and memory costs of SFO are the same for sparse and non-sparse objective functions, while Q is often much smaller for a sparse objective. Thus the ideal $S$ ($N$) is likely to be larger (smaller) for sparse objective functions.
Note that as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig overhead}c and Figure \ref{fig results} performance is very good even for small $N$.
\begin{figure*
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hspace{-5mm}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_protein-logistic-regression_legend.pdf} \\
(a)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_protein-logistic-regression_diff.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Contractive-Autoencoder_legend.pdf} \\
(b)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Contractive-Autoencoder_true.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_ICA_legend.pdf} \\
(c)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_ICA_true.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\\ \\
\hspace{-5mm}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.30692307692307697\linewidth]{figures/figure_Hopfield_legend.pdf} \\
(d)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Hopfield_diff.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_MLP-soft_legend.pdf} \\
(e)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_MLP-soft_true.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-5mm}
&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Pylearn_conv_legend.pdf} \\
(f)\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figures/figure_Pylearn_conv_true.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
A comparison of SFO to competing optimization techniques for six objective functions.
The bold lines indicate the best performing hyperparameter for each optimizer. Note that unlike all other techniques besides LBFGS, SFO does not require tuning hyperparameters (for instance, the displayed SGD+momentum traces are the best out of 32 hyperparameter configurations). The objective functions shown are {\em (a)} a logistic regression problem, {\em (b)} a contractive autoencoder trained on MNIST digits, {\em (c)} an Independent Component Analysis (ICA) model trained on MNIST digits,
{\em (d)} an Ising model / Hopfield associative memory trained using Minimum Probability Flow,
{\em (e)} a multi-layer perceptron with sigmoidal units trained on MNIST digits, and {\em (f)} a multilayer convolutional network with rectified linear units trained on CIFAR-10. The logistic regression and MPF Ising objectives are convex, and their objective values are plotted relative to the global minimum.
}
\label{fig results}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Convergence}
Concurrent work by \cite{Mairal2013} considers a similar algorithm to that described in Section \ref{sec update}, but with $\mathbf H_i^t$ a scalar constant rather than a matrix. Proposition 6.1 in \cite{Mairal2013} shows that in the case that each $g_i$ majorizes its respective $f_i$, and subject to some additional smoothness constraints, $G^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$ monotonically decreases, and $\mathbf x^*$ is an asymptotic stationary point. Proposition 6.2 in \cite{Mairal2013} further shows that for strongly convex $f_i$, the algorithm exhibits a linear convergence rate to $\mathbf x^*$. A near identical proof should hold for a simplified version of SFO, with random subfunction update order, and with $\mathbf H_i^t$ regularized in order to guarantee satisfaction of the majorization condition.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec exp results}
\label{sec results}
We compared our optimization technique to several competing optimization techniques for seven objective functions. The results are illustrated in Figures \ref{fig results} and \ref{fig hf}, and the optimization techniques and objectives are described below. For all problems our method outperformed all other techniques in the comparison.
Open source code which implements the proposed technique and all competing optimizers, and which directly generates the plots in Figures \ref{fig cartoon}, \ref{fig overhead}, and \ref{fig results}, is provided at \url{https://github.com/Sohl-Dickstein/Sum-of-Functions-Optimizer}
\subsection{Optimizers}
{\em SFO} refers to Sum of Functions Optimizer, and is the new algorithm presented in this paper.
{\em SAG} refers to Stochastic Average Gradient method, with the trailing number providing the Lipschitz constant. {\em SGD} refers to Stochastic Gradient Descent, with the trailing number indicating the step size. {\em ADAGrad} indicates the AdaGrad algorithm, with the trailing number indicating the initial step size. {\em LBFGS} refers to the limited memory BFGS algorithm. {\em LBFGS minibatch} repeatedly chooses one tenth of the subfunctions, and runs LBFGS for ten iterations on them. {\em Hessian-free} refers to Hessian-free optimization.
For {\em SAG}, {\em SGD}, and {\em ADAGrad} the hyperparameter was chosen by a grid search. The best hyperparameter value, and the hyperparameter values immediately larger and smaller in the grid search, are shown in the plots and legends for each model in Figure \ref{fig results}. In {\em SGD+momentum} the two hyperparameters for both step size and momentum coefficient were chosen by a grid search, but only the best parameter values are shown. The grid-searched momenta were 0.5, 0.9, 0.95, and 0.99, and the grid-searched step lengths were all integer powers of ten between $10^{-5}$ and $10^2$. For {\em Hessian-free}, the hyperparameters, source code, and objective function are identical to those used in \cite{Martens2010}, and the training data was divided into four ``chunks.'' For all other experiments and optimizers the training data was divided into $N = 100$ minibatches (or subfunctions).
\subsection{Objective Functions}
A detailed description of all target objective functions in Figure \ref{fig results} is included in Section \ref{sec supp objective} of the Supplemental Material. In brief, they consisted of:
\begin{itemize}
\item A logistic regression objective, chosen to be the same as one used in \cite{Roux2012}.
\item A contractive autoencoder with 784 visible units, and 256 hidden units, similar to the one in \cite{Rifai2011}.
\item An Independent Components Analysis (ICA) \cite{Bell1995} model with Student's t-distribution prior.
\item An Ising model / Hopfield network trained using code from \cite{Hillar2012} implementing MPF \cite{MPF_ICML,SohlDickstein2011a}.
\item A multilayer perceptron with a similar architecture to \cite{Hinton:2012tv}, with layer sizes of 784, 1200, 1200, and 10. Training used Theano \cite{Bergstra2010}.
\item A deep convolutional network with max pooling and rectified linear units, similar to \cite{Goodfellow2013}, with two convolutional layers with 48 and 128 units, and one fully connected layer with 240 units. Training used Theano and Pylearn2 \cite{Goodfellow2013a}.
\end{itemize}
The logistic regression and Ising model / Hopfield objectives are convex, and are plotted relative to their global minimum. The global minimum was taken to be the smallest value achieved on the objective by any optimizer.
In Figure \ref{fig hf}, a twelve layer neural network was trained on cross entropy reconstruction error for the CURVES dataset. This objective, and the parameter initialization, was chosen to be identical to an experiment in \cite{Martens2010}.
\section{Future Directions}
We perform optimization in an $\mathcal O\left(N \right)$ dimensional subspace. It may be possible, however, to drastically reduce the dimensionality of the active subspace without significantly reducing optimization performance. For instance, the subspace could be determined by accumulating, in an online fashion, the leading eigenvectors of the covariance matrix of the gradients of the subfunctions, as well as the leading eigenvectors of the covariance matrix of the update steps. This would reduce memory requirements and computational overhead even for large numbers of subfunctions (large $N$).
Most portions of the presented algorithm are naively parallelizable. The $g_i^t\left( \mathbf x \right)$ functions can be updated asynchronously, and can even be updated using function and gradient evaluations from old positions $\mathbf x^\tau$, where $\tau < t$. Developing a parallelized version of this algorithm could make it a useful tool for massive scale optimization problems. Similarly, it may be possible to adapt this algorithm to an online / infinite data context by replacing subfunctions in a rolling fashion.
Quadratic functions are often a poor match to the geometry of the objective function \cite{Pascanu2012}. Neither the dynamically updated subspace nor the use of independent approximating subfunctions $g_i^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$ which are fit to the true subfunctions $f_i\left(\mathbf x\right)$ depend on the functional form of $g_i^t\left(\mathbf x\right)$. Exploring non-quadratic approximating subfunctions has the potential to greatly improve performance.
Section \ref{sec bfgs init} initializes the approximate Hessian using a diagonal matrix. Instead, it might be effective to initialize the approximate Hessian for each subfunction using the average approximate Hessian from all other subfunctions. Where individual subfunctions diverged they would overwrite this initialization. This would take advantage of the fact that the Hessians for different subfunctions are very similar for many objective functions.
Recent work has explored the non-asymptotic convergence properties of stochastic optimization algorithms \cite{Moulines2011}. It may be fruitful to pursue a similar analysis in the context of SFO.
Finally, the natural gradient \cite{Amari1998} can greatly accelerate optimization by removing the effect of dependencies and relative scalings between parameters. The natural gradient can be simply combined with other optimization methods by performing a change of variables, such that in the new parameter space the natural gradient and the ordinary gradient are identical \cite{Sohl-Dickstein2012b}. It should be straightforward to incorporate this change-of-variables technique into SFO.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figures/figure_SFO_vs_HF.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
A comparison of SFO to Hessian-free optimization for a twelve layer neural network trained on the CURVES dataset.
This problem is identical to an experiment in \cite{Martens2010}, and the Hessian-free convergence trace was generated using source code from the same paper. SFO converges in approximately one tenth the number of effective passes through the data as Hessian-free optimization.
}
\label{fig hf}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented an optimization technique which combines the benefits of LBFGS-style quasi-Newton optimization and stochastic gradient descent. It does this by using BFGS to maintain an independent quadratic approximation for each contributing subfunction (or minibatch) in an objective function. Each optimization step then alternates between descending the quadratic approximation of the full objective, and evaluating a single subfunction and updating the quadratic approximation for that single subfunction. This procedure is made tractable in memory and computational time by working in a shared low dimensional subspace defined by the history of gradient evaluations.
\scriptsize
|
\section{Introduction}
Robust regression estimators, also known as regression $M$-estimates, have been of interest in Statistics for at least the last five decades. They are natural extensions of the least-squares problem: namely we estimate a regression vector by solving the optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defRegressionMEstimate}
\betaHat=\argmin_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^p} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(Y_i-X_i\trsp \beta)\;.
\end{equation}
Here, $X_i\in \mathbb{R}^p$ is a vector of predictors and $Y_i\in \mathbb{R}$ is a scalar response. $\rho$ is a function from $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}$. Typically once assumes that there is a linear relationship between $X_i$ and $Y_i$, i.e
$$
Y_i=X_i\trsp \beta_0+\eps_i\;,
$$
where $\eps_i$ are considered to be unknown random errors, and $\beta_0$ is an unknown fixed vector one wishes to estimate. The $n\times p$ matrix $X$ whose $i$-th row is $X_i\trsp$ is called the design matrix.
Huber's papers from the 1970's (\cite{HuberWaldLecture72}, \cite{HuberRobustRegressionAsymptoticsETCAoS73}) contain a number of very interesting results, including limiting behavior for $\betaHat$ as $n\tendsto \infty$ when $p$ is held fixed. Huber also raised the question of understanding the behavior of the estimators when $p$ is large and obtained partial results in the least-squares case. Further interesting contributions happened in the mid to late 80's with work of Portnoy (\cite{PortnoyMestLargishPNConsistencyAoS84}, \cite{PortnoyMestLargishPNCLTAoS85}, \cite{PortnoyCLTRobustRegressionJMVA87}) and Mammen (\cite{MammenRobustRegressionAos89}). In these studies, the authors studied the behavior of regression M-estimates when $p$ and $n$ are both large, but $p/n\tendsto 0$ at various rates. Some of the papers refer to fixed design (i.e $X$ is non-random and the only source of randomness in the problem are $\eps_i$'s), others treat the random design case (i.e both $X$ and $\eps_i$ are random).
A central result of Huber (see e.g \cite{HuberRonchettiRobustStatistics09}) is that when $p$ is held fixed, and $\eps_i$'s are i.i.d, the optimal $\rho$ one can use is $-\log f_\eps$, where $f_\eps$ is the density of the errors - at least when one measures quality of the estimator by the size of $\scov{\betaHat}$. In \cite{NEKetAlRobustRegressionTechReport11}, \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published} a group of us looked at corresponding questions in the high-dimensional setting where $p/n$ is not small and found the situation to be very different. Indeed, it was clear that one could do better than using $-\log f_\eps$. In \cite{NEKetAlRobustRegressionTechReport11}, we proposed a probabilistic heuristic to understand the behavior of $\betaHat$ and verified the quality of its predictions on several simulations and computations. Our heuristic led to the formulation of a natural variational problem, which we solved in \cite{NEKOptimalMEstimationPNASPublished2013}. Interestingly, the solution of the variational problem depends in general on $p/n$, i.e the dimensionality of the problem. (\cite{NEKetAlRobustRegressionTechReport11} is the long form of the paper \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published}, which is very short due to page-limit requirements.)
Our heuristic is based on random matrix and concentration of measure ideas. We prove in this paper that these ideas can be used rigorously and indeed, under various assumptions, rigorously justify the claims made in \cite{NEKetAlRobustRegressionTechReport11} and \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published}.
The assumptions under which we operate for the design matrix reflect the central role played by the concentration of measure phenomenon (\cite{ledoux2001}) in this problem.
A couple of weeks ago, Donoho and Montanari (\cite{DonohoMontanariRobustArxiv13}) announced a proof of some of the results explained in \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published} under the assumption that the design matrix is full of i.i.d Gaussian random variables (i.e $X_i$'s are independent with i.i.d Gaussian entries). Their proof uses different ideas than ours - it is based on the technology of rigorous analysis of approximate message passing algorithms (see \cite{DonohoMalekiMontanariAMP09PNAS} and \cite{BayatiMontanariLASSORISKIEEE2012}).
By working under concentration assumptions, we are able to show a number of the same results without requiring i.i.d-ness of the entries of the vectors $X_i$'s. However, to prove the main result, we still need the $X_i$'s to have i.i.d entries, but they do not need to be Gaussian. Donoho and Montanari also make interesting connections with rigorous work in statistical physics, namely to the so-called Shcherbina-Tirozzi model (\cite{ShcherbinaTirozzi03} and \cite{TalagrandSpinGlassesBook03}) and other heuristic approaches based on approximate message passing (\cite{Rangan2011}).
Our proof also makes rigorous the probabilistic heuristics that were developed in \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published}. Our point of view is that the properties of $\betaHat$ defined in Equation \eqref{eq:defRegressionMEstimate} via connections to random matrix theory. As such, our proof relies heavily on leave-one-out, martingale and concentration of measure ideas, as some of our previous work (see e.g \cite{nekCorrEllipD}) did in establishing these connections. Leave-one-out ideas seem to be known in Physics under the name ``cavity method", so our general approach falls broadly in that category. A number of the tools we use are commonly used in the spectral analysis of large random matrices via the Stieltjes transform method (see \cite{mp67}, \cite{wachter78}, \cite{silverstein95}).
\subsection{Focus of the paper}
We focus on the problem of understanding
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defBetaHatRidgeregularizedCase}
\betaHat=\argmin_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^p} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)+\frac{\tau}{2}\norm{\beta}^2
\end{equation}
where $\tau>0$. We will see later (see Section \ref{sec:regularizedToUnregularized}) that under certain conditions on $\rho$ the understanding of $\betaHat$ for various $\tau$'s will lead us to rigorous understanding of $\betaHat$ when $\tau=0$.
Different parts of the proof require different assumptions. So we label the assumptions accordingly.
For the first part of the proof (i.e ``leave-one-observation-out''), we work under the following assumptions:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{O1}: $p/n$ has a finite non-zero limit.
\item \textbf{O2}: $\rho$ is twice differentiable, convex and non-linear. $\psi=\rho'$. Note that $\psi'\geq 0$ since $\rho$ is convex. We assume that $\rho\geq 0$ and $\rho(0)=0$. Note that this implies that $\sgn(\psi(x))=\sgn(x)$.
\item \textbf{O3}: $\psi(|x|)=\gO(|x|^m)$ at infinity for some $m$. Furthermore, $\psi'$ is $L(u)$-Lipschitz on $(-|u|,|u|)$, where $L(|u|)\leq K |u|^{m_1}$ as $|u|\tendsto \infty$. Note that this implies that $\rho$ grows at most polynomially at $\infty$.
\item \textbf{O4}: $X_i$'s are independent and identically distributed. Furthermore, for any 1-Lipschitz convex function $F$, $P(|F(X_i)-m_F|>t)\leq C_n \exp(-c_n t^2)$, $C_n$ and $c_n$ can vary with $n$. For simplicity, we assume that $c_n=\gO(1/(\log(n))^{\alpha})$ for some $\alpha\geq 0$. $X_i$'s have mean 0 and $\scov{X_i}=\id_p$.
\item \textbf{O5}: $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n$ are independent of $\{\eps_i\}_{i=1}^n$
\item \textbf{O6}: for any fixed $k$ , $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{\psi^{2k}(\eps_i)}$ remains uniformly bounded in $p$ and $n$, as both grow to infinity.
\item \textbf{O7}: $\sup_{1\leq i \leq n} |\eps_i|\triangleq {\mathcal E}_n=\gO((\log n)^{\beta})$ and $\eps_i$'s are independent.
\end{itemize}
For the second part of the proof (i.e ``leave-one-predictor-out''), we need all the previous assumptions and
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{P1}: $X_i$'s have i.i.d entries.
\end{itemize}
We note that according to Corollary 4.10 and the discussion that follows in \cite{ledoux2001}, Assumptions O4 and P1 are compatible. O4 is for instance satisfied
if the entries of $X_i$'s are bounded by $\gO((\log n)^{\alpha/2})$. Another example is the case of $X_i\sim {\cal N}(0,\id_p)$.
For the last part of the proof, when we combine everything together, we will need the following assumptions on top of all the others:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{F1}: the $\eps_i$'s have identical distribution and for any $r>0$, if $Z\sim{\cal N}(0,1)$, independent of $\eps_i$, $\eps_i+rZ$ has a density $f$ which is increasing on $(-\infty,0)$ and decreasing on $(0,\infty)$. Furthermore, $\lim_{|t|\tendsto\infty} tf(t)=0$.
\item \textbf{F2}: For any fixed $k$, $\Exp{|\eps_i|^k}<\infty$.
\end{itemize}
We refer the reader to Lemma \ref{lemma:suffCondKeyEqnInCHasUniqueSolution} and the discussion immediately following it for examples of such densities. We note that symmetric (around 0) $\log$-concave densities will for instance satisfy all the assumptions we made about the $\eps_i$'s. See \cite{KarlinTotalPositivity68} and \cite{IbragimovLogConcave1956} for instance.
The aim of the paper is to prove the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:systemRidgeRegularizedRigorous}
Consider $\betaHat$ defined in Equation \eqref{eq:defBetaHatRidgeregularizedCase} and assume that $\tau>0$ is given.
Under Assumptions \textbf{O1-O7}, \textbf{P1} and \textbf{F1-F2}, we have: as $p$, $n$ tend to infinity while $p/n\tendsto \kappa \in (0,\infty)$, $\var{\norm{\betaHat}}\tendsto 0$. Furthermore, if $\zHat_\eps=\eps+r_{\rho}(\kappa)Z$, where $\eps$ has the same distribution as $\eps_i$'s and $Z$ is a ${\cal N}(0,1)$ random variable independent of $\eps$, we have: $\norm{\betaHat}\tendsto r_{\rho}(\kappa)$ and there exists a constant $c_{\rho}(\kappa)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:systemToProve}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\Exp{[\prox_{c_{\rho}(\kappa)}(\rho)]'(\zHat_\eps)}&=1-\kappa+\tau c_{\rho}(\kappa)\\
\kappa r^2_{\rho}(\kappa)&=\Exp{(\zHat_\eps-\prox_{c_{\rho}(\kappa)}(\rho)(\zHat_\eps))^2}\;.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
We use the notation $\prox_c(\rho)$ to denote the proximal mapping of the function $c\rho$. This notion was introduced in \cite{MoreauProxPaper65}. We recall that
\begin{align*}
\prox_c(\rho)(x)&=\argmin_{y\in \mathbb{R}} (c\rho(y)+\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^2)\;, \text{ or equivalently,}\\
\prox_c(\rho)(x)&=(\id+c\psi)^{-1}(x)\;.
\end{align*}
The proximal mapping is an important notion in convex analysis and convex optimization (see for instance \cite{BeckAndTeboulleChapter2010} for a nice review of analytic properties and an introduction to proximal gradient algorithms). We note that even when $\rho$ is not differentiable, $\prox_c(\rho)(x)$ is a well-defined function.
As explained in \cite{NEKOptimalMEstimationPNASPublished2013}, the previous system can be reformulated in terms of $\prox_1((c_{\rho}(\kappa)\rho)^*)$, where $f^*$ represents the Fenchel-Legendre dual of $f$.
\subsubsection*{Remarks on the assumptions}
In the context of robust statistics, where regression M-estimates are commonly used, $\rho$ is often taken to grow linearly at infinity. This is for instance the case for Huber functions. Furthermore, it will often be the case that for instance $\psi'$ is bounded. This situation arises if for instance $x\rightarrow x^2/2-\rho(x)$ is a convex function. So the growth conditions at infinity we impose on $\rho$ and $\psi$ are realistic for the problems we have in mind. A look at the proof reveals that if we had more restrictive growth conditions at infinity than the ones we impose, we could tolerate $\eps_i$'s with fewer moments and heavier tails. Understanding how heavy the tails of $\eps_i$ can be and the result still hold is interesting statistically, but we leave these considerations for future work. Conversely, our assumptions about $\eps_i$'s are somewhat restrictive - especially when it comes to their tail behavior. But this is just a consequence of our assumptions on $\rho$ and the fact that those are relatively unrestrictive.
Assumption \textbf{O4} is a bit stronger than we will need. The functions $F$ we will be dealing with will either be linear or square-roots of quadratic forms. However, as documented in \cite{ledoux2001}, a large number of natural or ``reasonable" distributions satisfy the \textbf{O4} assumptions. Our choice of having a potentially varying $c_n$ is motivated by the idea that we could, for instance, relax an assumption of boundedness of the entries of $X_i$'s - that guarantees that \textbf{O4} is satisfied when $X_i$ has i.i.d entries - and replace it by an assumption concerning the moments of $X_i$'s: this is what we did for instance in \cite{nekCorrEllipD} through a truncation of triangular arrays argument. We also refer the interested reader to that paper for a short list of distributions satisfying \textbf{O4}. Finally, we could replace the $\exp(-c_n t^2)$ upper bound in $\textbf{O4}$ by $\exp(-c_n t^\alpha)$ for some fixed $\alpha>0$ and it seems that all our arguments would go through. We chose not to do work under these more general assumptions because it would involve extra book-keeping and does not enlarge the set of distributions we can consider enough to justify this extra technical cost.
Our assumption that $1/c_n$ increases like a power of $\log(n)$ at most is quite restrictive when it comes to bounded random variables - but is of course satisfied by e.g Gaussian random variables where $c_n$ is a constant independent on $n$ - and motivated by simplifying the book-keeping needed in our proof. Having $1/c_n$ grow like $n^{\gamma}$ for a small $\gamma$ should be feasible - with $\gamma$ depending on $m$ and $m_1$. In the first part of the proof we keep track of the impact of $c_n$ to show this aspect of the problem.
Statistically, regression $M$-estimates are quite widely used. But in the random design case studied here, they are known to have somewhat undesirable properties (\cite{baranchikInadmissibility73}, \cite{SteinInadmissibilityRegression60}) even in very simple situations. We do not dwell more on these otherwise interesting issues, since they are a bit tangential to the main aim of this particular paper, which is to give a rigorous justification of the heuristic manipulations made in \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published}.
\subsubsection*{Notations}
We will repeatedly use the following notations: $\polyLog(n)$ is used to replace a power of $\log(n)$; $\lambda_{\max}(M)$ denotes the largest eigenvalue of the matrix $M$; $\opnorm{M}$ denotes the largest singular value of $M$. We call $\SigmaHat=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i X_i\trsp$ the usual sample covariance matrix of the $X_i$'s. We say that $X\leq Y$ in $L_k$ if $\Exp{|X|^k}\leq \Exp{|Y|^k}$. We use the notation $u_n \lesssim v_n$ to say that there exists a constant $K$ independent of $n$ such that $u_n\leq K v_n$ for all $n$. We use the usual statistical notation $\betaHat_{(i)}$ to denote the regression vector we obtain when we do not use the pair $(X_i,Y_i)$ in our optimization problem. We will also use the notation $X_{(i)}$ to denote $\{X_1,\ldots,X_{i-1},X_{i+1},\ldots,X_n\}$. We use the notation $(a,b)$ for either the interval $(a,b)$ or the interval $(b,a)$: in several situations, we will have to localize quantities in intervals using two values $a$ and $b$ but we will not know whether $a<b$ or $b>a$. We denote by $X$ the $n\times p$ design matrix from $i$-th row is $X_i\trsp$.
\subsubsection*{Remarks}
Note that under our assumptions on $\rho$, $\betaHat$ is defined as the solution of
\begin{align}
f(\betaHat)&=0 \textrm{ with }\\
f(\beta)&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n -X_i \psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)+\tau \beta \;.\label{eq:defGradient}
\end{align}
We call
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defF}
F(\beta)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)+\frac{\tau}{2}\norm{\betaHat}^2\;.
\end{equation}
We call $R_i=\eps_i-X_i\trsp \betaHat$ (i.e the residuals), $S=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(R_i) X_i X_i\trsp$ and $c_\tau=\frac{1}{n}\trace{S+\tau\id}^{-1}$.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{General remarks}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ControlDeltaBetaDeltaf}
Let $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ be two vectors in $\mathbb{R}^p$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:controlNormDeltaBetaFromNormDeltaF}
\boxed{
\norm{\beta_1-\beta_2}\leq\frac{1}{\tau}\norm{f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)}\;.
}
\end{equation}
When $\rho$ is strongly convex with modulus of convexity $C$, we also have
$$
\norm{\beta_1-\beta_2}\leq \frac{1}{C\lambda_{\min}(\SigmaHat)+\tau}\norm{f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)}\;.
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ be two vectors in $\mathbb{R}^p$. We have
$$
f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)=\tau(\beta_1-\beta_2)+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i \left[\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\beta_2)-\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\beta_1)\right]\;.
$$
We can use the mean value theorem to write
$$
\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\beta_2)-\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\beta_1)=\psi'(\gamma^*_{\eps_i,X_i\trsp\beta_1,X_i\trsp\beta_2}) X_i\trsp (\beta_1-\beta_2)\;,
$$
where $\gamma^*_{\eps_i,X_i\trsp\beta_1,X_i\trsp\beta_2}$ is in the interval $(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\beta_1,\eps_i-X_i\trsp\beta_2)$ - we do not care about the order of the endpoint in our notation.
We therefore have
$$
f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)=\tau(\beta_1-\beta_2)+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(\gamma^*_{\eps_i,X_i\trsp\beta_1,X_i\trsp\beta_2})X_iX_i\trsp (\beta_1-\beta_2)\;,
$$
which we write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exactRelationDeltafDeltaBeta}
f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)=(\mathsf{S}_{\beta_1,\beta_2}+\tau \id_p)(\beta_1-\beta_2)\;,
\end{equation}
where
$$
\mathsf{S}_{\beta_1,\beta_2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(\gamma^*_{\eps_i,X_i\trsp\beta_1,X_i\trsp\beta_2})X_iX_i\trsp\;.
$$
We therefore have
$$
\beta_1-\beta_2=(\mathsf{S}_{\beta_1,\beta_2}+\tau \id_p)^{-1}\left(f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)\right)\;.
$$
Since $\rho$ is convex, $\psi'=\rho''$ is non-negative and $\mathsf{S}_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$ is positive semi-definite. In the semi-definite order, we have
$\mathsf{S}_{\beta_1,\beta_2}+\tau \id \succeq \tau \id$. When $\rho$ is strongly convex with modulus C, we have $\psi'(x)\geq C$ (see Theorem 4.3.1 in \citet{HiriartLemarechalConvexAnalysisAbridged2001}) and therefore, $\mathsf{S}_{\beta_1,\beta_2}+\tau \id_p \succeq C \SigmaHat+\tau \id\succeq (C\lambda_{\min}(\SigmaHat)+\tau)\id_p$.
In particular,
$$
\norm{\beta_1-\beta_2}\leq\frac{1}{\tau}\norm{f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)}\;.
$$
In the strongly convex case, we have
$$
\norm{\beta_1-\beta_2}\leq\frac{1}{C\lambda_{\min}(\SigmaHat)+\tau}\norm{f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)}\;.
$$
\end{proof}
In the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:ControlDeltaBetaDeltaf}, it is clear that all we need is that ``enough" $\psi'(\gamma^*_{\eps_i,X_i\trsp\beta_1,X_i\trsp\beta_2})$'s are greater than a constant C. More precisely, let us call $N=\card{i: \psi'(\gamma^*_{\eps_i,X_i\trsp\beta_1,X_i\trsp\beta_2})\geq C}$ and let us call ${\cal I
}$ the corresponding set of indices. Results similar to that of Proposition \ref{prop:ControlDeltaBetaDeltaf} then hold, with $\SigmaHat$ being replaced by $\SigmaHat_{{\cal I}}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in {\cal I}} X_i X_i\trsp$. This could perhaps be used in certain situations to move away from strong convexity assumptions when we deal with the un-penalized (i.e $\tau=0$) case. See Section \ref{sec:regularizedToUnregularized} for more details about this question. Strong convexity is a very strong (and somewhat undesirable) requirement on $\rho$ for many applications in Statistics.
Proposition \ref{prop:ControlDeltaBetaDeltaf} yields the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ControlApproxBetaHat}
For any $\beta_1$,
$$
\norm{\betaHat-\beta_1}\leq\frac{1}{\tau}\norm{f(\beta_1)}\;.
$$
\end{lemma}
The lemma is a simple consequence of Equation \eqref{eq:controlNormDeltaBetaFromNormDeltaF} since by definition $f(\betaHat)=0$\;.
In the following, we will strive to find approximations of $\betaHat$. We will therefore use Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlApproxBetaHat} repeatedly.
\subsection{Boundedness of $\norm{\betaHat}$}
We have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:betaHatIsBounded}
Let us call $W_n=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i \psi(\eps_i)$.
We have
$$
\norm{\betaHat}\leq \frac{1}{\tau}\norm{W_n}\;.
$$
In particular, when $X_i$ are independent and have covariance $\id_p$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundNormBetaHatSquaredUsingPsiEpsi}
\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2}\leq \frac{1}{\tau^2}\frac{p}{n} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{\psi^2(\eps_i)}\;.
\end{equation}
A similar result holds in $L_{2k}$ - provided the entries of $X_i$ has cumulants of order $2k$. This is automatically satisfied under our assumptions.
This guarantees that $\norm{\betaHat}$ is bounded in $L_{2k}$ provided $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\Exp{|\psi(\eps_i)|^{2k}}$ is bounded. If this latter quantity is $\polyLog(n)$ so is $\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^{2k}}$.
We also have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundNormBetaHatFromSimplyRidge}
\norm{\betaHat}\leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)}\;,
\end{equation}
and hence
$$
\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^{2k}}\leq \frac{2^k}{\tau^k}\Exp{\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)\right]^k}\;.
$$
\end{lemma}
Though from a probabilistic point of view our various bounds might look interchangeable, it is important to have both from the point of view of statistical applications. Indeed, in robust regression, where $\eps_i$'s can have heavy tails, one would typically used bounded $\psi$ functions (for instance the Huber functions or smoothed version of the Huber functions - see \cite{HuberRonchettiRobustStatistics09}, p. 84, Equation (4.51) for a definition of the exponential of the Huber functions). The bound based on Equation
\eqref{eq:boundNormBetaHatSquaredUsingPsiEpsi} is then particularly helpful.
\newcommand{\OneVector}{\mathbf{e}}
\begin{proof}
The first inequality follows easily from taking $\beta_1=0$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlApproxBetaHat} and realizing that $W_n=f(0)$.
The second inequality follows from the fact that, if $\OneVector$ is an $n$-dimensional vector with entries all equal to 1,
$W_n=X\trsp D_\psi \OneVector/n$, where $X$ is $n\times p$ and $D_\psi$ is a diagonal matrix whose $(i,i)$ entry is $\psi(\eps_i)$. Hence,
$$
W_n^2=\frac{1}{n^2} \OneVector\trsp D_\psi XX\trsp D_\psi \OneVector\;,
$$
and therefore,
$\Exp{W_n^2}=\frac{p}{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{\psi^2(\eps_i)}$, since $\Exp{XX\trsp}=p\id_n$ and $\{\eps_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is independent of $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n$.
For the $L_{2k}$ bound, can use $\Exp{\norm{W_n}^{2k}}\leq p^{k-1}\sum_{j=1}^p \Exp{W_n^{2k}(j)}$, because for $\alpha_i>0$, $(\sum_{i=1}^p \alpha_i)^k\leq p^{k-1}\sum \alpha_i^k$ by convexity.
Let us work temporarily conditional on $\eps_i$.
We control $\Exp{W_n^{2k}(i)}$ through the use of cumulants since $W_n(j)=\sum_{i=1}^n X_i(j)\psi(\eps_j)/n$, so the $2k$-th cumulant of $W_n(j)$ is $\sum_{i=1}^n \psi^{2k}(\eps_i)/n^{2k} \kappa_{2k}(X_i(j))$. These cumulants are all of order $n^{1-2k}$, if $\sum \psi^{2k}(\eps_i)/n=O(1)$. By the classical connection between moments and cumulants, we see that $\Exp{W_n^{2k}(j)}=\gO(n^{-k})$ if $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{\psi^{2k}(\eps_i)}$. Hence,
$\Exp{\norm{W_n}^{2k}}=\gO(p^{k-1}pn^{-k})=\gO(1)$.
The proof of Equation \eqref{eq:boundNormBetaHatFromSimplyRidge} simply follows from observing that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\tau}{2}\norm{\betaHat}^2&\leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\betaHat)+\frac{\tau}{2}\norm{\betaHat}^2\\
&\leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)\;.
\end{align*}
Indeed, since, according to Equation \eqref{eq:defF},
$$
\betaHat=\argmin_{\beta} F(\beta)\;,
$$
we also have
$$
F(\betaHat)\leq F(0)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)\;,
$$
and the result follows immediately.
\end{proof}
\section{Approximating $\betaHat$ by $\betaHat_{(i)}$: leave-one-observation-out}
We consider the situation where we leave one observation out. We call
\begin{align*}
\rTilde_{j,(i)}&=\eps_j-X_j\trsp \betaHat_{(i)} \text{ and }\\
S_i&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i}\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})X_jX_j\trsp\;.
\end{align*}
We also call
$$
f_i(\beta)=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i}X_j \psi(\eps_j-X_j\trsp \beta)+\tau \beta\;.
$$
We call $\betaHat_{(i)}$ the solution of $f_i(\betaHat_{(i)})=0$ and call it the leave-one-out estimate.
Let us consider
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ApproxBetaHatStandardLeaveOneOut}
\betaTilde_i=\betaHat_{(i)}+\frac{1}{n}(S_i+\tau \id)^{-1}X_i \psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))\triangleq \betaHat_{(i)}+\eta_i\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}\label{eq:defciandetaifirstpart}
c_i&=\frac{1}{n}X_i\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1}X_i\;, \text{ and }\\
\eta_i&=\frac{1}{n}(S_i+\tau \id)^{-1}X_i \psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))\;.
\end{align}
All these approximations are ``very natural'' in light of the probabilistic heuristics we derived for this problem in \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published} - so we refer the reader to that paper for explanations about why we choose to introduce these quantities. One of the aim of the paper is to show that these heuristics are valid and indeed open up the horizon to rigorous proofs.
The aim of the work that follows is to show that $\betaHat$ can be very well approximated by $\betaTilde_i$. In Corollary \ref{coro:AggregResApproxBetaHatByBetaTildeIncl}, we show that the approximation is accurate to order $\polyLog(n)/n$ in Euclidian norm, if for instance $1/c_n=\polyLog(n)$. We refer the reader to Corollary \ref{coro:AggregResApproxBetaHatByBetaTildeIncl} for full details.
\subsection{Deterministic bounds}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ControlDeltaBetaHatBetaTildei}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:approxBetaHatbyBetaTildei}
\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}\leq \frac{1}{\tau} \norm{{\mathcal R}_i}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:definitionScriptRiLOOO}
{\mathcal R}_i=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i} \left[\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right] X_jX_j\trsp \eta_i\;,
\end{equation}
and $\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i)$ is in the (``unordered") interval $(\rTilde_{j,(i)},\rTilde_{j,(i)}-X_j\trsp\eta_i)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have of course,
$$
f(\betaTilde_i)=f(\betaTilde_i)-f_i(\betaHat_{(i)})=-\frac{1}{n}X_i \psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\betaTilde_i)+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i}X_j\left[\psi(\eps_j-X_j\trsp \betaHat_{(i)})-\psi(\eps_j-X_j\trsp (\betaHat_{(i)}+\eta_i))\right]+\tau \eta_i\;.
$$
By the mean-value theorem, we also have
$$
\psi(\eps_j-X_j\trsp \betaHat_{(i)})-\psi(\eps_j-X_j\trsp (\betaHat_{(i)}+\eta_i))=\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})X_j\trsp \eta_i + \left[\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right] X_j\trsp \eta_i\;,
$$
where $\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i)$ is in the (``unordered") interval $(\eps_j-X_j\trsp \betaHat_{(i)},\eps_j-X_j\trsp (\betaHat_{(i)}+\eta_i))$, i.e
$(\rTilde_{j,(i)},\rTilde_{j,(i)}-X_j\trsp\eta_i)$.
Hence, if ${\mathcal R}_i$ is the quantity defined in Equation \eqref{eq:definitionScriptRiLOOO},
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i}X_j\left[\psi(\eps_j-X_j\trsp \betaHat_{(i)})-\psi(\eps_j-X_j\trsp (\betaHat_{(i)}+\eta_i))\right]&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i}\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})X_jX_j\trsp \eta_i + {\mathcal R}_i\;,\\
&=S_i \eta_i+{\mathcal R}_i\;.
\end{align*}
In light of the previous simplifications, we have
$$
f(\betaTilde_i)=-\frac{1}{n}X_i \psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\betaTilde_i)+(S_i+\tau \id) \eta_i +{\mathcal R}_i\;.
$$
Since by definition, $\eta_i=\frac{1}{n}(S_i+\tau \id)^{-1}X_i \psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))$,
$$
(S_i+\tau \id) \eta_i=\frac{1}{n}X_i \psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))\;.
$$
In other respects,
$$
\eps_i-X_i\trsp\betaTilde_i=\rTilde_{i,(i)}-c_i \psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))\;.
$$
When $\psi$ is differentiable, $x-c\psi(\prox_c(\rho)(x))=\prox_c(\rho)(x)$ almost by definition of the proximal mapping (see Lemma \ref{lemma:ValueProxat0} and its proof). Therefore,
$$
-\frac{1}{n}X_i \psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp\betaTilde_i)+(S_i+\tau \id) \eta_i=\frac{1}{n}X_i \left[-\psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))+\psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))\right]=0.
$$
We conclude that
$$
f(\betaTilde_i)={\mathcal R}_i\;.
$$
Applying Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlApproxBetaHat}, we see that
$$
\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}\leq\frac{1}{\tau}\norm{{\mathcal R}_i}\;.
$$
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{On $\bm{{\mathcal R}_i}$}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:controlNormRemainderFLeaveOneOutAdjusted}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ControlEtai}
\norm{\eta_i}\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}\tau}\frac{\norm{X_i}}{\sqrt{n}} \left[|\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\wedge \frac{|\rTilde_{i,(i)}|}{c_i}\right]\;,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ControlNormRemainderFLeaveOneOutAdjusted}
\norm{{\mathcal R}_i}\leq \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \sup_{j\neq i}\left|\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right|
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}\tau}\frac{\norm{X_i}}{\sqrt{n}} \left[|\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\wedge |\rTilde_{i,(i)}|/c_i\right]\;.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
$$
{\mathcal R}_i=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i} \left[\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right] X_jX_j\trsp \eta_i\;.
$$
Of course, ${\mathcal S}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i} \left[\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right] X_jX_j\trsp$ can be written
${\mathcal S}=\frac{1}{n}X\trsp {\mathsf D} X$, where ${\mathsf D}$ is a diagonal matrix with $(j,j)$ entry $\left[\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right]$ and $(i,i)$ entry 0.
Using the fact that $\opnorm{\cdot}$ is a matrix norm, we see that $\opnorm{{\mathcal S}}\leq \opnorm{\SigmaHat}\opnorm{{\mathsf D}}$. This implies that
$$
\norm{{\mathcal R}_i}\leq \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \sup_{j\neq i}\left|\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right| \norm{\eta_i}\;,
$$
where $\SigmaHat=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^nX_i X_i\trsp$ is the usual sample covariance matrix.
We note that
$$
\norm{\eta_i}\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}\tau}\frac{\norm{X_i}}{\sqrt{n}} |\psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))|\;.
$$
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:ValueProxat0}, we see that
$$
|\psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))|\leq |\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\wedge \frac{|\rTilde_{i,(i)}|}{c_i}\;.
$$
The lemma is shown.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{On $\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i)$ and related quantities}
We now show how to control $\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{j\neq i}\left|\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right|$
\begin{lemma}
Let us call
$$
{\cal B}_n(i)=\sup_{j\neq i}\left[|\eps_j-X_j\trsp \betaHat_{(i)}|+|X_j\trsp \eta_i|\right]\;.
$$
Suppose, as in our assumptions, that $\psi'$ is $L({\cal B}_n(i))$ Lipschitz on $(-{\cal B}_n(i),{\cal B}_n(i))$. Then,
$$
\sup_{j\neq i}\left|\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right|\leq L({\cal B}_n(i)) \sup_{j\neq i}|X_j\trsp \eta_i|\;.
$$
It follows that
$$
\norm{{\mathcal R}_i}\leq
\sup_{j\neq i}|X_j\trsp \eta_i|
\frac{L({\cal B}_n(i))}{\sqrt{n}\tau}\frac{\norm{X_i}}{\sqrt{n}} \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \left[|\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\wedge |\rTilde_{i,(i)}|/c_i\right]\;.
$$
\end{lemma}
We note that we could replace the assumption concerning the Lipschitz property of $\psi'$ on $(-{\cal B}_n(i),{\cal B}_n(i))$ by saying that $\psi'$ has modulus of continuity $\omega_n$ when restricted to this interval and putting growth condition on this modulus. We chose not to do this to simplify the exposition.
\begin{proof}
By definition, we have
$$
|\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i)-\rTilde_{j,(i)}|\leq |X_j\trsp \eta_i|\;.
$$
Of course,
$$
X_j\trsp \eta_i=\psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})) \frac{1}{n}X_j\trsp (S_i+\tau \id_p)^{-1}X_i\;.
$$
Therefore,
$$
\sup_{j\neq i}|\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i)|\leq \sup_{j\neq i}\left[|\eps_j-X_j\trsp \betaHat_{(i)}|+|X_j\trsp \eta_i|\right]
$$
We call
$$
{\cal B}_n(i)=\sup_{j\neq i}\left[|\eps_j-X_j\trsp \betaHat_{(i)}|+|X_j\trsp \eta_i|\right]\;.
$$
Since, by assumption, $\psi'$ is $L({\cal B}_n(i))$-Lipschitz on $(-{\cal B}_n(i),{\cal B}_n(i))$. Then
$$
\sup_{j\neq i}\left|\psi'(\gamma^*(X_j,\betaHat_{(i)},\eta_i))-\psi'(\rTilde_{j,(i)})\right|\leq L({\cal B}_n(i)) \sup_{j\neq i}|X_j\trsp \eta_i|\;.
$$
The bound for $\norm{{\mathcal R}_i}$ follows immediately.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Probabilistic aspects}
We can rewrite the bound on $\norm{{\mathcal R}_i}$ as
$$
\norm{{\mathcal R}_i}\leq
\left[\sup_{j\neq i}\frac{|X_j\trsp (S_i+\tau \id_p)^{-1}X_i|}{n}\right]
\frac{L({\cal B}_n(i))}{\sqrt{n}\tau}\frac{\norm{X_i}}{\sqrt{n}} \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \left(\left[|\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\wedge |\rTilde_{i,(i)}|/c_i\right] |\psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\right)\;.
$$
The bound on $\norm{{\mathcal R}_i}$ is encouraging since it shows that we can control $\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}$ in $L_k$ provided we can control each terms in the product in $L_{5k}$: indeed, for a product of $k$ random variables $\{W_j\}_{j=1}^k$, we have $\Exp{|\prod_{j=1}^k W_j|}\leq \prod_{j=1}^k \left[\Exp{|W_j|^k}\right]^{1/k}$ by H\"older's inequality. In particular, we will later need control of $\Exp{\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}^2}$ and will therefore require subsequent bounds to in $L_{10}$.
\subsubsection{On $\sup_{j\neq i}|X_j \trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1} X_i/n|$}
We will control $X_j\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1} X_i/n$ by appealing to Lemma \ref{lemma:controlRandomLipFuncConcRVsLp}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:keyLemmaControlXjtransposeetai}
Suppose $X_i$ are independent and satisfy the concentration assumptions mentioned above.
Then
$$
\sup_{j\neq i} |X_j\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1} X_i/n|\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sup_{j \neq i} \frac{\norm{X_j}}{\tau\sqrt{n}} \polyLog(n)/c^{1/2}_n
$$
in $L_{10}$, provided we control $\sup_{j \neq i} \frac{\norm{X_j}}{\tau\sqrt{n}}$ in $\sqrt{L_{20}}$.
\end{lemma}
We use the perhaps slightly unusual notation $\sqrt{L_{20}}$ to simply say that we control $\sqrt{\Exp{Z^{20}}}$ for a random variable $Z$.
\begin{proof}
Let us work conditionally on $X_{(i)}=\{X_1,\ldots,X_{i-1},X_{i+1},\ldots,X_n\}$. Call $v_{j,(i)}= (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1} X_j$. The map $F_j(X_i)=X_j\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1} X_i=X_i\trsp v_{j,(i)}$ is Lipschitz (as a function of $X_i$) with Lipschitz constant
$\sqrt{X_j\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-2}X_j}\leq \norm{X_j}/\tau$. Indeed, it is linear in $X_i$.
Therefore, using Lemma \ref{lemma:controlRandomLipFuncConcRVsLp}, we see that
$$
\frac{1}{n}\sup_{j\neq i} |X_j\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1} X_i||X_{(i)}\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sup_j \frac{\norm{X_j}}{\tau\sqrt{n}} \sqrt{\polyLog n/c_n}+\sup_j |m_{F_j}|\;.
$$
with overwhelming ($X_i$)-probability and in $L_{10}$. Recall that in Lemma \ref{lemma:controlRandomLipFuncConcRVsLp}, we have a choice between the mean and the median for the definition of $m_{F_j}$. Here we choose the mean.
Since $X_i$ has mean 0, we see that $m_{F_j}=0$, so that
$$
\frac{1}{n}\sup_{j\neq i} |X_j\trsp v_{j,(i)}| |X_{(i)}\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sup_{j \neq i} \frac{\norm{X_j}}{\tau\sqrt{n}} \sqrt{\polyLog n/c_n}
$$
with overwhelming ($X_i$)-probability and in $L_{10}$. We can then integrate over $X_{(i)}$ to get the result.
\end{proof}
We note that using the fact that $X_j\rightarrow \norm{X_j}/\sqrt{n}$ is $n^{-1/2}$-Lipschitz we see that
$$
\sup_{j\neq i}|\norm{X_j}/\sqrt{n}-m_{\norm{X_j}/\sqrt{n}}|\leq \polyLog(n)/(\sqrt{nc_n}) \text{ in } \sqrt{L_{20}}\;.
$$
Recall that $\scov{X_i}=\id_p$. So $m_{\norm{X_j}/\sqrt{n}}$ is of order 1 in the case we are interested in, we see that
$$
\sup_{j\neq i}|\norm{X_j}/\sqrt{n}|=\gO_{\sqrt{L_{20}}}(1)\;,
$$
provided $nc_n \gg \polyLog(n)$. This is clearly the case under our assumptions.
\subsubsection{Control of the residuals $R_i$ and $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$}
Our aim here is to show that we can control $\sup_i |R_i|$, where $R_i=\eps_i-X_i\trsp \betaHat$ are the residuals from the full ridge-regression model. This will allow us to achieve control of ${\mathcal B}_n(i)$. As $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$ is much easier to understand than $R_i$, our strategy is to relate the two.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:BoundRiFromrTildeii}
We have the deterministic bound
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ControlRi}
|R_i|\leq |\rTilde_{i,(i)}|+\frac{\norm{X_i}^2}{n}\frac{1}{\tau} |\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\;.
\end{equation}
Denoting by ${\mathcal E}_n=\sup_{1\leq i \leq n} |\eps_i|$, we have under our assumptions on $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n$,
$$
\sup_{1\leq i \leq n}|\rTilde_{i,(i)}|\leq {\mathcal E}_n+[\norm{W_{n}}+\frac{1}{n}\sup_{1\leq i\leq n} \norm{X_i}|\psi({\mathcal E}_n)\vee \psi(-{\mathcal E}_n)|] \polyLog(n)/\sqrt{c_n}\text{ in }L_k\;.
$$
Under the assumption that $|\psi(x)|=\gO(|x|^m)$ for some fixed $m$ at infinity, we have
$$
\sup_i |R_i|\leq K (\sup_i |\rTilde_{i,(i)}|)^{m\vee 1}) \text{ in } L_k\;,
$$
and
$\norm{W_{n}}+\frac{1}{n}\sup_{1\leq i\leq n} \norm{X_i}|\psi({\mathcal E}_n)\vee \psi(-{\mathcal E}_n)|=\gO_{L_k}(\norm{W_{n}}+{\mathcal E}_n^m/\sqrt{n})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall the representation
$$
\beta_1-\beta_2=(\mathsf{S}_{\beta_1,\beta_2}+\tau \id_p)^{-1}\left(f(\beta_1)-f(\beta_2)\right)\;.
$$
Take $\beta_1=\betaHat$ and $\beta_2=\betaHat_{(i)}$.
Note that
$$
f(\betaHat_{(i)})=-\frac{1}{n}X_i \psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i} X_i \psi(\rTilde_{j,(i)})+\tau \betaHat_{(i)}=-\frac{1}{n}X_i \psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})
$$
by definition of $\betaHat_{(i)}$. Therefore,
$$
\betaHat-\betaHat_{(i)}=\frac{1}{n}(\mathsf{S}_{\betaHat,\betaHat_{(i)}}+\tau \id_p)^{-1}X_i \psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\;.
$$
Since $\rTilde_{i,(i)}-R_i=X_i\trsp (\betaHat-\betaHat_{(i)})$, we also have
$$
|\rTilde_{i,(i)}-R_i|\leq \frac{\norm{X_i}^2}{n}\frac{1}{\tau} |\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\;.
$$
We conclude that
$$
|R_i|\leq |\rTilde_{i,(i)}|+\frac{\norm{X_i}^2}{n}\frac{1}{\tau} |\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|\;.
$$
Now under assumptions, we have $\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}|\norm{X_i}^2/n-1|=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n)/\sqrt{nc_n})$, according to either Lemma \ref{lemma:controlRandomLipFuncConcRVsLp} or Lemma \ref{lemma:RandomQuadFormsBounds}.
Using the fact that $\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}\leq \norm{W_{n,(i)}}$ (see Lemma \ref{lemma:betaHatIsBounded}), the independence of $X_i$ and $\betaHat_{(i)}$, we have,
through Lemma \ref{lemma:controlRandomLipFuncConcRVsLp},
$$
\sup_{1\leq i \leq n} |X_i\trsp \betaHat_{(i)}|\leq \sup_{1\leq i\leq n} \norm{W_{n,(i)}} \polyLog(n)/\sqrt{c_n}\;.
$$
Since $\norm{W_{n,(i)}} \leq \norm{W_{n}}+\norm{X_i}|\psi(\eps_i)|/n$, we have
$$
|\rTilde_{i,(i)}|\leq |\eps_i|+[\norm{W_{n}}+\sup_i \norm{X_i}|\psi(\eps_i)|/n)] \polyLog(n)/\sqrt{c_n} \text{in } L_k\;.
$$
Denoting by ${\mathcal E}_n=\sup_{1\leq i \leq n} |\eps_i|$, we have, using the fact that $\psi$ is increasing,
$$
\sup_{1\leq i \leq n}|\rTilde_{i,(i)}|\leq {\mathcal E}_n+\left[\norm{W_{n}}+\frac{1}{n^{1/2}}\sup_{1\leq i\leq n} \frac{\norm{X_i}}{n^{1/2}}|\psi({\mathcal E}_n)\vee \psi(-{\mathcal E}_n)|\right] \polyLog(n)/\sqrt{c_n}\text{ in }L_k\;,
$$
for any given $k$.
We note that if $|\psi(x)|=\gO(x^m)$ at $\infty$, we have the bound $\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}|R_i| \lesssim \sup_{1\leq i\leq n}|\rTilde_{i,(i)}|^{m\vee 1}$ and therefore,
$$
\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}|R_i|\lesssim \left[{\mathcal E}_n+\polyLog(n)/\sqrt{c_n}[\norm{W_{n}}+\frac{1}{n}\sup_{1\leq i\leq n} \norm{X_i}|\psi({\mathcal E}_n)\vee \psi(-{\mathcal E}_n)|\right]^{m \vee 1} \text{ in }L_k\;,
$$
provided the bound on $\sup_{1\leq i \leq n}|\rTilde_{i,(i)}|$ holds in $L_{mk}$. Note that this is guaranteed under our assumptions. Of course, here we are using control of $\sup_i \norm{X_i}^2/n$, which we get by controlling $\norm{X_i}/\sqrt{n}$ through concentration arguments.
The fact that $\sup_i \norm{X_i}/\sqrt{n}=\gO_{L_k}(1)$ gives us the last statement of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Remark 1: } at the gist of the bound on $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$ is a uniform bound on $\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}$ in $L_k$. If one is not concerned about having assumptions that limit the existence of moments for $\sqrt{1/n\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)}$, one could use the bound $\sup_i \norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}\leq \sqrt{2/\tau}\sqrt{1/n\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)}$ which is immediate from Lemma \ref{lemma:betaHatIsBounded}. This would change slightly the appearance of our bounds on $\sup_i |\rTilde_{i,(i)}|$. In particular, under our assumptions, this bound is valid.\\
\textbf{Remark 2: } We note that a similar result holds of course for $\rTilde_{j,(i)}$. More precisely,
$$
|\rTilde_{j,(i)}-R_j|\leq \left|\frac{1}{n}X_j\trsp(\mathsf{S}_{\betaHat,\betaHat_1}+\tau \id_p)^{-1}X_i\right| \left|\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\right|\;,
$$
and hence,
$$
|\rTilde_{j,(i)}-R_j|\leq \frac{\norm{X_j}\norm{X_i}}{n\tau} \left|\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\right|\;.
$$
Of course, this bound is very coarse and we will see that we can get a better one later.
However, this finally allows us to have the following proposition
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ControlBni}
Under the assumption that $|\psi(x)|=\gO(|x|^m)$, we have the bound
$$
{\cal B}_n(i)\leq K\left[ {\mathcal E}_n+(\norm{W_{n}}+\frac{{\mathcal E}_n^m}{\sqrt{n}}) \polyLog(n)/\sqrt{c_n}\right]^{m\vee 1}\text{ in }L_k\;,
$$
where $K$ is a constant independent of $p$ and $n$. When $\norm{W_{n}}$ and $\frac{{\mathcal E}_n^m}{\sqrt{n}}$ are bounded in $L_k$, this bound simply becomes
$$
{\cal B}_n(i)\leq K \left[{\mathcal E}_n\vee \polyLog(n)/\sqrt{c_n}\right]^{m\vee 1}\text{ in }L_k\;.
$$
The same bound holds for $\sup_{i}{\cal B}_n(i)$ in $L_k$\;.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The result follows easily from the fact that
$$
{\cal B}_n(i)=\sup_{j\neq i}\left[|\rTilde_{j,(i)}|+|X_j\trsp \eta_i|\right]\;,
$$
the fact that
$$
\sup_i \sup_{j\neq i}|\rTilde_{j,(i)}-R_j|\leq \sup_i \sup_j \frac{\norm{X_j}\norm{X_i}}{n\tau} \left|\psi(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\right|\;,
$$
and the bounds on $\sup_i|R_i|$ we have derived earlier. The part concerning $\sup_i \sup_{j\neq i}|X_j\trsp \eta_i|$ is easily shown to be negligible compared to this quantity from our previous investigations concerning $X_j\trsp (S_i+\tau \id_p)^{-1}X_i$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Consequences}
We have the following result. Recall that $\psi'$ is assumed to be Lipschitz with Lipschitz constant $L(u)$ on $(-|u|,|u|)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:controlNormRiStochUnderAssumptions}
Suppose that $|\psi(x)|=\gO(|x|^m)$ and ${\cal E}^m_n=\lo(\sqrt{n})$ in $L_k$. Suppose further that $L(x)\leq K |x|^{m_1}$. Then we have
$$
\norm{{\cal R}_i}\leq K \frac{\polyLog(n)}{nc_n}\left({\mathcal E}_n\vee (c_n)^{-1/2}\polyLog(n)\right)^{2m+m_1} \text{ in } L_k\;.
$$
In particular, if ${\mathcal E}_n=\polyLog(n)$ and $1/c_n=\gO(\polyLog(n))$, we have
$$
\norm{{\cal R}_i}\leq K \frac{\polyLog(n)}{n} \text{ in } L_k\;.
$$
Furthermore, the same bounds hold for $\sup_i \norm{{\cal R}_i}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows by aggregating all the intermediate results we had and noticing that under our assumptions, $\opnorm{\SigmaHat}=\gO_{L_k}(c_n^{-1/2})$. This latter result follows easily from a standard $\eps$-net and union bound argument for controlling $\opnorm{\SigmaHat}$ - see e.g \cite{TalagrandSpinGlassesBook03}, Appendix A.4. We provide some details in Lemma \ref{lemma:controlSpectralNorms}.
The statement concerning $\sup_i \norm{{\cal R}_i}$ follows by the same method.
\end{proof}
We have the following very important corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{coro:AggregResApproxBetaHatByBetaTildeIncl}
Under Assumptions \textbf{O1}-\textbf{O7}, we have
$$
\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}=\gO_{L_k}(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n})
$$
In particular, we have
$$
\Exp{\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}^2}=\gO(\polyLog(n)/n^2)\;.
$$
Also,
$$
\sup_{1\leq i\leq n} \sup_{ j\neq i}|\rTilde_{j,(i)}-R_j|=\gO_{L_k}(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n^{1/2}})\;.
$$
Finally,
$$
\sup_i |R_i-\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})|=\gO_{L_k}(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n^{1/2}})\;.
$$
\end{corollary}
The only parts that may require a discussion are the ones involving the residuals. However, they follow easily from the very coarse bound
\begin{align*}
\sup_{j\neq i}|\rTilde_{j,(i)}-R_j|&=\sup_{ j\neq i}\left|X_j\trsp (\betaHat-\betaHat_i)\right|\leq \sup_{ j\neq i}\left|X_j\trsp (\betaHat-\betaTilde_i)\right|+\sup_{j\neq i} |X_j\trsp (\betaTilde_i-\betaHat_i)|\;,\\
&\leq \left(\sup_{1\leq j\leq n}\frac{\norm{X_j}}{\sqrt{n}}\right) \sqrt{n}\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}+\sup_{j\neq i} |X_j\trsp \eta_i|\;,
\end{align*}
and the fact that $\left(\sup_{1\leq j\leq n}\frac{\norm{X_j}}{\sqrt{n}}\right)=\gO_{L_k}(1)$ under our assumptions.
Recalling that $\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}\leq \norm{{\mathcal R}_i}$ and hence $\sup_i \norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_i}\leq \sup_i \norm{{\mathcal R}_i}$ gives control of the first term. Control of the second term follows basically from Lemma \ref{lemma:keyLemmaControlXjtransposeetai}.
Concerning the approximation of $R_i$, recall that
$$
R_i=\eps_i-X_i\trsp\betaHat=\eps_i-X_i\trsp \betaTilde_i-X_i\trsp (\betaHat-\betaTilde_i)\;.
$$
Now, given the definition of $\betaTilde_i$, we have
$$
X_i\trsp \betaTilde_i=X_i\trsp\betaHat_i+c_i \prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\;.
$$
Hence,
$$
\eps_i-X_i\trsp \betaTilde_i=\rTilde_{i,(i)}-c_i\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})=\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\;,
$$
where the last equality is a standard property of the proximal mapping (see Lemma \ref{lemma:ValueProxat0} if needed).
So we have established that
$$
\sup_{i}\left|R_i-\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\right|=\sup_i \left|X_i\trsp (\betaTilde_i-\betaHat)\right|
$$
and the result follows from our previous bounds.
\subsection{Asymptotically deterministic character of $\norm{\betaHat}^2$}
\begin{proposition}
Under our assumptions,
$$
\var{\norm{\betaHat}^2}\tendsto 0 \text{ as } n\tendsto \infty\;.
$$
Therefore $\norm{\betaHat}^2$ has a deterministic equivalent in probability and in $L_2$.
In particular, when $c_n=1/\polyLog(n)$, we have
$$
\var{\norm{\betaHat}^2}=\gO(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n})\;.
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We will use the Efron-Stein inequality to show that $\var{\norm{\betaHat}^2}$ goes to 0 as $n\tendsto \infty$. In what follows, we assume that $\psi(\eps_i)$ have enough moments for all the expectations of the type $\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^{2k}}$ to be bounded like $1/\tau^{2k}$. Note that this the content of our Lemma \ref{lemma:betaHatIsBounded}.
Recall that the Efron-Stein inequality \citet{EfronStein81} gives, if $Y$ is a function of $n$ independent random variables, and $Y_{(i)}$ is any function of all those random variables except the $i$-th,
$$
\var{Y}\leq \sum_{i=1}^n \var{Y-Y_{(i)}}\leq \sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{(Y-Y_{(i)})^2}\;.
$$
We first observe that
$$
\Exp{|\norm{\betaHat}^2-\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2|^2}\leq 2\left[\Exp{|\norm{\betaHat}^2-\norm{\betaTilde_{i}}^2|^2}+\Exp{|\norm{\betaTilde_i}^2-\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2|^2}\right]\;.
$$
Of course, using the fact that $\betaHat=\betaHat-\betaTilde_i+\betaTilde_i$ and $|\norm{\betaHat}^2-\norm{\betaTilde_{i}}^2|^2=[(\betaHat-\betaTilde_{i})\trsp(\betaHat+\betaTilde_i)]^2$, $|\norm{\betaHat}^2-\norm{\betaTilde_{i}}^2|^2=\gO_{L_1}(\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_{i}}^4)+\sqrt{\gO_{L_1}(\norm{\betaHat-\betaTilde_{i}}^4)}$, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, since $\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2}$ exists and is bounded by $K/\tau^2$.
Using the results of Corollary \ref{coro:AggregResApproxBetaHatByBetaTildeIncl}, we see that
$$
\Exp{|\norm{\betaHat}^2-\norm{\betaTilde_{i}}^2|^2}=\gO(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n^2})=\lo(n^{-1})\;.
$$
On the other hand, given the definition in Equation \eqref{eq:ApproxBetaHatStandardLeaveOneOut},
$$
\norm{\betaTilde_i}^2-\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2=2 \frac{1}{n}\betaHat_{(i)}\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1}X_i \psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))
+\frac{1}{n^2}X_i\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-2}X_i \psi^2(\prox_{c_i}(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))\;.
$$
Since $S_i$ is independent of $X_i$, and $\norm{(S_i+\tau\id)^{-1}}\leq 1/\tau$, $\betaHat_{(i)}\trsp (S_i+\tau \id)^{-1}X_i=\gO_{L_4}(\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}/c_n^{1/2})$, using our concentration assumptions applied to linear forms. Therefore, we see that both terms are $\gO_{L_2}(1/nc_n^{1/2})$ provided $\psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))$ has $4+\eps$ absolute moments - uniformly bounded in $n$ - by using H\"older's inequality. Under our assumptions, given our work on $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$, the fact that the prox is a contractive mapping (\cite{MoreauProxPaper65}) and that we assume that $\sgn(\psi(x))=\sgn(x)$, it is clear that this is the case. We conclude that then
$$
\Exp{\left|\norm{\betaTilde_i}^2-\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2\right|^2}=\gO(\frac{1}{n^2c_n})=\gO(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n^2})\;.
$$
Taking $Y=\norm{\betaHat}^2$ and $Y_{(i)}=\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2$ in the Efron-Stein inequality, we clearly see that
$$
\var{\norm{\betaHat}^2}=\gO(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n})=\lo(1)\;.
$$
This shows that $\norm{\betaHat}$ has a deterministic equivalent in probability and in $L_2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Leaving out a predictor}
In \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published}, we showed through probabilistic heuristics that the probabilistic properties of the entries of $\betaHat$ could be understood by leaving out predictors. We now show that all the formal manipulations we did in that paper are valid under our assumptions. In that step, we do need at various points that the entries of the data vector $X_i$ be independent, whereas as we showed before, it is not important when studying what happens when we leave out an observation.
We call $V$ the $n\times (p-1)$ matrix corresponding to the first $(p-1)$ columns of the design matrix $X$. We call $V_i$ in $\mathbb{R}^{p-1}$ the vector corresponding to the first $p-1$ entries of $X_i$, i.e $V_i\trsp =(X_i(1),\ldots,X_i(p-1))$.
Let us call $\gammaHat$ the solution of our optimization problem when $X_i(p)=0$ for all $i$, i.e the solution we get when we solve our original problem with the design matrix $V$ instead of $X$.
\newcommand{\ansatzBetap}{\mathfrak{b}_p}
\newcommand{\bTilde}{\widetilde{b}}
The corresponding residuals are $\{r_{i,[p]}\}_{i=1}^n$. Hence, $r_{i,[p]}=\eps_i-V_i\trsp \gammaHat$.
We call
\begin{align*}
u_p&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(r_{i,[p]}) V_i X_i(p)\;,\\
\mathfrak{S}_p&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(r_{i,[p]}) V_i V_i\trsp\;.
\end{align*}
Note that $\mathfrak{S}_p$ is $(p-1)\times (p-1)$. We call
\begin{equation}\label{eq:definitionXin}
\xi_n\triangleq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i^2(p)\psi'(r_{i,[p]})-u_p\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}u_p\;,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:definitionNp}
N_p\triangleq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i(p)\psi(r_{i,[p]})\;.
\end{equation}
We consider
\begin{equation}\label{eq:propositionAnsatzBetaHatp}
\ansatzBetap\triangleq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \frac{N_p}{\tau+\xi_n}\;.
\end{equation}
We will show later, in Subsubsection \ref{subsubsec:onXin} that $\xi_n\geq 0$. Note that when $\xi_n>0$, we have
$$
\ansatzBetap=\frac{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i(p)\psi(r_{i,[p]})-\tau \ansatzBetap}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i^2(p)\psi'(r_{i,[p]})-u_p\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}u_p}= \frac{n^{-1/2}N_p-\tau \ansatzBetap}{\xi_n}\;.
$$
We call
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AnsatzBetaHatFromGammaHat}
\bTilde=\begin{bmatrix}
\gammaHat\\ 0
\end{bmatrix}+\ansatzBetap \begin{bmatrix}
-(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p\\
1
\end{bmatrix}\;.
\end{equation}
The aim of our work is to establish Corollary \ref{coro:ApproxBetaHatThroughLeaveOnePredictorOut}, which shows that $\bTilde$ is a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent approximation of $\betaHat$ - in the sense of Euclidian norm. Because the last coordinate of $\bTilde$ has a reasonably simple probabilistic structure and our approximations are sufficiently good, we will be able to transfer our insights about this coordinate to $\betaHat_p$.
Once again, the approximating quantities we consider are ``very natural'' in light of our work in \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published}.
\subsection{Deterministic aspects}
\begin{proposition}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ControlBTilde}
\norm{\betaHat-\bTilde}\leq \frac{1}{\tau} |\ansatzBetap|\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}|\mathsf{d}_{i,p}| \, \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \sqrt{\norm{(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p}^2+1}\;.
\end{equation}
where $\mathsf{d}_{i,p}=[\psi'(\gamma^*_{i,p})-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})]$ and $\gamma^*_{i,p}$ is in the interval $(\eps_i-V_i\trsp \gammaHat,\eps_i-X_i\trsp \bTilde)$.
Furthermore, $\norm{(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p}^2\leq\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i^2(p)\psi'(r_{i,[p]}).$
\end{proposition}
As we saw in Equation \eqref{eq:exactRelationDeltafDeltaBeta}, we have
$$
\norm{\betaHat-\bTilde}\leq \frac{1}{\tau}\norm{f(\bTilde)}\;,
$$
where
$$
f(\bTilde)=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i \psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \bTilde)+\tau \bTilde\;.
$$
We note furthermore that
$$
g(\gammaHat)\triangleq -\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n V_i \psi(\eps_i-V_i\trsp \gammaHat)+\tau \gammaHat=0_{p-1}\;.
$$
The strategy of the proof is to control $f(\bTilde)$ by approximating it by $g(\gammaHat)$.
\begin{proof}
\textbf{{\small a) Work on the first $(p-1)$ coordinates of $f(\bTilde)$}}\\
We call $\mathsf{f}_{p-1}(\beta)$ the first $p-1$ coordinates of $f(\beta)$. We call $\gammaHat_{ext}$ the $p$-dimensional vector whose first $p-1$ coordinates are $\gammaHat$ and last coordinate is 0, i.e
$$
\gammaHat_{ext}=\begin{bmatrix}
\gammaHat\\ 0
\end{bmatrix}\;.
$$
For a vector $v$, we use the notation $v_{comp,k}$ to denote the $p-1$ dimensional vector consisting of all the coordinates of $v$ except the $k$-th.
Clearly,
$$
\mathsf{f}_{p-1}(\bTilde)=\mathsf{f}_{p-1}(\beta)-g(\gammaHat)=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n V_i \left[\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \bTilde)-\psi(\eps_i-V_i\trsp \gammaHat)\right]+\tau(\bTilde_{comp,p}-\gammaHat)\;.
$$
We can write by using the mean value theorem
$$
\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \bTilde)-\psi(\eps_i-V_i\trsp \gammaHat)=\psi'(r_{i,[p]})X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)+[\psi'(\gamma^*_{i,p})-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})]X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)
$$
Let us call
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{d}_{i,p}&=[\psi'(\gamma^*_{i,p})-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})]\;,\\
\delta_{i,p}&=[\psi'(\gamma^*_{i,p})-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})]X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)\;,\\
\mathsf{R}_p&=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathsf{d}_{i,p} V_i X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)\;.
\end{align*}
We have with this notation
$$
\mathsf{f}_{p-1}(\bTilde)=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(r_{i,[p]}) V_i X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)+\tau(\bTilde_{comp,p}-\gammaHat)+\mathsf{R}_p\triangleq \mathsf{A}_p+\mathsf{R}_p\;.
$$
We note that by definition,
\begin{align*}
\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde &=\ansatzBetap \begin{bmatrix} (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p \\-1\end{bmatrix}\;, \\
\bTilde_{comp,p}-\gammaHat &=-\ansatzBetap (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p\;.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
$$
\mathsf{A}_p=-\ansatzBetap\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(r_{i,[p]})V_i\left[V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p -X_i(p)\right]\right)+
\tau (-\ansatzBetap (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p)\;.
$$
Recalling the definition of $\mathfrak{S}_p$ and $u_p$, we see that
$$
\mathsf{A}_p=-\ansatzBetap\left(\mathfrak{S}_p(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p -u_p+\tau (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p\right)=0_{p-1}\;,
$$
since $\mathfrak{S}_p(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}+\tau (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}=\id$.
We conclude that
$$
\boxed{
\mathsf{f}_{p-1}(\bTilde)=\mathsf{R}_p\;.
}
$$
\textbf{{\small b) Work on the last coordinate of $f(\bTilde)$}}\\
We call $[f(\bTilde)]_p$ the last coordinate of $f(\bTilde)$. We recall the representation
$$
\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \bTilde)-\psi(\eps_i-V_i\trsp \gammaHat)=\psi'(r_{i,[p]})X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)+[\psi'(\gamma^*_{i,p})-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})]X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)
$$
and call
$$
\delta_{i,p}=[\psi'(\gamma^*_{i,p})-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})]X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)\;.
$$
Clearly,
\begin{align*}
\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \bTilde)&=\psi(r_{i,[p]})+\psi'(r_{i,[p]})X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)+\delta_{i,p}\;,\\
&=\psi(r_{i,[p]})+\psi'(r_{i,[p]})\ansatzBetap \left[V_i\trsp(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p-X_i(p)\right]+\delta_{i,p}\;.
\end{align*}
We therefore see that
\begin{align*}
[f(\bTilde)]_p+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i(p)\delta_{i,p}&=-\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i(p)\left(\psi(r_{i,[p]})+\psi'(r_{i,[p]})\ansatzBetap \left[V_i\trsp(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p-X_i(p)\right]\right) +\tau \bTilde_p\;,\\
&=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i(p)\psi(r_{i,[p]})-\ansatzBetap u_p\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p +\ansatzBetap \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(r_{i,[p]}) X_i^2(p) +\tau \ansatzBetap\;,\\
&=-\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i(p)\psi(r_{i,[p]})-\tau \ansatzBetap\right]+\ansatzBetap \left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(r_{i,[p]}) X_i^2(p)-u_p\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p\right)\;,\\
&=0\;.
\end{align*}
We conclude that
$$
[f(\bTilde)]_p=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i(p)\delta_{i,p}=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathsf{d}_{i,p} X_i(p) X_i\trsp (\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)\;.
$$
\subsubsection*{Representation of $f(\bTilde)$}
Aggregating all the results we have obtained so far, we see that
\begin{align*}
f(\bTilde)&=\left(-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathsf{d}_{i,p} X_i X_i\trsp\right)(\gammaHat_{ext}-\bTilde)\;,\\
&=\ansatzBetap\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathsf{d}_{i,p} X_i X_i\trsp\right)
\begin{bmatrix} (\mathfrak{S}+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p\\ -1
\end{bmatrix}
\;.
\end{align*}
We conclude immediately that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundfBtilde}
\norm{f(\bTilde)}\leq |\ansatzBetap|\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}|\mathsf{d}_{i,p}| \, \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \sqrt{\norm{(\mathfrak{S}+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p}^2+1}\;.
\end{equation}
\newcommand{\DPsiPrimeRDotp}{D_{\psi'(r_{\cdot,[p]})}}
Calling $\DPsiPrimeRDotp$ the diagonal matrix with $(i,i)$ entry $\psi'(r_{i,[p]})$, we see that
$$
u_p=\frac{1}{n}V\trsp \DPsiPrimeRDotp X(p)\;.
$$
Therefore,
$$
\norm{({\mathfrak S}+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p}^2=\frac{X(p)}{\sqrt{n}}\DPsiPrimeRDotp^{1/2} \frac{\DPsiPrimeRDotp^{1/2}V}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\frac{V\trsp \DPsiPrimeRDotp V}{n}+\tau \id\right)^{-1}\frac{V\trsp \DPsiPrimeRDotp^{1/2}}{\sqrt{n}}\DPsiPrimeRDotp^{1/2} \frac{X(p)}{\sqrt{n}}\;.
$$
Clearly,
$$
\frac{\DPsiPrimeRDotp^{1/2}V}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\frac{V\trsp\DPsiPrimeRDotp V}{n}+\tau \id\right)^{-1}\frac{V\trsp \DPsiPrimeRDotp^{1/2}}{\sqrt{n}}
\preceq \id\;.
$$
So we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundgothicSPlusTauIdInverse}
\norm{({\mathfrak S}+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p}^2\leq \frac{1}{n}X(p)\trsp \DPsiPrimeRDotp X(p)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i^2(p)\psi'(r_{i,[p]})\;.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Probabilistic aspects}
From now on, we assume that $X(p)$, the $p$-th column of the design matrix, is independent of $\{V_i,\eps_i\}_{i=1}^n$.
Because $r_{i,[p]}$ are the residuals from a ``full model" with $p-1$ predictors, the analysis done above concerning the $R_i$ - see Lemma \ref{lemma:BoundRiFromrTildeii} - applies and will allow us to control $\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|\psi'(r_{i,[p]})|^2$. (Note that the distribution of the errors is the same whether we use $p$ or $p-1$ predictors because we assume in the regression model that $\beta_0=0$ - the study of ridge-regularized robust regression would require an adjustment in the non-null case where $\beta_0\neq 0$, but since we limit ourselves to the null case, no such adjustment is needed.)
In light of Lemma \ref{lemma:BoundRiFromrTildeii} and using independence of $X_i(p)$'s and $r_{i,[p]}$, it is clear that the upper bound in Equation \eqref{eq:boundgothicSPlusTauIdInverse} is $O_{L_k}(\polyLog(n))$.
Hence,
$$
\norm{({\mathfrak S}_p+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p}^2=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n))
$$
This guarantees that
$$
\begin{Vmatrix} (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p\\ -1
\end{Vmatrix}^2\leq (1+\norm{(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau\id)^{-1}u_p}^2)=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n))\;.
$$
We conclude, using Equation \eqref{eq:boundfBtilde}, that
$$
f(\bTilde)\leq K \polyLog(n) |\ansatzBetap| \sup_{1\leq i\leq n}|\mathsf{d}_{i,p}| \, \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \text{ in } L_k.
$$
At a high level, we expect $\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}|\mathsf{d}_{i,p}|$ to be small, even compared to $\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|\psi'(r_{i,[p]})|$ which should give us that
$$
f(\bTilde)=\lo_{L_k}(\polyLog(n)|\ansatzBetap|)\;.
$$
We now show that this latter quantity is small.
\subsubsection{On $\ansatzBetap$}
We recall the notations
\begin{align*}
N_p&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^n \psi(r_{i,[p]}) X_i(p)\;,\\
\xi_n&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(r_{i,[p]}) X_i^2(p) -u_p\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}u_p\;.
\end{align*}
Under our assumptions, we have $\Exp{X_i}=0$ and $\scov{X_i}=\id_p$ and hence $\Exp{X_i^2(p)}=1$. Recall that since we assume that $X(p)$ is independent of $\{V_i,\eps_i\}_{i=1}^n$, $X(p)$ is independent of $\{r_{i,[p]}\}_{i=1}^n$.
\begin{proposition}
We have
$$
|\ansatzBetap|\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}\tau}|N_p|\;.
$$
Furthermore, under our assumptions, $N_p=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n))$ and therefore
$$
\ansatzBetap=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n) n^{-1/2})\;.
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of $\ansatzBetap$, we see that, when $\xi_n\neq 0$
$$
\ansatzBetap=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\frac{N_p}{\tau+\xi_n}\;.
$$
We will see later, in Subsubsection \ref{subsubsec:onXin}, that $\xi_n\geq 0$. It immediately then follows that
$$
\left|\ansatzBetap\right|\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}\tau}|N_p|\;.
$$
Using independence of $X(p)$ and $\{V_i,\eps_i\}_{i=1}^n$, we have
$$
\Exp{N_p^2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\Exp{X_i^2(p)}\Exp{\psi^2(r_{i,[p]})}\;,
$$
whether the right-hand side is finite or not.
Since $r_{i,[p]}$ are the residuals of the full model with $p-1$ predictors, our previous analyses show that $N_p$ has as many moments as we need and
$N_p=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n))$. (Indeed, it suffices to apply reasoning similar to the arguments given in Lemma \ref{lemma:betaHatIsBounded} for the control of the moments and our bounds on $r_{i,[p]}$ and therefore on $\psi(r_{i,[p]})$)
We therefore have
$$
|\ansatzBetap|\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}\tau}\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n))\;.
$$
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{On $\xi_n$}\label{subsubsec:onXin}
Let us write $\xi_n$ in matrix form: denoting by $X(p)$ the last column of the design matrix $X$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defXinInMatrixForm}
\xi_n=\frac{1}{n}X(p)\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2} M \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2} X(p)\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:definitionMatrixM}
M=\id_n-\frac{\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2} V}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\frac{1}{n}V\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred V+\tau \id\right)^{-1}\frac{V\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2}}{\sqrt{n}}\;.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
We have
$$
\xi_n\geq 0\;.
$$
Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BoundDeviationXin}
|\xi_n-\frac{1}{n}\trace{\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2} M\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2}}|=\gO_{L_k}(\sup_{1\leq i \leq n}\psi'(r_{i,[p]})/(\sqrt{nc_n}))\;.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us first focus on
$$
M=\id_n-\frac{1}{n}\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2}V(\frac{V\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred V}{n}+\tau \id)^{-1}V\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2}\;.
$$
When $\tau>0$, it is clear that all the eigenvalues of $M$ are strictly positive, i.e $M$ is positive definite. Indeed, if the singular values of $n^{-1/2}\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2}V$ are denoted by $\sigma_i$, the eigenvalues of $M$ are $\tau/(\sigma_i^2+\tau)$.
Therefore, since $\xi_n=\frac{1}{n}v\trsp M v$ with $v=\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2}X(p)$, $\xi_n\geq 0$.
As we have seen above, $M$ has eigenvalues between $0$ and 1. Therefore,
$$
0\preceq \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2} M \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2}\preceq \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred\;.
$$
The matrix $M$ is independent of $X(p)$. $\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred$ is also independent of $X(p)$.
We can now appeal to Lemma \ref{lemma:RandomQuadFormsBounds} to obtain
$$
\left|\frac{1}{n}X(p)\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2} M \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2} X(p)-\frac{1}{n}\trace{\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2} M \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^{1/2}}\right|=\gO_{L_k}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{nc_n}}\sup_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]}))\;.
$$
\end{proof}
\subsubsection*{About $\frac{1}{n}\trace{D^{1/2}_{\psi'(r_{\cdot,[p]})} M D^{1/2}_{\psi'(r_{\cdot,[p]})}}$}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:approxXinByTrace}
Let us call $\mathfrak{S}_{p}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(r_{i,[p]})V_iV_i\trsp$ and $\mathfrak{S}_p(i)=\mathfrak{S}_p-\frac{1}{n}\psi'(r_{i,[p]})V_iV_i\trsp$.
Let us also call
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}&=\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}+\tau \id)^{-1}}\;,\\
\eta_i&=\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i-\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\;.
\end{align*}
Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ApproxTraceMD}
\left|\frac{1}{n}\trace{\id_n-M}-\left(\frac{1}{n}\trace{D^{1/2}_{\psi'(r_{\cdot,[p]})} M D^{1/2}_{\psi'(r_{\cdot,[p]})}}\right)\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\right|\leq \left[\sup_{i} |\eta_i|\right] \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]})\;.
\end{equation}
We also have
$$
\frac{1}{n}\trace{\id_n-M}=\frac{p}{n}-\tau\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\;.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We call $d_{i,i}=\psi'(r_{i,[p]})/n$. Of course, by using the Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula (see e.g \cite{hj}, p.19),
\begin{align*}
M_{i,i}&=1-d_{i,i}V_i\trsp(V\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred V/n+\tau \id)^{-1} V_i\;,\\
&=1-d_{i,i} \frac{V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i}{1+d_{i,i} V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i}\;,\\
&=\frac{1}{1+d_{i,i} V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i}\;.
\end{align*}
Recall that we are interested in $\frac{1}{n}\sum_i \psi'(r_{i,[p]})M_{i,i}=\frac{1}{n}\trace{D^{1/2}_{\psi'(r_{\cdot,[p]})} M D^{1/2}_{\psi'(r_{\cdot,[p]})}}$. Note that
$$
\trace{\id_n-M}=\trace{\mathfrak{S}_{p}(\mathfrak{S}_{p}+\tau \id)^{-1}}=p-\tau\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}+\tau \id)^{-1}}=p-n\tau \mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\;.
$$
On the other hand,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:keyEqnInImplicitDefOfCtaup}
\trace{\id_n-M}=\sum_{i}(1-M_{i,i})=\sum_{i}d_{i,i} \frac{V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i}{1+d_{i,i} V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i}\;.
\end{equation}
With our definitions, we have
$$
\frac{1}{n}\trace{\id_n-M}=\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_i \psi'(r_{i,[p]})M_{i,i}\right)\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]}) \frac{\eta_i}{1+d_{i,i} V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i}\;.
$$
It immediately follows that
$$
\left|\frac{1}{n}\trace{\id_n-M}-\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_i \psi'(r_{i,[p]})M_{i,i}\right)\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\right|\leq \left[\sup_{i} |\eta_i|\right] \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]})\;,
$$
as announced.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection*{Controlling $\eta_i$}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ControlEtais}
Suppose we can find $\{\mathsf{r}^{(i)}_{j,[p]}\}_{j\neq i}$ independent of $V_i$ such that $\sup_{j\neq i}|\mathsf{r}^{(i)}_{j,[p]}-r_{j,[p]}|\leq \delta_n(i)$. Leaving out $V_i$ from a regression comes of course to mind and the work of the first section will apply.
Suppose further that we can find $K_n$ such that
$$
\sup_i\sup_{j\neq i}|\psi'(\mathsf{r}^{(i)}_{j,[p]})-\psi'(r_{j,[p]})|\leq K_n
$$
Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ControlSupEtais}
\sup_i |\eta_i|=\gO_{L_k}\left(
\frac{1}{\tau^2} K_n \opnorm{\SigmaHat}+\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{nc_n}}+\frac{1}{n\tau}\right)\;,
\end{equation}
provided $K_n$ has $3k$ uniformly bounded moments.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We call
$$
AM_{i,p}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\neq i}\psi'(\mathsf{r}^{(i)}_{j,[p]}) V_jV_j\trsp\;.
$$
Then, using for instance the first resolvent identity, i.e $A^{-1}-B^{-1}=A^{-1}(B-A) B^{-1}$, we see that
$$
\opnorm{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}-(AM_{i,p}+\tau \id)^{-1}}\leq \frac{1}{\tau^2} K_n \opnorm{\SigmaHat}\;.
$$
In particular,
$$
\left|\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i-\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (AM_{i,p}+\tau\id)^{-1}V_i\right|\leq \frac{\norm{V_i}^2}{n}\frac{1}{\tau^2} K_n \opnorm{\SigmaHat}\;.
$$
However, since $AM_{i,p}$ is independent of $V_i$, we can use Lemma \ref{lemma:RandomQuadFormsBounds} and see that
$$
\sup_{1\leq i \leq n}\left|\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (AM_{i,p}+\tau\id)^{-1}V_i-\frac{1}{n}\trace{(AM_{i,p}+\tau\id)^{-1}}\right|=\gO_{L_k}(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{nc_n}})\;,
$$
by using the fact that $\lambda_{\max}((AM_{i,p}+\tau\id)^{-1})\leq\frac{1}{\tau}$.
However, by the argument we gave above,
$$
\left|\frac{1}{n}\trace{(AM_{i,p}+\tau\id)^{-1}}-\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}}\right|\leq \frac{1}{\tau^2} K_n \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \frac{p}{n}\;.
$$
We conclude that
$$
\sup_{1\leq i \leq n} \left|\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i-\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}}\right|\leq
\frac{1}{\tau^2} K_n \opnorm{\SigmaHat} \sup_{1\leq i \leq n} \left[\frac{p}{n}+\frac{\norm{V_i}^2}{n}\right]+\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{nc_n}}\;,
$$
in $L_k$.
Now, it is clear that $\sup_{1\leq i \leq n}\norm{V_i}^2/n=\gO_{L_k}(1)$ and finally
$$
\sup_{1\leq i \leq n} \left|\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i-\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}}\right|
=\gO_{L_k}(\frac{1}{\tau^2} K_n \opnorm{\SigmaHat}+\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{nc_n}})\;.
$$
{\small \textbf{Control of $\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}}-\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}+\tau \id)^{-1}}$}}\\
Using the Sherman-Woodbury-Morrison formula, we have
$$
(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}-(\mathfrak{S}_{p}+\tau \id)^{-1}=\frac{\psi'(r_{i,[p]})}{n}\frac{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}}{1+\frac{\psi'(r_{i,[p]})}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i}\;.
$$
After taking traces, we see that
$$
0\leq \trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}}-\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}+\tau \id)^{-1}}\leq \frac{1}{\tau}\;,
$$
since $V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-2}V_i\leq \frac{1}{\tau}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i$.
Therefore,
$$
0\leq \frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}}-\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_{p}+\tau \id)^{-1}}\leq \frac{1}{n\tau}\;.
$$
We conclude that
$$
\sup_{1\leq i \leq n}\left|\eta_i\right|=\gO_{L_k}\left(
\frac{1}{\tau^2} K_n \opnorm{\SigmaHat}+\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{nc_n}}+\frac{1}{n\tau}\right)\;,
$$
provided we can use Holder's inequality. In effect, this requires $K_n$ to have $3k$ uniformly bounded moments.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Control of $K_n$}
A natural choice for $\mathsf{r}^{(i)}_{j,[p]}$ defined in Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlEtais} is to use a leave one out estimator of $\gammaHat$. Hence, all the work done in
Corollary \ref{coro:AggregResApproxBetaHatByBetaTildeIncl} becomes immediately relevant.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ControlKn}
With the notations of Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlEtais}, we have
$$
\sup_{i} (\delta_n(i))=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n^{1/2}}\right)\;.
$$
Therefore,
$$
K_n=\gO_{L_k}\left(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n)\right)
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first statement of the Lemma is an application of Corollary \ref{coro:AggregResApproxBetaHatByBetaTildeIncl} with $R_j=r_{j,[p]}$ and $\rTilde_{j,(i)}=\mathsf{r}^{(i)}_{j,[p]}$.
The control of $K_n$ follows immediately by using our assumptions on $\psi'$ and on the growth of ${\mathcal B}_n(i)$ and $L({\mathcal B}_n(i))$ we had before, now applied to the situation with $p-1$ predictors.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Important remark:} the previous remark has important consequences for $c_i$ defined in Equation \eqref{eq:defciandetaifirstpart}: we just showed that $\sup_{i}|\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p(i)+\tau \id)^{-1}V_i-\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}|=\gO(\polyLog(n)/\sqrt{n})$. Recalling the notation
$$
c_\tau=\frac{1}{n}\trace{\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(R_i)X_iX_i\trsp+\tau \id_p\right]^{-1}}\;,
$$
which is the analog of $\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}$ when we use all the predictors and not only $(p-1)$, we see that $\sup_i|c_i-c_\tau|=\gO(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))$.
\subsubsection{Control of $\xi_n$ and $\ansatzBetap$}
We can combine all the results we have obtained so far in the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:explicitControlXin}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:explicitControlXin}
\left|\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}(\xi_n+\tau)-\frac{p}{n}\right|\leq \gO_{L_k}\left((\sup_i \psi'(r_{i,[p]})\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{nc_n}}+\frac{1}{\tau^2} K_n \opnorm{\SigmaHat}+\frac{1}{n\tau}\right)\right)=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\;.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, under our assumptions,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SecondMomentAnsatzBetap}
\left(\frac{p}{n}\right)^2 n \Exp{\ansatzBetap^2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{(\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p} \psi(r_{i,[p]})^2}+\lo(1)\;.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof of Equation \eqref{eq:explicitControlXin} consists just in aggregating all the previous results and noticing that $\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\leq p/(n\tau)$ and therefore remains bounded.
We recall that
$$
(\tau+\xi_n)\sqrt{n}\ansatzBetap|\{V_i,\eps_i\}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi(r_{i,[p]}) X_i(p)\;.
$$
Therefore,
$$
\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}(\tau+\xi_n)\sqrt{n}\ansatzBetap|\{V_i,\eps_i\}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\psi(r_{i,[p]}) X_i(p)
$$
Now, $\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\psi(r_{i,[p]})$, which depends only on $\{V_i,\eps_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is independent of $\{X_i(p)\}_{i=1}^n$.
We conclude that
$$
\Exp{(\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}(\tau+\xi_n)\sqrt{n}\ansatzBetap)^2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{(\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p} \psi(r_{i,[p]})^2}\;.
$$
Given the result in Equation \eqref{eq:explicitControlXin}, this means that
$$
\left(\frac{p}{n}\right)^2 n \Exp{\ansatzBetap^2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{(\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p} \psi(r_{i,[p]})^2}+\lo(1)\;.
$$
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{On $\mathsf{d}_{i,p}$}
Recall the definition
$$
\mathsf{d}_{i,p}=[\psi'(\gamma^*_{i,p})-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})]\;,
$$
where $\gamma^*_{i,p} \in (r_{i,[p]},r_{i,[p]}+\nu_i)$, with
$$
\nu_i=\ansatzBetap X_i\trsp \begin{bmatrix} (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p \\-1\end{bmatrix}=\ansatzBetap \pi_i\;.
$$
We call $\widetilde{B}_n(i)=\sup_i|r_{i,[p]}|+\sup_i |\pi_i|$.
We have the following result.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:controldip}
We have
$$
\sup_i |\mathsf{d}_{i,p}|=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{n}c_n^{1/2}}L(\widetilde{B}_n(i)) \left[\psi'(-\widetilde{B}_n(i))\vee \psi'(\widetilde{B}_n(i))\right]\right)\;.
$$
Hence,
$$
\sup_i |\mathsf{d}_{i,p}|=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\;.
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall the definition
$$
\mathsf{d}_{i,p}=[\psi'(\gamma^*_{i,p})-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})]\;,
$$
where $\gamma^*_{i,p} \in (r_{i,[p]},r_{i,[p]}+\nu_i)$, with
$$
\nu_i=\ansatzBetap X_i\trsp \begin{bmatrix} (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p \\-1\end{bmatrix}=\ansatzBetap \pi_i\;.
$$
Therefore,
$$
\pi_i=V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p-X_i(p)\;.
$$
Recall that $u_p=\frac{1}{n}V\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred X(p)$. According to Lemma \ref{lemma:controlRandomLipFuncConcRVsLp}, we have
$$
\sup_i |V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} u_p|=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{c_n^{1/2}}\sup_i \norm{V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}\frac{1}{n}V\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred}\right))\;.
$$
Now,
$$
\norm{V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}\frac{1}{n}V\trsp \DPsiPrimeOneLessPred}^2=\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} \frac{V\trsp\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^2 V}{n} (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} V_i\;.
$$
Since $\mathfrak{S}_p=\frac{V\trsp\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred V}{n}$, we have $\frac{V\trsp\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^2 V}{n}\preceq \opnorm{\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred}\mathfrak{S}_p$ and we conclude that
$$
\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} \frac{V\trsp\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred^2 V}{n} (\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1} V_i\leq
\frac{\norm{V_i}^2}{n\tau}\opnorm{\DPsiPrimeOneLessPred}=\frac{\norm{V_i}^2}{n\tau} \sup_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]})\;.
$$
We also note that $\sup_i X_i(p)=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n)/\sqrt{c_n})$
and
conclude that
\begin{align*}
\sup_i |\pi_i|&=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{c_n^{1/2}} \left[1+\sup_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]}) \sup_i \frac{\norm{V_i}^2}{n\tau}\right]\right)\;,\\
&=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{c_n^{1/2}} \left[\sup_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]}) \right]\right)\;.
\end{align*}
Recalling that $\ansatzBetap=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))$, we finally see that
$$
\sup_i \nu_i=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{n}c_n^{1/2}} \left[\sup_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]}) \right]\right)
$$
As before, we can control $\sup_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]})$ by using the work done in Proposition \ref{prop:ControlBni}, since $r_{i,[p]}$ are the full residuals when we work with $p-1$ predictors. The growth conditions we have imposed on $\psi'$ and ${\mathcal E}_n$ therefore guarantee control of $\left[\sup_{i}\psi'(r_{i,[p]}) \right]$ in $L_k$.
Recall that $\widetilde{B}_n(i)=\sup_i|r_{i,[p]}|+\sup_i |\pi_i|$.
Now our assumptions guarantee that
$$
\sup_i|\mathsf{d}_{i,p}|=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{n}c_n^{1/2}}L(\widetilde{B}_n(i)) \left[\psi'(-\widetilde{B}_n(i))\vee \psi'(\widetilde{B}_n(i))\right]\right)\;.
$$
Proposition \ref{prop:ControlBni} then allows us to conclude, by giving us $\polyLog$ bounds on $\widetilde{B}_n(i)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Final conclusions}
We finally have:
\begin{corollary}\label{coro:ApproxBetaHatThroughLeaveOnePredictorOut}
Assuming that $1/c_n=\gO(\polyLog(n))$, we have
$$
\norm{\betaHat-\bTilde}\leq \frac{1}{\tau}\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{n}\right)
$$
In particular,
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{n}(\betaHat_p-\ansatzBetap)&=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n)/\sqrt{n})\;,\\
\sup_i |X_i\trsp (\betaHat-\bTilde)|&=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\;,\\
\sup_{i}|R_i-r_{i,[p]}|&=\gO_{L_k}\left(\frac{\polyLog(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\;.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
The corollary is just the aggregation of all of our results.
The last statement is the only one that might need an explanation. With the notations of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:controldip}, we have $R_i-r_{i,[p]}=X_i\trsp (\bTilde-\betaHat)+\nu_i$. The results in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:controldip} as well as the bound on $\norm{\bTilde-\betaHat}$ give us the announced result.
We note that when the vectors $X_i$'s are i.i.d with i.i.d entries, all the coordinates play a symmetric role, so using the results of the previous corollary, Equation \eqref{eq:SecondMomentAnsatzBetap} and summing over all the coordinates, we have, asymptotically,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:firstStepTowardsSecondEquationOfSystem}
\frac{p}{n}\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2}=\frac{p^2}{n} \Exp{\ansatzBetap^2}+\lo(1)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{(\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p} \psi(r_{i,[p]})^2}+\lo(1)\;.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{On $\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}$ and $c_\tau$}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:controldeltacctaup}
We have
$$
|c_\tau-\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}|=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))\;.
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us recall the notation
$$
S=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(R_i) X_i X_i\trsp\;.
$$
If we call $\Gamma=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \psi'(R_i) V_i V_i\trsp$ and $a=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\psi'(R_i)X_i^2(p)$, we see that
$$
S=\begin{pmatrix}
\Gamma & \mathsf{v}\\
\mathsf{v}& a\;.
\end{pmatrix}\;.
$$
According to Lemma \ref{lemma:impactSizeAugmentationOnTrace}, we see that
$$
|c_\tau-\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\Gamma+\tau \id)^{-1}}|\leq \frac{1}{n} \frac{1+a/\tau}{\tau}\;.
$$
It is clear that under our assumptions, $a=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n))$. It is also clear that
$$
\sup_i |\psi'(R_i)-\psi'(r_{i,[p]})|=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n)/\sqrt{n})\;.
$$
Hence, using arguments similar to the ones we have used in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlEtais}, we see that
$$
\left|\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\Gamma+\tau \id)^{-1}}-\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}}\right|=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n)/\sqrt{n})\;.
$$
Since $\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}=\frac{1}{n}\trace{(\mathfrak{S}_p+\tau \id)^{-1}}$, the result we announced follows immediately.
\end{proof}
In light of this result, we see that Equation \eqref{eq:firstStepTowardsSecondEquationOfSystem} can be re-written
$$
\frac{p}{n}\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{(c_\tau\psi(R_i))^2}+\lo(1)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{(c_i\psi(\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})))^2}+\lo(1)\;,
$$
where we have used the remark we made after Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlKn} that showed that $\sup_i |c_i-c_\tau|=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))$. (See also Lemma \ref{lemma:DiffProxRespectc} and its proof where we compute the derivative of $\prox_c(\rho)(x)$ with respect to $c$.)
So we finally have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:secondStepTowardsSecondEquationOfSystem}
\frac{p}{n}\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{(c_\tau\psi(\prox_{c_\tau}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)})))^2}+\lo(1)\;.
\end{equation}
This will give us the second equation of our system. We also note that for any $x$, $c_\tau\psi[\prox_{c_\tau}(\rho)(x)]=x-\prox_{c_\tau}(\rho)(x)=\prox_1((c_\tau\rho)^*)(x)$ - see e.g \cite{MoreauProxPaper65}. In \cite{NEKOptimalMEstimationPNASPublished2013}, we found that this formulation was nicer when further analytic manipulations where needed.
\section{Putting things together}
\subsection{On the asymptotic distribution of $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$}
We have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
As $n$ and $p$ tend to infinity, $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$ behaves like $\eps_i+\sqrt{\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2}}Z$, where $Z\sim {\cal N}(0,1)$, in the sense of weak convergence.
Furthermore, if $i\neq j$, $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$ and $\rTilde_{j,(j)}$ are asymptotically independent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The only problem is of course showing that
$
\betaHat_{(i)}\trsp X_i
$
is approximately ${\cal N}(0,\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2})$.
Recall that $\betaHat_{(i)}$ is independent of $X_i$. We assume without loss of generality that $\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}$ remains bounded away from 0 in our asymptotics. Note that if it is not the case $\Exp{(\betaHat_{(i)}\trsp X_i)^2}=\Exp{\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2}\tendsto 0$ and so $\betaHat_{(i)}\trsp X_i \WeakCv 0$, so the result holds.
Because $\var{\norm{\betaHat}^2}\tendsto 0$ and $\var{\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2}\tendsto 0$, we see that
$$
\frac{\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}}{\Exp{\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}}}\tendsto 1 \text{in probability}.
$$
Provided that we can apply the Lindeberg-Feller theorem (see e.g \cite{BreimanProbaBook}, p.186) conditional on a realization $X_{(i)}$, we will have
$$
\frac{\betaHat_{(i)}\trsp X_i}{\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}}|X_{(i)}\WeakCv {\cal N}(0,1)\;.
$$
Because the limit is independent of $\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}$, we see that the result holds unconditionally, if we can apply the Lindeberg-Feller theorem with high $X_{(i)}$-probability.
And because $\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2/\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2}\tendsto 1$ in probability, Slutsky's lemma allows us to conclude that under these assumptions we have
$$
\frac{\betaHat_{(i)}\trsp X_i}{\sqrt{\Exp{\norm{\betaHat}^2}}}\WeakCv {\cal N}(0,1)
$$
The only question we have to check is therefore to verify that we can apply the Lindeberg-Feller theorem conditionally on $X_{(i)}$, at least with high $X_{(i)}$-probability. Recall that we have shown that
$$
\betaHat_p=\gO_{L_k}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}\tau})\;.
$$
The same arguments we used apply also to $(\betaHat_{(i)})_p$. So it is clear that
$$
\Exp{|(\betaHat_{(i)})_p|^3}=\gO(n^{-3/2})\;.
$$
We conclude that $\sum_{k=1}^n|(\betaHat_{(i)})_k|^3=\gO_{L_k, X_{(i)}}(n^{-1/2})\ll \norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2$ with high $X_{(i)}-$probability, since we are in the setting where $\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}^2$ is bounded away from 0.
This shows the first part of the lemma.
For the second part, we use a leave-two-out approach, namely we use the approximation $\rTilde_{i,(i)}=\eps_i-\betaHat_{i}\trsp X_i= \eps_i-\betaHat_{(ij)}\trsp X_i+\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n)/(\sqrt{n}c_n))$ and similarly for $\rTilde_{j,(j)}$. It is clear that $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$ and $\rTilde_{j,(j)}$ are asymptotically independent conditional on $X_{(ij)}$. But because their dependence on $X_{(ij)}$ is only through $\norm{\betaHat_{(ij)}}$, which is asymptotically deterministic, we see that $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$ and $\rTilde_{j,(j)}$ are asymptotically independent.
The lemma is shown.
\end{proof}
We are now in position to show that $c_\tau=\frac{1}{n}\trace{(S+\tau \id_p)^{-1}}$ is asymptotically deterministic and that the empirical distribution of the residuals $R_i$ is asymptotically non-random.
\begin{lemma}
Consider the random function
$$
g_n(x)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{1+x\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))}\;,
$$
defined for $x\geq 0$.
Let $B>0$ be in $\mathbb{R}_+$.
Call $F_{\rho,B}(u)=\left([\psi'(0)+L(|u|)|u|]+BL(|u|)[|\psi(u)|+|\psi(-u)|]\right)$, where $L(|u|)$ is the Lipschitz constant of $\psi'$ on $[-|u|,|u|]$.
We have, for any $(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}_+^2$, and $x\leq B$, $y\leq B$
$$
\sup_{(x,y):|x-y|\leq \eta, x\leq B, y\leq B}\left|g_n(x))-g_n(y)\right|\leq \eta \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n F_{\rho,B}(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\;.
$$
In particular, we have
$$
P^*\left(\sup_{(x,y):|x-y|\leq \eta, x\leq B, y\leq B}\left|g_n(x))-g_n(y)\right|>\delta\right)\leq \frac{\eta}{\delta}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{F_{\rho,B}(\rTilde_{i,(i)})}\;.
$$
Hence, $g_n$ is stochastically equicontinuous on $[0,B]$ for any $B>0$ given, since under our assumptions $\Exp{F_{\rho,B}(\rTilde_{i,(i)})}$ is uniformly bounded in $n$,
\end{lemma}
We used the notation $P^*$ above to denote our probability and avoid a discussion of potential measure theoretic issues associated with taking a supremum over a non-countable collection of random variables. We refer the reader to e.g \cite{PollardConvergenceStochProcesses84} for more details on stochastic equicontinuity.
\begin{proof}
Let us consider the function
$$
h_u(x)=\frac{1}{1+x\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))}=\frac{\partial}{\partial u}\prox_x(\rho)(u)\;.
$$
The last equality comes from Lemma \ref{lemma:simpleObsProx}.
We have
$$
\left|h_u(x)-h_u(y)\right|\leq |x\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))-y\psi'(\prox_y(\rho)(u))|\wedge 1\;.
$$
Therefore,
$$
\left|h_u(x)-h_u(y)\right|\leq |x-y|\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))+y|\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))-\psi'(\prox_y(\rho)(u))|\;.
$$
In particular, if $|x-y|\leq \eta$, and $x \vee y \leq B$
$$
\sup_{y:|x-y|\leq \eta}\left|h_u(x)-h_u(y)\right|\leq \eta \psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))+(x+\eta)\sup_{y}|\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))-\psi'(\prox_y(\rho)(u))|\;.
$$
Note
Under our assumptions, Lemma \ref{lemma:ValueProxat0} implies that, for $y\geq 0$, $\sup_y|\prox_y(\rho)(u)|\leq |u|$. One of our assumptions is that $\psi'$ is Lipschitz on any $[-t,t]$ with Lipshitz constant $L(t)$. Therefore,
$$
|\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))-\psi'(\prox_y(\rho)(u))|\leq L(|u|) |\prox_x(\rho)(u)-\prox_y(\rho)(u)|\;.
$$
We recall that, according to Lemma \ref{lemma:DiffProxRespectc},
$$
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \prox_x(\rho)(u)=-\frac{\psi(\prox_x(\rho)(u))}{1+c\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))}\;.
$$
Furthermore, since $\psi$ is non-decreasing and changes sign at 0, we also have
$$
\sup_x |\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \prox_x(\rho)(u)|\leq |\psi(u)|\vee |\psi(-u)|\;.
$$
This naturally gives us a bound on the Lipschitz constant of the function $x\rightarrow \prox_x(\rho)(u)$. We finally conclude that
$$
|\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))-\psi'(\prox_y(\rho)(u))|\leq L(|u|)[|\psi(u)|\vee |\psi(-u)|]|x-y|\;.
$$
We therefore have
$$
\sup_{y:|x-y|\leq \eta}\left|h_u(x)-h_u(y)\right|\leq \eta \psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u)) +(x+\eta)L(|u|)[|\psi(u)|\vee |\psi(-u)|]\eta\;.
$$
Of course, $\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(u))\leq \psi'(0)+L(|u|)|u|$, by using again the fact that $|\prox_x(\rho)(u)|\leq |u|$, the fact that $\prox_x(\rho)(0)=0$ and the fact that the Lipschitz constant of $\psi'$ on $[-|\prox_x(\rho)(u)|,|\prox_x(\rho)(u)|]$ is less than $L(u)$.
Therefore, if $x+\eta\leq B$, we have
$$
\sup_{y:|x-y|\leq \eta}\left|h_u(x)-h_u(y)\right|\leq \eta\left([\psi'(0)+L(|u|)|u|]+BL(|u|)[|\psi(u)|+|\psi(-u)|]\right)\;.
$$
Therefore, we also have
$$
\sup_{(x,y):|x-y|\leq \eta, x\vee y\leq B}\left|h_u(x)-h_u(y)\right|\leq \eta\left([\psi'(0)+L(|u|)|u|]+BL(|u|)[|\psi(u)|+|\psi(-u)|]\right)\;.
$$
We denote by $F_{\rho,B}(u)=\left([\psi'(0)+L(|u|)|u|]+BL(|u|)[|\psi(u)|+|\psi(-u)|]\right)$\;.
This analysis shows that for $x$ given, if $|x-y|\leq \eta$ and $x\vee y \leq B$, we have
$$
\sup_{(x,y):|x-y|\leq \eta, x\leq B, y\leq B}\left|g_n(x))-g_n(y)\right|\leq \eta \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n F_{\rho,B}(\rTilde_{i,(i)})\;.
$$
We can now take expectations, and get the result in $L_1$ provided $\Exp{F_{\rho,B}(\rTilde_{i,(i)})}$ is finite and remains bounded in $n$. However, this holds since $F_{\rho,B}$ grows at most polynomially at $\infty$, and $\eps_i$, $\norm{\betaHat_{(i)}}$ and $X_i$ have infinitely many moments, by Assumptions \textbf{O4}, \textbf{F2} and our work on $\norm{\betaHat}$.
We have established stochastic equicontinuity of $g_n(x)$ on $[0,B]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ControlSupDeltagnMeanGn}
Let us call $G_n(x)=\Exp{g_n(x)}$.
For any given $x_0\leq B$,
$$
g_n(x_0)-G_n(x_0)=\lo_{L_2}(1)\;.
$$
Under our assumptions, we also have
$$
\outerExp{\sup_{0\leq x\leq B}|g_n(x)-G_n(x)|}\tendsto 0\;.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Asymptotic pairwise independence of $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$ implies that
$$
\var{g_n(x_0)}\tendsto 0
$$
and therefore gives the first result.
Let us pick $\eps>0$. By the stochastic equicontinuity of $g_n$ and our $L_1$ bound, we can find $x_1,\ldots,x_K$, independent of $n$, such that for all $x \in [0,B]$, there exists $l$ such that, when $n$ is large enough,
$$
\Exp{|g_n(x)-g_n(x_l)|}\leq \eps\;.
$$
Note that
$$
|g_n(x)-G_n(x)|\leq |g_n(x)-g_n(x_l)|+|g_n(x_l)-G_n(x_l)|+|G_n(x_l)-G_n(x)|\;.
$$
We immediately get
$$
\outerExp{\sup_{0\leq x\leq B}|g_n(x)-G_n(x)|}\leq 2 \eps+\Exp{\sup_{1\leq l\leq K}|g_n(x_l)-G_n(x_l)|}\;.
$$
Because $K$ is finite, the fact that for all $l$, $|g_n(x_l)-G_n(x_l)|\tendsto 0$ in $L_2$ implies that $\sup_{1\leq l \leq K}|g_n(x_l)-G_n(x_l)|\tendsto 0$ in $L_2$. In particular, if $n$ is sufficiently large,
$$
\Exp{\sup_{1\leq l\leq K}|g_n(x_l)-G_n(x_l)|}\leq \eps\;.
$$
The lemma is shown.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Call $c_\tau=\frac{1}{n}\trace{(S+\tau \id_p)^{-1}}$.
Call as before
$$
g_n(x)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{1+x\psi'(\prox_x(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,(i)}))}
$$
Then $c_\tau$ is a near solution of
$$
\frac{p}{n}-\tau x-1+g_n(x)=0\;,
$$
i.e $\frac{p}{n}-\tau c_\tau-1+g_n(c_\tau)=\lo_{L_k}(1)$.
Asymptotically, near solutions of
$$
\delta_n(x)\triangleq \frac{p}{n}-\tau x-1+g_n(x)=0\;,
$$
are close to solutions of
$$
\Delta_n(x)=\frac{p}{n}-\tau x-1+\Exp{g_n}(x)=0\;.
$$
More precisely, call $T_{n,\eps}=\{x:|\Delta_n(x)|<\eps\}$. Note that $T_{n,\eps}\subseteq (0,p/(n\tau)+\eps/\tau)$.
For any given $\eps$, as $n\tendsto \infty$, near solutions of $\delta_n(x_n)=0$ belong to $T_{n,\eps}$ with high-probability.
Our assumptions concerning the distribution of $\eps_i's$, specifically $\textbf{F1}$, guarantee that as $n\tendsto \infty$, there is a unique solution to $\Delta_n(x)=0$.
Hence $c_\tau$ is asymptotically deterministic.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\delta_n$ be the function
$$
\delta_n(x)=\frac{p}{n}-\tau x-1+g_n(x)\;,
$$
and $\Delta_n(x)=\Exp{\Delta_n(x)}$. Call $x_n$ the solution $\delta_n(x_n)=0$ and $x_{n,0}$ the solution of $\Delta_n(x_{n,0})=0$.
Since $0\leq g_n \leq 1$, we see that $x_n\leq p/(n\tau)$, for otherwise, $\delta_n(x)<0$. The same argument shows that
if $x>(p/n+\eps)/\tau$, $\Delta_n(x)<-\eps$ and $x\notin T_{n,\eps}$. Similarly, near solutions of $\delta_n(x)=0$ must be less or equal to $(p/n+\eps)/\tau$.
$\bullet$ {\small \textbf{Proof of the fact that $c_\tau$ is such that $\delta_n(c_\tau)=\lo(1)$}}\\
An important remark is that $c_\tau$ is a near solution of $\delta_n(x)=0$. This follows most clearly for arguments we have developed for $\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}$ so we start by giving details through arguments for this random variable. Recall that in the notation of Lemma \ref{lemma:approxXinByTrace}, we had
$$
p/n-\tau \mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}=\frac{1}{n}\trace{\id_n-M}.
$$
Now, according to Equation \eqref{eq:keyEqnInImplicitDefOfCtaup},
$$
\frac{1}{n}\trace{\id_n-M}=1-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{1+\psi'(r_{i,[p]})\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p(i)+\tau\id)^{-1}V_i}.
$$
According to Lemmas \ref{lemma:ControlEtais} and \ref{lemma:ControlKn}, we have
$$
\sup_{i}\left|\frac{1}{n}V_i\trsp (\mathfrak{S}_p(i)+\tau\id)^{-1}V_i-\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\right|=\gO_{L_k}(\polyLog(n)n^{-1/2}).
$$
Of course, when $x\geq 0$ and $y\geq 0$, $|1/(1+x)-1/(1+y)|\leq |x-y|$. Using our bounds on $\psi'(r_{i,[p]})$, we easily see that,
$$
p/n-\tau \mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}-1+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{1+\mathsf{c}_{\tau,p}\psi'(r_{i,[p]})}=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))\;.
$$
Exactly the same computations can be made with $c_{\tau}$, so we have established that
$$
p/n-\tau c_\tau-1+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{1+c_{\tau}\psi'(R_i)}=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))\;.
$$
Now we have seen in Corollary \ref{coro:AggregResApproxBetaHatByBetaTildeIncl} that
$$
\sup_{i}|R_i-\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,i})|=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))\;.
$$
Through our assumptions on $\psi'$, this of course implies that
$$
\sup_{i}|\psi'(R_i)-\psi'[\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,i})]|=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))
$$
We have furthermore noted that $\sup_i|c_i-c_\tau|=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))$ after Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlKn}. Using the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:DiffProxRespectc}, this implies that
$$
\sup_i\left|\psi'[\prox_{c_i}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,i})]-\psi'[\prox_{c_\tau}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,i})]\right|=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))\;
$$
and therefore
$$
\sup_i\left|\psi'[R_i]-\psi'[\prox_{c_\tau}(\rho)(\rTilde_{i,i})]\right|=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))\;
$$
So we have established that $\delta_n(c_\tau)=\gO_{L_k}(n^{-1/2}\polyLog(n))$.
$\bullet$ {\small \textbf{Final details}}\\
Note that for any given $x$, $\delta_n(x)-\Delta_n(x)=\lo_P(1)$ by using Lemma \ref{lemma:ControlSupDeltagnMeanGn}. In our case, with the notation of this lemma, $B=p/(n\tau)+\eta/\tau$, for $\eta>0$ given.
This implies that, for any given $\eps>0$
$$
\sup_{x\in(0,p/(n\tau)+\eta/\tau]}|\delta_n(x)-\Delta_n(x)|<\eps\;,
$$
with high-probability when $n$ is large. Therefore, for any $\eps>0$
$$
|\Delta_n(x_n)|\leq \eps
$$
with high-probability.
This exactly means that $x_n \in T_{n,\eps}$ with high-probability. The same argument applies for near solutions of $\delta_n(x)=0$, which, for any $\eps>0$ must belong to $T_{n,\eps}$ as $n\tendsto \infty$ with high-probability. Of course, there is nothing random about $T_{n,\eps}$ which is a deterministic set. Note that $T_{n,\eps}$ is compact because it is bounded and closed, using the fact that $g_n$ and $\Exp{g_n}$ are continuous.
If $T_{n,0}$ were reduced to a single point, we would have established the asymptotically deterministic character of $c_\tau$.
Given our work concerning the limiting behavior of $\rTilde_{i,(i)}$ and our assumptions about $\eps_i$'s, we see that Lemma \ref{lemma:suffCondKeyEqnInCHasUniqueSolution} applies to $\lim_{n\tendsto \infty}\Delta_n(x)$ under assumption \textbf{F1}. Therefore, as $n\tendsto \infty$, $T_{n,0}$ is reduced to a point and $c_\tau$ is asymptotically non-random.
\end{proof}
As we had noted in \cite{NEKetAlRobustRegressionTechReport11},
$$
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\prox_c(\rho)(t)=\prox_c(\rho)'(t)=\frac{1}{1+c\psi'(\prox_c(\rho)(t))}\;.
$$
So $\Delta_n$ can be interpreted as
$$
\Delta_n(x)=\frac{p}{n}-\tau x-1+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Exp{\prox_x(\rho)'(\rTilde_{i,(i)})}\;.
$$
The fact that $c_\tau$ is asymptotically arbitrarily close to the root of $\Delta_n(x)=0$ gives us the first equation in the system appearing in Theorem \ref{thm:systemRidgeRegularizedRigorous}.
The second equation of the system comes from Equation \eqref{eq:secondStepTowardsSecondEquationOfSystem}. Theorem \ref{thm:systemRidgeRegularizedRigorous} is shown.
\section{From the ridge-regularized to the un-regularized problem}\label{sec:regularizedToUnregularized}
Our original motivation in \cite{NEKetAlRobustRegressionTechReport11} was to study the unpenalized problem, namely $\betaHat$ was defined as
$$
\betaHat=\argmin_{\beta} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(Y_i-X_i\trsp \beta)\;.
$$
We now explain how we can derive the system in the unpenalized case from the one we have obtained in the penalized case, when $p/n<1$.
We first note that when $p<n$, and for instance the $X_i$'s have a continuous distribution, if $Y_i=X_i\trsp \beta_0+\eps_i$,
$$
\betaHat-\beta_0=\argmin_{\beta}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)\;.
$$
So to understand the error we make when using regression M-estimates, i.e the vector $\betaHat-\beta_0$, it is enough to study the properties of our estimator in the null case where $\beta_0=0$. Of course, we have previously studied the penalized version of this particular problem.
We have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose our assumptions \textbf{O1-O7}, \textbf{P1} and \textbf{F1-F2} hold. Suppose further that $\limsup p/n<1$.
Call
\begin{align*}
\betaHat&=\argmin_{\beta}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)\;,\text{ and }\\
\betaHat_\tau&=\argmin_{\beta}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)+\tau \frac{\norm{\betaHat}^2}{2}\;.
\end{align*}
If $\rho$ is strongly convex,
$$
\lim_{\tau \tendsto 0} \norm{\betaHat_{\tau}-\betaHat}=\lo_P(1)\;.
$$
Hence $\norm{\betaHat}$ is asymptotically deterministic and can be computed via
$$
\norm{\betaHat}=\lim_{\tau\tendsto 0} \norm{\betaHat_\tau}\;.
$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We call $f_{\tau}(\beta)=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i\psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)+\tau \beta$ and $f(\beta)=f_0(\beta)$.
Since by definition, $\betaHat$ is such that
$$
\sum X_i \psi(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \betaHat)=0\;,
$$
we see that $f_{\tau}(\betaHat)=\tau \betaHat$. By a similar token, we see that $f_0(\betaHat_\tau)=-\tau \betaHat_\tau$. If $\rho$ is strongly convex with modulus of convexity $C$, we see, using Proposition \ref{prop:ControlDeltaBetaDeltaf} that, by working with $\nabla f_\tau$, we get
$$
\norm{\betaHat_\tau-\betaHat}\leq \frac{\tau}{C \lambda_{\min}(\SigmaHat)+\tau} \norm{\betaHat}\;,
$$
and by working with $\nabla f_0$ - along the same lines as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:ControlDeltaBetaDeltaf} - we get
$$
\norm{\betaHat_\tau-\betaHat}\leq \frac{\tau}{C \lambda_{\min}(\SigmaHat)} \norm{\betaHat_\tau}\;.
$$
Recall that we showed in Equation \eqref{eq:boundNormBetaHatFromSimplyRidge} that
$$
\norm{\betaHat_\tau}\leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)}\;.
$$
This shows that
$$
\norm{\betaHat_\tau-\betaHat}\leq \frac{\sqrt{2\tau}}{C \lambda_{\min}(\SigmaHat)} \sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)}\;.
$$
Under our assumptions, $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i)=\gO_P(1)$.
Under the assumptions that, for instance, the entries of $X_i$'s are i.i.d with 4+$\eps$ moments (which is always the case under our assumptions), it is well known that $\lambda_{\min}(\SigmaHat)\tendsto (1-\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}})^2$ in probability and a.s (\cite{bai99}).
We conclude that $\norm{\betaHat_\tau-\betaHat}\tendsto 0$ in probability as $\tau \tendsto 0$ under our assumptions.
\end{proof}
Under for instance Gaussian design assumptions (i.e $X_i$'s have distribution ${\cal N}(0,\id_p)$), it is possible to bound $\Exp{1/\lambda_{\min}(\SigmaHat)}$ using essentially results in \cite{silverstein85} as well as elementary but non-trivial linear algebra (see the appendix of \cite{troppmartinsson2011} for instance). This would give an approximation in $L_2$, provided the random variable $\rho(\eps_i)$ has enough moment.
It would be possible with quite a bit of extra work to dispense with the assumption of strong convexity and move for instance to strict convexity (see \cite{HiriartLemarechalConvexAnalysisAbridged2001} if needed). We refer to the discussion after the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:ControlDeltaBetaDeltaf} for more details about this issue.
We note that convergence in probability of $\betaHat$ is enough for our confidence interval statements from \cite{NEKOptimalMEstimationPNASPublished2013} (details in the supplementary material of that paper) to go through.
\subsection{Other extensions}
Moving from random vectors $X_i$'s like the ones we have studied to vectors of the form $\tilde{X}_i=\lambda_i X_i$, where $\lambda_i$ is a random variable (i.e a scalar) independent of $X_i$ does not offer any new conceptual difficulties. Indeed our heuristic work in \cite{NEKRobustPaperPNAS2013Published} handled - heuristically of course - that case, so the arguments we gave here would be easy to modify. This extended class of models - which is akin to elliptical distributions in multivariate statistics (see \cite{anderson03}) - is interesting because it includes distributions that do not share the geometric properties that ``concentrated'' random vectors share. We do not solve the elliptical problem here in complete details because of the extra notational burden involved.
Another easy extension of the work presented here is to study the weighted regression case, i.e for weights $\{w_i\}_{i=1}^n$, $\betaHat$ is defined as
$$
\betaHat=\argmin_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^p} \sum_{i=1}^n w_i \rho(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)+\frac{\tau}{2}\norm{\beta}^2\;.
$$
Once again, only minor modifications are needed to our proof - the heuristic we proposed easily handled this. More generally, working on the problem of understanding
$$
\betaHat=\argmin_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^p} \sum_{i=1}^n \rho_i(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)+\frac{\tau}{2}\norm{\beta}^2\;,
$$
where $\rho_i$ are potentially different functions and $X_i$'s are ``elliptical'' (as defined above) seems to be within relatively easy reach of the method developed and presented here.
Finally, we see that when $Y_i=X_i\trsp \beta_0+\eps_i$,
$$
\betaHat_\tau-\beta_0=\argmin_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^p} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(\eps_i-X_i\trsp \beta)+\frac{\tau}{2} \norm{\beta+\beta_0}^2\;.
$$
This problem - a mild variant of the one we have studied here - should be amenable to analysis with the method we used here.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Lorenzen dialogue games~\cite{lorenzen1958} were offered as an
alternative game-theoretic formalism for intuitionistic logic (both
propositional and first-order). The first player, Proponent
($\proponent$), lays down a logical formula and strives to
successfully respond to the assaults of Opponent. The motion of the
game is determined by rules that depend on the structure of a formula
appearing in the game (which is always a subformula or, in the case of
a first-order game, an instance of, the initial formula played by
$\proponent$), as well as by rules that depend less on the form of
the formula at issue but rather concern the global structure of the
game and what kinds of roles can permissibly be played by $\proponent$
and Opponent (who are not merely dual to one another, as the players
often are in other logic games~\cite{sep-logic-games}). Although
Felscher's equivalence theorem cleanly relates winning strategies of
Lorenzen games to intuitionistic validity, the rules for these games
are not entirely straightforward and indeed some of them appear to be
arbitrary.
Lorenz claimed that Lorenzen's dialogue games offer a new type of
semantics for intuitionistic logic and asserts the equivalence between
dialogical validity (defined in terms of winning strategies for the
$\proponent$) and intuitionistic derivability~\cite{lor9,lor10}. Lorenz's
proof contained some gaps, and later authors sought to fill these
gaps; a complete proof can be found in~\cite{felscher1985}.
Dialogue games are not restricted to intuitionistic logic. By
modifying the rules of the game, the dialogue approach can also
provide a semantics for classical logic. The dialogical approach can
be adapted equally well to capture validity for other logics, such as
paraconsistent, connexive, modal and linear
logics~\cite{sep-dialogical-logic,ruck}. All of these extensions of
Lorenzen's and Lorenz's initial formulation of dialogue games are
achieved by modifying the rules of the game while maintaining the
overall dialogical flavor.
The fact that there is no principled restriction on how the dialogical
rules can be modified naturally raises the question of when the set of
$S$-valid formulas, for a particular set $S$ of dialogical rules,
actually corresponds to a logic. That is, we are interested in
identifying desirable properties of the set of $S$-valid formulas in
order to give it some logical sensibility. One such desirable
property is that the set be closed under modus ponens: If $\phi$ and
$\phi \rightarrow \psi$ are $S$-dialogically valid, then so should
$\psi$ be. We propose to call the problem of resolving whether a set
$S$ of rules for dialogue games satisfies this property the
\emph{composition problem} for $S$.
The structure of this paper is as follows. The next section
introduces dialogue games and provides a few examples to make the
reader familiar with the basic definitions and notation. Section 3
poses the \emph{composition problem}. We generalize the problem and
motivate it from two perspectives of dialogues. Section~\ref{sec:vary-dial-rules} presents
the results of three initial experiments that bear on the composition
problem. Section~\ref{sec:nearly} describes a curious dialogical logic called $\logic{N}$. Section~\ref{attempted} describes a failed (but apparently well-motivated) attempted dialogical characterization of the
intermediate logic $\logic{LQ}$ of weak excluded middle. Section~\ref{sec:stable} takes on the problem of giving a dialogical characterization of stable logic (the intermediate logic in which the principle $\neg\neg p \rightarrow p$ holds for atoms $p$). Section~\ref{sec:independent} motivates the
problem of giving independent rulesets and argues that it may be a
useful first step toward solving (instances of) the composition
problem. Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes and offers a few open problems for consideration.
\section{Dialogue games}
We largely follow Felscher's approach to dialogical
logic~\cite{felscher1985}. For an overview of dialogical logic,
see~\cite{sep-dialogical-logic}.
We work with a propositional language; formulas are built from atoms
and $\neg$, $\vee$, $\wedge$, and $\rightarrow$. In addition to
formulas, there are the three so-called \emph{symbolic attack}
expressions, $?$, $\wedge_{L}$, and $\wedge_{R}$, which are distinct
from all the formulas and connectives. Together formulas and symbolic
attacks are called statements; they are what is asserted in a dialogue
game.
The rules governing dialogues are divided into two types.
\emph{Particle} rules say how statements can be attacked and defended
depending on their main connective. \emph{Structural} rules define
what sequences of attacks and defenses count as dialogues. Different
logics can be obtained by modifying either set of rules.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\textbf{Assertion} & \textbf{Attack} & \textbf{Response}\\
\hline
$\phi \wedge \psi$ & $\wedge_{L}$ & $\phi$\\
& $\wedge_{R}$ & $\psi$\\
$ \phi \vee \psi$ & $?$ & $\phi$ or $\psi$\\
$ \phi \rightarrow \psi$ & $\phi$ & $\psi$\\
$ \neg\phi$ & $\phi$ & ---
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{Particle rules for dialogue games}
\label{tab:particle-rules}
\end{table}
The standard particle rules are given in Table
\ref{tab:particle-rules}. According to the first row, there are two
possible attacks against a conjunction: The attacker specifies whether
the left or the right conjunct is to be defended, and the defender
then continues the game by asserting the specified conjunct. The
second row says that there is one attack against a disjunction; the
defender then chooses which disjunct to assert. The interpretation of
the third row is straightforward. The fourth row says that there is
no way to defend against the attack against a negation; the only
appropriate ``defense'' against an attack on a negation $\neg\phi$ is
to continue the game with the new information $\phi$.
Further constraints on the development of a dialogue are given by the
structural rules. In this paper we keep the particle rules fixed, but
we shall consider a few variations of the structural rules.
\begin{definition}
Given a set $S$ of structural rules, an \emph{$S$-dialogue} for a
formula $\phi$ is a dialogue commencing with $\phi$ that adheres to
the rules of $S$. $\proponent$ \emph{wins} an $S$-dialogue if
$\proponent$ made the last move in the dialogue and no moves are
available for $\opponent$ by which the game could be extended.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
According to this definition, if the dialogue \emph{can} go on, then
neither player is said to win; the game proceeds as long as moves
are available. $\proponent$ wins by making a winning move; in other
presentations of dialogue games such as
Fermüller's~\cite{fermueller2003}, $\proponent$ wins when Opponent
makes a \emph{losing} move.
\end{remark}
Winning strategies for dialogue games can be used to capture notions
of validity.
\begin{definition}
For a set $S$ of dialogue rules and a formula $\phi$, the relation
$\valid{S}{\phi}$ means that $\proponent$ has an $S$-winning strategy
for $\phi$. If $\nvDash_{S} \phi$, then we say that $\phi$ is
$S$-invalid. $\setofvalid{S}$ is the set $\{ \phi \colon
\valid{S} \phi \}$.
\end{definition}
Note that, like usual proof-theoretic characterizations of validity,
dialogue validity is an existential notion, unlike the usual
model-theoretic notions of validity, which are universal notions.
We now consider two standard rule sets from the dialogue literature.
\begin{definition}
The rule set $\Druleset$ is comprised of the following structural rules~\cite[p.~220]{felscher1985}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\Dten)$] $\proponent$ may assert an atomic formula only
after it has been asserted by $\opponent$ before.
\item[$(\mathrm{D11})$] When defending, only the most recent open
attack (that is, attack against which no defense has yet been
played) may be responded to.
\item[$(\mathrm{D12})$] An attack may be answered at most once.
\item[$(\Dthirteen)$] A $\proponent$-assertion may be attacked at most once.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
The rule set $\mathrm{D}+\mathrm{E}$ is $\mathrm{D}$ plus the following rule:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\mathrm{E})$] $\opponent$ can react only upon the immediately preceding $\proponent$-statement.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
The rule set $\CLruleset$ is $\Eruleset - \{ \Deleven, \Dtwelve \}$.
\end{definition}
To give a sense of how these games proceed, let us look at a few
concrete examples of them. In the following, note that we are working
with concrete formulas; ``$p$'' and ``$q$'' in the following are
concrete atomic formulas (atoms) and should not be read schematically
(indeed, if one were to substitute more complex formulas for $p$ and
$q$ in what follows, the examples would become incomplete in the sense
that they no longer necessarily represent wins or losses for
$\proponent$).
\begin{example}
Let us consider a simple intuitionistic validity, the
$\Kcombinator$-formula. Table~\ref{k-formula-e-dialogue} lays out a
concrete game for this formula.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$\implies{p}{(\implies{q}{p})}$}\\
\orow{1}{$p$}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\implies{q}{p}$}{D}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$q$}{A}{2}\\
\prow{4}{$p$}{D}{3}
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{\label{k-formula-e-dialogue}An $\Eruleset$-dialogue for $\implies{p}{(\implies{q}{p})}$:}
\end{table}
This dialogue adheres to the $\Erule$-rule because $\opponent$ is
always responding to the immediately prior statement of $\proponent$.
Note that $\proponent$ is permitted to assert the atom $p$ at move $3$
because $\opponent$ already asserted it at move $1$. $\proponent$
wins this game: $\opponent$ can make no further moves: the
$\Erule$-forces $\opponent$ to respond to move $4$ (in fact, it must
be attacked), but, in light of the particle rules, attacks on atoms
are not permitted.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Table~\ref{excluded-middle-e-dialogue} treats the classical law of the excluded middle, $p \vee \neg p$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$p \vee \neg p$}\\
\orow{1}{?}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\neg p$}{D}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$p$}{A}{2}
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{\label{excluded-middle-e-dialogue}An $\Eruleset$-dialogue for excluded middle}
\end{table}
This short $\Eruleset$-dialogue (which, incidentally, is also a
$\Druleset$-dialogue) leads to a loss for $\proponent$: as in the
previous example, $\proponent$ is stuck.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Returning to excluded middle, let's see how the game goes when we
change from intuitionistic to classical rules; see
Table~\ref{excluded-middle-cl-dialogue}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$p \vee \neg p$}\\
\orow{1}{?}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\neg p$}{D}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$p$}{A}{2}\\
\prow{4}{$p$}{D}{1}
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{\label{excluded-middle-cl-dialogue}A $\CLruleset$-dialogue for excluded middle}
\end{table}
The difference between this dialogue, which $\proponent$ wins, and the
previous dialogue, which $\proponent$ lost, is that $\proponent$ can
now return to earlier attacks and defend against them in a new way.
The absence of rule $\Deleven$ from $\CLruleset$ makes the difference.
\end{example}
These examples should serve to give the reader a sense for how
dialogue games proceed, as one varies the rules. Despite their apparent lack of logical
meaning, the rule sets $\Druleset$ and $\Eruleset$ have the following
property:
\begin{theorem}[Felscher]
For all formulas $\phi$, the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi$ is intuitionistically valid.
\item $\Dvalid{\phi}$.
\item $\Evalid{\phi}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
The proof goes by converting deductions in an intuitionistic sequent
calculus to $\mathrm{D}$-winning strategies (via tableaux), and vice
versa. Moreover, the ruleset $\CLruleset$ has the following
significance:
\begin{theorem}[Felscher]
For all formulas $\phi$, we have that $\phi$ is a classical tautology iff
$\CLvalid{\phi}$.
\end{theorem}
In other words, dropping $\Deleven$ and $\Dtwelve$ from the ruleset
$\Eruleset$ moves us from intuitionistic to classical logic.
\section{The composition problem}
\label{sec:composition-problem}
One can view dialogue games in two (compatible) ways. These games can
be a kind of rational dialogue between two players, or they can be
viewed as a kind of logical calculus. In this section we shall
describe a problem about dialogues that bears on them no matter which
view one takes about dialogues.
The statement of the problem does not depend on which viewpoint we
adopt:
\begin{problema}[Composition]
Given a set $S$ of structural rules, determine whether
$\setofvalid{S}$ is closed under modus ponens, that is, whether it
is true that $\phi \in \setofvalid{S}$ and $\implies{\phi}{\psi} \in
\setofvalid{S}$ implies $\psi \in \setofvalid{S}$.
\end{problema}
One approach to the composition problem is to simply give positive
solutions for each ruleset $S$ that one is
interested in. A more unifying problem is available, though:
\begin{problema}[Uniform composition]
Give criteria for a set $S$ of dialogue rules (perhaps coming from
some delimited class of rulesets) such that modus ponens is admissible for
$\setofvalid{S}$.
\end{problema}
Instead of focusing on particular rulesets, the uniform composition
problem asks for \emph{criteria} for a ruleset which, if satisfied for
any ruleset $S$, ensure that we have a positive solution to the
composition problem for $S$.
The qualifier ``(perhaps coming from some delimited class of
rulesets)'' in the statement of the uniform composition problem
permits one to restrict the range of rulesets of interest (e.g., such
as those coming from various dialogical characterizations of modal
logic~\cite{sep-dialogical-logic}). A totally general solution to the
uniform composition problem seems to be out of the question, putting
aside the question of what a ``dialogue rule'' in general is, which
makes it unclear over what the problem quantifies.
We now consider this problem from the two points of view about dialogues.
\subsection{Dialogues as rational interaction}
\label{sec:dial-as-rati}
If dialogues are to be for a (stylized) kind of rational interaction,
then one ought to have a criterion according to which one can say that
certain (sets of) dialogue rules support or undermine the rational
behavior of the players.
From results like Felscher's we can see that there must be a positive
solution to the composition problem: since intuitionistic logic is
actually a logic, if $\proponent$ has winning strategies for $\phi$ and
$\implies{\phi}{\psi}$, then $\proponent$ must have a winning strategy
for $\psi$.
Thus, by singling out the composition problem, we are not necessarily
raising a genuinely new problem about dialogue games, at least not in
all cases, where correspondence results are known, such as for
intuitionistic and classical first-order logic, modal logics, and so
forth. Rather, we are proposing a problem with a change of emphasis:
rather than solving the composition problem as a corollary of
considerably stronger results, we raise the following challenge for
dialogue games: \emph{if a set of dialogue rules $S$ is supposed to
actually be a coherent logic, we would like to have a direct proof
of this fact; it should, ideally, be possible to give a direct
solution of the composition problem for $S$ before a technically
complex correspondence is established between the set of formulas
for which $\proponent$ has a winning strategy and the set of known
validities.}
Another way to approach the composition problem: if dialogue games
based on a set $S$ of dialogue rules are supposed to be an
\emph{autonomous} foundation for some kind of logic $L$, then it
should be possible to solve the composition problem for $S$ without
reference to whatever ``machinery'' for $L$ has been built up outside
of the dialogical approach.
What do we mean by ``rational''? Various senses are available, for a
ruleset~$S$:
\begin{itemize}
\item An $S$-strategy for a formula $\phi$ should correspond to
some conclusive reasoning for $\phi$;
\item if $\proponent$ has an $S$-winning strategy for $\phi$, then $\proponent$
does not have an $S$-winning strategy for $\neg\phi$;
\item if $\proponent$ has an $S$-winning strategy for $\phi$, then
Opponent does not also have an $S$-winning strategy for $\phi$;
\item if $\proponent$ has $S$-winning strategies for $\phi$ and
$\implies{\phi}{\psi}$, then $\proponent$ has an $S$-winning strategy
for $\psi$.
\end{itemize}
The fourth explication of $S$-strategy rationality is simply the same as
the composition problem for $S$.
We can further distinguish two loci of rationality: games and strategies.
\begin{definition}[Game rationality] A ruleset $S$ is \emph{game-rational} if the
development of $S$-dialogue games should have the form of a rational
conversation between two opposing players.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Strategy rationality]
A ruleset $S$ is \emph{strategy-rational} if $S$-winning strategies
constitute some kind of rational argument.
\end{definition}
One way to deflate the composition problem is to acknowledge that
dialogue games are not in fact supposed to be an autonomous foundation
of capturing validity in a logic. (One might even wonder what it
means to be an \emph{autonomous} foundation for a logic.) Or we are
to drop the requirement about game-rationality or strategy-rationality
for dialogue rulesets. And it would seem that neither of these
desiderata can really be abandoned, if one wishes to see dialogue
games as more than a mere calculus and having something to do with
``rational dialogue''. It seems we lack a compelling account of the
rationality of dialogues, in the sense that we lack a defense of
certain sets of dialogue rules over others.\footnote{Woods has
highlighted another problem concerning the rationality of dialogue
games, different from ours, which is related to the problem of
logical omniscience~\cite{woods1988}. Walton also sketches some
problems of rationality in dialogues~\cite{walton1985}.} If one
views dialogues as simply alternative calculi for working with
different logics, then one might still be persuaded by our call for
``direct'' solutions to the composition problem. This point of view
is taken up in the next subsection.
\subsection{Dialogues as calculi}
\label{sec:dialogues-as-calculi}
Apart from treating dialogue games as a stylized debate or rational
interaction between two opposing players, one can view these games as
a logical calculus on a par with other formalisms for proofs such as
Hilbert-style, natural deduction, tableaux, or sequent calculus.
(These two points of view are, of course, compatible.) From this
point of view, the composition problem for a ruleset $S$ is the
problem of showing that modus ponens is an admissible rule of
inference for $\setofvalid{S}$, the set of all formulas $\phi$ for
which $\proponent$ has an $S$-winning strategy for $\phi$.
One way to view the problem is that we have a handful of positive
results: for a certain very limited number of dialogue rulesets, we
know about them that they correspond to certain logics (and hence
positively solve their associated composition problems). We may view
these positive results as local maxima in a space populated by logics
and non-logics alike. We wish to understand what happens when we step
away from these local maxima in this space. Certainly, some
curiosities will result (see section~4.1 for an example). The
perspective behind the uniform composition problem is to embrace these
non-maxima (or perhaps even discovering new maxima) in the hopes of
understanding the whole space: let us shift from a (very) discrete
point of view to a ``continuous'' point of view, to see what the
dialogical space is like.
One can evidently point to theorems such as Felscher's to dispense
with the composition problem for the rulesets $\Druleset$ and
$\Eruleset$. However, Felscher's theorem does not, prima facie, solve
the uniform composition problem. Some positive results bearing on the
uniform composition problem are those of
Fermüller~\cite{fermueller2003}, who, using so-called parallel
dialogue games, gives dialogical characterizations of a variety of
intermediate logics. We shall return to Fermüller's results later, in
section \ref{attempted}.
We are also interested in the question of to what extent dialogue
games actually offer a fine-grained division of different kinds of
logics. If it turns out that only a handful of sets of dialogue rules
are adequate for the purpose of generating a logic (i.e., for
capturing some minimally rational meaning of a dialogue game), then
this needs to be explained. That is, if it turns out that there is
something unique about the standard sets of dialogue rules that have
heretofore been investigated, then this serves as a critical point for
the dialogue approach, because it shows that its apparent opportunity
for logical generality is in fact highly constrained and tightly
delimited.
\subsection{Direct solutions to the composition problem}\label{sec:direct-solutions}
A positive solution to the composition problem for a set of dialogue
rules tells us that our rule set gives rise to a logic, at least in a
weak sense of the term ``logic''. Of course, we are likely not
interested in the case where all formulas are valid, in which case the
composition problem is trivially solved in the affirmative.
We have indicated that we prefer direct solutions to the composition
problem. We can certainly bring to bear whatever means we have toward
establishing significant properties of a dialogical logic. But if a
``direct'' solution to a problem is available, it seems reasonable to
provide one alongside whatever other methods we have. The problem is
simply that we wish to have multiple proofs. Whether a direct proof
that operates on winning strategies is ``the same'' as a proof of the
same result using some other methods is not always clear. Even if a
positive solution to the composition problem is ``really'' a disguised
version of cut elimination, there may still be value in working
directly with strategies rather with, say, sequent calculi
derivations, since we don't need to first do the work of showing that
the sequent calculi really captures the strategies.
Direct solutions to dialogical problems may be the only solutions, if
one is exploring a logic whose relation to other, differently
characterized logics is unknown. A positive, direct solution to the
composition problem for such a logic is given in~\cite{AU} (see also Section~\ref{sec:vary-dial-rules}).
To illustrate further what we have in mind by ``direct'' solutions to
dialogical problems, we now give a positive solution to the
composition problem for a dialogical characterization of classical
propositional logic. We will first present a set $\CLruleset$ of dialogue
rules, and then we will show that $\CLvalid{\phi \rightarrow \psi}$
and $\CLvalid{\phi}$ implies $\CLvalid{\psi}$ by working with
$\CLruleset$-winning strategies. We will not show that $\CLruleset$
captures $\CL$; see~\cite{felscher1985}.
\begin{lemma}\label{no-atom-cl-valid}
No atom is $\CLruleset$-valid.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The $\CLruleset$ does not permit a game to even get started with the
assertion by $\proponent$ of an atom.
\end{proof}
Such a result obviously holds for any set of dialogue rules that
contains $\Dten$.
The next lemma is a kind of consistency result of classical logic,
construed dialogically.
\begin{lemma}[No explosion]\label{no-explosion}
There is no $\CLruleset$-valid formula $\phi$ with the property that
$\CLvalid{\phi \rightarrow \psi}$ for all formulas $\psi$.
\end{lemma}
Such a formula gives rise to an ``explosion'' in the sense that it
entails (in the object language) all formulas. If there were such a
formula $\phi$, we would have, for example, that $\CLvalid{\phi
\rightarrow p}$, even for atoms $p$ that do not occur in $\phi$.
Such a case is clearly untenable. We have not yet been able to find a
direct proof of this lemma, but it does seem to us to be an important
step toward a direct proof of the composition problem for
$\CLruleset$. (Note that, by closure of $\CLruleset$-valid formulas
under modus ponens, such an ``explosion'' formula does not exist,
since it would imply, as we said, that all atoms would be valid, which
of course violates Lemma~\ref{no-atom-cl-valid}.) Such a problem can
clearly be solved quite easily using the truth table notion of
classical validity. Less easy is a proof-theoretic solution to the
problem using a sequent calculi adequate for classical logic; the
solution apparently requires cut elimination.
\begin{theorem}[Attack-first]
If $\CLvalid{\phi}$, then there is a $\CLruleset$-winning strategy
for $\phi$ in which $\proponent$'s defenses are delayed as far as
possible.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The idea is that we consider $\CLruleset$-winning strategies $\tau$
that have the property that, for each branch $b$ of $\tau$, and each
$\proponent$ move $m$ of $b$, if $m$ is a defense, then at $m$ it is
not possible for $\proponent$ to attack. That is, we consider
$\CLruleset$-winning strategies where $\proponent$ must defend; if
$\proponent$ can attack, then he does.
The existence of such $\CLruleset$-winning strategies is clear. If
there is a $\CLruleset$-winning strategy for $\phi$, but only one,
then it satisfies the attack-first condition because $\proponent$
has no alternatives available to him. For a $\CLruleset$-valid
formula $\phi$, there could even be multiple such strategies.
\end{proof}
We can refine the attack-first strategy further by requiring that, if
no attacks but multiple defenses are available for $\proponent$, then
we require that $\proponent$ defend against the most recent attack.
\begin{theorem}[Attack-first-defend-most-recent]
IF $\CLvalid{\phi}$, then there exists a $\CLruleset$-winning
strategy in which $\proponent$'s defenses are delayed as far as
possible, and in which, if multiple defenses are possible for
$\proponent$, then the defense against the most recent attack is
chosen.
\end{theorem}
The existence of such strategies for $\CLruleset$-valid formulas is
again clear.
Note that, unlike proofs of analogous results via cut elimination,
these ``normal forms'' for dialogues do not require the definition of
a reduction relation and a proof that it is normalizing; the existence
of $\CLruleset$-winning strategies adhering to these conditions is
clear.
We have so far not been able to find a ``direct'' proof of
Lemma~\ref{no-explosion}. Such a result must hold, since, thanks to
Felscher's and other dialogical characterization of classical logic
(e.g.,~\cite{SU}), we have $\CLvalid{\phi}$ iff $\phi$ is a classical
tautology. From the perspective of truth tables, such a statement
clearly holds: a $\phi$ with this property would be a contradiction
such as $\perp$ or $p \wedge \neg p$, but such statements are not
valid. The following is an outline of a proof using ``direct''
methods, using the ideas developed so far.
\begin{theorem}
If $\CLvalid{\phi}$ and $\CLvalid{\phi \rightarrow \psi}$, then $\CLvalid{\psi}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Sketch]
Consider a $\CLruleset$-winning strategy $d$ for $\phi \rightarrow
\psi$. It begins with the assertion by $\proponent$ of $\phi
\rightarrow \psi$, then an attack by $\opponent$ on this
implication, asserting $\phi$. The beginning is shown in
Table~\ref{winning-strat-for-implication}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$\phi \rightarrow \psi$}\\
\orow{1}{$\phi$}{A}{0}\\
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{\label{winning-strat-for-implication}Beginning of every $\CLruleset$-winning strategy for $\phi \rightarrow \psi$}
\end{table}
We do not know what the next step is; $\proponent$ could attack
$\phi$ or defend against the initial assertion of $\psi$. There are
three possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\proponent$ never defends against the initial attack on $\phi
\rightarrow \psi$. In this case, evidently it makes no difference
what $\psi$ is, so by simply changing the first step of $d$ from
$\phi \rightarrow \psi$ to $\phi \rightarrow \chi$, we have a
$\CLruleset$-winning strategy for $\phi \rightarrow \psi$, no
matter what $\psi$ is. $\phi$ would thus a counterexample to Lemma~\ref{no-explosion}.
\item $\proponent$ never attacks $\opponent$'s assertion of $\phi$.
Then $d$ is evidently already a $\CL$-winning strategy for $\psi$,
provided we simply delete the initial two moves.
\item $\proponent$ does defend against the initial attack on $\phi
\rightarrow \psi$. This is the general case, and likely the most
difficult. The main idea is to look for a suitable rewriting, or
normal form, of the strategy into one from which we can extract a
$\CLruleset$-winning strategy for $\phi \rightarrow \psi$. It
seems plausible that the \emph{defend last} normal form defined
earlier would be helpful. By adhering to that normal form, we
defer $\proponent$'s defense against the initial attack as long as
possible, forcing $\opponent$ to make the greatest number of
commitments (viz., assert the most atoms) before coming to the
defense against the initial attack.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
We have targeted $\CL$ here and a dialogical characterization
($\CLruleset$) of it because $\CLruleset$ is somewhat
relaxed compared to the rulesets $\Druleset$ and
$\Eruleset$, which are known to be adequate for intuitionistic logic. That $\IL$
is closed under modus ponens is, of course, obvious. It is not clear
to us whether the strategy normal forms that we have proposed (namely,
the attack-first and its refinement, attack-first-defend-latest forms)
have the same significance in the presence of rules $\Deleven$ and
$\Dtwelve$ as they do when these two rules are missing (which is the
case for the standard dialogical characterization of $\CL$).
\section{Varying dialogue rules}
\label{sec:vary-dial-rules}
To illustrate our approach, let us look at some examples where one
varies the rulesets. This section reports on three such experiments.
\subsection{Nearly classical logic}\label{sec:nearly}
We have stated earlier that Felscher's theorem shows the
correspondence between the $\Druleset$ and $\Eruleset$ rulesets and
intuitionistic logic $\IL$. Since $\IL$ is closed under modus
ponens, Felscher's theorem implies that
$\setofvalid{D}$ and $\setofvalid{E}$ are likewise both closed under modus ponens.
It is also known that, if one drops Felscher's $\Deleven$
and $\Dtwelve$ from $\Druleset$, but adds rule $\Erule$, one obtains a
dialogical characterization of classical logic $\CL$.
Is rule $\Erule$ necessary for modus ponens?
\begin{definition}
Let $\Nruleset$ be $\Druleset - \{ \Deleven, \Dtwelve \}$, and let $\logic{N}$ be
the set of $\Nruleset$-valid formulas.
\end{definition}
Since dropping the $\Erule$ makes no difference when passing from
$\Eruleset$ to $\Druleset$, it is true that closure under modus ponens
is preserved if one drops $\Erule$ from
$\Druleset - \{ \Deleven, \Dtwelve \} \cup \{ \Erule \}$ (which
dialogically captures $\CL$)? More simply, is $\logic{N}$ closed under modus
ponens?
The answer, curiously, is that $\logic{N}$ is closed under modus ponens but
not under uniform substitution. The following
necessary conditions govern $\logic{N}$'s valid implications:
\begin{theorem}\label{n-characterization-theorem}
If $\Nvalid{\phi\rightarrow\psi}$, then either
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Nvalid\psi$,
\item $\phi$ is atomic, or
\item $\phi$ is a negation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
(For details, see~\cite{AU}.) Using
Theorem~\ref{n-characterization-theorem}, many failures of uniform
substitution for $\logic{N}$ can be produced. We have, for example, that
$\Nvalid{p \rightarrow \neg\neg p}$ (this can be shown by
calculation), but $\Ninvalid{(p \wedge p) \rightarrow \neg\neg(p
\wedge p)}$, because the antecedent meets none of the necessary
conditions listed in Theorem~\ref{n-characterization-theorem}. (That
$\Ninvalid{\neg\neg(p \wedge p)}$ can be shown by calculation.)
Adding rule $\Erule$ to $\Nruleset$ restores uniform substitution (and
maintains closure under modus ponens), so despite appearances, there
must be something about rule $\Erule$ intimately tied to uniform
substitution.
The presence of the $\Erule$ could be regarded as a mere technical
necessity for establishing a correspondence between existence of
winning strategies for dialogue games and some notion of logical
validity, characterized without using dialogues. The $\Erule$ rule
has no obvious correspondence with everyday dialogue; even if one were
inclined to adopt some kind of regimentation, the $\Erule$ appears to
be a rather strong constraint. A better understanding of its
eliminability is wanted. Results such as the curious $\logic{N}$ show that,
at least in one well-known setting (classical dialogue games), $\Erule$
cannot be entirely dropped, while in at least one other setting
(intuitionistic logic) it can be dropped. One problem would be to
find some relaxation of $\Erule$ that suffices for $\CL$. It seems
fruitful us to investigate the precise conditions under which
repetitions are permitted. Already some work has been done in this
direction (see~\cite{krabbe85}) for intuitionistic logic.
\subsection{An attempted dialogical characterization of the logic $\logic{LQ}$}\label{attempted}
In a Hilbert-style calculus for propositional logic, one can start
with intuitionistic logic and obtains classical logic by adding
additional axioms, such as Peirce's formula, excluded middle, or
double negation elimination (the precise details depend on which
propositional signature one is interested in).
With dialogues, one moves from intuitionistic to classical logic not
by adding but by removing dialogue rules. In the dialogical setting,
classical logic can be obtained by relaxing the dialogue rules for
intuitionistic logic.\footnote{The precise claim is that one can
obtain a dialogical characterization of classical logic by removing
$\Deleven$ and $\Dtwelve$ from the ruleset $\Eruleset$. We say
``can be obtained'' rather than ``is obtained'' because, depending
on which ruleset one chooses for intuitionistic logic, our claim is
false: the ruleset $\Nruleset$ and the set $\logic{N}$ that it generates
shows that we do \emph{not} obtain classical logic by simply
dropping $\Deleven$ and $\Dtwelve$ from the ruleset $\Druleset$.}
One might then naturally wonder if one can give dialogical
characterizations of intermediate logics (i.e., propositional logics
between $\IL$ and $\CL$) by adding dialogue rules to the ruleset
$\CLruleset$.
One natural experiment would be to try to capture a ``simple''
intermediate logic, such as Jankov's logic
$\logic{LQ}$~\cite{jankov1968,tvd}, which is $\IL$ together with the
principle of weak excluded middle (WEM), $\neg p \vee \neg\neg p$.
This principle is obviously classically valid but it is independent of
$\IL$ (one can see this using Kripke models).
Fermüller has given a dialogical characterization of $\logic{LQ}$ (and other
logics) with the help of parallel dialogue
games~\cite{fermueller2003}. Fermüller matches winning strategies for
parallel dialogue games with derivability in a calculus based on
hypersequents due to Ciabattoni et
al.~\cite{ciabattoni-gabbay-olivetti1999}. Fermüller's parallel
dialogue games diverge from the ``sequential'' games employed in this
paper.
Despite Fermüller's solution, one might still seek out a
``sequential'' characterization of $\logic{LQ}$, perhaps employing a
non-hypersequent formulation of $\logic{LQ}$, such as
Hosoi's~\cite{hosoi1988}. Ideally, one would seek an intuitive,
self-contained addition or modification to some known ruleset, such as
the $\Eruleset$, that would characterize $\logic{LQ}$. A first step would be
to find such a modification according to which $\neg p \vee \neg\neg
p$ is valid.
To motivate the new dialogue rule that will be introduced soon, let us
consider the $\Eruleset$-dialogue game for $\WEM$; see
Table~\ref{wem-plays}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$\neg p \vee \neg\neg p$}\\
\orow{1}{?}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\neg p$}{D}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$p$}{A}{2}\\
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$\neg p \vee \neg\neg p$}\\
\orow{1}{?}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\neg\neg p$}{D}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$\neg p$}{A}{2}\\
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{\label{wem-plays}Two losing plays for $\proponent$ in the $\Eruleset$-dialogue for weak excluded middle}
\end{table}
The two $\Eruleset$-dialogues for $\neg p \vee \neg\neg p$ of
Table~\ref{wem-plays} show that $\proponent$ loses quickly no matter
whether the initial attack is defended by asserting $\neg p$ or
$\neg\neg p$. Since WEM is not intuitionistically valid, by
Felscher's theorem $\proponent$ does not have an $\Eruleset$-winning
strategy for it. Indeed, the above two games, diverging at move $2$,
together make up all possible ways the game could go; $\proponent$
loses in both. The obstacle seems to be $\Dten$, which blocks
$\proponent$ from asserting the atom $p$ before Opponent has conceded it.
We can see this by comparing the two $\Eruleset$-dialogues with how
the game goes when playing the ruleset $\CLruleset$ for classical
logic.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$\neg p \vee \neg\neg p$}\\
\orow{1}{?}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\neg p$}{D}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$p$}{A}{2}\\
\prow{4}{$\neg\neg p$}{D}{1}\\
\orow{5}{$\neg p$}{A}{4}\\
\prow{6}{$p$}{A}{5}
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{\label{wem-win}A winning play for $\proponent$ in the $\CLruleset$-dialogue for weak excluded middle}
\end{table}
In the ruleset $\CLruleset$, $\proponent$ can return to earlier attack
and defend against them, unlike in the $\Druleset$ and $\Eruleset$
rulesets, in which multiple defenses are ruled out. $\proponent$'s
ability to repeat earlier defenses makes all the difference, because
he can defend in move $4$, \emph{in a different way}, using
$\opponent$'s ``concession'' of the atom $p$ in move $3$. (The game
of Table~\ref{wem-win} is in fact a winning strategy for $\WEM$.)
We require a set $S$ of dialogue rules ``between'' the ruleset
$\Eruleset$ and $\CLruleset$. $\proponent$'s ability to return to
earlier defenses seems to be rather too strong. Let us consider the
following modified form of $\Dten$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(\Dtenstar)$] $\proponent$ may assert an atom $p$ only if $\opponent$ has
asserted either $p$ or $\neg p$ before.
\end{itemize}
Let $\Erulesetstar$ be $E$ except with $\Dtenstar$ instead of $\Dten$.
The idea is that $\WEM$ is a kind of excluded middle, but only for
\emph{negative} statements. We modify $\Dten$ according to this
intuition: once $\opponent$ reveals some negative information (i.e.,
concedes a negated atom), $\proponent$ is permitted to proceed with
this information as though it were positive. Table~\ref{estar-win} is
a calculation showing that at least one instance of
$\Estarvalid{\WEM}$ is valid, and proceeds in an intuitive way (from
the perspective of $\logic{LQ}$):
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$\neg p \vee \neg\neg p$}\\
\orow{1}{?}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\neg\neg p$}{D}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$\neg p$}{A}{2}\\
\prow{4}{$p$}{A}{3}
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{\label{estar-win}A winning play for $\proponent$ in the $\Erulesetstar$-dialogue for weak excluded middle}
\end{table}
But this rule goes overboard: we have not captured $\logic{LQ}$ but something
else, because the formula $\neg p \rightarrow p$ is
$\Erulesetstar$-valid. This can easily be seen: $\opponent$'s unique
opening move is to assert $\neg p$, and now $\proponent$ has a unique
response: to assert $p$, winning the game.
The lesson of this failure to capture the logic $\logic{LQ}$ using dialogues
is that we had a well-motivated modification to a basic dialogue rule,
but the consequences of adopting this rule were that unacceptable
formulas became valid. Ideally, we would be able to appeal to a
structure theory that would explain the precise force of rule $\Dten$,
which would inform us ``in advance'' of what would happen if we were
to modify (or drop) it.
\subsection{Characterizing stable logic dialogically}\label{sec:stable}
Stable logic $\Stable$ is the intermediate logic axiomatized by the stability principle
\[
\neg\neg p \rightarrow p
\]
for atoms $p$. The stability principle is not provable in intuitionistic logic. This is intuitively clear by considering the Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation, but it may be definitively shown by, e.g., a suitable Kripke model. Although it has the flavor of being ``inherently classical'', stable logic is in fact strictly weaker than classical logic. To obtain classical logic, it suffices to add the stability principle to Jankov's $\logic{LQ}$ discussed in Section~\ref{attempted}. From the standpoint of the program considered in this paper, it is natural to ask how one can give a dialogical characterization of stable logic. We found in Section~\ref{attempted} that, when we translated our semantic intuition of the principle of weak excluded middle into the dialogical context, the naive attempt failed. In the case of stable logic, though, one's semantic intuition can be easily expressed dialogically.
To get started, let us consider, from the dialogical perspective, why stability is not provable. Let us take the $\Druleset$ rules; see Table~\ref{stable-non-win}. The game can develop in only one way. $\proponent$ would like to assert $p$, and since $\opponent$ has also asserted it (move~$3$), so rule $\Dten$ wouldn't be violated. $\proponent$ cannot because he cannot defend against the
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$\neg\neg p \rightarrow p$}\\
\orow{1}{$\neg\neg p$}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\neg p$}{A}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$p$}{A}{2}\\
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{\label{stable-non-win}A non-winning play for $\proponent$ in the $\Druleset$-dialogue for the stability principle}
\end{table}
Already in $\IL$, one can prove $p \rightarrow \neg\neg p$. Adding the stability principle, we have $p \leftrightarrow \neg\neg p$, so $p$ and $\neg\neg p$ are, as it were, on a par with one another. Consider now the following new structural rule:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(\Dtenprime)$] $\proponent$ may assert an atom $p$ only if $\opponent$ has
asserted either $p$ or $\neg\neg p$ before.
\end{itemize}
This is reminiscent of our failed dialogical characterization of Jankov's $\logic{LQ}$ using $\Dtenstar$. Here, though, instead of ``semantically identifying'' $p$ and $\neg p$ (which, in hindsight, is the root of the failure), we semantically identify $p$ and its double negation $\neg\neg p$. Referring to the non-winning play in Table~\ref{stable-non-win}, it is clear that, were $\Dtenprime$ in effect rather than $\Dten$, the game would be ``short-circuited'' because, once $\opponent$ asserts $\neg\neg p$, $\proponent$ can pounce and assert $p$ in defense of the initial attack; $\opponent$ then cannot reply.
Of course, it is quite possible that, these positive signs notwithstanding, the adoption of our modified $\Dten$ has unacceptable consequences, as we saw in the preceding section when $\neg p \rightarrow p$ became dialogically valid.
Interestingly, the motivation behind the formalization of stable logic as presented in Negri and von~Plato~\cite{negri2001structural} is to give a sequent characterization of the familiar principle of indirect proof (``if from $\neg p$ one can derive a contradiction, then $p$ is provable''), here the principle is, roughly, the ``semantic identification'' of $p$ and $\neg\neg p$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Eprimevalid$ be the set of $\Eruleset \setminus \{ \Dten \} \cup \{ \Dtenprime \}$-valid formulas.
\end{definition}
The aim is to show that $\Eprimevalid$ equals $\Stable$. We are so far able to show part of this (see Theorem~\ref{stab-soundness}). The following lemmas show that our proposal stands a chance of dialogically capturing $\Stable$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:lem-1}
If $\phi$ is $\Eprimevalid$, then there exist atoms $p_{1}$, \dots, $p_{n}$ in $\phi$ such that
\[
\left ( \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq n} \neg\neg p_{i} \rightarrow p_{i} \right ) \rightarrow \phi
\]
belongs to $\IL$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A move in dialogue games is not labeled by what rule justifies the move (unlike, say, sequent calculi or natural deduction). The idea is that all structural rules govern all moves. Nonetheless, let us nonetheless call an ``application'' of $\Dtenprime$ a move by $\proponent$ that would be impossible if the standard $\Dten$ were in effect rather than $\Dtenprime$. Applications of $\Dtenprime$ thus look, schematically, like this:
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\orow{$m$}{$\neg\neg p$}{-}{-}\\
\vdots\\
\prow{$n$}{$p$}{-}{-}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The idea is, for each application of $\Dtenprime$, to adjust the strategy---in fact, even the initial statement by $\proponent$---so that these applications are ``eliminated'' in the sense that the same sequence of moves goes through if $\Dtenprime$ were replaced the more strict $\Dten$. Such rewrites are effected as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Before the initial statement of $\phi$ by $\proponent$, insert the following moves:
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\initialmove{$(\neg\neg p \rightarrow p) \rightarrow \phi$}\\
\orow{1}{$\neg\neg p \rightarrow p$}{A}{0}\\
\prow{2}{$\neg\neg p$}{A}{1}\\
\orow{3}{$\neg p$}{A}{2}\\
\orow{4}{$\phi$}{D}{1}
\vdots
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{Eliminating an application of $\Dtenprime$ by explicitly postulating an instance of stability}
\end{table}
(Of course, the addition of new moves to the beginning of the game needs to be accompanied by relabeling any references. Thus, a reference to move $3$ should now refer to move $7$, etc.)
\item Replace the application of $\Dtenprime$ as in Table~\ref{tab:doit}:
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{rcll}
\orow{$m$}{$\neg\neg p$}{-}{-}\\
\vdots\\
\prow{$n$}{$\neg p$}{A}{$m$}\\
\orow{$n + 1$}{$p$}{A}{$n$}\\
\prow{$n + 2$}{$p$}{D}{$1$}
\end{tabular}\caption{\label{tab:doit}Eliminating an application of $\Dtenprime$}
\end{table}
\item Repeat until there are no more applications of $\Dtenprime$.
\end{itemize}
The effect of these repeated rewrites is that any ``exploit'' by $\proponent$ of the extra freedom granted by the relaxed $\Dtenprime$ gets turned into an extra
\end{proof}
The atoms claimed to exist in Lemma~\ref{lemma:lem-1} come from the winning strategy that witnesses that $\phi \in \Eprimevalid$. It may be possible that, depending on the strategy, we get a different set of atoms. In any case, adding stability for more atoms can't hurt (weakening is clearly acceptable).
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:lem-2}
If $\phi \in \Eprimevalid$, then
\[
\left ( \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq n} \neg\neg p_{i} \rightarrow p_{i} \right ) \rightarrow \phi
\]
belongs to $\IL$, where $p_{1}$, \dots, $p_{n}$ lists all the atoms occurring in $\phi$.
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lemma:lem-2} gives a dialogical characterization of a familiar fact about stable logic (see, e.g.,~\cite[Ch.~3]{troelstra-schwichtenberg}), namely that one can ``reduce'' some intermediate logics to $\IL$ provided one explicitly postulates salient features of the intermediate logic (for the case of $\logic{LQ}$, see Hosoi~\cite{hosoi1988}, where the fact that explicitly postulate instances of the principle of weak excluded middle, playing the same role there as the stability principle does for us here). Lemma~\ref{lemma:lem-2} combined with the fact that stable logic includes all instances of the stability principle yields:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:lem-3}
If
\[
\left ( \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq n} \neg\neg p_{i} \rightarrow p_{i} \right ) \rightarrow \phi
\]
is in $\IL$, then $\phi \in \Stable$.
\end{lemma}
Lemmas~\ref{lemma:lem-1} and~\ref{lemma:lem-3} yield:
\begin{theorem}\label{stab-soundness}
If $\phi \in \Eprimevalid$, then $\phi \in \Stable$.
\end{theorem}
Evidently, if $\phi \in \IL$, then $\phi \in \Eprimevalid$ (the extra freedom of $\Dtenprime$ granted to $\proponent$ compared to $\Dten$ need not be exercised). Moreover, all instances of the stability scheme are, by construction, in $\Eprimevalid$, so $\Eprimevalid$ properly extends $\IL$.
We have so far not be able to problem of showing the converse of Theorem~\ref{stab-soundness}, but we conjecture that our proposed characterization of $\Stable$ is indeed correct. To complete the proof that $\Eprimevalid$ is $\Stable$, it would suffice to show that~(i)~$\Eprimevalid$ is closed under modus ponens, and~(ii)~$\Eprimevalid$ is closed under uniform substitution. (Such an approach is grounded on a Hilbert-style approach to stable logic.) Another route would be to try to go in the opposite direction taken in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:lem-1}. There, we defined the notion of ``application'' of $\Dtenprime$ and showed how to eliminate them by explicitly postulating instances of the stability principle and manipulating the way the winning strategy starts. Ideally, one would want to go the other way: show how, from an $\Eruleset$-winning strategy for
\[
\left ( \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq n} \neg\neg p_{i} \rightarrow p_{i} \right ) \rightarrow \phi,
\]
to construct a $\Dtenstar$-winning strategy for $\phi$ alone by introducing (rather than eliminating) what we have called applications of $\Dtenstar$. The chief difficulty is to characterize the possible ways that a stability hypothesis $\neg\neg p \rightarrow p$ is used.
\subsection{Independent rulesets}\label{sec:independent}
Felscher indicates that rule $\Erule$ implies $\Dthirteen$ and, for
odd positions, $\Deleven$ and $\Dtwelve$, too. This means that every
dialogue that adheres to rule $\Erule$ also adheres to $\Dthirteen$,
and if we understand $\Deleven$ and $\Dtwelve$ as quantifying over
move positions $0$, $1$, $\dots$, then every dialogue that adheres to
the $\Erule$ also adheres to $\Deleven$ and $\Dtwelve$ if the
quantifiers in these rules are restricted to odd numbers.
The fact that standard dialogue rules can imply each other, wholly or
partially, is an obstacle for solving the composition problem for
subsets of standard rulesets. What we would seek are
\emph{independent} sets of dialogue rules, that is, sets of rules each
member of which is not implied by the others.
The examples above of $\logic{N}$ and the failed dialogical characterization
of $\logic{LQ}$ demonstrate the sensitive dependence of $\setofvalid{S}$ on a
set $S$ of dialogue rules. Slight changes to a set $S$ of dialogue
rules can cause $\setofvalid{S}$ to shift from being a familiar logic
to a curiosity like $\logic{N}$ or the result of the failed characterization
of $\logic{LQ}$ (which may not even be a logic at all, in the sense of not
being closed under modus ponens) On the other hand, sometimes simple semantic intuitions do apparently lead to success, as in the case of stable logic in Section~\ref{sec:stable}.
The demonstrated sensitivity may turn out to be an intrinsic feature
of the dialogical approach. Moreover, sensitivity can be found
outside dialogues, too: one can jump from intuitionistic to classical
logic in a Hilbert-style calculus---an enormous leap, from the point
of view of the lattice of intermediate logics---in a single step by
adding a single new axiom (e.g., excluded middle or Peirce's formula).
And one can move from intuitionistic to classical logic by simply
dropping a constraint on the number of formulas that can appear on the
right-hand side of a sequent.\footnote{The claim here is not that all
Hilbert-style and sequent calculi for intuitionistic logic are such
that adding one new principle or dropping exactly one structural
condition are sufficient to capture classical logic; there are
precise calculi for which these claims hold. A concrete example of
a suitable Hilbert-style calculus is provided by the axioms $B$,
$C$, $K$, and $I$, with Peirce's formula~\cite{seldin1997}; the
calculus $G2$~\cite{troelstra-schwichtenberg} is a suitable example
of a sequent calculus.}
Nonetheless, the non-independence of standard sets of dialogue rules
is an obstacle to solving both the uniform and non-uniform
composition problems. From a foundation of an independent set of
dialogue rules, the problem of exposing some structure becomes easier
because we can gradually add or subtract rules with the confidence
that we are not making impermissible ``jumps'' in the space of
possibilities.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
Dialogue games can be viewed either as a stylized form of rational
interaction or as alternative logical calculi. We have raised two
problems---the modus ponens problem and the uniform substitution
problem---that, on either view, pose challenges for the dialogician
that are, so far, largely unaddressed. It seems that today much
remains to be done for dialogues to give them their proper
proof-theoretic foundation. We have argued, more precisely, that one
important gap is that we lack a structure theory for dialogues that
could help shed light on the problem of precisely what is the force of
various dialogue rules.
We are not able to give a precise characterization of ``direct''
solutions to problems in dialogical logic. We gave a few results and
conjectures (see, e.g., Lemma~\ref{no-explosion}) along the intended
lines. we in fact do not yet possess a direct solution. We left open
the problem of showing, directly, that classical propositional logic
is consistent, in the sense that there is no $\CLruleset$-valid
formula $\phi$ such that $\CLvalid{\phi}$ but satisfies $\CLvalid{\phi
\rightarrow \psi}$ for all formulas $\psi$. It seems plausible to us that a direct solution to
the problem is available; the solution may go via a normal form
theorem for dialogue games.
One reason behind our preference for direct solutions to problems in
dialogical logic is to stimulate the development of the dialogue
formalism so that it becomes more systematic. In our view, resorting
to external devices to establish basic results in dialogical logic is
not a vote of confidence for dialogues, but is implicitly a concession
that the formalism is awkward and difficult to work with.
Returning to the non-winning play that motivated our investigation (see Table~\ref{stable-non-win}, another option for proceeding would be to drop rule $\Deleven$ but keep the other rules. This opens the door to $\proponent$ having a winning strategy, but it is not clear what the logical characterization is. More precisely: A known characterization of $\CL$ is the $\Eruleset$ minus rules $\Deleven$ and $\Dtwelve$; it is possible that dropping $\Deleven$, but keeping $\Dtwelve$, gives us stable logic or at least a logic in which stability is provable. We leave this as an open problem. We also leave open the problem of showing that $\Eprimevalid$ is closed under uniform substitution and modus ponens. Solving both of these two problems would, combined with our soundness result, entail that the simple modification we made to the structural rules for intuitionistic logic do indeed yield stable logic.
\bibliographystyle{splncs03}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section:Introduction}
In recent years the problem of automatically determining semantic relatedness has been steadily gaining attention among statistical NLP and AI researchers.
This surge in semantic relatedness research has been reinforced by the emergence of applications that can greatly benefit
from semantic relatedness capabilities. Among these applications we mention targeted advertising
\shortcite{Broder2007,Ribeiro-Neto2005}, information retrieval and web search
\shortcite{Egozi2008,Varelas2005,Guha2003,Richardson95,Srihari2000},
automatic tagging and linking \shortcite{KorenLMS11,Schilder2001,Miller1993,Green1999}, and text categorization
\shortcite{Gabrilovich2006,Sebastiani2002,Gabrilovich2005}.
To motivate the need for semantic analysis capabilities, consider, for example, the difficult task of categorizing short text units (e.g., ads, tweets, search queries, reviews, etc.) using supervised learning.
Each specific unit contains very few words, and therefore we can find many units expressing the same idea (and belonging to the same category),
which only share function words (e.g., stop-words), but not content words.
The pedestrian approach, based on bag-of-words representation, might not be effective in this task
because short text units to be categorized often do not share many words with the training examples in their category.
It is now clear that it is necessary to represent such texts using semantic features
\shortcite<see, e.g.,>{Sriram2010,MihalceaCS06,Sun2011,Turney02,Yuhua2006}.
In general, many other applications require some form of deep semantic processing
and cannot rely only on shallow syntactical considerations.
In \emph{semantic relatedness} the goal is to quantify the intensity of how much two terms are related to each other.
The relatedness task considers all relation types between two target terms. These relations
can be among the known formal linguistics ones, which have a name (such as synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms, meronyms, related nouns, etc.),
but in general, such relations can be informal in the sense that they do not have a given name and they express some
(perhaps complex) relation between the two terms that has not been studied.
For example, consider the following three term pairs
\begin{eqnarray*}
\texttt{Michael Jordan} & : & \texttt{Basketball} \\
\texttt{Madonna} & : & \texttt{Pop} \\
\texttt{Marilyn Monroe} & : & \texttt{Movie}.
\end{eqnarray*}
All three pairs, \texttt{X : Y}, are strongly related via a common relation.
What would be your assessment of an underlying relation for these three pairs?\footnote{The common relation
we had in mind is ``X is an all times Y star''.}
To summarize, the semantic relatedness task involves all possible relations whose number is in principle unbounded.
We note that the
The NLP literature also considers the task of \emph{semantic similarity} in which the
(rather limited) goal is to quantify the \emph{synonymy} relation between two terms.
Indeed, as argued by \citeA{BudanitskyH06}, semantic relatedness
is considered more general than semantic similarity. In this sense the general semantic relatedness task is
more difficult.
In this work we consider the semantic relatedness task and we aim at qualifying the relatedness of two given terms
where the underlying relation can be formal or informal.
However, we do not aim at identifying or characterizing the underlying relation.\footnote{Such a relation \emph{characterization} task
is a very interesting problem in and off itself, but is far beyond the scope of our work.}
Note also that
in the standard semantic relatedness setting we consider here (see definitions in Section~\ref{Section:ProblemSetup}),
the terms to be evaluated for relatedness are provided without a context, unlike standard disambiguation settings
\cite<see, e.g.,>{Lesk1986,Cowie1992,Yarowsky1995,Agirre1996,Schutze1998,LeacockMC1998,Ide1998,Navigli2010}.
Thus, as most existing works on semantic relatedness, focusing on our or equivalent setup,
we do not aim at directly solving the disambiguation problem along the way.\footnote{Nevertheless, we note that we believe that it is possible
to extend our techniques to disambiguate a term within a context.}
Semantic relatedness is an elusive concept.
While a rigorous mathematical definition of semantic relatedness is currently beyond grasp, the concept
is intuitively clear.
Moreover, humans exhibit remarkable
capabilities in processing and understanding textual information, which is partly related to
their ability to assess semantic relatedness of terms.
Even without precise understanding of this intelligent ability, it is still intuitively clear that
deep semantic processing
of terms and text fragments should heavily rely on background knowledge and experience.
The statistical NLP and AI communities have adopted a pragmatic modus operandi to these questions: even if we don't know how to
define semantic relatedness, we can still create computer programs that emulate it.
Indeed, a number of useful heuristic approaches to semantic relatedness have been
proposed, and this line of work has proven to be rewarding
\cite<see, e.g.,>{Resnik95,DekangLin657297,Bloehdorn2007,GabrilovichM07,Cowie1992}.
In particular, it has been shown that useful semantic relatedness scores can be systematically extracted
from large lexical databases or electronic repositories of common-sense and domain-specific background knowledge.
With the exception of a few papers,
most of the algorithms proposed for semantic relatedness
valuation have been following \emph{unsupervised} learning or \emph{knowledge engineering} procedures.
Such semantic relatedness valuation functions have been
generated, for the most part, using some hand-crafted formulas applied to semantic information
extracted from a (structured) background knowledge corpus.
The proposed methods have employed a number of interesting techniques,
some of which are discussed in Section~\ref{Section:RelatedWork}.
One motivation for the present work is the realization that semantic relatedness assessments are \emph{relative} and \emph{subjective}
rather than \emph{absolute} and \emph{objective}. While we can expect some kind of consensus among people on the (relative) relatedness valuations of
basic terms, the relatedness assessments of most terms depend on many subjective and personal factors such as literacy, intelligence, context, time and location.
For example, the name \texttt{Michael Jordan} is generally strongly related to \texttt{Basketball},
but some people in the machine learning community may consider it more related to \texttt{Machine Learning}.
As another example, consider WordSim353 \shortcite{FinkelsteinGMRSWR01i}, the standard benchmark dataset for evaluating and comparing semantic relatedness measures (see Section~\ref{Section:StandardBenchmarkDatasets}).
This benchmark contains some controversial relative preferences between word pairs such as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\texttt{Arafat-Peace}& vs. & \texttt{Arafat-Terror} \\
\texttt{Jerusalem-Israel} & vs. & \texttt{Jerusalem-Palestinian}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Can you tell which pair is more related in each instance?
Obviously, the answer must be personal/subjective.
As a final example for the subjective nature of semantic relatedness, let's consider the Miller and Charles's dataset \cite{MillerCharlesDataset}, which is a distinct subset of the Rubenstein and Goodenough's dataset \cite{Rubenstein1965}.
Both datasets were annotated using the same score scale by (probably different) human raters.
This double rating resulted in different semantic scores and more importantly, in different
pair rankings.\footnote{The Spearman correlation between the rankings of these datasets is 0.947.}
It is evident that each dataset expresses the subjective semantics of its human raters.
This sensitivity of semantic relatedness to subjective factors should make it very hard, if not impossible,
to satisfy all semantic relatedness needs using an unsupervised or a hand-crafted method.
Moreover, the fitting to a particular test benchmark in an unsupervised manner
is not necessarily entirely meaningful in certain scenarios.
Indeed, some published semantic relatedness measures outperform others in
certain benchmarks tests and underperform in others.
For example, \citeA{PonzettoS07} mentioned that the WordNet-based measures
perform better than the Wikipedia-based measures on the Rubenstein and Goodenough benchmark, but the WordNet methods are inferior over
WordSim353.
In this work we propose a novel \emph{supervised} approach to learning semantic relatedness from examples.
Following \shortciteA{1620758} we model semantic relatedness learning as a binary classification problem
where each instance encodes the relative relatedness of two term pairs.
Given a labeled training set our goal is to learn a semantic relatedness function capable of determining the labels of unobserved instances.
We present an empirical risk minimization (ERM) algorithm that learns by inducing
a weighted measure of terms co-occurrence defined over a background knowledge corpus of free-text documents.
The labeled examples are used to fit this model to the training data.
The resulting algorithm is relatively simple, has only few hyper-parameters, and is
corpus independent. Our experiments show that the algorithm achieves notable generalization performance.
This is observed over a wide range of experiments on a number of benchmarks.
We examine and demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm
using two radically different background knowledge corpora: an old version of Wikipedia and
the books in the Project Gutenberg.
\section{Related Work}
\label{Section:RelatedWork}
The literature survey in this section attempts to encompass techniques and algorithms for assessing semantic relatedness.
As the class of such techniques is quite large, the discussion here is limited to ideas and works in close vicinity
of the present work.
Semantic relatedness techniques typically rely on some kind of world or expert knowledge, which we term here
\emph{background knowledge (BK)}. The BK is a key element in many methods and
we categorize semantic relatedness techniques into three main types according to type and structure of
their BK.
\emph{Lexical} methods rely on lexical databases such as WordNet \cite{WordNet} (George A. Miller began the WordNet project in the mid-1980s) or Roget's Thesaurus \cite{Roget1852}.
\emph{Wiki} methods rely on structured BK corpora like Wikipedia or the Open Directory Project (DMOZ).
The structure in Wiki BKs can be manifested in various ways, and the most important ones are semantic coherency of documents and titles,
meaningful interlinks (often accompanied with meaningful anchor texts), and hierarchical categorization.
Finally, semantic relatedness techniques that rely on unstructured text collections are referred to as \emph{structure-free} methods.
Before delving into these three BK types we divert the discussion in the next subsection and
elaborate on standard benchmark datasets for evaluating semantic relatedness techniques.
\subsection{Standard Benchmark Datasets}
\label{Section:StandardBenchmarkDatasets}
A key contributing element that greatly influenced semantic relatedness research is the presence of benchmark test collections.
While the currently available datasets are quite small, they are considered ``representative'' and meaningful because they were annotated by human raters.
Each of these datasets consists of a list of word pairs, along with their numerical
relatedness score.
In the semantic relatedness literature it is common to evaluate relatedness ranking, $Y = \{y_i\}_1^n$, with the corresponding ground truth
(conveyed by such datasets), $Z = \{z_i\}_1^n$, using the Spearman correlation, defined as,
$$
\rho(Y,Z)=1 - \frac{6 \cdot \sum_1^n (y_i - z_i)^2}{n \cdot (n^2 - 1)}.
$$
Rubenstein and Goodenough (R\&G) \cite{Rubenstein1965} were perhaps the first to assemble an annotated semantic dataset.
Their dataset consists of 65 word pairs associated with their similarity scores,
where mark $4$ is assigned to the most similar pairs (often synonyms), and mark $0$ to the least similar ones.
Miller and Charles (M\&C) \cite{MillerCharlesDataset} selected a particular subset from the R\&G set consisting of 30 word pairs,
which were than ranked using the same 0--4 score scale.
WordSim353 is the most recent semantic benchmark dataset \cite{FinkelsteinGMRSWR01i}.\footnote{WordSim353 is available at \url{http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gabr/resources/data/wordsim353}.}
This dataset, while still small, is substantially larger and consists of a list of 353 word pairs along with their human evaluated semantic relatedness scores, from $0$ (the least related) to $10$ (the most related).
While the R\&G and M\&C datasets are used for evaluating semantic similarity measures (i.e., synonym relations), WordSim353 involves a variety of semantic relations and in the past years
has been providing a focal point to practical semantic relatedness research. In the discussion below we will mention WordSim353 Spearman correlation scores in cases where they were reported.
\subsection{Lexical Methods}
Many of the lexical methods rely on the WordNet database \cite{WordNet} as their BK corpus.
WordNet is a lexical database for the English language that was created and is being maintained at the Cognitive Science Laboratory in Princeton University.
WordNet organizes English words in groups called \emph{synsets}, which are sets of synonyms.
The lexical relations between synsets are categorized into types such as hypernyms, meronyms, related nouns, ``similar to'',
etc.\footnote{
Y is a hypernym of X if every X is a (kind of) Y. See definitions of the rest of these linguistic relations in \url{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordNet}.}
In addition to these semantic relations WordNet also provides a polysemy count (the number of synsets that contain the term) for disambiguation.
WordNet is intended to be used both manually or automatically to serve applications.
Another lexical database is Roget's Thesaurus \cite{Roget1852}. Although it might be implied from its name, this database is not a dictionary of synonyms,
and as stated by Kirkpatrick \cite{Kirkpatrick1998}: ``\emph{it is hardly possible to find two words having in all respect the same meaning, and being therefore
interchangeable}.''
Similarly to WordNet, Rodget's Thesaurus contains groups of terms, called \emph{semicolon groups}, which are linked. However, those links are not
lexically annotated as in WordNet.
Lexical semantic relatedness methods typically view the lexical database as a graph whose nodes are terms and edges are lexical relations.
Semantic relatedness scores are extracted using certain statistics defined on this graph.
\citeA{Resnik95,Resnik99} generated semantic relatedness scores based on a combination of IS-A (hyponym) relations in WordNet and a structure-free corpus.
Each synset in WordNet, $c$, is assigned a probability, $prob(c)$, according to the frequency of its descendants (including itself) in a corpus.
The information content (ic) of two synsets $c_1$ and $c_2$ is then defined as
$ic(c_1,c_2) = \max_{c \in \Psi(c_1,c_2)} {\{ - \log(prob(c))\}}$,
where $\Psi(c_1,c_2)$ is the set of synsets that are connected by an IS-A directed path to both $c_1$ and $c_2$; that is,
$\Psi(c_1,c_2)$ is the set of all the ancestors of both $c_1$ and $c_2$.
The semantic relatedness (sr) of two terms, $t_1$ and $t_2$, is defined as
$$
sr(t_1,t_2) = \max_{c_1 \in s(t_1), \ c_2 \in s(t_2)} {\{ ic(c_1,c_2)\}},
$$
where $s(t)$ is the set of synsets in WordNet that contain $t$.
Another attempt to combine WordNet IS-A relations with a structure-free corpus was made by
\citeA{journals/corr/cmp-lg-9709008}.
They weighted a link (lexical relation) between a child node, $c$, and a parent node, $p$, according to the differences in their information content (as proposed by Resnik),
the depth of $p$ in the hierarchy, the degree of $p$, and the average degree in the whole hierarchy.
The semantic relatedness of two terms, $t_1$ and $t_2$, is valuated by summing up the weights along the shortest path between a synset that contains $t_1$, and a
synset containing $t_2$. Utilizing their measure, Jiang and Conrath managed to improve upon the Resnik measure.
\shortciteA{TKDE2003} defined and calculated the semantic similarity between two words, $w_1$ and $w_2$, as a function of: (i) the shortest path between $w_1$ and $w_2$;
(ii) the depth of the first concept in the IS-A hierarchy that subsumes both $w_1$ and $w_2$; and (iii) the semantic density of $w_1$ and $w_2$, which is based on their information content.
Li et al. assumed that these three information sources are independent and used several nonlinear functions to combine them.
\citeA{BanerjeeP03} extended the glosses (definitions in WordNet) overlap measure defined by
\citeA{Lesk1986}. Given two synsets in WordNet, they enriched their
glosses with the glosses of their related synsets, according to WordNet link structure, and calculated semantic relatedness
as a function of the overlap between these
``enriched glosses.''
Banerjee and Pedersen also weighted the terms in the overlap according to the number of words in those terms.
\citeA{Pedersen06}
combined co-occurrences in raw text with WordNet definitions to build gloss vectors.
\citeA{Jarmasz03} calculated the semantic relatedness between two terms as the number of edges in all the pathes between the two terms in a Roget's Thesaurus graph,
achieving 0.54 correlation with WordSim353 dataset \cite{JarmaszThesis}.
\citeA{HughesR07} calculated the Personalized PageRank vector \shortcite{PersonalizedPageRank} for each node (term) under some representation of WordNet as a graph.
They considered three node types: (i) synsets; (ii) \emph{TokenPOS}, for a word coupled with its part-of-speech tag;
and (iii) \emph{Token}, for a word without its part-of-speech tag. In addition to WordNet's links, each synset is connected to all the tokens in it or in its gloss. Moreover, they proposed three models to compute the stationary distribution: (i) \emph{MarkovLink},
which contains WordNet's links and links from tokens to synsets that contain them;
(ii) \emph{MarkovGloss}, containing only links between tokens and synsets that contain them in their gloss;
and (iii) \emph{MarkovJoined}, containing all the edges in both MarkovLink and MarkovGloss.
In order to estimate the similarity between two PageRank vectors, they used the cosine similarity measure, as well as a
newly proposed \emph{zero-KL Divergence} measure, based on Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence measure of information theory.
Hughes and Ramage obtained their best result of 0.552 Spearman correlation with WordSim353,
when using the MarkovLink model and the zero-KL Divergence.
\shortciteA{Tsatsaronis2009,TsatsaronisVV10} proposed the \emph{Omiotis} measure. They weighted the relations between synsets in WordNet according to their frequency. Given a WordNet path, $p$, between two synsets, $s_1$ and $s_2$, they defined its \emph{semantic compactness measure (SCM)} as the product of edge weights in $p$. In addition, they defined the \emph{semantic path elaboration (SPE)} of $p$ as:
$SPE\left( p \right) = \prod\nolimits_{i = 1}^l {\frac{{2{d_i} \cdot {d_{i + 1}}}}{{d_i} + {d_{i + 1}}} \cdot \frac{1}{d_{\max }}}$, where $d_i$ is the depth in WordNet of the synset $s_i$ in $p$,
and $d_{\max }$ is the maximum depth. The compactness of $p$ is thus the product of the harmonic mean of
depths of consecutive edges, normalized by the maximum depth. The semantic relatedness between $s_1$ and $s_2$
according to $p$ is $SCM\left( p \right) \cdot SPE\left( p \right)$. Finally, they defined the semantic relatedness between $s_1$ and $s_2$ as,
$\mathop {\max }\limits_{p \in P} \left\{ {SCM\left( p \right) \cdot SPE\left( p \right)} \right\}$, where $P$ is the set of all paths between $s_1$ and $s_2$.
Omiotis achieved 0.61 spearman correlation with WordSim353.
\citeA{Morris1991} introduced the concept of lexical chains between words as an element to represent and find the text structure.
They argued that coherent text is assembled from textual units (sentences and phrases) that convey similar meaning.
They termed these sequences of textual units as \emph{lexical chains}.
Using these chains they defined text cohesion and determined its meaning.
\citeA{HirstStOnge1998} constructed these chains from the links between WordNet synsets.
The reader is referred to \cite{Budanitsky01,BudanitskyH06} for a study of various other lexical methods. Refer also to
\cite{PedersenPM04} for a freely available software that implements six semantic measures: three information content based measures \cite{Resnik95,DekangLin657297,journals/corr/cmp-lg-9709008}, two path length based measures \cite{Leacock1998,WuP94}, and a baseline measure that is the inverse of the length of the shortest path between two concepts.
\subsection{Wiki Methods}
\citeA{WikiRelate2006,PonzettoS07} are perhaps the first to consider Wikipedia as the source for semantic relatedness information.
The relatedness between two terms $t_1$ and $t_2$ is computed
by identifying representative Wiki articles $d_1$ and $d_2$ containing those terms in their titles,
respectively.\footnote{In cases of multiple representative articles, several heuristics were proposed to resolve ambiguity.}
The semantic relatedness is then derived in several ways using several distance measures between $d_1$ and $d_2$, such as
normalized path-length in the category hierarchy \cite{Leacock1998},
information content \cite{Resnik95},
text overlap (number of common terms, proposed by \citeA{Lesk1986} and \citeA{BanerjeeP03}), etc.
The best result of this method (called Wikirelate!) achieved a 0.49 Spearman correlation with WordSim353.
\citeA{GabrilovichM07} introduced the celebrated Explicit Semantic Analysis (\emph{ESA}) method,
where each term $t$ has distributional representation $v(t)$ over all Wikipedia articles.
The components of the vector $v(t)$ are TF-IDF scores \cite{Salton1988513} of the term $t$ in all articles.
The semantic relatedness value of two terms is defined as the cosine of their vectors.
Various enhancements and extensions to this basic ESA method were discussed in \cite{GabrilovichM09};
for example, a filter based on link analysis was introduced to obtain more meaningful distributional term representations.
ESA achieved a Spearman correlation of 0.75 with WordSim353, and is currently widely recognized as a top performing
semantic relatedness method. Moreover, ESA is frequently used as a subroutine in many applications
\cite<see, e.g.,>{Yeh:2009:WRW:1708124.1708133,RadinskyAGM11,Haralambous2011}.
\citeA{MilneWitten2008} proposed the \textit{Wikipedia Link-based Measure (WLM)},
which utilizes the interlinks between Wikipedia's articles.
They proposed two methods to calculate the relatedness between two articles.
The first calculates a weighted vector of the links of each article and returns the cosine of these vectors.
The link weighting function is inspired by the TF-IDF measure.
The second method utilizes the Normalized Google Distance of \citeA{GoogleSimilarityDistance}
(discussed in Section~\ref{Section:AdaptiveCoOccurrenceMeasure}), applied to interlinks counts.
Given two terms, WLM selects two representing articles to these terms and returns the average of the above
methods.\footnote{Milne and Witten also proposed several ways to choose representative articles for a given pair of terms.}
WLM achieved a Spearman correlation of 0.69 with WordSim353.
\shortciteA{Yeh:2009:WRW:1708124.1708133} proposed a method called \textit{WikiWalk}
that utilizes Wikipedia as a graph whose nodes are articles and the interlinks are the edges.
Given a text fragment, WikiWalk maps it to a distribution over the nodes and calculates its Personalized PageRank in the graph according to this distribution.
Yeh et al. proposed two methods to map the given text to a distribution over nodes: dictionary based, and \textit{ESA} based.
The semantic relatedness of two terms is defined as the cosine similarity between their Personalized PageRank vectors.
WikiWalk achieved a Spearman correlation of 0.634 with WordSim353.
\shortciteA{RadinskyAGM11} proposed the Temporal Semantic Analysis (\emph{TSA}), which expands the ESA method mentioned above by
adding a temporal dimension to the representation of a concept.
As in ESA, TSA represents terms as a weighted concept vector generated from a corpus.
However, for each concept, TSA extracts in addition a temporal representation using another corpus whose documents are divided into epochs (e.g., days, weeks, months, etc.).
With this extra corpus TSA calculates for each concept its ``temporal dynamics,'' which is its frequency in each epoch.
Given two terms, TSA computes their semantic relatedness by measuring the similarity between the temporal representation of their ESA concepts.
TSA obtained 0.82 correlation score with WordSim353, which is the best known result for WordSim353 using an \emph{unsupervised}
learning method.
\subsection{Structure-Free Methods}
Motivated by Kolmogorov complexity arguments, \citeA{GoogleSimilarityDistance} introduced a
novel structure-free semantic relatedness method, which is essentially a normalized co-occurrence measure.
This method, called the ``Google similarity distance,'' originally used the entire web as the unstructured corpus and
relied on a search engine to provide rough assessments of co-occurrence counts.
This method is extensively used in our work (without reliance on the entire web and search engines) and is
described in Section~\ref{Section:AdaptiveCoOccurrenceMeasure}.
Using term-document occurrence count matrix, \shortciteA{Deerwester90} used
Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to compare the meaning of terms. Applying this measure,
\shortciteA{FinkelsteinGMRSWR01i}
achieved 0.56 correlation with WordSim353.\footnote{The implementation they used is available online at \url{http://lsa.colorado.edu}}
\citeA{DekangLin657297} proposed information-based methods to define and quantify term similarity.
\shortciteA{Dagan+Lee+Pereira:99a} and \citeA{Terra2003}
experimented with various statistical and information co-occurrence measures, such as mutual information, likelihood ratio, $L_1$ norm, and the KL- and Jensen-Shannon divergences, for estimating semantic relatedness from structure-free corpora.
\citeA{ReisingerMooney10} generated for a term $t$ a number of feature vectors, one for each context in which $t$ appears.
The feature vector of a certain context contains weights for all terms appearing with t in this
context and weights are calculated based on TF-IDF and $\chi^2$ scores.
These feature vectors were then clustered and cluster centroids were taken to represent the meaning of $t$.
Using this representation they considered various methods to calculate semantic relatedness of two terms according to similarity of their respective centroids.
This method obtained a correlation of 0.77 with WordSim353 by using combined centroids from clusterings of different resolutions.
This impressive performance is among the best known.
\subsection{Supervised Methods}
\label{Section:SupervisedSemanticRelatednessMethods}
All the semantic relatedness methods described in previous subsections, as well as many other published results not covered here,
can be framed as unsupervised learning techniques, whereby
the semantic relatedness scores emerge from the BK corpus, using some hand-crafted techniques without further human supervision.
There have been a few successful attempts to utilize \emph{supervised} learning techniques as well.
To the best of our knowledge, all of these works follow a similar methodology whereby the features of
a learning instance are assembled from scores obtained by various unsupervised methods (such as those discussed above).
Using this feature generation approach one then resorts to known inductive learning techniques such as
support vector machines (SVMs) \cite{SVM} to learn a classifier or a regressor.
\citeA{WikiRelate2006,PonzettoS07} used SVM regression applied to
instances whose features were constructed as a hybrid of
all the unsupervised techniques described above, which are based on WordNet or Wikipedia.
In addition, Strube and Ponzetto used the Jaccard measure \cite{IntroToIR} applied
to Google search results counts. Overall, their learning instances were comprised of 12 features (six Wikipedia-based scores, five WordNet-based scores
and one Google-based score). They employed a feature selection technique using a genetic algorithm
\shortcite{Mierswa2006},
and applied a standard model selection approach using grid search to identify useful hyper-parameters.
Overall, they obtained 0.66 correlation with the WordSim353 ground truth.
\shortciteA{2007:MSS:1242572.1242675} considered the \emph{semantic similarity} problem mentioned in Section~\ref{Section:Introduction}.
They constructed a feature vector for a given pair of terms by calculating four well-known co-occurrence measures
(Jaccard, Overlap/Simpson coefficient, Dice coefficient and mutual information) and lexico-syntactic templates
(e.g., `X of Y', `X and Y are', `X of Y'),
which were derived from page counts and snippets retrieved using a web search engine.
Bollegala et al. employed an SVM to classify whether two terms are synonyms or not.
The SVM was trained using examples that were taken from WordNet, considering terms from the same (resp., different)
synset as positive (resp., negative) examples.
The similarity between $t_1$ and $t_2$ was computed as a function of their feature vector's location relative to the SVM decision boundary.
\shortciteA{1620758} considered the binary classification problem of determining which pair among two term pairs is more
related to each other.
In their method,
each instance, consisting of two pairs, $\{t_1,t_2\}$ and $\{t_3,t_4\}$, is represented as a feature vector constructed using
semantic relatedness scores and ranks from other (unsupervised) relatedness methods.
Specifically, they considered three structure-free semantic relatedness methods and one lexical semantic relatedness method
so that the overall feature vector for an
instance, is a 16-dimensional vector (four scores and four ranks for each term pair).
Using an SVM classifier they obtained 0.78 correlation with WordSim353.
The structure-free BK used for achieving this result consisted of four billion web documents.
They reported that the overall computation utilized 2000 CPU cores for 15 minutes (approximately 20 days on one core).
Another attempt to utilize SVMs, where features are constructed using unsupervised scores, is reported
by \citeA{Haralambous2011}.
They considered the following unsupervised measures: (i) ESA \cite{GabrilovichM07}; (ii) a weighted shortest path measure based on
WordNet; and (iii) another co-occurrence measure, which is a variant of Jaccard's measure.
Using some combination of these three scores, they managed to achieve 0.7996
correlation with WordSim353. By training an SVM over a training set extracted from WordSim353 term pairs
(represented by these features) they achieved 0.8654 correlation with WordSim353. This is the best
correlation score that was ever reported.
Haralambous and Klyuev noted that this impressive result relies on optimizations
of the ESA hyper-parameters but the precise details of this optimization were not reported.
Both \shortciteA{1620758} and \citeA{Haralambous2011} achieved their
reported results using 10-fold cross validation, thus utilizing 90\% of the available labeled preferences for training.
To summarize, among these works the Agirre et al. approach is the closest to ours, mainly in its formulation of the learning problem.
However, our solution methodology is fundamentally different.
\section{Problem Setup}
\label{Section:ProblemSetup}
We consider a fixed corpus, $\cC \eqdef \{ c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_N \}$, defined to be a set of
contexts. Each \emph{context} $c_i$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, is a textual unit conveying some information in free text.
In this work we consider contexts that are sentences, paragraphs or whole documents.
Let $D \eqdef \{t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_d\}$
be a \emph{dictionary} consisting of all the terms appearing in the corpus.
A term may be any frequent phrase (unigram, bigram, trigram, etc.) in the corpus, e.g., ``book'', ``New York'',
``The Holly Land.''
Ultimately, our goal is to automatically construct a function $f(t_1,t_2)$ that correctly ranks the relatedness of the terms
$t_1,t_2 \in D$ in accordance with the subjective semantics of a given labler.
We emphasize that we do not require $f$ to provide absolute scores but rather a relative values
inducing a complete order over the relatedness of all terms.
We note that in reality this total order assumption doesn't hold, since the comparison between two term pairs
not sharing any term might be meaningless.
Furthermore, human preferences may contain cycles, perhaps due to comparisons made using different features (as in the rock-paper-scissors game), or due to noise/confusion.
However, we impose total order for simplicity and it reduce the VC-dimension of our hypothesis class (see Section~\ref{Section:ALearningTheoreticalPerspective}).
\subsection{Learning Model}
\label{Section:LearningModel}
Our goal is to construct the function $f$ using supervised learning.
Specifically, the user will be presented with a training set
$\{X_1,\ldots,X_m\}$ to be labeled, where each $X_i \eqdef (\{t^i_1,t^i_2\},\{t^i_3,t^i_4\})$ is a quadruple of terms.
The binary label, $y_i \in \{\pm1\}$, of the instance $X_i$ should be $+1$ if the terms in the first pair $\{t^i_1,t^i_2\}$ are more related to each other than the terms in the second pair $\{t^i_3,t^i_4\}$, and $-1$ otherwise.
Each quadruple along with its label, $(X_i,y_i)$ is also called a \emph{preference}.
Among all possible quadruples, we restrict our attention only to quadruples in the set,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Dpref}
D_{pref} \eqdef \left\{ (\{t_1,t_2\},\{t_3,t_4\}) \left|
\begin{array}{ll}
& t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4 \in D,\\
& t_1 \neq t_2, t_3 \neq t_4, \\
& \{t_1,t_2\} \neq \{t_3,t_4\}.
\end{array}
\right. \right\}
\end{equation}
The reason to focus only on preferences $X \in D_{pref}$ is that any quadruple $X \in D^4 \setminus D_{pref}$ encodes a meaningless preference,
since the semantic relatedness of term pairs such as $\{t,t\}$ and preferences such as $(\{t_1,t_2\}, \{t_1,t_2\})$ are
trivial.
Denote by $S_m \eqdef \{(X_1,y_1), \ldots, (X_m,y_m)\}$, a set of labeled training examples received from the user.
We assume that if $(X,y) \in {S_m}$ then $(X,-y) \notin {S_m}$.
A binary classifier in our context is a function $h:D_{pref} \to \{\pm1\}$ satisfying, for all
$(\{t_1,t_2\},\{t_3,t_4\}) \in D_{pref}$, the ``anti-symmetry'' condition
\begin{equation}
\label{ref:cond}
h(\{t_1,t_2\},\{t_3,t_4\})=-h(\{t_3,t_4\},\{t_1,t_2\})
\end{equation}
The 0/1 \emph{training error} of $h$ is,
$$
R_m(h) \eqdef \frac{1}{m} \sum_i \I \{ h(X_i) \neq y_i \}.
$$
The standard underlying assumption in supervised learning is that
(labeled) instances are drawn i.i.d. from some unknown distribution $P(X,Y)$ defined over
$D_{pref} \times \{\pm 1\}$.
The classifier $h$ is chosen from some hypothesis class
$\cH$.
In this work we focus on the \emph{realizable setting} whereby
labels are defined by some unknown \emph{target hypothesis} $h^* \in \cH$.
Thus, the underlying distribution reduces to $P(X)$.
The performance of a classifier $h$ is quantified by its
true or (0/1) \emph{test error},
$$
R(h) \eqdef \E_P \{ h(X) \neq Y \}.
$$
\subsection{Learning from Preferences vs. Absolute Scores}
Why do we choose to ask the user about pairwise preferences rather than requesting an absolute relatedness score of a single pair
of terms? Our choice is strongly motivated by recent work showing that answers to such questions are more accurate than
answers to questions about absolute quality.
In order to extract an absolute score, a user
must rely on some implicit global scale, which may or may not exist.
We mention the papers \shortcite{Carterette08hereor,1414238,1718491} as a small sample
of studies that
justify this general approach both theoretically and empirically.
\section{Adaptive Co-occurrence Model}
\label{Section:AdaptiveCoOccurrenceMeasure}
Recognizing the widely accepted idea that the intensity of semantic relatedness between two terms is
a function of their co-occurrence pattern in textual documents,
we would like to somehow measure co-occurrence using a corpus of BK where such patterns are manifested.
Therefore, a major component of the proposed algorithm is an appropriate co-occurrence measure.
However, we also require adaptivity to specific user's subjective relatedness preferences.
Our observation is that such adaptivity can be accomplished by
learning from examples user specific weights to be assigned to contexts, as described blow.
Overall, our approach is to construct
a reasonable initial model, derived only from the BK corpus (without supervision),
which fits a rough general consensus on
relatedness of basic terms. This initial model is the starting point of a learning process that will refine the model to
fit specific user preferences.
In a preliminary study we examined various co-occurrence indices, such as Jaccard measure, pointwise mutual information, KL- and Jensen-Shannon divergences, and latent semantic analysis.
Based on this study and some published results \cite{Dagan+Lee+Pereira:99a,Terra2003,RecchiaJones2009},
we selected the normalized semantic distance measure of \citeA{GoogleSimilarityDistance}.\footnote{Note that Cilibrasi and Vitanyi termed this function
``Google similarity distance'' and applied it by relying on Google to retrieve proxies for co-occurrence statistics. In our discussion co-occurrence statistics can be obtained in any desirable manner.}
Specifically, we observed that $\nsd$ by itself can achieve a high 0.745 Spearman correlation with WordSim353
(via our implementation using Wikipedia as the BK corpus)
thus providing a very effective starting point. We note that information measures are
also effective, but not quite as good.\footnote{Pointwise mutual information achieved correlation of
0.73 with WordSim353 \cite{RecchiaJones2009}.}
We also find it appealing that this measure was derived from solid algorithmic complexity principles.
Cilibrasi and Vitanyi defined
the \emph{semantics} $S(t_1, \dots ,t_n)$ of the terms $t_1, \dots ,t_n$, as the set of all contexts
in which they appear together. Than they defined the \emph{normalized semantic distance ($\nsd$)} between $t_1, t_2$ to be
\begin{equation}
\label{ref:nsd}
\nsd \left( {{t_1},{t_2}} \right) \eqdef \frac{{\max \left\{ {\log \left( {\left| {S\left( {{t_1}} \right)} \right|} \right),\log \left( {\left| {S\left( {{t_2}} \right)} \right|} \right)} \right\} - \log \left( {\left| {S\left( {{t_1},{t_2}} \right)} \right|} \right)}}{{\log \left( Z \right) - \min \left\{ {\log \left( {\left| {S\left( {{t_1}} \right)} \right|} \right),\log \left( {\left| {S\left( {{t_2}} \right)} \right|} \right)} \right\}}},
\end{equation}
where $Z \eqdef \sum_{{t_1},{t_2} \in D} |S(t_1,t_2)|$.
The $\nsd$ function, like any other absolute scoring function for pairs, induces a permutation over
all the term pairs, and therefore,
can be utilized as a classifier for semantic relatedness preferences, as required.
However, this classifier is constructed blindly without any consideration of the user's subjective preferences.
To incorporate user subjective preferences we introduce a novel extension of $\nsd$ that allows for assigning weights to contexts.
Define the \emph{weighted semantics} $WS(t_1, \dots ,t_n)$ of the terms $t_1, \dots ,t_n$
as
$$
WS(t_1,\ldots,t_n) \eqdef \sum_{c \in S(t_1,\ldots,t_n)} {w(c)},
$$
where $w(c) \in \mathbb{R}^+$ is a weight assigned to the context $c$, where
we impose the normalization constraint
\begin{equation}
\label{ref:WeightConstraint}
\sum_{c \in \C} w(c) = |\C| = N.
\end{equation}
Thus, given a BK corpus, $\cC = \{ c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_N \}$,
and a set $W$ of weights,
$$
W \eqdef \{ w(c_1), w(c_2),\ldots,w(c_N) \},
$$
we define \emph{weighted normalized semantic distance ($\wnsd$)} between $t_1$ and $t_2$ is,
\begin{center}
$\wnsd_{W}(t_1,t_2) \eqdef \frac{\max \{\log (WS(t_1)), \log(WS(t_2))\}-\log (WS(t_1,t_2))}{\log (Z) - \min \{\log (WS(t_1)), \log(WS(t_2))\}}$,
\end{center}
where $Z$ is a normalization constant,
$$
Z \eqdef \sum_{{t_1},{t_2} \in D} WS(t_1,t_2).
$$
We call the set $W$ of weights a \emph{semantic model} and our goal is to learn an appropriate model
from labeled examples.
Recall that our objective is to quantify the relatedness of two terms
in a ``universal'' manner, namely, regardless of the types of relations that link these terms.
Is it really possible to learn a single model $W$ that will encode coherent semantics universally for all terms and
all relations?
At the outset, this objective might appear hard or even impossible to achieve.
Additional special obstacle is the modeling of synonym relations.
The common wisdom is that synonym terms, which exhibit a very high degree of relatedness,
are unlikely to occur in the same context \cite<see, e.g.,>{DekangLin657297,BudanitskyH06},
especially if the context unit is very small (e.g., a sentence).
Can our model capture similarity relations? We empirically investigate these questions in the
Sections~\ref{Section:ExpLargeScale}, \ref{Section:ExpMediumScale}, \ref{Section:ExpSmallScale} and \ref{Section:ExpSubjectiveSR} where we
evaluate the performance of our model via datasets that encompass term pairs with various relations.
In addition, we further investigate the similarity relations via an ad-hoc experiment in Section~\ref{Section:SemanticSimilarityExp}.
\section{The SemanticSort Algorithm}
\label{Section:SemanticSortAlgorithm}
Let $f_W:D \times D \to \mathbb{R}^+$ be any adaptive co-occurrence measure satisfying the
following properties: (i) each context has an associated weight in $W$;
(ii) $f_W(t_1,t_2)$ monotonically increases with increasing weight(s) of context(s) in $S(t_1,t_2)$;
and (iii) $f_W(t_1,t_2)$ monotonically decreases with (increasing) weight(s) of context(s) in $S(t_1) \setminus S(t_1,t_2)$
or $S(t_2) \setminus S(t_1,t_2)$.
We now present a learning algorithm that can utilize any such function.
We later apply this algorithm while instantiating this function to
$\wnsd$, which clearly satisfies the required properties. Note, however, that many known co-occurrence measures
can be extended (to include weights) and be applied as well.
Relying on $f_W$ we would like utilize empirical risk minimization (ERM)
to learn an appropriate model $W$ of context weights so as to be
consistent with the training set $S_m$.
To this end we designed the following algorithm, called $\algname$,
which minimizes the training error over $S_m$
by fitting appropriate weights to $f_W$.
A pseudocode is provided in Algorithm~\ref{alg:SemanticSort}.
The inputs to $\algname$ are $S_m$, a learning rate factor $\alpha$, a learning rate factor threshold $\alpha_{max}$,
a decrease threshold $\epsilon$,
and a learning rate function $\lambda$.
When a training example is not satisfied, e.g.,
$e=(X=(\{t_1,t_2\},\{t_3,t_4\}),y=+1)$ and $f_{W}(t_1,t_2) < f_{W}(t_3,t_4)$),
we would like to increase the semantic relatedness score of $t_1$ and $t_2$ and decrease the semantic relatedness score of $t_3$ and $t_4$.
$\algname$ achieves this by multiplicatively promoting/demoting the weights of the ``good''/``bad'' contexts in which $t_1,t_2$ and $t_3,t_4$ co-occur.
The weight increase (resp., decrease) depends on $\lambdaUP$ (resp., $\lambdaDN$), which are defined as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambdaUP &\eqdef& \frac{\alpha \cdot \lambda(\Delta_{e})+1}{\alpha \cdot \lambda(\Delta_{e})}\\
\lambdaDN &\eqdef& \frac{1}{\lambdaUP}.
\end{eqnarray*}
$\algname$ uses $\lambda$ to update context weights in accordance with the
error magnitude
incurred for example $e=(X=(\{t_1,t_2\},\{t_3,t_4\}),y)$, defined as
$$
\Delta_{e} \eqdef |f_{W}(t_1,t_2) - f_{ W}(t_3,t_4)|.
$$
Thus, we require that $\lambda$ is a monotonically decreasing function so that the greater $\Delta_{e}$ is, the more aggressive $\lambdaUP$ and $\lambdaDN$ will be.
The learning speed of the algorithm depends on these rates, and overly aggressive rates might prevent convergence due to oscillating semantic relatedness scores.
Hence, $\algname$ gradually refines the learning rates as follows.
Define
$$
\Delta \eqdef \sum_{\mbox{\tiny $e$ is not satisfied}} {{\Delta _e}},
$$
as the total sum of the differences over unsatisfied examples.
We observe that if $\Delta$ decreases at least in $\epsilon$ in each iteration, then
$\algname$ converges and the learning rates remain the same.
Otherwise, $\algname$ will update the learning rate to be less aggressive
by doubling $\alpha$.
Therefore, we require that $0 < \epsilon$.
Note that the decrease of $\Delta$ is only used to control
convergence, but we test $\algname$ using the 0/1 loss function
as described in Section~\ref{Section:Evaluationmethodology}.
$\algname$ iterates over the examples until its hypothesis satisfies all of them,
or $\alpha$ exceeds the $\alpha_{max}$ threshold.
Thus, empirical risk minimization in our context is manifested by minimizing $\Delta$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{$\algname(S_m, \alpha, \alpha_{max}, \epsilon, \lambda$)}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Initialize:
\STATE $W \leftarrow \overrightarrow 1$
\STATE $\Delta_{prev} \leftarrow Max Double Value$
\REPEAT
\STATE $\Delta \leftarrow 0$
\FORALL{$e=((\{t_1,t_2\},\{t_3,t_4\}),y) \in S_m$}
\IF{($y == -1$)}
\STATE $(\{t_1,t_2\},\{t_3,t_4\}) \leftarrow (\{t_3,t_4\},\{t_1,t_2\})$
\ENDIF
\STATE $score_{12} \leftarrow f_{W}(t_1,t_2)$
\STATE $score_{34} \leftarrow f_{W}(t_3,t_4)$
\IF {($score_{12} < score_{34})$}
\STATE \COMMENT{This is an unsatisfied example.}
\STATE $\lambdaUP \leftarrow \frac{\alpha \cdot \lambda(\Delta_{e}) + 1}{\alpha \cdot \lambda(\Delta_{e})}$
\STATE $\lambdaDN \leftarrow \frac{1}{\lambdaUP}$
\STATE $\Delta \leftarrow \Delta + \Delta_{e}$
\FORALL{$c \in S(t_1,t_2)$}
\STATE $w(c) \leftarrow w(c) \cdot \lambdaUP$
\ENDFOR
\FORALL{$c \in S(t_3,t_4)$}
\STATE $w(c) \leftarrow w(c) \cdot \lambdaDN$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Normalize weights s.t. $\sum_{c \in \cC}w(c)=|\cC|$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\IF{($\Delta - \Delta_{prev} + \epsilon \ge 0$)}
\STATE $\alpha \leftarrow 2 \cdot \alpha$
\IF{($\alpha \ge \alpha_{max}$)}
\RETURN
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\STATE $\Delta_{prev} \leftarrow \Delta$
\UNTIL{$\Delta == 0$}
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:SemanticSort}
\end{algorithm}
The computational complexity of $\algname$ is as follows. The model $W$ requires $\Theta(|\cC|)$ memory space, since each context is associated with a weight.
In addition, $\algname$ saves a mapping from any $t \in D$ to its $S(t)$. Thus, every occurrence of a term, $t$, in the corpus is represented in this mapping by the index of the relevant
context in $S(t)$.
Let $\nu(t)$ be the number of occurrences of $t \in D$ in the corpus, and define
$|\hbox{corpus}| = \sum_t \nu(t)$. Hence, this mapping
require $\Theta(|\hbox{corpus}|)$ space. Overall, the required space is
$$\Theta(|\cC|+ |\hbox{corpus}|) = \Theta(|\hbox{corpus}|),$$
for learning and classifying.
Our experiments in 64bit Java with 1.3GB filtered Wikipedia (using mainly hash tables) required $\approx$8GB RAM memory.
Due to the normalization constraint~(\ref{ref:WeightConstraint}), when we update a single context's weight, we influence
the weights of all contexts. Therefore,
each update due to unsatisfied example requires $\Theta(|\cC|)$ time complexity.
In the worst case scenario, each iteration requires $\Theta(|S_m| \cdot |\cC|)$. If we denote by $R$ (resp., $r$) the maximum (resp., minimum) semantic relatedness score of $f_W$ to any example in $S_m$,
then the maximum value of $\Delta$ is $(R - r)\cdot |S_m|$. In addition, with the exception of at most
$\log_2(\frac{\alpha_{max}}{\alpha})$ iterations,
$\Delta$ decreases every iteration by at least $\epsilon$.
It follows that
the maximum number of iterations is
$$
\Theta\left(\frac{(R - r)\cdot |S_m|}{\epsilon} + \log_2(\frac{\alpha_{max}}{\alpha})\right).
$$
Thus, the worst case time complexity of $\algname$ is
$$
\Theta\left(\left(\frac{(R - r)\cdot |S_m|}{\epsilon} + \log_2(\frac{\alpha_{max}}{\alpha})\right) \cdot |S_m| \cdot |\cC| \right).
$$
If we implement $\algname$ using $\wnsd$ then the normalization constraint~(\ref{ref:WeightConstraint}) is not necessary.
Let's denote $\alpha$ as the division factor of a certain normalization, $\wnsd_{before}$ as the semantic relatedness score before the normalization,
$\wnsd_{after}$ as the semantic relatedness score after the normalization,
$$
\max \{\log (WS(t_1)), \log(WS(t_2))\} \eqdef \log(WS(t_{max})),
$$
and
$$
\min \{\log (WS(t_1)), \log(WS(t_2))\} \eqdef \log(WS(t_{min})).
$$
We thus have,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\wnsd_{before} & \eqdef & \frac{\log(WS(t_{max})) - \log (WS(t_1,t_2))}{\log (Z) - \log(WS(t_{min}))} \\
& = & \frac{\left(\log(WS(t_{max})) - \log(\alpha)\right)- \left(\log (WS(t_1,t_2)) - \log(\alpha)\right)}{\left(\log (Z) - \log(\alpha)\right) - \left(\log(WS(t_{min})) - \log(\alpha)\right)} \\
& = & \frac{\log\left(\frac{WS(t_{max})}{\alpha}\right) - \log\left(\frac{WS(t_1,t_2)}{\alpha}\right)}{\log\left(\frac{Z}{\alpha}\right) - \log\left(\frac{WS(t_{min})}{\alpha}\right)} \\
& \eqdef & \wnsd_{after}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, the worst case time complexity of $\algname$ using $\wnsd$ is
$$
\Theta\left(\left(\frac{(R - r)\cdot |S_m|}{\epsilon} + \log_2(\frac{\alpha_{max}}{\alpha})\right) \cdot |S_m| \right).
$$
We emphasize that this is a worst case analysis.
In practice, the precise time complexity is mainly dependent on
the number of training errors.
Assuming that computing $f_{W}(t_1,t_2)$ depends only on $S(t_1)$ and $S(t_2)$,
this computation requires $\Theta(|S(t_1) \cup S(t_2)|)$ time complexity.
Thus, classifying an instance $(\{t_1,t_2\}, \{t_3,t_4\})$ requires $\Theta(|S(t_1) \cup S(t_2) \cup S(t_3) \cup S(t_4)|)$ time.
If we denote by $M$ the total number of unsatisfied examples encountered by $\algname$
during training, and assuming that in our BK corpus, $S(t) \ll |\cC|$ for every term, then the overall time complexity of the learning process is $\Theta(M \cdot |\cC|)$
($\Theta(M)$ using $\wnsd$), since the overall time required to process satisfied instances is negligible.
Finally, we note that in all our experiments the total number of iterations was at most 100, and it was always the case
that $M < |S_m|$.
\section{Empirical Evaluation}
\label{Section:EmpiricalEvaluation}
To evaluate the effectiveness of $\algname$ we conducted several experiments. One of the barriers in designing these experiments is the lack of
labeled dataset of term quadruples as required by our model. The common benchmark datasets are
attractive because they were labeled by human annotators, but these datasets are rather small.
When considering a small real world application involving even 500
vocabulary terms, we need to be able to compare the relatedness of many
of the $\binom{500}{2} = 124,750$ involved pairs. However, the largest available dataset, WordSim353, contains only $353$
pairs\footnote{In effect there are 351 pairs since each of the
pairs \texttt{money -- bank} and \texttt{money -- cash} appear twice, with two different scores. In our experiments we simply merged them and used average scores.}
over its $434$ unique vocabulary terms.
\subsection{The GSS Dataset}
Although we utilized all available datasets in our experiments (see below), we sought a benchmark of significantly larger scale in order to approach
real world scenarios. In such scenarios where the vocabulary is large our resources limit us to train $\algname$ only on negligible fraction from the available preferences
(the largest fraction is about $10^{-5}$). As opposed to these available humanly annotated, where we examined $\algname$ ability to learn human preferences,
the larger dataset has a different objective: Verify if learning can be achieved while leveraging such a tiny statistical fraction of the dataset.
Furthermore, we want this large dataset to still be positive correlated to human semantic preferences as a sanity check.
Without access to a humanely annotated dataset of a large scale, we synthesized a labeled dataset as follows.
Noting that a vocabulary of 1000-2000 words covers about 72\%-80\% of written English texts \cite{francis1982}, we
can envision practical applications involving vocabularies of such sizes.
We therefore selected a dictionary $D_n$ consisting of the $n$ most frequent English words ($n = 500, 1000$).
For each of the $\binom{n}{2}$ term pairs over $D_n$ we used an independent corpus of English texts, namely the Gutenberg Project,
to define the semantic relatedness score of pairs, using the $\nsd$ method, applied with sentence based contexts.
We call this scoring method the \emph{Gutenberg Semantics Score (GSS)}.
Project Gutenberg is a growing repository that gathers many high quality and classic literature that is
freely available on the web. For example, among the books one can find
\texttt{Alice's Adventures in Wonderland}, \texttt{The Art of War}, \texttt{The Time Machine}, \texttt{Gulliver's Travels}, and many well
known fiction ebooks.
Currently, Project Gutenberg offers over 36,000 ebooks.\footnote{These ebooks appear in many formats such as
HTML, EPUB, Kindle, PDF, Plucker, free text, etc.}
In this work we used a complete older version of Project Gutenberg from February 1999 containing only 1533 texts
bundled by Walnut Creek CDROM. We didn't try to use any other version and we used this old and small version merely because it was in our possession
and it served the purpose of our experiments as mention above. We believe that any version can be utilized as there is no problem in $\algname$ which prevents us
from using any different version or other textual corpus?
While GSS is certainly not as reliable as human generated score (for the purpose of predicting human scores),
we show below that GSS is positively correlated with human annotation, achieving 0.58 Spearman correlation with the WordSim353 benchmark.
Given a set of term pairs together with their semantic relatedness scores (such as those generated by GSS), we construct a labeled set of preferences
according to semantic relatedness scores (see definitions in Section~\ref{Section:ProblemSetup}).
We emphasize that the texts of the Project Gutenberg were taken conclusively and as is, without any modifications, to avoid
any selection bias.\footnote{The GSS dataset will be made publicly available.}
Nevertheless, despite its statistical correlation to human annotation,
our main objective is not to evaluate absolute performance scores,
but rather to see if generalization can be accomplished by $\algname$ at this scale, and in particular,
with an extremely small fraction of the available training examples.
\subsection{Background Knowledge Corpora}
An integral part of the $\algname$ model is its BK corpus.
We conducted experiments using two corpora.
The first corpus is the snapshot of Wikipedia from 05/11/05 preprocessed using Wikiprep.\footnote{Wikiprep is an XML preprocessor for Wikipedia,
available at \url{http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gabr/resources/code/wikiprep}.} We used this old version of Wikipedia only because it was already available preprocessed and,
as mention in the previous section, we saw no importance of choosing one version over the other as anyone will do.\footnote{Wikipedia's dump is contains many macros that need to be processed in order to achieve the raw text.}
Following \cite{GabrilovichM07}, in order to remove small and overly specific articles, we filtered out articles containing
either less than 100 non-stopword terms and/or less than 5 incoming links and/or less than 5 outgoing links.
The second corpus we used is the Project Gutenberg mentioned above.
We emphasize that in all experiments involving GSS scores only Wikipedia was used as the BK corpus.
Also, in each experiment we either used Wikipedia or Gutenberg as a BK corpus and not both.
In all the experiments we ignored stopwords and stemmed the terms using Porter's stemmer.\footnote{Porter's stemmer is available at
\url{http://tartarus.org/~martin/PorterStemmer}.}
Finally, We considered three types of contexts: sentences, paragraphs and whole documents.
Sentences are parsed using `.' as a separator without any further syntax considerations;
paragraphs are parsed using an empty line as a separator.
No other preprocessing, filtering or optimizations were conducted.
After some tuning, we applied $\algname$ with the following hyper-parameters that gave us the best result: $\alpha = 1$, $\alpha_{max} = 32$, $\epsilon = 0.0001$, and\footnote{Our brief attempts with various continuous functions (linear or exponential) were not as successful. Thus, we used them because they provided the best performance.}
$$
\lambda(\Delta_e) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
4, & \hbox{if $\Delta_e \ge 0.1$;} \\
8, & \hbox{if $0.1 > \Delta_e \ge 0.04$;} \\
16, & \hbox{if $0.04 > \Delta_e \ge 0.005$;} \\
32, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\subsection{Evaluation Methodology}
\label{Section:Evaluationmethodology}
Consider a collection $P$ of preferences, where each preference is a quadruple, as define in Section~\ref{Section:ProblemSetup}.
When we evaluate performance of the algorithm w.r.t. a training set of size $m$, we choose an $m$-subset,
$S_m \subseteq P$ uniformly at random.
The rest of the preferences in $P \setminus S_m$ are taken as the test set.\footnote{Formally speaking, this type of sampling
without replacement of the training set, is within a standard transductive learning model \cite[Sec. 8.1,Setting 1]{Vapnik98} .}
However, if $P \setminus S_m$ remains very large, only 1,000,000 preferences, chosen uniformly at random from $P \setminus S_m$, are
taken for testing.
The training set $S_m$ is fed to $\algname$. The output of the algorithm is an hypothesis $h$, consisting of a weight vector $W$
that includes a component for each context in $\cC$.
Then we apply the hypothesis on the test set and calculate the resulting
accuracy (using the 0/1 loss function). This quantity provides a relatively accurate estimate of (one minus) the true error $R(h)$.
In order to obtain a learning curve we repeat this evaluation procedure for a monotonically increasing sequence of training set sizes.
The popular performance measure in semantic relatedness research is the Spearman correlation coefficient of the ranking obtained by
the method to the ground truth ranking. Therefore, we also calculated and reported it as well.
In addition, in order to gain statistical confidence in our results, we repeated the experiments for each
training set size multiple times and reported the average results.
For each estimated average quantity along the leaning curve we also calculated
its standard error of the mean (SEM), and depicted the resulting SEM values as error bars.
\subsection{Experiment 1: large scale}
\label{Section:ExpLargeScale}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=GSSLargeScale, height=2in, width=2in}
}
\caption{Experiment 1 (large scale) - Learning curves for test accuracy (solid) and test correlation (dashed), with standard error bars.
Lower horizontal line at 0.415 marks the performance of ESA \cite{Gabrilovich2005}.
Upper horizontal line at 0.476 marks the performance of $\nsd$ \cite{GoogleSimilarityDistance}.}
\label{Figure:GSSLargeScale}
\end{figure}
In order to evaluate $\algname$ on ambitious, large scale and quite realistic scenario, we conducted the following experiments.
Taking $D_{1000}$ (the top 1000 most frequent terms in Wikipedia) we considered all possible preferences.
Note that the number of preferences associated with $D_{1000}$ is huge, containing
about $10^{12}/4$ quadruples. We labeled the preferences according to GSS as described above.
In generating the learning curve we were only able to reach $m = 2,000,000$ training examples, thus utilizing
an extremely small fraction of the available preferences (the largest fraction is about $10^{-5}$).
Figure~\ref{Figure:GSSLargeScale} presents 0/1 test accuracy and Spearman correlation learning curves.
On this figure we also mark the results obtained by two unsupervised methods: (i) $\nsd$ using Wikipedia as BK corpus
with paragraph level contexts;
(ii) the well known ESA method using the same filtered Wikipedia snapshot mentioned above.
Both these unsupervised performance scores were calculated by us using our implementations of these methods.
It is evident that $\algname$ successfully generalized the training sample and accomplished a notable improvement over its starting point.
We believe that these results can serve as a proof of concept and
confirm $\algname$'s ability to handle real world challenges.
\subsection{Experiment 2: medium scale}
\label{Section:ExpMediumScale}
We repeated the previous experiment now with $D_{500}$, taken to be subset of 500 terms from $D_{1000}$ chosen uniformly at random.
All other experiment parameters were precisely as in Experiment 1. The resulting learning curves are shown in
Figure~\ref{Figure:GSSMediumScale}.
Clearly, this medium scale problem gave rise to significantly higher absolute performance scores.
We believe that the main reason for this improvement (with respect to the large scale experiment)
is that with $D_{500}$ we were able to utilize a larger fraction of preferences in training.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=GSSMediumScale , height=2in, width=2in}
}
\caption{Experiment 2 (medium scale) - Learning curves for test accuracy (solid) and test correlation (dashed),with standard error bars.
Lower horizontal line at 0.416 marks the performance of ESA \cite{Gabrilovich2005}.
Upper horizontal line at 0.482 marks the performance of $\nsd$ \cite{GoogleSimilarityDistance}.}
\label{Figure:GSSMediumScale}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experiment 3: small scale}
\label{Section:ExpSmallScale}
As mentioned in Section~\ref{Section:RelatedWork}, most of the top performing known techniques,
including the reported supervised methods, evaluated performance with respect to the WordSim353 benchmark.
In order to link the proposed approach to the current literature
we also conducted an experiment using WordSim353 as a source for labeled preferences.
This experiment serves three purposes.
First, it can be viewed as a sanity check for our
method, now challenging it with humanly annotated scores.
Second, it is interesting to examine the performance advantage of our supervised approach vs. no systematic supervision
as obtained by the unsupervised methods (we already observed in Experiments 1\&2 that our supervised method
can improve the scores obtained by ESA and $\nsd$).
Finally, using this experiment we are able compare between $\algname$ and the other known supervised methods that so far have been relying
on SVMs.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=ParagraphContext-Both, width=3in }
}
\caption{Experiment 3 (small scale) - Learning curves for test correlation and test accuracy, with standard error bars using
either Wikipedia or Gutenberg. Lower horizontal line at 0.82 marks the best known unsupervised result for WordSim353 \cite{RadinskyAGM11}.
Upper horizontal line at 0.8654 marks the best known supervised result for WordSim353 \cite{Haralambous2011}.}
\label{Figure:ParagraphContext-Both}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Figure:ParagraphContext-Both} shows the learning curves obtained by $\algname$ applied with paragraph contexts
using either Wikipedia or Gutenberg (but not both together) as a BK corpus.
The lower horizontal line, at the 0.82 level, marks the best known \emph{unsupervised} result obtained for WordSim353 \cite{RadinskyAGM11}.
The upper horizontal line, at the 0.8654 level, marks the best known \emph{supervised} result \cite{Haralambous2011}.
It is evident that quite rapid learning is accomplished using either the Wikipedia or the Gutenberg models, but Wikipedia enables significantly faster learning and smaller sample complexity for each error level. The curves in the internal panel show the corresponding
test \emph{accuracies} (0/1 loss) for the same experiments.
Note that meaningful comparisons between $\algname$ and the other (SVM based) supervised methods (described in Section~\ref{Section:SupervisedSemanticRelatednessMethods})
can only be made when considering the same train/test partition sizes.
Unlike our experimental setting, both \shortciteA{1620758} and \citeA{Haralambous2011} achieved their
reported results (0.78 and 0.8654 correlation with WordSim353, respectively) using 10-fold cross validation, thus utilizing
90\% of the available labeled preferences for training.
When considering only the best results obtained at the top of the learning curve, $\algname$ outperforms
the best reported supervised performance after consuming 1.5\% of all the available WordSim353 preferences using the Wikipedia model and
after consuming 3\% of the preferences using the Project Gutenberg model.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=Gutenberg-Spearman,width=3in}
}
\caption{Experiment 3 (small scale) - Learning curves for test correlation with standard error bars using
Project Gutenberg applied with sentences, paragraphs and whole document as context types.
Lower horizontal line at 0.82 marks the best known unsupervised result for WordSim353 \cite{RadinskyAGM11}.
Upper horizontal line at 0.8654 marks the best known supervised result for WordSim353 \cite{Haralambous2011}.
The internal panel zooms into the same curves of sentence- and paragraph-based semantic relatedness, now with logarithmic $X$-axis.}
\label{Figure:Gutenberg-Spearman}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Figure:Gutenberg-Spearman} depicts three Gutenberg learning curves: one for each context type.
The internal panel zooms into the same curves of sentence- and paragraph-based contexts, now with logarithmically scaled
$X$-axis to emphasize their differences.
As before, the lower (resp., upper) horizontal line at 0.82 (resp., 0.8654) marks the best known unsupervised (resp., supervised) result for WordSim353 \cite{RadinskyAGM11} \cite<resp.,>{Haralambous2011}.
Clearly, paragraph contexts exhibit the best test performance for almost all training set sizes.
In contrast, contexts consisting of whole documents perform poorly, to the extent that even after utilizing the largest training set size,
they are still way behind sentences and paragraphs (even without using a single labeled example).
A similar comparison (not presented) for Wikipedia contexts showed entirely different picture with all contexts exhibiting very similar
(and almost indistinguishable) performance as shown for paragraphs in Figure~\ref{Figure:ParagraphContext-Both}.
\subsection{Experiment 4: subjective semantic relatedness}
\label{Section:ExpSubjectiveSR}
To examine the ability of $\algname$ to adapt to subjective semantic relatedness ranking,
we created two new synthetic sets of semantic relatedness scores to all WordSim353 pairs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] A \emph{Wikipedia set} of scores that was calculated using paragraph-based $\nsd$ over Wikipedia;
\item[(ii)] A \emph{Gutenberg set} that was generated using paragraph-based $\nsd$ over the Gutenberg corpus.
\end{enumerate}
We consider these two sets as proxies for two different ``subjective'' semantic relatedness preferences.\footnote{Indeed, these two sets exhibited numerous significantly different semantic relatedness valuations. For example,
\texttt{nature} and \texttt{environment} received high score in Wikipedia but very low score in Gutenberg,
and \texttt{psychologist} and \texttt{fear} were much more similar in Gutenberg than in Wikipedia.}
Table~\ref{Table:SyntheticExp} outlines two learning curves: the first corresponds to
learning the Gutenberg preferences using Wikipedia as the BK corpus, and the second, for learning
the Wikipedia preferences using Gutenberg as BK.
It is evident that in both cases $\algname$ successfully adapted to these subjective preferences
achieving excellent test performance in both cases.
\begin{table}
\caption{Experiment 4 (subjective semantic relatedness) - Spearman Correlation.}
\label{Table:SyntheticExp}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ | c || c | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
Training test size (\%) & 0 & 0.5 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 8\\
\hline
\hline
Wiki learns Gutenberg & 0.65 & 0.77 & 0.85 & 0.93 & 0.97 & 0.99\\
Gutenberg learns Wiki & 0.62 & 0.73 & 0.82 & 0.89 & 0.94 & 0.96\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Experiment 5: semantic similarity}
\label{Section:SemanticSimilarityExp}
Synonymous relations are considered among the most prominent semantic relations. \emph{Semantic similarity} is a sub-domain
of semantic relatedness where one attempts to assess the strength of synonymous relations.
A widely accepted approach to handle synonyms (and antonyms) is via distributional similarity \cite{DekangLin657297,BudanitskyH06}.
In this approach, to determine the similarity of terms $t_1$ and $t_2$ we consider $D(t_1)$ and $D(t_2)$, the ``typical''
distributions of terms in close proximity to $t_1$ and $t_2$, respectively. It is well known that these distributions tend to resemble
whenever $t_1$ is similar to $t_2$, and vice versa.
In contrast, $\algname$ computes its similarity scores based on co-occurrence counts, and the conventional wisdom is
that synonyms tend not to co-occur. A natural question then is how well and in what way can $\algname$ handle synonymous relations.
In this section we examine and analyze the behavior of $\algname$ on a specialized semantic similarity task.
To this end, we use the semantic similarity datasets, namely R\&G and M\&C, which are introduced and described
in Section~\ref{Section:StandardBenchmarkDatasets}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=MillerCharlesDatasetResults, width=2.5in}
}
\caption{Experiment 5 (semantic similarity with Miller \& Charles dataset) - Learning curves for test correlation (solid)
and test accuracy (dashed) with standard error bars.
Lower horizontal line at 0.9 marks the best known unsupervised results \cite{TKDE2003,HughesR07}.
Upper horizontal line at 0.92 marks the best known supervised result \cite{1620758}.
}
\label{Figure:MillerCharlesDatasetResults}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=GoodenoughDatasetResults, width=2.5in}
}
\caption{Experiment 5 (semantic similarity with Rubenstein and Goodenough dataset) - Learning curves for
test correlation (solid) and test accuracy (dashed) with standard error bars.
Lower horizontal line at 0.8614 marks the best known unsupervised result \cite{TsatsaronisVV10}.
Upper horizontal line at 0.96 marks the best known supervised result \cite{1620758}.
}
\label{Figure:GoodenoughDatasetResults}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Figure:MillerCharlesDatasetResults} depicts the results obtained for the M\&C dataset.
The lower horizontal line, at the 0.9 level, marks the best known \emph{unsupervised} results obtained for M\&C dataset \cite{TKDE2003,HughesR07}.
The upper horizontal line, at the 0.92 level, marks the best known \emph{supervised} result obtained for M\&C dataset \cite{1620758}.
Figure~\ref{Figure:GoodenoughDatasetResults} depicts the results obtained for the R\&G dataset.
The lower horizontal line, at the 0.8614 level, marks the best known \emph{unsupervised} results obtained for R\&G dataset \cite{TsatsaronisVV10}.
The upper horizontal line, at the 0.96 level, marks the best known \emph{supervised} result obtained for R\&G dataset \cite{1620758}.
The learning curves depicted in both figures clearly indicate that learning synonyms using our method is an achievable task, and in fact,
can improve upon the distributional similarity methods.
While synonyms and antonyms co-occur infrequently, they still do co-occur.
It is a nice property of our model that it can leverage these sparse co-occurrence counts
and accurately detect synonyms by sufficiently increasing the weights of their mutual contexts.
\section{Model Interpretability}
The semantic model learned by $\algname$ is encoded in its weight vector $W$.
In this section we summarize our initial study to explore the model $W$ and gain some insight into its structure.
Are the weights in $W$ ``arbitrarily'' optimized to reduce the training error, or is it the case that they are
organized in a meaningful and interpretable manner?
Can we learn from $W$ something about the human rater(s) who tagged the training set?
Can we say something about their world knowledge and/or intellectual interests?
Trying to answer the above questions we conducted the following preliminary study.
While the results we obtained are not sufficient for fully answering the above questions, they are indicative and suggest
that the semantic model $W$ contains useful information that can be interpreted and perhaps even be utilized in applications.
In our experiments, due to the absence of human annotating resources,
we again synthesized a ``human rater'' whose knowledge is focused on a specific topic.
Given a specific topic $T$ in Wikipedia (e.g., sports) we extracted the set $S_T$ of documents pertaining to $T$ (using the Wikipedia
topic tags), and partitioned $S_T$ uniformly at random into two subsets, $S^1_T$ and $S^2_T$.
The subset $S^1_T$ was used for labeling, and $S^2_T$ was used as part of the BK corpus together with the rest of
the Wikipedia corpus.
Our synthetic rater annotated preferences based on $\nsd$ applied over $S^1_T$, whose articles were partitioned to paragraph units.
We call the resulting semantic preferences the \emph{$T$-semantics}.
Taking $D_{1000}$ as a dictionary, we generated a training set by sampling uniformly at random
$m = 2,000,000$ preferences, which were tagged using the $T$-semantics.
We then applied $\algname$ to learn the $T$-semantics using this training set
while utilizing $S^2_T$ (as well as the rest of Wikipedia) as a BK corpus, whose documents were parsed
to the paragraph level as well. We then examined the resulting $W_T$ model.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{12cm}{!} {
\begin{tabular}{ | c || c | c || c | c || c | c || c | c |}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ \# } & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{play} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{player} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{record} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{club}\\
\cline{2-9}
& Music & Sports & Music & Sports & Music & Sports & Music & Sports \\
\hline
1 & band & game & instrument & play & release & set & dance & football \\
2 & guitar & team & play & league & album & season & night & league \\
3 & instrument & season & replace & game & label & win & heart & cup \\
4 & perform & player & join & season & band & career & fan & play \\
5 & time & football & guitar & born & song & finish & local & divis \\
6 & year & first & technique & team & first & run & house & season \\
7 & role & score & key & football & new & game & London & manage \\
8 & tour & club & example & professional & studio & won & scene & success \\
9 & two & year & football & baseball & production & score & mix & found \\
10 & new & career & hand & major & sign & second & radio & player \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Model Interpretability - Top 10 related terms according to Music and Sports Semantics.}
\label{Table:MusicSportSemantics}
\end{table}
Two topics $T$ were considered: Music and Sports, resulting in two models:
$W_{music}$ and $W_{sports}$.
In order to observe and understand the differences between these two models,
we identified and selected, before the experiment, a few target terms that have ambiguous meanings with respect to Music and Sports.
The target terms are:
\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
\texttt{play}, \ \ \texttt{player}, \ \ \texttt{record}, \ \ \texttt{club}.
\end{center}
\end{quote}
Table~\ref{Table:MusicSportSemantics} exhibits the top 10 most related terms to each of the target terms according
to either $W_{music}$ or $W_{sports}$.
It is evident that the semantics portrayed by these lists are quite different and nicely
represent their topics as we may intuitively expect.
The table also emphasizes the inherent subjectivity in semantic relatedness analyses, that should be accounted for
when generating semantic models.
Given a topical category $C$ in wikipedia, and a hypothesis $h$, we define
the \emph{aggregate $C$-weight according to $h$},
to be the sum of the weights of all contexts that belong to an article that is categorized into $C$ or its Wikipedia
sub-categories.
Also, given a category $C$, we denote by $h_{init}^C$, its initial hypothesis and by $h_{final}^C$, its final hypothesis (after learning).\footnote{The initial
hypotheses vary between topics if their respective BK corpora are different.}
In order to evaluate the influence of the labeling semantics on $h_{final}^C$,
we calculated, for each topic $T$ the difference between its aggregate $C$-weight according
to $h_{init}^C$ and according to $h_{final}^C$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=MusicWeightsChange3,width=8cm}
}
\caption{Model Interpretability - Weights increase (upper/green) and decrease (lower/red) of Wikipedia's major categories according to Music hypotheses.}
\label{Figure:MusicWeightsChange}
\end{figure}[htb]
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=SportsWeightsChange3,width=8cm}
}
\caption{Model Interpretability - Weights increase (upper/green) and decrease (lower/red) of Wikipedia's major categories according to Sports hypotheses.}
\label{Figure:SportsWeightsChange}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{Figure:MusicWeightsChange}~and~\ref{Figure:SportsWeightsChange} present the increase/decrease in those aggregate $C$-weights for
Wikipedia's major categories $C$.
In both cases of labeling topics, Music or Sports, it is easy to see that, by and large, the aggregate weights of
categories that are related to the labeling topic were increased,
while weights of unrelated categories were decreased.
Surprisingly, when considering the Music topic, many mathematical categories
dramatically increased their weight.\footnote{Indeed, both Music and Mathematics share a large vocabulary.
Furthermore, it is common wisdom that successful mathematicians are often also accomplished musicians and vice versa.}
To summarize, it is clear that $\algname$ successfully
identified the intellectual affiliation of the synthesized labeler.
While these results aren't conclusive (and can be viewed as merely anecdotal), we believe that
they do indicate that the automatically emerging weights in the model $W$ are organized
in a meaningful and interpretable manner, which encodes the labeling semantics as a particular weight distribution
over the corpus topics.
In addition, not only did $\algname$ identify the labeler BK, it also unexpectedly revealed related topics.
\section{A Learning-Theoretic Perspective}
\label{Section:ALearningTheoreticalPerspective}
Here we would like to present some initial thoughts on the learnability of semantic relatedness.
Classic learning-theoretic considerations ensure that generalization will be achieved if the hypothesis class
$\cH$ will be sufficiently expressive to allow fitting of the training set, but still appropriately restricted
to avoid overfitting. Appropriate fitting is of course a function of the hypothesis class expressiveness
and the training sample
size.
Assuming a realizable (noise-free) setting, a classical result in statistical learning
theory is that
any consistent learning algorithm
(that perfectly fits the training set) will require a sample complexity of,
$$
O\left(\frac{d}{\eps}\log\left(\frac{1}{\eps}\right) + \frac{1}{\eps}\log\left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right)\right),
$$
to achieve error $\eps$ with probability $1-\delta$ over random choices of the training set.
Here, $d = VCdim (\cH)$, is the VC-dimension of $\cH$ (see, e.g., \cite{AnthoB99}).
Conversely, it has been shown (for particular worst case distribution and hypothesis class) that,
$$
\Omega\left(\frac{d}{\eps} + \frac{1}{\eps}\log\left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right)\right)
$$
examples are necessary.
Thus, the VC-dimension is a necessary and sufficient dominating factor that will determine the required training sample size
if we seek a distribution free bound.
We now show that in our context, a completely unrestricted hypothesis class, $\cH_{all}$, whose hypotheses only
satisfy the ``anti-symmetry'' condition (\ref{ref:cond}),
is completely useless,
because its VC-dimension is
$\binom{ \binom{|D|}{2} }{2} = \Theta \left(|D|^4 \right)$.
Therefore, using $\cH_{all}$ is of course a triviality because the number of quadruples in $D_{pref}$
is exactly $2 \cdot \binom{ \binom{|D|}{2} }{2}$ so there is nothing that could be gained by sampling (the proof is provided in Appendix A).
We now consider the hypothesis class $\cH_{\pi}$ of permutations over term pairs.
Each hypothesis in this class is in essence a
full order over the pairs.
It is not hard to prove that the VC-dimension of this class is $\binom{|D|}{2}-1 = \Theta(|D|^2)$
(see the proof in Appendix B).
The set of permutations, with its $\Theta(|D|^2)$ VC-dimension, provides a substantial improvement over the set of all (anti-symmetric)
hypotheses. However, this dimension is still quite large, and requires huge resources
for gathering sufficiently large training sets.
In contrast, we already observed the ability of $\algname$ to learn semantic relatedness preferences quite well
with relatively small training sets.
Can this be explained using VC dimension arguments?
While currently we don't know how to explicitly evaluate the capacity of the hypothesis space induced by $\algname$,
we observe that the use of a BK corpus through the $\nsd$ measure, provides further capacity reductions
by placing many constraints on the set of allowable permutations.
For example, observe that $\algname$ only updates the weights of contexts that include both terms in a given pair,
so it cannot change the semantic relatedness score of terms that do not co-occur; hence, the relative order of unrelated terms is predetermined.
Moreover, considering the structure of the $\nsd$ measure we know
the following lower bound on the semantic relatedness score\footnote{The higher the score is the less the terms are related.}
of two terms, $t_1$ and $t_2$,
$$
\frac{\max \{\log (WS(t_1)), \log(WS(t_2))\}}{\log (Z) - \min \{\log (WS(t_1)), \log(WS(t_2))\}}.
$$
It follows that $\algname$ has limited freedom in reducing semantic relatedness scores.
Finally, $\algname$ regularizes context's weights by normalizing the total sum of the weights.
Therefore, an update of a context's weight influences the weight of all the contexts,
which, in turn, influences the semantic relatedness score of
all the term pairs in general, and specifically, all the term pairs that contain terms within this context.
This mutual dependency was especially evident in the large and medium experiments
(Sections~\ref{Section:ExpLargeScale}~and~\ref{Section:ExpMediumScale}) where the learning complexity was higher.
Such considerations including other statistical and graph-theoretic properties of a particular BK corpus
(viewed as a weighted graph whose nodes are terms or term pairs),
can in principle be used in attempts to estimate the effective VC-dimension implied by $\algname$.
We believe that such considerations and analyses are important as they
can lead to better understanding and improvements of the learning process and perhaps even help in characterizing the
role and usefulness of particular BK corpora.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
Building on successful and interesting ideas, we presented in this paper a novel supervised
method for learning semantic relatedness. The proposed algorithm exhibits interesting performance over a large and medium scale
problems and excellent performance on small scale problems.
In particular, it significantly outperforms the best \emph{supervised} semantic relatedness method. Perhaps expectedly,
our test scores are also distinctly superior to
scores obtained by a plethora of unsupervised semantic relatedness methods, but of course this comparison is unfair because our method
utilizes labeled examples that must be paid for.
Our research leaves many questions and issues that we find interesting and worthy of further study.
Let us now mention a few.
\textbf{\emph{The making of a good BK corpus.}}
Our results indicate that high quality semantic relatedness can be learned with markedly different types of BK corpora.
In particular, we showed that semantic relatedness can be learned from a random and relatively small collection of ordinary fiction literature (ebooks in the Project Gutenberg).
However, we observe that the corpus ``quality'' affects both the starting performance and the learning rate. Specifically,
the starting performance, before even a single labeled example is introduced, is significantly higher when using Wikipedia as a BK corpus. In fact, this initial performance (obtained by $\nsd$ alone)
is by itself among the top performing \emph{unsupervised} methods.
Moreover, the learning rate obtained when using Wikipedia as a BK corpus, rather than
Project Gutenberg, is clearly faster.
An interesting question here is what makes a BK corpus useful for learning semantic relatedness?
Our speculative answer (yet to be investigated) is that a good corpus should consist of
semantically coherent contexts that span a wide scope of meanings.
For example, when generating the set of contexts from a fiction book, we can dissect the book into sentences, paragraphs, sections, etc.
Large contexts (say, sections) will include many more co-occurrence relations than small contexts (say, sentences), but among these
relations we expect to see entirely unrelated terms. On the other hand, if we only have very small contexts
we will to obtain only a subset of the related terms.
Thus, the context size directly affects the \emph{precision} and \emph{recall} of
observed ``meanings'' in a set of contexts.
The learning curves of Figure~\ref{Figure:Gutenberg-Spearman} hint on such a tradeoff when using the books in Project Gutenberg.
\textbf{\emph{Semantic relatedness between text fragments.}}
Many of the interesting applications mentioned in the introduction
can be solved given the ability to evaluate the relatedness between text fragments
(in this paper we only considered relatedness between individual terms).
One can think of many ways to extend any semantic relatedness measure from terms to text fragments,
and many such methods already proposed in the literature
\shortcite<see, e.g.,>{TsatsaronisVV10,Broder2007,Varelas2005}.
However, an interesting challenge would be to extract a semantic relatedness model using supervised learning where the training examples are relatedness preferences over text fragments. Such a model could be optimized to particular semantic tasks.
\textbf{\emph{Disambiguated semantic relatedness.}}
To the best of our knowledge, all the proposed term-based semantic relatedness methods discussed
in the literature follow a similar problem setup
where relatedness is evaluated regardless of particular context(s).
However, in many applications there exist such contexts that can and should be utilized.
For example, it is often the case where we have a target term along with its current context and we need to
rank the terms in our dictionary according to relatedness to this target term.
In such cases, the textual environment of the target term can be utilized to disambiguate it and
contribute to achieve better and more accurate \emph{contextual} relatedness evaluations.
It would be interesting to extend our model and methods to accommodate such contexts.
\textbf{\emph{Active learning.}}
In this work we proposed a passive learning algorithm that utilizes a uniformly sampled training set of preferences.
It would be very interesting to consider active learning techniques to cleverly sample training preferences and
expedite the learning process.
Assuming a realizable setting, and that preferences satisfy transitivity, a straightforward approach would be to use
a sorting algorithm to perfectly order $n$ term pairs
using $\Theta(n\log n)$ comparisons (training examples).
It is easy to argue that this is also an information theoretic lower bound on the sample complexity. Thus, several questions arise.
First, is it possible to approach this bound within an agnostic setting?
Second, is it possible to use some underlying structure (e.g., as exhibited in the BK corpus) to
achieve a sample complexity of $o ( n \log n)$? Finally, in many applications of interest we can do with ranking only
the top $k$
most similar terms to the target term. What would be the best theoretical and practically achievable sample complexities
in this case?
We note that a general active learning algorithm for preferences in the agnostic setting, guaranteeing $O(n \cdot polylog(n))$ sample
complexity, was very recently proposed by \citeA{Ailon2011} and \shortciteA{DBLP:journals/jmlr/AilonBE12}.
\textbf{\emph{Convergence and error bounds.}}
Regarding convergence of $\algname$, it is quite easy to see that the learning process of $\algname$ always converges.
This holds because
$\Delta_{prev}$ can only increase or stay the same for $\log_{2}(\alpha_{max})$ iterations.
This means that it is
effectively monotonic decreasing, and it is bounded below by $0$.
This $\alpha_{max}$ threshold was introduced to handle noisy (non-realizable) realistic scenarios.
The question is if the $\alpha_{max}$ is really necessary when the problem is realizable.
We conjecture that the answer to this question is ``yes'' because $\algname$ only updates contexts
in which both of the terms in question co-occur.
Error analysis is another direction that may shed light on the learning process and perhaps improve the algorithm.
It is interesting to address this question within both a statistical learning (see discussion
in Section~\ref{Section:ALearningTheoreticalPerspective}), and also under worst case considerations in the spirit of online learning.
\textbf{\emph{Benchmark datasets for semantic relatedness.}}
When considering problems involving preferences over thousands of terms, as perhaps required in large-scale commercial applications, some millions of
humanly annotated preferences are required.
In contrast, the academic semantic relatedness research is unfortunately solely relying on small sized annotated benchmark
datasets, such as WordSim353, which leaves much to be desired.
Considering that the typical vocabulary of an English speaking
adult consists of several thousands words, a desired benchmark dataset should be of at least one or even two orders of magnitude larger than
WordSim353. While acquiring a sufficiently large semantic dataset can be quite costly, we believe that the semantic relatedness research will greatly benefit
once it will be introduced.
While a formal understanding of meaning still seems to be beyond reach, we may be closer to a point where computer programs
are able to exhibit artificial understanding of meaning. Will large computational resources
to process huge corpora, together with a very large set of labeled training examples be sufficient?
\vskip 0.2in
|
\section{Introduction}
The---by now discipline---of Evolution by Natural
Selection \cite[]{Darwin+Wallace+1858},
can be distilled to three principles:
(\emph{i}) inheritance with (\emph{ii}) variation (called mutations) and
(\emph{iii}) natural selection.
Phenotypes are traditionally defined as organisms that display some traits.
Traits may be identified with color of skin, height, speed of running,
length of a molecule of protein, volume of cells and so on.
We use a restricted definition of phenotypes, namely an organism that
displays some trait that is subject to natural selection.
With abuse of the English language,
we call these adaptive traits.
For example, an adaptive trait of Polar bears may be the
thickness of hair in their fur,
where length of hair is presumably inherited.
Now consider the speed of running of prey to be an adaptive trait.
Assume that different values of speed are inherited with some variation
and is subject to natural selection.
Then the speed of running is an adaptive trait.
Three issues of interest emerge:
Firstly, a value of a trait is an attribute of an organism.
Secondly, some variation in these values is not ``recognized'' as such
by natural selection.
In our example of speed of running,
selection influences survival of those prey that run at, say, $20$\,km/hr
and those that run at $22$\,km/hr equally.
This may be so, even when these two different speeds are inherited.
Ergo, a value of an adaptive trait is in fact a set of values.
And this set identifies a subpopulation made of organisms that
belong to a single phenotype where the population is made of phenotypes
that carry all values of the adaptive trait.
We shall get to the third issue in a moment.
Mathematical models of evolution may be cast via
differential equations that are either deterministic or stochastic.
Starting with individual-based models is useful for
one can construct such models based on first principles.
In such models, particles may represent single organisms that
may be classified as phenotypes---they exhibit particular values
of adaptive traits.
Particles may also represent a subpopulation of a phenotypes;
namely a set of phenotypes that are lumped into a single subpopulation%
---of population of all phenotypes---%
based on the granularity of natural selection.
Granularity refers to the idea that
in acting upon phenotypes, certain range of values of
adaptive traits are indistinguishable by natural selection.
This range defines
a subpopulation of phenotypes which in fact represents
the unit of natural selection.
In modeling evolution by natural selection,
one often wishes to switch from individual-based
to PDE-based approach.
One then begins with an individual-based model,
and assumes that the number of particles, $N\rightarrow$ $\infty$.
The change of approach%
---from individual-based to PDE-based---%
requires justification.
In a nutshell, one
begins with a definition of some
property that is represented by a particle.
In our case, such property consists of values
of an adaptive trait.
In the context of evolution by natural selection,
the dynamics of values of such property
are represented by changes in the frequency
of such values in a population.
Next, one passes from
a space-discrete Lagrangian version of the
dynamics to space-continuous Eulerian version.
In passing, one is faced with two problems:
Firstly, showing that the counting measure corresponding to the
sequence defined
by the $N$-particles system as $N\to\infty$
converges to a continuous limit measure.
This convergence must be with respect to average
values of adaptive traits. Under appropriate
regularity conditions, it can be shown that this limit
satisfies a PDE-based problem.
Secondly, proving that the limiting evolution PDE,
along with appropriate boundary conditions and initial data,
is a well-posed problem.
Furthermore, that the solution to the problem
inherits the essential properties---such as
positiveness and boundedness---of the discrete measures,
The first problem, namely that of showing the convergence to a continuous process,
has been addressed by
\cite{Champagnat2006,Champagnat2008}
for the adaptive evolution of a single populations.
Similar mathematical problems have been addressed in
spatial dynamics of population
\cite[]{Oelschlager1989,Morale2005,Capasso2008,Lachowicz2008},
the theory of chemotaxis and phototaxis \cite[]{Stevens2000,Levy2008},
and flow in porous medium \cite[]{Oelschlager1990,Oelschlager2002}.
The second problem relates to solution of a uniformly parabolic ED.
Two approaches were taken to derive these parabolic equations---one
by \cite{Champagnat2006,Champagnat2008}
and the other by \cite[]{Cohen+2011,Cohen2013}.
The former applies to a single ED,
the latter to a system of ED.
The approach employed by \cite[]{Cohen+2011,Cohen2013}
stems from the original work by \cite[]{Kimura1965}.
When ED is considered as a system of parabolic ED,
the resulting PDE problem is no longer uniformly parabolic,
and in fact has a peculiar structure.
To understand the lack of uniform parabolicity of the system of PDEs
arising in a multipopulation model,
let us recall the essential assumptions of the model:
(\emph{i}) selection affects the dynamics of coevolving populations
through mortality---that changes the frequency of subpopulations
of phenotypes; and
(\emph{ii}) selection and birth are instantaneous events.
Consequently, selection and birth are independent events.
It follows that mutations, as they should, are random
and mutations in each coevolving population occur in a separate
(from other populations) so-called adaptive space.
For example, populations of prey and predators may evolve each in an
adaptive space made of a single dimension, say, speed of running.
Then, through selection, changes in the frequency of phenotypes
on the trait value of prey will, in general,
induce changes in the frequency of phenotypes along the
trait values of predators and vice versa.
Therefore, population densities of prey and predators will be affected by
the distribution of phenotypes along trait values of their own
as well as by those of the other population.
\emph{However}, mutations in each population occur
in the populations' adaptive space.
Because mutations cause diffusion---along values
of the adaptive trait---population densities depend on trait
values of both populations but only diffuse with respect to one of them.
In other words, we are faced with a special case of anisotropic diffusion in which
diffusion of each population remains positive in the directions of their own adaptive space
and vanishes in the directions of the other's adaptive space.
Recall that the second problem we are faced with is
showing that the limiting evolution PDE,
along with appropriate boundary conditions and initial data,
is a well-posed problem.
Chipot and coworkers studied related issues
in the framework of the theory of singular perturbation.
\cite{Chipot2011} proved existence of solutions
for a general class of time-independent boundary value problems.
They also proved
existence and some additional properties of solutions for a
particular case of a nonlocal evolution boundary value problem.
The problems they studied addressed a single equation;
we address a system of equations.
Yet, we fundamentally rely on their work.
The complexity of the dynamics of evolution implies that exact solutions to the problem in terms of
elementary functions are not available. Even analytical qualitative properties of solution are hard to obtain.
Thus, in Section (\ref{sec: Discretization}), we introduce a numerical
discretization of the problem under the
Finite Element Method framework.
Then, we construct some numerical experiments to observe salient
features of the system of ED that cannot be observed otherwise.
We also use the numerical experiments to draw conclusions about potential
dynamics of evolution under such peculiar systems.
See \cite{Galiano2011,Galiano2011a,Galiano2012}
for related numerical approaches.
\section{Mathematical model}
\label{sec.mathmodel}
Consider a population in which individuals give
birth and die at rates that are determined by values
of an adaptive trait, $\mathbf{x}$, that they
exhibit (a so-called phenotype)
and by interactions with other phenotypes.
The population is characterized at any time $t$ by the finite
counting measure
\begin{equation*}
\nu_t=\sum_{j=1}^{N(t)} \delta_{\mathbf{x}_t^j}
\end{equation*}
where $\delta_\mathbf{x}$ is the Dirac measure at $\mathbf{x}$.
The measure $\nu_t$
describes the distribution of phenotypes over the trait space
at time $t$.
Here $N(t)$ is the total number of phenotypes alive
at time $t$, and $\mathbf{x}_t^1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_t^{N(t)}$ denote the
values of an adaptive trait---which we identify with individuals
(or particles).
Let $K$ be the initial number of individuals and define a normalized
population process by
\begin{equation*}
X_t^K=\frac{1}{K}\nu_t^K.
\end{equation*}
It can be shown that if the initial condition
$X_0^K=\nu_0^K/K$ converges to a finite deterministic
measure with density $u_0$ as $K\to\infty$,
then under suitable assumptions
about the dynamics of
the discrete process $\nu_t$---see \cite{Champagnat2006}
for details---the limit of $X_t^K$ converges in law to a deterministic
measure with density $u$ satisfying the following integro-differential equation
\begin{align}
\label{eq.champa}
\partial_t u(t,\mathbf{x})=
\big( (1-\mu(\mathbf{x})) & b(\mathbf{x}, V*u(t,\mathbf{x}))- d(\mathbf{x}, U*u(t,\mathbf{x}))\big)u(t,\mathbf{x}) \\
& + \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\mu(\mathbf{y}) M(\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})b(\mathbf{x}, V*u(t,\mathbf{y})) u(t,\mathbf{y})d\mathbf{y}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Here, $U$ and $V$ denote interaction kernels affecting mortality and reproduction,
respectively.
Functions $d$ and $b$ define the death and birth rate, respectively, of
individuals with trait $\mathbf{x}$, whereas $\mu(\mathbf{x})$ is the probability that an offspring
produced by a phenotype with trait-value $\mathbf{x}$ carries
a value of the adaptive trait that had mutated.
The function $M(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z})$ encapsulates the so-called mutation kernel.
It reflects the fact that trait values of progeny, $\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{z}$,
differ from those of the progenitor with trait value $\mathbf{x}$
(this, in fact, is the definition of mutations).
As noticed by \cite{Champagnat2006}, (\ref{eq.champa})
is an extension of Kimura's equation \cite[]{Kimura1965}.
When the values of mutations are small
and are distributed systematically
(that is according to some probability density),
the nonlocal equation (\ref{eq.champa})
may be approximated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t u(t,\mathbf{x}) -\frac{1}{2} \Delta \big(\mu(\mathbf{x})\varepsilon^2(\mathbf{x}) u(t,\mathbf{x})\big) &=&
u(t,\mathbf{x})\big( (1-\mu(\mathbf{x})) b(x, V*u(t,\mathbf{x}))- \label{eq.pde}\\
& & d(x, U*u(t,\mathbf{x}))\big), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\varepsilon(\mathbf{x})\geq\varepsilon_0>0$ is the second moment of $M$.
Observe that, because adaptive traits represent biological attributes,
the set of their values, $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$, must be bounded.
So (\ref{eq.pde}) is assumed to hold in $(0,T)\times\Omega$,
for some final time $T>0$.
Phenotypes with trait-values outside the boundaries cannot survive;
therefore, we prescribe homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions
\begin{equation*}
u(t,\mathbf{x})=0 \quad\text{on }(0,T)\times\partial\Omega.
\end{equation*}
When the dynamics include two populations,
the generalization of (\ref{eq.pde}) leads to a system of
partial differential equations for the densities phenotypes
$u_1$ and $u_2$ with respect to their
corresponding populations.
It is here that some subtleties arise, and we introduce them next.
But first, some notation.
The open and bounded trait space of each population ($i=1,2$)
is denoted by $\Omega_i$, with $\Omega_i\subset\mathbb{R}^{d_i}$.
An element of $\Omega_i$ is denoted by $\mathbf{x}_i$ and is given by its components
$\mathbf{x}_i=(x_i^1,\ldots,x_i^{d_i})$.
We then write $\O=\O_1\times\O_2$ and $\mathbf{x}=(\mathbf{x}_1,\mathbf{x}_2)$.
We use the Laplacian operator restricted to $\Omega_i$ and write
\[
\Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i} u(t,\mathbf{x}) := \sum_{j=1}^{d_i}\partial_{x_j}^2 u(t,\mathbf{x}) .
\]
We now state the problem for two populations thus.
For $i,j=1,2$ and $i\neq j$, find $u_i:(0,T)\times \O \to \mathbb{R}_+$ such that
\begin{align}
& \partial_t u_i - \Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i} \big( c_i u_i\big) +F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1,u_2)=0
& &\text{in } (0,T)\times\O ,& \label{eq: the problem} \\
&u_i=0 & & \text{on }(0,T)\times \partial\O_i \times \O_j,& \label{eq.bc} \\
&u_i(0,\cdot)=u_{i0} & & \text{in }\O. & \label{eq.id}
\end{align}
The magnitude and rate of mutations are defined thus:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: rate of mutation}
c_i(\mathbf{x}_i)=\frac{1}{2}\mu_i(\mathbf{x}_i) \varepsilon_i^2(\mathbf{x}_i)
\end{equation}
and the interactions within and among populations---including
natural selection---thus
\begin{align}
\label{eq: F}
F_i(t,\mathbf{x},u_1(t,\mathbf{x}),u_2(t,\mathbf{x})) = & -\big((1-\mu_i(\mathbf{x}_i)) u_i(t,\mathbf{x}) b_i(\mathbf{x}, V*u_i(t,\mathbf{x})) \\
& - u_i(t,\mathbf{x}) d_i(\mathbf{x}, U*u_1(t,\mathbf{x}),U*u_2(t,\mathbf{x})) \big).\nonumber
\end{align}
Equations (\ref{eq: the problem}) to (\ref{eq: F})
specify the problem, which we dub $\B P$.
\begin{remark}
From a direct differential approach, the following
model was derived in \cite{Cohen+2011}. For $i=1,\ldots,N$ (number of populations),
find $U_i:(0,T)\times \O \to \mathbb{R}_+$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: ED}
\partial_t U_{i}\left(\mathbf{x},t\right) - \Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i} \Big(\tilde \mu_i(\mathbf{x}_i) B_i(U_i(t,\mathbf{x})) \Big)=
B_i(U_i(t,\mathbf{x})) - M_i(U_1(t,\mathbf{x}),U_2(t,\mathbf{x})),
\end{equation}
for some monotone functions $B_i$, and with auxiliary data similar to \fer{eq.bc}-\fer{eq.id}. Observe that for a suitable choice of $\tilde\mu_i$, $B_i$ and $M_i$, Equation~\fer{eq: the problem} may be recasted in the form \fer{eq: ED}. The solution of (\ref{eq: ED}) was dubbed Evolutionary Distribution
\cite[]{Cohen+2005}.
\end{remark}
\section{The main result}
In this section we study the well-posedness of a variant of $\B P$,
which we christen $\B P1$,
namely:
\begin{align}
& \partial_t u_i - c_i\Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i+F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1,u_2)=0 & &
\quad\text{in }Q_T=(0,T)\times\O, & \label{eq.spde}\\
& u_i= 0 & & \quad\text{on }(0,T)\times\partial\O, & \label{eq.x}\\
& u_i(0,\cdot)= u_{i0} & & \quad\text{in }\O, & \label{eq.sid}
\end{align}
for $i=1,2$, where we have used the notation introduced in
Section \ref{sec.mathmodel}.
We rely on the following hypotheses about the data,
which we shall refer to as \textbf{H}:
For $i=1,2$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T\in\mathbb{R}_+$ is arbitrarily fixed, and $\Omega_i\subset\mathbb{R}^{d_i}$ is a bounded set with Lipschitz continuous boundary $\partial \Omega_i$.
\item The diffusion coefficients, $c_i$, are positive constants.
\item The birth-selection terms $F_i:Q_T \times \mathbb{R}^2_+\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfy:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $F_i(\cdot,\cdot,s_1,s_2) \in L^\infty (Q_T)$ for all $(s_1,s_2)\in\mathbb{R}^2_+$.
\item $F_i(t,\mathbf{x},\cdot,\cdot) $ is Lipschitz continuous in bounded sets of $\mathbb{R}^2_+$ for a.e. $(t,\mathbf{x})\in Q_T$,
with $F_1(\cdot,\cdot,0,\cdot)=F_2(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,0)=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\item The initial data are non-negative and satisfy
$u_{i0}\in L^\infty(\Omega)\cap H^1_{i0}(\O)$, where
\begin{equation}
\label{def.space}
H^1_{i0}(\O)=\left\{\varphi\in H^1(\O) : \varphi=0\text{ on }\O_i \right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
We construct a solution of problem $\B P1$, namely $(u_1,u_2)$,
as a limit of a sequence of solutions of approximated singular perturbed problems,
$(u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})$.
In doing so, we face two main difficulties.
Firstly, the lack of uniform estimates
for $\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}$ for $i\neq j$,
which prevent us from getting a global
(in space) formulation of a weak solution of $\B P1$.
As pointed out by \cite{Chipot2009},
the regularity of $u_i\in L^2(0,T;H^1_0(\O))$
can not be guaranteed and therefore,
the trace of $u_i$ on the boundary $\O_i\times\partial\O_j$
is in general not well defined.
For examples, see \cite{Chipot2009}, where
a solution of a
time-independent problem is shown to satisfy
$u_i\in H^1_0(\O_i)$ concomitant with $u_i \notin H^1_0(\O)$.
This difficulty also motivates
the introduction of the space $H_{i0}^1(\O)$ in (\ref{def.space}).
Thus, the notion of weak solution is stated in \emph{slices} of the domain
(see Theorem~\ref{th.existence}).
Secondly, and, again, due to the lack of uniform estimates for the gradients
in the whole domain $\O$, strong convergence of the sequence
$(u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})$ in $L^2(Q_T)\times L^2(Q_T)$
can not be achieved by the usual compactness argument.
Yet, this type of convergence is needed
to identify the limits of $F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})$. Thus, we resort
to a monotonicity property implied by the Lipschitz continuity (H)$_{3(b)}$ which allows us to perform this identification.
\begin{remark
\noindent (i)
With minor modifications, Theorem~\ref{th.existence} may be proved for $\mathbf{x}_i$-dependent diffusion coefficients $c_i$ under regularity assumptions and the conditions $c_i>c_0$, for some positive constant $c_0$, and
$\Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i} c_i \leq 0$ in $\O_i$. Indeed, the monotonicity of the elliptic operator in $H^1_0(\O_i)$ holds under these conditions:
\begin{align*}
-\int_{\O_i} \big(\Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i} (c_iu_i) -\Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i} (c_i \tilde u_i)\big)(u_i-\tilde u_i)& =
\int_{\O_i} c_i \abs{\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} (u_i-\tilde u_i)}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\int_{\O_i} \abs{u_i-\tilde u_i}^2 \Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i}c_i \\
& \geq c_0 \int_{\O_i} \abs{\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} (u_i-\tilde u_i)}^2.
\end{align*}
\noindent (ii) Although to prove our main result on existence of solutions
we only need to consider a general
Lipschitz domain $\O$, in the context of our application this domain is
in fact a regular polyhedra due to the choice of independent traits.
\end{remark}
In the following theorem we assert the existence of solutions of
problem (\ref{eq.spde})-(\ref{eq.sid})
in a sense weaker than the usual.
Indeed, although the components of the solution are globally bounded
in $Q_T$, the existence of their weak derivatives may be justified
only in slices and so the notion of weak
solution.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th.existence}
Assume {\bf H}. Then problem (\ref{eq.spde})-(\ref{eq.sid})
has a weak solution $(u_1,u_2)$ satisfying,
for $i=1,2$, $u_i\geq 0$ in $Q_T$,
\begin{equation}
\label{regularity.th}
u_i \in L^\infty(Q_T)\cap L^2(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega_i)) \cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega_i)),
\end{equation}
and, for all $\varphi\in L^{2}(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega_i))$ and a.e. $\mathbf{x}_j\in\O_j$ ($j\neq i$)
\begin{align}\label{weak}
\int_0^T \int_{\O_i} \partial_t u_i \, \varphi
+ c_i \int_0^T \int_{\O_i} \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i \cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}\varphi
+\int_0^T \int_{\O_i} F_i(u_1,u_2)\,\varphi=0 ,
\end{align}
with the initial data being satisfied in the sense that
\begin{align*}
u_1(0,\cdot,\mathbf{x}_2)=u_{10}\quad\text{ in $\O_1$ for a.e. }\mathbf{x}_2\in\O_2, \\
u_2(0,\mathbf{x}_1,\cdot)=u_{20}\quad\text{ in $\O_2$ for a.e. }\mathbf{x}_1\in\O_1.
\end{align*}
\qed
\end{theorem}
There is no general theory of existence of solutions for problem
(\ref{eq.spde})-(\ref{eq.sid}).
Therefore, we introduce the following singular perturbation approximation to the problem.
We follow an approach similar to that taken by
\cite{Chipot2011} and \cite{Chipot2011a}.
\noindent\emph{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th.existence}.}
We divide the proof in two steps, according to the monotone behavior of functions $F_i$.
\noindent\textbf{Step 1.} Let us suppose that $F_i$ satisfy the following property:
for all $(s_1,s_2)$ and $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2_+$,
\begin{align}
\label{prop.mon}
\big(F_1(\cdot,\cdot,s_1,s_2) - &
F_1(\cdot,\cdot,\sigma_1,\sigma_2)\big) (s_1-\sigma_1)+ \\
& \big(F_2(\cdot,\cdot,s_1,s_2)-F_2(\cdot,\cdot,\sigma_1,
\sigma_2)\big)(s_2-\sigma_2) \geq 0 \nonumber
\end{align}
a.e. in $Q_T$. Then we proceed as follows.
For $i,j=1,2$, $i\neq j$, and some small $\varepsilon>0$,
we wish to find $(u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})$ such that
\begin{align}
\int_0^T<\partial_t u_i,\varphi>
+ c_i \int_{Q_T} \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i \cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}\varphi & +\varepsilon \int_{Q_T}
\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j} u_i \cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j}\varphi \label{weakeps} \\
& + \int_{Q_T} F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1,u_2)\,\varphi=0 , \nonumber
\end{align}
for all $\varphi\in L^{2}(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega))$, and satisfying
the initial data
$u_{i}^{(\varepsilon)}(0,\cdot)=u_{i0}^{(\delta)}$, where
$u_{i0}^{(\delta)} \in H_0^1(\O)$ and $u_{i0}^{(\delta)}\to u_{i0}$
strongly in $L^2(\O_j;H_{0}^1(\O_i))$ as $\delta\to 0$.
Up to the last part of the
proof, we will consider the parameter $\delta$ fixed,
and for clarity, we will not reference it.
The existence of non-negative solutions of the semilinear evolution problem
(\ref{weakeps}) have been established for a large range of functions $F_i$,
including those satisfying (H)$_3$ and (\ref{prop.mon})
\cite[see][Theorem 9 in Chapter 7]{Friedman1964}.
The following regularity holds \cite[][Theorem 5 in Chapter 7]{Evans1998}:
\begin{equation}
\label{regularity}
\begin{array}{l}
u_i^{(\varepsilon)}\in L^\infty(Q_T)\cap C([0,T];L^2(\O))\cap L^2(0,T;H^2(\Omega))\cap L^\infty(0,T;H_0^1(\Omega)) ,\\
\partial_t u_i^{(\varepsilon)}\in L^2(Q_T).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Recall that, due to property (H)$_{3\text{(b)}}$, the $L^\infty(Q_T)$ bound implied by (\ref{regularity}) is uniform with respect to $\varepsilon$
\cite[][Theorem 7 in Chapter 7]{Friedman1964}.
We use $\varphi=u_i^{(\varepsilon)}$ as a test
function in (\ref{weakeps}) to get, for $t\in(0,T]$,
\begin{align*
\frac{1}{2}\int_\Omega \abs{u_i^{(\varepsilon)}(t,\cdot)}^2
+c_i \int_{Q_t} \abs{\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i^{(\varepsilon)}}^2
& +\varepsilon \int_{Q_t} \abs{\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j} u_i^{(\varepsilon)}}^2 \\
& + \int_{Q_t} F_i(u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})u_i^{(\varepsilon)}=\frac{1}{2}\int_\Omega \abs{u_{i0}^{(\delta)}}^2 .
\end{align*}
Summing for $i=1,2$ and using (\ref{prop.mon})'s property of monotonicity,
we attain uniform estimates for
\begin{align}\label{est.uniform}
\nor{u_i^{(\varepsilon)}}_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega))},\quad \nor{\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}}_{L^2(Q_T)}
,\quad \sqrt{\varepsilon}\nor{\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}}_{L^2(Q_T)},
\end{align}
implying the existence of some $u_i\in L^2(Q_T)$ such that, for a subsequence (not relabeled)
we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.convergence}
u_i^{(\varepsilon)} \to u_i ,\quad
\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i^{(\varepsilon)} \to \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i ,\quad
\varepsilon \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j} u_i^{(\varepsilon)} \to 0
\end{equation}
weakly in $L^2(Q_T)$, and
\begin{equation}\label{conv.linf}
u_i^{(\varepsilon)} \to u_i \quad\text{weakly $*$ in } L^\infty(Q_T).
\end{equation}
In addition, by smoothing-approximation procedure on $\partial_t u_i^{(\varepsilon)}$, we
find (see \cite[][Theorem 5 in Chapter 7]{Evans1998})
\begin{align}\label{est.time}
\nor{\partial_t u_i^{(\varepsilon)}}_{L^2(Q_T)} \leq
C \big( \nor{F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)}}_{L^2(Q_T)} )
+\nor{u_{i0}^{(\delta)}}_{H^1(\Omega))}\big),
\end{align}
for some constant $C>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$. In view of (\ref{est.uniform}) and
the continuity of $F_i$ stated in (H)$_{3(\text{b})}$, we also find that
$\nor{\partial_t u_i^{(\varepsilon)}}_{L^2(Q_T)}$ is uniformly bounded, implying
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.convergence2}
\partial_t u_i^{(\varepsilon)} \to \partial_t u_i \quad\text{weakly in } L^2(Q_T).
\end{equation}
Observe that (\ref{eq.convergence}) and (\ref{eq.convergence2})
permit us to pass to the limit $\varepsilon\to0$ in
the linear terms of (\ref{weakeps}),
with the identification $u_i=\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}$.
However,
this is not the case for the nonlinear terms involving $F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_1^{(\varepsilon)})$, for which a stronger sense
of convergence is needed to identify their limits. In any case,
the $L^\infty(Q_T)$ uniform bounds of $u_i^{(\varepsilon)}$ imply, see \cite{Evans1990},
the existence of $\tilde F_{i}\in L^\infty(Q_T)$ such that
\begin{align}\label{conv.linf2}
F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)}) \to \tilde F_{i},
\end{align}
weakly $*$ in $L^\infty(Q_T)$. Taking the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ in (\ref{weakeps}) we find that $u_i$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\int_{Q_T} \partial_t u_i \,\varphi
+ c_i \int_{Q_T} \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i \cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}\varphi +
\int_{Q_T} \tilde F_i\,\varphi=0 , \label{conv.inter}
\end{align}
for all $\varphi\in L^{2}(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega))$.
To deduce the convergence $u_i^{(\varepsilon)}\to u_i$ in a stronger sense,
we apply the monotonicity that is afforded us by
assumption (\ref{prop.mon}).
Let
\begin{align*}
I_i^{(\varepsilon)}=& \int_{Q_t} \Big( (u_i^{(\varepsilon)}-u_i) \partial_t (u_i^{(\varepsilon)}-u_i)+
c_i \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}(u_i^{(\varepsilon)}-u_i)\cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}(u_i^{(\varepsilon)}-u_i)\\
& + \varepsilon \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}\cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}+
(u_i^{(\varepsilon)}-u_i)\big(F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})
-F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1,u_2)\big) \Big).
\end{align*}
On the one hand, using (H)$_{\text{3(c)}}$ we find
\begin{align}
\label{est.inf2}
I_1^{(\varepsilon)}+I_2^{(\varepsilon)}\geq \sum_{i=1}^2 \Big( \int_\O \big(\abs{u_i^{(\varepsilon)}(t,\cdot)-u_i(t,\cdot)}^2
+ c_i \int_{Q_t} \abs{\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}(u_i^{(\varepsilon)}-u_i)}^2
+ \varepsilon \int_{Q_t} \abs{\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}}^2\Big).
\end{align}
On the other hand, expanding $I_i^{(\varepsilon)}$ and using the problem
satisfied by $(u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})$, i.e. (\ref{weakeps}), we find
\begin{align*}
I_i^{(\varepsilon)}=\int_{Q_t} \Big( -u_i^{(\varepsilon)} \partial_t u_i-u_i \partial_t u_i^{(\varepsilon)}+
u_i\partial_t u_i-
2c_i \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}\cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i+ c_i \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}u_i\cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i\\
-u_i^{(\varepsilon)} F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1,u_2)
-u_i F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})
+u_i F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1,u_2)\Big).
\end{align*}
Taking $\varepsilon\to 0$ and using the convergence properties (\ref{eq.convergence}) and (\ref{eq.convergence2}), and the problem satisfied by $(u_1,u_2)$, i.e. (\ref{conv.inter}), we obtain $
I_i^{(\varepsilon)}\to 0$.
Therefore, we deduce from (\ref{est.inf2}) the convergences
\begin{equation}
u_i^{(\varepsilon)}\to u_i, \quad\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}\to \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}u_i
\quad\text{and}\quad \varepsilon\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_j}u_i^{(\varepsilon)}\to 0,
\end{equation}
strongly in $L^2(Q_T)$. We may now go back to (\ref{conv.linf2}) and identify $\tilde F_i$ as the strong limit in $L^2(Q_T)$ of
$F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})$, as $\varepsilon\to 0$. Hence, (\ref{conv.inter})
becomes
\begin{align*}
\int_{Q_T}\partial_t u_i \,\varphi
+ c_i \int_{Q_T} \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i \cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}\varphi +
\int_{Q_T} F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1,u_2)\,\varphi=0 ,
\end{align*}
for all $\varphi\in L^{2}(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega))$. Observe that due to (\ref{eq.convergence2}) we also have $u_{i}(0,\cdot)=u_{i0}^{(\delta)}$ a.e. in $\O$.
Finally, we justify the passing to the limit $\delta\to 0$.
Consider test functions of the form $\varphi(t,\mathbf{x})=\varphi_i(t,\mathbf{x}_i)\varphi_j(\mathbf{x}_j)$, with $\varphi_i\in L^2(0,T;H_{0}^1(\O_i))$ and $\varphi_j\in H^1_0(\O_j)$, for $i,j=1,2$, $i\neq j$. By density, we deduce that a.e. in $\O_j$,
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T\int_{\O_i}\partial_t u_i \,\varphi_i
+ c_i \int_0^T\int_{\O_i} \nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i} u_i \cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{x}_i}\varphi_i +
\int_0^T\int_{\O_i} F_i(\cdot,\cdot,u_1,u_2)\,\varphi_i=0
\end{align*}
for all $\varphi_i\in L^2(0,T;H_{0}^1(\O_i))$.
We now may use $\varphi_i=u_i(\cdot,\cdot,\mathbf{x}_j)$ and (a regularization of)
$\varphi_i=\partial_t u_i(\cdot,\cdot,\mathbf{x}_j)$, for a.e. $\mathbf{x}_j\in\O_j$, to obtain similar estimates to those for the problem
stated in the whole $\O$, e.g. (\ref{est.uniform})
and (\ref{est.time}).
These estimates may be obtained independently of $\delta$ due to
the regularity $u_{i0}\in H^1_{i0}(\O)$ given in assumption (H)$_4$,
and the convergence $u_{i0}^{(\delta)}\to u_{i0}$
strongly in $L^2(\O_j;H_{0}^1(\O_i))$. Since the monotonicity properties
hold as well, the passing to the limit and its identification follows.
\noindent\textbf{Step 2.} If $F_i$ do not satisfy property (\ref{prop.mon}), then we introduce the following auxiliary
problem.
Let $\lambda>0$ be a constant to be chosen. Under the change of unknowns
$u_i(t,x)=\text{e}^{\lambda t}U_i(t,x)$ problem (\ref{eq.spde})-(\ref{eq.sid}) is formally equivalent to
\begin{align}
& \partial_t U_i - \Delta_{\mathbf{x}_i} U_i+
\hat F_i(\cdot,\cdot,U_1,U_2)=0 & & \quad\text{in }Q_T, & \label{eq:aux}\\
& U_i= 0 & & \quad\text{on }(0,T)\times\partial\Omega, & \label{bc:aux} \\
& U_i(0,\cdot)= u_{i0} & & \quad\text{in }\Omega, & \label{id:aux}
\end{align}
with $\hat F_i(t,\mathbf{x},s_1,s_2)= \lambda s_i +
\text{e}^{-\lambda t}F_i(t,\mathbf{x},\text{e}^{\lambda t}s_1,\text{e}^{\lambda t}s_2)$.
Let $L$ be an upper bound for the Lipschitz constants of $F_i$.
Using the Lipschitz continuity (H)$_2$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\big(\hat F_1(s_1,s_2) - \hat F_1(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)\big) (s_1-\sigma_1)+
\big(\hat F_2(s_1,s_2)-\hat F_2(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)\big)(s_2-\sigma_2)\geq\\
&
\lambda \big( (s_1-\sigma_1)^2+(s_2-\sigma_2)^2 \big)-
L \big( (s_1-\sigma_1)^2+(s_2-\sigma_2)^2 +
2\abs{s_1-\sigma_1}\abs{s_2-\sigma_2} \big),
\end{align*}
which is non-negative for $\lambda$ large enough. Therefore, $\hat F_i$ satisfy the monotonicity
condition (\ref{prop.mon}).
Step 1 of this proof
ensures the existence of a solution $(U_1,U_2)$ to problem (\ref{eq:aux})-(\ref{id:aux}) in the weak sense
of (\ref{weak}), and with the
regularity (\ref{regularity.th}). Then, it is straightforward
to check that $u_i(t,x)=\text{e}^{\lambda t}U_i(t,x)$ solves problem (\ref{eq.spde})-(\ref{eq.sid}) in an
identical weak sense.
\qed
\section{Applications and numerical examples}
\label{sec: Discretization}
\subsection{Discretization scheme}
We follow the ideas of Theorem~\ref{th.existence} to construct numerical approximations to
problem \fer{eq.spde}-\fer{eq.sid}. We first consider the $\varepsilon-$regularized version given by
problem \fer{weakeps}, a semilinear parabolic problem for which standard
discretization methods may be used, and then produce simulations of the
solutions $(u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})$ for a collection of decreasing
values of $\varepsilon$ to get an idea of the behaviour of solutions to the original
unperturbed problem.
For the numerical approximation, we use finite elements in space and
backward finite differences in time.
More concretely, we consider a quasi-uniform mesh of a rectangle
$\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2$, $\{\mathcal{T}_h\} _h$, where $h$
represents triangle diameter, and
introduce the finite element space of piecewise $\mathbb{P}_1$-elements:
$$
S^h = \{ \chi\in \mathcal{C}(\overline{\Omega} ) ; \,
\chi |_K\in\mathbb{P}_1\,\text{ for all } K\in\mathcal{T}_h \} .
$$
The Lagrange interpolation operator, denoted by
$\Pi ^h : \mathcal{C}(\overline{\Omega} ) \to S^h$, from
which we define the discrete semi-inner product on $\mathcal{C}(\overline{\Omega} ) $
is given by
$$
(\eta_1,\eta_2)^h= \int_{\Omega} \Pi^h(\eta_1,\eta_2)
$$
For the time discretization, we use a uniform partition of $[0,T]$
of time step $\tau$.
For $t=t_0=0$, set $u_{i0}^{(\varepsilon)}=u_{i0}$.
Then, for $n\geq 1$ find $u_{i,n}^{(\varepsilon)}$ such that for
$i,j=1,2$ and $i\neq j$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq.fem}
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{1}{\tau}\big( u_{i,n}^{(\varepsilon)}-u_{i,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)} , \chi )^h
+ \Big( \big( c_i\partial_{x_i}u_{i,n}^{(\varepsilon)}, \varepsilon\partial_{x_j} u_{i,n}^{(\varepsilon)}\big) ,
\nabla\chi \Big) +\big( F_i(u_{1,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)},u_{2,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)} ),\chi \big)^h =0,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for every $ \chi\in S^h $.
Since \fer{eq.fem} is a nonlinear algebraic problem, we use a fixed point argument to
approximate its solution, $(u_{1,n}^{(\varepsilon)},u_{2,n}^{(\varepsilon)} )$,
at each time slice $t=t_n$, from the previous
approximation $(u_{1,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)},u_{2,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)} )$.
Let $u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,0}=u_{i,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)}$.
Then, for $k\geq 1$ the problem is to find $u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,k}$ such that for
all $\chi \in S^h$
\begin{equation*
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{\tau}\big( u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,k}-u_{i,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)} , \chi )^h
+\Big( \big( c_i\partial_{x_i}u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,k}, \varepsilon\partial_{x_j} u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,k}\big) ,
\nabla\chi \Big) +\big( F_i(u_{1,n}^{\varepsilon,k-1},u_{2,n}^{\varepsilon,k-1} ),\chi \big)^h =0.
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
We use a stopping criteria based on the $L^2$ relative error between two iterations, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\Big(\sum _{i=1,2} \nor{u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,k}-u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,k-1}}_{L^2}^2\Big)^{1/2}
\Big(\sum _{i=1,2} \nor{u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,k-1}}_{L^2}^2\Big)^{-1/2}
<\text{tol},
\end{equation*}
for values of $\text{tol}$ chosen empirically, and set $u_{i,n}^{(\varepsilon)}=u_{i,n}^{\varepsilon,k}$.
In some of the experiments we integrate in time until a numerical stationary
solution is achieved. This is determined again by an $L^2$ relative error measure:
\begin{equation*}
\Big(\sum _{i=1,2} \nor{u_{i,n}^{(\varepsilon)}-
u_{i,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)}}_{L^2}^2\Big)^{1/2}
\Big(\sum _{i=1,2} \nor{u_{i,n-1}^{(\varepsilon)}}_{L^2}^2\Big)^{-1/2}<\text{tol}_S,
\end{equation*}
where $\text{tol}_S$ is chosen empirically.
Unless otherwise stated, we use the parameter values of Table~\ref{table.parameter}
in all the experiments. The spatial domain is the square $\O=(0,1)\times(0,1)$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Parameter values for the experiments}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline\hline
Parameter & Symbol & Experiment 1 \\ \hline\hline
Number of spatial nodes & $N$ & $900$ \\
Time step & $\tau$ & $1.e-03$ \\
Initial densities & $(u_{10},u_{20})$ & $(0.5,0.5)$ \\
Fixed point tolerance & tol & $1.e-03$ \\
Stationary state tolerance& $\text{tol}_S$ & $1.e-05$ \\
Growth$^*$ &$(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ & $(5,4)$ \\
Selection$^*$ &$\beta_{ij}$ & $\left(\begin{array}{cc} 3& 2 \\ 2 & 2\end{array}\right)$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table.parameter}
\\
\small (*) $F_i(u_1,u_2)=-\big(\alpha_i u_i + u_i(\beta_{i1}u_1 + \beta_{i2}u_2)\big)$
\end{table}
\subsection{Numerical examples}
Here we show the outcome of competition between
two distributions of phenotypes, $u_1$ and $u_2$, for various values of diffusion
coefficients $c_1$ and $c_2$ and for interactions within and among populations given by
\begin{equation*}
F_i\P{u_1,u_2} = -\Big(\alpha_i u_i + u_i \P{\beta_{i1} u_1 + \beta_{i2}u_2}\Big),
\end{equation*}
see Table~\ref{table.parameter} for parameter values.
In Experiments~1 and 2 we explore the behavior of solutions for the cases $c_1 \gg c_2$ and $c_1=c_2$, respectively,
directly implementing the discrete version of problem P1, i.e. with the perturbation parameter $\varepsilon=0$.
Although Theorem~\ref{th.existence} ensures existence of solutions defined in a weaker sense than the usual,
we observe good regularity properties in their numerical approximations.
We explore the effect of the magnitude of $\varepsilon$
on the singular perturbation approximation, i.e. to the outcome of \fer{weakeps}.
Thus, in Experiment~3 we produce numerical approximations of \fer{weakeps}
for several decreasing values of $\varepsilon$.
\subsubsection{Experiment 1: $c_1 = 0.1, c_2 = 0.01, \varepsilon = 0$}
Recall that the diffusion coefficients, $c_i$ are
associated with growth rate of $u_i$.
In this experiment we implement (\ref{weak}) for different diffusion coefficients
$c_1=0.1$, $c_2=0.01$ in (\ref{weak}) and $\varepsilon=0$ in (\ref{weakeps}).
See Table \ref{table.parameter} for parameter value.
Figure \ref{fig.exp1}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=6.cm,height=6cm]{exp1_contA1.eps}}
\hspace{0.5cm}
{\includegraphics[width=6.cm,height=6cm]{exp1_contA2.eps}}
\\
{\includegraphics[width=8.cm,height=6.cm]{exp1_surfA_peq.eps}}
%
\caption{
Experiment 1. Top left is the level plot for $u_1$ and top right
is the level plot for $u_2$.
The bottom and top surfaces show $u_1$ and $u_2$ respectively.}
\label{fig.exp1}
\end{figure}
reflect the outcome of the distributions $u_1$ competing with
$u_2$.
Here $u_1$ shows effect similar to that shown for a single distribution of $u$ in
\cite{Cohen2013}.
On the one hand, the distribution $u_1$ with $c_1 = 0.1$
ends up with higher density close to the boundaries compared to
the center of the values of its adaptive trait, $x_1$.
On the other, $u_2$ reveals trends over their values of adaptive traits
$x_2$ that mirror those of $u_1$.
These interactions among distributions of competing populations are reminiscent
of the principle of competitive exclusions,
where the population with slow diffusion---which is associated with
slow growth rate---''winds''.
\subsubsection{Experiment 2: $c_1 = 0.1, c_2 = 0.1, \varepsilon = 0$}
Here we use $c_1=0.1$, $c_2=0.1$, $\varepsilon=0$ (See Fig. \ref{fig.exp2}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=6.cm,height=6cm]{exp2_contA1.eps}}
\hspace{0.5cm}
{\includegraphics[width=6.cm,height=6cm]{exp2_contA2.eps}}
{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm]{exp2_surfA_peq.eps}}
\caption{Experiment 2. Top left is the level plot for $u_1$ and top right
is the level plot for $u_2$.
The bottom and top surfaces show $u_1$ and $u_2$ respectively.}
\label{fig.exp2}
\end{figure}
As expected, the distributions $u_1$ and $u_2$ mirror each other
in their density over the values of their adaptive traits $x_1$ and $x_2$.
Such symmetric distributions of phenotypes in two
populations is not likely to exist in nature.
\subsubsection{Experiment 3: $c_1 = 0.1, c_2 = 0.1, \varepsilon > 0$ and
various boundary conditions}
The aim of this experiment is to investigate numerical results
for the singular perturbation problem \fer{weakeps}.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{th.existence} implies the
convergence of the sequence of solutions $(u_1^{(\varepsilon)},u_2^{(\varepsilon)})$ of \fer{weakeps}
to a solution of Problem P1.
The boundary conditions of problem \fer{weakeps} were set to the Dirichlet conditions.
However, as Figs. \ref{fig.exp3a}, \ref{fig.exp3b} and \ref{fig.exp3c} demonstrate,
the mixed boundary conditions approximate the actual behavior of the
unperturbed problem P1. By mixed boundary conditions we mean
\begin{align*}
u_i^{(\varepsilon)}=0 & \quad\text{on }(0,T)\times\partial \O_i\times \O_j\\
\partial_{x_j} u_i^{(\varepsilon)} =0 & \quad\text{on }(0,T)\times \O_i\times \partial\O_j
\end{align*}
for $i,j=1,2$, $i\neq j$.
In Figs. \ref{fig.exp3a}, \ref{fig.exp3b} and \ref{fig.exp3c} we show the steady state
solutions for several values of $\varepsilon$ for the singular perturbation problem
with Dirichlet boundary conditions -DBC- (left panels) and mixed boundary conditions -MBC- (right panels).
These solutions approximate those of Experiment~2 (see Fig.~\ref{fig.exp2}).
For $\varepsilon=0.1$, the MBC approximate the unperturbed problem while the DBC force the
solution to flatten near the boundary of $\O$, see Fig. \ref{fig.exp3a}.
For $\varepsilon=0.01$, the MBC approximation still shows a declining in the mixed boundary, due to
the Neumann boundary condition imposed in these boundaries. The DBC approximation is far from
resembling the unperturbed solution (see Fig. \ref{fig.exp3b}).
Finally, for $\varepsilon=10^{-10}$, the MBC approximation is indistinguishable from the solution to the unperturbed problem.
However, the DBC approximation exhibits a steep boundary layer close to the mixed boundaries which only may
disappear in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$, (see Fig. \ref{fig.exp3c}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=6.25cm,height=4.75cm]{exp3_eps1_dirichletA_peq.eps}}
\hspace{0.5cm}
{\includegraphics[width=6.25cm,height=4.75cm]{exp3_eps1_mixedA_peq.eps}}
\caption{{ Experiment 3. $\varepsilon=0.1$. Left: Dirichlet. Right: Mixed}}
\label{fig.exp3a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=6.25cm,height=4.75cm]{exp3_eps2_dirichletA_peq.eps}}
\hspace{0.5cm}
{\includegraphics[width=6.25cm,height=4.75cm]{exp3_eps2_mixedA_peq.eps}}
\caption{{ Experiment 3. $\varepsilon=0.01$. Left: Dirichlet. Right: Mixed}}
\label{fig.exp3b}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=6.25cm,height=4.75cm]{exp3_eps10_dirichletA_peq.eps}}
\hspace{0.5cm}
{\includegraphics[width=6.25cm,height=4.75cm]{exp3_eps10_mixedA_peq.eps}}
\caption{{ Experiment 3. $\varepsilon=1.e-10$. Left: Dirichlet. Right: Mixed}}
\label{fig.exp3c}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
Of all the disciplines in the biological sciences,
Evolution by Natural Selection is perhaps the
only one that can provide answers as to the question
of ``why'' as opposed to ``how''.
The dynamics of evolution provide unique challenges to its mathematical
modeling through PDE---which when applied to coevolving
populations we call a system of ED--in that (among others)
(\emph{i}) diffusion terms in the resulting PDEs are anisotropic and
(\emph{ii}) are determined, solely,
by the functions that model growth of populations.
Anisotropy in a system of PDEs refers to the property where
the diffusion term in each PDE is determined by said PDE only.
As opposed to single ED,
the anisotropic property of ED surfaces only in systems of ED.
We prove existence of solutions such systems.
Because the structure of systems of ED is unique,
numerical algorithms to solve such systems need to be developed;
and we did.
Numerical experiments with such algorithms behave as expected from the latter.
We conduct factorial experiments that illustrate the effects of the perturbation parameter
$\varepsilon$ $\emph{vis \'a vis}$ Dirichlet and mixed boundary conditions.
The Dirichlet boundary conditions apply to models of ED.
This is so because phenotypes that carry values of adaptive traits
outside the boundaries of such traits cannot survive or cannot exist.
For example---except for few exceptional cases---organisms whose
body temperature is regulated cannot
survive if it is (approximately) below $35^\circ$C.
Neither can they survive for long when their body temperature is (approximately)
above $42^\circ$C.
The numerical experiments with two competing populations,
each with its own adaptive trait, reveal the following:
(\emph{i}) The density of phenotypes mirror each other---this,
in spite of the anisotropy;
such a pattern surfaces because the ED of the populations
interact through the competition term.
(\emph{ii}) Near the boundaries, and as expected,
the population that diffuses faster ($c_1 = 0.1$)
obtains density higher than the population that diffuses
slower ($c_1 = 0.01$).
For a single ED, we \cite[]{Cohen2013} obtained dynamics that
correspond to the ED with $c_1 = 0.1$ (see left and bottom panels
in Figure \ref{fig.exp1}) regardless of the magnitude of the diffusion coefficient.
This is so because in a system with a single ED there is no influence
(in terms of the diffusion) of
another ED that prevents it from achieving high density near the boundaries.
Because $\varepsilon = 0$, the results of experiment $2$ reveal symmetric
distributions of $u_1$ and $u_2$; each of the ED correspond to our finding
for a single ED \cite[]{Cohen2013}.
The results from experiments $3$ to $5$
(given in Figures \ref{fig.exp3a} - \ref{fig.exp3c})
illustrate the influence of the perturbation parameter
$\varepsilon$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions compared to mix boundary
conditions.
The right panels of each of the Figures reflect the ever increasing density
at the boundaries (compared to the center) of the distribution.
The trends in these results correspond to those with the Dirichlet
boundary conditions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The Si--SiO$_2$ interface is a common feature in modern silicon-based complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) technology for the fabrication of integrated circuits. In the drive to scale devices to smaller sizes, channel lengths have been reduced to a few tens of nanometres~\cite{MOSFET-evol}, with the properties of the device being determined by fewer than 100 dopant atoms~\cite{arsenic-ionization}. Understanding the effects of the interface on dopants is therefore an increasingly important concern.
Several experimental studies have reported the uphill thermal diffusion and segregation of arsenic atoms to the Si--SiO$_2$ interface region during the high-temperature anneal following implantation~\cite{Sb-As-uphill,As-uphill,As-uphill2,As-B-uphill,As-B-uphill2,As-uphill3,As-uphill4,As-uphill5,As-uphill6,As-uphill7}. Up to a monolayer of dopant atoms can be collected in this region~\cite{Sb-As-uphill,uphill-model}. Studies using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS)~\cite{As-uphill}, medium ion scattering (MEIS)~\cite{As-B-uphill} and scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM)~\cite{As-uphill3} have shown the dopants to be on the silicon side of the interface, despite initial suggestions to the contrary~\cite{pileup-oxide,pileup-oxide2}.
While the majority of segregated dopants are deactivated~\cite{Sb-As-uphill,pileup-neutral}, giving rise to significant dose loss in the device and affecting the threshold voltage by up to 50\%~\cite{pileup-threshold}, 10--20\% of them are estimated to be active~\cite{pileup-active}. In the context of device miniaturization, understanding the properties of active dopants close to the interface becomes crucial~\cite{arsenic-ionization, nanowire-ionization}.
In this paper, we use first-principles density-functional theory (DFT) simulations to study arsenic impurities at Si--SiO$_2$ interfaces. In contrast to previous first-principles calculations~\cite{seg-comp,seg-comp2,seg-comp3,seg-comp4,seg-comp5,seg-comp6} that focus on defect configurations within a monolayer of the interface that passivate the donor and favour segregation, our emphasis is on understanding electrically active arsenic impurities in bulk-like, four-fold coordinated configurations at and near the interface.
The starting point of developing a good atomistic model of the Si--SiO$_2$ interface is itself a challenging problem. Previous studies have used either hand-built models~\cite{Si-SiO2-car,Si-SiO2-car2,Si-SiO2-car3,Si-SiO2-hand,Si-SiO2-hand2}, classical~\cite{Si-SiO2-md} or {\em ab initio}~\cite{Si-SiO2-car4} molecular dynamics (MD), or Monte Carlo (MC) methods~\cite{Si-SiO2-crn,Si-SiO2-crn2,Si-SiO2-crn3}. We use a large supercell of 472 atoms and consider both an idealized ordered interface of crystalline Si with one of the crystalline phases of SiO$_2$, and a more realistic disordered interface of crystalline Si with amorphous SiO$_2$. The former is generated by lattice matching the two crystals and introducing bridge atoms at the interface to ensure full coordination, while the latter is generated using a multiscale approach, based on a continuous random network Monte Carlo (CRN-MC) model parametrized by DFT.
The large interfacial area in our disordered interface model enables us to place the As impurity atom at many inequivalent sites close to the interface, in order to build up a representative picture of the segregation of active dopants in the system. Our main findings are that segregation is favoured to a small number of fully Si-coordinated sites, and that the local atomic environment of the defect site has a substantial effect on the segregation energy. While there is also a long-range quantum confinement effect due to the proximity of the dopant to the interface, we find that this is a small contribution to the segregation energy. Lattice relaxation is found to further enhance impurity segregation without causing donor passivation, although this effect is not sufficiently large to overcome the energy penalty associated with impurities being placed at partially or fully O-coordinated sites. Finally, we find that it may be possible to tune the segregation of dopants at the interface by applying macroscopic strain to the system.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Sec.~\ref{sec:methods}, we first describe the computational techniques that we employ for generating the crystalline (Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:methods-interface-crystal}) and disordered (Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:methods-interface-disorder}) interface supercells, and then give the technical details of our DFT simulations of the As substitutional defect close to and at the interface (Sec.~\ref{subsec:methods-As}). In Sec.~\ref{sec:results}, we present our results; we first discuss our simulations of the dopant in the crystalline system (Sec.~\ref{subsec:results-crystal}) and in the disordered one (Sec.~\ref{subsec:results-disorder}), and then we discuss the effect of lattice relaxation (Sec.~\ref{subsec:results-rel}) and macroscopic strain (Sec.~\ref{subsec:results-strain}) in both systems. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec:outro}, we give a summary of our main conclusions.
\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
\subsection{Si--SiO$_2$ interface generation}
\label{subsec:methods-interface}
\subsubsection{The crystalline interface}
\label{subsubsec:methods-interface-crystal}
Our model of a crystalline interface between Si and SiO$_2$ was constructed using the method of Pasquarello \etal~\cite{Si-SiO2-car,Si-SiO2-car2,Si-SiO2-car3}. The supercell was obtained by attaching cells of $\alpha$-cristobalite~\cite{Si-SiO2-crn3} (with an 8\% tensile strain for lattice matching) to a $2 \times 2$ Si(001) surface. The bond density mismatch at the interface was corrected with the addition of O bridges between atoms in the surface layer of Si (two per Si cubic cell), thus saturating the remaining dangling bonds (see top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-ideal}). The resulting tetragonal supercell, with 33 monolayers of Si and 8 monolayers of SiO$_2$, was then fully relaxed (ionic positions and lattice vectors) with DFT, starting from a preliminary relaxation obtained on a smaller supercell with only 9 monolayers of Si. For this we used the {\sc castep}~\cite{castep} code, with norm-conserving pseudopotentials~\cite{norm-pseudo} in Rappe-Rabe-Kaxiras-Joannopoulos (RRKJ) form~\cite{rrkj-pseudo}, a plane-wave basis with a kinetic energy cutoff of 800~eV, $\Gamma$-point sampling of the Brillouin zone, and the Ceperley-Alder~\cite{qmc1} local-density approximation (LDA) for describing exchange and correlation. Our convergence tolerance parameters were $10^{-2}$~eV/\AA\ for the maximum ionic force, $10^{-3}$~\AA\ for the maximum ionic displacement between iterations, $10^{-7}$~eV for the change in the total energy/ion between iterations, and $10^{-2}$~GPa for the maximum component of the stress tensor.
The relaxation produced no noticeable change in the atomic configuration, and only a small decrease of the size of the supercell perpendicular to the interface plane, resulting in a negligible increase in density for SiO$_2$. The final widths of the Si and SiO$_2$ layers were $\sim$42.5~\AA\ and $\sim$29.6~\AA, respectively~\footnote{The $\alpha$-cristobalite interface includes only the $\mathrm{Si}^{2+}$ oxidation state, in contrast with experiment. We have also constructed a similar ordered model using $\alpha$-tridymite~\cite{Si-SiO2-car2}, resulting in all the suboxide states being present at the interface; however, it is not possible in this case to achieve an equivalent bonding topology at both interfaces present in the supercell due to the periodic boundary conditions, resulting in a large charge transfer of almost one electron per Si cubic cell between the two. Therefore, we have chosen the $\alpha$-cristobalite system for performing the defect calculations.}.
\subsubsection{The disordered interface}
\label{subsubsec:methods-interface-disorder}
For the more realistic disordered interface, we employed the canonical CRN model for network glasses, first used in conjunction with MC techniques to simulate Si~\cite{www,Si-crn} and Ge~\cite{www}, and adapted later for the Si--SiO$_2$ system~\cite{Si-SiO2-crn,Si-SiO2-crn2,Si-SiO2-crn3}. The MC simulations make use of a Keating-like force field~\cite{keating} and the single bond-switch trial move proposed by Wooten, Winter and Weaire (WWW)~\cite{www}. The model was parametrized by fitting the force field to DFT total energy calculations of the entire Si--SiO$_2$ interface supercell; to the best of our knowledge, this is the first fully {\em ab initio} application of the CRN-MC method to this system.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\small{\begin{picture}(5040.00,3780.00
\gdef\gplbacktext{
\gdef\gplfronttext{
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(814,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}-15}
\put(814,1106){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}-10}
\put(814,1507){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}-5}
\put(814,1909){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}
\put(814,2310){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 5}
\put(814,2712){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 10}
\put(814,3113){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 15}
\put(814,3515){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 20}
\put(946,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}
\put(1685,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 20}
\put(2425,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 40}
\put(3164,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 60}
\put(3904,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 80}
\put(4643,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 100}
\put(176,2109){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}Energy (eV)}}
\put(2794,154){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}MC moves}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,1317){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}DFT}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,1097){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}CRN (initial)}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,877){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}CRN (fitted)}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\gplbacktext
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{int_fit2}
\gplfronttext
\end{picture}}}
\caption{Fitting of the CRN model parameters to DFT results for 100 snapshots in a MC run. The total energy for each snapshot is shown for DFT, the initial parametrization of the force field used in the CRN model~\cite{Si-SiO2-crn2}, and the new parametrization obtained by our fitting procedure. In each case the energy is given with respect to that of the initial snapshot.}
\label{fig:int_fit}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The fitting was performed using an energy-matching procedure~\cite{paul-fit}. The snapshots were obtained from an initial MC run at high temperature ($k_\mathrm{B} T=0.5$~eV) using a parametrization from a previous study~\cite{Si-SiO2-crn2}. $N_s=100$ snapshots were taken from the entire run and used to fit the free parameters of the CRN potential by minimizing the normalized root mean square error $S^\mathrm{fit}$ in total energy differences between all pairs of snapshots for the CRN force field with respect to DFT:
\begin{equation}
S^\mathrm{fit}=\frac{\sqrt{\sum_{i,j}^{N_s} \left ( \left ( E^\mathrm{CRN}_i-E^\mathrm{CRN}_j \right ) - \left ( E^\mathrm{DFT}_i-E^\mathrm{DFT}_j \right ) \right )^2}}{\sqrt{\sum_{i,j}^{N_s} \left ( E^\mathrm{DFT}_i-E^\mathrm{DFT}_j \right )^2}},
\end{equation}
where $E^\mathrm{CRN}_i$ is the total energy of the system for snapshot $i$ given by the CRN force field, and $E^\mathrm{DFT}_i$ is the same quantity given by DFT. Fig.~\ref{fig:int_fit} shows the result of this procedure. The values of the total energy from the initial MC run do not agree well with the DFT results; this is especially clear for the last 24 snapshots. However, there is a significant improvement after our reparametrization: 74\% of the snapshots are in better agreement with DFT after the fitting procedure, and the overall error $S^\mathrm{fit}$ decreases from 0.53 to 0.13. Our new values for the parameters of the CRN potential are given in Table~\ref{table:int_parameters}. We note that the fitting is robust, i.e., similar values are recovered by only fitting to the first half of the data set.
\begin{table}
\caption{List of parameters for the Si--SiO$_2$ CRN model, comparing values from a previous study and those calculated by our fitting procedure. Listed are the equilibrium bond lengths ($b_0$) and angles ($\theta_0$), and their weights ($k_b$ and $k_\theta$, respectively); the force field is defined (following Ref.~\cite{Si-SiO2-crn2}) as $E^\mathrm{CRN} \left ( \mathcal{B}, \left \{ \mathbf{r}_i \right \} \right ) = \sum_i^{N_b} k_b^{\left ( i \right )} \left ( b_i - b_0^{\left ( i \right )} \right )^2 + \sum_i^{N_\theta} k_\theta^{\left ( i \right )} \left ( \cos \theta_i - \cos \theta_0^{\left ( i \right )} \right )^2$, where $\mathcal{B}$ is the bonding topology of the network, $\left \{ \mathbf{r}_i \right \}$ are the atomic positions, $N_b$ is the total number of bonds, $N_\theta$ is the total number of angles between bonded atoms, and the superscript $(i)$ indicates the type of bond/angle, as listed in the table. For each trial $\mathcal{B}$ in a CRN-MC run, $E^\mathrm{CRN}$ is minimized with respect to $\left \{ \mathbf{r}_i \right \}$.}
\begin{center}
{\footnotesize
\lineup
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccccccc}
\br
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$b_0$ (\AA)} && \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\theta_0$ ($^{\circ}$)} \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{2-3}\cline{5-8}\noalign{\smallskip}
& Si--Si & Si--O && Si--Si--Si & Si--Si--O & Si--O--Si & O--Si--O \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Ref.~\cite{Si-SiO2-crn2} & 2.35 & 1.60 && 109.5 & 109.5 & 180.0 & 109.5 \\
This study & 2.33 & 1.58 && 109.5 & 127.1 & 146.4 & 117.0 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$k_b$ (eV/\AA$^2$)} && \multicolumn{4}{c}{$k_\theta$ (eV)} \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{2-3}\cline{5-8}\noalign{\smallskip}
& Si--Si & Si--O && Si--Si--Si & Si--Si--O & Si--O--Si & O--Si--O \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Ref.~\cite{Si-SiO2-crn2} & 4.54 & 13.50 && 1.79 & 1.97 & 0.38 & 2.16 \\
This study & 4.56 & 14.12 && 0.83 & 2.01 & 2.97 & 2.92 \\
\br
\end{tabular}
\label{table:int_parameters}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Our parametrization of the CRN potential was used to generate the final disordered interface structure. The crystalline interface with $\alpha$-cristobalite (Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:methods-interface-crystal}) was used as our initial configuration for an MC run in which the bonding topologies of the entire SiO$_2$ layer and the first two Si monolayers at the interface were allowed to evolve by bond-switching, while the remaining monolayers of Si were fixed in their bulk bonding topology. The system was first equilibrated at high temperature ($k_\mathrm{B} T=0.5$~eV), and then slowly annealed to a lower temperature ($k_\mathrm{B} T=0.1$~eV); this resulted in the system finding a low-energy local minimum with a disordered interface and with the oxide in its amorphous state, as desired. The equilibration was performed for 4000 accepted moves, and the anneal for 1000 accepted moves. Finally, the system was structurally relaxed using DFT to a tight convergence tolerance of $5 \times 10^{-3}$~eV/\AA\ for the maximum ionic force; this resulted in only small adjustments to the ionic positions, and no change in the bonding network. The width of the final disordered SiO$_2$ layer was $\sim$23.4~\AA.
Although the crystalline configuration used to start the MC simulation only included a single suboxide state ($\mathrm{Si}^{2+}$), the disorder introduced at the interface by the WWW bond-switching mechanism resulted in all the suboxide states being present by the end of the simulation, and none of the O bridges remaining. Fig.~\ref{fig:int_res-ox} shows the distribution and volume of the different oxidation states. The volume is calculated from the tetrahedron formed by the four neighbours of the ion (we use either the middle of the bond for a Si--Si bond, or the O position for a Si--O bond). We also show the `ideal' volume for each state, calculated from the DFT equilibrium bond lengths, giving an indication of the local strain for each ion.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\small{\begin{picture}(5040.00,3528.00
\gdef\gplbacktext{
\gdef\gplfronttext{
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(946,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.5}
\put(946,1344){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 1}
\put(946,1984){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 1.5}
\put(946,2623){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 2}
\put(946,3263){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 2.5}
\put(1078,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}-10}
\put(1969,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}-5}
\put(2861,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}
\put(3752,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 5}
\put(4643,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 10}
\put(176,1983){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}Volume (\AA$^3$)}}
\put(2860,154){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$z$ (\AA)}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(1738,3090){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{4+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(1738,2870){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{3+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(1738,2650){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{2+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(1738,2430){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{1+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(1738,2210){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{0{\color{white} +}}$}
\gplbacktext
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{int_res-ox}
\gplfronttext
\end{picture}}}
\caption{Tetrahedral volume of the Si ions in different oxidation states plotted perpendicular to the interface plane. The dashed lines indicate the ideal volume for each oxidation state.}
\label{fig:int_res-ox}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Our model is in good agreement with several key characteristics of the interface that have been established experimentally: the oxide is in its amorphous state~\cite{Si-SiO2-exp-rev}, all oxidation states are present at the interface~\cite{Si-SiO2-sub,Si-SiO2-sub2,Si-SiO2-sub4,Si-SiO2-sub5}, and all atoms are fully coordinated (experimental measurements suggest that there is a very low concentration of over- or under-coordinated atoms, less than one in $10^4$ in the interfacial layers~\cite{Si-SiO2-dangling,Si-SiO2-dangling2}). The thickness of our model interface can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:int_res-ox} to be $\sim$5~\AA, close to the lower end of the range of experimental estimates (6--10~\AA\ for the $\mathrm{Si}^{1+}$ and $\mathrm{Si}^{2+}$ states, with the $\mathrm{Si}^{3+}$ state extending further into the oxide~\cite{Si-SiO2-sub,Si-SiO2-sub2,Si-SiO2-sub4,Si-SiO2-sub5}).
\subsection{Arsenic defect calculations}
\label{subsec:methods-As}
Using the crystalline or disordered interfaces discussed above, the energetics of As substitutional defects at Si sites close to and at the interface were calculated using DFT. The technical details for the DFT calculations are the same as those given in Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:methods-interface-crystal}; additionally, for As, we employed a RRKJ norm-conserving pseudopotential that includes the 3d semi-core states. We performed simulations of the system containing a single As impurity; as described in the next section, many different lattice sites were simulated (including all the suboxide states of Si). The segregation energy $E_s$ for a particular site is defined as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:E_s}
E_s = E^\mathrm{def} - E^\mathrm{def,ref},
\end{equation}
where $E^\mathrm{def}$ is the total energy of the supercell with the dopant placed at the site of interest, and $E^\mathrm{def,ref}$ is the same quantity for the dopant placed at a reference site, in this case taken to be at the centre of the Si layer (i.e., furthest away from the interface)~\footnote{We note that the defect formation energy is not well-defined by the Zhang-Northrup~\cite{zhang} approach commonly used in bulk, due to the ambiguity in defining the host chemical potential at inequivalent lattice sites~\cite{nano-Al}; however, this is not a problem for defining the segregation energy, as the number of atoms of each species is constant between the two configurations.}. Only neutral defects are considered; unless otherwise stated, no further relaxation is performed after the impurity is introduced into the system. We do, however, consider the relaxation of the As substitutional defect close to the interface for a smaller sample of lattice sites (Secs.~\ref{subsec:results-rel} and~\ref{subsec:results-strain}).
The calculation of point defect properties with DFT using the supercell approach has some well-known limitations~\cite{Lany2008}, particularly the slow convergence with system size of various quantities of interest, such as the defect formation energy~\cite{Puska1998,Probert2003,Corsetti2011}. However, we expect the segregation energy, being in effect a difference between the formation energy of the substitutional defect at two different lattice sites, to be less sensitive to system size than the formation energy itself.
Although in this study we only consider neutral defects, it is also interesting to note that the definition of the segregation energy given by Eq.~\ref{eq:E_s} in principle remains unchanged when considering the segregation of charged defects, under the assumption that the system is in equilibrium with an electron reservoir provided by the bulk crystal, and, hence, that a global electronic chemical potential can be defined irrespectively of the position of the dopant. This would therefore preclude the need for determining the electronic chemical potential~\cite{Lany2008,Corsetti2011}.
Notwithstanding the limitations, our calculations of the substitutional As defect in a 256-atom supercell of pure bulk Si (similar to the number of atoms in the Si layer in our interface supercell) agree well with experimental results: the ionization energy (calculated as the position of the stable charge transition level $E \left ( {1+} / 0 \right )$ with respect to the conduction band edge) is 47~meV, compared with a value of 49~meV from experiment~\cite{As_Si-ionization}, and the relaxed As--Si bond length is 2.43~\AA, compared with values of $2.41 \pm 0.02$~\AA~\cite{As_Si-bond} and 2.43~\AA~\cite{As_Si-bond2} from experiment. The technical details of the calculations are the same as those given in Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:methods-interface-crystal}, except for the relaxation procedure: the supercell lattice vectors were held constant, and a convergence tolerance of $10^{-3}$~eV/\AA\ for the maximum ionic force was used. These results, therefore, give us confidence in using DFT to investigate As dopants at the Si--SiO$_2$ interface.
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{The crystalline interface}
\label{subsec:results-crystal}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace{20pt} \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ideal.eps}
{\small{\begin{picture}(5040.00,3528.00
\gdef\gplbacktext{
\gdef\gplfronttext{
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(946,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}-0.2}
\put(946,1131){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0}
\put(946,1557){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0.2}
\put(946,1984){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}4}
\put(946,2410){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}8}
\put(946,2837){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}12}
\put(946,3263){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}14}
\put(1078,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}-5}
\put(1672,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}
\put(2266,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 5}
\put(2861,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 10}
\put(3455,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 15}
\put(4049,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 20}
\put(4643,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 25}
\put(176,1983){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$E_s$ (eV)}}
\put(2860,154){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$z$ (\AA)}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,3090){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{4+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,2870){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{2+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,2650){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{0{\color{white} +}}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(4465,1283){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$E_a$}
\put(4465,998){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$\Delta E$}
\gplbacktext
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{seg-ideal}
\gplfronttext
\end{picture}}}
\caption{Segregation energy of the As dopant at the crystalline interface with respect to its bulk position (bottom panel). The zero of position is taken to be that of the $\mathrm{Si}^{2+}$ site. $E_a$ is the activation energy and $\Delta E$ the maximum segregation energy. Part of the supercell is shown in the top panel. Si atoms are white, and O atoms black; the substitutional sites for the As atom are coloured, with the specific colour denoting its oxidation state. We note that the picture does not show the full supercell.}
\label{fig:seg-ideal}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Due to the ordered atomic arrangement, there are only a small number of inequivalent defect sites, generally one per monolayer; the only important exception is the Si monolayer immediately beneath the first O-bonded layer, which features two inequivalent sites (Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-ideal}, top panel). Consequently, the relaxation of the interface results in a difference of 0.30~\AA\ in the $z$ direction (perpendicular to the interface plane) in the position of these two sites. The local strain (based on the deviation from the ideal volume) is also different, both in sign and magnitude: for the site closer to the interface it is slightly positive, with a volume (6.52~$\mathrm{\AA}^3$) almost identical to the equilibrium one found in bulk (6.50~$\mathrm{\AA}^3$), while for the site further from the interface the strain is negative, with a significantly smaller volume (6.15~$\mathrm{\AA}^3$)~\footnote{Volumes are calculated using the tetrahedron formed by the positions of the four neighbouring ions.}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-ideal} (bottom panel) shows the As segregation energy as a function of the distance to the interface, including the $\mathrm{Si}^{2+}$ site at the interface and the first $\mathrm{Si}^{4+}$ site in SiO$_2$. Direct bonding of the dopant atom to O is highly unfavourable, with an energy penalty of 5.17~eV for the doubly O-coordinated defect site and 11.67~eV for the fully O-coordinated one. This is in agreement with previous theoretical studies~\cite{seg-comp,seg-comp2,seg-comp3,seg-comp4,seg-comp5,seg-comp6}, as well as the experimental evidence that segregated atoms are found on the Si side of the interface.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[height=\textwidth,angle=90]{seg-map.eps}
\put(10,7){\color{yellow} SiO$_2$}
\put(90,7){\color{yellow} Si}
\end{overpic}
{\small{\begin{picture}(5040.00,3528.00
\gdef\gplbacktext{
\gdef\gplfronttext{
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(682,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}
\put(682,1344){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 1}
\put(682,1984){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 2}
\put(682,2623){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 3}
\put(682,3263){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 4}
\put(814,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 0}
\put(1404,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 5}
\put(1994,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 10}
\put(2583,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 15}
\put(3173,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 20}
\put(3763,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 25}
\put(3895,704){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\strut{} 30}
\put(3895,1344){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\strut{} 35}
\put(3895,1984){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\strut{} 40}
\put(3895,2623){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\strut{} 45}
\put(3895,3263){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\strut{} 50}
\put(176,1983){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$\Delta z$ (\AA)}}
\put(4532,1983){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$Q$ ($\mathrm{\AA}^2$)}}
\put(2288,154){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$z$ (\AA)}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(2776,3090){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}$\Delta z$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(2776,2870){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}$Q$}
\gplbacktext
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{seg-ideal2}
\gplfronttext
\end{picture}}}
\caption{Spread $Q$ of the dopant donor level charge density distribution and displacement of its centre from the As position $\Delta z$ at different sites in the crystalline interface system (bottom panel). The values of $\Delta z$ are positive, as the charge distribution is shifted away from the SiO$_2$ region ($z<0$). An example charge density distribution contour map for a defect site close to the interface in the z-y plane is shown in the top panel; the vertical white line indicates the position of the interface. A square root scale is used, with lighter regions indicating a higher density.}
\label{fig:seg-ideal2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Restricting ourselves to the fully Si-coordinated defect sites, we see two separate regimes: firstly, a long-ranged steady increase in $E_s$ as the As ion approaches the interface from bulk Si; this reaches its maximum value in the second $\mathrm{Si}^0$ monolayer from the interface, with a small energy penalty of 0.14~eV. Secondly, a drop in $E_s$ at the first $\mathrm{Si}^0$ monolayer for both sites previously described; these sites, therefore, can drive dopant segregation to the interface. We can consider the energy barrier at the second monolayer as a migration or activation energy for the segregation process. We note, however, that the energy gain from segregation is modest: 0.11~eV for the site with a large negative strain, and only 0.03~eV for that with a small positive strain.
All the defect sites belonging to the first regime have a negligible strain, being almost perfectly bulk-like in their local bonding environment both in terms of bond lengths and angles. We therefore assume that the increase in $E_s$ is a confinement effect due to the SiO$_2$, affecting the long-range decay of the defect wavefunction. This effect is analogous to that shown in DFT studies of semiconducting nanocrystals~\cite{quant-conf-doped2} and nanowires~\cite{E_f-conf-nanowire}, in which the defect formation energy for a substitutional dopant atom increases as the system size decreases. Furthermore, we can quantify the confinement by calculating the quadratic spread of the charge density associated with the donor level eigenstate; this is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-ideal2} for all the $\mathrm{Si}^0$ defect sites. The spread decreases monotonically (up to the second $\mathrm{Si}^0$ monolayer) as the As ion approaches the interface; the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-ideal2} shows that this is due to the charge distribution being confined by the interface, resulting in a long-range decay into the bulk Si region and an abrupt decay into the SiO$_2$. This asymmetric decay also results in the centre of the charge density being shifted from the position of the defect site and away from the interface. The calculated magnitude of the shift in the $z$ direction increases as the As ion approaches the interface (bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-ideal2}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dis.eps} \\
{\small{\begin{picture}(5040.00,3528.00
\gdef\gplbacktext{
\gdef\gplfronttext{
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(946,704){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}-0.2}
\put(946,1344){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}
\put(946,1984){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.2}
\put(946,2623){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.4}
\put(946,3263){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0.6}
\put(1078,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 10}
\put(1791,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 15}
\put(2504,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 20}
\put(3217,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 25}
\put(3930,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 30}
\put(4643,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 35}
\put(176,1983){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$E_s$ (eV)}}
\put(2860,154){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$z$ (\AA)}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(2846,1996){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} {\scriptsize 0}}
\put(2846,2504){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} {\scriptsize 10}}
\put(2846,3011){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} {\scriptsize 20}}
\put(2886,1877){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}{\scriptsize -0.2}}
\put(3235,1877){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} {\scriptsize 0}}
\put(3585,1877){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} {\scriptsize 0.2}}
\put(3934,1877){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} {\scriptsize 0.4}}
\put(4283,1877){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} {\scriptsize 0.6}}
\put(2578,2503){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}{\scriptsize $N_s$}}}
\put(3584,1666){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}{\scriptsize $E_s$ (eV)}}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\gplbacktext
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{seg-amorph3}
\gplfronttext
\end{picture}}}
\caption{Segregation energy of the As dopant in $\mathrm{Si}^0$ sites of the disordered interface system (bottom panel). The zero of position is taken to be the centre of the oxide layer. The inset shows a histogram of the number of sites $N_s$ at each segregation energy for the first four Si monolayers below the interface. The supercell used for the calculations is shown in the top panel, following the colour scheme of Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-ideal}.}
\label{fig:seg-amorph3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The crystalline interface, therefore, clearly illustrates the large-scale confinement of the defect wavefunction at the interface, which has a relatively small effect on $E_s$ (the ionization energy, instead, is expected to be greatly influenced, as discussed in previous studies~\cite{nanowire-ionization,arsenic-ionization}). This effect depends only on the distance of the dopant to the interface, instead of on the detailed local ionic configuration around the defect site. It is this local bonding, however, that has the greatest effect on $E_s$, as demonstrated by the abrupt change between the first two $\mathrm{Si}^0$ monolayers.
\subsection{The disordered interface}
\label{subsec:results-disorder}
In the disordered interface system with the amorphous oxide, there are a large number of inequivalent sites for all suboxide states. This enables detailed investigation of the effect of defect volume and local strain on the As segregation energy; we perform calculations on 67 sites in total. The disorder effectively masks the small energy barrier to segregation discussed in the previous section: Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-amorph3} shows that there is no clear dependence of $E_s$ on $z$ close to the interface. In the first few monolayers of Si, we find four sites with a negative value of $E_s$ (all Si$^0$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\small{\begin{picture}(7200.00,3528.00
\gdef\gplbacktext{
\gdef\gplfronttext{
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(876,888){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}0}
\put(876,1619){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}4}
\put(876,2351){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}8}
\put(876,3082){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}12}
\put(1008,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1.2}
\put(1735,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1.4}
\put(2462,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1.6}
\put(3189,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1.8}
\put(3916,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}
\put(370,1985){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$E_s$ (eV)}}
\put(2462,155){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$V^{1/3}$ (\AA)}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(4072,888){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}}
\put(4072,1619){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}}
\put(4072,2351){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}}
\put(4072,3082){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}}
\put(4204,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1.2}
\put(4931,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1.4}
\put(5658,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1.6}
\put(6385,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}1.8}
\put(7112,485){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}2}
\put(5658,155){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$V^{1/3}$ (\AA)}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(6125,3092){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{4+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(6125,2872){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{3+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(6125,2652){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{2+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(6125,2432){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{1+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(6125,2212){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{0{\color{white} +}}$}
\gplbacktext
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{seg-uncorrcorr2}
\gplfronttext
\end{picture}}}
\caption{Segregation energy of the As dopant at the disordered interface with respect to its bulk position, as a function of the cube root of the volume of the defect site $V$. The vertical dashed lines indicate the ideal volume for each oxidation state. Filled coloured symbols indicate sites in the disordered system, and empty black symbols ones in the crystalline system. The fine dashed line is a function of the form $V^{-2/3}$ fitted to the data points for the crystalline system only. In the left panel, the unadjusted data points are shown; in the right panel, the same data points are shown with the addition of a strain energy term (as explained in the text), with the unadjusted values now appearing in light grey.}
\label{fig:seg-uncorrcorr}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In order to understand the large spread of values of $E_s$ in the disordered system, we consider local quantities: the volume of the defect site $V$, and the local volumetric strain at that site $e_V^\mathrm{loc} = \left ( V-V_0^{(i)} \right )/V_0^{(i)}$ (where $V_0^{(i)}$ is the ideal volume for oxidation state $i$). Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-uncorrcorr} (left) shows $E_s$ for all the simulated defect sites as a function of the cube root of the defect volume, both for the crystalline and disordered systems. Based on a simple `particle in a box' confinement model for the defect charge density, we fit a function of the form $V^{-2/3}$ to the data points obtained from the crystalline system only. The majority of data points for the disordered system are in good agreement with this curve; in particular, the $\mathrm{Si}^{1+}$ sites follow it closely for a small range of volumes. The ideal volume for each oxidation state is also indicated, showing that most defect sites have little strain. However, there are some outlying data points, mainly for $\mathrm{Si}^0$ and $\mathrm{Si}^{1+}$; it is interesting to note that these all correspond to highly strained configurations, and have noticeably lower energies than those predicted by the fitted curve. A possible explanation, which we consider here, is that the segregation energy is lowered by the presence of local strain at the defect site, since the system effectively gains energy by removing the Si ion from this strained site to an unstrained bulk site. Using a simple harmonic approximation for the strain energy of the form $B V_0^{(i)} {e_V^\mathrm{loc}}^2/2$, we can perform a second fit to describe the deviation of the outliers from the main curve. Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-uncorrcorr} (right) shows that subtracting the fitted value for the strain energy is quite successful in bringing the outliers back onto the curve while having a negligible effect on the other points; however, the value of the coefficient $B$ obtained from the fitting ($\approx 4000$~GPa) is extremely high compared with realistic bulk moduli, casting doubt on its physical significance.
\begin{table}
\caption{Summary table of results obtained for the lattice relaxation of the As impurity in the interface supercells. The oxidation state and position in the supercell (either in the bulk-like region in the middle of the Si layer or in the interface region) are listed for each defect site considered. Also listed are whether the system is relaxed or not, the bond lengths between the As ion and its four neighbours \{a, b, c, d\}, the local volumetric strain at the defect site, and the segregation energy. Asterisks (*) denote an As--O bond. Note that the segregation energy is always given referenced to the unrelaxed bulk Si$^0$ site in the crystalline system.}
\begin{center}
{\footnotesize
\lineup
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccccccccc}
\br
&&&& \multicolumn{4}{c}{Bond lengths (\AA)} &&& \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{5-8}\noalign{\smallskip}
System & Ox. & Pos. & Rel. & a & b & c & d & $V$ ($\mathrm{\AA}^3$) & $e_V^\mathrm{loc}$ & $E_s$ (eV) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\multirow{6}{*}{Crystal.} & \multirow{4}{*}{Si$^0$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Bulk} & No & 2.32 & 2.32 & 2.32{\color{white} *} & 2.32{\color{white} *} & 6.43 & $-$0.01 & {\color{white} $-$}0.00 \\
& & & Yes & 2.42 & 2.42 & 2.42{\color{white} *} & 2.42{\color{white} *} & 7.25 & {\color{white} $-$}0.12 & $-$0.23 \\
& & \multirow{2}{*}{Int.} & No & 2.31 & 2.31 & 2.30{\color{white} *} & 2.30{\color{white} *} & 6.15 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.11 \\
& & & Yes & 2.39 & 2.38 & 2.38{\color{white} *} & 2.38{\color{white} *} & 6.81 & {\color{white} $-$}0.05 & $-$0.39 \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{2-11}\noalign{\smallskip}
& \multirow{2}{*}{Si$^{2+}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Int.} & No & 2.35 & 2.31 & 1.65* & 1.63* & 3.84 & {\color{white} $-$}0.04 & {\color{white} $-$}5.17 \\
& & & Yes & 2.46 & 2.41 & 1.87* & 1.85* & 4.68 & {\color{white} $-$}0.27 & {\color{white} $-$}3.51 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\multirow{6}{*}{Disorder.} & \multirow{4}{*}{Si$^0$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Bulk} & No & 2.32 & 2.32 & 2.32{\color{white} *} & 2.32{\color{white} *} & 6.43 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.01 \\
& & & Yes & 2.42 & 2.42 & 2.42{\color{white} *} & 2.41{\color{white} *} & 7.24 & {\color{white} $-$}0.11 & $-$0.24 \\
& & \multirow{2}{*}{Int.} & No & 2.49 & 2.34 & 2.32{\color{white} *} & 2.31{\color{white} *} & 6.49 & $-$0.00 & $-$0.12 \\
& & & Yes & 2.75 & 2.38 & 2.38{\color{white} *} & 2.37{\color{white} *} & 7.37 & {\color{white} $-$}0.13 & $-$0.50 \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{2-11}\noalign{\smallskip}
& \multirow{2}{*}{Si$^{1+}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Int.} & No & 2.66 & 2.47 & 2.38{\color{white} *} & 1.66* & 3.27 & $-$0.34 & {\color{white} $-$}1.74 \\
& & & Yes & 2.82 & 2.43 & 2.39{\color{white} *} & 1.94* & 3.68 & $-$0.25 & {\color{white} $-$}0.75 \\
\br
\end{tabular}
\label{table:seg_summary}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Clearly, both the form of the fitted equations and the definition of the input variables (local volume and strain) are extremely simplified, and discard a large amount of information about the local configuration. The final model employs only two free parameters in total (the coefficients for the $V^{-2/3}$ and strain energy terms), making the ratio of the number of data points to the number of fitting parameters very high. However, the data points for each oxidation state are quite separate from each other, generally clustering in a small range of $E_s$. If we consider the main contribution to $E_s$ to come simply from an energy penalty due to the Si--O bond being replaced by an As--O bond, we would expect a linear relationship between $E_s$ and oxidation. The $V^{-2/3}$ arguably presents a better fit to the data (this can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-uncorrcorr}, as the equilibrium volumes of the various oxidation states are approximately equally spaced), while also accounting for the variation of $E_s$ within a single state. Nevertheless, the model should be considered as semi-qualitative. This is shown by a simple test, in which we manually increase the volume of one of the Si$^0$ defect sites at the interface (allowing the rest of the system to relax), and calculate the change in segregation energy: we find $\left. \partial E_s/\partial V \right |_{V_0} = -0.62$~eV/\AA$^3$ (where $V_0$ is the original site volume), compared with $-0.45$~eV/\AA$^3$ obtained from the model. Although the correct trend is reproduced, the error is substantial.
\subsection{Lattice relaxation}
\label{subsec:results-rel}
So far, we have only considered unrelaxed defect configurations (i.e., although both the crystalline and disordered interfaces are fully relaxed using DFT, no further relaxation is performed once the As ion is introduced). However, the As substitutional defect in bulk Si features a small outwards relaxation (as described in Sec.~\ref{subsec:methods-As}), that might differ in magnitude for sites at the interface due to the additional strain field. Therefore, we perform structural relaxation calculations for six defect supercells in total, three each for the crystalline and disordered interfaces, corresponding to the impurity at a bulk-like site at the centre of the Si layer, at the Si$^0$ site at the interface with the greatest energy gain from segregation, and at a partially oxidized site at the interface (Si$^{2+}$ for the crystalline system and Si$^{1+}$ for the disordered one). Ionic forces were converged to less than $10^{-2}$~eV/\AA; the relaxed configurations and energies are given in Table~\ref{table:seg_summary}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\small{\begin{picture}(5040.00,3528.00
\gdef\gplbacktext{
\gdef\gplfronttext{
\gplgaddtomacro\gplbacktext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(682,1024){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 0}
\put(682,1664){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 2}
\put(682,2303){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 4}
\put(682,2943){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{} 6}
\put(814,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 1.4}
\put(2090,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 1.6}
\put(3367,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 1.8}
\put(4643,484){\makebox(0,0){\strut{} 2}
\put(176,1983){\rotatebox{-270}{\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$E_s$ (eV)}}
\put(2728,154){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$V^{1/3}$ (\AA)}
\gplgaddtomacro\gplfronttext
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,3090){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{2+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,2870){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{1+}$}
\csname LTb\endcsnam
\put(3656,2650){\makebox(0,0)[r]{\strut{}Si$^{0{\color{white} +}}$}
\gplbacktext
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{seg-rel}
\gplfronttext
\end{picture}}}
\caption{Effect of lattice relaxation on the segregation energy. Data points for both the crystalline and disordered systems are shown. Filled coloured symbols indicate the energy and volume before relaxation, and empty coloured symbols after relaxation. The strain energy adjustment is not included.}
\label{fig:seg-rel}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For all sites, the results show an outwards relaxation and a decrease in the energy of the system on the order of 0.1--1~eV. The energy gain is greater for the Si$^0$ sites at the interfaces that those further in bulk, resulting in an increase in the magnitude of the segregation energy from 0.11~eV to 0.16~eV in the crystalline system, and from 0.11~eV to 0.26~eV in the disordered one. This suggests that lattice relaxation will increase the number of Si$^0$ sites favouring segregation, as some of the sites close to the interface with small positive values of $E_s$ (see inset Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-amorph3}) will become thermodynamically favourable for segregation ($E_s < 0$) upon relaxation.
The relaxed bond lengths and decrease in total energy for the defect site at the centre of the Si layer are in good agreement with those calculated in the 256-atom BCC supercell of bulk Si. As observed previously for the P substitutional defect at the interface~\cite{seg-comp5}, the optimized structure for As at the interface exhibits one As--Si bond that is longer than the other three. This effect is most pronounced in the disordered system, with a difference of 0.37~\AA\ between the long bond and the short ones; however, the dopant is still active after relaxation, as there is a negligible shift in the position of the donor level in the Kohn-Sham band structure (not shown).
Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-rel} shows the effect of the outwards ionic relaxation on the segregation energy and local volume. The Si$^{1+}$ and Si$^{2+}$ sites in particular appear to follow the slope of the previously-fitted $V^{-2/3}$ curve during the relaxation process. These partially oxidized sites gain significantly more energy from relaxation than the Si$^0$ ones; even for Si$^{1+}$, however, this is not sufficient to make segregation to these sites energetically favourable. It seems reasonable to assume that even after taking lattice relaxation into account the number of oxidized sites favouring segregation will be negligible.
\subsection{Macroscopic strain}
\label{subsec:results-strain}
Finally, we have investigated the possibility of altering the segregation energy for As at interfacial sites through the application of a macroscopic uniform areal strain $e_A$ parallel to the $z$ direction. This areal strain is defined as $e_A = \left ( A-A_0 \right ) / A_0$, where $A$ is the cross-sectional area of the supercell (i.e., the (001) plane for Si), and $A_0$ is the equilibrium area calculated from bulk Si. We restrict ourselves to Si$^0$ sites, and calculate the change in $E_s$ for variations in $A$ of $\pm 2\%$. It is important to note that the reference energy $E^\mathrm{def,ref}$ from Eq.~\ref{eq:E_s} also changes with $e_A$; this change needs to be calculated separately.
We consider all sites found previously with a negative segregation energy: two for the crystalline system, and four for the disordered system. These calculations are performed without relaxation. Additionally, we choose one site each from the crystalline and disordered systems, and perform full ionic relaxation in the presence of the areal strain.
\begin{table}
\caption{Summary table of results for the application of a small areal strain to the interface supercell with an As impurity. Listed are whether the system is relaxed or not, the local volumetric strain at the impurity site, and the change of segregation energy with areal strain.}
\begin{center}
{\footnotesize
\lineup
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccc}
\br
System & Site & Rel. & $e_V^\mathrm{loc}$ & $\partial E_s/ \partial e_A$ (eV) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\multirow{3}{*}{Crystal.} & a & No & {\color{white} $-$}0.00 & {\color{white} $-$}0.25 \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{2-5}\noalign{\smallskip}
& \multirow{2}{*}{b} & No & $-$0.05 & {\color{white} $-$}0.26 \\
& & Yes & {\color{white} $-$}0.05 & {\color{white} $-$}0.22 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\multirow{6}{*}{Disorder.} & c & No & $-$0.01 & $-$0.02 \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{2-5}\noalign{\smallskip}
& d & No & $-$0.03 & $-$0.04 \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{2-5}\noalign{\smallskip}
& e & No & $-$0.12 & $-$1.38 \\ \noalign{\smallskip}\cline{2-5}\noalign{\smallskip}
& \multirow{2}{*}{f} & No & $-$0.00 & $-$0.05 \\
& & Yes & {\color{white} $-$}0.13 & $-$0.57 \\
\br
\end{tabular}
\label{table:strain}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{table:strain} gives the change in $E_s$ with respect to $e_A$ at $e_A=0$ for all sites. The crystalline system shows a small increase in $E_s$ with tensile strain for both sites, with almost no change due to relaxation. The disordered system, instead, shows a decrease with tensile strain for all sites. Interestingly, sites with a small local strain exhibit a negligible effect from the macroscopic areal strain, while those with a large local strain exhibit an effect that is larger by up to two orders of magnitude. Therefore, the application of tensile strain is predicted to favour the segregation of As to the interface, by increasing the stability of Si$^0$ sites in highly strained local configurations, which are naturally found predominantly in the interfacial region.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:outro}
In summary, we have studied the energetics of neutral substitutional As defects at Si sites close to and at the Si--SiO$_2$ interface. Our simulations on both a crystalline and a realistic disordered interface have revealed quite a rich and complex behaviour for this system, characterized by the interplay of various subtle effects. We draw a number of overall conclusions based on our findings:
\begin{itemize}
\item long-range quantum confinement of the defect charge at the interface (affecting the long tail of the weakly bound donor state) results in only a small barrier to segregation, on the order of 0.1~eV;
\item the local bonding environment of the As impurity has a large effect on the segregation energy, with variations on the order of 1~eV for each oxidation state, and is thus more important than long-range effects that depend instead on the macroscopic position of the impurity with respect to the interface;
\item partially and fully O-coordinated Si sites carry a strong energy penalty that makes them unfavourable for As segregation, even after taking into account the substantial lowering of segregation energies by lattice relaxation for such sites;
\item a small number of fully Si-coordinated sites within the first three monolayers below the interface (corresponding to a density of $\sim$0.02~$\mathrm{\AA}^{-2}$) are found to be energetically favourable with respect to the bulk site, with the addition of lattice relaxation potentially further increasing this number;
\item As dopants remain electrically active after segregation to Si substitutional sites, and, therefore, can be used for nanoscale devices;
\item the application of macroscopic tensile strain is observed to increase segregation to locally strained sites in the disordered interface, thereby allowing for a possible measure of control over the segregation process in experimental devices.
\end{itemize}
\ack
This work was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). The calculations were performed on cx2 (Imperial College London High Performance Computing Service) and HECToR (UK National Supercomputing Service). We thank the UK's HPC Materials Chemistry Consortium (EPSRC Grant EP/F067496/1) and Car-Parrinello Consortium (EPSRC Grant EP/K013564/1) for access to HECToR.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Experiments}
We present our experimental results from two sets of experiments. The goal of the first set of experiments is to provide evidence that the proposed WWFP based piecewise training method is an order of magnitude faster than state of the art methods; we considered a multi-label supervised learning problem for this study. We found this speed-up gain is very important since the overall imputation method (algorithm~\ref{Algorithm}) typically takes $10$-$15$ iterations. The main focus is the second set of experiments where we show that the proposed large margin based imputation method outperforms state of the art imputation methods on several benchmark datasets.
\subsection{Supervised Learning Experiments}
We considered supervised multi-label classification problem, and we used two benchmark datasets: (1) \textsc{Medical} and \textsc{scene}. These datasets are available at~\url{http://mulan.sourceforge.net/datasets.html}. For the \textsc{Medical} dataset, we considered top 10 output variables selected as per the class proportion; outputs with high class imbalance were dropped. We compared our WWFP method with three state of the art large margin structured prediction model learning methods; the first method is dual decomposition based learning (DDL) method~\cite{Kom11}, and the second method~\cite{Luc13},\cite{Rat07} is a primal stochastic sub-gradient (SSG) method. We use test set Hamming loss as the measure for comparing the performance. On the \textsc{Medical} dataset, all the methods (averaged over 2 splits) gave a test error of 9.36\%, and the training time taken by WWFP, DDL and SSG were 54.6, 349.5 and 4662.6 seconds respectively. On the \textsc{Scene} dataset, the test errors obtained were 11.37\%, 10.62\% and 9.89\%, and the training times were 7.74, 147.7, 6073 seconds. These results clearly show that the proposed method achieves significant training time speed-up without significant loss in accuracy.
\subsection{Missing Value Imputation Experiments}
\subsubsection{Experimental Setup}
\noindent{\bf Datasets} We used four categorical datasets from the UCI repository (\url{http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/}). Details of these datasets are listed in table \ref{t1}. Note that none of these datasets contain missing values originally. We introduce missing values completely at random such that a certain fraction of each column of the dataset is missing. In our experiment, we consider 3 missing percentages, i.e., we allow 10/30/50\% of the dataset to be missing.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
dataset & \# variables & type\\
\hline
flare & $9$ & multinomial\\
\hline
spect & $22$ & binomial\\
\hline
mushroom & $10$ & multinomial\\
\hline
yeast & $14$ & binomial\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Details of various datasets used in the missing value imputation experiments}
\label{t1}
\end{table}
\noindent{\bf Measure for Comparison} We use Hamming loss on the imputed values. We get one table at the end of the optimization from our methods, \textsc{Mode} and \textsc{BF}, and we compare this output with the ground truth table to compute the Hamming loss. \textsc{MICE} and \textsc{MM} are sampling based methods; therefore, these methods can generate multiple imputations. We generate 100 samples, and then compute the expected Hamming loss by averaging over the Hamming loss obtained using these 100 tables.
\noindent{\bf Methods for Comparison} We compare our large margin method with four popular methods in the statistics literature. They are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textsc{Mode} (MO): Fills up all missing values in a column with the mode of the observed values in the column.
\item \textsc{Mixture Model} (MM): A model in which each mixture component is a product of univariate distributions over each variable. Inference and learning performed using variational Bayes inference\cite{Win05}.
\item \textsc{Mice} (MICE): State of the art imputation algorithm\cite{Buu11}. Involves an iterative procedure of training predictors over each output variable (by minimizing the logistic loss), keeping the other variables as inputs, and sampling the predictor's output distributions over the states of each variable to generate the imputations of the dataset. Note that both parameter learning and imputation is carried out through sampling the posterior distribution over the model weights and states of the variables respectively.
\item \textsc{Backfitting} (BF): A deterministic version of \textsc{Mice}, where instead of the sampling step, we select the optimal parameters obtained from solving the learning (optimization) problem using hinge loss, and the imputed values are obtained by solving the individual inference problem.
\item \textsc{WWFP-WO} Our proposed method without constraints. Note that imputations are done independently for each row by solving (\ref{infpbm}).
\item \textsc{WWFP-WC} Our proposed method with label and pairwise distribution constraints. In this case, joint inference is needed, as explained in Section 3.3.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent{\bf Implementation Details} To set the regularization constant $\lambda$, we perform a cross validation step as follows. Given the missing value data, we build a model for each $\lambda$. Using the model built, for each column, we predict the observed variables in that column using values for the remaining variables picked from the ground truth data. We average the zero-loss computed on each column. Finally, we choose the constant that gives the minimum loss. To make a fair comparison, we used this approach uniformly for all the methods. We are exploring other cross validation approaches for the missing value data scenario. To evaluate the performance, we create six splits of each dataset, and run all the imputation algorithms on all the splits. The results are averaged across the splits of each dataset and presented.
\begin{table*}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{6pt}
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
dataset & \textsc{MO} & \textsc{MM} & \textsc{MICE} & \textsc{BF} & \textsc{WWFP-WO} & \textsc{WWFP-WC}\\
\hline
FLARE (10\%) & $34.15\pm1.74$ & $29.59\pm0.76$ & $25.48\pm0.9$ & $20.04\pm1.27$ & $20.75\pm2.07$ & {$\bf19.87\pm1.77$}\\
\hline
SPECT (10\%) & $30.23\pm2.95$ & $31.39\pm1.47$ & $23.76\pm1.45$ & $18.76\pm2.01$ & $17.57\pm1.58$ & {$\bf15.29\pm1.7$}\\
\hline
MUSHROOM (10\%) & $45.39\pm0.88$ & $35.5\pm1.69$ & $27.78\pm0.50$ & {$\bf 25.51\pm0.63$} & $30.95\pm0.97$ & $25.54\pm0.52$\\
\hline
YEAST (10\%) & $23.26\pm0.74$ & $23.99\pm1.73$ & $9.62\pm0.83$ & {$\bf 6.59\pm0.82$} & $9.20\pm0.85$ & $7.00\pm1.48$\\
\hline
\hline
FLARE (30\%) & $34.25\pm0.5$ & $32.89\pm1.12$ & $28.51\pm0.29$ & $23.71\pm0.6$ & $24.86\pm1.24$ & {$\bf22.48\pm0.76$}\\
\hline
SPECT (30\%) & $30.38\pm2.0$ & $31.22\pm0.9$ & $25.8\pm0.67$ & $21.98\pm1.09$ & $19.35\pm1.09$ & {$\bf17.77\pm1.01$}\\
\hline
MUSHROOM (30\%) & $45.57\pm0.62$ & $40.62\pm1.93$ & $30.11\pm4.96$ & $28.56\pm0.48$ & $34.25\pm1.01$ & {$\bf28.27\pm0.57$}\\
\hline
YEAST (30\%) & $23.13\pm0.74$ & $27.01\pm0.55$ & $15.33\pm0.42$ & {$\bf 11.54\pm0.8$} & $13.75\pm0.91$ & $11.7\pm0.63$\\
\hline
\hline
FLARE (50\%) & $34.67\pm0.22$ & $39.3\pm0.9$ & $32.24\pm0.53$ & $27.34\pm0.71$ & $28.7\pm1.12$ & {$\bf25.76\pm0.69$}\\
\hline
SPECT (50\%) & $30.93\pm1.01$ & $33.87\pm0.75$ & $28.86\pm0.29$ & $25.11\pm1.12$ & $28.28\pm1.9$ & {$\bf19.25\pm0.62$}\\
\hline
MUSHROOM (50\%) & $45.59\pm0.46$ & $50.36\pm1.68$ & $38.05\pm0.41$ & $33.96\pm0.53$ & $38.80\pm0.54$ & {$\bf32.7\pm0.36$}\\
\hline
YEAST (50\%) & $23.12\pm0.51$ & $31.66\pm0.36$ & $20.91\pm0.124$ & $15.87\pm0.61$ & $17.77\pm0.8$ & {$\bf15.7\pm0.38$}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Hamming Loss (\%) for different percentage of missing data indicated in brackets.}
\label{tbl2}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Experimental Results}
Experimental results on the benchmark datasets are shown in Tables~{\ref{tbl2}}. The best performance numbers are highlighted in bold. From these tables, the following observations can be made. First, on comparing the last two columns corresponding to our methods without and with constraints clearly demonstrate that significant performance improvement can be achieved by incorporating constraints. Second, the best performance is achieved by \textsc{WWFP-WC} in $9$ out of $12$ cases. In particular, this method starts dominating as the percentage of missingness ($pm$) increases. This is expected because as $pm$ increases, the amount of information available in the data decreases; therefore, additional information such as constraints help in getting improved performance. Similar observation has been made in the semi-supervised learning literature~\cite{Cha13},\cite{Dhi12}.
The performance of \textsc{BF} is close to our method in some cases; and, \textsc{BF} is the second best method. This method has two advantages: (1) it is easy to implement, and (2) is faster compared to our method. When the accuracy performance is of great importance, our method is preferred. The popular \textsc{MICE} method comes next followed by \textsc{MM}. Worst performance was achieved by the simple baseline method \textsc{MO}. This is expected since there is no information used from other variables; also, the estimates are crude.
\section{Discussion and Future Work}
Probabilistic methods such as \textsc{MICE} and \textsc{MM} have the advantage that multiple imputations can be made. This is useful to capture uncertainty in imputations. On doing some detailed analysis, we found that the performance achieved by \textsc{MICE} using the mode computed from the generated samples was found to be good, and very close to \textsc{BF}. However, as the results show, the expected loss is worse; this is because significant mass was present on other samples with high Hamming loss. Similar observation was made with the \textsc{MM} method as well. These observations suggest that there is a need to come out with probabilistic imputation methods that give good performance in expectation. In this context, it is worthwhile to modify our method to make it a probabilistic model. The piecewise learning ideas developed in [3] can be suitably adapted for this purpose.
We observed in our experiments that our method converged in $10$-$15$ iterations. Although we never faced any convergence issue, there is no formal convergence proof to our method. Our method can be improved in the imputation step by changing the optimization problem. For example, instead of solving (\ref{scrimpstep}), we can solve the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\max_{{\bf Y}_m} \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{q=1}^{Q_i} \sum_{{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \ne {\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}} \max(0,\psi^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}))^2 \:\: \rm{s.t.}\:\: {\mathcal C}
\label{impstep}
\end{equation}
This formulation has the advantage that the objective function used in the imputation step is also used in the learning step. Therefore, we would expect the objective function to decrease in every step. With bounded objective function value, the method will converge. However, the imputation step becomes complex with the WWFP formulation because of the squared hinge loss term. This term produces higher order potentials in the form of products of scoring functions; for example, multiplying one pairwise scoring function with another results in higher order potentials. Although dual decomposition can be used to solve the problem, the complexity increases and, the overall time taken by the method goes up. On the other hand, higher order potentials would not appear when hinge loss is used; but, the learning step becomes slower due to the non-differentiable nature of the problem. Therefore, there is a trade-off involved in getting overall improvement in speed. This aspect of the problem requires further study.
The proposed method can also be used to solve large margin semi-supervised learning problems for structured outputs. For example, our method can be extended to solve multi-label classification problems, when only partially labeled information is available. The extension is straight-forward as the scoring functions can be appropriately modified to incorporate input features.
While we incorporated distributions based constraints, a detailed study incorporating other types of constraints in different missing value scenarios (e.g., when data is not missing completely at random) is an interesting future work. Finally, though our method can be applied when continuous variables are discretized, coming up with an imputation method that handles mixed data types (e.g., real, categorical and ordinal) directly is another important research problem.
\section{Conclusion}
We proposed a large margin structured prediction modeling based imputation method to solve the missing value problem. We showed how constraints can be incorporated while imputing the missing values. This is a very powerful feature since consistency checks that are often done to assess the quality of imputation methods can be quantitatively integrated while imputing the missing values. As our experimental results show constraints help in getting significantly improved performance.
\section{Experiments}
We present our experimental results from two sets of experiments. The goal of the first set of experiments is to provide evidence that the proposed WWFP based piecewise training method is an order of magnitude faster than state of the art methods; we considered a multi-label supervised learning problem for this study. We found this speed-up gain is very important since the overall imputation method (algorithm~\ref{Algorithm}) typically takes $10$-$15$ iterations. The main focus is the second set of experiments where we show that the proposed large margin based imputation method outperforms state of the art imputation methods on several benchmark datasets.
\subsection{Supervised Learning Experiments}
We considered supervised multi-label classification problem, and we used two benchmark datasets: (1) \textsc{Medical} and \textsc{scene}. These datasets are available at~\url{http://mulan.sourceforge.net/datasets.html}. For the \textsc{Medical} dataset, we considered top 10 output variables selected as per the class proportion; outputs with high class imbalance were dropped. We compared our WWFP method with three state of the art large margin structured prediction model learning methods; the first method is dual decomposition based learning (DDL) method~\cite{Kom11}, and the second method~\cite{Luc13},\cite{Rat07} is a primal stochastic sub-gradient (SSG) method. We use test set Hamming loss as the measure for comparing the performance. On the \textsc{Medical} dataset, all the methods (averaged over 2 splits) gave a test error of 9.36\%, and the training time taken by WWFP, DDL and SSG were 54.6, 349.5 and 4662.6 seconds respectively. On the \textsc{Scene} dataset, the test errors obtained were 11.37\%, 10.62\% and 9.89\%, and the training times were 7.74, 147.7, 6073 seconds. These results clearly show that the proposed method achieves significant training time speed-up without significant loss in accuracy.
\subsection{Missing Value Imputation Experiments}
\subsubsection{Experimental Setup}
\noindent{\bf Datasets} We used four categorical datasets from the UCI repository (\url{http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/}). Details of these datasets are listed in table \ref{t1}. Note that none of these datasets contain missing values originally. We introduce missing values completely at random such that a certain fraction of each column of the dataset is missing. In our experiment, we consider 3 missing percentages, i.e., we allow 10/30/50\% of the dataset to be missing.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
dataset & \# variables & type\\
\hline
flare & $9$ & multinomial\\
\hline
spect & $22$ & binomial\\
\hline
mushroom & $10$ & multinomial\\
\hline
yeast & $14$ & binomial\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Details of various datasets used in the missing value imputation experiments}
\label{t1}
\end{table}
\noindent{\bf Measure for Comparison} We use Hamming loss on the imputed values. We get one table at the end of the optimization from our methods, \textsc{Mode} and \textsc{BF}, and we compare this output with the ground truth table to compute the Hamming loss. \textsc{MICE} and \textsc{MM} are sampling based methods; therefore, these methods can generate multiple imputations. We generate 100 samples, and then compute the expected Hamming loss by averaging over the Hamming loss obtained using these 100 tables.
\noindent{\bf Methods for Comparison} We compare our large margin method with four popular methods in the statistics literature. They are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textsc{Mode} (MO): Fills up all missing values in a column with the mode of the observed values in the column.
\item \textsc{Mixture Model} (MM): A model in which each mixture component is a product of univariate distributions over each variable. Inference and learning performed using variational Bayes inference\cite{Win05}.
\item \textsc{Mice} (MICE): State of the art imputation algorithm\cite{Buu11}. Involves an iterative procedure of training predictors over each output variable (by minimizing the logistic loss), keeping the other variables as inputs, and sampling the predictor's output distributions over the states of each variable to generate the imputations of the dataset. Note that both parameter learning and imputation is carried out through sampling the posterior distribution over the model weights and states of the variables respectively.
\item \textsc{Backfitting} (BF): A deterministic version of \textsc{Mice}, where instead of the sampling step, we select the optimal parameters obtained from solving the learning (optimization) problem using hinge loss, and the imputed values are obtained by solving the individual inference problem.
\item \textsc{WWFP-WO} Our proposed method without constraints. Note that imputations are done independently for each row by solving (\ref{infpbm}).
\item \textsc{WWFP-WC} Our proposed method with label and pairwise distribution constraints. In this case, joint inference is needed, as explained in Section 3.3.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent{\bf Implementation Details} To set the regularization constant $\lambda$, we perform a cross validation step as follows. Given the missing value data, we build a model for each $\lambda$. Using the model built, for each column, we predict the observed variables in that column using values for the remaining variables picked from the ground truth data. We average the zero-loss computed on each column. Finally, we choose the constant that gives the minimum loss. To make a fair comparison, we used this approach uniformly for all the methods. We are exploring other cross validation approaches for the missing value data scenario. To evaluate the performance, we create six splits of each dataset, and run all the imputation algorithms on all the splits. The results are averaged across the splits of each dataset and presented.
\begin{table*}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{6pt}
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
dataset & \textsc{MO} & \textsc{MM} & \textsc{MICE} & \textsc{BF} & \textsc{WWFP-WO} & \textsc{WWFP-WC}\\
\hline
FLARE (10\%) & $34.15\pm1.74$ & $29.59\pm0.76$ & $25.48\pm0.9$ & $20.04\pm1.27$ & $20.75\pm2.07$ & {$\bf19.87\pm1.77$}\\
\hline
SPECT (10\%) & $30.23\pm2.95$ & $31.39\pm1.47$ & $23.76\pm1.45$ & $18.76\pm2.01$ & $17.57\pm1.58$ & {$\bf15.29\pm1.7$}\\
\hline
MUSHROOM (10\%) & $45.39\pm0.88$ & $35.5\pm1.69$ & $27.78\pm0.50$ & {$\bf 25.51\pm0.63$} & $30.95\pm0.97$ & $25.54\pm0.52$\\
\hline
YEAST (10\%) & $23.26\pm0.74$ & $23.99\pm1.73$ & $9.62\pm0.83$ & {$\bf 6.59\pm0.82$} & $9.20\pm0.85$ & $7.00\pm1.48$\\
\hline
\hline
FLARE (30\%) & $34.25\pm0.5$ & $32.89\pm1.12$ & $28.51\pm0.29$ & $23.71\pm0.6$ & $24.86\pm1.24$ & {$\bf22.48\pm0.76$}\\
\hline
SPECT (30\%) & $30.38\pm2.0$ & $31.22\pm0.9$ & $25.8\pm0.67$ & $21.98\pm1.09$ & $19.35\pm1.09$ & {$\bf17.77\pm1.01$}\\
\hline
MUSHROOM (30\%) & $45.57\pm0.62$ & $40.62\pm1.93$ & $30.11\pm4.96$ & $28.56\pm0.48$ & $34.25\pm1.01$ & {$\bf28.27\pm0.57$}\\
\hline
YEAST (30\%) & $23.13\pm0.74$ & $27.01\pm0.55$ & $15.33\pm0.42$ & {$\bf 11.54\pm0.8$} & $13.75\pm0.91$ & $11.7\pm0.63$\\
\hline
\hline
FLARE (50\%) & $34.67\pm0.22$ & $39.3\pm0.9$ & $32.24\pm0.53$ & $27.34\pm0.71$ & $28.7\pm1.12$ & {$\bf25.76\pm0.69$}\\
\hline
SPECT (50\%) & $30.93\pm1.01$ & $33.87\pm0.75$ & $28.86\pm0.29$ & $25.11\pm1.12$ & $28.28\pm1.9$ & {$\bf19.25\pm0.62$}\\
\hline
MUSHROOM (50\%) & $45.59\pm0.46$ & $50.36\pm1.68$ & $38.05\pm0.41$ & $33.96\pm0.53$ & $38.80\pm0.54$ & {$\bf32.7\pm0.36$}\\
\hline
YEAST (50\%) & $23.12\pm0.51$ & $31.66\pm0.36$ & $20.91\pm0.124$ & $15.87\pm0.61$ & $17.77\pm0.8$ & {$\bf15.7\pm0.38$}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Hamming Loss (\%) for different percentage of missing data indicated in brackets.}
\label{tbl2}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Experimental Results}
Experimental results on the benchmark datasets are shown in Tables~{\ref{tbl2}}. The best performance numbers are highlighted in bold. From these tables, the following observations can be made. First, on comparing the last two columns corresponding to our methods without and with constraints clearly demonstrate that significant performance improvement can be achieved by incorporating constraints. Second, the best performance is achieved by \textsc{WWFP-WC} in $9$ out of $12$ cases. In particular, this method starts dominating as the percentage of missingness ($pm$) increases. This is expected because as $pm$ increases, the amount of information available in the data decreases; therefore, additional information such as constraints help in getting improved performance. Similar observation has been made in the semi-supervised learning literature~\cite{Cha13},\cite{Dhi12}.
The performance of \textsc{BF} is close to our method in some cases; and, \textsc{BF} is the second best method. This method has two advantages: (1) it is easy to implement, and (2) is faster compared to our method. When the accuracy performance is of great importance, our method is preferred. The popular \textsc{MICE} method comes next followed by \textsc{MM}. Worst performance was achieved by the simple baseline method \textsc{MO}. This is expected since there is no information used from other variables; also, the estimates are crude.
\section{Discussion and Future Work}
Probabilistic methods such as \textsc{MICE} and \textsc{MM} have the advantage that multiple imputations can be made. This is useful to capture uncertainty in imputations. On doing some detailed analysis, we found that the performance achieved by \textsc{MICE} using the mode computed from the generated samples was found to be good, and very close to \textsc{BF}. However, as the results show, the expected loss is worse; this is because significant mass was present on other samples with high Hamming loss. Similar observation was made with the \textsc{MM} method as well. These observations suggest that there is a need to come out with probabilistic imputation methods that give good performance in expectation. In this context, it is worthwhile to modify our method to make it a probabilistic model. The piecewise learning ideas developed in [3] can be suitably adapted for this purpose.
We observed in our experiments that our method converged in $10$-$15$ iterations. Although we never faced any convergence issue, there is no formal convergence proof to our method. Our method can be improved in the imputation step by changing the optimization problem. For example, instead of solving (\ref{scrimpstep}), we can solve the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\max_{{\bf Y}_m} \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{q=1}^{Q_i} \sum_{{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \ne {\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}} \max(0,\psi^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}))^2 \:\: \rm{s.t.}\:\: {\mathcal C}
\label{impstep}
\end{equation}
This formulation has the advantage that the objective function used in the imputation step is also used in the learning step. Therefore, we would expect the objective function to decrease in every step. With bounded objective function value, the method will converge. However, the imputation step becomes complex with the WWFP formulation because of the squared hinge loss term. This term produces higher order potentials in the form of products of scoring functions; for example, multiplying one pairwise scoring function with another results in higher order potentials. Although dual decomposition can be used to solve the problem, the complexity increases and, the overall time taken by the method goes up. On the other hand, higher order potentials would not appear when hinge loss is used; but, the learning step becomes slower due to the non-differentiable nature of the problem. Therefore, there is a trade-off involved in getting overall improvement in speed. This aspect of the problem requires further study.
The proposed method can also be used to solve large margin semi-supervised learning problems for structured outputs. For example, our method can be extended to solve multi-label classification problems, when only partially labeled information is available. The extension is straight-forward as the scoring functions can be appropriately modified to incorporate input features.
While we incorporated distributions based constraints, a detailed study incorporating other types of constraints in different missing value scenarios (e.g., when data is not missing completely at random) is an interesting future work. Finally, though our method can be applied when continuous variables are discretized, coming up with an imputation method that handles mixed data types (e.g., real, categorical and ordinal) directly is another important research problem.
\section{Conclusion}
We proposed a large margin structured prediction modeling based imputation method to solve the missing value problem. We showed how constraints can be incorporated while imputing the missing values. This is a very powerful feature since consistency checks that are often done to assess the quality of imputation methods can be quantitatively integrated while imputing the missing values. As our experimental results show constraints help in getting significantly improved performance.
\section{Introduction}
In many real world machine learning and data mining applications, data often contain missing values. While ignoring examples with missing elements is one option, this results in throwing away some valuable information such examples could provide. There have been several approaches presented in the machine learning and statistics literature to address this problem by imputing missing values. These approaches include density estimation and Expectation-Maximization~\cite{Mar08},\cite{Gha94},\cite{Gha01},\cite{Will07}, matrix factorization~\cite{Bell07},\cite{Kor09} and conditional modeling methods~\cite{Buu07},\cite{Buu99},\cite{Tem11},\cite{Rag01},\cite{Bur10},\cite{Su11},\cite{Buu11}.
Often many methods impute values that are unreasonable. And, the quality of imputation is assessed, for example, by comparing the distribution of observed values with the imputed values. Therefore, it will be helpful if domain constraints can be used while imputing values so that the imputed values are as per user expectation. An example constraint is: the label distribution of observed values for a variable should be same as that of the imputed values. To the best of our knowledge there does not exist any imputation method that incorporates constraints.
Structured output methods have been successfully used in a number of settings. But there has been no work on formulating missing value imputation as a structured output problem.
Motivated by these observations, \textit{in this paper we develop a simple and novel approach that uses structured outputs to model variable dependencies and does imputation while satisfying domain constraints}. We develop full details for a large margin setting, but the ideas can be easily extended to probabilistic structured output models. Our learning algorithm is iterative in nature with each iteration involving a model update step and a missing value imputation step. The algorithm alternates between these two steps until there is no change in the imputed missing values and no improvement in the training objective function value.
Learning the structured prediction model is intractable. The main computational burden comes from solving an intractable inference problem in each iteration of the learning algorithm. A number of large margin based methods have been proposed in the literature \cite{Kom11}, \cite{Luc13}, \cite{Mes10} to address this problem via suitable approximations. Most of these methods rely on decomposing the structure into pieces or components such that inference is cheaper on the components; it is possible that variables are shared across the components. Depending on the choice of components and approximations involved, either in the formulation and/or component level inference, the training time and achievable accuracy vary.
Though they work well, we found existing approximation methods \cite{Mes10},\cite{Kom11},\cite{Luc13} to be very inefficient. \textit{To address this problem, we propose an efficient piecewise large margin learning method for learning structured prediction models.} One important aspect of the missing value imputation problem is that we need to keep in mind the noisy imputed values (obtained during the iterations) that are used in the learning step. Therefore, we present formulations where the large margin constraints are placed using only the observed values. This helps in getting robust performance. These formulations are based on the popularly known Crammer-Singer formulation (CSF) and Weston-Watkins formulation (WWF) that are used in designing large margin classifiers \cite{Cra02},\cite{Wes98}. We discuss solution methods for both these formulations. With squared hinge loss, WWF becomes differentiable, and standard unconstrained optimization techniques requiring function and gradient computations can be used. Therefore, we recommend and use piecewise WWF based method in our experiments. \textit{We found that this method is an order of magnitude faster than other state of the art large margin methods when tested on several supervised learning benchmark datasets, and there was no significant loss in accuracy}.
The missing value imputation step involves solving a discrete optimization problem which is intractable. For this purpose, we use the popular dual decomposition method proposed by Komadakis et al \cite{Kom11b}. As emphasized earlier, imputed values should be reasonable, and should have certain desirable properties as expressed by the user. Furthermore, it is well known in the semi-supervised learning literature \cite{Joa99},\cite{Dhi12},\cite{Cha13} that constraints play an important role in getting good accuracy. As we shall see, incorporating constraints is easier in our approach, and also, they give significant boost to the performance. Recently, Chang et al.\ \cite{Cha13} proposed a dual decomposition method that can handle constraints. We use their method for imputing the missing values subject to constraints. \textit{Overall, the proposed large margin structured prediction model based imputation method that can incorporate domain knowledge via constraints is an important contribution in addressing the missing value imputation problem}.
The paper is organized as follows. We present related work in Section 2. In Section 3, we present our approach in detail. In Section 4, we demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed imputation method compared to state of the art methods on several benchmark datasets. Experimental results show that our method outperforms these methods on the Hamming loss measure. Discussion and Future work are presented in Section 5. We conclude with Section 6.
\section{Related Work}
One important class of missing value imputation algorithms is based on density estimation. A standard approach is to learn the joint distribution of the data as a mixture model by treating missing values as latent variables, and using the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm \cite{Mar08},\cite{Gha94} or Variational Bayes EM \cite{Gha01},\cite{Will07},\cite{Win05}. Then use the learned model to infer the the posterior distribution over the missing values given the observed values. The drawback is that accurately modeling the joint distribution of high-dimensional data is a hard problem, and it is not strictly necessary if the goal is to only predict the missing values. By adopting a discriminative approach, we avoid the difficulty of joint distribution learning altogether.
Algorithms based on matrix factorization and neighborhood models are popular in collaborative filtering (CF) for predicting missing entries of a ratings matrix \cite{Bell07},\cite{Kor09}. The missing value imputation setting differs from CF in important ways: 1) the dataset can contain mixed variable types (real, categorical, binary, etc.), so matrix factorization based algorithms need to be modified to such mixed type data, and 2) CF applications have much higher missing percentages (e.g. 99\%), and 3) evaluation is focused more on predicting a few relevant missing entries rather than \emph{all} of them.
Several imputation algorithms in the statistics literature use a ``pseudo-Gibbs'' sampling procedure that alternates between 1) sampling the missing values and 2) sampling the parameters of a predictor for each variable that uses all other variables as inputs \cite{Buu07},\cite{Buu99},\cite{Tem11},\cite{Rag01},\cite{Bur10},\cite{Su11},\cite{Buu11}. Multiple Imputations using Chained Equations (MICE) \cite{Buu11} is a popular example of this approach. It is well-known that MICE and its variants have no convergence guarantees, and can even be shown to diverge in some special cases \cite{Liu10},\cite{Li12}. In contrast, our learning algorithm is a convex optimization problem, and our imputation algorithm allows for constraints in the optimization of the missing values, while MICE does not. Empirically, MICE is indeed one of the best imputation methods, and hence we evaluate our method against it to demonstrate value.
\section{Our Approach}
We present details of our large margin structured prediction learning approach for solving the missing value imputation problem. The proposed method is iterative in nature, and involves two key steps. (1) Learning step (Section 3.2): learn a structured prediction model given the {\it full} data matrix. (2) Imputation Step (Section 3.3): impute missing values subject to constraints given the model parameters. See Algorithm~\ref{Algorithm}. As we shall see, our large margin learning approach to learn the model parameters is different from conventional methods. After giving the details of the learning step, we discuss a dual decomposition based method to impute the missing values subject to distribution constraints \cite{Cha13}.
\begin{algorithm2e}
\label{Algorithm}
\caption{Large Margin Structured Prediction based Imputation Method}
Choose ${{\bf y}_m}$ (e.g., fill-in using the mode value for each column), {\it tol} (e.g., $10^{-4}$), {\it iter} (e.g., $25$)\;
\For{$r=1 \ldots, iter$}{
1. {\bf Learning Step}: Compute model parameters ($\theta$) by solving the learning problem (\ref{wwfp})\;
2. {\bf Imputation Step}: Solve the imputation problem (\ref{scrimpstep}). Update ${{\bf y}_m}$\;
3. Exit if the relative improvement in the objective function value is less than {\it tol}\;
}
\end{algorithm2e}
\subsection{Background}
\noindent{\bf Notations} Let ${\bf y}$ denote the $K$-dimensional label vector with $j^{th}$ variable $y_j \in {\mathcal Y}_j$, where ${\mathcal Y}_j$ is the label space. Let ${{\bf y}^{(i)}}$ denote the $i^{th}$ example where $i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$; ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ and ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}$ denote the observed and missing variables in the $i^{th}$ example. Let ${\bf Y}$ denote the data matrix with ${{\bf y}^{(i)}}$ being the $i^{th}$ row. We use $|\cdot|$ to indicate the cardinality of a set.
\noindent{\bf Problem Statement} Given the data matrix ${\bf Y}$, the goal is to fill-in (impute) values for the missing entries, \textit{i.e.,} given $\{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}: i=1,\ldots,n\}$, get values for $\{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}: i=1,\ldots,n\}$. This paper concerns working with discrete variables. Continuous variables can be handled by applying a suitable discretization technique.
\noindent{\bf Structure and Scoring Function Model} We model the data as in structured output problems. In these problems, the random variables constituting ${\bf y}$ are connected as defined by a network ${\mathcal G}$. Given the structure ${\mathcal G}$, a scoring function returns a value for any given assignment to the variables. In our study, we consider structures with scoring function defined as:
\begin{equation}
{s(\bfy)} = \sum_{c \in {\mathcal C}} {s_c({\bfyc};\theta_c)}
\label{scfn}
\end{equation}
where $c$ and ${\mathcal C}$ denote $c^{th}$ component in a collection of components ${\mathcal C}$ in ${\mathcal G}$; ${{\bf y}_c}$ and $\theta_c$ denote the $c^{th}$ component variables and associated model parameters. Let us assume that ${s_c({\bfyc};\theta_c)}$ takes the form:
\begin{equation}
{s_c({\bfyc};\theta_c)} = \sum_{\alpha} \theta_{c,\alpha} \phi_{\alpha}({{\bf y}_c})
\label{scorec}
\end{equation}
where $\phi_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ denote the sufficient statistics for ${{\bf y}_c}$. One example is: $\phi_{\alpha}({{\bf y}_c}) = {\mathcal I}({{\bf y}_c}) = \prod_{y_j \in {{\bf y}_c}} {\mathcal I}({\bar y}_j = y_j)$ where ${\mathcal I}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function taking value $1$ when the argument is true, and $0$ otherwise, and $\alpha = {{{\bf {\bar y}}_c}} \in {\mathcal Y}_c$. The approach presented in this paper is quite generic; to make explanations easier and concrete, we illustrate through pairwise Markov Random Field (MRF).
\noindent{\bf Pairwise MRF Example} Consider a network ${\mathcal G}$ where all the variables are connected to each other, with the scoring function ${s(\bfy)}$ defined as:
\begin{equation}
{s(\bfy)} = \sum_{j=1}^K {s_j(y_j)} + \sum_{j=1}^K \sum_{k = j+1}^K {s_{jk}(y_j,y_k)}
\label{scmrfn}
\end{equation}
where ${s_j(y_j)}$ and ${s_{jk}(y_j,y_k)}$ denote the scores for node $j$ and edge $(j,k)$ respectively. In linear form, they are given by: ${s_j(y_j)} = \sum_{{\bar y}_j \in {\mathcal Y}_j} {\theta_{j}({\bar y}_j)} {{\mathcal I}({\bar y}_j = y_j)}$, and ${s_{jk}(y_j,y_k)} = \sum_{{\bar y}_j \in {\mathcal Y}_j} \sum_{{\bar y}_k \in {\mathcal Y}_k} {\theta_{jk}({\bar y}_j,{\bar y}_k)} {{\mathcal I}({\bar y}_j = y_j,{\bar y}_k = y_k)}$.
\noindent{\bf Imputation} Given the model parameters, imputation of missing values can be done via solving the following discrete (variables) optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
{\bf y}^*_m = \argmax_{{{\bf y}_m}} {s(\bfym;\bfyo,\theta_{mo})}
\label{infpbm}
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{mo}$ denotes the model parameters involved in connecting missing variables with themselves and observed variables. Note that the connections involving only the observed variables do not play a role. The main issue in the structured prediction setting is that the cardinality of the label space of ${{\bf y}_m}$ can be exponential. Therefore, solving the inference problem is intractable (except for simple structures such as trees).
Komadakis et al \cite{Kom11b} proposed a dual decomposition method that can be used to solve (\ref{infpbm}).
Given the model, scoring function and basic imputation step, we show how a large margin structured prediction model with the scoring function (\ref{scmrfn}) can be built into the \textit{learning step} of the algorithm.
\subsection{Learning Step}
\noindent{\bf Large Margin Learning Approach} There are four key elements that need to be defined in learning large margin structured prediction models: (1) weight regularization, (2) an error function $\Delta({\bf y},{\bf y}^{(i)})$ that specifies the margin that we would like to impose between the true label assignment ${\bf y}^{(i)}$ and any other assignment ${\bar {\bf y}} \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}$ for the $i^{th}$ example; ${\mathcal Y}^{(i)}$ denotes the label space, (3) large margin constraints, and (4) loss function (e.g., hinge loss, squared hinge loss) defined using slack variables that appear in the constraints. Using these elements, an objective function is defined as a linear combination of the weight regularization and loss function terms, and optimized for the model parameters (weights). In our study, we use the L2 norm for weight regularization, and the Hamming distance for the error function. We will discuss our choice of large margin constraints and loss function shortly.
\noindent{\bf A Simple Idea} Let us assume that $\{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}: i=1,\ldots,n\}$ is available; for example, we can fill-in the missing values with the mode value of each variable, or sample according to the distribution over the observed values. Then, we can consider the learning problem as learning a structured prediction model in supervised setting, where $({{\bf y}^{(i)}_m},{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o})$ is treated as an input-output example pair. Then, the learning problem can be posed as:
CSF:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\bf \theta} \frac{||\theta||^2}{2} + \lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \max(0,\psi^{(i)}).
\label{baseform}
\end{equation}
Let ${\hat {\bf y}}^{(i)}_o = \argmax_{{\bar {\bf y}}_o \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_o} s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf y}}_o;{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}) + \Delta({\bf y}^{(i)}_o,{\bar {\bf y}}_o)$, $\psi^{(i)} = s^{(i)}({\hat {\bf y}}^{(i)}_o;{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}) + \Delta({{\bf y}^{(i)}_o},{\hat {\bf y}}^{(i)}_o) - s^{(i)}({{\bf y}^{(i)}_o};{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m})$, $\lambda$ is a regularization constant, ${\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_o=\prod_{j: j \in I^{(i)}_o} {\mathcal Y}_j$, $I^{(i)}_o$ is the index set of the observed variables, and ${\mathcal Y}_j$ is the label space of the $j^{th}$ variable; $s^{(i)}(\cdot)$ denotes the score associated with the $i^{th}$ example. This primal formulation arises from using the large margin constraints $s^{(i)}({{\bf y}^{(i)}_o};{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}) - s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf y}}_o;{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}) \ge \Delta({{\bf y}^{(i)}_o},{\bar {\bf y}}_o) - \psi^{(i)}, \forall i,{\bar {\bf y}}_o \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_o$ with one slack variable per example, and optimizing over the model parameters and slack variables using hinge loss as the loss function; this formulation is also known as the Crammer-Singer Formulation (CSF) \cite{Cra02}.
We make the following observations. (1) The number of target variables that appear in each example is different. (2) The total number of input and output variables is a constant $K$; this is usually not the case, in structured output problems. (For example, consider sequence or tree labeling problems; though the input feature dimension can be same, the number of outputs (i.e., nodes in a sequence or tree) needs not be same for all the sequences or trees.) (3) We have suppressed the dependency of the model parameters in the scoring functions. The most important thing to note is that not all the model parameters appear in every example, and, some model parameters are shared across the examples depending on the patterns of missing variables. Some of these characteristics are specific to learning a structured prediction model for the missing value imputation problem compared to conventional supervised learning of structured prediction models.
One way to solve the optimization problem (\ref{baseform}) is to use a stochastic sub-gradient algorithm~\cite{Rat07}, \cite{Kiw83}, \cite{Luc13} where the sub-gradient is computed for a randomly picked example in each iteration, and the model weights are updated. This step involves solving a modified inference problem with a decomposable error function $\Delta(\cdot)$ added to the scoring function in (\ref{infpbm}). Solving this inference problem is intractable except for simple structures such as trees or when $|{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}|$ is small and finding the maximum is easy. To address this problem several efficient methods have been proposed in the literature \cite{Kom11b},\cite{Wai03}. One approach that is relevant to this work is piecewise training \cite{Sut09} where the structure is decomposed into pieces or components such that inference in each of the components is tractable; this helps in reducing the training complexity. While the existing piecewise large margin training methods \cite{Mes10},\cite{Kom11} can be used to solve (\ref{baseform}), we need a much more efficient learning algorithm. This is because our imputation method is iterative in nature, and the learning problem needs to be solved repeatedly. Our experiments show that the speeds offered by the existing methods are not good enough. To address this problem, we propose a simple piecewise large margin formulation, which we will also demonstrate to be very effective; and the resulting optimization problem is differentiable, and standard unconstrained optimization algorithms such as L-BFGS~\footnote{http://www.di.ens.fr/~mschmidt/Software/minFunc.html} can be used. Before describing the final method, we first present a piecewise version of (\ref{baseform}).
\noindent{\bf Piecewise Large Margin Training} The basic idea behind our formulation can be explained as the following steps. (1) For each example $i$, we construct multiple pairs of observed variables ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ by partitioning ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ into two parts in multiple ways. Let $\{{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}: q=1,\ldots,Q_i\}$ denote choices for the first part, and let ${\bar {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o} = {{\bf y}^{(i)}_o} \setminus {\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}, \forall i,q$. (2) Given these sets, we construct input-output example pairs: $({\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}), \forall i, q$ where ${\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o} = [{\bar {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}\:{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}]$. In other words, we form the input by appending one part of the observed variables ${\bar {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}$ with ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}$, and the other part ${\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}$ forms the output. Thus, each example $(i)$ is repeated multiple times ($Q_i$) with different input-output pairs. The important aspect of such subset formation is that $|{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}|$ is small so that finding the maximum is easy (e.g., via enumeration with one or two variables). (3) Using this constructed dataset $\{({\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}), \forall i, q\}$, we form the constraints for each example. (We show how this dataset is constructed for a pairwise MRF below.) This results in the following optimization problem in Crammer-Singer Formulation-Piecewise (CSFP).
CSFP:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\bf \theta} \frac{||\theta||^2}{2} + \lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{q=1}^{Q_i}\max(0,\psi^{(i)}_q),
\label{csfp1}
\end{equation}
Let ${\hat {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o} = \argmax_{{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_{q,o}} s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) + \Delta({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o})$, $\psi^{(i)}_q = s^{(i)}({\hat {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) + \Delta({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\hat {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) - s^{(i)}({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o})$, and ${\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_{q,o}=\prod_{j: j \in I^{(i)}_{q,o}} {\mathcal Y}_j$; $I^{(i)}_{q,o}$ is the index set of the observed variables ${\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}$. As earlier, this primal formulation arises from using the large margin constraints $s^{(i)}({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) - s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) \ge \Delta({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}) - \psi^{(i)}_q, \forall i,{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_{q,o}$ with one slack variable per piece per example, and optimizing over the model parameters and slack variables using hinge loss as the loss function.
The following observations can be made. (1) The optimization problem (\ref{csfp1}) can be solved using stochastic sub-gradient algorithm. (2) The number of constraints used in (\ref{csfp1}) is dependent on $Q_i$ and how the partitions of ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ are defined. (3) Since the constraints used in (\ref{baseform}) and (\ref{csfp1}) are different, the solutions will be different. (Our experimental results in supervised setting show that there is no significant loss in accuracy; typically, the loss is within 1-1.5\% as observed in fully supervised multi-label classification datasets.) But, the important point is that we gain by an order of magnitude in speed. (4) The above problem can be solved using an efficient multi-class dual coordinate descent method \cite{Kee08} as the cardinality $|{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}|$ is small. (5) While the optimization problem (\ref{csfp1}) is Crammer-Singer formulation based, we can have another popular formulation known as Weston-Watkins formulation (WWF) with squared hinge loss. This formulation with squared hinge loss is differentiable; therefore, any standard unconstrained optimization technique can be used. Our experimental results show that this method is very efficient. We present this formulation next.
\noindent{\bf Weston-Watkins Formulation (WWF)} In CSF, the number of slack variables involved per piece per example is $1$. On the other hand, one slack variable is associated with each possible label assignment ${\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_{q,o}, \forall i,q$. Then, the optimization problem in the Weston-Watkins Formulation - Piecewise (WWFP) is given by:
WWFP:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\bf \theta} \frac{||\theta||^2}{2} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{q=1}^{Q_i} \sum_{{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \ne {\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}} \max(0,\psi^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}))^2,
\label{wwfp}
\end{equation}
where $\psi^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}) = s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) + \Delta({{\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}) - s^{(i)}({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o})$. Comparing (6) and (7), we note that (7) has an extra, third summation at the innermost level; though this leads to more loss terms, this is the key to getting a differentiable objective function, with associated efficiency. In our experiments on the missing value imputation problem, we used WWFP since fast optimization techniques such as L-BFGS can be used, leading to great improvements in speed. Also, it has been found that there is no evidence of significant difference in generalization performance between CSFP and WWFP.
\noindent{\bf Partitioning Examples} As mentioned earlier, partitions can be created in several ways. We give two examples. One simple example is to take $|{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}|=1$, and consider each variable in ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ as ${\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}$ as we vary $q$; for this case, we have $Q_i = |{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}|$. Another example is to take every pair of variables in ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ as ${\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}$. In this case, $Q_i = \frac{|{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}|(|{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}|-1)}{2}$. Note that it is not necessary to restrict to only one type of partitioning (\textit{i.e.,} single variable or pairwise); we can have both types in (\ref{wwfp}). For the purpose of illustration, let us consider the single variable type partitioning and see how the scoring function looks like in the pairwise MRF model. In pairwise MRF, the scoring function ${s(\bfy)}$ can be decomposed as: ${s(\bfy)} = \sum_j {{\bar s}_j(y^{(i)}_j;\bfyiMj)}$ where
\begin{equation}
{{\bar s}_j(y^{(i)}_j;\bfyiMj)} = {s_j(y_j)} + \sum_{k \ne j} \frac{{s_{jk}(y_j,y_k)}}{2}
\label{score}
\end{equation}
This decomposition has the interpretation of decomposing the structure into $K$ spanning trees with ${{\bar s}_j(y^{(i)}_j;\bfyiMj)}$ representing the score of $j^{th}$ spanning tree with the $j^{th}$ variable as the root node. This is the scoring function that we use in (\ref{wwfp}) with $u^{(i)}_{q,o} = y^{(i)}_j: j\in I^{(i)}_{q,o}, q=1,\ldots,|{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}|$. This completes the specification of all quantities in (\ref{wwfp}). It is worth noting that the model parameters are shared across the trees as edges are shared across the trees.
\subsection{Imputation Step}
While (\ref{infpbm}) is useful to impute missing values for each row independently, our goal is to impute $\{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}: i=1,\ldots,n\}$ jointly. Joint imputation becomes a necessity when constraints that involve multiple rows are specified, as discussed below.
\noindent{\bf Constraints} We give two examples of constraints that we used in our experiments. These constraints are specified as distributions over individual and pair of variables.
(1) {\bf Label Distribution}: Let $p_j$ denote the label distribution over ${\mathcal Y}_j$. Constraints of this form are useful to quantitatively specify one consistency check that is done manually by visually looking at the distribution of observed and imputed values for each variable; this visual consistency check is provided with several practically used statistical methods (e.g., MICE).
(2) {\bf Pairwise Distribution}: Let $q_{j,k}$ denote the pairwise distribution over ${\mathcal Y}_j \times {\mathcal Y}_k$. These constraints are $2$-d extension of label distribution constraints, and are useful to capture co-occurrence statistics.
Given the observed data, we can compute $p_j$ and $q_{j,k}$ using the observed values; and, constrain the imputed values to have the same distributions. When multiplied by the number of examples, these distributions specify the fraction of examples (${\tilde n}_j$, ${\tilde n}_{j,k}$) in which the labels and pairs of labels occur. Let ${\mathcal C}$ denote these constraints. Since these constraints span across the rows, imputation cannot be done independently via (\ref{infpbm}).
\noindent{\bf Optimization Problem} The imputation step involves solving the following optimization problem.
\begin{equation}
\max_{{\bf Y}_m} \sum_{i=1}^n s^{(i)}({{\bf y}^{(i)}_m};{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o},\theta_{mo}) \:\: \rm{s.t.}\:\: {\mathcal C}
\label{scrimpstep}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf Y}_m = \{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$. This problem can be solved using a joint inference method proposed by Chang et al \cite{Cha13}. They extended the dual decomposition method \cite{Kom11b} to handle constraints. It is an iterative method that alternates between imputing the missing values and finding the dual parameters associated with the constraints. Due to constraints and non-differentiability reasons, a projected sub-gradient method is used to solve these sub-problems in the alternating optimization steps.
\input{experimental_section.tex}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Introduction}
In many real world machine learning and data mining applications, data often contain missing values. While ignoring examples with missing elements is one option, this results in throwing away some valuable information such examples could provide. There have been several approaches presented in the machine learning and statistics literature to address this problem by imputing missing values. These approaches include density estimation and Expectation-Maximization~\cite{Mar08},\cite{Gha94},\cite{Gha01},\cite{Will07}, matrix factorization~\cite{Bell07},\cite{Kor09} and conditional modeling methods~\cite{Buu07},\cite{Buu99},\cite{Tem11},\cite{Rag01},\cite{Bur10},\cite{Su11},\cite{Buu11}.
Often many methods impute values that are unreasonable. And, the quality of imputation is assessed, for example, by comparing the distribution of observed values with the imputed values. Therefore, it will be helpful if domain constraints can be used while imputing values so that the imputed values are as per user expectation. An example constraint is: the label distribution of observed values for a variable should be same as that of the imputed values. To the best of our knowledge there does not exist any imputation method that incorporates constraints.
Structured output methods have been successfully used in a number of settings. But there has been no work on formulating missing value imputation as a structured output problem.
Motivated by these observations, \textit{in this paper we develop a simple and novel approach that uses structured outputs to model variable dependencies and does imputation while satisfying domain constraints}. We develop full details for a large margin setting, but the ideas can be easily extended to probabilistic structured output models. Our learning algorithm is iterative in nature with each iteration involving a model update step and a missing value imputation step. The algorithm alternates between these two steps until there is no change in the imputed missing values and no improvement in the training objective function value.
Learning the structured prediction model is intractable. The main computational burden comes from solving an intractable inference problem in each iteration of the learning algorithm. A number of large margin based methods have been proposed in the literature \cite{Kom11}, \cite{Luc13}, \cite{Mes10} to address this problem via suitable approximations. Most of these methods rely on decomposing the structure into pieces or components such that inference is cheaper on the components; it is possible that variables are shared across the components. Depending on the choice of components and approximations involved, either in the formulation and/or component level inference, the training time and achievable accuracy vary.
Though they work well, we found existing approximation methods \cite{Mes10},\cite{Kom11},\cite{Luc13} to be very inefficient. \textit{To address this problem, we propose an efficient piecewise large margin learning method for learning structured prediction models.} One important aspect of the missing value imputation problem is that we need to keep in mind the noisy imputed values (obtained during the iterations) that are used in the learning step. Therefore, we present formulations where the large margin constraints are placed using only the observed values. This helps in getting robust performance. These formulations are based on the popularly known Crammer-Singer formulation (CSF) and Weston-Watkins formulation (WWF) that are used in designing large margin classifiers \cite{Cra02},\cite{Wes98}. We discuss solution methods for both these formulations. With squared hinge loss, WWF becomes differentiable, and standard unconstrained optimization techniques requiring function and gradient computations can be used. Therefore, we recommend and use piecewise WWF based method in our experiments. \textit{We found that this method is an order of magnitude faster than other state of the art large margin methods when tested on several supervised learning benchmark datasets, and there was no significant loss in accuracy}.
The missing value imputation step involves solving a discrete optimization problem which is intractable. For this purpose, we use the popular dual decomposition method proposed by Komadakis et al \cite{Kom11b}. As emphasized earlier, imputed values should be reasonable, and should have certain desirable properties as expressed by the user. Furthermore, it is well known in the semi-supervised learning literature \cite{Joa99},\cite{Dhi12},\cite{Cha13} that constraints play an important role in getting good accuracy. As we shall see, incorporating constraints is easier in our approach, and also, they give significant boost to the performance. Recently, Chang et al.\ \cite{Cha13} proposed a dual decomposition method that can handle constraints. We use their method for imputing the missing values subject to constraints. \textit{Overall, the proposed large margin structured prediction model based imputation method that can incorporate domain knowledge via constraints is an important contribution in addressing the missing value imputation problem}.
The paper is organized as follows. We present related work in Section 2. In Section 3, we present our approach in detail. In Section 4, we demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed imputation method compared to state of the art methods on several benchmark datasets. Experimental results show that our method outperforms these methods on the Hamming loss measure. Discussion and Future work are presented in Section 5. We conclude with Section 6.
\section{Related Work}
One important class of missing value imputation algorithms is based on density estimation. A standard approach is to learn the joint distribution of the data as a mixture model by treating missing values as latent variables, and using the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm \cite{Mar08},\cite{Gha94} or Variational Bayes EM \cite{Gha01},\cite{Will07},\cite{Win05}. Then use the learned model to infer the the posterior distribution over the missing values given the observed values. The drawback is that accurately modeling the joint distribution of high-dimensional data is a hard problem, and it is not strictly necessary if the goal is to only predict the missing values. By adopting a discriminative approach, we avoid the difficulty of joint distribution learning altogether.
Algorithms based on matrix factorization and neighborhood models are popular in collaborative filtering (CF) for predicting missing entries of a ratings matrix \cite{Bell07},\cite{Kor09}. The missing value imputation setting differs from CF in important ways: 1) the dataset can contain mixed variable types (real, categorical, binary, etc.), so matrix factorization based algorithms need to be modified to such mixed type data, and 2) CF applications have much higher missing percentages (e.g. 99\%), and 3) evaluation is focused more on predicting a few relevant missing entries rather than \emph{all} of them.
Several imputation algorithms in the statistics literature use a ``pseudo-Gibbs'' sampling procedure that alternates between 1) sampling the missing values and 2) sampling the parameters of a predictor for each variable that uses all other variables as inputs \cite{Buu07},\cite{Buu99},\cite{Tem11},\cite{Rag01},\cite{Bur10},\cite{Su11},\cite{Buu11}. Multiple Imputations using Chained Equations (MICE) \cite{Buu11} is a popular example of this approach. It is well-known that MICE and its variants have no convergence guarantees, and can even be shown to diverge in some special cases \cite{Liu10},\cite{Li12}. In contrast, our learning algorithm is a convex optimization problem, and our imputation algorithm allows for constraints in the optimization of the missing values, while MICE does not. Empirically, MICE is indeed one of the best imputation methods, and hence we evaluate our method against it to demonstrate value.
\section{Our Approach}
We present details of our large margin structured prediction learning approach for solving the missing value imputation problem. The proposed method is iterative in nature, and involves two key steps. (1) Learning step (Section 3.2): learn a structured prediction model given the {\it full} data matrix. (2) Imputation Step (Section 3.3): impute missing values subject to constraints given the model parameters. See Algorithm~\ref{Algorithm}. As we shall see, our large margin learning approach to learn the model parameters is different from conventional methods. After giving the details of the learning step, we discuss a dual decomposition based method to impute the missing values subject to distribution constraints \cite{Cha13}.
\begin{algorithm2e}
\label{Algorithm}
\caption{Large Margin Structured Prediction based Imputation Method}
Choose ${{\bf y}_m}$ (e.g., fill-in using the mode value for each column), {\it tol} (e.g., $10^{-4}$), {\it iter} (e.g., $25$)\;
\For{$r=1 \ldots, iter$}{
1. {\bf Learning Step}: Compute model parameters ($\theta$) by solving the learning problem (\ref{wwfp})\;
2. {\bf Imputation Step}: Solve the imputation problem (\ref{scrimpstep}). Update ${{\bf y}_m}$\;
3. Exit if the relative improvement in the objective function value is less than {\it tol}\;
}
\end{algorithm2e}
\subsection{Background}
\noindent{\bf Notations} Let ${\bf y}$ denote the $K$-dimensional label vector with $j^{th}$ variable $y_j \in {\mathcal Y}_j$, where ${\mathcal Y}_j$ is the label space. Let ${{\bf y}^{(i)}}$ denote the $i^{th}$ example where $i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$; ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ and ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}$ denote the observed and missing variables in the $i^{th}$ example. Let ${\bf Y}$ denote the data matrix with ${{\bf y}^{(i)}}$ being the $i^{th}$ row. We use $|\cdot|$ to indicate the cardinality of a set.
\noindent{\bf Problem Statement} Given the data matrix ${\bf Y}$, the goal is to fill-in (impute) values for the missing entries, \textit{i.e.,} given $\{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}: i=1,\ldots,n\}$, get values for $\{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}: i=1,\ldots,n\}$. This paper concerns working with discrete variables. Continuous variables can be handled by applying a suitable discretization technique.
\noindent{\bf Structure and Scoring Function Model} We model the data as in structured output problems. In these problems, the random variables constituting ${\bf y}$ are connected as defined by a network ${\mathcal G}$. Given the structure ${\mathcal G}$, a scoring function returns a value for any given assignment to the variables. In our study, we consider structures with scoring function defined as:
\begin{equation}
{s(\bfy)} = \sum_{c \in {\mathcal C}} {s_c({\bfyc};\theta_c)}
\label{scfn}
\end{equation}
where $c$ and ${\mathcal C}$ denote $c^{th}$ component in a collection of components ${\mathcal C}$ in ${\mathcal G}$; ${{\bf y}_c}$ and $\theta_c$ denote the $c^{th}$ component variables and associated model parameters. Let us assume that ${s_c({\bfyc};\theta_c)}$ takes the form:
\begin{equation}
{s_c({\bfyc};\theta_c)} = \sum_{\alpha} \theta_{c,\alpha} \phi_{\alpha}({{\bf y}_c})
\label{scorec}
\end{equation}
where $\phi_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ denote the sufficient statistics for ${{\bf y}_c}$. One example is: $\phi_{\alpha}({{\bf y}_c}) = {\mathcal I}({{\bf y}_c}) = \prod_{y_j \in {{\bf y}_c}} {\mathcal I}({\bar y}_j = y_j)$ where ${\mathcal I}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function taking value $1$ when the argument is true, and $0$ otherwise, and $\alpha = {{{\bf {\bar y}}_c}} \in {\mathcal Y}_c$. The approach presented in this paper is quite generic; to make explanations easier and concrete, we illustrate through pairwise Markov Random Field (MRF).
\noindent{\bf Pairwise MRF Example} Consider a network ${\mathcal G}$ where all the variables are connected to each other, with the scoring function ${s(\bfy)}$ defined as:
\begin{equation}
{s(\bfy)} = \sum_{j=1}^K {s_j(y_j)} + \sum_{j=1}^K \sum_{k = j+1}^K {s_{jk}(y_j,y_k)}
\label{scmrfn}
\end{equation}
where ${s_j(y_j)}$ and ${s_{jk}(y_j,y_k)}$ denote the scores for node $j$ and edge $(j,k)$ respectively. In linear form, they are given by: ${s_j(y_j)} = \sum_{{\bar y}_j \in {\mathcal Y}_j} {\theta_{j}({\bar y}_j)} {{\mathcal I}({\bar y}_j = y_j)}$, and ${s_{jk}(y_j,y_k)} = \sum_{{\bar y}_j \in {\mathcal Y}_j} \sum_{{\bar y}_k \in {\mathcal Y}_k} {\theta_{jk}({\bar y}_j,{\bar y}_k)} {{\mathcal I}({\bar y}_j = y_j,{\bar y}_k = y_k)}$.
\noindent{\bf Imputation} Given the model parameters, imputation of missing values can be done via solving the following discrete (variables) optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
{\bf y}^*_m = \argmax_{{{\bf y}_m}} {s(\bfym;\bfyo,\theta_{mo})}
\label{infpbm}
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{mo}$ denotes the model parameters involved in connecting missing variables with themselves and observed variables. Note that the connections involving only the observed variables do not play a role. The main issue in the structured prediction setting is that the cardinality of the label space of ${{\bf y}_m}$ can be exponential. Therefore, solving the inference problem is intractable (except for simple structures such as trees).
Komadakis et al \cite{Kom11b} proposed a dual decomposition method that can be used to solve (\ref{infpbm}).
Given the model, scoring function and basic imputation step, we show how a large margin structured prediction model with the scoring function (\ref{scmrfn}) can be built into the \textit{learning step} of the algorithm.
\subsection{Learning Step}
\noindent{\bf Large Margin Learning Approach} There are four key elements that need to be defined in learning large margin structured prediction models: (1) weight regularization, (2) an error function $\Delta({\bf y},{\bf y}^{(i)})$ that specifies the margin that we would like to impose between the true label assignment ${\bf y}^{(i)}$ and any other assignment ${\bar {\bf y}} \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}$ for the $i^{th}$ example; ${\mathcal Y}^{(i)}$ denotes the label space, (3) large margin constraints, and (4) loss function (e.g., hinge loss, squared hinge loss) defined using slack variables that appear in the constraints. Using these elements, an objective function is defined as a linear combination of the weight regularization and loss function terms, and optimized for the model parameters (weights). In our study, we use the L2 norm for weight regularization, and the Hamming distance for the error function. We will discuss our choice of large margin constraints and loss function shortly.
\noindent{\bf A Simple Idea} Let us assume that $\{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}: i=1,\ldots,n\}$ is available; for example, we can fill-in the missing values with the mode value of each variable, or sample according to the distribution over the observed values. Then, we can consider the learning problem as learning a structured prediction model in supervised setting, where $({{\bf y}^{(i)}_m},{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o})$ is treated as an input-output example pair. Then, the learning problem can be posed as:
CSF:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\bf \theta} \frac{||\theta||^2}{2} + \lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \max(0,\psi^{(i)}).
\label{baseform}
\end{equation}
Let ${\hat {\bf y}}^{(i)}_o = \argmax_{{\bar {\bf y}}_o \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_o} s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf y}}_o;{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}) + \Delta({\bf y}^{(i)}_o,{\bar {\bf y}}_o)$, $\psi^{(i)} = s^{(i)}({\hat {\bf y}}^{(i)}_o;{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}) + \Delta({{\bf y}^{(i)}_o},{\hat {\bf y}}^{(i)}_o) - s^{(i)}({{\bf y}^{(i)}_o};{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m})$, $\lambda$ is a regularization constant, ${\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_o=\prod_{j: j \in I^{(i)}_o} {\mathcal Y}_j$, $I^{(i)}_o$ is the index set of the observed variables, and ${\mathcal Y}_j$ is the label space of the $j^{th}$ variable; $s^{(i)}(\cdot)$ denotes the score associated with the $i^{th}$ example. This primal formulation arises from using the large margin constraints $s^{(i)}({{\bf y}^{(i)}_o};{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}) - s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf y}}_o;{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}) \ge \Delta({{\bf y}^{(i)}_o},{\bar {\bf y}}_o) - \psi^{(i)}, \forall i,{\bar {\bf y}}_o \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_o$ with one slack variable per example, and optimizing over the model parameters and slack variables using hinge loss as the loss function; this formulation is also known as the Crammer-Singer Formulation (CSF) \cite{Cra02}.
We make the following observations. (1) The number of target variables that appear in each example is different. (2) The total number of input and output variables is a constant $K$; this is usually not the case, in structured output problems. (For example, consider sequence or tree labeling problems; though the input feature dimension can be same, the number of outputs (i.e., nodes in a sequence or tree) needs not be same for all the sequences or trees.) (3) We have suppressed the dependency of the model parameters in the scoring functions. The most important thing to note is that not all the model parameters appear in every example, and, some model parameters are shared across the examples depending on the patterns of missing variables. Some of these characteristics are specific to learning a structured prediction model for the missing value imputation problem compared to conventional supervised learning of structured prediction models.
One way to solve the optimization problem (\ref{baseform}) is to use a stochastic sub-gradient algorithm~\cite{Rat07}, \cite{Kiw83}, \cite{Luc13} where the sub-gradient is computed for a randomly picked example in each iteration, and the model weights are updated. This step involves solving a modified inference problem with a decomposable error function $\Delta(\cdot)$ added to the scoring function in (\ref{infpbm}). Solving this inference problem is intractable except for simple structures such as trees or when $|{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}|$ is small and finding the maximum is easy. To address this problem several efficient methods have been proposed in the literature \cite{Kom11b},\cite{Wai03}. One approach that is relevant to this work is piecewise training \cite{Sut09} where the structure is decomposed into pieces or components such that inference in each of the components is tractable; this helps in reducing the training complexity. While the existing piecewise large margin training methods \cite{Mes10},\cite{Kom11} can be used to solve (\ref{baseform}), we need a much more efficient learning algorithm. This is because our imputation method is iterative in nature, and the learning problem needs to be solved repeatedly. Our experiments show that the speeds offered by the existing methods are not good enough. To address this problem, we propose a simple piecewise large margin formulation, which we will also demonstrate to be very effective; and the resulting optimization problem is differentiable, and standard unconstrained optimization algorithms such as L-BFGS~\footnote{http://www.di.ens.fr/~mschmidt/Software/minFunc.html} can be used. Before describing the final method, we first present a piecewise version of (\ref{baseform}).
\noindent{\bf Piecewise Large Margin Training} The basic idea behind our formulation can be explained as the following steps. (1) For each example $i$, we construct multiple pairs of observed variables ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ by partitioning ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ into two parts in multiple ways. Let $\{{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}: q=1,\ldots,Q_i\}$ denote choices for the first part, and let ${\bar {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o} = {{\bf y}^{(i)}_o} \setminus {\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}, \forall i,q$. (2) Given these sets, we construct input-output example pairs: $({\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}), \forall i, q$ where ${\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o} = [{\bar {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}\:{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}]$. In other words, we form the input by appending one part of the observed variables ${\bar {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}$ with ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}$, and the other part ${\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}$ forms the output. Thus, each example $(i)$ is repeated multiple times ($Q_i$) with different input-output pairs. The important aspect of such subset formation is that $|{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}|$ is small so that finding the maximum is easy (e.g., via enumeration with one or two variables). (3) Using this constructed dataset $\{({\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}), \forall i, q\}$, we form the constraints for each example. (We show how this dataset is constructed for a pairwise MRF below.) This results in the following optimization problem in Crammer-Singer Formulation-Piecewise (CSFP).
CSFP:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\bf \theta} \frac{||\theta||^2}{2} + \lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{q=1}^{Q_i}\max(0,\psi^{(i)}_q),
\label{csfp1}
\end{equation}
Let ${\hat {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o} = \argmax_{{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_{q,o}} s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) + \Delta({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o})$, $\psi^{(i)}_q = s^{(i)}({\hat {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) + \Delta({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\hat {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) - s^{(i)}({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o})$, and ${\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_{q,o}=\prod_{j: j \in I^{(i)}_{q,o}} {\mathcal Y}_j$; $I^{(i)}_{q,o}$ is the index set of the observed variables ${\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}$. As earlier, this primal formulation arises from using the large margin constraints $s^{(i)}({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) - s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) \ge \Delta({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}) - \psi^{(i)}_q, \forall i,{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_{q,o}$ with one slack variable per piece per example, and optimizing over the model parameters and slack variables using hinge loss as the loss function.
The following observations can be made. (1) The optimization problem (\ref{csfp1}) can be solved using stochastic sub-gradient algorithm. (2) The number of constraints used in (\ref{csfp1}) is dependent on $Q_i$ and how the partitions of ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ are defined. (3) Since the constraints used in (\ref{baseform}) and (\ref{csfp1}) are different, the solutions will be different. (Our experimental results in supervised setting show that there is no significant loss in accuracy; typically, the loss is within 1-1.5\% as observed in fully supervised multi-label classification datasets.) But, the important point is that we gain by an order of magnitude in speed. (4) The above problem can be solved using an efficient multi-class dual coordinate descent method \cite{Kee08} as the cardinality $|{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}|$ is small. (5) While the optimization problem (\ref{csfp1}) is Crammer-Singer formulation based, we can have another popular formulation known as Weston-Watkins formulation (WWF) with squared hinge loss. This formulation with squared hinge loss is differentiable; therefore, any standard unconstrained optimization technique can be used. Our experimental results show that this method is very efficient. We present this formulation next.
\noindent{\bf Weston-Watkins Formulation (WWF)} In CSF, the number of slack variables involved per piece per example is $1$. On the other hand, one slack variable is associated with each possible label assignment ${\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \in {\mathcal Y}^{(i)}_{q,o}, \forall i,q$. Then, the optimization problem in the Weston-Watkins Formulation - Piecewise (WWFP) is given by:
WWFP:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\bf \theta} \frac{||\theta||^2}{2} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{q=1}^{Q_i} \sum_{{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o} \ne {\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}} \max(0,\psi^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}))^2,
\label{wwfp}
\end{equation}
where $\psi^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}) = s^{(i)}({\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o}) + \Delta({{\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o},{\bar {\bf u}}_{q,o}) - s^{(i)}({\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o};{\tilde {\bf u}}^{(i)}_{q,o})$. Comparing (6) and (7), we note that (7) has an extra, third summation at the innermost level; though this leads to more loss terms, this is the key to getting a differentiable objective function, with associated efficiency. In our experiments on the missing value imputation problem, we used WWFP since fast optimization techniques such as L-BFGS can be used, leading to great improvements in speed. Also, it has been found that there is no evidence of significant difference in generalization performance between CSFP and WWFP.
\noindent{\bf Partitioning Examples} As mentioned earlier, partitions can be created in several ways. We give two examples. One simple example is to take $|{\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}|=1$, and consider each variable in ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ as ${\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}$ as we vary $q$; for this case, we have $Q_i = |{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}|$. Another example is to take every pair of variables in ${{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}$ as ${\bf u}^{(i)}_{q,o}$. In this case, $Q_i = \frac{|{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}|(|{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}|-1)}{2}$. Note that it is not necessary to restrict to only one type of partitioning (\textit{i.e.,} single variable or pairwise); we can have both types in (\ref{wwfp}). For the purpose of illustration, let us consider the single variable type partitioning and see how the scoring function looks like in the pairwise MRF model. In pairwise MRF, the scoring function ${s(\bfy)}$ can be decomposed as: ${s(\bfy)} = \sum_j {{\bar s}_j(y^{(i)}_j;\bfyiMj)}$ where
\begin{equation}
{{\bar s}_j(y^{(i)}_j;\bfyiMj)} = {s_j(y_j)} + \sum_{k \ne j} \frac{{s_{jk}(y_j,y_k)}}{2}
\label{score}
\end{equation}
This decomposition has the interpretation of decomposing the structure into $K$ spanning trees with ${{\bar s}_j(y^{(i)}_j;\bfyiMj)}$ representing the score of $j^{th}$ spanning tree with the $j^{th}$ variable as the root node. This is the scoring function that we use in (\ref{wwfp}) with $u^{(i)}_{q,o} = y^{(i)}_j: j\in I^{(i)}_{q,o}, q=1,\ldots,|{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o}|$. This completes the specification of all quantities in (\ref{wwfp}). It is worth noting that the model parameters are shared across the trees as edges are shared across the trees.
\subsection{Imputation Step}
While (\ref{infpbm}) is useful to impute missing values for each row independently, our goal is to impute $\{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}: i=1,\ldots,n\}$ jointly. Joint imputation becomes a necessity when constraints that involve multiple rows are specified, as discussed below.
\noindent{\bf Constraints} We give two examples of constraints that we used in our experiments. These constraints are specified as distributions over individual and pair of variables.
(1) {\bf Label Distribution}: Let $p_j$ denote the label distribution over ${\mathcal Y}_j$. Constraints of this form are useful to quantitatively specify one consistency check that is done manually by visually looking at the distribution of observed and imputed values for each variable; this visual consistency check is provided with several practically used statistical methods (e.g., MICE).
(2) {\bf Pairwise Distribution}: Let $q_{j,k}$ denote the pairwise distribution over ${\mathcal Y}_j \times {\mathcal Y}_k$. These constraints are $2$-d extension of label distribution constraints, and are useful to capture co-occurrence statistics.
Given the observed data, we can compute $p_j$ and $q_{j,k}$ using the observed values; and, constrain the imputed values to have the same distributions. When multiplied by the number of examples, these distributions specify the fraction of examples (${\tilde n}_j$, ${\tilde n}_{j,k}$) in which the labels and pairs of labels occur. Let ${\mathcal C}$ denote these constraints. Since these constraints span across the rows, imputation cannot be done independently via (\ref{infpbm}).
\noindent{\bf Optimization Problem} The imputation step involves solving the following optimization problem.
\begin{equation}
\max_{{\bf Y}_m} \sum_{i=1}^n s^{(i)}({{\bf y}^{(i)}_m};{{\bf y}^{(i)}_o},\theta_{mo}) \:\: \rm{s.t.}\:\: {\mathcal C}
\label{scrimpstep}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf Y}_m = \{{{\bf y}^{(i)}_m}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$. This problem can be solved using a joint inference method proposed by Chang et al \cite{Cha13}. They extended the dual decomposition method \cite{Kom11b} to handle constraints. It is an iterative method that alternates between imputing the missing values and finding the dual parameters associated with the constraints. Due to constraints and non-differentiability reasons, a projected sub-gradient method is used to solve these sub-problems in the alternating optimization steps.
\input{experimental_section.tex}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since the early publications in 1960s, tropical (idempotent) mathematics, as the mathematics of idempotent semirings, has found many applications in optimization, control, decision making, and other fields. Over these decades, the theory and practice of idempotent mathematics has been developed in many publications, including \cite{Cuninghamegreen1979Minimax,Zimmermann1981Linear,Baccelli1993Synchronization,Deschutter1996Maxalgebraic,Kolokoltsov1997Idempotent,Golan2003Semirings,Heidergott2006Maxplus,Akian2007Maxplus,Litvinov2007Themaslov,Gondran2008Graphs,Butkovic2010Maxlinear}.
In the literature, there is a range of real-world optimization problems that can be formulated and solved in the tropical mathematics setting to minimize linear and nonlinear objective functions defined on finite-dimensional semimodules over idempotent semifields. Well-known examples include multidimensional problems that arise in job scheduling \cite{Cuninghamegreen1976Projections,Cuninghamegreen1979Minimax,Zimmermann1981Linear,Zimmermann1984Some,Zimmermann2003Disjunctive,Zimmermann2006Interval,Butkovic2010Maxlinear} and location analysis \cite{Zimmermann1984Onmaxseparable,Cuninghamegreen1994Minimax,Krivulin2011Analgebraic,Krivulin2012Anew}.
Many available solution techniques apply iterative computational schemes and provide only particular solutions for the problems \cite{Zimmermann1984Some,Zimmermann1984Onmaxseparable,Zimmermann2003Disjunctive,Zimmermann2006Interval,Butkovic2010Maxlinear}. These techniques are based on numerical algorithms, which produce a solution if any solution exists, or indicate that there is no solution. Other approaches offer direct explicit solutions and, in some cases, can give complete solutions \cite{Cuninghamegreen1976Projections,Cuninghamegreen1979Minimax,Zimmermann1981Linear,Krivulin2011Analgebraic,Krivulin2012Anew}.
In this paper, we consider multidimensional tropical optimization problems with nonlinear objective functions defined through the multiplicative conjugate vector transposition, and with boundary constraints. As the starting point, we take the problem with two-sided boundary constraints, which was first examined and solved with a numerical algorithm in \cite{Zimmermann1984Some}. We consider two particular cases of the problem and obtain direct solutions in a compact vector form. For one of the problems, we offer a complete solution.
We follow a solution approach that is based on the application and further development of the technique, which was proposed in \cite{Krivulin2005Onsolution,Krivulin2009Methods,Krivulin2013Solution}. The technique involves the derivation of the sharp bounds on the objective functions in the problems, followed by determination of vectors that yield the bounds.
The rest of the paper is as follows. We give a short concise overview of the notation and preliminary results in Section~\ref{S-NPR}. Furthermore, in Section~\ref{S-OP}, we outline a class of tropical optimization problems of interest. Section~\ref{S-CP} presents the problems to be solved and then gives direct solutions. Finally, application and numerical examples are discussed in Section~\ref{S-AE}.
\section{Notation and Preliminary Results}
\label{S-NPR}
We start with an overview of notation and results of idempotent algebra to provide an appropriate framework for the analysis of tropical optimization problems to be performed below. The overview primarily follows the presentation of the topic in \cite{Krivulin2005Onsolution,Krivulin2009Methods,Krivulin2013Solution}. For both introductory and advanced material one can consult \cite{Cuninghamegreen1979Minimax,Zimmermann1981Linear,Baccelli1993Synchronization,Deschutter1996Maxalgebraic,Kolokoltsov1997Idempotent,Golan2003Semirings,Heidergott2006Maxplus,Akian2007Maxplus,Litvinov2007Themaslov,Gondran2008Graphs,Butkovic2010Maxlinear} as well.
\subsection{Idempotent Semifield}
Consider an idempotent semifield $\langle\mathbb{X},\mathbb{0},\mathbb{1},\oplus,\otimes\rangle$, where $\mathbb{X}$ is a carrier set that is closed under addition $\oplus$ and multiplication $\otimes$, and contains the zero $\mathbb{0}$ and the identity $\mathbb{1}$. Addition is idempotent, which implies that $x\oplus x=x$ for all $x\in\mathbb{X}$. In the semifield, for each $x\in\mathbb{X}_{+}$, where $\mathbb{X}_{+}=\mathbb{X}\setminus\{\mathbb{0}\}$, there exists an inverse $x^{-1}$ such that $x^{-1}\otimes x=\mathbb{1}$.
For each $x\in\mathbb{X}_{+}$ and any integer $p\geq0$, exponential notation is routinely defined as follows: $x^{0}=\mathbb{1}$, $\mathbb{0}^{p}=\mathbb{0}$, $x^{p}=x^{p-1}\otimes x$, and $x^{-p}=(x^{-1})^{p}$. Moreover, the semifield is assumed algebraically closed (radicable), which means that the integer power is extendable to the case of rational exponents.
In what follows, we suppress the multiplication sign as in conventional algebra and use the exponential notation only in the above mentioned sense.
There is a partial order, which is induced on the semifield by idempotent addition such that $x\leq y$ if and only if $x\oplus y=y$. The order is assumed extendable to a total order to make the semifield linearly ordered. Below, the relation symbols and the optimization objectives are considered in terms of this order.
Addition and multiplication are monotone in each argument, which implies that the inequalities $x\leq u$ and $y\leq v$ involve $x\oplus y\leq u\oplus v$ and $xy\leq uv$.
As an illustration of the idempotent semifields under study, we suggest the real semifield
$$
\mathbb{R}_{\max,+}
=
\langle\mathbb{R}\cup\{-\infty\},-\infty,0,\max,+\rangle.
$$
This semifield is used later to provide application examples of tropical optimization problems.
\subsection{Matrix and Vector Algebra}
We consider matrices with entries from $\mathbb{X}$ and denote the set of matrices with $m$ rows and $n$ columns by $\mathbb{X}^{m\times n}$. For conforming any matrices $\bm{A}$, $\bm{B}$, $\bm{C}$, and scalar $x$, the sum $\bm{A}\oplus\bm{B}$ and the products $\bm{A}\bm{C}$ and $x\bm{A}$ are calculated by the usual rules with the scalar operations $\oplus$ and $\otimes$ in place of ordinary addition and multiplication. Clearly, these matrix operations are component-wise monotone in each argument.
A matrix is called row (column) regular, if it has no rows (columns) with all entries equal to $\mathbb{0}$. A matrix is regular, if it is both row and column regular.
A square matrix that has $\mathbb{1}$ on the diagonal and $\mathbb{0}$ elsewhere is the identity matrix, which is denoted $\bm{I}$.
Let $\mathbb{X}^{n}$ be the set of column vectors over $\mathbb{X}$ with $n$ elements. Vector addition and scalar multiplication are defined component-wise in terms of the scalar operations $\oplus$ and $\otimes$. Both vector operations are component-wise monotone in each argument.
A vector that consists entirely of $\mathbb{0}$ is the zero vector. A vector is regular, if it has no zero elements.
For any nonzero column vector $\bm{x}=(x_{i})$, the multiplicative conjugate transpose is a row vector $\bm{x}^{-}=(x_{i}^{-})$ with components $x_{i}^{-}=x_{i}^{-1}$ if $x_{i}\ne\mathbb{0}$, and $x_{i}^{-}=\mathbb{0}$ otherwise.
If both vectors $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{y}$ are regular, then the component-wise inequality $\bm{x}\leq\bm{y}$ implies the inequality $\bm{x}^{-}\geq\bm{y}^{-}$ and vice versa.
For any two regular vectors $\bm{x},\bm{y}\in\mathbb{X}^{n}$, we define the distance function
\begin{equation}
\rho(\bm{x},\bm{y})
=
\bm{y}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{y}.
\label{E-rhoxy}
\end{equation}
Note that, in terms of the semifield $\mathbb{R}_{\max,+}$, the function can be represented in the form
$$
\rho(\bm{x},\bm{y})
=
\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|y_{i}-x_{i}|,
$$
and thus coincides with the Chebyshev norm.
Finally, note that any nonzero column vector $\bm{x}$ satisfies the equality $\bm{x}^{-}\bm{x}=\mathbb{1}$. Moreover, it is not difficult to verify that the matrix inequality $\bm{x}\bm{x}^{-}\geq\bm{I}$ is valid for any regular column vector $\bm{x}$.
We use these facts to solve the following problem: given a matrix $\bm{A}\in\mathbb{X}^{m\times n}$ and a vector $\bm{p}\in\mathbb{X}^{m}$, find all regular vectors $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{X}^{n}$ to satisfy the inequality
\begin{equation}
\bm{A}\bm{x}
\leq
\bm{p}.
\label{I-Axp}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
\label{L-xpA}
For any column-regular matrix $\bm{A}$ and regular vector $\bm{p}$, all regular solutions to \eqref{I-Axp} are given by
\begin{equation}
\bm{x}
\leq
(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}.
\label{I-xpA}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us verify that both inequalities \eqref{I-Axp} and \eqref{I-xpA} are equivalent. First, we multiply inequality \eqref{I-Axp} on the left by $(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}\bm{p}^{-}$, and then write
$$
\bm{x}
\leq
(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}
\leq
(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}\bm{p}^{-}\bm{p}
=
(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}
$$
to obtain inequality \eqref{I-xpA}. On the other hand, after left multiplication of \eqref{I-xpA} by the matrix $\bm{A}$, we have
$$
\bm{A}\bm{x}
\leq
\bm{A}(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}
\leq
\bm{p}\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A}(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}
=
\bm{p},
$$
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Optimization Problems}
\label{S-OP}
We consider the tropical optimization problems with non-linear objective functions and linear constraints, which were apparently first examined in \cite{Cuninghamegreen1976Projections,Cuninghamegreen1979Minimax,Zimmermann1984Some}. The problems appeared in the analysis of the tropical vector equation $\bm{A}\bm{x}=\bm{p}$ and were motivated by real-world problems in job scheduling. Initially represented in somewhat different forms, the problems are written below in a unified way in terms of multiplicative conjugate transposition.
Given a matrix $\bm{A}\in\mathbb{X}^{m\times n}$ and a vector $\bm{p}\in\mathbb{X}^{m}$, consider the problem of finding vectors $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{X}^{n}$ that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p},
\\
&
\text{subject to}
&&
\bm{A}\bm{x}
\leq
\bm{p}.
\end{aligned}
\label{P-AxpAxp}
\end{equation}
In \cite{Cuninghamegreen1976Projections,Cuninghamegreen1979Minimax}, this problem was formulated to obtain a best underestimating approximation $\bm{A}\bm{x}$ for $\bm{p}$ with respect to the Chebyshev norm. A direct closed-form solution to the problem was derived within the framework of the minimax algebra theory developed there.
Suppose that $\bm{g},\bm{h}\in\mathbb{X}^{n}$ are given vectors such that $\bm{g}\leq\bm{h}$ are lower and upper boundary constraints imposed on $\bm{x}$. We now consider a problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}\oplus(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p},
\\
&
\text{subject to}
&&
\bm{g}
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
\bm{h},
\end{aligned}
\label{P-pAxAxpgxh}
\end{equation}
which yields a best approximate solution to the equation $\bm{A}\bm{x}=\bm{p}$ under the boundary constraints. This constrained optimization problem was solved in \cite{Zimmermann1984Some} via a finite polynomial threshold-type algorithm.
In the same context of solving linear equations, an unconstrained version of problem \eqref{P-pAxAxpgxh} in the form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}\oplus(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p},
\end{aligned}
\label{P-pAxAxp}
\end{equation*}
and problem \eqref{P-AxpAxp} were examined in \cite{Krivulin2005Onsolution,Krivulin2009Methods,Krivulin2013Solution}. A solution approach was proposed, which involves the evaluation of sharp bounds on the objective function. Using this approach, direct solutions to the problems were obtained in a compact vector form.
We now assume that one more vector $\bm{q}\in\mathbb{X}^{m}$ is given and consider the unconstrained problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}\oplus(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p}.
\end{aligned}
\label{P-qAxAxp}
\end{equation}
Setting $\bm{A}=\bm{I}$ gives an unconstrained problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p}.
\end{aligned}
\label{P-qxxp}
\end{equation}
Problem \eqref{P-qxxp} together with two constrained problems, one having inequality constraints,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p},
\\
&
\text{subject to}
&&
\bm{A}\bm{x}
\leq
\bm{x},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
and the other with equality constraints,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p},
\\
&
\text{subject to}
&&
\bm{A}\bm{x}
=
\bm{x},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
appeared in solving multidimensional single facility location problems with the Chebyshev distance.
These problems were investigated in \cite{Krivulin2011Analgebraic,Krivulin2012Anew}, where the application of the above mentioned approach provided exact solutions to the problems. The solution obtained for problem \eqref{P-qxxp} was complete.
Below, we consider extended problems that combine the objective functions at \eqref{P-qAxAxp} and \eqref{P-qxxp} with the left or both boundary constraints at \eqref{P-pAxAxpgxh}.
\section{Constrained Problems}
\label{S-CP}
We are now in a position to present our main results on the solution to tropical optimization problems with boundary constraints. The exact solutions to be given are based on the use and further development of the techniques offered in \cite{Krivulin2005Onsolution,Krivulin2009Methods,Krivulin2013Solution}.
\subsection{Lower and Upper Boundary Constraints}
We start with a complete solution to the following problem: given vectors $\bm{p},\bm{q},\bm{g},\bm{h}\in\mathbb{X}^{n}$, find regular vectors $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{X}^{n}$ that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p},
\\
&
\text{subject to}
&&
\bm{g}
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
\bm{h}.
\end{aligned}
\label{P-qxxpgxh}
\end{equation}
The next result offers a straightforward solution to the problem under fairly general assumptions.
\begin{theorem}
\label{T-qxxpgxh}
Let $\bm{p}$ and $\bm{q}$ be regular vectors, $\bm{g}$ and $\bm{h}$ be vectors such that $\bm{g}\leq\bm{h}$, and $\Delta=\sqrt{\bm{q}^{-}\bm{p}}$. Denote
\begin{equation}
\mu
=
\Delta\oplus\bm{q}^{-}\bm{g}\oplus\bm{h}^{-}\bm{p}.
\label{E-muDeltaqqghp}
\end{equation}
Then the minimum in problem \eqref{P-qxxpgxh} is equal to $\mu$ and attained if and only if
\begin{equation}
\mu^{-1}\bm{p}\oplus\bm{g}
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
(\mu^{-1}\bm{q}^{-}\oplus\bm{h}^{-})^{-}.
\label{I-mupxmuq}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the objective function in the problem and show that $\mu$ is its lower bound. Take an arbitrary regular $\bm{x}$ that satisfies the constraints and examine
$$
r
=
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p}.
$$
From the equality, we have two inequalities
$$
r
\geq
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x},
\qquad
r
\geq
\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p}.
$$
The first inequality and the left boundary constraint provide a lower bound $r\geq\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}\geq\bm{q}^{-}\bm{g}$.
Due to Lemma~\ref{L-xpA}, the first inequality is equivalent to the inequality $\bm{x}\leq r\bm{q}$. The substitution into the second inequality gives $r\geq\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p}\geq r^{-1}\bm{q}^{-}\bm{p}$, which yields another lower bound $r\geq\sqrt{\bm{q}^{-}\bm{p}}=\Delta$.
Finally, the second inequality and the right boundary constraint lead to
$r\geq\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p}\geq\bm{h}^{-}\bm{p}$.
By combining the bounds, we obtain
$$
r
\geq
\Delta
\oplus
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{g}
\oplus
\bm{h}^{-}\bm{p}
=
\mu.
$$
To find all solutions to the problem, we examine the equation
$$
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p}
=
\mu.
$$
Since $\mu$ is a lower bound, the equation has the same regular solutions as the inequality
$$
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p}
\leq
\mu,
$$
which is itself equivalent to the pair of inequalities
$$
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{x}
\leq
\mu,
\qquad
\bm{x}^{-}\bm{p}
\leq
\mu.
$$
The application of Lemma~\ref{L-xpA} to the inequalities leads to the solutions
$$
\bm{x}
\leq
\mu\bm{q},
\qquad
\bm{x}
\geq
\mu^{-1}\bm{p}.
$$
By coupling these solutions with the boundary constraints, we arrive at solution \eqref{I-mupxmuq}.
\end{proof}
It is easy to see from the proof of the theorem that, if the left, right, or both boundaries are not specified in problem \eqref{P-qxxpgxh}, the solutions \eqref{E-muDeltaqqghp} and \eqref{I-mupxmuq} take reduced forms. Specifically, we have
\begin{gather*}
\mu
=
\Delta\oplus\bm{q}^{-}\bm{g},
\\
\mu^{-1}\bm{p}\oplus\bm{g}
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
\mu\bm{q},
\end{gather*}
for the case when only the constraint $\bm{x}\geq\bm{g}$ is given,
\begin{gather*}
\mu
=
\Delta\oplus\bm{h}^{-}\bm{p},
\\
\mu^{-1}\bm{p}
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
(\mu^{-1}\bm{q}^{-}\oplus\bm{h}^{-})^{-},
\end{gather*}
for the constraint $\bm{x}\leq\bm{h}$, and
\begin{gather*}
\mu
=
\Delta,
\\
\mu^{-1}\bm{p}
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
\mu\bm{q},
\end{gather*}
if no boundary constraints are imposed.
Note that the last solution coincides with the result for this case, which was obtained in \cite{Krivulin2012Anew}.
\subsection{A One-Sided Boundary Constraint}
Given a matrix $\bm{A}\in\mathbb{X}^{m\times n}$ together with vectors $\bm{p},\bm{q}\in\mathbb{X}^{m}$ and $\bm{g}\in\mathbb{X}^{n}$, consider the problem of finding regular vectors $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{X}^{n}$ that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}\oplus(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p},
\\
&
\text{subject to}
&&
\bm{x}
\geq
\bm{g},
\end{aligned}
\label{P-qAxAxpxg}
\end{equation}
A direct solution to the problem can be derived using similar arguments as in the previous theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{T-qAxAxpxg}
Suppose that $\bm{A}$ is a regular matrix, $\bm{p}$ and $\bm{q}$ are regular vectors, $\bm{g}$ is an arbitrary vector, and $\Delta=\sqrt{(\bm{A}(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-})^{-}\bm{p}}$. Denote
\begin{equation*}
\mu
=
\Delta\oplus\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{g}.
\label{E-muDeltaqAg}
\end{equation*}
Then the minimum in problem \eqref{P-qAxAxpxg} is equal to $\mu$ and attained at the vector
\begin{equation*}
\bm{x}
=
\mu(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}.
\label{E-xmuqA}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Take a regular $\bm{x}\geq\bm{g}$ and consider the value
$$
r
=
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}\oplus(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p}.
$$
We have two inequalities
$$
r
\geq
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x},
\qquad
r
\geq
(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p}.
$$
By combining the first inequality with the constraint, we obtain one bound $r\geq\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}\geq\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{g}$.
Furthermore, we apply Lemma~\ref{L-xpA} to solve the first inequality in the form $\bm{x}\leq r(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}$. The solution taken together with the second inequality give
$r\geq(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p}\geq r^{-1}(\bm{A}(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-})^{-}\bm{p}$, which leads to another bound $r\geq\sqrt{(\bm{A}(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-})^{-}\bm{p}}=\Delta$.
Both bounds can be written together as
$$
r
\geq
\Delta
\oplus
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{g}
=
\mu.
$$
We now verify that that the minimum value $\mu$ is attained at the vector $\bm{x}=\mu(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}\geq\bm{g}$. First, we ascertain that
$$
\bm{x}
=
(\Delta\oplus\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{g})(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}
\geq
(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{g}
\geq
\bm{g}.
$$
Finally, we substitute this vector $\bm{x}$ into the objective function. Considering that $\Delta\leq\mu$, we obtain
\begin{multline*}
\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}\oplus(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p}
\\
=
\mu\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A}(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}\oplus\mu^{-1}(\bm{A}(\bm{q}^{-}\bm{A})^{-})^{-}\bm{p}
\\
=
\mu\oplus\mu^{-1}\Delta^{2}
=
\mu.
{\qedhere}
\end{multline*}
\end{proof}
Suppose that no lower bound is defined in the problem, and thus we can put $\bm{g}=\mathbb{0}$. In this case, the solution offered by the theorem becomes the same as that derived in \cite{Krivulin2012Anew}.
\section{Applications and Examples}
\label{S-AE}
In this section we discuss applications of the results obtained and give numerical examples. Below, we take $\mathbb{R}_{\max,+}$ as the carrier semifield and thus apply the results under the assumption that $\mathbb{X}=\mathbb{R}_{\max,+}$.
\subsection{A Constrained Location Problem}
Consider the following problem, which arises in the solution of single facility location problems in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with the Chebyshev norm \cite{Krivulin2011Analgebraic,Krivulin2012Anew}. Given points $\bm{r}$, $\bm{s}$, $\bm{g}$, and $\bm{h}$, locate a new point $\bm{x}$ that minimizes the maximum of the Chebyshev distances from $\bm{x}$ to $\bm{r}$ and to $\bm{s}$, and satisfies the boundary constraints $\bm{g}\leq\bm{x}\leq\bm{h}$.
To solve the location problem, we first apply \eqref{E-rhoxy} to represent the maximum distance as follows:
\begin{multline*}
\rho(\bm{x},\bm{r})\oplus\rho(\bm{x},\bm{s})
=
\bm{r}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{r}
\oplus
\bm{s}^{-}\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}\bm{s}
\\
=
(\bm{r}^{-}\oplus\bm{s}^{-})\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}(\bm{r}\oplus\bm{s}),
\end{multline*}
and then formulate the problem in the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
(\bm{r}^{-}\oplus\bm{s}^{-})\bm{x}\oplus\bm{x}^{-}(\bm{r}\oplus\bm{s}),
\\
&
\text{subject to}
&&
\bm{g}
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
\bm{h},
\end{aligned}
\label{P-rsxxrsgxh}
\end{equation}
It remains to reduce the problem to \eqref{P-qxxpgxh} by substituting $\bm{p}=\bm{r}\oplus\bm{s}$ and $\bm{q}^{-}=\bm{r}^{-}\oplus\bm{s}^{-}$ and then apply Theorem~\ref{T-qxxpgxh} to obtain a complete direct solution.
\begin{lemma}
Suppose that $\bm{r}$ and $\bm{s}$ are regular vectors, $\bm{g}$ and $\bm{h}$ are vectors such that $\bm{g}\leq\bm{h}$, and $\Delta=\sqrt{(\bm{r}^{-}\oplus\bm{s}^{-})(\bm{r}\oplus\bm{s})}$. Denote
\begin{equation*}
\mu
=
\Delta\oplus(\bm{r}^{-}\oplus\bm{s}^{-})\bm{g}\oplus\bm{h}^{-}(\bm{r}\oplus\bm{s}).
\label{E-mu1}
\end{equation*}
Then the minimum distance in problem \eqref{P-rsxxrsgxh} is equal to $\mu$ and attained if and only if
\begin{equation*}
\mu^{-1}(\bm{r}\oplus\bm{s})\oplus\bm{g}
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
(\mu^{-1}(\bm{r}^{-}\oplus\bm{s}^{-})\oplus\bm{h}^{-})^{-}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
We illustrate this result with a location problem with the given points
$$
\bm{r}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{r}
-3
\\
1
\\
1
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\bm{s}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{r}
1
\\
3
\\
-2
\end{array}
\right),
$$
and the boundary points
$$
\bm{g}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0
\\
0
\\
0
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\bm{h}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1
\\
1
\\
1
\end{array}
\right).
$$
First, we find vectors
$$
\bm{r}\oplus\bm{s}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1
\\
3
\\
1
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\bm{r}^{-}\oplus\bm{s}^{-}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
3
&
-1
&
2
\end{array}
\right),
$$
and then calculate
$$
\Delta
=
2,
\quad
(\bm{r}^{-}\oplus\bm{s}^{-})\bm{g}
=
3,
\quad
\bm{h}^{-}(\bm{r}\oplus\bm{s})
=
2.
$$
Since $\mu=3$, we finally have the solution in the form
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{r}
0
\\
0
\\
0
\end{array}
\right)
\leq
\bm{x}
\leq
\left(
\begin{array}{r}
0
\\
1
\\
1
\end{array}
\right).
$$
\subsection{A Constrained Approximation Problem}
Let a matrix $\bm{A}$ and vectors $\bm{p}$ and $\bm{g}$ of appropriate size be given over $\mathbb{R}_{\max,+}$. Suppose that one has to determine a best approximation of $\bm{p}$ by $\bm{A}\bm{x}$ in terms of the Chebyshev norm $\rho(\bm{A}\bm{x},\bm{p})$, subject to the boundary constraints $\bm{x}\geq\bm{g}$. This problem has natural interpretations in many areas, including real-world problems in job scheduling (see, e.g., \cite{Cuninghamegreen1976Projections,Cuninghamegreen1979Minimax,Zimmermann1984Some}).
With definition \eqref{E-rhoxy}, we immediately arrive at the problem to find regular vectors $\bm{x}$ that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&
\text{minimize}
&&
\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{x}\oplus(\bm{A}\bm{x})^{-}\bm{p},
\\
&
\text{subject to}
&&
\bm{x}
\geq
\bm{g}.
\end{aligned}
\label{P-pAxApxg}
\end{equation}
By the substitution $\bm{q}=\bm{p}$ in Theorem~\ref{T-qAxAxpxg}, we get the following solution to the approximation problem.
\begin{lemma}
\label{T-pAxAxpxg}
Suppose that $\bm{A}$ is a regular matrix, $\bm{p}$ is a regular vector, $\bm{g}$ is an arbitrary vector, and $\Delta=\sqrt{(\bm{A}(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-})^{-}\bm{p}}$. Denote
\begin{equation*}
\mu
=
\Delta\oplus\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{g}.
\label{E-muDeltapAg}
\end{equation*}
Then the least approximation error in problem \eqref{P-pAxApxg} is equal to $\mu$ and attained at the vector
\begin{equation*}
\bm{x}
=
\mu(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}.
\label{E-xmupA}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
We now consider an approximation problem under the assumption that $m=n=3$ and
\begin{gather*}
\bm{A}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{crc}
1 & -1 & 1
\\
3 & 1 & 0
\\
0 & 0 & 2
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\bm{p}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
3
\\
4
\\
4
\end{array}
\right),
\\
\bm{g}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
2
\\
2
\\
2
\end{array}
\right).
\end{gather*}
To evaluate the approximation error $\mu$, we first calculate the vectors
$$
(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1
\\
3
\\
2
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\bm{A}(\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A})^{-}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
3
\\
4
\\
4
\end{array}
\right).
$$
Furthermore, we successively find
$$
\Delta
=
0
=
\mathbb{1},
\qquad
\bm{A}\bm{g}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
3
\\
5
\\
4
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\bm{p}^{-}\bm{A}\bm{g}
=
1,
$$
and then arrive at $\mu=1$.
Finally, we obtain the solution to the approximation problem in the form
$$
\bm{x}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
2 & 4 & 3
\end{array}
\right)^{T}.
$$
\bibliographystyle{abbrvurl}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
In recent years, substantial progress has been made in exploring the
dynamics of short-range correlations (SRCs) in nuclei. On the
experimental side, exclusive $A(p,2p+n)$ \cite{Tang:2002ww} and
$A(e,e'pN)$ \cite{Niyazov:2003zr,Shneor:2007tu,Subedi:2008zz}
measurements have probed correlated pairs in nuclei and identified
proton-neutron (pn) pairs as the dominant contribution. Inclusive
$A(e,e')$ \cite{Egiyan:2003vg,Egiyan:2005hs,Fomin:2011ng} measurements
in kinematics favoring correlated pair knockout, have provided access
to the mass dependence of the amount of correlated pairs relative to
the deuteron. On the theoretical side, \textit{ab initio}
\cite{Schiavilla:2006xx,Wiringa:2008vv,Feldmeier:2011tt,Wiringa:2013ala},
cluster expansion \cite{Alvioli:2007zz,Alvioli:2012dd,Alvioli:2013ff},
correlated basis function theory
\cite{AriasdeSaavedra:2007qg,Bisconti:2007dd}, and low-momentum
effective theory \cite{Bogner:2012zm}, calculations have provided
insight in the fat high-momentum tails of the momentum distributions
attributable to multinucleon correlations. Tensor correlations have
been identified as the driving mechanism for the fat tails just above
the Fermi momentum. The highest momenta in the tail of the momentum
distribution are associated with the short-distance repulsive part of
the nucleon-nucleon force and $N \ge 3$ correlations. Recent reviews
of nuclear SRC can be found in
Refs.~\cite{Arrington:2011xs,Frankfurt:2008zv}.
We have proposed a method to quantify the amount of correlated pairs
in an arbitrary nucleus
\cite{Vanhalst:2011es,Vanhalst:2012ur,Vanhalst:2012zt}. Thereby, we
start from a picture of a correlated nuclear wave function as a
product of a correlation operator acting on an independent-particle
model (IPM) Slater determinant $\Psi _{A}^\text{IPM}$ \cite{Bogner:2012zm}.
The SRC-susceptible pairs are identified by selecting those parts of
$\Psi _{A}^\text{IPM}$ that provide the largest contribution when subjected
to typical nuclear correlation operators. It is found that IPM
nucleon-nucleon pairs with vanishing relative orbital momentum and
vanishing relative radial quantum numbers, receive the largest
corrections from the correlation operators. This can be readily
understood by realizing that IPM close-proximity pairs are highly
susceptible to SRC corrections. This imposes constraints on the
relative orbital and radial quantum numbers of the two-nucleon cluster
components in the IPM wave functions which receive SRC corrections.
With the proposed method of quantifying SRC we can reasonably account
for the mass dependence of the $\frac{ A(e,e') }{d(e,e')}$ ratio under
conditions of suppressed one-body contributions (Bjorken $x_B \gtrsim
1.2$) \cite{Vanhalst:2012ur} and the mass dependence of the magnitude
of the EMC effect \cite{Vanhalst:2012zt,WIMINPC2013}. In connecting the SRC
information to inclusive electron-scattering data at Bjorken $x_B
\gtrsim 1.2$, there are complicating issues like the role of c.m. motion
\cite{Arrington:2012ax,Vanhalst:2012ur} and final-state interactions
(FSIs) \cite{Benhar:2013dq}. More quantitative information on SRC and
their mass and isospin dependence, is expected to come from exclusive
electroinduced two-nucleon knockout which is the real fingerprint of
nuclear SRC \cite{Starink2000}. Reactions of this type are
under investigation at Jefferson Laboratory (JLab) and results for
$^{12}$C$(e,e^{\prime}pN)$ have been
published~\cite{Shneor:2007tu,Subedi:2008zz}.
In this paper, we investigate the factorization properties of the
exclusive $A(e,e'pN)$ reaction. Factorization is a particular result
that emerges only under specific assumptions in the description of the
scattering process. It results in an approximate expression for the
cross section which becomes proportional to a specific function of selected
dynamic variables. For exclusive quasielastic $A(e,e'p)$ processes,
for example, the factorization function is the one-nucleon momentum
distribution evaluated at the initial nucleon's momentum. It will be
shown that for exclusive $A(e,e'pN)$ these roles are respectively
played by the c.m.~momentum distribution for close-proximity pairs and
the c.m.~momentum of the initial pair.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:momdistr} we present calculations for the pair
c.m. momentum distribution in the IPM. It is shown that the
correlation-susceptible IPM pairs have a broader c.m. width than those
that are less prone to SRC corrections. In Sec.~\ref{sec:fac}, we
show that after making a number of reasonable assumptions, the
eightfold $A(e,e'pN)$ cross section factorizes with the conditional
pair c.m. momentum distribution as the factorization function. In
Sec.~\ref{sec:mc} we report on results of Monte Carlo simulations for
$A(e,e'pp)$ processes in kinematics corresponding to those accessible
in the JLab Hall A and Hall B detectors. We study the effect of
typically applied cuts on several quantities. In Sec.~\ref{sec:FSI}
it is investigated to what extent FSIs affect the factorization function of
the exclusive $A(e,e'pN)$ process. Finally, our conclusions are stated
in Sec.~\ref{sec:concl}.
\section{Pair Center-of-mass momentum distributions} \label{sec:momdistr}
In this section we study the pp and pn pair c.m. momentum distribution for
$^{12}$C, $^{27}$Al, $^{56}$Fe and $^{208}$Pb which
we deem representative for the full mass range of stable nuclei. We introduce
the relative and c.m. coordinates and momenta
\begin{align}
\vec{r}_{12} &= { \vec{r} _1 - \vec{r} _2 }, \hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\vec{R}_{12} = \frac{\vec{r} _{1} + \vec{r} _{2}}{2} \; ,\\
\vec{k}_{12} &= \frac{ \vec{k} _1 - \vec{k} _2 } {2}, \hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\vec{P}_{12} = \vec{k} _{1} + \vec{k} _{2} \; .
\end{align}
The corresponding two-body momentum density reads
\begin{multline}
P_2 \left( \vec{k}_{12} , \vec{P}_{12} \right) = \frac{1}{ (2 \pi )^6} \int d
\vec{r}_{12}
\int d \vec{r}_{12}^{\;\prime} \int d \vec{R}_{12} \int d
\vec{R}_{12}^{\;\prime}
\\
\times e^{ \imath \vec{k}_{12} \cdot \left( \vec{r}_{12}^{\;\prime} -
\vec{r}_{12}
\right)}
e^{ \imath \vec{P}_{12} \cdot \left( \vec{R}_{12}^{\;\prime} -
\vec{R}_{12}\right) }
\rho_2 ( \vec{r}_{12}^{\;\prime}, \vec{R}_{12}^{\;\prime}; \vec{r}_{12},
\vec{R}_{12}),
\label{eq:defofp2}
\end{multline}
where $\rho_2 ( \vec{r}_{12}^{\;\prime}, \vec{R}_{12}^{\;\prime}; \vec{r}_{12} ,
\vec{R}_{12} )$ is
the non-diagonal
two-body density (TBD) matrix
\begin{multline}
\rho_2 ( \vec{r}_{12}^{\;\prime}, \vec{R}_{12}^{\;\prime}; \vec{r}_{12},
\vec{R}_{12} )
=
\int \{d \vec{r}_{3-A}\}
\\
\times
\Psi_A^*(\vec{r}_1^{\;\prime},\vec{r}^{\;\prime}_2,\vec{r}_3,\ldots,\vec{r}_A)
\Psi_A(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2,\vec{r}_3,\ldots,\vec{r}_A).
\end{multline}
Here, $\Psi_A$ is the normalized ground-state wave function of the
nucleus $A$ and $ \{ d\vec{r}_{i-A}\} \equiv
d\vec{r}_id\vec{r}_{i+1}\ldots d\vec{r}_A $. For a spherically
symmetric system, $P_2 \left( \vec{k}_{12} , \vec{P}_{12} \right)$
depends on three independent variables, for example the magnitudes $
\left| \vec{k}_{12} \right|$ and $\left| \vec{P}_{12} \right|$ and the
angle between $\vec{k}_{12}$ and $\vec{P}_{12}$. In
Ref.~\cite{Alvioli:2012dd} two-body momentum distributions for $^3$He
and $^4$He are shown to be largely independent of the angle between
$\vec{k}_{12}$ and $\vec{P}_{12}$ for $P_{12} \lesssim $~200~MeV.
Integrating over the directional dependence of Eq.~(\ref{eq:defofp2}),
the quantity
\begin{align}
& n_2( k_{12}, P_{12} ) k_{12}^2dk_{12} P_{12}^2 d P_{12}
\nonumber \\ &
= k_{12}^2dk_{12} P_{12}^2 d P_{12} \int d \Omega_{k_{12}} \int d
\Omega_{P_{12}} P_2 (\vec{k}_{12},
\vec{P}_{12} ) \; ,
\label{eq:n2}
\end{align}
is connected to the probability of finding a nucleon pair with
relative and c.m. momentum in $[k_{12},k_{12}+dk_{12}]$ and
$[P_{12},P_{12}+dP_{12}]$. With the spherical-wave expansion for the
two vector plane waves in Eq.~(\ref{eq:defofp2}) one obtains
\begin{equation}
n_2( k_{12}, P_{12} )= \frac{4}{\pi^2} \sum_{l m_l } \sum_{ \Lambda M_\Lambda
} n_2^{l m_l \Lambda M_\Lambda}(k_{12},
P_{12}) ,
\label{eq:projection}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
& n_2^{l m_l \Lambda M_\Lambda}(k_{12}, P_{12}) = \nonumber \\
& \int dr_{12}^{\;\prime}\; {r_{12}^{\;\prime}}^2 \int
dR_{12}^{\;\prime}\; {R_{12}^{\;\prime}}^2 \int dr_{12} \; r_{12}^2 \int
dR_{12}\; R_{12}^2
\nonumber \\ & \times
j_l(k_{12}r_{12}) j_l(k_{12}r_{12}^{\;\prime}) j_\Lambda(P_{12}R_{12})
j_\Lambda(P_{12}R_{12}^{\;\prime})
\nonumber \\
& \times \rho_2^{l m_l \Lambda
M_\Lambda}(r_{12}^{\;\prime}, R_{12}^{\;\prime}; r_{12}, R_{12}).
\label{eq:projected_n2}
\end{align}
Here, $\rho_2^{l m_l \Lambda M_\Lambda}(r_{12}^{\;\prime},
R_{12}^{\;\prime};r_{12}, R_{12})$ is the projection of the TBD matrix
on relative and c.m.~orbital angular-momentum states $\left| l m_l \right>$ and
$ \left| \Lambda M_\Lambda \right>$.
The pair c.m. momentum distribution is defined by
\begin{align}
P_2 ( P_{12} ) & = \int d \Omega_{P_{12}} \int d \vec{k}_{12}
P_2 (\vec{k}_{12}, \vec{P}_{12} ) \nonumber \\
& = \int d k_{12} k_{12}^2 n_2(k_{12},P_{12}),
\label{eq:P2}
\end{align}
and the quantity $P_2(P_{12})~P_{12}^2~dP_{12}$ is related to the probability of
finding a nucleon pair with $\left| \vec{P}_{12} \right|$ in
$\left[ {P}_{12}, {P}_{12} + d {P}_{12} \right]$ irrespective of the
magnitude and direction of $ \vec{k}_{12}$.
Similarly, the pair relative momentum distribution is defined as
\begin{equation}
n_2(k_{12}) = \int d \Omega_{k_{12}} \int d \vec{P}_{12}
P_2 (\vec{k}_{12}, \vec{P}_{12} ) \; .
\label{eq:pairrelmomdis}
\end{equation}
In the IPM, the ground-state wave function can be expanded in terms of
single-particle wave functions $\phi_{\alpha_i}$
\begin{equation}
\Psi^\text{IPM}_A = (A!)^{-1/2} \mathrm{det}
\Bigl[ \phi_{\alpha_i}(\vec{x}_j) \Bigr] ,
\label{eq:wf_mf}
\end{equation}
and the TBD matrix is given by
\begin{align}
&
\rho^\text{IPM}_2 ( \vec{r}_{12}^{\;\prime}, \vec{R}_{12}^{\;\prime};
\vec{r}_{12}, \vec{R}_{12} )
= \frac{2}{A(A-1)}
\nonumber \\ & \times
\sum_{\alpha<\beta}
\frac{1}{2}
\left[ \phi^*_\alpha(\vec{x}_1^{\;\prime})
\phi^*_\beta(\vec{x}_2^{\;\prime}) -
\phi^*_\beta(\vec{x}_1^{\;\prime})
\phi^*_\alpha(\vec{x}_2^{\;\prime}) \right] \nonumber \\ & \times
\left[ \phi_\alpha(\vec{x}_1) \phi_\beta(\vec{x}_2) -
\phi_\beta(\vec{x}_1) \phi_\alpha(\vec{x}_2) \right].
\label{eq:tbd_mf}
\end{align}
Here, $\vec{x} \equiv \left( \vec{r}, \vec{\sigma}, \vec{\tau}
\right)$ is a shorthand notation for the spatial, spin, and isospin
coordinates. The summation $ \sum_{\alpha<\beta}$ extends over all
occupied single-particle levels and implicitly includes an integration
over the spin and isospin degrees of freedom (d.o.f.).
In a HO basis the uncoupled single-particle states read
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\alpha}(\vec{x}) \equiv \psi_{n_\alpha l_\alpha m_{l_\alpha}}(\vec{r})
\chi _{\sigma_\alpha} \left( \vec{\sigma}\right) \xi_{\tau_\alpha} \left(
\vec{\tau} \right).
\label{eq:HOwf}
\end{equation}
The A dependence can be taken care of by means of the parameterization
$\hbar \omega (\textrm{MeV})=45 \; A ^ {− \frac{1}{3}} - 25
\;A^{−\frac{2}{3}}$. A transformation from $(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2)$ to
$(\vec{r}_{12}, \vec{R}_{12})$ for the uncoupled
normalized-and-antisymmetrized (nas) two-nucleon states can be readily
performed in a HO basis \cite{Vanhalst:2011es,Vanhalst:2012ur}
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\ket{\alpha\beta}_{\text{nas}} = &
\sum_{\substack{nlm_lN\Lambda M_\Lambda \\ S M_S T M_T}}
\braket{nlm_l N\Lambda M_\Lambda S M_S TM_T}{\alpha\beta}
\ket{nlm_l N\Lambda M_\Lambda S M_S TM_T}
=
\sum_{\substack{A=\{nlm_l N\Lambda M_\Lambda \\ S M_S T M_T\}}}
C^A_{\alpha\beta}
\ket{A} ,
\label{eq:transformation}
\end{align}
with the transformation coefficient
$C_{\alpha\beta}^{nl m_l N\Lambda M_\Lambda S M_S T M_T }$
given by
\begin{align}
C_{\alpha\beta}^{nl m_l N\Lambda M_\Lambda S M_S T M_T }
= &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ 1 - (-1)^{l+S+T} \right]
\braket{\frac{1}{2} \tau_\alpha \frac{1}{2} \tau_\beta}{ T M_T}
\braket{\frac{1}{2} \sigma_\alpha \frac{1}{2} \sigma_\beta}{ S M_S}
\nonumber \\ & \times
\sum_{L M_L}
\braket{ l_\alpha m_{l_\alpha} l_\beta m_{l_\beta} }{L M_L}
\braket{ nlN\Lambda;L}{ n_\alpha l_\alpha n_\beta l_\beta; L}_\text{SMB}
\braket{L M_L}{ l m_l \Lambda M_\Lambda}\,,
\label{eq:transformationcoeff}
\end{align}
where we use the Talmi-Moshinsky brackets $\langle
|\rangle_\text{SMB}$ \cite{moshinskyharmonic} to separate out the relative and
c.m. coordinates in the products of single-particle wave functions.
After performing the transformation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:transformation}) for the TBD
matrix of Eq.~(\ref{eq:tbd_mf}), $P_2(P_{12})$
can be written as
\begin{equation}
P_2( P_{12} )= \frac{2}{\pi} \sum_{n l m_l } \sum_{ \Lambda M_\Lambda } P_2^{n
l m_l \Lambda M_\Lambda}(P_{12}) ,
\label{eq:projectionP2}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{multline}
P_2 ^{n l m_l \Lambda M_\Lambda}(P_{12})=
\frac{2}{A(A-1)}
\sum_{\alpha < \beta }
\sum_{N N^\prime}
\sum_{S M_S T M_T}
(C_{\alpha\beta}^{nlm_lN'\Lambda M_\Lambda S M_S T M_T })^\dagger
C_{\alpha\beta}^{nlm_lN\Lambda M_\Lambda S M_S T M_T } \\ \times
\int dR_{12}^{\;\prime}\; {R_{12}^{\;\prime}}^2
\int dR_{12} \; R_{12}^2 \;\;
j_\Lambda(P_{12} R_{12}^{\;\prime})
j_\Lambda(P_{12} R_{12})
R_{N' \Lambda} ( \sqrt{2} R_{12}^{\;\prime} )
R_{N \Lambda} ( \sqrt{2} R_{12} )
\label{eq:projected_P2}
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
A Woods-Saxon basis, for example, first needs to be expanded in a HO
basis before a projection of the type~(\ref{eq:projected_P2}) can be
made. Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:projectionP2}) and (\ref{eq:projected_P2}),
the conditional pair c.m. momentum distribution for a given relative
radial quantum number $n$ and relative orbital momentum $l$, can be
defined as
\begin{equation}
P_2 ( P_{12} | nl=\nu\lambda )
= \frac{2}{\pi}
\sum_{m_l} \sum_{\Lambda M_\Lambda}
P_2^{\nu\lambda m_l \Lambda M_\Lambda}(P_{12}) \; .
\label{eq:conditional_P2}
\end{equation}
Obviously, one has
\begin{equation}
P_2(P_{12})
= \sum_{\nu \lambda} P_2(P_{12}|nl=\nu\lambda)
= \sum_{\lambda} P_2(P_{12}|l=\lambda) ,
\end{equation}
where $P_2(P_{12}|l=\lambda)$ is the conditional pair c.m. momentum distribution
for $l=\lambda$.
A symmetric correlation operator $\widehat{\cal{G}}$ can be applied to
the IPM wave function of Eq.~(\ref{eq:wf_mf}) in order to obtain a
realistic ground-state wave function
\cite{Pieper:1992gr,AriasdeSaavedra:2007qg,Engel:2011ss,Roth:2010bm}
\begin{equation}
\mid { \Psi_A} \rangle = \frac{1}
{ \sqrt{\langle \ \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \mid \widehat{\cal
G}^{\dagger} \widehat{\cal G} \mid \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \ \rangle}} \
\widehat
{ {\cal G}} \mid \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \ \rangle \; .
\label{eq:realwf}
\end{equation}
The operator $\widehat{\cal{G}}$ is complicated but as
far as the SRC are concerned, it is dominated by
the central, tensor and spin-isospin correlations
\cite{janssen00,ryckebusch97}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathcal{G}} \approx \widehat {{\cal S}}
\biggl[ \prod _{i<j=1} ^{A} \biggl( 1 + \hat{\mathcal{o}} \left(\vec{x}_i,
\vec{x}_j \right) \biggr) \biggr] \; ,
\label{eq:coroperator}
\end{equation}
with $ \widehat
{{\cal S}} $ the symmetrization operator and
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\mathcal{o}} \left(\vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2 \right)
& = & - g_c(r_{12}) + f_{t\tau}(r_{12}) S_{12} \vec{\tau}_1 \cdot
\vec{\tau}_2 \nonumber \\ & + & f_{\sigma\tau}(r_{12}) \vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot
\vec{\sigma}_2
\vec{\tau}_1 \cdot \vec{\tau}_2 \, ,
\label{eq:sumofcorrelators}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_c(r_{12})$, $f_{t\tau}(r_{12})$, $f_{\sigma\tau}(r_{12})$ are the
central, tensor, and spin-isospin correlation functions, and ${S_{12}}$ the
tensor
operator.
The sign convention of $- g_c(r_{12})$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumofcorrelators})
implies that
$ \displaystyle \lim _{r_{12} \to 0} g_c(r_{12})= g_0~(0<g_0 \le 1))$.
We stress that the correlation functions cannot be considered as
universal \cite{Engel:2011ss}.
They depend for example on the
choices made with regard to the nucleon-nucleon
interaction, the single-particle basis and the many-body
approximation scheme.
With Eq.~(\ref{eq:realwf}), the intrinsic complexity stemming from
the nuclear correlations is shifted from the wave functions to the
transition operators. For example, the ground-state matrix element
with a two-body operator $\hat{\mathcal{O}}^{[2]}$ adopts the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle { \Psi_A} \mid \hat{\mathcal{O}}^{[2]} \mid { \Psi_A} \rangle
& = & \frac{1}
{ {\langle \ \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \mid \widehat{\cal G}^{\dagger} \widehat{\cal
G} \mid \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \ \rangle}}
\nonumber \\
& \times &
\langle \ \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \mid \widehat{\cal G}^{\dagger}
\hat{\mathcal{O}}^{[2]}
\widehat
{ {\cal G}} \mid \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \ \rangle \; ,
\label{eq:transgen}
\end{eqnarray}
whereby high-order many-body operators are generated.
Throughout this work we adopt the two-body cluster (TBC) approximation,
which amounts to discarding all terms in $\widehat{\cal G}^{\dagger}
\hat{\mathcal{O}}^{[2]} \widehat { {\cal G}} $ except those in which
the transition operator and the correlators act on the same pair of
particles. In this lowest-order cluster expansion the matrix element of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:transgen}) becomes with the aid of Eq.~(\ref{eq:coroperator})
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \langle { \Psi_A} \mid \hat{\mathcal{O}}^{[2]} \mid { \Psi_A} \rangle
\approx \frac{1}
{ {\langle \ \Psi _A \mid \Psi _A \ \rangle}}
\nonumber \\
&& \times \langle \ \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \mid
\sum _{i<j=1} ^{A}
\biggl( 1 + \hat{\mathcal{o}} \left(\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j \right) \biggr) ^
{\dagger}
\hat{\mathcal{O}}^{[2]} \left( i, j \right)
\nonumber \\
& & \times
\biggl( 1 + \hat{\mathcal{o}} \left(\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j \right) \biggr)
\mid \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \rangle
\nonumber \\
& & = \frac{1}
{ \langle \Psi _A \mid \Psi _A \ \rangle}
\nonumber \\
& & \times \left[ \langle \ \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \mid
\hat{\mathcal{O}}^{[2]}
\mid \Psi ^\text{IPM} _A \ \rangle + \textrm{TBC corrections} \right]
.
\label{eq:translowestorder}
\end{eqnarray}
In this expansion, the matrix element is written as the sum of the
bare (or IPM) contribution and the TBC corrections to it. The $P_{2}
(P_{12} )$ and $n_{2} (k_{12})$ of
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:P2}-\ref{eq:pairrelmomdis}) can be computed with the aid
of the Eq.~(\ref{eq:translowestorder}) using the transition operators
$\delta \left( \vec{P}_{ij} - (\vec{k}_{i} + \vec{k} _j) \right)$ and
$\delta \left( \vec{k}_{ij} - \frac {\vec{k}_{i} - \vec{k} _j} {2}
\right)$. As the $\hat{\mathcal{o}}$ involves only relative
coordinates, the $P_{2}(P_{12} )$ is not affected by the SRC
corrections in the TBC approximation. We define $n_2^\text{IPM} (k_{12})$
as the IPM contribution of $n_2 (k_{12})$ and $n_2^\text{TBC} (k_{12})$ the
result obtained with Eq.~(\ref{eq:translowestorder}). Accordingly,
$n_2^\text{TBC}(k_{12}) = n_2^\text{IPM}(k_{12}) + \textrm{TBC corrections}$.
For
$n_{2} ^\text{TBC} (k_{12})$ the denominator ${ {\langle \ \Psi _A \mid
\Psi _A \ \rangle}} $ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:translowestorder}) can be
numerically computed by imposing the normalization conditions: $\int d
k_{12} n_{2}^\text{TBC} (k_{12}) k_{12}^{2} = 1$. As in
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:projected_n2}) and (\ref{eq:conditional_P2}), one can
introduce projection operators, and select the contributions to $n_{2}
^\text{TBC} (k_{12})$ stemming from particular quantum numbers $(nl)$ of
the relative two-nucleon wave functions in $\Psi ^\text{IPM} _A$. We define
$n_2^{2n+l}(k_{12})$ as the contribution to $n_2^\text{TBC}$ considering
only $(nl)$ configurations in $\Psi ^\text{IPM} _A$ with constant $2n+l$.
Obviously, one has
\begin{equation}
\sum_{2n+l} n_2^{2n+l}(k_{12}) = n_2^\text{TBC}(k_{12}).
\end{equation}
The computed $n_2^{2n+l}$, $n_2^\text{TBC}$ and $n_2^\text{IPM}$ for $^{56}$Fe
are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:corrcontrib}. Below the Fermi momentum $k_F$, the effect
of the correlation operator is negligible and $n_2^\text{IPM}(k_{12})
\approx n_2 ^\text{TBC}(k_{12})$. For $k_{12}> k_F$, $n_2^\text{IPM}(k_{12})$
drops rapidly while $n_2 ^\text{TBC}(k_{12})$ exhibits the SRC related high
momentum tail. The tail is dominated by the $2n+l=0$ configurations. This
indicates that most of the SRC are dynamically generated through the
operation of the correlation operators on $nl=00$ IPM pairs.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dens_rel_all_Fe3}
\caption{(Color online) The momentum dependence of the computed
$n_2^{2n+l}(k_{12})$, $n_2^\text{TBC}(k_{12})$ and $n_2^\text{IPM}(k_{12})$
for $^{56}$Fe in a HO basis. In order to
quantify the effect of SRC we have used the $g_c \left( r_{12}
\right)$ of Ref.~\cite{gearheart94} and the $f_{t\tau}\left( r_{12}
\right)$, $f_{\sigma\tau}(r_{12})$ of Ref.~\cite{Pieper:1992gr}.}
\label{fig:corrcontrib}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plot_mom_cm_pp}
\caption{ The momentum dependence of $P_2(P_{12})$ and the
$P_2\left( P_{12} | nl =00 \right)$ for pp pairs in different
nuclei. The adopted normalization convention is that
$\int_0^\infty \mathrm{d}P_{12}\; P_{12}^2 P_2(P_{12}) = 1$. Note
that only the pp contributions to $P_2(P_{12})$ are considered
when performing the integral. The results are obtained in a HO
basis.
}
\label{fig:mompp_cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plot_mom_cm_pn}
\caption{ As in Fig.~\ref{fig:mompp_cm} but for pn pairs.}
\label{fig:mompn_cm}
\end{figure}
In Sec.~\ref{sec:fac}, it is shown that in the limit of vanishing FSIs
the factorization function of the exclusive $A(e,e'pN)$ cross section is
$P_{2} (P_{12}|nl=00) $. In Figs.~\ref{fig:mompp_cm}
and~\ref{fig:mompn_cm}, we display the computed $P_2(P_{12})$ and
$P_2(P_{12}|nl=00)$ for the pp and pn pairs in $^{12}$C, $^{27}$Al,
$^{56}$Fe and $^{208}$Pb. The relative weight of the $(nl=00)$ in the
total c.m.~distribution decreases spectacularly with increasing mass
number $A$. This will reflect itself in the mass dependence of the
$A(e,e'NN)$ cross sections which are predicted to scale much softer than
$A^2$. The $(nl=00)$ pairs are strongly localized in space which
enlarges the $P_2(P_{12}|nl=00)$ width relative to the
$P_2(P_{12})$ one. The mass dependence of the normalized $P_2(P_{12})$
reflects itself in a modest growth of the width of the distribution.
For the light nuclei $^{12}$C and $^{27}$Al, the pp and pn
c.m. distributions look very similar.
At first sight the computed $P_2(P_{12})$ for the pp and pn pairs in
Figs.~\ref{fig:mompp_cm} and \ref{fig:mompn_cm} look very Gaussian.
In what follows, we use the moments to quantify the non-Gaussianity of
the $P_2$. The first moment, or mean, of a distribution $F(x)$ is
defined as
\begin{equation}
\mu_1 = \mu = \frac{\int_{D} x F(x) \mathrm{d} x}
{ \int_{D} F(x) \mathrm{d}x } ,
\label{eq:moment1}
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the domain of the distribution. For
$m>1$, we define the central moments as
\begin{equation}
\mu_m = \frac{\int_{D} (x-\mu)^m F(x) \mathrm{d} x}
{ \int_{D} F(x) \mathrm{d}x } \; .
\end{equation}
The width is defined as $\sigma = \sqrt{\mu_2}$. With regard to
$\mu_3$ and $\mu_4$, it is common practice to describe a distribution
with the skewness $\gamma_1$ and excess kurtosis $\kappa$
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_1 & \equiv & \frac{\mu_3}{\sigma^3} \label{eq:skewness} \\
\kappa & \equiv & \frac{\mu_4}{\sigma^4} - 3 \label{eq:kurtosis},
\end{eqnarray}
which are both vanishing for a Gaussian distribution.
For a spherically symmetric distribution, one can derive the
distributions $P_{2,i} \left(P_{12,i} \right) \; (i=x,y,z)$ along the
axes from $ P_{12}^2 P_2 \left( P_{12} = \sqrt{P_{12,x}^2 + P_{12,y}^2
+ P_{12,z}^2} \right) $. Gaussian $ P_{2,i} $ give rise to a
$P_{12}^2 P_2 \left(P_{12,i} \right) $ of the Maxwell-Boltzmann type.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[viewport=0 0 320 225 , clip,
width=0.75\textwidth] {moments_all.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Computed widths of the
$P_{2,x}\left(P_{12,x}\right)$ (denoted as ``all $l$'') and
$P_{2,x} \left(P_{12,x}|l\right)$ distributions for pp, nn,
np$(S=0)$ and np$(S=1)$ pairs in $^{12}$C, $^{27}$Al, $^{56}$Fe,
$^{208}$Pb. Unless stated otherwise the results are obtained in a
HO basis. For pp pairs we also display results for a WS basis
(denoted as ``WS pp''). The black cross is the experimental result
from Ref.~\cite{Tang:2002ww}. }
\label{fig:moments_all}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline \hline
& & \multicolumn{3}{c}{HO} & &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{WS} \\
\cline{3-5} \cline{7-9} & & & & & & & & \\
&
& $\sigma$ (MeV)& $\gamma_1$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:skewness})]
& $\kappa$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:kurtosis})] & \phantom{qqqq}
& $\sigma$ (MeV)& $\gamma_1$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:skewness})]
& $\kappa$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:kurtosis})] \\
\hline
$^{12}$C & $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x}|nl=00)$ & $ 156$ & $0.00$ & $-0.25$ &
& $ 158$ & $0.00$ & $-0.28$\\
$^{12}$C & $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x})$ & $140$ & $-0.01$ & $-0.12$ &
& $142$ & $-0.01$ & $-0.05$ \\
$^{27}$Al & $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x}|nl=00)$ & $164$ & $0.00$ & $-0.45$ &
& $168$ & $0.00$ & $-0.45$ \\
$^{27}$Al & $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x})$ & $144$ & $-0.01$ & $-0.20$ &
& $148$ & $-0.01$ & $-0.20$ \\
$^{56}$Fe & $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x}|nl=00)$& $172$ & $0.00$ & $-0.54$ &
& $174$ & $0.00$ & $-0.54$ \\
$^{56}$Fe & $P_{2,x}(P_x)$& $146$ & $-0.01$ & $-0.27$ &
& $149$ & $0.00$ & $-0.26$ \\
$^{208}$Pb & $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x}|nl=00)$& $178$ & $0.00$ & $-0.58$ &
& $177$ & $0.00$ & $-0.63$ \\
$^{208}$Pb & $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x})$& $145$ & $0.00$ & $-0.31$ &
& $146$ & $0.00$ & $-0.31$ \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ The moments of the $P_{2,x} \left (P_{12,x} \right)$ and
the $P_{2,x} \left( P_{12,x}|nl=00 \right)$ distributions for pp
pairs as computed in a HO and WS single-particle basis for various
nuclei.}
\label{tab:moments}
\end{table*}
Table~\ref{tab:moments} shows the computed moments of the
$P_{2,x}(P_{12,x}|nl=00)$ and $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x})$ distributions for pp
pairs. These results are obtained with HO and Woods-Saxon (WS)
single-particle wave functions. We find that the c.m. distributions
are not perfectly Gaussian and that the non-Gaussianity grows with
$A$. The values of the widths are only moderately sensitive to the
single-particle basis used. The WS widths are larger by a few percent
than the HO ones.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:moments_all}, the calculated widths of the
$P_{2,x}(P_{12,x})$ and $P_{2,x}(P_{12,x}|l)$ are shown for pp, nn and
np pairs. For the np pairs we discriminate between singlet $(S=0)$ and triplet
$(S=1)$ spin states. From Fig.~\ref{fig:moments_all} we draw the following
conclusions. The width of the $P_{2,x}(P_{12}|l)$ depends on $l$.
For $l=0$ and np pairs, the width of $P_{2,x}(P|l)$ is almost
independent of $S$. For heavy nuclei there is a substantial
difference in the width of the $P_{2,x}(P|l=0)$ for pp, nn and np
pairs but for light nuclei this is not the case.
A similar but smaller dependence on the width is found for $n$ at fixed $l$,
the width of $P_2(P_{12}|nl)$ decreases for increasing $n$.
We conclude that
from the width of the c.m. distribution of the pairs one can infer
information about their relative orbital momentum.
\section{Factorization of the two-nucleon knockout cross section} \label{sec:fac}
It is well known that the fivefold differential cross section for the
exclusive $A(e, e' p)A-1$ reaction under quasifree kinematics with
$A-1$ spectators
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:eepreaction}
&&\gamma ^{*} \left( q \right) + A - 1 \left( p_{A-1} \right)
+ N \left( k_{1} \right) \longrightarrow
\nonumber \\
&&A - 1 \left( p_{A-1} \right) + N \left( p_{1} \right) \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
factorizes as
\begin{equation}
d ^{5} \sigma (e,e'p) = K_{ep} \sigma _{ep} P_1(\vec{k}_m,E_m) \; .
\label{eq:faceep}
\end{equation}
Here, $K_{ep}$ is a kinematical factor and $\sigma _{ep}$ the
off-shell electron-proton cross section. Further,
$\vec{k}_m=-\vec{p}_{A-1} = \vec{k}_1$ is the missing momentum and $E_{m}=q^0 -
T_{p_{1}} - T_{A-1}$ the missing energy, whereby $T_{A-1}$ and
$T_{p_{1}} $ are the kinetic energy of the recoiling nucleus and
ejected nucleon. The $P_1(\vec{k},E)$ is the one-body spectral function and is
associated with the combined probability of removing a proton with
momentum $\vec{k}$ from the ground-state of $A$ and of finding the
residual $A-1$ nucleus at excitation energy $E$ (measured relative to
the ground-state of the target nucleus). The factorization is exact in a
non-relativistic reaction model with $A-1$ spectators and vanishing
FSIs \cite{Caballero:1997gc}. The validity of the spectator
approximation requires that the $E_{m}$ is confined to low values,
corresponding to states with a predominant one-hole character relative
to the ground state of the target nucleus $A$.
Below, it is shown that also the $A(e,e'pN)$ differential cross section
factorizes under certain assumptions. The factorization function is
connected to the c.m.~motion of close-proximity pairs. In
Ref.~\cite{Frankfurt:1988nt} the factorization function is introduced as the
so-called \textit{decay function}. In Ref.~\cite{Ryckebusch:1996wc} a
factorized expression for the $A(e,e'pp)$ cross section has been
derived. Thereby, in computing the matrix elements, all FSI effects
have been neglected and the zero-range approximation $( \lim _{r_{12}
\to 0})$ has been adopted. A $^{12}$C$(e,e'pp)$ experiment conducted
at the Mainz Microtron (MAMI) \cite{Blomqvist:1998gq} showed very good
quantitative agreement with the predicted diproton pair c.m. momentum
factorization up to momenta of about 500~MeV. Here, the formalism of
Ref.~\cite{Ryckebusch:1996wc} is extended to include the effect of FSIs
and to soften the zero-range approximation. Note that the limit $ \lim
_{r_{12} \to 0}$ effectively amounts to projecting on states with
vanishing relative orbital momentum.
We consider exclusive $A(e,e'NN)$ reactions in the spectator
approximation with a virtual photon coupling to a correlated pair $N
\left( k_{1} \right) N \left( k_{2} \right)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:eepNreaction}
&&\gamma ^{*} \left( q \right) + A - 2 \left( p_{A-2} \right)
+ N \left( k_{1} \right) N \left( k_{2} \right) \longrightarrow
\nonumber \\
&&A - 2 \left( p_{A-2} \right) + N \left( p_{1} \right) + N \left( p_{2}
\right) \; .
\end{eqnarray}
In a non-relativistic treatment, the corresponding matrix element is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:matrixelstart}
\mathcal{M}^\mu =& \int d\vec{x}_1 \int d\vec{x}_2 \Big[
\chi^\dagger_{s_1}(\vec{\sigma}_1) \xi^{\dagger}_{t_1} \left( \vec{\tau}_1 \right)
\chi^\dagger_{s_2}(\vec{\sigma}_2)
\xi^{\dagger}_{t_2} \left( \vec{\tau}_2 \right) \nonumber\\
&\times e^{-i\vec{p}_1\cdot\vec{r}_1}
e^{-i\vec{p}_2\cdot\vec{r}_2} - (1
\leftrightarrow 2) \Big] \nonumber\\
&\times
\mathcal{F}^\dagger_{\text{FSI}}(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2)
\hat{\mathcal{O}}^\mu(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2)
\phi_{\alpha_1}(\vec{x}_1)\phi_{\alpha_2}(\vec{x}_2)\,.
\end{align}
Here, $s_i (t_i)$ are the spin (isospin) projection of the outgoing
nucleons. Further, $\mathcal{F}_\text{FSI}(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2)$ is an
operator encoding the FSIs for a reaction where two nucleons are
brought into the continuum at the spatial localizations $\vec{r}_1$
and $\vec{r}_2$ respectively. We assume that $\mathcal{F}_\text{FSI}$
does not depend on the spin and isospin d.o.f, which is a fair
approximation at higher energies. The amplitude of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixelstart}) refers to the physical situation whereby,
as a result of virtual-photon excitation, two nucleons are excited
from bound states $\alpha_{1} \alpha_{2}$ into continuum states.
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixelstart}), the effect of the correlations is
implemented in the TBC approximation by means of a
symmetric two-body operator \cite{Engel:2011ss,janssen00}
\begin{multline}
\hat{\mathcal{O}}^\mu(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2) = \\
\biggl[ e^{i\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_1}
\Gamma^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N} (\vec{x}_1) +
e^{i\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_2} \Gamma^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N} (\vec{x}_2)
\biggr]
\hat{\mathcal{o}} \left(\vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2 \right)\,,
\label{eq:twobodphotcoupling}
\end{multline}
where the operator $\hat{\mathcal{o}} \left(\vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2
\right)$ has been defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumofcorrelators}) and
$\vec{q}$ is the three-momentum of the virtual photon. The
$\Gamma^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N} (\vec{x}_i)$ denotes the one-body
virtual photon coupling to a bound nucleon with coordinate $\vec{x}_i$
(includes the spatial, spin, and isospin d.o.f.). The
Eq.~(\ref{eq:twobodphotcoupling}) can be interpreted as the
SRC-corrected photo-nucleon coupling which operates on IPM many-body
wave functions.
The amplitude of Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixelstart}) involves four
contributions schematically shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme1}. For the
sake of brevity, in the following we consider the term of
Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme1}(a) with a photon-nucleon coupling on coordinate
$\vec{r}_1$ and the outgoing nucleon with momentum $\vec{p}_1$
directly attached to this vertex. The corresponding amplitude is
denoted by $\mathcal{M}^\mu_{a}$. The other three terms in
Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme1} follow a similar derivation.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{2nuclknockout.pdf}
\caption{The four contributions to the $A(e,e'NN)$ amplitude of Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixelstart}).
}
\label{fig:scheme1}
\end{figure*}
In a HO single-particle basis, one can write
\begin{align} \label{eq:matrixHOized}
\mathcal{M}^\mu_{a}&
=\int d\vec{r}_1 \int
d\vec{r}_2 e^{-i(\vec{p}_1-\vec{q})\cdot\vec{r}_1}
e^{-i\vec{p}_2\cdot\vec{r}_2}
\mathcal{F}^\dagger_{\text{FSI}}(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2)
\nonumber\\\times&
\bra{s_1t_1,s_2t_2}
\Gamma^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N} \left(\vec{x}_1 \right)
\hat{\mathcal{o}}\left(\vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2 \right)
\ket{\sigma_1\tau_1,\sigma_2\tau_2}
\nonumber\\
\times&\psi_{n_1l_1m_{l_1}}(\vec{r}_1)\psi_{n_2l_2m_{l_2}}(\vec{r}_2)\, ,
\end{align}
where $\sigma_i$ $(\tau _i)$ are the spin (isospin) quantum numbers of
the bound states. Further, $\psi_{n_{1}l_{1}m_{l_{1}}}$ and
$\psi_{n_{2}l_{2}m_{l_{2}}}$ are the radial HO wave functions as
introduced in Eq.~(\ref{eq:HOwf}).
Similar to the Eq.~(\ref{eq:transformation}), we apply the
Talmi-Moshinsky brackets $\langle |\rangle_\text{SMB}$
\cite{moshinskyharmonic} to transform Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixHOized}) to
relative and c.m. radial coordinates to obtain
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:relcmampl}
&\mathcal{M}^\mu_{a} =
\sum_{\substack{L M_L}} \sum_{\substack{n l
m_l\\N \Lambda M_\Lambda}} \int d\vec{r}_{12} \int
d\vec{R}_{12}e^{-i\vec{P}_{12} \cdot\vec{R}_{12}} e^
{-i\vec{k}^-\cdot\vec{r}_{12}}
\mathcal{F}^\dagger_{\text{FSI}}(\vec{R}_{12} +
\frac{\vec{r}_{12}}{2},\vec{R}_{12}-\frac{
\vec { r }_{12}}{2})
\psi_{nlm_l}(\frac{\vec { r
} _ { 12 } } { \sqrt { 2}})
\psi_{N\Lambda M_\Lambda}(\sqrt{2}\vec{R}_{12})
\nonumber \\ & \times
\braket{l_1m_{l_1}l_2m_{l_2}}{LM_L} \braket{lm_l\Lambda
M_\Lambda}{LM_L}
\braket{nlN\Lambda ;L}{n_1l_1n_2l_2;L}_{\text{SMB}}
\bra{s_1t_1,s_2t_2}
\Gamma^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N} \left(\vec{x}_1 \right)
\hat{\mathcal{o}} \left(\vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2 \right)
\ket{\sigma_1\tau_1,\sigma_2\tau_2} \; ,
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where $\vec{P}_{12} = \vec{p}_1 + \vec{p}_2 - \vec{q}$, $\vec{k}^\mp =
\frac{\vec{p}_1-\vec{p}_2}{2} \mp \frac{\vec{q}}{2}$.
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:relcmampl}) the sum over the relative quantum numbers
is dominated by $(nl=00)$. This is based on the observation that
typical correlation operators act over relatively short internucleon
distances and mostly affect the $(nl=00)$ components of the
$\psi_{nlm_l}$ wave functions. For a more detailed explanation we
refer to the discussion of Fig.~\ref{fig:corrcontrib} in
Sect.~\ref{sec:momdistr} and
Refs.~\cite{Vanhalst:2011es,Vanhalst:2012ur}.
For close-proximity nucleons one can set
$\vec{r}_{12}\approx \vec{0}$ in the FSI operator:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{F}_{\text{FSI}}(\vec{r}_{1},\vec{r}_{2}) & = &
\mathcal{F}_{\text{FSI}}(\vec{R}_{12}+\frac{\vec{r}_{12}}{2},\vec{R}_{12}-\frac{
\vec { r }_{12}}{2})
\nonumber \\ &\approx&
\mathcal{F}_{\text{FSI}}(\vec{R}_{12},\vec{R}_{12})\,.\label{eq:fsiapprox}
\end{eqnarray}
This approximation amounts to computing the effect of FSIs as if the
the two nucleons are brought into the continuum at the same spatial
point (determined by the c.m. coordinate of the pair), which is very
reasonable for close-proximity nucleons. With the above assumptions
one arrives at the expression for the matrix element
\begin{align}
\label{eq:relcmampl00}
\mathcal{M}^\mu_{a}& \approx
\bra{s_1t_1,s_2t_2} \widehat{\Gamma}^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N}(\vec{k}^-)
\ket{\sigma_1\tau_1,\sigma_2\tau_2}
\nonumber\\\times&
\sum_{\substack{N \Lambda M_\Lambda}}
\braket{l_1m_{l_1}l_2m_{l_2}}{\Lambda M_\Lambda}
\braket{00N\Lambda ;\Lambda}{n_1l_1n_2l_2 ;\Lambda}_{\text{SMB}}
\nonumber \\ \times &
\int
d\vec{R}_{12}e^{-i\vec{P}_{12}\cdot\vec{R}_{12}}
\mathcal{F}^\dagger_ { \text {FSI}}(\vec{R}_{12},\vec{R}_{12})
\psi_{N\Lambda M_\Lambda}(\sqrt{2}\vec{R}_{12}) \,,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\widehat{\Gamma}^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N}(\vec{p}) \equiv \int d\vec{r}_{12}e^
{-i\vec{p}\cdot\vec{r}_{12}} \psi_{000}(\frac{\vec { r
} _ { 12 } } { \sqrt { 2}})
\Gamma^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N} (\vec{x}_1)
\hat{\mathcal{o}}(\vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2) \,.
\end{align}
In deriving the Eq.~(\ref{eq:relcmampl00}), we have separated the
integration over the spatial and spin-isospin d.o.f.. In addition, use
has been made of the fact that the operator
$\hat{\mathcal{o}}(\vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2) $ of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumofcorrelators}) does not depend on the c.m. coordinate
$\vec{R}_{12}$. The most striking feature of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:relcmampl00}) is the factorization of the amplitude
in a
term connected to the c.m. motion of the initial pair and a term which
contains the full complexity of the photon-nucleon coupling to a
correlated pair.
After summing the four terms that contribute to Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixelstart})
and squaring the matrix element, the eightfold differential cross section
factorizes according to
\begin{equation}
d ^{8} \sigma (e,e'NN) = K_{eNN} \sigma _{e2N} F^D_{n_1l_1,n_2l_2}(\vec{P}_{12}),
\label{eq:eeNNfactorized}
\end{equation}
with $K_{eNN}$ a kinematic factor.
Further, the off-shell
electron-two-nucleon cross section is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{e2N} \propto
L_{\mu\nu} \sum_{\substack{s_1s_2\sigma_1\sigma_2\\\tau_1\tau_2}}
J^\mu \left(J^{\nu }\right)^\dagger\,,
\end{equation}
with $L_{\mu\nu}$ the leptonic tensor and $J^\mu$ the hadronic current
given by
\begin{align}
J^\mu &= \bra{s_1t_1,s_2t_2} \widehat{\Gamma}^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star}
N}(\vec{k}^-)
\ket{\sigma_1\tau_1,\sigma_2\tau_2}\nonumber\\&
-\bra{s_2t_2,s_1t_1} \widehat{\Gamma}^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N}(\vec{k}^+)
\ket{\sigma_1\tau_1,\sigma_2\tau_2}\nonumber\\&
+\bra{s_1t_1,s_2t_2} \widehat{\Gamma}^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N}(\vec{k}^+)
\ket{\sigma_1\tau_1,\sigma_2\tau_2}\nonumber\\&
-\bra{s_2t_2,s_1t_1} \widehat{\Gamma}^\mu_{\gamma ^{\star} N}(\vec{k}^-)
\ket{\sigma_1\tau_1,\sigma_2\tau_2}\,.
\end{align}
The factorization function $F^D_{n_1l_1,n_2l_2}(\vec{P}_{12})$ in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:eeNNfactorized}) can be associated with the distorted
c.m.~momentum distribution of pairs in a relative ($nl=00$) state of
the nucleus $A$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:FD}
& & F^D_{n_1l_1,n_2l_2}(\vec{P}_{12}) = 4
\sum_{m_{l_1} m_{l_2}}
\Big|
\sum_{N
\Lambda M_\Lambda} \int
d\vec{R}_{12}e^{-i\vec{P}_{12}\cdot\vec{R}_{12}}\nonumber \\ &\times&
\braket{l_1m_{l_1}l_2m_{l_2}}{\Lambda M_\Lambda}
\braket{n_1l_1n_2l_2;\Lambda}{00N\Lambda ;\Lambda}_{\text{SMB}}
\nonumber\\& \times&
\mathcal{F}
^\dagger_ { \text {
FSI}}(\vec{R}_{12},\vec{R}_{12})
\psi_{N\Lambda M_\Lambda}(\sqrt{2}\vec{R}_{12})\Big|^2\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the factor 4 accounts for the spin degeneracy of the HO states.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dens_com_C.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) The contribution of the different
shell-model pair combinations to the $P_2\left( P_{12} | nl=00
\right)$ for pp pairs in $^{12}$C. }
\label{fig:dens_com_v2}
\end{figure}
In the limit of vanishing FSIs ($\mathcal{F}_{\text{
FSI}}\equiv 1$), one has
\begin{multline}
P_2(P_{12}|nl=00) = \frac{1}{A(A-1)} \frac{3}{(2\pi)^3} \\ \times
\sum_{n_\alpha l_\alpha n_\beta l_\beta}
\int d\Omega_{P_{12}}
F^D_{n_\alpha l_\alpha, n_\beta l_\beta}(\vec{P}_{12})\; .
\end{multline}
This establishes a connection between the $A(e,e'NN)$ factorization function
and the contribution of pairs with quantum numbers $(n_1l_1n_2l_2)$ to
$P_{2} (P_{12}|nl=00)$, illustrated for pp pairs in $^{12}$C in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dens_com_v2}.
In the naive IPM, each two-hole (2h) state
$(n_1l_1)^{-1}(n_2l_2)^{-1}$ can be associated with a sharp excitation
energy in the $A-2$ system. In reality, the 2h strength corresponding
with $(n_1l_1)^{-1}(n_2l_2)^{-1}$ extends over a wide energy range
\cite{Barbieri:2004xn}. Current $A(e,e'pN)$ measurements are
performed at $Q^{2}$-values of the order of GeV$^2$ not allowing one
to measure cross sections for real exclusive processes as could be
done at lower $Q^2$ values
\cite{Starink2000,Ryckebusch:2003tu,Middleton:2009zd}. Accordingly,
rather than probing the individual 2h contributions to $P_2$, the
measured semi-inclusive $A(e,e'pN)$ cross sections can be linked to
the $P_2(P_{12} \mid nl=00)$ which involves a summation over the 2h
states. From Fig.~\ref{fig:dens_com_v2} it can be appreciated that in
high-resolution $A(e,e'pN)$ measurements the c.m. distribution depends
on the two-hole structure of the discrete final A-2 state
\cite{Ryckebusch:2003tu,Barbieri:2004xn}.
The $A(e,e'p)$ reaction allows one to access the
$P_{1}(\vec{k}_m,E_m)$ modulo corrections from FSIs. It is worth
stressing that there is no simple analogy for the $A(e,e'pN)$ reaction
and that a direct connection with the two-body spectral function
$P_{2}(\vec{P}_{12}, \vec{k}_{12},E_{2m})$ is by no means evident, if
not impossible.
\section{Monte Carlo simulations} \label{sec:mc}
In this section, we investigate the implications of the proposed
factorization of Eq.~(\ref{eq:eeNNfactorized}) for the $A(e,e'pp)$
opening-angle and c.m. distributions accessible in typical measurements.
We present Monte Carlo simulations for $A(e,e'pp)$ building on the
expression (\ref{eq:eeNNfactorized}) suggesting that the magnitude of
the cross section is proportional to $P_2(P_{12}|nl=00)$. In
this section the effects of FSIs are neglected. Its impact will be the
subject of Sect.~\ref{sec:FSI}.
The data-mining effort at CLAS in Jlab
\cite{DataMining2013,Hen:2012jn} is analyzing exclusive $(e,e'pN)$ for
$^{12}$C, $^{27}$Al, $^{56}$Fe, and $^{208}$Pb for a 5.014~GeV
unpolarized electron beam \cite{DataMining2013}. In order to
guarantee the exclusive character of the events, cuts are applied to
the leading proton: $0.62 < \frac{|\vec{p}_1|}{|\vec{q}|} < 0.96$,
$\theta_{\vec{p}_1,\vec{q}} < \unit{25}{\degree}$ and $k_{1} >
\unit{300}{\mega\electronvolt}$. To increase the sensitivity to
SRC-driven processes one imposes the kinematic constraints $x_B =
\frac{Q^{2}}{2M_N \omega} > 1.2$ and $Q^2 > 1.4$~GeV$^2$. We have
performed $(e,e'pp)$ simulations for all 4 target nuclei. The
electron kinematics are drawn from the measured $x_B-Q^2$
distributions. We then generate two protons from the phase space by
adoping a reaction picture of the type (\ref{eq:eepNreaction}) whereby
we assume that one nucleon absorbs the virtual photon. This results
in a fast leading proton $p_1(E_1,\vec{p}_1=\vec{k}_1+\vec{q})$ and a
recoil proton $p_2(E_2, \vec{p}_2 = \vec{k}_2)$, where $\vec{k}_1$ and
$\vec{k}_2$ are the initial proton momenta. The initial c.m. momentum
$\vec{P}_{12}=\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2$ is drawn from the computed HO pp
pair c.m. momentum distribution $P_2(P_{12}|nl=00)$ of
Table~\ref{tab:moments}. We choose $\vec{k}_1$ along the $z$-axis and
$\vec{q}$ in the $xz$ plane. The recoil $A-2$ nucleus can have
excitation energies between $0$ and $80$~MeV. All $A(e,e^\prime pp)$
results of this section are obtained for $10^{5}$ events which comply
with the kinematic cuts.
First, we investigate in how far the factorization function can be
addressed after applying kinematic cuts. This can be done by comparing
the input and extracted pp c.m.~distributions.
Fig.~\ref{fig:MCshiftex} shows the extracted c.m. distribution from
the simulated $^{12}$C$(e,e'pp)$ events. The kinematic cuts have a
narrowing effect (less than 10~\%) on the distributions along the $x$-
and $y$-axis. In addition, one observes a shift of roughly $100$~MeV
and an increase in the non-Gaussianity of the c.m.~distribution along
the $z$-axis. Similar observations have been made for the other three
target nuclei.
We now address the issue whether the extracted c.m. distributions can
provide information about the relative quantum numbers of the
pairs. To this end, we have performed simulations starting from the
assumption that the $(e,e'pp)$ cross section factorizes with $P_2 ( P_{12}
| nl)$ for various $nl$ combinations. The results of the simulations
are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:simwidths}. The narrowing effect
attributed to the kinematic cuts is less significant for $l>0$ pairs.
Photon absorption on $l=0$ and $l=1$ pairs leads to differences in the
extracted widths of the c.m. momentum distributions of the order of
20~MeV, which leads us to conclude that high-accuracy $A(e,e'pp)$
experiments could indeed provide information about the relative
orbital angular momentum of the correlated pairs.
Fig.~\ref{fig:gamma_all} shows the simulated opening-angle ($\gamma$)
distributions of the initial-state protons for all four target nuclei
considered. The A$(e,e'pp)$ simulations starting from the computed
$P_2 ( P_{12} | nl=00)$ and $P_2 ( P_{12})$ provide very similar
backwardly peaked $\cos \gamma$ distributions. The peak is not due to
the kinematic cuts as a uniform c.m. momentum distributions gives rise
to a flat $\cos \gamma$ distribution. The shape of the simulated
$\cos \gamma$ distributions is hardly target-mass dependent. The peak
at 180 degrees in the $\cos \gamma $ distributions conforms with the
picture of correlated nucleons moving back to back with high relative and
low c.m.~momentum.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{MCshift-C}
\caption{ (Color online) Total (bottom right) and directional pp
c.m. distributions extracted from the $^{12}$C$(e,e'pp)$
simulations in the CLAS kinematics described in the text. The blue
solid line is a fit with a skew normal distribution.}
\label{fig:MCshiftex}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline \hline
& $nl=00$ & $l=0$ & $l=1$ & $l=2$ & all $l$ \\
\hline
$\sigma_{x}^i(MeV)$ & $156$ & $154$ & $135$ & $121$ & $140$ \\
$\sigma_{x}^{f}(MeV)$ & $147$ & $145$ & $130$ & $118$ & $134$ \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ The width of the c.m. distribution along the $x$-axis for
pp pairs with different relative orbital momentum $l$.
$\sigma_x^i$ is the width used as input parameter in the
$^{12}$C$(e,e'pp)$ simulations. The $\sigma_x^f$ is the width
extracted after the simulation. }
\label{tab:simwidths}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plot_cosg}
\caption{(Color online) The opening angle distribution of the
simulated A$(e,e'pp)$ events in the kinematics described in the
text. The black solid, blue dashed and red dotted line is for a
reaction picture with an $(e,e'pp)$ cross section proportional to $ P_{2}
(P_{12}) $, to $ P_{2} (P_{12} | nl=00) $, and to a uniform pair
c.m. distribution.}
\label{fig:gamma_all}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{gamma_HALLA}
\caption{(Color online) The opening angle distribution of the
$^{12}$C$(e,e'pp)$ reaction in the kinematics of
Ref.~\cite{Shneor:2007tu}. Curve notations of
Fig.~\ref{fig:gamma_all} are used.}
\label{fig:gamma_HALLA}
\end{figure}
We now turn our attention to an $^{12}$C$(e,e'pp)$ measurement probing
a restricted part of phase space. The JLab Hall-A
$^{12}$C($e,e^\prime pp$) experiment of
Refs.~\cite{Shneor:2007tu,Subedi:2008zz}, used an incident electron beam of
$4.672$~GeV and three spectrometers. We consider the kinematic settings with
$\omega=0.865$~GeV, $Q^2= 2$~GeV$^2$, $x_B=1.2$
and a median missing momentum $p_m=0.55$~GeV.
Figure~\ref{fig:gamma_HALLA} shows the shapes of the simulated and
measured $\cos \gamma$ simulations. The proposed factorization for
the $A(e,e'pp)$ cross section accounts for the shape of the measured
$\cos \gamma$ distribution. We stress that the computed pair
c.m. distributions (Table~\ref{tab:moments}) are the sole input to the
simulations.
\section{FINAL STATE INTERACTIONS} \label{sec:FSI}
In this section the impact of FSIs on the proposed factorization
function of Eq.~(\ref{eq:eeNNfactorized}) is
investigated. In order to keep computing times reasonable we limit
ourselves to some particular kinematic cases and introduce an
additional approximation. We start from Eq.~(\ref{eq:FD}) for the
distorted momentum distribution $F^D_{n_1l_1,n_2l_2}(\vec{P}_{12})$
and apply the zero-range approximation
\cite{Ryckebusch:1996wc,Cosyn:2009bi} which amounts to setting
$\psi_{\alpha_1}(\vec{r}_1)\psi_{\alpha_2}(\vec{r}_2) \approx
\psi_{\alpha_1}(\vec{R}_{12})\psi_{\alpha_2}(\vec{R}_{12})$ in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixHOized}). Consequently, we can write
\begin{multline} \label{eq:FD_zero}
F^D_{n_1l_1,n_2l_2}(\vec{P}_{12}) = 4
\sum_{m_{l_1} m_{l_2}}
\Big|
\int d\vec{R}_{12}e^{-i\vec{P}_{12}\cdot\vec{R}_{12}} \\ \times
\mathcal{F}
^\dagger_ { \text {
FSI}}(\vec{R}_{12},\vec{R}_{12})
\psi_{n_1l_1m_{l_1}}(\vec{R}_{12})\psi_{n_2l_2m_{l_2}}(\vec{R}_{12})\Big|^2\,.
\end{multline}
It is possible to derive a relativized version of this expression
\cite{Cosyn:2009bi}
\begin{multline}\label{eq:FD_RMSGA}
F^D_{n_1 \kappa_1 , n_2 \kappa_2}(\vec{P}_{12}) = \\
\sum_{s_1,s_2,m_1,m_2} \left| \int d\vec{R}_{12} \, e^{i \vec{P}_{12}
\cdot \vec{R}_{12} } \bar{u}(\vec{k}_1,s_1) \psi_{n_1 \kappa_1
m_1}(\vec{R}_{12}) \right. \\ \left. \bar{u}(\vec{k}_2,s_2) \psi_{n_2 \kappa_2
m_2}(\vec{R}_{12}) \mathcal{F}_{\text{FSI}}(\vec{R}_{12},\vec{R}_{12})
\right|^{2} \, .
\end{multline}
Here, $u(\vec{k},s)$ are positive-energy Dirac spinors and
$\psi_{n\kappa m}$ are relativistic mean-field wave functions
\cite{Furnstahl:1996wv} with quantum numbers $(n, j=|\kappa|/2,
m)$. We neglect the projections on the lower components of the
plane-wave Dirac spinors. The FSIs of the ejected pair with the
remaining $A-2$ spectators, encoded in
$\mathcal{F}_{\text{FSI}}$, can be computed in a
relativistic multiple-scattering Glauber approximation (RMSGA)
\cite{Ryckebusch:2003fc,Cosyn:2013qe}. As the c.m. momentum is
conserved in interactions among the two ejected nucleons, we discard
those. This approximation does not affect the shape of $F^D_{n_1
\kappa_1 , n_2 \kappa_2}(\vec{P}_{12})$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{rho_xy_C_Pb.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) The two-body c.m. momentum distribution for
$^{12}\text{C}(e,e'pp)$ (top) and $^{208}\text{Pb}(e,e'pp)$ (bottom)
with (RMSGA) and without (no-FSI) inclusion of FSIs. We consider the
kinematics $ |\vec{q}| = 1.4~\text{GeV}, |\vec{p}_1| = 0.82
|\vec{q}|$ and $\theta_{\vec{p}_1,\vec{q}} = 10^{\circ}$. The FSI results
have been multiplied by a factor of $7$ for $^{12}\text{C}(e,e'pp)$
and by a factor of $30$ for $^{208}\text{Pb}(e,e'pp)$.}
\label{fig:FSI_proj}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cosg_all.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) The normalized opening angle distributions for
A$(e,e'pp)$ for $^{12}$C, $^{27}$Al, $^{56}$Fe and $^{208}$Pb in the
kinematics of Fig.~\ref{fig:FSI_proj}. }
\label{fig:opening_angles_fsi}
\end{figure}
We include FSIs for the JLab data mining kinematics considered
in Sec.~\ref{sec:mc}. We have computed the distorted c.m. momentum
distribution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:FD_RMSGA}) for the kinematics that yields
the most events in the simulations of Sec.~\ref{sec:mc}: $ |\vec{q}| =
1.4~\text{GeV}, |\vec{p}_1| = 0.82 |\vec{q}|,
\theta_{\vec{p}_1,\vec{q}} = 10^{\circ}$. As in Sec.~\ref{sec:mc},
$\vec{k}_1$ lies along the $z$-axis and the $\vec{q}$ is located in
the $xz$ plane. The results of the FSI calculations are summarized in
Figs.~\ref{fig:FSI_proj} and \ref{fig:opening_angles_fsi}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:FSI_proj} we compare the RMSGA c.m.~momentum
distributions $F^D(\vec{P}_{12,x}) = \sum_{n_1 \kappa_1, n_2 \kappa_2}
F^D_{n_1 \kappa_1, n_2 \kappa_2}(\vec{P}_{12,x})$ and
$F^D(\vec{P}_{12,y})$ with their respective plane-wave (no-FSI)
limit. First, the FSIs are responsible for a substantial reduction of
the cross sections: a factor of about 7 for carbon and about 30 in
lead. The effects of FSIs on the shape of $F^D(\vec{P}_{12})$,
however, are rather modest. Gaussian fits to the
$F^D(\vec{P}_{12,i=x,y})$ result in widths which are less than 10\%
smaller than in the plane-wave limit. The effects of FSIs on the shape
of the c.m. distributions in Fig.~\ref{fig:FSI_proj} can be
qualitatively understood considering that the nucleons undergoing FSIs
are slowed down on average: $( \vec{p}_1,\vec{p}_2 )
\xrightarrow{\text{FSI}} \zeta \left( \vec{p}_1, \vec{p}_2 \right)$
with $0 < \zeta \le 1 $. It is straightforward to show that for the
adopted conventions this results in $P_{12,x} \rightarrow \zeta
P_{12,x} - (1- \zeta )p_{1,x} $, and $P_{12,y} \rightarrow \zeta
P_{12,y}$. This explains the observed contraction and shift to the
right in the $P_{12,x}$ distribution, and the contraction of the
$P_{12,y}$ distributions.
The effect of FSIs on the shape of the normalized opening angle
distributions is studied in Fig.~\ref{fig:opening_angles_fsi} for four
target nuclei. It is clear that they become even more forwardly
peaked after including FSIs.
\section{Summary} \label{sec:concl}
Summarizing, we have shown that in the plane-wave limit the
factorization function for the exclusive SRC-driven $A(e,e'pN)$
reaction is the conditional c.m.~distribution $P_2(P_{12}|nl=00)$ for
pN pairs in a nodeless relative state with a vanishing orbital
momentum. We have illustrated that in a two-body cluster expansion the
correlated part of the momentum distribution originates mainly from
correlation operators acting on IPM pairs with $(nl=00)$ quantum
numbers, supporting the assumptions underlying the proposed
factorization of the $A(e,e'pN)$ reaction. Numerical
calculations indicate that the $P_2(P_{12}|nl=00)$ has a wider
distribution than the unconditional $P_2(P_{12})$ one. An important
implication of the proposed factorization is that the mass dependence
of the $A(e,e'pp)$ and $A(e,e'pn)$ cross section is predicted to be
much softer than $\frac {Z(Z-1)}{2}$ and $NZ$ respectively.
We have examined the robustness of the proposed factorization of
the two-nucleon knockout cross sections against kinematic cuts and
FSIs. Both mechanisms modestly affect the shape of the
c.m.~distributions which leads us to conclude that they can be
accessed in $A(e,e'pN)$ measurements. The FSIs bring about a
mass-dependent reduction of the cross sections which is of the order
of 10 for carbon and 30 for lead.
\subsection*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
The authors wish to thank Or Hen, Eli Piasetzky, and Larry Weinstein
for stimulating discussions and suggestions. This work is supported
by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO-Flanders) and by the
Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme P7/12 initiated by the
Belgian Science Policy Office. The computational resources (Stevin
Supercomputer Infrastructure) and services used in this work were
provided by Ghent University, the Hercules Foundation and the Flemish
Government.
|
\section{Equations of the Ree Curve}\label{app:1}
In this appendix we list the complete list of 105 equations that define the Ree cuve. These equations will be used in Sections \ref{sec1:4}, \ref{sec1:5}.
\begin{description}
\item[Set 1 and Set 2] 35 equations of degree $q_0+1$ of the form $aA^{q_0}+bB^{q_0}+cC^{q_0}=0$, where $A,B,C \in \{1,x,w_1,w_2,w_3,w_6,w_8 \}$ and $a,b,c \in \{1,x,\dots,w_{10}\}$ and 35 equations of degree $3q_0+1$ of the form $a^{3q_0}A+b^{3q_0}B+c^{3q_0}C=0$, where $a,b,c,A,B,C$ are the same functions in Set 1. Note that $v:=w_7-w_2$.
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq1}
x^{q_0}w_{4} + 2y_{1}w_{2}^{q_0} + y_{2}w_{1}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq1'}
xw_{4}^{3q_0} + 2y_{1}^{3q_0}w_{2} + y_{2}^{3q_0}w_{1}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq2}
2x^{q_0}y_{2} + w_{1} + w_{3}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq2'}
2xy_{2}^{3q_0} + w_{1}^{3q_0} + w_{3}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq3}
2w_{2}^{q_0}w_{6} + 2w_{3}^{q_0}w_{10} + 2w_{5}w_{8}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq3'}
2w_{2}w_{6}^{3q_0} + 2w_{3}w_{10}^{3q_0} + 2w_{5}^{3q_0}w_{8}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq4}
x^{q_0}y_{1} + 2y_{2} + 2w_{2}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq4'}
xy_{1}^{3q_0} + 2y_{2}^{3q_0} + 2w_{2}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq5}
w_{1}^{q_0}w_{10} + w_{2}^{q_0}w_{9} + 2w_{4}w_{8}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq5'}
w_{1}w_{10}^{3q_0} + w_{2}w_{9}^{3q_0} + 2w_{4}^{3q_0}w_{8}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq6}
2xw_{6}^{q_0} + w_{1}^{q_0}w_{4} + w_{3}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq6'}
2x^{3q_0}w_{6} + w_{1}w_{4}^{3q_0} + w_{3}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq7}
2y_{2}w_{6}^{q_0} + w_{3}^{q_0}w_{4} + w_{10}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq7'}
2y_{2}^{3q_0}w_{6} + w_{3}w_{4}^{3q_0} + w_{10}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq8}
x^{q_0+1} + 2y_{1} + 2w_{1}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq8'}
x^{3q_0+} + 2y_{1}^{3q_0} + 2w_{1}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq9}
x^{q_0}w_{10} + y_{2}w_{8}^{q_0} + w_{2}^{q_0}w_{5}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq9'}
xw_{10}^{3q_0} + y_{2}^{3q_0}w_{8} + w_{2}w_{5}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq10}
2w_{1}^{q_0}w_{8} + 2w_{3}w_{8}^{q_0} + w_{6}^{q_0}w_{9}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq10'}
2w_{1}w_{8}^{3q_0} + 2w_{3}^{3q_0}w_{8} + w_{6}w_{9}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq11}
y_{2}w_{8}^{q_0} + 2w_{3}^{q_0}w_7 + 2w_{6}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq11'}
y_{2}^{3q_0}w_{8} + 2w_{3}w_7^{3q_0} + 2w_{6}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq12}
2x^{q_0}v + y_{1}w_{3}^{q_0} + 2w_{1}^{q_0}w_{1}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq12'}
2xv^{3q_0} + y_{1}^{3q_0}w_{3} + 2w_{1}w_{1}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq13}
w_{1}^{q_0}w_{6} + 2w_{3}^{q_0}w_{9} + v w_{8}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq13'}
w_{1}w_{6}^{3q_0} + 2w_{3}w_{9}^{3q_0} + v^{3q_0}w_{8}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq14}
2w_{3}^{q_0}w_{8} + w_{6}^{q_0} w_{6} + 2w_{8}^{q_0}w_{10}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq14'}
2w_{3}w_{8}^{3q_0} + w_{6}w_{6}^{3q_0} + 2w_{8}w_{10}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq15}
2w_{4}w_{8}^{q_0} + w_{6}^{q_0}w_7 + w_{8}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq15'}
2w_{4}^{3q_0}w_{8} + w_{6}w_7^{3q_0} + w_{8}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq16}
2w_{2}^{q_0}w_{8} + 2w_{6}^{q_0}w_{10} + w_{8}^{q_0}w_{9}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq16'}
2w_{2}w_{8}^{3q_0} + 2w_{6}w_{10}^{3q_0} + w_{8}w_{9}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq17}
xw_{3}^{q_0} + 2y_{2}w_{1}^{q_0} + 2v= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq17'}
x^{3q_0}w_{3} + 2y_{2}^{3q_0}w_{1} + 2v^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq18}
2y_{1}w_{8}^{q_0} + w_{2}^{q_0}w_7 + 2w_{10}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq18'}
2y_{1}^{3q_0}w_{8} + w_{2}w_7^{3q_0} + 2w_{10}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq19}
2xw_{8}^{q_0} + w_{1}^{q_0}w_7 + w_{9}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq19'}
2x^{3q_0}w_{8} + w_{1}w_7^{3q_0} + w_{9}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq20}
x^{q_0}w_{5} + 2y_{2}w_{3}^{q_0} + w_{1}w_{2}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq20'}
xw_{5}^{3q_0} + 2y_{2}^{3q_0}w_{3} + w_{1}^{3q_0}w_{2}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq21}
2x^{q_0}w_{9} + y_{1}w_{8}^{q_0} + w_{1}^{q_0}w_{5}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq21'}
2xw_{9}^{3q_0} + y_{1}^{3q_0}w_{8} + w_{1}w_{5}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq22}
2x^{q_0}w_7 + 2w_{5} + w_{8}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq22'}
2x w_7^{3q_0} + 2w_{5}^{3q_0} + w_{8}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq23}
x^{q_0}w_{6} + 2w_{1}w_{8}^{q_0} + 2w_{3}^{q_0}w_{5}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq23'}
xw_{6}^{3q_0} + 2w_{1}^{3q_0}w_{8} + 2w_{3}w_{5}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq24}
2y_{1}w_{6}^{q_0} + w_{2}^{q_0}w_{4} + 2w_{9}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq24'}
2y_{1}^{3q_0}w_{6} + w_{2}w_{4}^{3q_0} + 2w_{9}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq25}
w_{1}^{q_0}w_{9} + w_{2}^{q_0}w_{3} + 2w_{4}w_{6}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq25'}
w_{1}w_{9}^{3q_0} + w_{2}w_{3}^{3q_0} + 2w_{4}^{3q_0}w_{6}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq26}
2w_{1}^{q_0}w_{5} + w_{2}^{q_0}v + 2w_{3}^{q_0}w_{4}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq26'}
2w_{1}w_{5}^{3q_0} + w_{2}v^{3q_0} + 2w_{3}w_{4}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq27}
w_{1}^{q_0}w_{10} + 2w_{3}^{q_0} w_{3} + vw_{6}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq27'}
w_{1}w_{10}^{3q_0} + 2w_{3}w_{3}^{3q_0}+ v^{3q_0}w_{6}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq28}
w_{2}^{q_0}w_{10} + w_{3}^{q_0}w_{9} + w_{5}w_{6}^{q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq28'}
w_{2}w_{10}^{3q_0} + w_{3}w_{9}^{3q_0} + w_{5}^{3q_0}w_{6}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq29}
2y_{1}w_{3}^{q_0} + y_{2}w_{2}^{q_0} + w_{5}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq29'}
2y_{1}^{3q_0}w_{3} + y_{2}^{3q_0}w_{2} + w_{5}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq30}
xw_{2}^{q_0} + 2y_{1}w_{1}^{q_0} + 2w_{4}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq30'}
x^{3q_0}w_{2} + 2y_{1}^{3q_0}w_{1} + 2w_{4}^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq31}
x^{q_0}w_{9} + y_{2}w_{6}^{q_0} + w_{2}^{q_0}(w_{2}+w_7)= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq31'}
xw_{9}^{3q_0} + y_{2}^{3q_0}w_{6} + w_{2}(w_{2}w_7)^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq32}
x^{q_0}w_{8} + 2w_{5}w_{6}^{q_0} + w_{8}^{q_0}(w_{2}+w_7)= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq32'}
xw_{8}^{3q_0} + 2w_{5}^{3q_0}w_{6} + w_{8}(w_{2}+w_7)^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq33}
2x^{q_0}w_{3} + y_{1}w_{6}^{q_0} + w_{1}^{q_0}(w_{2}+w_7)= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq33'}
2xw_{3}^{3q_0} + y_{1}^{3q_0}w_{6} + w_{1}(w_{2}+w_7)^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq34}
2x^{q_0}w_{10} + w_{1}w_{6}^{q_0} + w_{3}^{q_0}(w_{2}+w_7)= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq34'}
2xw_{10}^{3q_0} + w_{1}^{3q_0}w_{6} + w_{3}(w_{2}+w_7)^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq35}
x^{q_0}w_{4} + 2w_{6}^{q_0} + (w_{2}+w_7)= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.55\linewidth}
\begin{equation}\label{app:eq35'}
xw_{4}^{3q_0} + 2w_{6} + (w_{2}+w_7)^{3q_0}= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\item[Set 3] The equation
\begin{equation}\label{app:eqset3}
-w_2^2+w_8+xw_6+w_1w_3=0.
\end{equation}
\item[Set 4] 34 quadratic equations of the form $f_{R_{ab}}f_{R_{cd}}+f_{R_{ad}}f_{R_{bc}}+f_{R_{ac}}f_{R_{db}}=0$, where $f_{R_{ab}}$ is the function such that $f_{R_{ab}}^{3q_0} \sim R_{ab}$ in the Table \ref{table:R}
\begin{align}
&2y_{1}w_{8} + w_{2}w_{9} + 2w_{4}w_{10} + vw_{9}= 0.\label{app:Q1} \\
&w_{5}w_{8} + w_{6}w_{9} + 2w_{10}^2= 0.\label{app:Q2} \\
&2y_{1}w_{1} + y_{2}^2 + 2w_{5}= 0.\label{app:Q3} \\
&2xw_{8} + 2w_{2}w_{3} + 2w_{3}v + w_{4}w_{9}= 0.\label{app:Q4} \\
&w_{3}w_{5} + w_{4}w_{10} + vw_{9}= 0.\label{app:Q5} \\
&2xy_{2} + y_{1}^2 + 2w_{4}= 0.\label{app:Q6} \\
&xw_{10} + y_{1}w_{9} + 2w_{2}w_{4} + 2w_{4}v= 0.\label{app:Q7} \\
&2xw_{5} + y_{1}v + 2y_{2}w_{4}= 0.\label{app:Q8} \\
&2w_{1}w_{8} + w_{2}w_{6} + 2vw_{6} + w_{5}w_{10}= 0.\label{app:Q9} \\
&2w_{3}w_{6} + vw_{8} + w_{9}w_{10}= 0.\label{app:Q10} \\
&2xw_{6} + y_{2}w_{9} + 2w_{2}v + 2v^2= 0.\label{app:Q11} \\
&2xw_{1} + y_{1}y_{2} + 2v= 0.\label{app:Q12}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&2y_{2}w_{10} + 2w_{1}w_{9} + 2w_{2}w_{5} + vw_{5}= 0.\label{app:Q13} \\
& 2xw_{2} + xv + y_{1}w_{4} + 2w_{3}= 0.\label{app:Q14}\\
& 2y_{1}w_{8} + w_{2}w_{9} + w_{3}w_{5} + 2vw_{9}= 0.\label{app:Q15} \\
&y_{2}w_{5} + w_{1}w_{2} + w_{1}v + 2w_{6}= 0.\label{app:Q16} \\
&2y_{1}w_{6} + 2y_{2}w_{10} + 2w_{2}w_{5} + 2vw_{5}= 0.\label{app:Q18} \\
&2y_{1}w_{10} + w_{1}w_{3} + 2w_{2}v + v^2= 0.\label{app:Q19} \\
&2y_{2}w_{2} + y_{2}v + w_{1}w_{4} + 2w_{10}= 0.\label{app:Q20} \\
&y_{1}w_{5} + y_{2}w_{2} + y_{2}v + w_{10}= 0.\label{app:Q21} \\
&2y_{2}w_{8} + 2w_{2}w_{10} + vw_{10} + 2w_{5}w_{9}= 0.\label{app:Q22} \\
&2y_{2}w_{6} + 2w_{1}w_{10} + w_{5}^2= 0.\label{app:Q23} \\
&w_{2}^2 + w_{4}w_{5} + 2v^2 + 2w_{8}= 0.\label{app:Q24} \\
&2xw_{10} + y_{2}w_{3} + 2w_{4}v= 0.\label{app:Q25} \\
&2y_{1}w_{10} + 2y_{2}w_{9} + 2w_{4}w_{5}= 0.\label{app:Q26} \\
&2y_{1}w_{6} + w_{1}w_{9} + vw_{5}= 0.\label{app:Q27} \\
&y_{1}w_{9} + y_{2}w_{3} + 2w_{2}w_{4} + w_{4}v= 0.\label{app:Q28} \\
&2y_{1}w_{2} + y_{1}v + y_{2}w_{4} + w_{9}= 0.\label{app:Q29} \\
&xw_{5} + y_{1}w_{2} + y_{1}v + 2w_{9}= 0.\label{app:Q30} \\
&w_{3}w_{10} + w_{4}w_{8} + 2w_{9}^2= 0.\label{app:Q31} \\
&w_{4}w_{6} + vw_{10} + w_{5}w_{9}= 0.\label{app:Q32} \\
&2y_{1}w_{5} + y_{2}v + 2w_{1}w_{4}= 0.\label{app:Q33} \\
&2y_{2}w_{8} + 2w_{2}w_{10} + w_{4}w_{6} + 2vw_{10}= 0.\label{app:Q34} \\
&xw_{9} + y_{1}w_{3} + 2w_{4}^2=0.\label{app:Q35}
\end{align}
\end{description}
\section{The Action of the Group $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ on $\mathcal{D}'$ }\label{app:2}
In this appendix we complete Lemma \ref{lemma:7.1}. We list how the group $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ acts on the set $\{w_1,\dots,w_{10}\}$. Let $\phi:=\phi_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta} \in G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$.
\begin{align*}
\psi(w_{1}):&=\alpha^{3q_0+1}w_{1}+\alpha \beta^{3q_0}x+\left (\beta^{3q_0+1}-\gamma^{3q_0} \right).\\
\psi(w_{2}):&=\alpha^{3q_0+2}w_{2}+\alpha^{3q_0+1}\beta w_{1}+\alpha \gamma^{3q_0}x\\
&\quad \left (\beta \gamma^{3q_0}-\delta^{3q_0}\right ).\\
\psi(w_{3}):&=\alpha^{3q_0+3}w_{3}-\alpha^{3q_0+2}\beta w_{2}+\alpha^{3q_0+1}\beta^2w_{1}+a\delta^{3q_0}x\\
&\quad \left (\beta\delta^{3*q_0}-\beta^{3q_0+3}+\gamma^3\right ).\\
\psi(w_{4}):&=\alpha^{2q_0+2}w_{4}-\alpha^{2q_0+1}\beta y_2+\left ( \alpha^{q_0+1}\beta^{q_0+1}-\alpha^{q_0+1}\gamma \right ) y_1\\
&\quad \left( -\alpha \delta -\alpha \beta^{2q_0+1}-\alpha \beta^{q_0}\gamma \right ) x+\left ( \gamma^2-\beta \delta\right ).
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\psi(w_{5})&=\alpha^{4q_0+2}w_{5}+\alpha^{3q_0+2}\beta^{q_0}v+\alpha^{2q_0+2}\beta^{2q_0}w_{4}-\alpha^{3q_0+1}\gamma w_{1}\\
&\quad -\alpha^{2q_0+1}\delta y_{2}+\left( \alpha^{q_0+1}\beta^{q_0}\delta-\alpha^{q_0+1}\beta^{3q_0+1}+\alpha^{q_0+1}\gamma^{3q_0} \right( y_{1}\\
&\quad \left ( -\alpha \beta^{2q_0}\delta -\alpha \beta^{4q_0+1}+\alpha \beta^{q_0}\gamma^{3q_0} -\alpha \beta^{3q_0}\gamma \right ) x\\
&\quad \left(+\delta^2-\beta^{3q_0+1}\gamma+\gamma^{3q_0+1} \right ).\\
\psi(v) &= \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} v - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \beta w_{1} - \alpha^{2 q_{0}+2} \beta^{1 q_{0} } w_{4} + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+1} \gamma y_{2}\\
&\quad - \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{1 q_{0} } \gamma y_{1} + \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \delta y_{1} - 2 \alpha \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} x + \alpha \beta^{2 q_{0} } \gamma x\\
&\quad + \alpha \beta^{1 q_{0} } \delta x + \alpha \gamma^{3 q_{0} } x - \beta^{3 q_{0}+2} + \beta \gamma^{3 q_{0} } + \gamma \delta.\\
\psi(w_6)&= \alpha^{6 q_{0}+3} w_{6} - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+3} \beta^{3 q_{0} } w_{3} + \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} w_{2} - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \gamma^{3 q_{0} } w_{2} - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \beta^{3 q_{0}+2} w_{1}\\
&\quad + 2 \alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \beta \gamma^{3 q_{0} } w_{1} - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \delta^{3 q_{0} } w_{1} - \alpha \beta^{3 q_{0} } \delta^{3 q_{0} } x - 2 \alpha \gamma^{6 q_{0} } x - \beta^{6 q_{0}+3}\\
&\quad - \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} \delta^{3 q_{0} } - 2 \beta \gamma^{6 q_{0} } + \gamma^{3 q_{0} } \delta^{3 q_{0} } + \delta^3.\\
\psi(w_7)&=\psi(w_2)+\psi(v).\\
\psi(w_8)&= \alpha^{6 q_{0}+4} w_{8} -\alpha^{6 q_{0}+3} \beta w_{6} +\alpha^{3 q_{0}+3} \gamma^{3 q_{0} } w_{3}+ 2 \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \beta \gamma^{3 q_{0} } w_{2} - 2 \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \delta^{3 q_{0} } w_{2}\\
&\quad+\alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \beta^{3 q_{0}+3} w_{1} + \alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \beta^2 \gamma^{3 q_{0} } w_{1} - 2 \alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \beta \delta^{3 q_{0} } w_{1} -\alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \gamma^3 w_{1} + 5 \alpha \beta^{6 q_{0}+3} x \\
&\quad- \alpha \beta^{3 q_{0} } \gamma^3 x - 2 \alpha \gamma^{3 q_{0} } \delta^{3 q_{0} } x - \alpha \delta^3 x + 2 \beta^{6 q_{0}+4} - 4 \beta^{3 q_{0}+3} \gamma^{3 q_{0} } - \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} \gamma^3 + 3 \beta^2 \gamma^{6 q_{0} }\\
&\quad - 2 \beta \gamma^{3 q_{0} } \delta^{3 q_{0} } - \beta \delta^3 + \gamma^{3 q_{0}+3} + \delta^{6 q_{0} }.\\
\psi(w_9)&=\alpha^{4 q_{0}+3} w_{9} + \alpha^{4 q_{0}+2} \beta w_{5} - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+3} \beta^{1 q_{0} } w_{3} + \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \beta^{1 q_{0}+1} v + \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \gamma w_{2}\\
&\quad - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \gamma v - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \beta \gamma w_{1} + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+2} \beta^{2 q_{0}+1} w_{4} + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+2} \beta^{1 q_{0} } \gamma w_{4} + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+2} \delta w_{4}\\
&\quad - \alpha^{2 q_{0}+1} \beta \delta y_{2} + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+1} \gamma^2 y_{2} - 2 \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{3 q_{0}+2} y_{1} + \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{1 q_{0}+1} \delta y_{1} - \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{1 q_{0} } \gamma^2 y_{1}\\
&\quad + 3 \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta \gamma^{3 q_{0} } y_{1} + 2 \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \gamma \delta y_{1} - \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \delta^{3 q_{0} } y_{1} - 2 \alpha \beta^{4 q_{0}+2} x - 4 \alpha \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} \gamma x\\
&\quad - \alpha \beta^{2 q_{0}+1} \delta x + \alpha \beta^{2 q_{0} } \gamma^2 x + 3 \alpha \beta^{1 q_{0}+1} \gamma^{3 q_{0} } x +
2 \alpha \beta^{1 q_{0} } \gamma \delta x - \alpha \beta^{1 q_{0} } \delta^{3 q_{0} } x\\
&\quad + 3 \alpha \gamma^{3 q_{0}+1} x + \alpha \delta^2 x - 2 \beta^{3 q_{0}+2} \gamma + 3 \beta \gamma^{3 q_{0}+1}
+ \beta \delta^2 + \gamma^2 \delta - \gamma \delta^{3 q_{0} }.\\
\psi(w_{10})&=\alpha^{5 q_{0}+3} w_{10} + \alpha^{4 q_{0}+3} \beta^{1 q_{0} } w_{9} + \alpha^{4 q_{0}+2} \gamma w_{5} + \alpha^{3 q_{0}+3} \beta^{2 q_{0} } w_{3} + \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \beta^{1 q_{0} } \gamma v\\
&\quad - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \delta w_{2} - \alpha^{3 q_{0}+2} \delta v + \alpha^{3 q_{0}+1} \gamma^2 w_{1} +
\alpha^{2 q_{0}+2} \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} w_{4} + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+2} \beta^{2 q_{0} } \gamma w_{4}\\
&\quad + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+2} \beta^{1 q_{0} } \delta w_{4} - \alpha^{2 q_{0}+2} \gamma^{3 q_{0} } w_{4} + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+1} \beta^{3 q_{0}+2} y_{2} - 2 \alpha^{2 q_{0}+1} \beta \gamma^{3 q_{0} } y_{2} - \alpha^{2 q_{0}+1} \gamma \delta y_{2}\\
&\quad + \alpha^{2 q_{0}+1} \delta^{3 q_{0} } y_{2} - \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{4 q_{0}+2} y_{1} + 2 \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} \gamma y_{1} + 2 \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{1 q_{0}+1} \gamma^{3 q_{0} } y_{1} + \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{1 q_{0} } \gamma \delta y_{1}\\
&\quad - \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \beta^{1 q_{0} } \delta^{3 q_{0} } y_{1} - 2 \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \gamma^{3 q_{0}+1} y_{1} - 2 \alpha^{1 q_{0}+1} \delta^2 y_{1} + \alpha \beta^{5 q_{0}+2} x + 2 \alpha \beta^{4 q_{0}+1} \gamma x\\
&\quad + 2 \alpha \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} \delta x +\alpha \beta^{3 q_{0} } \gamma^2 x - 2 \alpha \beta^{2 q_{0}+1} \gamma^{3 q_{0} } x - \alpha \beta^{2 q_{0} } \gamma \delta x + \alpha \beta^{2 q_{0} } \delta^{3 q_{0} } x\\
&\quad - 2 \alpha \beta^{1 q_{0} } \gamma^{3 q_{0}+1} x - 2 \alpha \beta^{1 q_{0} } \delta^2 x - 2 \alpha \gamma^{3 q_{0} } \delta x + \beta^{3 q_{0}+2} \delta + \beta^{3 q_{0}+1} \gamma^2\\
&\quad - 2 \beta \gamma^{3 q_{0} } \delta - \gamma^{3 q_{0}+2} - 2 \gamma \delta^2 + \delta^{3 q_{0}+1}.
\end{align*}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec1:2}
\subsection{The groups $^{2}A_{2},^{2}B_{2},^{2}G_{2}$}\label{sect2.1}
In this section we will recall the construction of the twisted groups $^{2}A_{2}$, $^{2}B_{2}$, $^{2}G_{2}$. We begin our discussion with a historical background about the groups $A_2$, $B_2$, and $G_2$. Recall that these groups are the Lie groups associated to the Lie algebras of dimension 2 with the Dynkin diagrams and root systems as in Figures \ref{fig1:Dynkin} and \ref{table1:RootSystem}.
In particular, the group $A_2(q)$ is the projective linear group $\text{PGL}(3,q)$ and the twisted group $^{2}A_{2}(q)$ is the projective unitary group $\text{PGU}(3,q)$.
The group $B_2(q)$, for $q=2^{2m+1}$, is the symplectic group $\text{PSp}_4(q)$. The group acts on a $3$-dimensional projective space $E$ and consists of those linear transformations that leave invariant a quadratic form $x_0 y_3 + x_1 y_2 + x_2 y_1 + x_3 y_0$. The choice of form is irrelevant but with hindsight on the consequences for the coordinates of the Suzuki curve we choose this form. Two mutually orthogonal vectors $(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)$ and $(y_0,y_1,y_2,y_3)$ span an isotropic line in the symplectic geometry. The symplectic group acts on the set $L$ of isotropic lines in $E$. A line in $E$ has Pl\"ucker coordinates $p_{ij} = x_i y_j + x_j y_i$ and the isotropic lines are precisely the lines with $p_{0,3} = p_{1,2}$.
The Suzuki groups $^{2}B_{2}(q)=\text{Suz}(q)$ were originally defined as twisted Chevalley groups \cite{SuzNew}, \cite{CheNew}. Ree \cite{ReeNew} defines the group as the set of fixed points of the symplectic group under an involution. In the description of the group by Tits \cite{Tits} the involution arises through a polarity on the geometry of isotropic lines. We describe in some detail this polarity as it will explain the symmetry in the equations for the Suzuki curve.
A line with Pl\"ucker coordinates $p_{i,j}$ is incident with the point $(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)$ in $E$ if and only if
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inc}
\left [\begin {array}{cccc}
p_{21}&p_{02}&p_{10}&0 \\
p_{13}&p_{30}&0&p_{01}\\
p_{32}&0&p_{03}&p_{20} \\
0&p_{23}&p_{31}&p_{12}
\end {array}
\right ]
\left [\begin {array}{c}
x_0 \\
x_1 \\
x_2 \\
x_3
\end {array}
\right ]
= 0
\end{equation}
Let
\[
X = \left [\begin {array}{cc}
x_0 &x_2 \\ x_1 &x_3
\end {array}
\right ], \qquad
P = \left [\begin {array}{cc}
p_{23} &p_{02} \\ p_{13} &p_{01}
\end {array}
\right ]
\]
and let $\det X = d_X^2$ and $\det P = d_P^2$. For an isotropic line with $p_{03}=p_{12}=d_P$ we write (\ref{eq:inc}) as
\[
\left [\begin {array}{cc}
d_P &0 \\ 0 &d_P
\end {array}
\right ] X = \left [\begin {array}{cc}
0 &p_{02} \\ p_{13} &0
\end {array}
\right ] X +
X
\left [\begin {array}{cc}
0 &p_{23} \\ p_{01} &0
\end {array}
\right ].
\]
After multiplication on the left or on the right with $\text{adj}(X)$ and a comparison of the off-diagonal entries we obtain
\[
\left [\begin {array}{cc}
d_X^2 &0 \\ 0 & d_X^2
\end {array}
\right ] P = \left [\begin {array}{cc}
0 &x_2^2 \\ x_1^2 &0
\end {array}
\right ] P +
P
\left [\begin {array}{cc}
0 &x_0^2 \\ x_3^2 &0
\end {array}
\right ]
\]
We can now formulate a duality for the symplectic geometry $(E,L)$ of projective $3$-space $E$ and its set of isotropic lines $L$.
Let $(F,M)$ denote another copy of the same geometry. For matrices $X$ and $P$, let $X \in E$ be a point and $(P,d_P) \in L$ be an isotropic line, and let
$P \in F$ be a point and $(X^{(2)},d_X^2) \in M$ be an isotropic line. Then
\[
\text{$X$ is incident with $(P,d_P)$ if and only if $P$ is incident with $(X^{(2)},d_X^2)$.}
\]
Now we give an explicit description of the Suzuki group $^{2}B_{2}(q)=\text{Suz}(q)$ ($q:=2^{2m+1}$, $m \in \mathbb{N}$). Following Tits \cite{Tits}, let $E(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)$ be the 3-dimensional projective space with homogeneous coordinates $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$. Let $p_{ij}$ be the Pl\"ucker coordinates of lines in $E$ which clearly satisfy the relation $p_{01}p_{23}+p_{02}p_{13}+p_{03}p_{12}=0$. Consider the set $L$ of lines such that $p_{01}=p_{23}$. Let $V$ be the variety (hyperquadric) representing the set $L$ in the projective space $D(p_{01},p_{02},p_{03},p_{12},p_{31})$ which is given by the equation
\[
p_{01}^2+p_{02}p_{31}+p_{03}p_{12}=0
\]
The automorphism group that leaves $E$ and $L$ invariant is $G(E,L):= B_2(q)$.
The tangent hyperplanes of $V$ intersect in a point with coordinates $p_{02}=p_{03}=p_{12}=p_{31}=0$, which allow us to inject $V$ into the 3-dimensional space $F(y_0,y_1,y_2,y_3)$ by $y_0:=p_{02}$, $y_1:=p_{31}$, $y_2:=p_{03}$, $y_3:=p_{12}$. Let $q_{ij}$ be the Pl\"ucker coordinates of lines in $F$. Now a line in $L$ passing through a point $(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)$ in $E$ will be represented in $F$ through $V$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
q_{01}=q_{23}=x_0x_1+x_2x_3, \quad q_{02}=x_0^2,\quad q_{03}=x_2^2\\
q_{31}=x_1^2 \quad q_{12}=x_3^2,
\end{align*}
which forms a set of lines $M$ in $F$ with the equation $q_{01}=q_{23}$.
As a conclusion of the discussion above, we establish a duality between $(E,L)$ and $(F,M)$. This will give two maps $\delta:L \to F$ and a dual map $\delta':E \to M$ such that if a point $x \in E$ and a line $d \in L$, we have $x \in d$ and $\delta(d) \in \delta'(x)$ are equivalent.
On the level of groups, the duality above induces a group monomorphism $\delta^*:G(E,L) \to G(F,M)$ such that $\delta^*(g)(\delta'(d))=\delta'(g\cdot d)$, for $g \in G(E,L)$ and $d \in L$.
Next we introduce the polarity map which will give the definition of the twisted group $^{2}B_{2}$ and the set of $q^2+1$ $\mathbb{F}_q$-rational points. Next, let $\sigma$ be the automorphism group with $x^\sigma:=x^{2q_0}$ and consider the polarity map
\begin{align*}
f: E &\to F\\
(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})&\mapsto (y_0=x_{0}^\sigma,y_1=x_{1}^\sigma,y_2=x_{2}^\sigma,y_3=x_3^\sigma).
\end{align*}
Note that if $x,x' \in E$, then the relation "$f(x)$ belongs to $\delta'(x')$" is symmetric. Thus, the map $f$ appears like a polarity map. Let $\Gamma$ be the set of points in $x \in E$ such that $f(x) \in \delta'(x)$.
The map $f$ defines a group homormorphism $f^*:G(E,L) \to G(F,M)$ by $f^*(g)(f(x)):=f(g\cdot x)$, where $x\in E$, $g \in G(E,L)$. Define
\begin{align*}
G^*(f)&:=\{ g \in G(E,L) \,:\, f^*(g)=\delta^*(g) \},\\
G^* &:= \{ g \in G(E,L) \,:\, g\cdot x =x, \,\forall x \in \Gamma \},
\end{align*}
i.e., $G^*(f)$ is the group of all automorphisms that leave $f$ invariant which is a subgroup of $G^*$. As in \cite{Tits}, $G^*(f)=G^*$ and the Suzuki group $^{2}B_{2}(q)$ is defined to be $G^*$. We note that $G^*$ acts transitively on the set $\Gamma$ which is the set of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points of size $q^2+1$. Moreover, $G^{*}$ acts on $E$. Hence, it acts on 3-dimensional projective space.
We end the discussion of the Suzuki group by stating the defining equation of the set $\Gamma$. Let $x,z \in \mathbb{F}_q$, let $\gamma(x,z):=[1:x:z:w] \in \mathbb{P}^{3}$, where
\[
w:=xz + x^{\sigma+2}+z^{\sigma}
\]
Then, the set of all $\mathbb{F}_q$-rational points can be described as the set
\[
\Gamma:=\{ \gamma(x,z) \in \mathbb{P}^3 \,|\, x,z \in \mathbb{F}_q \} \cup \{[0:0:0:1] \}
\]
The Suzuki group is the group that leaves $\Gamma$ above invariant, i.e., $^{2}B_{2}(q) \subseteq \text{PGL}(4,\mathbb{F}_{q})$. Moreover, the Suzuki group $^{2}B_{2}(q)$ acts 2-transitively on the set $\Gamma$. Using the above, we note that the set $\Gamma$ is the set of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points that corresponds to the set of rational places of the function field $F':=\mathbb{F}_{q}(x,z)$ defined by
\begin{align}
z^q-z&=x^{2q_0} (x^q-x) \label{eq:w1x},
\end{align}
which has $q^2$ affine $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational places and one place at infinity. The full description of how the automorphism group $^{2}B_{2}$ acts can be found in \cite[Section 4.3]{Tits}.
Now we discuss the groups $G_2(q)$ and $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ as it appeared in Dickson \cite{Dickson} and Tits \cite{Tits} respectively. In \cite[Section 9]{Dickson}, Dickson originally described the group $G_2(q)$ as the group of linear homogeneous transformations on the seven variables $\xi_0,\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3,\mu_1,\mu_2,\mu_3$ over the field $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ which leaves the equation
\[
\xi_0^2 + \xi_1\mu_1 + \xi_2\mu_2 +\xi_3\mu_3
\]
and the system of equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq:*}
\begin{aligned}
X_1 + Y_{23}=0 , \quad &X_2+Y_{31}=0, \quad X_3 + Y_{12}=0, \\
Y_1+X_{23}=0, \quad &Y_2 + X_{31}=0, \quad Y_3+X_{12}=0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
invariant, wher
\begin{alignat}{2}
X_i:=&\left|\begin{array}{cc}\xi_0&\xi_i\\ \overline{\xi _0}& \overline{\xi _i} \end{array}\right|,
\,Y_i:=&&\left|\begin{array}{cc}\xi_0&\mu_i\\ \overline{\xi _0}& \overline{\mu _i} \end{array}\right|,\\
X_{ij}:=&\left|\begin{array}{cc}\xi_i&\xi_j\\ \overline{\xi_i}& \overline{\xi_j} \end{array}\right|,
\, Y_{ij}:=&&\left|\begin{array}{cc}\mu_i&\mu_j\\ \overline{\mu_i}& \overline{\mu_j} \end{array}\right|,
\, Z_{ij}:=\left|\begin{array}{cc}\xi_i&\mu_j\\ \overline{\xi_i}& \overline{\mu_j} \end{array}\right|,
\end{alignat}
and $\overline{\xi_i}, \overline{\mu_i}$ are the conjugate of $\xi_i,\mu_i$, i.e., $\overline{\xi_i}=\xi^q, \overline{\mu_i}=\mu_i^q$.
Since the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}(q)\subseteq G_2(q)$ is a subgroup, we expect that we can add more equations to obtain a subvariety with an action of $^{2}G_{2}(q)$.
Next we give an explicit construction of the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ ($q:=3q_0^2$, $q_0:=2^m$, $m \in \mathbb{N}$). Tits \cite{Tits} carried Dickson's idea further to the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ and showed that $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ acts on a seven dimensional space. Following the notations in \cite{Tits}, let $P(x_*,x_0,x_1,x_2,x_{0'},x_{1'},x_{2'})$ be the 6-dimensional projective space $P$ with homogeneous coordinates $x_*,\dots,x_{2'}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ (where all arithmetic on the indices is modulo 3). Let $E$ be the quadric defined by the equation $x_*^2+\sum_{i=0}^{2}x_ix_{i'}=0$ and let $L$ be the set of lines defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Tits6}
\left. \begin{aligned}
p_{*i}+p_{(i+1)'(i+2)'}=0,\\
p_{*i'}+p_{(i+1)(i+2)}=0,\\
\sum_{i=0}^{2}p_{ii'}=0,\\
\end{aligned}
\quad \right \}
\qquad \text{Similar to } \eqref{eq:*}
\end{equation}
where $p_{i,j}$ is the Pl\"ucker coordinate as before.
Therefore, the automorphism group that leaves $E$ and $L$ invariant is $G(E,L):=G_2(q)$. Now let $V$ be a 5-dimensional variety representing $L$ in the projective space $D(p_{*i},p_{*i'},p_{ij'}\, : \,\sum p_{ii}=0)$ of dimension 13 over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$. Define the 6-dimensional projective space $Q(y_{*},y_{i},y_{i'})$ by $y_{*}:=p_{00'}-p_{11'}$, $y_{i}:=p_{i+1,i'}$, and $y_{i'}:=p_{i(i+1)'}$. Then, $V$ will be mapped into the quadric $F: y_{*}^2+\sum_{i=0}^{2}y_iy_{i'}=0$ in $Q(y_{*},y_{i},y_{i'})$ (which might be singular, see \cite{Tits}).
Let $(x_{*},x_{i},x_{i'}) \in E$ be a point in $E$, we define the set of lines $M$ in $F$ using the equations \eqref{eq:Tits6} by replacing the $p_i$'s with $q_i$'s, the Pl\"ucker coordinates of $Q$, such that $x_{*}^3=q_{00'}-q_{11'}$, $x_i^3=q_{(i+1)i'}$, and $x_{i'}^3=q_{i(i+1)'}$. This will give two maps $\delta:L \to F$ and $\delta':E \to M$. Therefore, we will have a group homomorphism $\delta^*:G(E,L) \to G(F,M)$ such that $\delta^*(g)(\delta'(d))=\delta'(g\cdot d)$, where $g \in G(E,L), d \in L$.
Next, let $\sigma$ be the automorphism with $x^\sigma:=x^{3q_0}$ and consider the polarity map
\begin{align*}
f: E &\to F\\
(x_{*},x_{i},x_{i'})&\mapsto (x_{*}^\sigma,x_{i}^\sigma,x_{i'}^\sigma).
\end{align*}
This map defines a group homormorphism $f^*:G(E,L) \to G(F,M)$ by $f^*(g)(f(x)):=f(g\cdot x)$, where $x\in E$, $g \in G(E,L)$. Let $\Gamma$ be the set of points in $E$ such that $f(x) \in \delta'(x)$. Define
\begin{align*}
G^*(f)&:=\{ g \in G(E,L) \,:\, f^*(g)=\delta^*(g) \},\\
G^* &:= \{ g \in G(E,L) \,:\, g\cdot x =x, \,\forall x \in \Gamma \},
\end{align*}
i.e., $G^*(f)$ is the group of all automorphisms that leave $f$ invariant which is a subgroup of $G^*$. As in \cite{Tits}, $G^*(f)=G^*$ and the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}$ is defined to be $G^*$. We note that $G^*$ acts transitively on the set $\Gamma$ which is the set of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points of size $q^3+1$. Moreover, $G^{*}$ acts on $E$. Hence, it acts on 6-dimensional projective space.
We give different interpretation of Condition \eqref{eq:Tits6}. Let $E$ be the variety with points the nonzero $3 \times 3$-matrices
\begin{equation}\label{eq:point}
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
0 &x_1 &x_{-2} \\ x_{-1} &-x_0 &x_3 \\ x_2 &x_{-3} &x_0
\end{array} \right], \qquad x_0^2+x_1 x_{-1} + x_2 x_{-2} + x_3 x_{-3} = 0.
\end{equation}
With this condition the characteristic polynomial of a matrix $X \in E$ is of the form $T^3 - \det X = 0$ and the matrix has a unique eigenvalue $d_X$. For two matrices $X$ and $Y$ in $E$, the linear span of $X$ and $Y$ forms a line $L$ in $E$ in the sense of \eqref{eq:Tits6} if and only if
\begin{equation} \label{eq:line}
[X,Y] = XY-YX \in \langle I \rangle
\end{equation}
The Conditions \eqref{eq:Tits6} or \eqref{eq:line} take the form
\[
\left[ \begin {array}{ccccccc}
0&-y_1&-y_2&-y_3&y_{-1}&y_{-2}&y_{-3} \\
y_1&0&-y_{-3}&y_{-2}&y_0&0&0 \\
y_2&y_{-3}&0&-y_{-1}&0&y_0&0 \\
y_3&-y_{-2}&y_{-1}&0&0&0&y_0\\
-y_{-1}&-y_0&0&0&0&y_3&-y_2 \\
-y_{-2}&0&-y_0&0&-y_3&0&y_1\\
-y_{-3}&0&0&-y_0&y_2&-y_1&0
\end {array} \right]
\left[ \begin {array}{c} -x_0 \\ x_{-1} \\ x_{-2} \\ x_{-3} \\ x_1 \\ x_2 \\ x_3
\end {array} \right]
= 0.
\]
This can be written in a short form as
\begin{align*}
&x^+ \cdot y^- = y^+ \cdot x^- ( = -x_0 y_0 ) \\
&x^+ \times y^+ = - x_0 y^- + y_0 x^- \\
&x^-\times y^- = + x_0 y^+ - y_0 x^+ ,
\end{align*}
where $x^+:=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$, $x^-:=(x_{-1},x_{-2},x_{-3})$. Note
\[
x^+ \cdot x^- = - x_0^2, \qquad y^+ \cdot y^- = -y_0^2.
\]
Thus, we have the two $2 \times 4$ orthogonal spaces
\[
\langle (x_0, x^+), (y_0, y^+) \rangle ~\perp~ \langle (x_0,x^-), (y_0,y^-) \rangle.
\]
For the line $L$ through $X$ and $Y$, let
\begin{align}
P^\ast
&~=~
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
p_{1,-1} &p_{1,-2} &p_{1,-3} \\
p_{2,-1} &p_{2,-2} &p_{2,-3} \\
p_{3,-1} &p_{3,-2} &p_{3,-3}
\end{array} \right]
\label{eq:P} \\
&~=~
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
x_1 \\
x_2 \\
x_3
\end{array} \right]
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
y_{-1} &y_{-2} &y_{-3}
\end{array} \right]
~-~
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
y_1 \\
y_2 \\
y_3
\end{array} \right]
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
x_{-1} &x_{-2} &x_{-3}
\end{array} \right] \nonumber
\end{align}
The matrix $P^\ast$ has trace $p_{1,-1}+p_{2,-2}+p_{3,-3} = (x^+ \cdot y^-) - (y^+ \cdot x^-) = 0.$ After subtracting $p_{1,-1} I$ the matrix $P = P^\ast - p_{1,-1} I \in E$. The lines in $E$ through $X$ form a pencil. Let $L(X,Y)$ and $L(X,Y')$ be two independent lines in this pencil, with matrices $P$ and $P'$, respectively. The two matrices $P$ and $P'$ span a line in $E$ in the sense of \eqref{eq:line}. Let $Q$ be the matrix defined by \eqref{eq:P} for the line through $P$ and $P'$. Then $Q = X^{(3)}$, which can be summarized as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:polree}
P(P(X,Y),P(X,Y')) = X^{(3)}.
\end{equation}
We conclude this section by stating Cohen's construction \cite{Cohen}. Cohen used Tits' construction above to define the Ree group as the automorphism group acting on the set $\Gamma$. More specifically, for $x,y,z\in \mathbb{F}_{q}$, let $\gamma(x,y,z):=[x:y:z:1:u:v:w] \in \mathbb{P}^{6}$ such that $u,v$, and $w$ are defined by the equations
\begin{align*} \label{eq:uvw}
&u=x^2y-xz+y^\sigma - x^{\sigma+3},\\
&v=x^\sigma y^\sigma -z^\sigma+xy^2+yz-x^{2\sigma+3},\\
&w=-z^2-xv-yu.
\end{align*}
Then, the set of all $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points can be defined as the set
\[
\Gamma:=\{ \gamma(x,y,z) \in \mathbb{P}^6 \,|\, x,y,z \in \mathbb{F}_{q} \} \cup \{ [0:0:0:0:0:0:1] \}.
\]
Cohen defined the Ree group as the group of all projective linear transformations leaving $\Gamma$ invariant, i.e., $^{2}G_{2}(q)\subseteq \text{PGL}(7,\mathbb{F}_{q})$. Moreover, the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ acts 2-transitively on the set $\Gamma$. Using the above, we note that the set $\Gamma$ is the set of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points that corresponds to the set of rational places of the function field $F':=\mathbb{F}_{q}(x,y,z)$ defined by
\begin{align}
y^q-y&=x^{3q_0} (x^q-x) \label{eq:w1x},\\
z^q-z&=(x^{q_0+1}-y^{q_0})(x^q-x)\label{eq:w2xw1}
\end{align}
which has $q^3$ affine $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational places and one place at infinity. The full description of how the automorphism group $^{2}G_{2}$ acts can be found in Section \ref{sec1:7}.
\subsection{The Deligne-Lusztig Curves}\label{sec1:2.2}
The Hermitian, Suzuki, and Ree curves can be described (abstractly) as Deligne-Lusztig curves associated to the simple groups $^{2}A_{2}$, $^{2}B_{2}$, and $^{2}G_{2}$, respectively. In this subsection we introduce their structure as Deligne-Lusztig curves and we list their basic properties. We refer the reader to the books \cite{Cart1},\cite{Cart2},\cite{humphreys},\cite{Hurt},\cite{Malle},\cite{springer} and the papers \cite{DL},\cite{Han} for a full treatment of the subject. Here we will follow the notations and the exposition in \cite{Han}.
Let $G$ be a connected algebraic group over a finite field $k=\mathbb{F}_{q}$, i.e., $G$ is an affine variety defined over $k$ such that $G$ is also a group in which both the multiplication and inversion maps are morphisms and $G$ is a connected topological space in the Zariski topology on $G$. Thus, $G$ can be regarded as a closed subgroup of the linear group $\text{GL}(n,k)$, for some $n\in \mathbb{N}_{>0}$. The \emph{unipotent radical} of $G$ is the maximal closed connected normal subgroup all of whose elements are \emph{unipotent elements}\footnote{An element $a$ in a ring $A$ is called a \emph{unipotent element} if $1-a$ is a nilpotent element.}. $G$ is called \emph{reductive} if the unipotent radical of $G$ is trivial. A subgroup $B\subseteq G$ is called a \emph{Borel} subgroup if it is a maximal connected solvable subgroup. An algebraic group is called a \emph{torus} if it is isomorphic to $k^\times \times k^\times \times \cdots \times k^\times$ (as embedded in $\text{GL}(n,k)$).
For our purpose, let $G$ be a connected reductive algebraic group embedded in $\text{GL}(n,k)$ with a Borel subgroup $B$ and a maximal torus $T$ \footnote{$G$ will be $A_2$, $B_2$, or $G_2$ for our purpose.}. The \emph{Weyl} group of $G$ is the finite group $W:=W(G):=N_{G}(T)/T$, where $N_G(T)$ is the normalizer of $T$ in $G$. We note here that the Weyl group is a Coxeter group which means it is generated by a set of generators $s_i$'s, called the \emph{reflections}, of order 2 and has a presentation with relations of the form $(s_is_j)^{m_{ij}}$ ($m_{ij}=2,3,4,6$), i.e.,
\[
W(G):= \left \langle s_1,\dots,s_{r} \mid (s_i)^2=1,\, (s_is_j)^{m_{ij}}=1\, \text{ for } i \neq j \right \rangle.
\]
Let
\begin{align*}
\text{Fr}_{q}: G \subseteq \text{GL}(n,k) &\to G \subseteq \text{GL}(n,k) \\
(a_{ij}) &\mapsto (a_{ij}^{q})
\end{align*}
be the standard Frobenius map which will define a map $\sigma:G \to G$ such that some power of $\sigma$ is the standard Frobenius map\footnote{$\sigma^2=\text{Fr}_q$ , i.e., $\sigma(g)=g^{\sqrt{q}}$ for $G=A_2$, $B_2$, and $G_2$, respectively.} $\text{Fr}_q$ \cite[Page 183]{Malle}. $\sigma$ is called the \emph{Frobenius map}\footnote{In some literature it is called the \emph{Steinberg automorphism} \cite[Page 183]{Malle}.}. Denote the fixed group of the Frobenius map $\sigma$ by $G^{\sigma}$ \footnote{$G^\sigma=\,^{2}A_{2}$, $^{2}B_{2}$, and $^{2}G_{2}$ if $G=A_2$, $B_2$, and $G_2$, respectively.} . It is called a \emph{finite group of Lie type} \cite[Theorem 21.5]{Malle}.
Let $X_G:=\{B \subseteq G \,|\, B \text{ is a Borel subgroup of } G \}$. Since any two Borel subgroups of $G$ are conjugate by an element in $G$, we have that $G$ acts transitively on $X_G$ by conjugation. Moreover, using the Lang-Steinberg Theorem \cite[Theorem 21.7]{Malle}, which asserts that the map $L:G \ni g \mapsto g^{-1}\sigma(g)\in G$ is surjective, we have that any two $\sigma$-stable Borel subgroups are conjugate by an element in $G^\sigma$ \cite[Section 2.2.2]{Han}.
Therefore, the group $G^\sigma$ acts on the set of $\sigma$-stable Borel subgroups by conjugation. We also have a natural bijection $G/B \ni gB \mapsto gBg^{-1} \in X_G$, for a fixed Borel subgroup $B$.
In \cite{Han}, we can identify the set of orbits of $G$ in $X_{G} \times X_{G}$ with the Weyl group $W$. For $w\in W$, the orbit in $X_G \times X_G$ corresponding to $w$, denoted by $\mathcal{O}(w)$, is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{O}(w):&=\{(g_1B,g_2B) \in G/B \times G/B \,|\, g_1^{-1}g_2\in BwB \}.
\end{align*}
We say that two Borel subgroups $B_1,B_2$ of $G$ are in \emph{relative position} $w$ if $(B_1,B_2)\in \mathcal{O}(w)$. Define the Deligne-Lusztig variety $X(w)$ to be
\[
X(w):=\{ B' \in X_G \,|\, (B',\sigma(B'))\in \mathcal{O}(w) \}.
\]
If we identify $X_G \simeq G/B$, for a fixed Borel subgroup $B$ of $G$, then as in \cite{Hurt} we have that
\[
X(w)=\{ (gB,\sigma(g)B) \in G/B \times G/B \,|\, g^{-1}\sigma(g) \in BwB \}.
\]
We have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\cite{DL,Han}\label{prop:2.1}
\quad
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\dim(X(w))=\text{length}(w)=n$, where $w=s_1s_2\cdots s_n$ is a product of reflections.
\item $X(w)$ is irreducible if and only if for every simple reflection $s \in W$, $s$ is in the $\sigma$-orbit of some $s_i$ ($i=1,2,\dots ,n$)
\item $X(w)$ is $G^\sigma$-stable.
\item $X(e)\subseteq X(w)$ is the set of all $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points.
\item $G^\sigma$ acts on $X(e)$ and $G^\sigma=\operatorname{Aut}(X(w))$
\item If $w=s$ is a simple reflection, then in particular we have the Deligne-Lusztig curve $\overline{X}(w):=X(w)\cup X(e)$ which is a curve with the group $G^\sigma$ acting as the $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational automorphism group and it is irreducible if and only if every simple reflection $s' \in W$ is in the $\sigma$-orbit of $s$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}
If we require $G^\sigma$ to be a simple group, then $G^\sigma$ is either $^{2}A_{2}$, $^{2}B_{2}$ or $^{2}G_{2}$. In that case, the Weyl group $W(G)$ has two generators $s_1,s_2$ of order 2 with $(s_1s_2)^{m_{12}}=1$, where $m_{12}=3,4,6$ for $G=A_2$, $B_2$, and $G_2$, respectively. The Dynkin diagram has two vertices corresponding to the two simple positive roots $\alpha,\beta$ of $G$ as in Figure~\ref{fig1:Dynkin}.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\subfloat[ $A_2$]
{
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (0,0) {};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (2,0) {};
\draw [-] (a) -- (b);
\node [] (1) at (-0.4,0) {$\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (2.4,0) {$\alpha$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\subfloat[ $B_2$]
{
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (0,0) {};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (2,0) {};
\draw [->] (a.north) -- (b.north);
\draw [->] (a.south) -- (b.south);
\node [] (1) at (-0.4,0) {$\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (2.4,0) {$\alpha$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\quad \subfloat[ $G_2$]
{
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (0,0) {};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (2,0) {};
\draw [->] (a) -- (b);
\draw [->] (a.north) -- (b.north);
\draw [->] (a.south) -- (b.south);
\node [] (1) at (-0.4,0) {$\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (2.4,0) {$\alpha$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{The Dynkin diagram for $G$.}\label{fig1:Dynkin}
\end{figure}
The Dynkin diagram for the group $G^\sigma$ is the same diagram as in Figure~\ref{fig1:Dynkin} with the $\sigma$-action permuting the two roots.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The two dimensional root system of the group $G=A_2$, $B_2$, or $G_2$ are shown in Figure~\ref{table1:RootSystem}, where $\alpha$ represents the short root and $\beta$ represents the long root \cite[Table A.2]{Malle}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[ $A_2$]
{
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left, minimum size=5em]
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (0.5,0.866);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-0.5,0.866);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-1,0);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-0.5,-0.866);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (0.5,-0.866);
\node [] (1) at (1.3,0) {$\alpha$};
\node [] (1) at (0.8,1.166) {$\alpha+\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (-0.8,1.166) {$\beta$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\subfloat[$B_2$]
{
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left, minimum size=5em]
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (1.06,1.06);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-1.06,1.06);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-1,0);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-1.06,-1.06);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (0,-1);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (1.06,-1.06);
\node [] (1) at (1.3,0) {$\alpha$};
\node [] (1) at (1.36,1.36) {$2\alpha+\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (0,1.3) {$\alpha+\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (-1.36,1.36) {$\beta$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\subfloat[ $G_2$]
{
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left, minimum size=5em]
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (1.3,0.75);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (0.5,0.866);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (0,1.5);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-0.5,0.866);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-1.3,0.75);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-1,0);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-1.3,-0.75);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (-0.5,-0.866);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (0,-1.5);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (0.5,-0.866);
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (1.3,-0.75);
\node [] (1) at (1.3,0) {$\alpha$};
\node [] (1) at (2,0.566) {$3\alpha+\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (0.8,1.166) {$2\alpha+\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (0,1.8) {$3\alpha+2\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (-0.8,1.166) {$\alpha+\beta$};
\node [] (1) at (-1.6,0.75) {$\beta$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{The root system for $G$.}\label{table1:RootSystem}
\end{figure}
Note that a root system in Figure~\ref{table1:RootSystem} determines an underlying simple Lie algebra $\mathcal{G}$ with $G$ as its Lie group \cite{Agricola}.
\end{remark}
As above, let $G^\sigma$ be a simple group, i.e., $G^\sigma$ is either $^{2}A_{2}$, $^{2}B_{2}$ or $^{2}G_{2}$. In Table \ref{table:1.1.1} we summarize some information of the Deligne-Lusztig curves such as the automorphism group, the number of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points, and the genus \cite{Han}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ cccc }
\toprule
Curve & Hermitian & Suzuki & Ree \\
\midrule
$G$ & $A_2$& $B_2$ & $G_2$ \\
$G^\sigma$ & $^{2}A_{2}$& $^{2}B_{2}$ & $^{2}G_{2}$ \\
$\left | G^\sigma \right | $ & $q_0^3(q-1)(q_0^3+1) $& $q^2(q-1)(q^2+1)$ & $q^3(q-1)(q^3+1)$ \\
$N_1$ & $q_0^3+1$& $q^2+1$ & $q^3+1$ \\
$g$ & $\frac{1}{2}q_0(q_0-1)$ & $q_0(q-1)$ & $\frac{3}{2}q_0(q-1)(q+q_0+1)$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Information about the Deligne-Lusztig curves associated to the groups $^{2}A_{2}$, $^{2}B_{2}$, and $^{2}G_{2}$.}
\label{table:1.1.1}
\end{table}
These three curves are realized as the projective curves corresponding to the following algebraic function fields which have the same number of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points, genus, and automorphism group as in Table \ref{table:1.1.1}, see \cite{HP},\cite{Tor3}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Hermitian curve \cite{Sti} corresponds to $F_{\text{H}}:=\mathbb{F}_{q}(x,y)$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ ($q:=q_0^2$, $q_0$ is a prime power) defined by the equation
\[
y^{q_0}+y=x^{q_0+1}
\]
\item The Suzuki curve \cite{HS} corresponds to $F_{\text{S}}:=\mathbb{F}_{q}(x,y)$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ ($q:=2q_0^2$, $q_0:=2^m$, and $m \in \mathbb{N}$) defined by the equation
\[
y^q-y=x^{q_0}(x^q-x).
\]
\item The Ree curve \cite{HP},\cite{Ped} corresponds to $F_{\text{R}}:=\mathbb{F}_{q}(x,y_1,y_2)$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ ($q:=3q_0^2$, $q_0:=3^m$, and $m \in \mathbb{N}$) defined by the two equations
\begin{align*}
y_1^q-y_1=x^{q_0}(x^q-x),\\
y_2^q-y_2=x^{q_0}(y_1^q-y_1).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
Kane \cite{Kane} used the construction of these three curves as Deligne-Lusztig curves to give smooth embeddings of these curves in the projective space of dimension 2, 4, and 13, respectively. We will use the function field description above to give a smooth embedding in projective space of dimensions 2, 4, and 13. In Section \ref{sec1:6} we will show that for the Ree curve, the set of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points is the same for our embedding and for Kane's embedding.
\section{The Smooth Embeddings for the Hermitian and Suzuki Curves}\label{sec1:3}
In this section we study the smooth embeddings for the two Deligne-Lusztig curves associated to the groups $^{2}A_{2}$ and $^{2}B_{2}$. These curves are known as the Hermitian and Suzuki curves respectively. We will use the same techniques of this section to construct a smooth embedding for the third Deligne-Luszig curve associated to the group $^{2}G_{2}$ which is the Ree curve. This has also been done independently by Kane \cite{Kane}, where he provided a systematic approach to find smooth embeddings for these curves in the projective space in a uniform way. His approach was to use the structure of the curves as Deligne-Lusztig curves with Borel subgroups as the points on the curves. Our approach is to use the function field description of these curves as given by equations. In Section \ref{sec1:6} we will show that for the Ree curve, these two different embeddings give the same $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points. The following work is motivated by the work of Tits \cite{Tits} who considered the idea of the line between a point and its Frobenius image and the use of Pl\"{u}cker coordinates. In particular, in the preliminary results for the Suzuki curve announced in \cite{DEmail},\cite{DTalk}, where the author gave five defining equations for the smooth model of the Suzuki curve using the idea of Pl\"ucker coordinates. We generalize that approach to a uniform approach for all three Deligne-Lustig curves.
We review first the smooth embedding for the Hermitian curve.
\subsection{The Hermitian Curve }\label{sec1:3.1}
The Hermitian curve has been studied in detail in \cite[Chapter 6]{Sti}.
It is given by the affine equation $y^{q_0}+y=x^{q_0+1}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ ($q:=q_0^2$, $q_0$ is a prime power). It has $q_0^3+1$ $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points with one point at infinity $P_\infty$ and is of genus $g_\text{H}=\sfrac{q_0(q_0-1)}{2}$. Hence, the Hermitian curve attains the Hasse-Weil bound. Therefore, it is a maximal and optimal curve with $L$-polynomial $L(t):=(q_0t+1)^{2g_\text{H}}$. Moreover, the Hermitian curve is the unique curve of genus $g_\text{H}=\sfrac{q_0(q_0-1)}{2}$ and number of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points equals to $q_0^3+1$ \cite{StiRuck}. The automorphism group of the Hermitian curve is $^{2}A_{2}=\operatorname{PGU}(3,q)$. Moreover, the equation $y^{q_0}+y=x^{q_0+1}$ defines a smooth model for the Hermitian curve.
\begin{remark}
Let $H:=(q_0+1)P_\infty$. Then, the linear series $\mathcal{D}:=\left |H\right |$ is a very ample linear series of dimension 2 generated by $1,x,y$. Therefore, the morphism associated to $\mathcal{D}$ is a smooth embedding for the Hermitian curve in $\mathbb{P}^{2}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The tangent line at a point $P$ in the Hermitian curve is given by the equation
\[
1_{P}^{q_0}\cdot y-x_{P}^{q_0}\cdot x+y_{P}^{q_0}\cdot 1=0.
\]
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{ch1:hermitianremrk}
The Hermitian curve can also be defined in $\mathbb{P}^2(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$ using the equation \cite[Section 6.4]{Sti}
\[
v^{q_0+1}+u^{q_0+1}+1=0.
\]
\end{remark}
Now from the defining equation $y^{q_0}+y=x^{q_0+1}$ of the Hermitian curve, we get that
\begin{equation}\label{append:1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1^{q_0} & -x^{q_0} & y^{q_0}
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
y & y^q \\
x & x^q \\
1 & 1^q
\end{pmatrix} = 0.
\end{equation}
Consider the following matrix $H$
\[
H = \left( \begin{array}{lllllll}
1 &:~x &:~y\\ \medskip
1 &:~x^q &:~y^q
\end{array} \right).
\]
Let $H_{i,j}$ be the Pl\"ucker coordinates of the matrix $H$, i.e., $H_{1,2}=x^q-x$, $H_{3,1}=y-y^q$, and $H_{2,3}=xy^q-yx^q$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{append:2}
\begin{pmatrix}
H_{1,2}& H_{3,1} & H_{2,3}
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
y & y^q \\
x & x^q \\
1 & 1^q
\end{pmatrix} = 0.
\end{equation}
Note that Equations \eqref{append:1} and \eqref{append:2} define two lines between a point $P:=(1,x,y)$ and its Frobenius image $P^{(q)}:=(1,x^q,y^q)$. But the line between a point and its Frobenius image is unique (in fact, it is the tangent line at $P$). Therefore, $1^{q_0}$ is proportional to $H_{1,2}$, $-x^{q_0}$ is proportional to $H_{3,1}$, and $y^{q_0}$ is proportional to $H_{2,3}$. This is summarized in Table \ref{table:H}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\[
\begin{array}{llll}
f = &1 &\quad f^{q_0} \sim &H_{1,2} =[1,x]\\
&x & &H_{1,3}=[1,y] \\
&y & &H_{2,3}=[x,y] \\
\end{array}
\]
\caption{The Pl\"ucker Coordinates of the Hermitian Curve.}\label{table:H}
\end{table}
\begin{comment}
This smooth embedding can also be realized by noticing that
the tangent line of a point $P$ is the unique line that pass through $P$ and its Frobenius which will give the equation of the curve.
For that, we consider the following matrix $H$.
\[
H = \left( \begin{array}{lllllll}
1 &:~x &:~y \\ \medskip
1 &:~x^q &:~y^q
\end{array} \right).
\]
Then, we see that the Pl\"{u}cker coordinates vector $(H_{2,3},H_{3,1},H_{1,2})$ is orthogonal to the rows of $H$, i.e., $H \cdot (H_{2,3},H_{3,1},H_{1,2})^t=0$, therefore
\begin{table}[htb!]
\[
\begin{array}{llll}
f = &1 &\quad f^{q_0} \sim &H_{2,3} \\
&x & &H_{3,1} \\
&y & &H_{1,2} \\
\end{array}
\]
\caption{The Pl\"ucker Coordinates of the Hermitian Curve.}\label{table:H}
\end{table}
We have that $1^{q_0}\cdot 1+x^{q_0}\cdot x+y^{q_0}\cdot y=0$
and this equation gives the smooth embedding in $\mathbb{P}^2(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$. Note that this equation gives the same function field as the equation $y^{q_0}+y=x^{q_0+1}$ \cite[Section 6.4]{Sti} and so it defines a smooth embedding of the Hermitian curve in the projective space.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{remark}
Consider the following function
\[
(1)^{q}_P\cdot y+(x)^{q}_P\cdot x+(y)^{q}_P\cdot 1
\]
If we evaluate the function above on $P,\Phi(P),\Phi^2(P)$ ($P \notin X_{\text{H}}(\mathbb{F}_{q}$) and $\Phi$ is the Frobenius map, then it has zeros at these points of order $q,2q_0,1$ which are equal to the coefficient of the reciprocal of the $L$-polynomial of the Hermitian curve $h(t)=(q_0+t)^2$. See Section \ref{sec1:8.2}.
\end{remark}
\end{comment}
Now we give a visual way to list the equation of the Hermitian curve using a complete graph with three vertices. The advantage of using a complete graph to read the equation of the curve is that it will be easy to generalize the same interpretation later for the Suzuki and Ree curves. We construct a triangle with vertices corresponding to the functions $1,x,y$ and the edge between any two vertices is labeled by the function that corresponds to the Pl\"{u}cker coordinate of the two vertices in Table \ref{table:H}, i.e., the function $f$ with $f^{q_0}\sim H_{i,j}$ in Table \ref{table:H}. For example, the edge between $1,x$ is labeled with $1$ because we have $1^{q_0}\sim H_{1,2}$ in Table \ref{table:H}. Therefore, we get the following graph
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (1,3) {$1$};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (3,4) {$x$};
\node [circle,draw] (c) at (3,2) {$y$};
\draw (a)[->] -- node {$1$} (b);
\draw (a)[->] -- node[swap]{$x$} (c);
\draw (b)[->] -- node {$y$} (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The complete graph with three vertices.}\label{figure:32}
\end{figure}
Now we can read the equation of the Hermitian curve as follows. We raise the vertices to the power of $q_0$ and we multiply them by the opposite edge and we sum the result to get
\[
y\cdot 1^{q_0}-x\cdot x^{q_0}+1\cdot y^{q_0}=0,
\]
where the clockwise orientation is the positive orientation, i.e., the arrows in the clockwise direction are positive and the arrows in the counter clockwise direction are negative.
\begin{remark}
The motivation to use the complete graph with three vertices is the two dimensional root system in Figure~\ref{table1:RootSystem} (a) by taking the short roots $\alpha$ to be $1$, $-\alpha$ to be $y$, and the origin to be $x$.
\end{remark}
Next, we carry out this construction for the Suzuki curve which has a model with a similar description using Pl\"{u}cker coordinates. To see the correspondence between these techniques we denote the function $1$ by $x_0$, $x$ by $x_1$, and $y$ by $x_2$.
\begin{comment}
Now we give a visual way to list the equation of the Hermitian curve using a complete graph with three vertices. The advantage of using complete graphs to read the equations of the curve is that it will be easy to generalize the same interpretation later for the Suzuki and Ree curves. For that, let $x_0:=1$, $x_1:=x$, and $x_2:=y$. Then, we construct a triangle with vertices corresponding to the functions $x_0,x_1,x_2$ and the edge between the vertices $x_i,x_j$ is labeled by the function that corresponds to the Pl\"{u}cker coordinate of $x_i,x_j$, i.e., the function $f$ with $f^{q_0}\sim H_{i+1,j+1}$ in Table \ref{table:H}. For example, the edge between $x_{0},x_{1}$ is labeled with $x_2$ because we have $x_2^{q_0}\sim H_{1,2}$ in Table \ref{table:H}. Therefore, we get the following graph
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (1,3) {$x_1$};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (3,4) {$x_0$};
\node [circle,draw] (c) at (3,2) {$x_2$};
\draw (a)[<-] -- node {$x_2$} (b);
\draw (a)[->] -- node[swap]{$x_0$} (c);
\draw (b)[<-] -- node {$x_1$} (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Now we can read the equation of the Hermitian curve as follows. We raise the vertices to the power of $q_0$ and we multiply them by the opposite edge and we sum the result to get
\[
x_0\cdot x_0^{q_0}+x_1\cdot x_1^{q_0}+x_2\cdot x_2^{q_0}=0
\]
which is the equation $1+x^{q_0+1}+y^{q_0+1}=0$.
\begin{remark}
The motivation to use the complete graph with three vertices is the two dimensional root system in Figure~\ref{table1:RootSystem} (a) by taking the short roots $\alpha$ to be $1$, $-\alpha$ to be $y$, and the origin to be $x$.
\end{remark}
Next, we carry out this construction for the Suzuki curve which has a model with a similar description using Pl\"{u}cker coordinates.
\end{comment}
\subsection{The Suzuki Curve}\label{sec1:3.2}
The Suzuki curve has been studied in detail in \cite{TGK},\cite{HS},\cite{Henn},\cite{Tor3}. It is defined over the finite field $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ of characteristics 2, where $q:=2q_0^2=2^{2m+1}$ $(m \in \mathbb{N})$, and corresponds to the Suzuki function field $F_{\text{S}}:=\mathbb{F}_{q}(x,y)$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ by the affine equation $y^q-y=x^{q_0}(x^q-x)$ \cite{HS}. The Suzuki function field $F_{\text{S}} / \mathbb{F}_{q}$ has $q^2+1$ $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational places with one place at infinity $P_\infty$ and is of genus $g_\text{S}=q_0(q-1)$. Therefore, the Suzuki function field is optimal with respect to Serre's explicit formula method.
The number of $\fg{q^r}$-rational places is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Suzfqm}
N_r=q^r+1-g_\text{S} q_0^r\left [ (-1+i)^r +(-1-i)^r \right ].
\end{equation}
In particular, the Suzuki curve is maximal if $r \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$. Moreover, the Suzuki function field is the unique function field of genus $q_0(q-1)$ and $q^2+1$ $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational places over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ \cite[Theorem 5.1]{FTor1}. The automorphism group of $F_{\text{S}} / \mathbb{F}_{q}$ is the Suzuki group $^{2}B_{2}={\rm{Sz}}(q)$ \cite{Henn} of order $q^2(q-1)(q^2+1)$. For this reason it is known as the Suzuki curve.
From the above, the Suzuki curve $X_{\text{S}}$ has a projective irreducible plane model defined in $\mathbb{P}^2(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$ by the homogeneous equation
\[
t^{q_0}(y^q-yt^{q-1})=x^{q_0}(x^q-xt^{q-1})
\]
which is a curve with a singularity only at the point at infinity $P_\infty=[0:0:1]$.
As in \cite{HS}, let $\nu_\infty$ be the discrete valuation of $F_{\text{S}}$ at the place $P_\infty$ and define two more functions $z:=x^{2q_0+1}-y^{2q_0}$ and $w:=xy^{2q_0}-z^{2q_0}$. Then, we have that the functions $x,y,z$, and $w$ are regular outside $P_\infty$ with pole orders at $P_\infty$ as in Table \ref{table:3.1}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
$f$ & 1 & $x$ & $y$ & $z$ & $w$ \\
\midrule
$-\nu_\infty(f)$ & 0 & $q$ & $q+q_0$ & $q+2q_0$ & $q+2q_0+1$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The pole orders of $1,x,y,z,w$ at $P_\infty$.}
\label{table:3.1}
\end{table}
Moreover, the monoid $\langle q,\, q+q_0,\, q+2q_0,\, q+2q_0+1 \rangle$ is equal to the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup $H(P_\infty)$ \cite{HS}.
To find a smooth model for the Suzuki curve $X_{\text{S}}$, let $\mathcal{S}$ be its normalization. Giulietti, K\'orchm\'aros, and Torres \cite{TGK} used the divisor $H:=mP_\infty$, where $m:=q+2q_0+1=-\nu_\infty(w)=h(1)$ (where $h(t)=q+2q_0t+t^2\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$ is the product of the irreducible factors of the reciprocal of the $L$-polynomial of $X_{\text{S}}$) and considered the complete linear series $\mathcal{D}:=\left | (q+2q_0+1)P_\infty \right| $. Then, we have
\begin{prop}\label{prop:3.1}
With the notations above, we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{L}(mP_\infty)$ is generated by $1,x,y,z,w$ and so $\mathcal{D}$ has dimension 4.
\item $\mathcal{D}$ is a very ample linear series.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See \cite{HS} and Theorem 3.1 in \cite{TGK}.
\end{proof}
Using Proposition \ref{prop:3.1} above, we get a smooth embedding
\begin{align*}
\pi : \mathcal{S} &\to \mathbb{P}^4(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}) \\
P &\mapsto (1:x:y:z:w).
\end{align*}
Now we give a concrete realization of the smooth embedding for the Suzuki curve in the projective space from \cite{TGK}. Since $y=x^{q_0+1}-z^{q_0}$ and $w=x^{2q_0+2}-xz+z^{2q_0}$ ($\ast$), define the embedding of $\mathcal{S}$ to be the variety in $\mathbb{P}^4(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$ defined by the set of points
\[
P_{(a,c)}:=(1: a:b :c:d) \text{ and } \pi(P_\infty)=(0:0:0:0:1)
\]
where $x=a,z=c \in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$, and $y=b,w=d \in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ are satisfying the two Equations ($\ast$) above. Moreover, the Suzuki group acts linearly on $X_{\text{S}}$ if it is considered as a subgroup of Aut($\mathbb{P}^4(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$) \cite[Theorem 3.2]{TGK}.
In this section we consider a different approach to construct a smooth model for the Suzuki curve which is similar to the Hermitian curve (Remark \ref{ch1:hermitianremrk}). The idea is to use the Pl\"ucker coordinates of the unique line between a point and its Frobenius image. The construction will be applied later for the Ree curve in Section \ref{sec1:4}. We describe it in terms of general variables. Let $x_{-2},x_{-1},x_{0},x_{1},x_{2}$ be the functions $t=1,x,y,z,w$, respectively. A preliminary results for the Suzuki curve announced in \cite{DEmail},\cite{DTalk} came up with the following system of equations
\begin{align*}
x_0^2+x_{-1}x_{1}+x_{-2}x_{2}=0\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & x_{-2} & x_{-1} & x_{0} \\
x_{-2} & 0 & x_{0} & x_{1} \\
x_{-1} & x_{0} & 0 & x_{2} \\
x_{0} & x_{1} & x_{2} &0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x_{2}\\
x_{1}\\
x_{-1}\\
x_{-2}
\end{pmatrix}^{(q_0)}
=0,
\end{align*}
i.e.
\begin{align}
&y^2+xz+tw=0,\label{eq:s5}\\
&tz^{q_0}+xx^{q_0}+yt^{q_0}=0,\label{eq:s1}\\
&tw^{q_0}+yx^{q_0}+zt^{q_0}=0,\label{eq:s2}\\
&xw^{q_0}+yz^{q_0}+wt^{q_0}=0,\label{eq:s3}\\
&yw^{q_0}+zz^{q_0}+wx^{q_0}=0.\label{eq:s4}
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{sec2:lemma5}
The five equations above define the Suzuki curve.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To see that these five equations define the Suzuki curve, we need to show the following equations:
\begin{align*}
z&=x^{2q_0+1}-y^{2q_0},\\
w&=xy^{2q_0}-z^{2q_0},\\
y^q-y&=x^{q_0}(x^q-x).
\end{align*}
To get the first equation $z=x^{2q_0+1}-y^{2q_0}$, we multiply Equation \eqref{eq:s1} by $x^{q_0}$ and we add it to Equation \eqref{eq:s2} to get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lemma*}
w^{q_0}+z+x^{q_0}z^{q_0}+x^{2q_0+1}=0
\end{equation}
Now Equation \eqref{eq:s5} yields that $y^{2q_0}=x^{q_0}z^{q_0}+w^{q_0}$, substituting that in \eqref{eq:lemma*},
\[
y^{2q_0}+z + x^{2q_0+1}=0 \Rightarrow z=x^{2q_0+1}-y^{2q_0}.
\]
To get the second equation $w=xy^{2q_0}-z^{2q_0}$, we multiply Equation \eqref{eq:s1} by $z^{q_0}$ and we add the result to Equation \eqref{eq:s3} to get
\begin{align*}
z^{2q_0}+x^{q_0+1}z^{q_0}+xw^{q_0}+w &=0\\
z^{2q_0}+x(x^{q_0}z^{q_0}+w^{q_0})+w &=0\\
z^{2q_0}+xy^{2q_0} +w &=0 \Rightarrow w=xy^{2q_0}-z^{2q_0}.
\end{align*}
Finally, we show the last equation $y^q-y=x^{q_0}(x^q-x)$ as follows
\begin{align*}
y^q-y = (y^{2q_0})^{q_0}-y &= (z+x^{2q_0+1})^{q_0} - (z^{q_0}+x^{q_0+1})\\
&= z^{q_0}+x^{q+q_0}-z^{q_0}-x^{q_0+1}\\
&= x^{q+q_0}-x^{q_0+1}\\
&= x^{q_0}(x^q-x). \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{TGK}, the authors used only Equations \eqref{eq:s1}, \eqref{eq:s3} to define the Suzuki curve, see Equations ($\ast$). Lemma \ref{sec2:lemma5} shows that the five equations form a complete set of equations to define the Suzuki curve.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{ch1:suzukiremrk}
From the five Equations \eqref{eq:s5}--\eqref{eq:s4} above, it follows that
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & t^{2q_0} & x^{2q_0} & y^{2q_0} \\
t^{2q_0} & 0 & y^{2q_0} & z^{2q_0} \\
x^{2q_0} & y^{2q_0} & 0 & w^{2q_0} \\
y^{2q_0} & z^{2q_0} & w^{2q_0} & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
w & w^q \\
z & z^q \\
x & z^q \\
t & t^q
\end{pmatrix} = 0.
\]
Consider the following matrix $S$
\[
S = \left( \begin{array}{lllllll}
1 &:~x &:~z &:~w \\ \medskip
1 &:~x^q &:~z^q &:~w^q
\end{array} \right).
\]
Let $S_{i,j}$ be the Pl\"ucker coordinates of the matrix $S$. Then, we also have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MatS}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & S_{1,2} & S_{1,3} & S_{3,2} \\
S_{1,2} & 0 & S_{1,4} & S_{4,2} \\
S_{1,3} & S_{1,4} & 0 & S_{4,3} \\
S_{3,2} & S_{4,2} & S_{4,3} & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
w & w^q \\
z & z^q \\
x & x^q \\
t & t^q
\end{pmatrix} = 0.
\end{equation}
As the line between a point and its Frobenius image is unique. Then, as for the Hermitian curve, we obtain the correspondence in Table \ref{table:S}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\[
\begin{array}{llll}
f = &1 &\quad f^{2q_0} \sim &S_{1,2}=[1,x] \\
&x & &S_{1,3}=[1,z] \\
&y & &S_{1,4} = S_{3,2} ([1,w]=[z,x]) \\
&z & &S_{4,2}=[w,x] \\
&w & &S_{4,3}=[w,z] \\
\end{array}
\]
\caption{The Pl\"ucker Coordinates of the Suzuki Curve.}\label{table:S}
\end{table}
\end{remark}
\begin{comment}
\begin{align*}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & x & z & w \\
1 & x^q & z^q & w^q
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
S_{2,3} & S_{2,4} & S_{3,4} & 0 \\
S_{3,1} & S_{4,1} & 0 & S_{3,4} \\
S_{1,2} & 0 & S_{4,1} & S_{4,2} \\
0 & S_{1,2} & S_{1,3} & S_{4,3}
\end{pmatrix}=0.
\end{align*}
\end{comment}
Now we give a visual way to list the defining equations of the Suzuki curve $X_{\text{S}}$ from a complete graph.
Consider the complete graph with four vertices labeled by $x_{-2},x_{-1},x_{1},x_{2}$ as in Figure \ref{figure1:37}, where the edge between any two vertices $x_i,x_j$ is labeled by the function that corresponds to the Pl\"{u}cker coordinate of $x_i,x_j$ in Table \ref{table:S}. For example, the edge between $x_{-2}=1$ and $x_2=w$ is labeled by the function that corresponds to the Pl\"{u}cker coordinate $S_{1,4} $ which is $x_0=y$.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (x1) at (1,1) {$x_{1}$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm2) at (1,4) {$x_{-2}$};
\node [circle,draw] (x2) at (4,1) {$x_{2}$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm1) at (4,4) {$x_{-1}$};
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node[swap]{$x_{-1}$} (x1);
\draw [->] (x2) -- node{$x_2$} (x1);
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node[xshift=2mm,yshift=5.2mm]{$x_0$} (x2);
\draw [->] (x1) -- node[swap,xshift=2.1mm,yshift=-5.8mm]{$x_{0}$} (xm1);
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node{$x_{-2}$} (xm1);
\draw [->] (x2) -- node[swap]{$x_1$} (xm1);
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (x1) at (7,1) {$z$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm2) at (7,4) {$1$};
\node [circle,draw] (x2) at (10,1) {$w$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm1) at (10,4) {$x$};
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node[swap]{$x$} (x1);
\draw [->] (x2) -- node{$w$} (x1);
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node[xshift=2mm,yshift=5.2mm]{$y$} (x2);
\draw [->] (x1) -- node[swap,xshift=2.1mm,yshift=-5.8mm]{$y$} (xm1);
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node{$1$} (xm1);
\draw [->] (x2) -- node[swap]{$z$} (xm1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The complete graph with four vertices.}\label{figure1:37}
\end{figure}
Now to get the equations of total degree $q_0+1$ \eqref{eq:s1}--\eqref{eq:s2}, we consider any triangle in the polygon. We raise every vertex in the triangle to the power $q_0$ and we multiply it by the label of the opposite edge. Then we add them all to the equations of total degree $q_0+1$, e.g., if we consider the triangle in Figure \ref{figure2:37}, then we get the equation $aA^{q_0}+bB^{q_0}+cC^{q_0}=0$.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (1,3) {$A$};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (3,4) {$B$};
\node [circle,draw] (c) at (3,2) {$C$};
\draw [->](a) -- node {$c$} (b);
\draw [<-](a) -- node[swap]{$b$} (c);
\draw [->](b) -- node {$a$} (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Triangle.}\label{figure2:37}
\end{figure}
Therefore, we get the following four equations
\begin{alignat*}{3}
&x_{0}x^{q_0}_{-2}+x_{-1}x^{q_0}_{-1}+x_{-2}x^{q_0}_{1}=0, \quad &&tz^{q_0}+xx^{q_0}+yt^{q_0}=0 \qquad \qquad \quad &\eqref{eq:s1},\\
&x_{2}x^{q_0}_{-2}+x_{0}x^{q_0}_{1}+x_{-1}x^{q_0}_{2}=0, \qquad\qquad \text{ i.e.,} \qquad \qquad &&tw^{q_0}+yx^{q_0}+zt^{q_0}=0 \quad\qquad \qquad &\eqref{eq:s2},\\
&x_{1}x^{q_0}_{-2}+x_{0}x^{q_0}_{-1}+x_{-2}x^{q_0}_{2}=0 , \quad &&xw^{q_0}+yz^{q_0}+wt^{q_0}=0 \qquad \qquad \quad &\eqref{eq:s3},\\
&x_{2}x^{q_0}_{-1}+x_{1}x^{q_0}_{1}+x_{0}x^{q_0}_{2}=0, \quad &&yw^{q_0}+zz^{q_0}+wx^{q_0}=0 \qquad \qquad \quad &\eqref{eq:s4}.
\end{alignat*}
Since we have only four triangles in the polygon of four vertices, the equations above are the only equations of degree $q_0+1$.
To get the quadratic equation, we consider the polygon of four vertices. The product of the two diagonals plus the sum of the product of the opposite edges is equal to $0$, i.e.,
\[
x_0^2+x_{-1}x_1+x_{-2}x_2=0, \qquad \text{i.e.,} \qquad y^2+xz+tw=0.
\]
Finally, we note that we can get the quadratic equation (up to a $q_0$ power of a hyperplane) from the four equations of degree $q_0+1$ as follows. We fix any vertex, say $x_{-2}$ and we multiply each equation that contains $x_{-2}^{q_0}$ by the label of the missing edge of $x_{-2}$ in the triangle that define that equation, i.e., we multiply the \eqref{eq:s1} by $x_{0}$ (because $x_0$ is the missing edge of $x_{-2}$ in the triangle $\Delta x_{-2}x_{-1}x_{0}$ inside the polygon), \eqref{eq:s2} by $x_{-2}$, and \eqref{eq:s3} by $x_{-1}$ to get
\begin{align*}
&x^2_{0}x^{q_0}_{-2}+x_{0}x_{-1}x^{q_0}_{-1}+x_{0}x_{-2}x^{q_0}_{1}=0,\\
&x_{-2}x_{2}x^{q_0}_{-2}+x_{-2}x_{0}x^{q_0}_{1}+x_{-2}x_{-1}x^{q_0}_{2}=0.\\
&x_{-1}x_{1}x^{q_0}_{-2}+x_{-1}x_{0}x^{q_0}_{-1}+x_{-1}x_{-2}x^{q_0}_{2}=0.
\end{align*}
Now we add the equations above, we get that $(x_0^2+x_{-1}x_1+x_{-2}x_2)x^{q_0}_2=0$. In other words, the four equations of degree $q_0+1$ define a reducible variety with one component the Suzuki curve and the remaining components are intersections of hyperplanes.
\begin{remark}
Another way to get the quadratic equation is to notice that the matrix in \eqref{eq:MatS} is singular. The determinant is a power of the the quadratic equation.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The motivation to use the graph above with four vertices is the two dimensional root system in Figure~\ref{table1:RootSystem} (b) by taking only the short roots $\alpha$, $\alpha+\beta$, $-\alpha$, and $-(\alpha+\beta)$.
\end{remark}
In Section \ref{sec1:4} we will apply the techniques that are used in this section to get a set of equations that define a smooth model for the Ree curve in $\mathbb{P}^{13}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$. We mention that, although there are similarities between these Deligne-Lusztig curves in constructing a very ample linear series and smooth embeddings, there are some differences, for example, in the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup at $P_\infty$. More specifically, the pole orders of the functions that give the smooth embeddings for the Hermitian or Suzuki curve generate the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup at $P_\infty$ while this is not the case for the Ree curve (see Section \ref{sec1:8.1}).
\section{The Defining Equations and Automorphism group of the Ree Curve}\label{sec1:4}
\subsection{The Defining Equations for the Ree Curve}
In this section we give 105 equations that define a smooth model for the Ree curve in the projective space $\mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$. The embedding will be similar to the embeddings of the Hermitian and Suzuki curves using 14 functions that were defined by Pedersen \cite{Ped}. The general idea of this section is to apply the observations made in Sections \ref{sec1:3.1} and \ref{sec1:3.2} about the Hermitian and Suzuki curves.
We start with some notations and results about the Ree curve from \cite{Ped}. Let $m \in \mathbb{N}$, $q_0:=3^m$, and $q:=3q_0^2$. Define the Ree function field $F_{\text{R}}:=\mathbb{F}_{q}(x,y_1,y_2)$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ by the equations:
\begin{align}
y_1^q-y_1 &=x^{q_0}(x^q-x),\label{eq:Ree1}\\
y_2^q-y_2 &=x^{q_0}(y_1^q-y_1).\label{eq:Ree2}
\end{align}
The Ree function field $F_{\text{R}} / \mathbb{F}_{q}(x)$ is a finite separable field extension of degree $q^2$. All affine rational places $Q_{a}=(x=a)\in \mathbb{P}_{\fgq(x)} (a \in \mathbb{F}_{q})$ split completely into $q^2$ rational places $P_{a,b,c}=(x=a,y_1=b,y_2=c)\in \mathbb{P}_{\fr}$. Let $Q_{\infty}\in \mathbb{P}_{\fgq(x)}$ be the pole of $x$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}(x)$ and $P_{\infty}\in \mathbb{P}_{\fr}$ be a place of $F_{\text{R}}$ lying above $Q_{\infty}$. Then, $P_{\infty}| Q_{\infty}$ is totally ramified in $F_{\text{R}} / \mathbb{F}_{q}(x)$ with ramification index $e_{\infty}:=e(P_{\infty}| Q_{\infty})=q^2$. Thus, the function field $F_{\text{R}}$ has $q^3+1$ $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational places and is of genus $g_\text{R}=(\sfrac{3}{2})q_0(q-1)(q+q_0+1)$. Therefore, it is an optimal curve with respect to Serre's explicit formula method. The number of $\fg{q^r}$-rational places is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Reefqm}
N_r=q^r+1-\sqrt{3}q_0^2(q-1)\left [ (q+q_0+1)\cos \left ( \frac{r\pi}{6}\right ) +2(q+1)\cos \left ( \frac{5r\pi}{6} \right ) \right ].
\end{equation}
In particular, the Ree curve is maximal if $r \equiv 6 \pmod{12}$.
The automorphism group of this function field is the Ree group $R(q)=\,^{2}G_{2}(q)$ of order $q^3(q-1)(q^3+1)$. For this reason it is known as the Ree function field. Moreover, by the result of Hansen and Pedersen \cite{HP}, the Ree function field is the unique function field of genus $g_\text{R}=\sfrac{3q_0(q-1)(q+q_0+1)}{2}$, number of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational places equals to $q^3+1$, and automorphism group $^{2}G_{2}$. Denote by $\nu_0$ and $\nu_{\infty}$ the valuations at the places $P_{000}$ and $P_{\infty}$ respectively. Pedersen \cite{Ped} constructed the following ten functions $w_1,\dots,w_{10}\in F_{\text{R}}$:
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{align}
& w_1:=x^{3q_0+1} - y_1^{3q_0},\label{ReeEq:1}\\
& w_2:=xy_1^{3q_0}-y_2^{3q_0},\label{ReeEq:2}\\
& w_3:=xy_2^{3q_0}-w_1^{3q_0},\label{ReeEq:3}\\
& w_4:= xw_2^{q_0}-y_1w_1^{q_0},\label{ReeEq:4}\\
& v:=xw_3^{q_0}-y_2w_1^{q_0},\label{ReeEq:v}\\
& w_5:=y_1w3_{q_0}-y_2w_1^{q_0},\label{ReeEq:5}\\ \notag
\end{align}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{.47\linewidth}
\begin{alignat}{2}
& w_6:&&=v^{3q_0}-w_2^{3q_0}+xw_4^{3q_0},\label{ReeEq:6}\\
& w_7:&&=y_1w_3^{q_0}-xw_3^{q_0}-w_6^{q_0}\label{ReeEq:7} \\
& \, &&=w_2+v, \notag \\
& w_8:&&= w_6^{3q_0}+xw_7^{3q_0},\label{ReeEq:8}\\
& w_9:&&=w_4w_2^{q_0} -y_1w_6^{q_0},\label{ReeEq:9}\\
& w_{10}:&&=y_2w_6^{q_0}-w_3^{q_0}w_4.\label{ReeEq:10} \\ \notag
\end{alignat}
\end{minipage}
We remark here that some of these equations were already used by Tits \cite{Tits} to describe the generators of the Ree group and to show it is a simple group acting 2-transitively on a set of $q^3+1$ points.
\begin{remark}\label{sec1:ZeroPole}
We classify the 14 functions $1,x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10}$ into two sets of variables denoted by $x_{-3}, x_{-2},\dots,x_{3}$, and $y_{-3}, y_{-2}, \dots, y_{3}$, as illustrated in Table \ref{table:4.2}. We also have the auxiliary functions $z_1:=w_7$, $z_2:=w_7+w_2$, and $z_3:=w_7-w_2$ which satisfy $z_1+z_2+z_3=0$.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c}
\toprule
$x_{-3}$ & $x_{-2}$ & $x_{-1}$ & $x_{0}$ & $x_{1}$ & $x_{2}$ & $x_{3}$ \\
\midrule
$w_{1}$ & $x$ & $-w_8$ & $w_2$ & $1$ & $-w_6$ & $-w_3$ \\
\midrule
\midrule
$y_{-3}$ & $y_{-2}$ & $y_{-1}$ & $y_{0}$ & $y_{1}$ & $y_{2}$ & $y_{3}$ \\
\midrule
$w_{4}$ & $-y_{2}$ & $-w_{10}$ & $w_7$ & $y_{1}$ & $w_{9}$ & $-w_{5}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The correspondence between the 14 functions and $x_i$'s, $y_i$'s.}
\label{table:4.2}
\end{table}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c | c | c | |c || c| c| c|}
\hline
$x_{-3}$ & $x_{-2}$ & $x_{-1}$ & $x_{0}$ & $x_{1}$ & $x_{2}$ & $x_{3}$ \\
\hline
$w_{1}$ & $x$ & $-w_8$ & $w_2$ & $1$ & $-w_6$ & $-w_3$ \\
\hline
\hline
$y_{-3}$ & $y_{-2}$ & $y_{-1}$ & $y_{0}$ & $y_{1}$ & $y_{2}$ & $y_{3}$ \\
\hline
$w_{4}$ & $-y_{2}$ & $-w_{10}$ & $w_7$ & $y_{1}$ & $w_{9}$ & $-w_{5}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The correspondence between the 14 functions and $x_i$'s, $y_i$'s.}
\label{table:4.2}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
Consider the involution automorphism $\phi:F_{\text{R}} \to F_{\text{R}}$ acting by $x_{i}\mapsto \sfrac{x_{-i}}{x_{-1}}$ and $y_{i}\mapsto \sfrac{y_{-i}}{x_{-1}}$ ($i=0,1,2,3$). The automorphism $\phi$ sends the place $P_{000}$ to the place $P_{\infty}$. Therefore, the pole order and the zero order of $x_i$ (resp. $y_i$) and $x_{-i}$ (resp. $y_{-i}$) are related by
\[
\nu_{0}(x_i)=-\nu_{\infty}(w_8)+\nu_{\infty}(x_{-i})\quad \text{resp.}\quad \nu_{0}(y_i)=-\nu_{\infty}(w_8)+\nu_{\infty}(y_{-i}).
\]
The valuations of the 14 functions at $P_{000}$ and $P_{\infty}$ are summarized in Table \ref{table:4.1}.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\left[ \begin {array}{cccccc} {.}&{.}&{.}&{.}&{.}&{w_8}\\ \noalign{\medskip}{.}&{.}&{w_3}&{w_9}&{
w_{10}}&{w_6}\\ \noalign{\medskip}{.}&{w_1}&w_2/v&{w_5}&{.}&{.}\\ \noalign{\medskip}{.}&{y_2}&{w_4}&{w_7}&{
.}&{.}\\ \noalign{\medskip}{.}&{y_1}&{.}&{.}&{.}&{.}\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&{x}&{.}&{.}&{
.}&{.}\end {array} \right]
\end{array}
\]
\[
\left[ \begin {array}{llllll}
.&.&.&.&.&-{q}^{2}-3\,{q_0}\,q-2\,q-3\,{q_0}-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}.&.&-{q}^{2}-3\,{q_0}\,q-2\,q&-{q}^{2}-3
\,{q_0}\,q-2\,q-{q_0}&-{q}^{2}-3\,{q_0}\,q-2\,q-2\,{q_0}&-{q}^{2}-3\,{q_0}\,q-2\,q-3\,{q_0}\\ \noalign{\medskip}.&-{q}^{2}-3\,{
q_0}\,q&-{q}^{2}+3\,{q_0}\,q-q&-{q}^{2}-3\,{q_0}\,q-q-{q_0}&.&.\\ \noalign{\medskip}.&-{q}^{2}-2\,{q_0}\,q&-{q}^{2}-2\,{q_0}\,q-q&-{
q}^{2}-2\,{q_0}\,q-q-{q_0}&.&.\\ \noalign{\medskip}.&-{q}^{2}-{q_0}\,q&.&.&.&.\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&-{q}^{2}&.&.&.&.\end {array} \right]
\]
\[
\left[ \begin {array}{rrrrrr} .&.&.&.&.&{q}^{2}+3\,{q_0}\,q+2\,q+3\,{q_0}+1\\ \noalign{\medskip}.&.&2\,q-3\,{q_0}+1&+{q_0}\,q+2\,q
+3\,{q_0}+1&2\,{q_0}\,q+2\,q+3\,{q_0}+1&3\,{q_0}\,q+2\,q+3\,{q_0}+1\\ \noalign{\medskip}.&3\,{q_0}+1&+q+3\,{q_0}+1&{
q_0}\,q+q-3\,{q_0}+1&.&.\\ \noalign{\medskip}.&2\,{q_0}+1&.q+2\,{q_0}+1&+{q_0}\,q+q+2\,{q_0}+1&.&.\\ \noalign{\medskip}.&{q_0}
+1&.&.&.&.\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&+1&.&.&.&.\end {array} \right]
\]
\caption{The zero and the pole orders of the $x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots, w_{10}$ at $P_{000}$ and $P_{\infty}$.}
\label{table:4.1}
\end{figure}
The valuation of these functions at $P_{000}$ and $P_{\infty}$ is summarized in Table \ref{table:4.1}.
\end{comment}
\end{remark}
The Ree curve is birationally equivalent to the projective curve in $\mathbb{P}^{3}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$ defined by the $2\times 2$-minors of the matrix
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
X^{q_0} & -(Y_1^{q}-Y_{1}U^{q-1}) & -(Y_2^{q}-Y_{2}U^{q-1})\\
U^{q_0} & -(X^{q}-XU^{q-1}) & -(Y_1^{q}-Y_{1}U^{q-1})
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
This curve has a singularity at the point at infinity $[0:0:0:1]$ which corresponds to the place $P_{\infty}$ of $F_{\text{R}}$. Moreover, the Ree curve has a singular plane model in which $F_{\text{R}}$ is defined as an Artin-Schreier extension in the variables $x$ and $w_2$ (see \cite{Ped}).
One central problem from Pedersen paper \cite{Ped} is the following problem.
\begin{problem}
Compute the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup $H(P_\infty)$.
\end{problem}
In order to solve the problem above, we have found 105 equations in $1,x,y_1,y_2$, $w_1,\dots,w_{10}$. These equations are then used to compute all the non-gaps at $P_\infty$ over $\fg{27}$. (see Section \ref{sec1:8}). Moreover, these equations define a smooth embedding for the Ree curve in $\mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$ using the functions $1,x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10}$. These equations which are listed in Appendix \ref{app:1} can be described as follows:
\begin{description}
\item[Set 1] Equations of total degree $q_0+1$ of the form $aA^{q_0}+bB^{q_0}+cC^{q_0}=0$, where the functions $A,B,C \in \{ 1,x,w_1,w_2,w_3,w_6,w_8 \}$ and $a,b,c \in \{1,x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10} \}$.
\item[Set 2] Equations of total degree $3q_0+1$ of the form $a^{3q_0}A+b^{3q_0}B+c^{3q_0}C=0$, where $a,b,c,A,B,C$ are the functions in Set 1.
\item[Set 3] One quadratic equation $-w_2^2+w_8+xw_6+w_1w_3=0$.
\item[Set 4] Quadratic equations.
\end{description}
\begin{lemma} \label{sec3:lemma105}
The 105 equations in Appendix \ref{app:1} define the Ree curve.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To show that the 105 equations define the Ree curve, we need a birational map between the two models. From the 105 equations we show that the following equations hold:
\begin{align*}
y_1^{q}-y_1&=x^{q_0}(x^q-x),\\
y_2^q-y_2&=x^{q_0}(y_1^q-y_1).
\end{align*}
To get the first equation $y_1^{q}-y_1=x^{q_0}(x^q-x)$, we use the two equations $y_1=x^{q_0+1}-w_1^{q_0}$ \eqref{app:eq8} and $w_1=x^{3q_0+1}-y_1^{3q_0}$ \eqref{app:eq8'}. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
y_1^q-y_1-x^{q+q_0}+x^{q_0+1}&=y_1^{3q_0^2}-y_1-x^{3q_0^2+q_0}+x^{q_0+1}\\
&=(y_1^{3q_0}-x^{3q_0+1})^{q_0}+(x^{q_0+1}-y_1)\\
&=(-w_1)^{q_0}+w_1^{q_0}\\
&=0.
\end{align*}
Similarly, to get the second equation $y_2^q-y_2=x^{q_0}(y_1^q-y_1)$, we use the two equations $y_2=y_1x^{q_0}-w_2^{q_0}$ \eqref{app:eq4} and $w_2=xy_1^{3q_0}-y_2^{3q_0}$ \eqref{app:eq4'}. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
y_2^q-y_2-x^{q_0}y_1^q+x^{q_0}y_1&=y_2^{3q_0^2}-y_2-x^{q_0}y_1^{3q_0^2}+y_1x^{q_0}\\
&=(y_2^{3q_0}-xy_1^{3q_0})^{q_0}+(y_1x^{q_0}-y_2) \\
&=(-w_2)^{q_0}+w_2^{q_0}\\
&=0.
\end{align*}
Finally, it is easy to see that the Ree curve satisfy the 105 equations.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Consider the following matrix $R$
\[
R = \left( \begin{array}{lllllll}
1 &:~x &:~w_1 &:~w_2 &:~w_3 &:~w_6 &:~w_8 \\ \medskip
1 &:~x^q &:~w_1^q &:~w_2^q &:~w_3^q &:~w_6^q &:~w_8^q
\end{array} \right).
\]
Then, following the same ideas of Remark \ref{ch1:hermitianremrk} and Remark \ref{ch1:suzukiremrk} together with the equations in Set 2 in Appendix \ref{app:1}, we let a function $f^{3q_0}$ correspond to the Pl\"ucker coordinates of the matrix $R$ as in Table~\ref{table:R}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\[
\begin{array}{llll}
f = &1 &\quad f^{3q_0} \sim &R_{1,2} = [1,x] \\
&x & &R_{1,3} = [1,w_1] \\
&w_1 & &R_{2,5} = [x,w_3] \\
&w_3 & &R_{6,3} = [w_6,w_1]\\
&w_6 & &R_{7,5} =[w_8,w_3]\\
&w_8 & &R_{7,6} =[w_8,w_6]\\
& & & \\
&y_1 & &R_{2,3} = R_{1,4}\, ([x,w_1]=[1,w_2]) \\
&y_2 & &R_{1,5} = R_{2,4}\, ([1,w_3]=[x,w_2])\\
&w_4 & &R_{1,6} = R_{4,3}\, ([1,w_6]=[w_2,w_1])\\
&w_5 & &R_{7,2} = R_{5,4}\, ([w_8,x]=[w_3,w_2])\\
&w_9 & &R_{7,3} = R_{4,6}\, ([w_8,w_1]=[w_2,w_6])\\
&w_{10} & &R_{6,5} = R_{4,7}\, ([w_6,w_3]=[w_2,w_8])\\
& & & \\
&v_1 & &R_{5,3}=[w_3,w_1] \\
&v_1+w_2 & &R_{1,7}=[1,w_8] \\
&v_1-w_2 & &R_{6,2}=[w_6,x] \\[.5ex]
\end{array}
\]
\caption{The Pl\"ucker coordinates of the Ree curve.}\label{table:R}
\end{table}
\end{remark}
\begin{comment}
Explain the Ree curve here as you would do for the Suzuki and the Hermitian, i.e, how we get the above table and so...\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\end{comment}
\begin{remark}
Using Table \ref{table:R}, we can write the quadratic equations (Set 4) in the form $f_{R_{ab}}f_{R_{cd}}+f_{R_{ad}}f_{R_{bc}}+f_{R_{ac}}f_{R_{db}}=0$, where $f_{R_{ab}}$ is the function such that $f_{R_{ab}}^{3q_0} \sim R_{ab}$ in Table \ref{table:R}.
\end{remark}
Now we give a visual (geometric) way to list the equations above, which are in Sets 1--4 of the Ree curve. Consider the complete graph with seven vertices labeled by $x_{-3},x_{-2},\dots,x_{3}$, where the edge between any two vertices $x_i$ and $x_j$ is labeled by the function that corresponds to the Pl\"ucker coordinate of $x_i$ and $x_j$ in Table \ref{table:R}. For example, the edge between $x_0=w_2$ and $x_3=-w_3$ is labeled by the function that corresponds to the Pl\"ucker coordinate $R_{4,5}$ which is $-y_{3}=w_5$. \\
To list all the equations of the Ree curve, we will use the graph in Figure~\ref{fig:G7}. Note that the edges from $x_1,x_2,x_3$ to $x_{0},x_{-1},x_{-2},x_{-3}$ are outgoing edges, the edges from $x_0$ to $x_{-1},x_{-2},x_{-3}$ are outgoing edges, the edges between $x_1,x_2,x_3$ are according to the permutation $(1,3,2)$, and the edges between $x_{-1},x_{-2},x_{-3}$ are according to the permutation $(1,2,3)$. As a convention, the clockwise orientation will be considered as the positive orientation of this graph. \\
The labeling of the edges in Figure \ref{fig:G7} is given by Table \ref{table:4.3}. The labeling matches the Pl\"ucker coordinates for the matrix $R$ given in Table \ref{table:R}. \\
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c ccc ccc ccc }
\toprule
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}
&$~~~~$ & $1$ & $-w_{6}$ & $-w_{3}$ &$~~$ & $w_{2}$ &$~~$ & $-w_{8}$ & $x$ & $w_{1}$ \\[.5ex]
\midrule
$1$ & & & $-w_{4}$ & $-y_2$ & & $y_{1}$ & & $-w_7$ & $1$ & $x$ \\[.5ex]
$-w_{6}$ & & $w_{4}$ & & $w_{10}$ & & $w_{9}$ & & $-w_{8}$ & $-w_7-w_2$ & $-w_{3}$ \\[.5ex]
$-w_{3}$ & & $-y_{2}$ & $-w_{10}$ & & & $-w_{5}$ & & $-w_6$ & $w_{1}$ & $-w_{7}+w_2$ \\[3mm]
$w_{2}$ & & $-y_{1}$ & $-w_{9}$ & $w_{5}$ & & & & $-w_{10}$ & $-y_{2}$ & $w_{4}$ \\[3mm]
$-w_{8}$ & & $w_{7}$ & $w_{8}$ & $w_{6}$ & & $w_{10}$ & & & $-w_{5}$ & $-w_9$ \\[.5ex]
$x$ & & $-1$ & $w_7+w_2$ & $-w_1$ & & $y_{2}$ & & $w_{5}$ & & $y_{1}$ \\[.5ex]
$w_{1}$ & & $-x$ & $w_{3}$ & $w_7-w_2$ & & $-w_{4}$ & & $w_{9}$ & $-y_{1}$ & \\[.5ex]
\bottomrule \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The edge labeling of the graph in Figure \ref{fig:G7}. }
\label{table:4.3}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left, every node/.style={minimum size=2.5em}]
\node [circle,draw] (xp1) at (1,4) {$1$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm3) at (5,1) {$w_{1}$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm2) at (5,7) {$x$};
\node [circle,draw] (x0) at (7,4) {$w_{2}$};
\node [circle,draw] (xp2) at (9,1) {$-w_{6}$};
\node [circle,draw] (xp3) at (9,7) {$-w_{3}$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm1) at (13,4) {$-w_{8}$};
\draw [->] (xp1) -- node {$1$} (xm2);
\draw [<-] (xm2) -- node {$w_1$} (xp3);
\draw [->] (xp3) -- node {$-w_{6}$} (xm1);
\draw [<-] (xm1) -- node {$-w_{8}$} (xp2);
\draw [->] (xp2) -- node {$-w_{3}$} (xm3);
\draw [<-] (xm3) -- node {$x$} (xp1);
\draw [->] (x0) -- node[xshift=8.8mm,yshift=2.8mm] {$-y_{2}$} (xm2);
\draw [->] (x0) -- node[xshift=.8mm,yshift=6.8mm] {$w_{4}$} (xm3);
\draw [->] (x0) -- node[xshift=1.8mm,yshift=-5.8mm] {$-w_{10}$} (xm1);
\draw [<-] (x0) -- node[xshift=-8.8mm,yshift=-2.8mm] {$w_{9}$} (xp2);
\draw [<-] (x0) -- node[xshift=-1mm,yshift=-6.8mm] {$-w_{5}$} (xp3);
\draw [<-] (x0) -- node[xshift=0mm,yshift=3.2mm] {$y_{1}$} (xp1);
\draw [->] (xp1) -- node[xshift=-3.8mm,yshift=-4.8mm] {$-y_{2}$} (xp3);
\draw [<-] (xp2) -- node[xshift=-1.8mm,yshift=4.8mm] {$-w_{-4}$} (xp1);
\draw [<-] (xp2) -- node[xshift=0mm,yshift=-4.8mm] {$-w_{10}$} (xp3);
\draw [<-] (xm1) -- node[xshift=4.8mm,yshift=4.8mm] {$w_{9}$} (xm3);
\draw [<-] (xm2) -- node[xshift=4.8mm,yshift=-5.8mm] {$w_{5}$} (xm1);
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node[xshift=-2.5mm,yshift=-4.3mm] {$y_{1}$} (xm3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The complete graph with the seven vertices.}\label{fig:G7}
\end{figure}
\quad\\
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,minimum size=2.8em]
\node [circle,draw] (xm3) at (1,1) {$w_1$};
\node [circle,draw] (xp3) at (3,7) {$-w_{3}$};
\node [circle,draw] (xp1) at (4,3.5) {$1$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm1) at (8,3.5) {$-w_{8}$};
\node [circle,draw] (xm2) at (9,7) {$x$};
\node [circle,draw] (xp2) at (11,1) {$-w_{6}$};
\draw [->] (xp1) -- node {$-w_7$} (xm1);
\draw [<-] (xm3) -- node {$-w_7+w_2$} (xp3);
\draw [->] (xp2) -- node[swap] {$-w_7-w_2$} (xm2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The diagonals in the complete graph with seven vertices in Figure~\ref{fig:G7}.}\label{fig2:G7}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c}
\toprule
& $1$ & $-w_{6}$ & $-w_{3}$ & $w_{2}$ & $-w_{8}$ & $x$ & $w_{1}$ &\\
\midrule
$1$ & $-$ & $-w_{4}$ & $-y_2$ & $y_{1}$ & $-w_7$ & $1$ & $x$ \\\\
$-w_{6}$& $w_{4}$ & $-$ & $w_{10}$ & $w_{9}$ & $w_{10}$ & $-$ & $-w_{8}$ \\\\
$-w_{3}$& $-y_{2}$ & $-w_{10}$ & $-$ & $-w_{5}$ & $-$ & $-w_{10}$ & $-w_{6}$ \\\\
$w_{2}$& $-y_{1}$ & $-y_{2}$ & $w_{4}$ & $-$ & $w_{5}$ & $-w_{9}$ & $-w_{10}$ \\\\
$-w_{8}$& $w_{7}$ & $-w_{5}$ & $-w_{9}$ & $w_{10}$ & $w_{6}$ & $w_{8}$ & $-$ \\
$x$& $-1$ & $-$ & $y_{1}$ & $y_{2}$ & $-w_{1}$ & $w_7-w_2$ & $w_{5}$ \\\\
$w_{1}$& $-x$ & $-y_{1}$ & $-$ & $-w_{4}$ & $w_{7}-w_{2}$ & $w_{3}$ & $w_{9}$ \\\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The edges of the graph in Figure \ref{fig:G7}. }
\label{table:4.3}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
Now we use the graph in Figure \ref{fig:G7} to list the equations in Sets 1--4 as follows. To get the quadratic equations in Set 4, we consider the polygon in Figure \ref{figure:44}. Then, the product of the two diagonals plus the sum of the product of the opposite edges is equal to $0$, i.e.,
\[ad+be+cf=0.\]
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (C) at (1,1) {$C$};
\node [circle,draw, above=1cm of C] (A) {$A$};
\node [circle,draw, right=1cm of C] (D) {$D$};
\node [circle,draw, right=1cm of A] (B) {$B$};
\draw [->] (A) -- node{$a$} (B);
\draw [<-] (A) -- node[swap]{$e$} (C);
\draw [->] (A) -- node[xshift=2mm]{$c$} (D);
\draw [->] (B) -- node[swap,xshift=-1.8mm,yshift=-1.8mm]{$f$} (C);
\draw [->] (B) -- node{$b$} (D);
\draw [->] (C) -- node[swap]{$d$} (D);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Polygon with four vertices.}\label{figure:44}
\end{figure}
Now since we have seven vertices in the graph, in total we have $\binom{7}{4}=35$ polygons of four vertices, i.e., we have 35 equations. Among them, we notice that the equation
\[
y_1w_{10}+y_2w_9+w_4w_5=0
\]
can be found from the two polygons in Figure \ref{figure1:45}:
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,minimum size=2.8em]
\node [circle,draw] (x) at (5,5) {$x$};
\node [circle,draw, below left=1cm of x] (w2) {$w_2$};
\node [circle,draw, below right=1cm of x] (w8) {$-w_8$};
\node [circle,draw, below right=1cm of w2] (w1) {$w_1$};
\draw [<-](x) -- node[swap]{$y_2$} (w2);
\draw [<-](x) -- node{$w_5$} (w8);
\draw [->](x) -- node[xshift=-1.3mm,yshift=2.9mm]{$y_1$} (w1);
\draw [<-](w2) -- node[swap,xshift=-2.5mm,yshift=-0.8mm]{$w_{10}$} (w8);
\draw [->](w2) -- node[swap]{$w_4$} (w1);
\draw [<-](w8) -- node{$w_9$} (w1);
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (x1) at (10,5) {$-w_3$};
\node [circle,draw, below left=1cm of x1] (w22) {$1$};
\node [circle,draw, below right=1cm of x1] (w88) {$w_2$};
\node [circle,draw, below right=1cm of w22] (w11) {$-w_6$};
\draw [->](x1) -- node[swap]{$y_2$} (w22);
\draw [<-](x1) -- node{$w_5$} (w88);
\draw [->](x1) -- node[xshift=2mm,yshift=1.3mm]{$y_1$} (w11);
\draw [<-](w22) -- node[swap,xshift=-2.3mm,yshift=-1.8mm]{$w_{10}$} (w88);
\draw [<-](w22) -- node[swap]{$w_4$} (w11);
\draw [<-](w88) -- node{$w_9$} (w11);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The polygons yield the same quadratic equation.}\label{figure1:45}
\end{figure}
Hence, it appears twice in the list and so we have only 34 equations in Set 4.
Next, to get the equations in Set 1 of degree $q_0+1$, we consider any triangle in the graph, we take every vertex in the triangle to the power $q_0$ and we multiply it with the opposite edge. Then, we add them all to get the equation of total degree $q_0+1$.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (1,3) {$A$};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (3,4) {$B$};
\node [circle,draw] (c) at (3,2) {$C$};
\draw[->] (a) -- node {$c$} (b);
\draw[<-] (a) -- node[swap]{$b$} (c);
\draw[->] (b) -- node {$a$} (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Triangle.}\label{figure2:45}
\end{figure}
For example, for the triangle on in Figure \ref{figure2:45}, we get $aA^{q_0}+bB^{q_0}+cC^{q_0}=0$. Note that all the arrows are in the positive orientation. If an arrow is in the negative orientation, then we multiply the edge by a negative sign.
Since we have $\binom{7}{3}=35$ triangles in the graph of seven vertices, in total we have 35 equations in Sets 1 and these will also give another 35 equations in Set 2 by $a^{3q_0}A+b^{3q_0}B+c^{3q_0}C=0$.
Moreover, we have the equation $1\cdot w_8 + x \cdot w_6 + w_1 \cdot w_3 - w^2_2=0$ which can be read from the long diagonals of the graph using the vertices $x_{-3},x_{-2},x_{-1},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}$. Thus, in total we have $35+35+34+1=105$ equations.
\begin{remark}
The motivation to use the graph above with seven vertices is the two dimensional root system in Figure~\ref{table1:RootSystem} (c) by taking the six short roots $\alpha$, $\alpha+\beta$, $2\alpha+\beta$, $-\alpha$, $-(\alpha+\beta)$, $-(2\alpha+\beta)$, and the origin to be the $x_i$'s in our notation and we take the long roots and the origin to be the $y_i$'s in our notation. These short roots and the origin give a seven dimensional representation of the Ree group.
\end{remark}
We mention that the ideal generated by these 105 equations can be generated (up to some power of a hyperplane) only by the first 35 equations from Set 1 as in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $I \subseteq \mathbb{F}_{q}[x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10}]$ be the ideal generated by the first 35 equations from Set 1 of degree $q_0+1$. Then, the equations in Set 2, 3, and 4 can be deduced (up to some power of a hyperplane) from $I$. In other words, the equations in Set 1 of degree $q_0+1$ define a reducible variety with one component the Ree curve and the remaining components are intersection of hyperplanes.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First we show that the quadratic equations in Set 3 and Set 4 can be deduced up to a $q_0$ power of a hyperplane from the equations in Set 1. Consider the quadratic equation $ef+ac+bd=0$ in Set 4, which can be given using the polygon in Figure \ref{figure1:46}.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (C) at (1,1) {$C$};
\node [circle,draw, above=1cm of C] (A) {$A$};
\node [circle,draw, right=1cm of C] (D) {$D$};
\node [circle,draw, right=1cm of A] (B) {$B$};
\draw [->] (A) -- node{$a$} (B);
\draw [<-] (A) -- node[swap]{$d$} (C);
\draw [->] (A) -- node[xshift=2mm]{$e$} (D);
\draw [->] (B) -- node[swap,xshift=-1.8mm,yshift=-1.8mm]{$f$} (C);
\draw [->] (B) -- node{$b$} (D);
\draw [->] (C) -- node[swap]{$c$} (D);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Polygon with four vertices.}\label{figure1:46}
\end{figure}
Now we fix the vertex $A$ and we consider the three triangles that contain the vertex $A$. Then, as explained above, we get the following three equations:
\begin{align*}
bA^{q_0}-fB^{q_0}+aD^{q_0}=0,\\
-cA^{q_0}+fC^{q_0}+dD^{q_0}=0,\\
eA^{q_0}+dB^{q_0}+aC^{q_0}=0.
\end{align*}
Next, we multiply the first equation by $d$ (note that $d$ is the label of the missing edge in the triangle $\Delta ABD$ inside the polygon), the second equation by $-a$, and the third by $f$ and we add them to get $A^{q_0}(ac+bd+ef)=0$.
Now we show that we can deduce the equations in Set 2 from the equations in Set 1. The strategy is as follows. We will show first that the equations in Set 1 define the Ree curve as it was described in \cite{Ped}, i.e., we will show that $w_1,\dots, w_{10}$ can be written in terms of $x,y_1,y_2$ as in \eqref{ReeEq:1}--\eqref{ReeEq:10}. Then, we will show that we get the two defining equations of the Ree curve \eqref{eq:Ree1} and \eqref{eq:Ree2}.
First we show $w_1=x^{3q_0+1} - y_1^{3q_0}$. Recall that we have the following equations in Sets 1 and 4.
\begin{align*}
&w_3^{q_0}+w_1-y_2x^{q_0}=0, \qquad \qquad \quad &&\eqref{app:eq3}\\
&y_1x^{q_0}-w_2^{q_0}-y_2=0, \qquad \qquad \quad &&\eqref{app:eq4}\\
&x^{q_0+1}-y_1-w_1^{q_0}=0, \qquad \qquad \quad &&\eqref{app:eq8}\\
&y_1^2-xy_2-w_4=0, \qquad \qquad \quad &&\eqref{app:Q6} \\%3
&xw_1=y_1y_2-v, \qquad \qquad \quad &&\eqref{app:Q12}\\
&y_1w_4=w_3+xw_2-xv. \qquad \qquad \quad &&\eqref{app:Q14}\\%4
\end{align*}
We multiply Equation \eqref{app:Q6} by $y_1$ to get
\begin{align*}
y_1^3&=xy_1y_2+y_1w_4\\
&=xy_1y_2+w_3+xw_2-xv &&\text{ by Equation } \eqref{app:Q14}\\
&=x(y_1y_2-v)+w_3+xw_2\\
&=x^2w_1+xw_2+w_3 &&\text{ by Equation } \eqref{app:Q12}\\
\end{align*}
Therefore, \begin{equation} \label{sec3:lemma**}
y_1^{3q_0}=x^{2q_0}w_1^{q_0}+x^{q_0}w_2^{q_0}+w_3^{q_0}
\end{equation}
Now we multiply Equation \eqref{app:eq8} by $x^{2q_0}$ to get
\begin{align*}
x^{3q_0+1}-x^{2q_0}y_1 -x^{2q_0}w_1^{q_0}&=0\\
x^{3q_0+1}-x^{2q_0}y_1+x^{q_0}w_2^{q_0}+w_3^{q_0}-y_1^{3q_0}&=0 && \text{ by } \eqref{sec3:lemma**}\\
x^{3q_0+1}-x^{2q_0}y_1+x^{q_0}w_2^{q_0}+y_2x^{q_0}-w_1-y_1^{3q_0}&=0 && \text{ by } \eqref{app:eq3}\\
x^{3q_0+1}-x^{q_0}(x^{q_0}y_1-w_2^{q_0}-y_2)-w_1-y_1^{3q_0} &=0 \\
x^{3q_0+1}-w_1-y_1^{3q_0} & = 0.&& \text{ by } \eqref{app:eq4}
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have $w_1=x^{3q_0+1}-y_1^{3q_0}$. Similarly, we can write $w_2,\dots,w_{10}$ in terms of $x,y_1,y_2$ to get the Equations \eqref{ReeEq:1}--\eqref{ReeEq:10} as in \cite{Ped}. Next, we use these equations to show that $y_1^{q}-y_1=x^{q_0}(x^q-x)$ and $y_2^q-y_2=x^{q_0}(y_1^q-y_1)$, but this has been done in the proof of Lemma \ref{sec3:lemma105}. Therefore, we have shown that the variety that is defined by the equations in Set 1 actually contains the Ree curve and hence we can get the equations in Set 2 up to some power of a hyperplane
\end{proof}
We conclude this subsection by making a correspondence Pedersen's notations and Dickson's notation of Section \ref{sect2.1} which is given in Table \ref{table:D.1}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
$\xi_1$ & $\xi_2$ & $\xi_3$ & $\xi_0$ & $\mu_1$ & $\mu_2$ & $\mu_2$ \\
\midrule
$1$ & $-w_6$ & $-w_3$ & $w_2$ & $-w_8$ & $x$ & $w_1$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Dickson's notation.}
\label{table:D.1}
\end{table}
The other important correspondence is between Pedersen's notations and Tits' notations \ref{sect2.1} which is given in Table \ref{table:T.1} and \ref{table:T.2}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
$x_0$ & $x_1$ & $x_2$ & $x_{*}$ & $x_{0'}$ & $x_{1'}$ & $x_{2'}$ \\
\midrule
$-w_3$ & $-w_6$ & $1$ & $w_2$ & $w_1$ & $x$ & $-w_8$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The coordinates $x_i$'s used by Tits and the corresponding rational functions notations.}
\label{table:T.1}
\end{table}
Moreover, we have that the set of $y_i$'s defined above corresponds to the Pedersen notation as in Table \ref{table:T.2}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
$y_0$ & $y_1$ & $y_2$ & $y_{*}$ & $y_{0'}$ & $y_{1'}$ & $y_{2'}$ \\
\midrule
$-w_5$ & $-y_{1}$ & $y_2$ & $w_7$ & $w_4$ & $w_{10}$ & $-w_{9}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The coordinates $y_i$'s used by Tits and the corresponding rational functions notations.}
\label{table:T.2}
\end{table}
\subsection{The Ree Group}\label{sec1:2.1}
After we have discussed the defining equations of the Ree curve, we discuss the construction of the Ree group as it appears in \cite{Wil2},\cite{Wil1}. In this subsection we will recall the new elementary construction of the Ree group $R(q)=\,^{2}G_{2}(q)$ as it is given in \cite[Chapter 4]{Wil2},\cite{Wil1}. The advantage of this approach is that it will avoid the use of Lie algebra. Let $V$ be a 7-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-vector space with basis $\{i_t\,|\,t\in \fg{7}\}$, where $q:=3q_0^2:=3^{2m+1}\, (m \in \mathbb{N})$. Consider the anti-commutative multiplication on $V$ defined by $\cdot : V \times V \ni (i_t,i_{t+r})\mapsto i_{{t+3r}} \in V$ ($r=1,2,4$). This multiplication will define the 8-dimensional Octonian algebra $\mathcal{O}$ with basis $\{1,i_t\,|\, t \in \fg{7}\}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$. In fact $\mathcal{O}$ is a Lie algebra with the Lie bracket is defined by the multiplication above. We consider two important maps $m:\land^2(V)\ni i_t \land i_{t+r} \mapsto i_{t+3r} \in V $ ($r=1,2,4$) with kernel $W:=\ker(m)$ of dimension 14 over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ and $\mu:V \ni i_t \mapsto \sum_{r=1,2,4}i_{t+r}\land i_{t+3r} \in \land^2(V)$ with image $V':=\text{Im}(\mu) \simeq V$ of dimension 7 over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$. Moreover, we have that $V'=\text{Im}(\mu)\subseteq \ker(m)=W$.
Consider the $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-basis $\{ i'_t,i^*_t \,|\, t \in \fg{7} \}$ of $W$ defined by:
\begin{align*}
i'_t:=\mu(i_t)&=\sum_{r=1,2,4}i_{t+r}\land i_{t+3r}\\
&= i_{t+1}\land i_{t+3}+i_{t+2}\land i_{t+6}+i_{t+4}\land i_{t+5},\\
i^*_t:&=i_{t+1}\land i_{t+3}-i_{t+2}\land i_{t+6}.
\end{align*}
To define the Ree group, we will need the following two homomorphisms.
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\mu = \theta : &V \to W \qquad \qquad \text{and} \qquad \qquad \rho : &&W \to V\\
&i_t\mapsto i'_t &&i^*_t \mapsto i_t\\
&\quad && i'_t \mapsto 0.
\end{alignat*}
Note that $\rho$ induces an isomorphism between $V^*:=W/V'\simeq V$. The group $G_2(q)$ is then defined as the subgroup of the orthogonal group $\text{GO}_7(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ (with orthonormal basis $\{i_t \,|\, t \in \fg{7} \}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$) consisting of those elements which commute with $\theta$. This leads to an easy definition of the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}$ as follows. Consider the twisted map $\rho^*:W \to V$ given by $\rho^*(\lambda^*i^*_t)=\lambda i_t$, where $\lambda^*:=\lambda^{3q_0}$ ($\lambda\in \mathbb{F}_{q}$, i.e., $\lambda^{**}=\lambda^3$). Then, the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ is defined as the subgroup of $G_2(q)$ consisting of those elements which commute with $\rho^*$.
Using the construction above, Wilson \cite{Wil1} gave a description of the $q^3+1$ $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points, described the generators of the Ree group, and showed that $^{2}G_{2}$ is a simple group. To see this, change the basis of $V$ from $\{i_t \,|\, t \in \fg{7}\}$ to $\{v_{\pm 1}, v_{\pm 2},v_{\pm 3}, v_0 \}$ which is defined as follows
\begin{align*}
v_{-3}:=-i_3-i_5-i_6, &\qquad \qquad v_3:=i_3-i_5+i_6,\\
v_{-2}:=-i_1-i_2-i_4, &\qquad \qquad v_2:=i_1+i_2-i_4,\\
v_{-1}:=-i_0-i_3+i_6, &\qquad \qquad v_1:=-i_0+i_3-i_6,\\
&v_0:=i_1-i_2.
\end{align*}
Then, $W$ has the new basis $\{v^*_i,v'_i \,|\, i \in \{0,\pm 1, \pm 2, \pm 3 \} \}$ which is given in Table \ref{table:basis of W}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c }
\toprule
$r$ & $v'_r $& $v_r^*$ \\
\midrule
-3 & $v_0 \land v_{-3} + v_{-2}\land v_{-1} $& $v_{-3} \land v_{-2}$\\
-2 & $v_1 \land v_{-3} + v_{-2}\land v_{0} $& $v_{-1} \land v_{-3}$\\
-1 & $v_{-3} \land v_{2} + v_{-1}\land v_{0} $& $v_{-2} \land v_{1}$\\
0 & $v_{3} \land v_{-3} + v_{2}\land v_{-2} + v_{1}\land v_{-1}$ & $v_{-3} \land v_{3} + v_{-2}\land v_{2}$\\
1 & $v_3 \land v_{-2} + v_{0}\land v_{1} $& $v_{2} \land v_{-1}$\\
2 & $v_{-1} \land v_{3} + v_{0}\land v_{2} $& $v_{1} \land v_{3}$\\
3 & $v_{3} \land v_{0} + v_{2}\land v_{1} $& $v_{3} \land v_{2}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The new basis of $W$.}
\label{table:basis of W}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c }
\toprule
& $v_{-3}$ & $v_{-2}$ & $v_{-1}$ & $v_{0}$ & $v_{1}$ & $v_{2}$ & $v_{3}$\\
\midrule
$v_{-3}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-v_{-3}$ & $v_{-2}$ & $-v_{-1}$ & $v_{0}$\\
$v_{-2}$ & & 0 & $v_{-3}$ & $v_{-2}$ & $0$ & $v_{0}$ & $v_{1}$\\
$v_{-1}$ & & & 0 & $v_{-1}$ & $-v_0$ & $0$ & $-v_{2}$\\
$v_{0}$ & & & & 0 & $v_1$ & $v_2$ & $-v_{3}$\\
$v_{1}$ & & & & & 0 & $v_3$ & $0$\\
$v_{2}$ & & & & & & 0 & $0$\\
$v_{3}$ & & & & & & & $0$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The multiplication table of $V$ using the new basis.}
\end{table}
A vector $v \in V$ is called a \emph{$*$-vector} if $v^*\equiv v \land w \pmod{V'}$, for some $w\in V$. Similarly $\langle v \rangle$ is called a \emph{$*$-point} if $v$ itself is a $*$-vector. Wilson \cite{Wil1} described explicitly the set of all $*$-points which is called the \emph{Ree unital} as follows. For any $*$-point $v \in V$, we have either $v=v_{-3}$ or $v=v_3+\sum_{r=-3}^{2}\alpha_r v_r$ ($\alpha_r \in \mathbb{F}_{q}$). Then, given $\alpha_2,\alpha_1,\alpha_0$, one can solve a system of equations described in \cite[Section 3]{Wil1} to find $v, w\in V$ such that $v^*\equiv v \land w \pmod{V'}$. Therefore, we have $q^3+1$ $*$-points in the Ree unital. Moreover, if $\phi$ is an automorphism of $^{2}G_{2}$ that fixes the point $\langle v_{-3} \rangle$, then $\phi$ is uniquely determined by $\alpha_2,\alpha_1,\alpha_0 \in \mathbb{F}_{q}$ in $\phi(v_3)=v_3+\sum_{r=-3}^{2}\alpha_r v_r$, and the system of equations in \cite[Section 3]{Wil1} provides enough information to solve for every entry of $\phi$. Note that the diagonal automorphism $\delta(\lambda):=\text{diag}(\lambda,\lambda^{3q_0-1}, \lambda^{-3q_0+2}, 1, \lambda^{3q_0-2}, \lambda^{-3q_0+1}, \lambda^{-1})$ is another automorphism that also fixes the $*$-point $\langle v_{-3} \rangle$. The subgroup $B\subseteq$ $^{2}G_{2}$ generated by these automorphisms is the maximal subgroup that fixes $\langle v_{-3} \rangle$. Moreover, the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}$ is generated by the subgroup $B$ and an automorphism of order 2.
\section{Smooth Embedding for the Ree Curve}\label{sec1:5}
In this section we want to prove that the variety $\mathcal{X}\subseteq \mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$ defined by the 105 equations of Section \ref{sec1:4} gives a smooth model for the Ree curve in the projective space. We denote the Ree curve by $X_{\text{R}}$ or simply by $\mathcal{R}$. Similar to the case of the Hermitian and Suzuki curves \cite{FTor1},\cite{TGK},\cite{Tor3}, we begin first by finding a very ample linear series that defines a smooth embedding for the Ree curve. We give then a concrete realization of the embedding by showing that the smooth curve $\mathcal{X}$ is birationally equivalent to the Ree curve. We recall that the $L$-polynomial of the Ree curve is given by
\[
L(t):=L_{X_{\text{R}}}(t)=(qt^2+3q_0t+1)^a(qt^2+1)^b,
\]
where $a:=q_0(q^2-1)$, $b:=\sfrac{q_0(q-1)(q+3q_0+1)}{2}$ with $a+b=2g_\text{R}$.
We will follow the outline in the lecture notes \cite{Tor3}. The reciprocal polynomial of the $L$-polynomial is given by
\begin{align*}
h_{X_{\text{R}}}(t)&=t^{2g}L(t^{-1})=t^{2g}(qt^{-2}+3q_0t^{-1}+1)^a(qt^{-2}+1)^b\\
&= t^{2g}\cdot t^{-2a}(q+3q_0t+t^2)^a \cdot t^{-2b}(q+t^2)^b\\
&= (q+3q_0t+t^2)^a(q+t^2)^b.
\end{align*}
The polynomial $h_{X_{\text{R}}}$ has two irreducible factors $h_1(t):=q+3q_0t+t^2$ and $h_2(t):=q+t^2$. Set $h(t):=h_1(t)h_2(t)=q^2+3q_0qt+2qt^2+3q_0t^3+t^4$. Let $\Phi:X_{\text{R}} \to X_{\text{R}}$ be the Frobenius morphism on $X_{\text{R}}$ and $\mathcal{J}_{\text{R}}:=Cl^0(X_{\text{R}})$ be the Jacobian group of $X_{\text{R}}$. Then, $\Phi$ induces a well-defined morphism $\tilde{\Phi}:\mathcal{J}_{\text{R}} \to \mathcal{J}_{\text{R}}$ given by $\tilde{\Phi}([P])=[\Phi(P)]$. Moreover, $h_{X_{\text{R}}}$ is the characteristic polynomial of $\tilde{\Phi}$ over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ \cite[Page 44]{Tor3}. Note that $\tilde{\Phi}$ is semisimple \cite[Chapter IV, Corollary 3]{Mum},\cite[Page 251]{Mum},\cite[Theorem 2 (a)]{Tate}. Therefore, $h(\tilde{\Phi})=0$ \cite[Chapter IV, Theorem 3]{Mum}, i.e., we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:char}
q^2I+3q_0q \tilde{\Phi} +2q \tilde{\Phi}^2 +3q_0 \tilde{\Phi}^3 + \tilde{\Phi}^4=0 \quad \text{ in } \mathcal{J}_{\text{R}}.
\end{equation}
Let $P_{\infty}\in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ be as before the $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational point at infinity and let $f:X_{\text{R}} \to \mathcal{J}_{\text{R}}$ be the morphism defined by $f(P):=[P-P_\infty]$. Then, we have the following commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [] (x1) at (1,1) {$J_R$};
\node [] (xm2) at (1,4) {$X_R$};
\node [] (x2) at (4,1) {$J_R$};
\node [] (xm1) at (4,4) {$X_R$};
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node[swap]{$f$} (x1);
\draw [<-] (x2) -- node{$\tilde{\Phi}$} (x1);
\draw [->] (xm2) -- node{$\Phi$} (xm1);
\draw [<-] (x2) -- node[swap]{$f$} (xm1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
i.e., $f \circ \Phi= \tilde{\Phi} \circ f$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:1}
For $P \in X_{\text{R}}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:equiv}
q^2P+3q_0q \Phi(P) +2q \Phi^2(P) +3q_0 \Phi^3(P) + \Phi^4(P) \sim mP_\infty,
\end{equation}
where $m:=h(1)=q^2+3q_0q+2q+3q_0+1=-\nu_{\infty}(w_8)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First we notice that for all natural numbers $i=0,1,2,\dots$ and for any $P \in X_{\text{R}}$, $\tilde{\Phi}^i(f(P))=\tilde{\Phi}^{i}([P-P_\infty])=[\Phi^i(P)-\Phi^i(P_\infty)]$. Now we apply Equation \eqref{eq:char} to $f(P)\in \mathcal{J}_{\text{R}}$ to get that
\begin{alignat*}{2}
&q^2f(P)+3q_0q \tilde{\Phi}(f(P))+2q \tilde{\Phi}^2(f(P)) +3q_0 \tilde{\Phi}^3(f(P)) + \tilde{\Phi}^4(f(P)) = 0 \text{ in } J_{\text{R}}\\
&q[P-P_\infty]+3q_0q[\Phi(P)-\Phi(P_\infty)]+2q[\Phi^2(P)-\Phi^2(P_\infty)]\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \,\, +3q_0[\Phi^3(P)-\Phi^3(P_\infty)]+[\Phi^4(P)-\Phi^4(P_\infty)] =0 \text{ in } J_{\text{R}}\\
&\left [ q^2P+3q_0q\Phi(P)+2q\Phi^2(P)+3q_0\Phi^3(P)+\Phi^4(P) \right ]=\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \left [ q^2P_\infty+3q_0q\Phi(P_\infty)+2q\Phi^2(P_\infty)+3q_0\Phi^3(P_\infty)+\Phi^4(P_\infty) \right ].
\end{alignat*}
Since $P_{\infty}\in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$, we get $\Phi(P_\infty)=P_\infty$. Therefore,
\[
[ q^2P+3q_0q \Phi(P) +2q \Phi^2(P) +3q_0 \Phi^3(P) + \Phi^4(P)]=[(q^2+3q_0q+2q+3q_0+1)P_{\infty}]
\]
and we get the required equivalence
\[
q^2P+3q_0q \Phi(P) +2q \Phi^2(P) +3q_0 \Phi^3(P) + \Phi^4(P) \sim mP_\infty.\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
Fix $m:=h(1)=q^2+3q_0q+2q+3q_0+1$, $H:=mP_{\infty}$, $\mathcal{D}:=\mathcal{D}_{\text{R}}:=\left | (q^2+3q_0q+2q+3q_0+1)P_\infty \right | $, $\mathcal{D}':=\langle 1,x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10} \rangle \subseteq \mathcal{L}(H)$, and $\mathcal{D}_1:=\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{D}') \subseteq |mP_\infty|$. Note that we will show in Section \ref{sec1:8.1} that $\mathcal{D}_1=\mathcal{D}$ over $\fg{27}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:2}
With the notations above, we have the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $\mathcal{D}$ is independent of the choice $P_\infty \in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$.
\item[(2)] $m=q^2+3q_0q+2q+3q_0+1 \in \text{H}(Q)$, for all $Q\in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$, where $H(Q)$ is the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup at $Q$.
\item[(3)] $\mathcal{D}$, $\mathcal{D}_1$ are base-point-free and simple linear series.
\item[(4)] $q^2$ is the first positive non-gap at every $Q\in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) Let $Q\in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ be another $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational point. Then, applying \eqref{eq:equiv} to $Q$, we get that $mQ \sim mP_{\infty}$ since $\Phi(Q)=Q$. Therefore, we have $\mathcal{D}=\left | mP_{\infty}\right |=\left | mQ \right | $.
(2) Since $(w_8)_\infty=mP_{\infty}$, $m$ is a non-gap at $P_\infty$. By (1) we have $\left | mP_\infty\right | =\left | mQ \right | $ for any $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational point $Q\in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$. Therefore, there exists a positive divisor $A\in \left | mQ \right | $ such that $A=mQ+(z)=mP_\infty+(z')$, $z,z' \in \mathcal{L}(H)$. Hence, $(z'z^{-1})_\infty=mQ$
and so $m$ is a non-gap integer at $Q$.
(3) Recall that $\mathcal{D}_1$ is a base-point-free if $b(P)=0$, for all points $P\in X_{\text{R}}$. Set $D_\infty:=mP_\infty+(w_8)\in \mathcal{D}_1$. Therefore, we have $\nu_\infty(D_\infty)=m-m=0$, in particular, $b(P_\infty)=0$ and that shows $P_\infty$ is not a base point for $\mathcal{D}_1$. For any other point $Q\ne P_\infty$, set $D_Q:=mP_{\infty}+(1) \in \mathcal{D}_1$. Then, we have $\nu_Q(D_Q)=0$, in particular, $b(Q)=0$ and that shows $Q$ is not a base point for $\mathcal{D}_1$. Therefore, $\mathcal{D}$ is a base-point-free linear series and hence $\mathcal{D}$ is also a base-point-free linear series.
To show $\mathcal{D}_1$ is simple, we consider any morphism $\phi$ associated with $\mathcal{D}_1$. We need to show that $\phi$ is birational, i.e., $\deg(\phi):=\left [\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(X_{\text{R}}):\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(\phi(X_{\text{R}}))\right ]=1$. Recall from Proposition 3.6.1 (c) in \cite{Sti} that $\deg(\phi)=\left [\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(X_{\text{R}}):\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(\phi(X_{\text{R}}))\right ]=\left [\mathbb{F}_{q}(X_{\text{R}}):\mathbb{F}_{q}(\phi(X_{\text{R}}))\right ]$.
Now we consider first the morphism $\pi:=(t:x:y_1:y_2:w_1:\cdots:w_{10})$. Then, we have that $\deg((w_8)_\infty)=m=[\mathbb{F}_{q}(X_{\text{R}}):\mathbb{F}_{q}(w_8)]$ is divisible by $\deg(\pi)$, similarly $\deg((w_6)_\infty)=\deg((m-1)P_\infty)=m-1=[\mathbb{F}_{q}(X_{\text{R}}):\mathbb{F}_{q}(w_6)]$ is divisible by $\deg(\pi)$. Hence, we must have that $\deg(\pi)=1$. Now for any other morphism $\phi$ associated with $\mathcal{D}_1$, there exists $\tau \in \operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc))$ such that $\phi=\tau \circ \pi$. Therefore, $\deg(\phi)=\deg(\pi)=1$. Therefore, $\mathcal{D}_1$ is a simple linear series. Same argument also shows that $\mathcal{D}$ is a simple linear series.
(4) Let $Q \in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ be a rational point and let $n_1(Q)$ be the first non-gap integer at $Q$. We want to show $n_1(Q)=q^2$. Choose $P \in X_{\text{R}}$ such that $\Phi^i(P)\ne P$ ($i=0,1,2,3,4,5$) and $P$ is a non Weierstrass point according to the definition in \cite[p. 28]{Tor3}. Apply $\Phi$ to the equivalence \eqref{eq:equiv} and then subtract the result from \eqref{eq:equiv} we get
\[
\Phi^5(P)+(3q_0-1)\Phi^4(P)+(2q-3q_0)\Phi^3(P)+(3q_0q-2q)\Phi^2(P) +(q^2-3q_0q)\Phi(P)\sim q^2 P.
\]
Since the left-hand side of the equivalence above is a positive divisor and $P$ is not in its support, we have that the first non-gap at $P$ is less than or equal to $q^2$. By \cite[Lemma 2.30]{Tor3}, we have $n_1(Q) \leq n_1(P) \leq q^2$. Let $f \in F_{\text{R}}$ be the $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational function such that $(f)_\infty=n_1(Q)\cdot Q$. Then, $F_{\text{R}} / \mathbb{F}_{q}(f)$ is of degree $n_1(Q)$. Now each $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational place of $\mathbb{F}_{q}(f)$ splits into at most $n_1(Q)$ rational places of $F_{\text{R}}$ with one specific place that will be totally ramified in $F_{\text{R}} / \mathbb{F}_{q}(f)$ \cite[Theorem 1(b)]{Lewittes}. But then we have the bound $\#X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})=q^3+1\leq 1+qn_1(Q)$, but $n_1(Q)\leq q^2$, so $q^3+1\leq 1+qn_1(Q) \leq 1+q^3$. Therefore, $n_1(Q)=q^2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{remark:4
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] For the point $P_\infty$ we have that $j_{N-i}(P_\infty)=m-n_{i}(P_\infty)$ $(i=0,1,2,\dots,N:=\ell(mP_\infty))$. Therefore, using Table \ref{table:4.1} we can determine some of the $(\mathcal{D},P_\infty)$-orders.
\item[(2)] Since we have $h(t)=q^2+3q_0qt+2qt^2+3q_0t^3+t^4$, we get that $1,3q_0,2q,3q_0q,q^2$ are $\mathcal{D}$-orders \cite[Corollary 4.22(1)]{Tor3}. Moreover, using Lemma \ref{lemma:2} and \cite[Corollary 4.22]{Tor3} we get that $\epsilon_{N}=\nu_{N-1}=q^2$, where $\epsilon_i$'s are the $\mathcal{D}$-orders and $v_i$'s are the Frobenius orders of the linear series $\mathcal{D}$ respectively.
\item[(3)] \label{remark:4.3} Using Lemma 4.19 in \cite{Tor3}, we have $1,3q_0q,2q,3q_0$, and $q^2$ are $(\mathcal{D},P)$-orders for all $P\notin X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
Next we show that the linear series $\mathcal{D}$ is a very ample linear series. We will follow the proof of Proposition 8 in \cite{Suzz}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop1:proposition8}
The linear series $\mathcal{D}=|mP_\infty|$ is a very amply linear series.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\varphi:X_{\text{R}} \to \mathbb{P}^{N-1}$ be the morphism associated to $\mathcal{D}$. Since $\{1,x,y_1,y_2 \} \subseteq \mathcal{L}(mP_\infty)$, $|mP_\infty|$ contains the linear series $\mathbb{P}(\langle 1,x,y_1,y_2\rangle)$ which induces a model for the Ree curve in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ with a singularity at $P_\infty$. Thus, the morphism $\varphi$ is injective and separates tangent vectors (i.e., $\varphi$ has a non-zero differential) at any point in $X_{\text{R}} \setminus \{P_\infty\}$. In order to show $|mP_\infty|$ is a very ample linear series, we need only to show that $\ell (mP_\infty)=\ell ((m-2)P_\infty) +2$ \cite[Proposition 8]{Suzz}. But since $m$ and $m-1$ are non-gaps at $P_\infty$, then $\ell(mP_\infty)=\ell((m-1)P_\infty)+2$. Therefore, $|mP_\infty|$ is a very ample linear series.
\end{proof}
Now we apply the idea of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop1:proposition8} to show that the linear series $\mathcal{D}_1$ is a very ample of dimension 13
\begin{theorem} \label{prop:5.5}
$\mathcal{D}$ is a very ample linear series.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $\mathcal{D}_1$ is a very ample linear series if $\mathcal{D}_1$ separates points and tangent vectors \cite[Page 308]{Har}. To show $\mathcal{D}$ separates points, let $P,Q\in \mathcal{R}$, we want to show that there exists a positive divisor $D \in \mathcal{D}$ such that $P \in $ Supp($D$) and $Q \notin $ Supp($D$) (this is equivalent to showing that the morphism associated to $\mathcal{D}$ is injective). From the equivalence \eqref{eq:equiv}, we have
\begin{align*}
A:=&q^2P+3q_0q\Phi(P)+2q\Phi^2(P)+3q_0\Phi^3(P)+\Phi^4(P) \\
&\sim B:=q^2Q+3q_0q\Phi(Q)+2q\Phi^2(Q)+3q_0\Phi^3(Q)+\Phi^4(Q) \sim mP_\infty.
\end{align*}
If $Q\notin $ Supp($A$), then we are done. If $Q \in $ Supp($A$), then $Q=\Phi^i(P)$, for some $i=0,1,2,3,4$. Therefore, we have
\[
\{Q,\Phi(Q),\Phi^2(Q),\Phi^3(Q),\Phi^4(Q) \}= \{\Phi^{i}(P),\Phi^{i+1}(P),\Phi^{i+2}(P),\Phi^{i+3}(P),\Phi^{i+4}(P) \}.
\]
Similarly, if we exchange the role of $P$ and $Q$, we have if $P\notin $ Supp($B$), then we are done. If $P \in $ Supp($B$), then $P=\Phi^j(Q)$ for some $j=0,1,2,3,4$. Therefore, we have $\{P,\Phi(P),\Phi^2(P),\Phi^3(P),\Phi^4(P) \}= \{\Phi^{j}(Q),\Phi^{j+1}(Q),\Phi^{j+2}(Q),\Phi^{j+3}(Q),\Phi^{j+4}(Q) \} $.
Therefore, $\Phi^{i+j}(P)=P$. Then, by examining the cases we get that $\Phi^5(P)=P$ or $\Phi^4(P)=P$ or $\Phi^3(P)=P$. But as in the Equation \eqref{eq:Reefqm} we have
\begin{align*}
\#X_{\text{R}}(\fg{q^r})=q^r+1-2\sqrt{q^r}\left ( a\cos \left ( \frac{5\pi r}{6}\right )+b\cos \left ( \frac{\pi r}{6} \right )\right ).
\end{align*}
Hence, we have $\#X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})=q^3+1=\#X_{\text{R}}(\fg{q^2})=\#X_{\text{R}}(\fg{q^3})=\#X_{\text{R}}(\fg{q^4})=\#X_{\text{R}}(\fg{q^5})$. Therefore, we must have $P,Q\in \mathcal{R}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$, and so $P=Q$. That means $\mathcal{D}$ separates points and so $\mathcal{D}_1$ separates points.
To show that $\mathcal{D}_1$ separate tangent vectors, it is sufficient to show that $j^{\mathcal{D}_1}_1(P)=1$ for all $P \in \mathcal{R}$ \cite{TGK}. For $P=P_\infty$, we have $\nu_{P_\infty}(mP_\infty+(w_6))=m-(m-1)=1$, so $j^{\mathcal{D}_1}_1(P_\infty)=1$. Now we can apply the same idea of the proof in \cite[Proposition 8]{Suzz} as $P_\infty$ is the only singular point of the Ree curve model $X_{\text{R}}^{\text{sin}}$ defined by the two equations $y_1^{q}-y_1=x^{q_0}(x^q-x)$ and $y^{q}_2-y_2=x^{q_0}(y_1^{q}-y_1)$. So any $P \in X_{\text{R}}^{\text{sin}}\setminus \{ P_\infty \}$ separates points and tangent vectors. More concretely, for $P \in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})\setminus \{P_\infty \}$, we need to show that $j_1(P)=1$ which is equivalent to finding a divisor $D=mP_\infty+(t_P) \in \mathcal{D}_1$ with $\nu_P(t_P)=1$ and $t_{P}\in \langle t,x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10} \rangle$.
Consider first the point $P_{000}$ and set $t_{000}:=x$, we have $\nu_{P_{000}}(t_{000})=e(P_{000}| P_{0})\cdot \nu_{P_{0}}(x)=1$ and clearly $x \in \mathcal{D}'$. Therefore, $j_1(P_{000})=1$. Now we know that the maximal subgroup $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ that fixes the point $P_\infty$ acts linearly and transitively on the affine $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points (Lemma \ref{lemma:7.1}) which means for any other place $P_{\alpha \beta \gamma}$, there exists $\psi \in G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_{\infty})$ such that $\psi(P_{000})= P_{\alpha \beta \gamma}$, set $t_{\alpha \beta \gamma}:=\psi(t_{000})=\psi(x)$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
\nu_{P_{\alpha \beta \gamma}}(t_{\alpha \beta \gamma})&= \nu_{\psi(P_{000})}(t_{\alpha \beta \gamma})=\nu_{P_{000}}(\psi^{-1}(t_{\alpha \beta \gamma}))\\
&= \nu_{P_{000}}(x)=1.
\end{align*}
Hence, $\nu_{P}(mP_{\infty}+(t_{\alpha \beta \gamma}))=1$ and so $j^{\mathcal{D}_1}_1(P)=1$, for all $P \in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$.
Finally for a non-rational point $P \in \mathcal{R}$ with $P \notin X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ and $\Phi^i(P)\ne P$ $(i=0,1,2,3,4)$, we have $1,3q_0,2q,3q_0q,q^2$ are $(\mathcal{D},P)$-orders as in Remark \ref{remark:4} (3). Therefore $j^{\mathcal{D}}_1(P)=1$ and so $j^{\mathcal{D}_1}_1(P)=0,1$. But since for any $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational point $Q\in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$, $j^{\mathcal{D}_1}_1(Q)=1$ and any point $P \notin X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ lies over some $Q\in X_{\text{R}}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ with ramification index one, we have that $j^{\mathcal{D}_1}_1(P)=1$ as well.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
The morphism $\pi=(t:x:y_1:y_2:w_1:\cdots:w_{10})$ associated to the very ample linear series $\mathcal{D}=|mP_\infty|$ is a smooth embedding of the Ree curve in the projective space $\mathbb{P}^{13}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lemma:2} (3) and Theorem \ref{prop:5.5}.
\end{proof}
Now we will give a concrete realization of the Ree curve in $\mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$ using the morphism $\pi:=(1:x:y_1:y_2:w_1:\cdots:w_{10})$ as follows. We have from the Equations (5.3) in \cite{Tits} that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:3*}
\begin{aligned}
w_3&=x^{3q_0+3}-w_1^{3q_0}-x^2w_1-xw_2,\\
w_6&=x^{6q_0+3}-x^{3q_0}w_1^{3q_0}-w_2^{3q_0}-xw_1^2+w_1w_2,\\
w_8&=w_2^2-xw_6-w_1w_3.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have from the 105 equations in Section \ref{sec1:4} the following equations:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3**}
\begin{aligned}
y_1&=x^{q_0+1}-w_1^{q_0},\\
y_2&=x^{q_0}y_1-w_2^{q_0},\\
w_4&=xw_2^{q_0}-y_1w_1^{q_0},\\
w_7&=w_6^{q_0}-x^{q_0}w_4,\\
w_5&=w_8^{q_0}-x^{q_0}w_7,\\
w_9&=xw_8^{q_0}-w_1^{q_0}w_7,\\
w_{10}&=y_2w_6^{q_0}-w_3^{q_0}w_4.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the curve $\mathcal{R}$ can be given as the variety in the projective space $\mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$ defined by the set of points \[P_{\chi,\omega_1,\omega_2}:=\left [1:\chi:\upsilon_1:\upsilon_2:\omega_1:\cdots:\omega_{10}\right ]\] and \[P'_{\infty}:=\pi(P_\infty)=\left [0:0:\cdots:0:1:0:0 \right ],\] where $\chi=x\in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}, \omega_1=w_1 \in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$, and $\omega_2=w_2 \in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ satisfying the equations \eqref{eq:w1x}, \eqref{eq:w2xw1}, and $\upsilon_1,\upsilon_2,\omega_i \in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ are defined according to \eqref{eq:3*}, \eqref{eq:3**}. Using the results of Section \ref{sec1:6}, \cite{Ped},\cite{Tits} we will have that the Ree group acts as the automorphism group on the smooth model of the Ree curve.
\begin{remark}
Another way to show the variety $\mathcal{X}\subseteq \mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$ defined as the zero locus of the 105 equations (Sets 1--4) of Section \ref{sec1:4} is birationally equivalent to the Ree curve $X_{\text{R}}$ is to show directly that $\mathcal{X}$ is smooth curve with a function field isomorphic to the Ree function field.
First to show $\mathcal{X}$ is smooth, consider again the morphism $\pi:=(1:x:y_1:y_2:w_1:\cdots:w_{10})$ and let $P'_\infty:=\pi(P_\infty):=[0:\cdots:0:1:0:0]$. Using Equations \eqref{ReeEq:1}--\eqref{ReeEq:10}, the morphism $\pi$ is given by polynomial expressions in $1,x,y_1,y_2$. This implies that $\mathcal{X}$ is smooth at every affine point since the only singularity of the model $X_{\text{R}}^{\text{sin}}$ of the Ree curve is at $P_\infty$. To show $\mathcal{X}$ is smooth at $P'_\infty$, we have computed the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives at $P'_\infty$ and we have found that it has the maximum possible rank which is 12. Therefore, $\mathcal{X}$ is a smooth curve in $\mathbb{P}^{13}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$.
It remains to show that $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}({\mathcal{X}})$ is isomorphic to the Ree function field, but this has been done in Lemma \ref{sec3:lemma105}. Therefore, $\mathcal{X}$ is a smooth model for the Ree curve in the projective space.
\end{remark}
\begin{comment}
Another way to show that the variety $\mathcal{X}\subseteq \mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$ defined as the zero locus of the 105 equations (Sets 1--4) of Section \ref{sec1:4} is birationally equivalent to the Ree curve $X_{\text{R}}$ is to show directly that they have $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-isomorphic function field (analogue to Proposition \ref{lemma:2}). Consider again the map
\begin{align*}
\pi: X_{\text{R}}\subseteq \mathbb{P}^2(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}) &\to \mathcal{X} \subseteq \mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)\\
P &\mapsto \pi(P)
\end{align*}
given above by $\pi:=(1:x:y_1:y_2:w_1:\cdots:w_{10})$ and $P'_\infty:=\pi(P_\infty):=[0:\cdots:0:1:0:0]$. Clearly $\pi$ is a morphism as it is given by polynomial expressions in $1,x,y_1,y_2$. That implies $\mathcal{X}$ is smooth at every affine point since the only singular point of $X_{\text{R}}$ is $P_\infty=[0:0:0:1]$. By computing the Jacobi matrix at the point $P'_\infty \in \mathcal{X}$, we found that it has maximum possible rank which is 12. Hence, $\mathcal{X}$ is smooth at $P'_\infty$.
Note that by computing the Jacobi matrix at the point $P_{000}$, the Jacobian matrix also has rank 12 and the same rank for every other $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational point since the subgroup that fix the point $P'_\infty$ $G_{\text{R}}(P'_\infty)$ acts linearly and transitively on the set of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points.
Now to show $\pi$ is birational morphism from the singular curve $X_{\text{R}}$ to the smooth curve $\mathcal{X}$ we show they have $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-isomorphic function fields. Now the map $\pi:X_{\text{R}} \to \mathcal{X}$ is nonconstant morphism between two curves, hence it is surjective \cite[Lemma 3.2.1]{NX}. Thus, $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(\mathcal{X})$ is subfield of $F_{\text{R}}\cdot \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$. We want to show $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(\mathcal{X})$ defined by the 105 equations contains $F_{\text{R}}$, i.e., we show that $y_1^q-y_1=x^{q_0}(x^q-x)$ and $y_2^q-y_2=x^{q_0}(y_1^q-y_1)$.
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{3cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (1,3) {$1$};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (3,4) {$x$};
\node [circle,draw] (c) at (3,2) {$w_1$};
\draw[->] (a) -- node {$1$} (b);
\draw[->] (a) -- node[swap]{$x$} (c);
\draw[->] (b) -- node {$y_1$} (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{wrapfigure}
For that, we use first the triangle on the right to deduce the two equations $y_1=x^{q_0+1}-w_1^{q_0}$ and $w_1=x^{3q_0+1}-y^{3q_0}$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
y_1^q-y_1-x^{q+q_0}+x^{q_0+1}&=y_1^{3q_0^2}-y_1-x^{3q_0^2+q_0}+x^{q_0+1}\\
&=(y_1^{3q_0}-x^{3q_0+1})^{q_0}+(x^{q_0+1}-y_1)\\
&=(-w_1)^{q_0}+w_1^{q_0}\\
&=0.
\end{align*}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{3cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left,]
\node [circle,draw] (a) at (1,3) {$1$};
\node [circle,draw] (b) at (3,4) {$x$};
\node [circle,draw] (c) at (3,2) {$w_2$};
\draw[->] (a) -- node {$1$} (b);
\draw[->] (a) -- node[swap]{$y_1$} (c);
\draw[<-] (b) -- node {$-y_2$} (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{wrapfigure}
Similarly, we use the triangle on the right to deduce the two equations $y_2=y_1x^{q_0}-w_2^{q_0}$ and $w_2=xy_1^{3q_0}-y_2^{3q_0}$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
y_2^q-y_2-x^{q_0}y_1^q+x^{q_0}y_1&=y_2^{3q_0^2}-y_2-x^{q_0}y_1^{3q_0^2}+y_1x^{q_0}\\
&=(y_2^{3q_0}-xy_1^{3q_0})^{q_0}+(y_1x^{q_0}-y_2) \\
&=(-w_2)^{q_0}+w_2^{q_0}\\
&=0.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have that $F_{\text{R}}$ is the algebraic function field for the two curves and so we have $\mathcal{X}$ is birationally equivalent to the Ree curve.
\end{comment}
\section{Relation to the Previous Work on the Embeddings of the Deligne-Lusztig Curves}\label{sec1:6}
In this section we relate the results of this paper with the work of Kane \cite{Kane}. Kane constructed smooth embeddings for the three Deligne-Lusztig curves associated to the groups $^{2}A_{2}$ (Hermitian curve), $^{2}B_{2}$ (Suzuki curve), and $^{2}G_{2}$ (Ree curve). In the case of $G_2$, Kane gave an explicit (but rather abstract) embedding from $X_{G_{2}} \to \mathbb{P}(W)$, where $W$ is a representation of $^{2}G_{2}$ of dimension 14. For the curve constructed by Kane it is not clear if it is the Ree curve constructed by Pedersen \cite{Ped} or Tits \cite{Tits}, although both curves are of the same genus and having the same number of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points with $^{2}G_{2}$ as an automorphism group. Therefore, both curves are isomorphic by the uniqueness result of Hansen and Pedersen \cite{HP} (See Figure \ref{fig:E1}). In this section we will show that the set of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points for Kane's embedding \cite{Kane} is the same set of the $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points of the embedding given in Section \ref{sec1:5}. This result depends on the construction of the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}$ given in Section \ref{sec1:2.1}. First we recall some notations from that section.
Let $V$ be a 7-dimensional vector space with basis $\{i_t: t \in \fg{7} \}$ and anti-commutative multiplication $i_t\cdot i_{t+r}:=i_{t+3r}$ $(r=1,2,4)$. Thus, $V$ can be identified with the pure imaginary part of the Octonion algebra $\mathcal{O}$ \cite[Chapter 4]{Wil2}. Let $m:\land^2(V) \to V$ be the map defined by the multiplication above and let $W:=\ker(m)$ which is a 14 dimensional vector space with basis $\{i_t^*,i_t'\}$ as defined in Section \ref{sec1:2.1}. Let $V':=\text{Im}(\mu) \subseteq \ker(m)=W$, where $\mu:V \to \land^2(V)$ is defined by $\mu(i_t)=\sum_{r=1,2,4}i_{t+r}\land i_{t+3r}$. Set $V^*:=W/V'\simeq V$
For $z \in \mathcal{O}$ with $z=a+\sum_{t \in \mathbb{F}_{7}}a_ti_t$, we recall that the pure and imaginary part of $z$ are $\text{Re}(z):=a$ and $\text{Im}(z):=\sum_{t \in \fg{7}}a_ti_t$, respectively. Note that the map $m$ is the same map on the pure imaginary part of the Octonion algebra, i.e., $m$ is the map $*:V \times V \ni (x,y)\mapsto \text{Im}(x\cdot y)\in V$. Moreover, let $(-,-):V\times V \ni (x,y) \mapsto \text{Re}(x \cdot y) \in V$. Having these notations in place, we describe briefly the embedding given by Kane. For any given Borel subgroup $B \subseteq G_{2}$, it fixes a complete flag
\[
0 \subseteq L=\langle x \rangle \subseteq M=\langle x,y\rangle \subseteq S=\langle x,y,z \rangle \subseteq S^{\perp} \subseteq M^{\perp} \subseteq L^{\perp} \subseteq V
\]
with the property $(M,M)=0=M*M$. Fix the canonical isomorphism $F:V^* \to V$. Then, $\sigma(B)$ is the Borel subgroup fixing $F(\langle x \land y \rangle)$ and $F(\langle x \land y,x \land z \rangle)$. We pick $w_{M,L} \in W(G_{2})$ such that for any $B \in X_{G_{2}}(w_{M,L})$, we have that $B$ and $\sigma(B)$ are fixing the same line $L$ and plane $M$. We write $X_{G_{2}}$ for $X_{G_{2}}(w_{M,L})$. Then, we can define the embedding by
\begin{align*}
X_{G_{2}} &\to \mathbb{P}(W)\\
B &\mapsto [w:=x \land y]
\end{align*}
Now the relations in \cite[Section 5.3]{Kane} that define the curve of this embedding guarantee that $w\in W$. Also, for any $w \in \wedge^2(V)$, if $ x=F(w)$, then $w=x \land y$, i.e., $x^* \equiv x \land y \pmod{V'}$. We get by \cite{Wil1} that the image of this embedding is the set of all $*$-points of the Ree group. Moreover, $B$ is the unique Borel subgroup such that $x \land y$ is parallel to $w$. Therefore, the embedding is well-defined and since the resulting smooth curve has the same genus, number of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points, and automorphism group $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ as the Ree curve, it is isomorphic to the Ree curve defined by Pedersen \cite{Ped,HP}. Note that $B \in X_{G_{2}}$ corresponds to a $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational point in $\mathbb{P}^{13}$ if and only if $\sigma(B)=B$ if and only if $F(x \land y)$ is in the plane $M$.
To see that Kane's embedding is similar to our embedding at the level of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points, we use the new basis $\{v_i^*,v_i' \}$ of $W$ defined in Table \ref{table:basis of W}. First we have the correspondence between $1,x,y_1,\dots,w_{10}$ and the basis of $W$ as shown in Table~\ref{table1:WwithDa'}.
\begin{table}
\begin{alignat*}{3}
&v_{-3}^{'}=-w_{10},\qquad \qquad &&v_{-2}^{'}=-w_{9},\qquad \qquad &&v_{-1}^{'}=-w_{5},\\
&v_{3}^{'}=y_{1},\qquad \qquad &&v_{2}^{'}=y_{2},\qquad \qquad &&v_{1}^{'}=w_{4},\\
&v_{0}^{'}=w_7, \qquad \qquad &&v_{0}^{*}=w_2, \qquad &&v_{-1}\land v_{1}=v\\
&v_{-3}^{*}=-w_{8},\qquad \qquad &&v_{-2}^{*}=x,\qquad \qquad &&v_{-1}^{*}=w_{1},\\
&v_{3}^{*}=1,\qquad \qquad &&v_{2}^{*}=-w_{6},\qquad \qquad &&v_{1}^{*}=-w_{3}.
\end{alignat*}
\caption{The correspondence between the basis of $W$ and the basis of $\mathcal{D}'$.}\label{table1:WwithDa'}
\end{table}
Since the image of the embedding over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ is the $*$-points $v \in V$ such that $v^* \equiv v \land w \pmod{V'}$, for some $w\in V$ \cite{Wil1}, the $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points of Kane can be found by taking $\alpha_2,\alpha_1,\alpha_0\in \mathbb{F}_{q}$, say $v =v_3 + \sum_{r=-3}^{2}\alpha_r v_r$ and we find $\alpha_{-3},\alpha_{-2},\alpha_{-1}$ using Wilson's algorithm \cite[Section 3]{Wil1}. This will also give us $w=\sum_{r=-3}^{2}\beta_r v_r$ such that $v^* \equiv v \land w \pmod{V'}$. Write $v \land w$ in the basis $\{v_i^*,v_i' \}$ of $W$, i.e.,
\[
v \land w =\sum_{r=-3}^{3}a_r v_r^* + \sum_{r=-3}^{3}b_r v'_r.
\]
Then, this will give a point in $\mathbb{P}(W)$ which corresponds to
\[
\left [ a_{3}:a_{-2}:b_{3}:b_{2}:a_{-1}:a_{0}:a_{1}:b_{1}:b_{-1}:a_{2}:b_{0}:a_{-3}:b_{-2}:b_{-3} \right ] \in \mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)
\]
by the isomorphism $\mathbb{P}(W) \ni [\sum_{i=1}^{14}{n_iw_i}] \mapsto [n_1:\cdots:n_{14}] \in \mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$. This point is a $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational point in our embedding because it is the evaluation of the rational functions $x,y_1,y_2$, $w_1,\dots,w_{10}$ at $x=\alpha_2,y_1=\alpha_1,y_2=\alpha_0$ on the Ree curve. Moreover, we have $v_{-3}^*=v_{-3}\land v_{-2}$ corresponds to the point at infinity $P'_{\infty}=[0:0:0: \cdots: 0 :1:0 :0]$. Note that we have used the fact that the Ree unital defined as the set of all $*$-rational points is the set $\Gamma$ of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-rational points in the Ree curve
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1,auto=left, minimum size=5em]
\node [rectangle,draw,text width=4cm, align = center] (b) at (1,1) {Kane's embedding \cite{Kane}};
\node [rectangle,draw,text width=4cm, align = center] (a) at (1,9) {Ree curve as a Deligne-Lusztig curve, \ref{sec1:2.2}};
\node [rectangle,draw,text width=4cm, align = center] (c) at (5,5) {Uniqueness theorem of Hansen and Pedersen \cite{HP}};
\node [rectangle,draw,text width=4cm, align = center] (e) at (9,1) {Embedding in $\mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$, Section \ref{sec1:5}};
\node [rectangle,draw,text width=4cm, align = center] (d) at (9,9) {Ree curve defined by equations \cite{Ped}};
\draw [->] (a) -- (c);
\draw [->] (d) -- (c);
\draw [->] (a) -- (b);
\draw [->] (d) -- (e);
\draw [->] (b) -- (e);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The relation between the two embeddings.}\label{fig:E1}
\end{figure}
\section{Representation of the Ree Group}\label{sec1:7}
The Ree group $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ is the automorphism group of the Ree curve $X_{\text{R}}$ \cite{Ped}. In this section we show how the Ree group acts on the smooth model $\mathcal{R}$ of the Ree curve in the projective space $\mathbb{P}^{13}(\fgqc)$. First we show that the subgroup $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ of $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ which fixes the point at infinity $P_\infty$ acts linearly on the space $\mathcal{D}'$ generated by $1,x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10}$ and the action can be represented by lower triangular matrices.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:7.1}
The subgroup $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ that fixes the point $P_{\infty}$ acts linearly on the space $\mathcal{D}'=\langle 1,x,\dots,w_{10} \rangle$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$. Moreover, the action can be represented by lower triangular matrices.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We recall from \cite{Ped} that \[G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty):=\{\psi_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \in \operatorname{Aut}(F_{\text{R}}) \,: \, \alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{q}^\times, \beta,\gamma,\delta \in \mathbb{F}_{q}\},\] where
\begin{align*}
\psi_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}(x)&:=\alpha x + \beta,\\
\psi_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}(y_1)&:= \alpha^{q_0+1}y_1 + \alpha \beta^{q_0}x + \gamma,\\
\psi_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}(y_2)&:=\alpha^{2q_0+1}y_2 - \alpha^{q_0+1}\beta^{q_0}y_1 +\alpha \beta^{2q_0} x + \delta.
\end{align*}
Direct calculations using the 105 equations of Section \ref{sec1:4} yield the action in the Appendix \ref{app:2}. This shows that $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ acts linearly on $\mathcal{D}'$. Moreover, it is clear from the action above that it can be represented by lower triangular matrices.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] From the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:7.1}, we see that the subgroup $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ also acts linearly on the space $V:=\langle 1,x,w_1,w_2,w_3,w_6,w_8 \rangle$. This is the same action of the subgroup $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ on a 7-dimensional space as in \cite{Tits}.
\item[(2)] $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_{\infty})$ is the subgroup $B$ used in Wilson \cite{Wil1}, see Section \ref{sec1:2.1}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
Next, we show that the Ree group acts on $\mathcal{D}'$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:7.2}
The Ree group $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ acts on $\mathcal{D}'$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We recall that the Ree group contains an involution map $\phi:F_{\text{R}} \to F_{\text{R}}$ that swap $x_{i} \longleftrightarrow x_{-i}$ and $y_{i} \longleftrightarrow y_{-i}$. As in \cite{Ped}, $\phi$ can be given explicitly by $\phi:F_{\text{R}} \to F_{\text{R}}$, where
\begin{alignat*}{3}
1 &\mapsto \frac{w_8}{w_8}, \quad x &\mapsto \frac{w_6}{w_8}, \quad y_1 &\mapsto \frac{w_{10}}{w_8},\\
y_2 &\mapsto \frac{w_9}{w_8}, \quad w_1 &\mapsto \frac{w_3}{w_8}, \quad w_4 &\mapsto \frac{w_5}{w_8},\\
w_2 &\mapsto \frac{w_2}{w_8}, \quad w_7 &\mapsto \frac{w_7}{w_8}, \quad v &\mapsto \frac{v}{w_8}.
\end{alignat*}
Therefore, apart from the $w_8$ factor, this automorphism maps $1 \longleftrightarrow w_8$, $x \longleftrightarrow w_6$, $w_1 \longleftrightarrow w_3$, $y_1 \longleftrightarrow w_{10}$, $y_2 \longleftrightarrow w_9$, $w_4 \longleftrightarrow w_5$. Moreover, $\phi$ sends the point at infinity $P_\infty$ to the point $P_{000}$. Since $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ is generated by $G_{F_{\text{R}}}(P_\infty)$ and $\phi$, the result follows and we have $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ acts on $\mathcal{D}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] From the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:7.2}, we see that the Ree group $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ acts on the space $V:=\langle 1,x,w_1,w_2,w_3,w_6,w_8 \rangle$. This is the same action of $^{2}G_{2}(q)$ on a 7-dimensional space as in \cite{Tits}.
\item[(2)] $\phi\circ \psi_{-1,0,0,0}$ is similar to the automorphism $\alpha^{\beta^3}$ defined in \cite{Wil1} which acts by negating $v_0$ and swapping $v_r$ with $v_{-r}$ ($r=1,2,3$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\section{Further Properties of the Ree Curve}\label{sec1:8}
In this section we study three more properties of the Ree curve over specific finite fields. First we answer the 20 years old problem from \cite{Ped}, which is to find the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup at $P_\infty$. We find that contrary to the case of the Hermitian and Suzuki curves, the pole orders of the basis functions $1,x,y_1$,$y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10}$ of $\mathcal{L}(mP_\infty)$ over $\fg{27}$ do not generate the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup $H(P_\infty)$.
\subsection{The Weierstrass Non-gaps Semigroup $H(P_\infty)$ over $\fg{27}$}\label{sec1:8.1}
The open problem from Pedersen's paper \cite{Ped} in 1993 is to find the set of all non-gaps at $P_\infty$. In this subsection we are interested in finding the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup $H(P_\infty)$ of the Ree curve over $\fg{27}$. We show that the pole orders (Table \ref{table:4.1}) of the basis functions $1,x,y_1$,$y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10}$ of $\mathcal{L}(mP_\infty)$ that is used in Section \ref{sec1:5} to define the smooth embedding for the Ree curve in the projective space do not generate the full Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup $H(P_\infty)$. We mention that for the Hermitian and Suzuki curves, the pole orders of the basis functions of $\mathcal{L}(mP_\infty)$ do generate the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup $H(P_\infty)$.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c r c l }
\toprule
$f$ &$~~~$ & $\nu_0(f)$ &$~~~$ &$\nu_{\infty}(f)$ \\
\midrule
$x$ & & $1 $ & & $-(q^2) $ \\
$y_1$ & & $q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+q_0q) $ \\
$y_2$ & & $2q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+2q_0q) $ \\
$w_1$ & & $3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q) $ \\
$w_2$ & & $q+3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q+q) $ \\
$w_3$ & & $2q+3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q+2q) $ \\
$w_4$ & & $q+2q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+2q_0q+q) $ \\
$v$ & & $2q+3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q+q) $ \\
$w_5$ & & $q_0q+q+3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q+q+q_0) $ \\
$w_6$ & & $3q_0q+2q+3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q+2q+3q_0) $ \\
$w_7$ & & $q_0q+q+2q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+2q_0q+q+q_0) $ \\
$w_8$ & & $q^2+3q_0q+2q+3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q+2q+3q_0+1) $ \\
$w_9$ & & $q_0q+2q+3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q+2q+q_0) $ \\
$w_{10}$ & & $2q_0q+2q+3q_0+1 $ & & $-(q^2+3q_0q+2q+2q_0) $ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The zero and pole orders of the rational functions $x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots, w_{10}$ at $P_{000}$ and $P_{\infty}$.}
\label{table:4.1}
\end{table}
In particular, for the Hermitian curve, the functions $1,x,y$ generate the space $\mathcal{L}(mP_\infty)$ with pole orders $0,q_0,q_0+1$ at $P_\infty$ respectively. Hence, we have $\langle q_0,q_0+1 \rangle\subseteq H(P_\infty)$, but $\mathbb{N} \setminus \langle q_0,q_0+1 \rangle=\sfrac{q_0(q_0-1)}{2}=g_\text{H}$. Therefore, $H(P_\infty)=\langle q_0,q_0+1 \rangle$ by the Weierstrass gap theorem (\cite{Duursma1}).
For the Suzuki curve, the functions $1,x,y,z,w$ generate the space $\mathcal{L}(mP_\infty)$ with pole orders $0,q,q+q_0,q+2q_0,q+2q_0+1$ at $P_\infty$ respectively. Hence, we have $\langle q,\, q+q_0,\, q+2q_0,\, q+2q_0+1 \rangle\subseteq H(P_\infty)$, but $\mathbb{N} \setminus \langle q,\, q+q_0,\, q+2q_0,\, q+2q_0+1\rangle=q_0(q-1)=g_\text{S}$ \cite{HS}. Therefore, $H(P_\infty)=\langle q,\,q+q_0,\,q+2q_0,\,q+2q_0+1 \rangle$. On the other hand, this does not hold for the Ree curve, more precisely, the pole orders of the basis functions $1,x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10}$ of $\mathcal{L}(mP_\infty)$ over $\fg{27}$ do not generate the full Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup $H(P_\infty)$.
In establishing the set of nongaps we use the following observations about the Ree curve. First $P_\infty$ is a Weierstrass point since $q^2<g_\text{R}$ is the first non-gap integer at $P_\infty$ (Lemma \ref{lemma:2}). Second the divisor $(2g_\text{R}-2)P_\infty$ is a canonical divisor since $d(\sfrac{w_6}{w_8})=(2g_\text{R}-2)P_\infty$ \cite{Ped}. Third we have $(3q_0-2)\cdot m = 2g_\text{R}-2$. Therefore, over $\fg{27}$ we have $7H=7\cdot mP_\infty=(2g_\text{R}-2)P_\infty$ is a canonical divisor and so $-\nu_\infty(w_8^{3q_0-2})=(3q_0-2)m=2g_\text{R}-2$ is a non-gap integer. This implies that $2g_\text{R}-1$ is a gap \cite[Remark 4.4]{Pellikaan}. Which means that the Weierstrass non-gaps semigroup $H(P_\infty)$ is symmetric.
Using the observations above, we have in the interval $0,1,\dots,2g_\text{R}-1=7253$, 3627 gaps and $3627$ non-gaps (since $g_\text{R}=3627$). A straightforward calculation of the semigroup generated by the pole orders of the functions $1,x,y_1,y_2,w_1,\dots,w_{10}$ will create only 3040 non-gap integers in the interval $0,1,\dots,2g_\text{R}-1=7253$ which proves the above mentioned claim. Next, we compute the full list of non-gap integers that are less than $2g_\text{R}$ as follows.
Since we know that $H(P_\infty)$ is symmetric, whenever we find a non-gap integer $a$, we would know that $2g_\text{R}-1-a$ is a gap. Since we have the numbers $1,2,\dots,q^2-1=728$ are gap integers by Lemma \ref{lemma:2}, $(2g_\text{R}-1)-(1,2,\dots,728)$ are non-gap integers. Therefore, we will have 3100 non-gaps and 3100 gaps. Moreover, we use the fact that $7H$ is a canonical divisor and that the number of non-gaps in each equivalence class $a$ modulo $26$ is equal to $139$ if $a$ is odd and $140$ if $a$ is even.
To compute the gaps and non-gaps in the interval $0,1,\dots,7253=2g_\text{R}-1$ for the Ree curve over $\fg{27}$, we used the computer algebra system MAGMA \cite{MAGMA}. For a function $f$ with poles only at $P_\infty$ we compute the pole order as the dimension of the ring $R/(I,f)$, where $R/I$ is the coordinate ring of the curve. The functions in $\mathcal{L}((3q_0-2)mP_\infty)$ generate the affine ring of functions regular outside $P_\infty$. We use the defining equations of the curve to reduce the set of generating functions to a smaller generating set. In this set there are functions with the same pole order. We create new functions by taking differences of functions with the same pole order. The second round of reduction brings the set of generators in a form where all functions have different pole orders. At that point the non-gaps are known. In the second round we can divide the functions into groups of sizes $139$ or $140$ for pole orders in a given residue class modulo $26$. The semigroup of Weierstrass non-gaps is generated by the $132$ non-gaps in Table \ref{table:nongaps}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr }
\toprule
729 &810 &891 &918 &921 &972 &999 &1002 &1026 &1029 &1032 &1035 &1036 \\
1866 &2520 &2547 &2601 &2604 &2628 &2631 &2658 &2706 &2709 &2712 &2739 &2820 \\
3250 &3277 &3285 &3286 &3287 &3312 &3313 &3314 &3331 &3358 &3366 &3367 &3368 \\
3393 &3394 &3395 &3396 &3444 &3447 &3471 &3474 &3477 &3498 &3501 &3504 &3507 \\
3557 &3558 &3584 &3585 &3592 &3612 &3619 &3638 &3665 &3673 &3700 &3703 &3750 \\
3751 &3754 &3777 &3778 &3781 &3784 &3804 &3805 &3808 &3811 &3814 &3862 &3863 \\
3865 &3889 &3890 &3892 &3899 &3919 &3926 &3943 &3944 &3946 &3947 &3970 &3971 \\
3973 &3974 &3980 &4000 &4001 &4007 &4010 &4047 &4048 &4049 &4051 &4052 &4054 \\
4055 &4057 &4058 &4061 &4081 &4082 &4084 &4085 &4088 &4091 &4111 &4112 &4115 \\
4118 &4121 &4174 &4201 &4228 &4237 &4238 &4240 &4241 &4481 &4484 &4508 &4511 \\
4535 &4538 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $132$ non-gaps that generate the Weierstrass semigroup for the Ree curve over $\fg{27}$ with genus $g_\text{R} = 3627$.}
\label{table:nongaps}
\end{table}
\section{}
\subsection{}
\begin{theorem}[Optional addition to theorem head]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Optional replacement proof heading]
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{filename}
\caption{text of caption}
\label{}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
\end{equation*}
\begin{align}
& \\
&
\end{align}
|
\section{Introduction}
Apart from their intrinsic interest, communication lower bounds for \emph{search problems} find applications in two major areas of complexity theory.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=\parindent]
\item[\bf 1.] \textbf{Circuit complexity:}
A famous theorem of Karchmer and Wigderson~\cite{karchmer88monotone} states that for all boolean functions $f$, the minimum depth of a circuit computing $f$ is equal to the communication complexity of a certain search problem, called the \emph{Karchmer--Wigderson (KW) game} for~$f$. While it still remains a major open problem to prove general depth lower bounds for explicit boolean functions, KW-games have permitted progress in \emph{monotone} circuit complexity: there are monotone depth lower bounds for graph connectivity~\cite{karchmer88monotone}, clique functions~\cite{goldmann92simple,raz92monotone}, perfect matchings~\cite{raz92monotone}, and functions in monotone~\P~\cite{raz99separation}. See also Chapter 7 in Jukna's new book~\cite{jukna12boolean}.
\item[\bf 2.] \textbf{Proof complexity:}
Impagliazzo et al.~\cite{impagliazzo94upper} (see also~\cite[\S19.3]{jukna12boolean}) introduced an analogue of KW-games to proof complexity. They showed how small tree-like Cutting Planes refutations of an unsatisfiable CNF formula $F$ can be converted into efficient \emph{two-party} communication protocols for a certain canonical search problem associated with~$F$.
More recently, Beame et al.~\cite{beame07lower} extended this connection by showing that suitable lower bounds
for \emph{multi-party} protocols imply degree/rank lower bounds for many well-studied semi-algebraic proof systems, including
Lov\'asz--Schrijver\xspace~\cite{lovasz91cones}, Positivstellensatz~\cite{grigoriev01linear}, Sherali--Adams~\cite{sherali90hierarchy}, and Lasserre (SOS)~\cite{lasserre01explicit} systems. In parallel to these developments, Huynh and Nordstr{\"o}m~\cite{huynh12virtue} have also found a new kind of simulation of space-bounded proofs by communication protocols. They used this connection to prove length--space lower bounds in proof
complexity.
\end{itemize}
In this work we obtain new randomised lower bounds for search problems in both two-party and multi-party settings. Our proofs are relatively simple reductions from the \emph{set-disjointness} function, the canonical $\NP$-complete problem in communication complexity. These results allow us to derive, almost for free, new lower bounds in the above two application domains.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=\parindent]
\item[\bf 1.] \textbf{Monotone depth:}
We construct a monotone function on $n$ variables whose monotone circuits require depth $\Omega(n/\log n)$. Previously, the best bound for an explicit monotone function (perfect matchings) was $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ due to Raz and Wigderson~\cite{raz92monotone}. Moreover, we prove a tight $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$ monotone depth bound for a function in monotone~$\P$.
In fact, we show that the above bounds hold even if the circuits are allowed to make some errors. In particular, we get a simple proof of an average-case hierarchy theorem within monotone~$\P$, similar to a recent result of Filmus et al.~\cite{filmus13average}. (Their result was proven using Fourier analytic techniques~\cite{potechin10bounds,chan12tight}.)
\item[\bf 2.] \textbf{Rank, length, and space:}
We obtain new rank lower bounds for a family of semantic polynomial threshold proof systems called $\Tcc{k}$, which includes many of the semi-algebraic proof systems mentioned above. This extends and simplifies the work of Beame et al~\cite{beame07lower}. We also extend the length--space lower bound of Huynh and Nordstr{\"o}m~\cite{huynh12virtue} to hold for $\Tcc{k}$ systems of degree up to $k=(\log n)^{1-o(1)}$.
In particular, this yields the first nontrivial length--space lower bounds for dynamic SOS proofs of this degree.
\end{itemize}
We state these results more precisely shortly, once we first formalise our basic communication complexity setup.
\subsection{Starting point: Critical block sensitivity}
We build on the techniques recently introduced by Huynh and Nordstr{\"o}m \cite{huynh12virtue}. They defined a new complexity measure for search problems called \emph{critical block sensitivity}, which is a generalisation of the usual notion of block sensitivity for functions (see~\cite{buhrman02complexity} for a survey). They used this measure to give a general method of proving lower bounds for \emph{composed} search problems in the two-party communication model. These notions will be so central to our work that we proceed to define them immediately.
A \emph{search problem} on $n$ variables is a relation $S\subseteq\{0,1\}^n\times Q$ where $Q$ is some set of possible solutions. On input $\alpha\in\{0,1\}^n$ the search problem is to find a solution $q\in Q$ that is \emph{feasible for $\alpha$}, that is, $(\alpha,q)\in S$. We assume that $S$ is such that all inputs have at least one feasible solution. An input is called \emph{critical} if it has a unique feasible solution.
\begin{definition}[Critical block sensitivity~\cite{huynh12virtue}]
Fix a search problem $S\subseteq\{0,1\}^n\times Q$. Let $f\subseteq S$ be a total function, i.e., for each input $\alpha\in\{0,1\}^n$ the function picks out some feasible solution $f(\alpha)$ for $\alpha$. We denote by $\mathrm{bs}(f,\alpha)$ the usual block sensitivity of $f$ at $\alpha$. That is, $\mathrm{bs}(f,\alpha)$ is the maximal number $\mathrm{bs}$ such that there are disjoint blocks of coordinates $B_1,\ldots,B_\mathrm{bs}\subseteq[n]$ satisfying $f(\alpha)\neq f(\alpha^{B_i})$ for all $i$; here, $\alpha^{B_i}$ is the same as $\alpha$ except the input bits in coordinates $B_i$ are flipped. The \emph{critical block sensitivity} of $S$ is defined as
\[
\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S)\ :=\ \min_{f\subseteq S}\max_{\text{critical } \alpha} \mathrm{bs}(f,\alpha).
\]
\end{definition}
We note immediately that $\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S)$ is a lower bound on the deterministic decision tree complexity of $S$. Indeed, a deterministic decision tree defines a total function $f\subseteq S$ and on each critical input $\alpha$ the tree must query at least one variable from each sensitive block of $f$ at $\alpha$ (see~\cite[Theorem 9]{buhrman02complexity}). It turns out that $\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S)$ is also a lower bound on the \emph{randomised} decision tree complexity (see \autoref{thm:two-party} below).
\subsection{Composed search problems}
In order to study a search problem $S\subseteq\{0,1\}^n\times Q$ in the setting of two-party communication complexity, we need to specify how the $n$ input variables of $S$ are divided between the two players, Alice and Bob.
Unfortunately, for many search problems (and functions) there is often no partition of the variables that would carry the ``intrinsic'' complexity of $S$ over to communication complexity. For example, consider computing the $\AND$ function on $n$ inputs. The block sensitivity of $\AND$ is $n$, but this complexity is lost once we move to the two-party setting: only $O(1)$ many bits need to be communicated between Alice and Bob regardless of the input partition.
For this reason, one usually studies \emph{composed} (or \emph{lifted}) variants $S\circ g^n$ of the original problem; see \autoref{fig:lift}. In a composed problem, each of the $n$ input bits of $S$ are encoded using a small two-party function $g\colon\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}\to\{0,1\}$, sometimes called a \emph{gadget}. As input to $S\circ g^n$ Alice gets an $x\in\mathcal{X}^n$ and Bob gets a $y\in\mathcal{Y}^n$. We think of the pair $(x,y)$ as encoding the input
\[
\alpha = g^n(x,y) = (\,g(x_1,y_1),\ldots,g(x_n,y_n)\,)
\]
of the original problem $S$. The objective is to find a $q\in Q$ such that $(g^n(x,y),q)\in S$.
\begin{figure}[t]%
\caption{Composing a search problem $S$ with a two-party gadget $g$.}
\label{fig:lift}
\begin{lpic}[b(-2mm)]{figs/lift(.27)}
\lbl[c]{88.8,111;\large$S$}
\lbl[c]{13,50;$\alpha_1$}
\lbl[c]{51.25,50;$\alpha_2$}
\lbl[c]{89.5,50;$\alpha_3$}
\lbl[c]{127.75,50;$\alpha_4$}
\lbl[c]{166,50;$\alpha_5$}
\lbl[c]{225,50;\Huge$\leadsto$}
\lbl[c]{365.25,111;\large$S$}
\lbl[c]{288.75,50;$g$}
\lbl[c]{327,50;$g$}
\lbl[c]{365.25,50;$g$}
\lbl[c]{403.5,50;$g$}
\lbl[c]{441.75,50;$g$}
\lbl[c]{288.75,15;$x_1\ y_1$}
\lbl[c]{327,15;$x_2\ y_2$}
\lbl[c]{365.25,15;$x_3\ y_3$}
\lbl[c]{403.5,15;$x_4\ y_4$}
\lbl[c]{441.75,15;$x_5\ y_5$}
\end{lpic}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Our communication complexity results} \label{ssec:results}
We start by giving a simple new proof of the following central result of Huynh and Nordstr{\"o}m~\cite{huynh12virtue}. (Strictly speaking, the statement of the original theorem~\cite{huynh12virtue} is slightly weaker in that it involves an additional ``consistency'' assumption, which we do not need.)
\begin{restatable}[Two-party version]{theorem}{twoparty} \label{thm:two-party}
There is a two-party gadget $g\colon \mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}\to\{0,1\}$ such that if $S\subseteq\{0,1\}^n\times Q$ is any search problem, then $S\circ g^n$ has randomised bounded-error communication complexity $\Omega(\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S))$.
\end{restatable}
Huynh and Nordstr{\"o}m proved \autoref{thm:two-party} for the gadget $g=\ThreeIND$, where $\ThreeIND\colon[3]\times\{0,1\}^3\to\{0,1\}$ is the indexing function that maps $(x,y)\mapsto y_x$. Their proof used the information complexity approach~\cite{chakrabarti01informational,bar-yossef04information} and is quite intricate. By contrast, we prove \autoref{thm:two-party} by a direct randomised reduction from the \emph{set-disjointness} function, which is the canonical \NP-complete problem in communication complexity~\cite{babai86complexity,chattopadhyay10story}. Our reduction is inspired by a result of Zhang~\cite{zhang09tightness} that essentially establishes \autoref{thm:two-party} in case $S$ is a function and $\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S)$ is simply the standard block sensitivity. The new key insight in our proof is the following.
\begin{keyidea}
We choose $g$ to be \emph{random-self-reducible} (see \autoref{sec:versatile} for definitions).
\end{keyidea}
Random-self-reducibility is a notion often studied in cryptography and classical complexity theory, but less often in communication complexity. The definitions we adopt are similar to those introduced by Feige et al.~\cite{feige94minimal} in a cryptographic context.
Our proof has also the advantage of generalising naturally to the multi-party setting. This time we start with the $k$-party unique-disjointness function $\UDISJ_{k,n}$ and the proof involves the construction of $k$-party random-self-reducible functions $g_k$.
\begin{theorem}[Multi-party version] \label{thm:multi-party}
There are $k$-party gadgets $g_k\colon \mathcal{X}^k\to\{0,1\}$ with domain size $\log|\mathcal{X}|=k^{o(1)}$ bits per player, such that if $S\subseteq\{0,1\}^n\times Q$ is any search problem, then $S\circ g_k^n$ has randomised bounded-error communication complexity at least that of $\UDISJ_{k,\mathrm{bs}}$ (up to constants), where $\mathrm{bs}=\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S)$.
\end{theorem}
\autoref{thm:multi-party} can be applied to the following multi-player communication models.
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,leftmargin=\parindent]
\item {\bf Number-in-hand:}
The $i$-th player only sees the $i$-th part of the input. Here, set-disjointness has been studied under broadcast communication (e.g.,~\cite{gronemeier09asymptotically}) and under private channel communication~\cite{braverman13tight}.
\item {\bf Number-on-forehead (NOF):}
The $i$-th player sees all parts of the input except the $i$-th part~\cite{chandra83multi}. The current best randomised lower bound for $\UDISJ_{k,n}$ is $\Omega(\sqrt{n}/2^kk)$ by Sherstov~\cite{sherstov13communication}. We rely heavily on Sherstov's result in our proof complexity applications.
\end{itemize}
In the rest of this introduction we discuss the applications---the impatient reader who wants to see the proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:two-party} and \ref{thm:multi-party} can immediately skip to Sections~\ref{sec:versatile} and \ref{sec:cc-lb}.
\subsection{CSPs and their canonical search problems}
To get the most out of Theorems~\ref{thm:two-party} and \ref{thm:multi-party} for the purposes of applications, we need to find search problems with high critical block sensitivity but low certificate complexity. Low-degree constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) capture exactly the latter goal~\cite{lovasz95search}.
\begin{definition}[$d$-CSPs]
A CSP $F$ consists of a set of (boolean) variables $\text{vars}(F)$ and a set of constraints $\text{cons}(F)$. Each constraint $C\in\text{cons}(F)$ is a function that maps a truth assignment $\alpha\colon\text{vars}(F)\to\{0,1\}$ to either $0$ or $1$. If $C(\alpha)=1$, we say that $C$ is \emph{satisfied} by $\alpha$, otherwise $C$ is \emph{violated} by $\alpha$. Let $\text{vars}(C)$ denote the smallest subset of $\text{vars}(F)$ such that $C$ depends only on the truth values of the variables in $\text{vars}(C)$. We say that $F$ is of \emph{degree}~$d$, or $F$ is a $d$-CSP, if $|\text{vars}(C)|\leq d$ for all $C$. Note that $d$-CNF formulas are a special case of $d$-CSPs, and conversely, each $d$-CSP can be written as an equivalent $d$-CNF with a factor $2^d$ blow-up in the number of constraints.
\end{definition}
An \emph{unsatisfiable} CSP $F$ has no assignment that satisfies all the constraints. Each such $F$ comes with an associated \emph{canonical search problem} $S(F)$.
\begin{definition}[Canonical search problems]
Let $F$ be an unsatisfiable CSP. In the search problem $S(F)$ we are given an assignment $\alpha\colon\text{vars}(F)\to\{0,1\}$ and the goal is to find a constraint $C\in\text{cons}(F)$ that is violated by $\alpha$.
\end{definition}
We give new critical block sensitivity lower bounds for the canonical search problems associated with \emph{Tseitin} and \emph{Pebbling} formulas.
\subsection{Sensitivity of Tseitin formulas}
Tseitin formulas are well-studied examples of unsatisfiable CSPs that are hard to refute in many proof systems; for an overview, see Jukna~\cite[\S18.7]{jukna12boolean}.
\begin{definition}[Tseitin formulas]
Let $G=(V,E,\ell)$ be a connected labelled graph of maximum degree $d$ where the labelling $\ell\colon V\to\{0,1\}$ has odd Hamming weight. The \emph{Tseitin formula} $\text{\slshape Tse}_G$ associated with $G$ is the $d$-CSP that has the edges $e\in E$ as variables and for each node $v\in V$ there is a constraint $C_v$ defined by
\[
C_v(\alpha) = 1
\quad\iff\quad
\sum_{e: v\in e} \alpha(e) \equiv \ell(v) \pmod{2}.
\]
It follows from a simple parity argument that $\text{\slshape Tse}_G$ is unsatisfiable (see, e.g., \autoref{sec:tseitin}).
\end{definition}
Call $G$ \emph{$\kappa$-routable} if there is a set $T\subseteq V$ of size $|T|\geq 2\kappa$ such that for any set of $\kappa$ disjoint pairs of nodes of $T$ there are $\kappa$ edge-disjoint paths in $G$ that connect all the pairs. (Warning: $\kappa$-routability is usually defined only for $T=V$, but we relax this condition.) The proof of the following theorem appears in \autoref{sec:cbs}.
\begin{restatable}[Tseitin sensitivity]{theorem}{tseitin} \label{thm:tseitin}
If $G$ is $\kappa$-routable, then $\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S(\text{\slshape Tse}_G))=\Omega(\kappa)$.
\end{restatable}
\autoref{thm:tseitin} can be applied to the following classes of bounded-degree graphs.
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,leftmargin=\parindent]
\item {\bf Grid graphs:}
If $G$ is a $\sqrt{n}\times \sqrt{n}$ grid graph, then we can take $\kappa = \Omega(\sqrt{n})$ by letting $T\subseteq V$ be any row (or column) of nodes. This is tight: the deterministic decision tree that solves $S(\text{\slshape Tse}_G)$ using binary search makes $O(\sqrt{n})$ queries.
\item {\bf Expanders:}
If $G$ is a sufficiently strong expander (e.g., a Ramanujan graph~\cite{lubotzky88ramanujan}), then we can take $\kappa = \Omega(n/\log n)$ as shown by Frieze et al.~\cite{frieze00optimal,frieze01edge}.
\item {\bf Connectors:}
A \emph{$\kappa$-connector} is a bounded-degree graph with $\kappa$ inputs $I\subseteq V$ and $\kappa$ outputs $O\subseteq V$ such that for any one-to-one correspondence $\pi\colon I\to O$ there exist $\kappa$ edge-disjoint paths that connect $i\in I$ to $\pi(i)\in O$. If we merge $I$ and $O$ in a $2\kappa$-connector in some one-to-one manner and let $T=I=O$, we get a $\kappa$-routable graph. Conversely, if $G$ is $\kappa$-routable, we can partition the set $T$ as $I\cup O$ and get a $\kappa$-connector.
It is known that simple $\kappa$-connectors with $\kappa=\Theta(n/\log n)$ exist and this bound is the best possible~\cite{pippenger90communication}. Thus, the best lower bound provable using \autoref{thm:tseitin} is $\Theta(n/\log n)$.
\end{itemize}
It is well known that the \emph{deterministic} decision tree complexity of $S(\text{\slshape Tse}_G)$ is $\Omega(n)$ when $G$ is an expander~\cite{urquhart87hard}. However, \emph{randomised} lower bounds---which \autoref{thm:tseitin} provides---are more scarce. We are only aware of a single previous result in the direction of \autoref{thm:tseitin}, namely, Lov{\'a}sz et al.~\cite[\S3.2.1]{lovasz95search} announce a lower bound of $\Omega(n^{1/3})$ for the randomised decision tree complexity of $S(\text{\slshape Tse}_G)$ when $G$ is an expander. Our \autoref{thm:tseitin} subsumes this.
\subsection{Sensitivity of pebbling formulas}
Pebble games have been studied extensively as means to understand time and space in computations; for an overview, see the survey by Nordstr{\"o}m~\cite{nordstrom13pebble}. In this work we restrict our attention to the simple \emph{(black) pebble game} that is played on a directed acyclic graph~$G$ with a unique sink node $t$ (i.e., having outdegree $0$). In this game the goal is to place a pebble on the sink $t$ using a sequence of \emph{pebbling moves}. The allowed moves are:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*),noitemsep]
\item A pebble can be placed on a node if its in-neighbours have pebbles on them. In particular, we can always pebble a source node (i.e., having indegree $0$).
\item A pebble can be removed from any pebbled node (and reused later in the game).
\end{enumerate}
The \emph{(black) pebbling number} of $G$ is the minimum number of pebbles that are needed to pebble the sink node in the pebble game on $G$.
The pebble game on $G$ comes with an associated \emph{pebbling formula}.
\begin{definition}[{Pebbling formulas. E.g.,~\cite[\S2.3]{nordstrom13pebble}}] \label{def:pebbling}
Let $G=(V,E,t)$ be a directed acyclic graph of maximum indegree $d$ where $t$ is a unique sink. The \emph{pebbling formula} $\text{\slshape Peb}_G$ associated with $G$ is the $(d+1)$-CSP that has the nodes $v\in V$ as variables and the following constraints:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*),noitemsep]
\item The variable corresponding to the sink $t$ is false.
\item For all nodes $v$ with in-neighbours $w_1,\ldots,w_d$, we require that if all of $w_1,\ldots,w_d$ are true, then $v$ is true. In particular, each source node must be true.
\end{enumerate}
It is not hard to see that $\text{\slshape Peb}_G$ is unsatisfiable.
\end{definition}
Classical complexity measures for $S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G)$ include the pebbling number of $G$ (a measure of \emph{space}) and the deterministic decision tree complexity (a measure of \emph{parallel time}). However, these complexity measures are fundamentally \emph{deterministic} and do not seem to immediately translate into \emph{randomised} lower bounds, which are needed in our applications.
For this reason, Huyhn and Nordstr{\"o}m~\cite{huynh12virtue} devised an elegant ad hoc proof method for their result that, for a pyramid graph $G$, $\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G))=\Omega(n^{1/4})$. Annoyingly, this falls a little short of both the pebbling number $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$ of $G$ and the decision tree complexity $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$ of $S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G)$. Here we close this gap by generalising their proof method: we get tight bounds for a different (but related) graph $G$. The proof appears in \autoref{sec:cbs}.
\begin{restatable}[Pebbling sensitivity]{theorem}{pebbling} \label{thm:pebbling}
There are bounded-degree graphs $G$ on $n$ nodes such that
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item $G$ has pebbling number $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$.
\item $S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G)$ has deterministic decision tree complexity $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$.
\item $S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G)$ has critical block sensitivity $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{restatable}
\subsection{Applications: Monotone depth} \label{sec:app-monotone}
Raz and McKenzie~\cite{raz99separation} developed a general framework to prove monotone depth lower bounds for many monotone functions. We borrow the following piece from their machinery. Here we denote by $\depth(f)$ the minimum depth of a monotone circuit computing $f$.
\begin{restatable}[Raz--McKenzie transformation]{theorem}{RMtransformation} \label{thm:RM-transformation}
Let $g\colon\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}\to\{0,1\}$ be a two-party gadget and let $F$ be an unsatisfiable $d$-CSP on $n$ variables and $m$ constraints. There is an explicit construction of a monotone function $f\colon \{0,1\}^N\to\{0,1\}$ on $N=m|\mathcal{X}|^d$ inputs such that $\depth(f)$ is lower bounded by the (deterministic) communication complexity of $S(F)\circ g^n$.
\end{restatable}
Raz and McKenzie proved only a special case of \autoref{thm:RM-transformation}, but their proof (Lemma 3.5 in \cite{raz99separation}) can be modified to yield the above general construction. For completeness, we present the proof in \autoref{sec:monotone-proofs}. In their original applications, Raz and McKenzie considered gadgets whose size grew polynomially with $n$. In our applications, we can take $g$ to be the constant-size gadget from \autoref{thm:two-party} and this way make an extremely efficient use of \autoref{thm:RM-transformation}.
\paragraph{Monotone depth from Tseitin.}
First, let $G$ be a $\Omega(n/\log n)$-routable graph with $n$ nodes and bounded degree \mbox{$d=O(1)$}. Then $S(\text{\slshape Tse}_G)$ is the canonical search problem associated with a $d$-CSP on $O(n)$ variables and $n$ constraints. Theorems \ref{thm:two-party} and \ref{thm:tseitin} tell us that $S(\text{\slshape Tse}_G)\circ g^n$ has two-party communication complexity~$\Omega(n/\log n)$.%
\begin{corollary}[Monotone depth from Tseitin]
There is an explicit monotone function $f$ on~$N$ inputs such that $\depth(f)=\Omega(N/\log N)$. \qed
\end{corollary}
We recall again that the best explicit bound known previously was $\Omega(N^{1/2})$~\cite{raz92monotone}.
\paragraph{Monotone depth from pebbling.}
Second, we note that our methods give perhaps the simplest proof yet of a dense hierarchy theorem within monotone $\P$ (in particular, separating the monotone $\NC$ hierarchy), originally proved by~\cite{raz99separation}. Indeed, if we apply \autoref{thm:RM-transformation} for the pebbling formula $\text{\slshape Peb}_G$ given in \autoref{thm:pebbling}, we end up with a certain function called $\GEN_G$ that was in fact the original focus of~\cite{raz99separation}. They observed that $\GEN_G$ has polynomial size monotone circuits of depth given by the decision tree complexity of $S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G)$. Their main technical contribution was proving a matching lower bound under some additional assumptions; we can now replace this lower bound by those given by Theorems \ref{thm:two-party} and \ref{thm:pebbling}:
\begin{corollary}[Monotone depth from pebbling] \label{cor:pebbling}
There is an explicit function $f$ on $N$ inputs such that $f$ admits polynomial size monotone circuits and $\depth(f)=\Theta(N^{1/2})$. \qed
\end{corollary}
(The hierarchy theorem then follows by a standard padding argument~\cite{raz99separation}.)
The original bounds of \cite{raz99separation} went up to $\Omega(N^{\delta})$ for a small constant $\delta$. This was recently improved by the works~\cite{chan12tight,filmus13average} that prove (among other things) monotone depth bounds of up to $\Omega(N^{1/6-o(1)})$ for $\GEN_G$ type functions.
\paragraph{Average-case hardness.}
Since our communication lower bounds are randomised, it is natural to expect that we also get average-case lower bounds for monotone circuit depth. However, it seems that a precise connection in this direction has not been formalised before. Some related results are known: Filmus et al.~\cite{filmus13average} show that the \emph{converse} of such a connection fails in a certain distributional sense. Raz and Wigderson~\cite{raz89probabilistic} use randomised communication lower bounds for a different purpose, namely, to prove that every sufficiently shallow circuit for a particular function requires many negated inputs.
We provide an average-case circuit-to-protocol simulation that relies fundamentally on random-self-reducibility. The proof appears in \autoref{sec:monotone-proofs}.
\begin{restatable}[Protocols from average-case circuits]{theorem}{AverageCase} \label{thm:average-case}
Let $g$, $F$, and $f\colon\{0,1\}^N\to\{0,1\}$ be as in \autoref{thm:RM-transformation} and assume that $g$ is random-self-reducible. There is a distribution $\mu$ on $\{0,1\}^N$ such that if $\tilde{f}\colon\{0,1\}^N\to\{0,1\}$ is any monotone function that \emph{$\delta$-correlates with $f$}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\Pr_{\bm{z}\sim\mu}[\,f(\bm{z}) = \tilde{f}(\bm{z})\,] \geq 1/2+\delta,
\end{equation}
then there is a randomised bounded-error protocol for $S(F)\circ g^n$ of cost $O(\delta^{-1}) + \depth(\tilde{f})$.
\end{restatable}
For example, let $f$ be the function in monotone $\P$ from \autoref{cor:pebbling} whose associated search problem $S(F)\circ g^n$ has randomised communication complexity $\Theta(N^{1/2})$. Then \autoref{thm:average-case} tells us that every monotone function $\tilde{f}$ that $\omega(1/N^{1/2})$-correlates with $f$ (under a certain $\mu_f$) has $\depth(\tilde{f})=\Omega(N^{1/2})$.
On the one hand, this is a slight improvement over a result of Filmus et al.~\cite{filmus13average} who show the existence of functions $h$ in monotone $\P$ such that every $\tilde{h}$ that $\Omega(1/N^{1/3-\epsilon})$-correlates with $h$ (under a certain $\mu_h$) has $\depth(\tilde{h})=N^{\Omega(\epsilon)}$. On the other hand, \cite{filmus13average} also exhibit functions in monotone $\NC$ that remain hard under correlation $1/N^{\Omega(1)}$ and we are not able to match this: if we were to simply pad our function $f$ down to $\NC$, our correlation bounds would worsen accordingly from inverse polynomial to inverse polylogarithmic.
\subsection{Applications: Proof complexity} \label{sec:app-proof}
Over the last decade or so there have been a large number of results proving lower bounds on the rank required to refute (or approximately optimise over) systems of constraints in a wide variety of semi-algebraic (a.k.a.\ polynomial threshold) proof systems, including Lov\'asz--Schrijver\xspace~\cite{lovasz91cones}, Cutting Planes~\cite{gomory58outline,chvatal73edmonds}, Positivstellensatz~\cite{grigoriev01linear}, Sherali--Adams~\cite{sherali90hierarchy}, and Lasserre~\cite{lasserre01explicit} proofs. Highlights of this work include recent linear rank lower bounds for many constraint optimization problems~\cite{schoenebeck08linear,tulsiani09csp,charikar09integrality,schoenebeck07linear,georgiou10integrality}. Nearly all of these results rely on delicate constructions of local distributions that are specific to both the problem and to the proof system.
A communication complexity approach for proving lower bounds for semi-algebraic proofs was developed by Beame et al.~\cite{beame07lower}.
They studied a semantic proof system called $\Tcc{k}$ whose proofs consist of lines that are computed by a low-cost (i.e., $\polylog$ communication) $k$-party NOF protocols (see \autoref{sec:proof-complexity} for definitions). They prove that if a CNF formula $F$ has a small tree-like $\Tcc{k}$ refutation, then $S(F)$ has an efficient $k$-party
NOF protocol. Thus, lower bounds for the tree-size of $\Tcc{k}$ proofs
follow from NOF lower bounds for $S(F)$.
\paragraph{Rank lower bounds.}
Using this relationship we can now prove the following result for $\Tcc{k}$ proof systems, where $k$ can be almost logarithmic in the size of the formula. We state the theorem only for rank, with the understanding that a bound of $\Omega(R)$ on rank also implies a bound of $\exp(\Omega(R))$ on tree-size. The proof appears in \autoref{sec:proof-complexity}.
\begin{restatable}[Rank lower bounds]{theorem}{rankbounds} \label{thm:rank-lb}
There are explicit {CNF} formulas $F$ of size $s$ and width $O(\log s)$ such that all $\Tcc{k}$ refutations of $F$ require rank at least
\[
R_k(s) =
\begin{cases}
s^{1-o(1)}, &\text{for}\enspace k=2, \\
s^{1/2-o(1)}, &\text{for}\enspace 3\leq k\leq(\log s)^{1-o(1)}.
\end{cases}
\]
\end{restatable}
\autoref{thm:rank-lb} simplifies the proof of a similar theorem from \cite{beame07lower}, which held only for a specific family of formulas obtained from non-constant degree graphs, and only for $k < \log \log s$.
We note already here that the quadratic gap between $R_2(s)$ and $R_3(s)$ will be an artefact of us switching from two-party communication to multi-party communication. More specifically, while the two-party communication complexity of set-disjointness $\DISJ_n$ is $\Omega(n)$, the corresponding lower bound for three parties is only~$\Omega(\sqrt{n})$~\cite{sherstov13communication}. Whether the multi-party bound can be improved to $\Omega(n)$ is an open problem.
\paragraph{Length--space lower bounds.}
Continuing in similar spirit, \cite{huynh12virtue} showed how to prove length--space lower bounds for $\Tcc{2}$ systems from lower bounds on the communication complexity of $S(F)$. Using this relationship together with our new multi-party lower bounds, we can extend this result to $\Tcc{k}$ systems of degree $k>2$.
\begin{restatable}[Length--space lower bounds]{theorem}{tradeoffs} \label{thm:tradeoffs}
There are CNF formulas $F$ of size $s$ such that
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item $F$ admits a Resolution refutation of length $L=s^{1+o(1)}$ and space $\text{\itshape Sp}= s^{1/2+o(1)}$.
\item Any length $L$ and space $\text{\itshape Sp}$ refutation of $F$ in $\Tcc{k}$ must satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tradeoff}
\text{\itshape Sp} \cdot \log L \enspace\geq\enspace
\begin{cases}
s^{1/2-o(1)}, &\text{for}\enspace k=2, \\
s^{1/4-o(1)}, &\text{for}\enspace 3\leq k\leq(\log s)^{1-o(1)}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{restatable}
In particular, \autoref{thm:tradeoffs} gives the first length--space lower bounds for dynamic SOS proofs of degree $k$. In addition, even in the special case of $k=2$, \autoref{thm:tradeoffs} simplifies and improves on \cite{huynh12virtue}. However, for Polynomial Calculus Resolution (a $\Tcc{2}$ system), the best known length--space tradeoff results are currently proved in the recent work of Beck et al.~\cite{beck13some}. For Resolution (maybe the simplest $\Tcc{2}$ system), essentially optimal tradeoff results have been known since~\cite{ben-sasson11understanding}.
For Cutting Planes (a $\Tcc{2}$ system) \autoref{thm:tradeoffs} remains the state-of-the-art to the best of our knowledge.
\subsection{Models of communication complexity}
We work in the standard models of two-party and multi-party communication complexity; see~\cite{kushilevitz97communication,jukna12boolean} for definitions. Here we only recall some conventions about randomised protocols. A protocol $\Pi$ solves a search problem $S$ with \emph{error $\epsilon$} iff on any input $x$ the probability that $(x,\Pi(x))\in S$ is at least $1-\epsilon$ over the random coins of the protocol. Note that $\Pi(x)$ need not be the same feasible solution; it can depend on the outcomes of the random coins. The protocol is of \emph{bounded-error} if $\epsilon \leq 1/4$. The constant $1/4$ here can often be replaced with any other constant less than $1/2$ without affecting the definitions too much. In the case of computing boolean functions this follows from standard boosting techniques~\cite[Exercise 3.4]{kushilevitz97communication}. While these boosting techniques may fail for general search problems, we do not encounter any such problems in this work.
\section{Versatile Gadgets} \label{sec:versatile}
In this section we introduce \emph{versatile} two-party and multi-party functions. Our proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:two-party} and \ref{thm:multi-party} will work whenever we choose $g$ or $g_k$ to be a versatile gadget. We start by introducing the terminology in the two-party case; the multi-party case will be analogous.
\subsection{Self-reductions and versatility}
The simplest reductions between communication problems are those that can be computed without communication. Let $f_i\colon \mathcal{X}_i\times\mathcal{Y}_i\to\{0,1\}$ for $i=1,2$, be two-party functions. We say that $f_1$ \emph{reduces to} $f_2$, written $f_1\leq f_2$, if the communication matrix of $f_1$ appears as a submatrix of the communication matrix of $f_2$. Equivalently, $f_1\leq f_2$ iff there exist one-to-one mappings $\pi_A$ and $\pi_B$ such that
\[
f_1(x,y) = f_2(\pi_A(x),\pi_B(y))\qquad\text{for all}\quad (x,y)\in\mathcal{X}_1\times\mathcal{Y}_1.
\]
Our restriction to one-to-one reductions above is merely a technical convenience (cf.\ Babai et al.~\cite{babai86complexity} allow reductions to be many-to-one).
\begin{example}
Let $\ThreeEQ\colon[3]\times[3]\to\{0,1\}$ be the equality function with inputs from $[3]$. Then $\AND$ reduces to $\ThreeEQ$ since $\AND(x,y)=\ThreeEQ(1+x,3-y)$.
\end{example}
We will be interested in special kinds of reductions that reduce a function to \emph{itself}. Our first flavour of self-reducibility relates a function $f$ and its negation $\neg f$:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=1.4cm]
\item[{\raisebox{-.63\height}[0pt][0pt]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.13]{figs/flip.pdf}
}}\hspace{-3pt}]
{\bf Flippability.} A function $f$ is called \emph{flippable} if $\neg f\leq f$. Note that since the associated reduction maps $z$-inputs to $(1-z)$-inputs in a one-to-one fashion, a flippable function must be \emph{balanced}: exactly half of the inputs satisfy $f(x,y)=1$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{example}
The $\XOR$ function is flippable via $\neg\XOR(x,y)=\XOR(1-x,y)$. By contrast, $\AND$ and $\ThreeEQ$ are not balanced and hence not flippable.
\end{example}
We will also consider randomised reductions where the two parties are allowed to \emph{synchronise} their computations using public randomness. More precisely, even though the two parties are still not communicating, we can let the mappings $\pi_A$ and $\pi_B$ depend on a public random string $\bm{r}\in\{0,1\}^*$, whose distribution the two parties can freely choose. This way, a random reduction computes $(x,y) \mapsto (\pi_A(x,\bm{r}),\pi_B(y,\bm{r}))$. The following definition is similar to the \emph{perfectly secure} functions of Feige et al.~\cite{feige94minimal}.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=1.4cm]
\item[{\raisebox{-.6\height}[0pt][0pt]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.12]{figs/dice.pdf}
}}\hspace{-1pt}]
{\bf Random self-reducibility.} A function $f$ is called \emph{random-self-reducible} if there are mappings $\pi_A$ and $\pi_B$ together with a random variable $\bm{r}$ such that for every $z$-input $(x,y)\in f^{-1}(z)$ the random pair $(\pi_A(x,\bm{r}),\pi_B(y,\bm{r}))$ is uniformly distributed among all the $z$-inputs of $f$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{example}
The equality function $\EQ\colon [n]\times[n]\to\{0,1\}$ is random-self-reducible: we can use the public randomness to sample a permutation $\bm{\pi}\colon[n]\to[n]$ uniformly at random and let the two parties compute $(x,y)\mapsto(\bm{\pi}(x),\bm{\pi}(y))$. (In fact, to further save on the number of random bits used, it would suffice to choose $\bm{\pi}$ from any group that acts 2-transitively on $[n]$.)
\end{example}
A notable example of a function that is \emph{not} random-self-reducible is $\AND$; it has only one $1$-input, which forces any self-reduction to be the identity map. This is particularly inconvenient since $\AND$ is featured in the set-disjointness function $\DISJ_n=\OR_n\circ\AND^n$, which will be the starting point for our reductions. To compensate for the shortcomings of $\AND$ we work with a slightly larger function $g\geq\AND$ instead.
\begin{definition}[Versatility]
A two-party function $g$ is called \emph{versatile} if (1) $g\geq\AND$, (2) $g$ is flippable, and (3) $g$ is random-self-reducible.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\begin{floatrow}
\ffigbox[6cm]{
\begin{lpic}[]{figs/versatile(.25)}
\lbl[c]{15.8 ,15.8;$1$}
\lbl[c]{41.2 ,15.8;$0$}
\lbl[c]{66.66,15.8;$0$}
\lbl[c]{92 ,15.8;$1$}
\lbl[c]{15.8 ,41.2;$1$}
\lbl[c]{41.2 ,41.2;$1$}
\lbl[c]{66.66,41.2;$0$}
\lbl[c]{92 ,41.2;$0$}
\lbl[c]{15.8 ,66.66;$0$}
\lbl[c]{41.2 ,66.66;$1$}
\lbl[c]{66.66,66.66;$1$}
\lbl[c]{92 ,66.66;$0$}
\lbl[c]{15.8 ,92;$0$}
\lbl[c]{41.2 ,92;$0$}
\lbl[c]{66.66,92;$1$}
\lbl[c]{92 ,92;$1$}
\boldmath
\lbl[c]{-8 ,92;$0$}
\lbl[c]{-8 ,66.66;$1$}
\lbl[c]{-8 ,41.2;$2$}
\lbl[c]{-8 ,15.8;$3$}
\lbl[c]{15.8 ,116;$0$}
\lbl[c]{41.2 ,116;$1$}
\lbl[c]{66.66,116;$2$}
\lbl[c]{92 ,116;$3$}
\end{lpic}}
{\caption{Function $\VER$.}\label{fig:ver}}
\ffigbox[6cm]{
\begin{lpic}[]{figs/hnmatrix(.25)}
\lbl[c]{15.8 ,15.8;$0$}
\lbl[c]{41.2 ,15.8;$0$}
\lbl[c]{66.66,15.8;$1$}
\lbl[c]{92 ,15.8;$1$}
\lbl[c]{117.4,15.8;$1$}
\lbl[c]{142.8,15.8;$0$}
\lbl[c]{15.8 ,41.2;$0$}
\lbl[c]{41.2 ,41.2;$1$}
\lbl[c]{66.66,41.2;$0$}
\lbl[c]{92 ,41.2;$1$}
\lbl[c]{117.4,41.2;$0$}
\lbl[c]{142.8,41.2;$1$}
\lbl[c]{15.8 ,66.66;$1$}
\lbl[c]{41.2 ,66.66;$0$}
\lbl[c]{66.66,66.66;$0$}
\lbl[c]{92 ,66.66;$0$}
\lbl[c]{117.4,66.66;$1$}
\lbl[c]{142.8,66.66 ;$1$}
\end{lpic}}
{\caption{Function $\HN$.}\label{fig:hn}}
\end{floatrow}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-party example} \label{ssec:versatility}
Consider the function $\VER\colon \Z_4\times\Z_4\to\{0,1\}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\VER(x,y) = 1\enspace \iff\enspace x+y \in \{2,3\},\qquad\text{for all } x,y\in\Z_4,
\end{equation}
where the arithmetic is that of $\Z_4$; see \autoref{fig:ver}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:g}
$\VER$ is versatile.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The reduction from $\AND$ is simply given by $\AND(x,y) = \VER(x,y)$. Moreover, $\VER$ is flippable because $\neg \VER(x,y)= \VER(x+2,y)$. To see that $\VER$ is random-self-reducible, start with $(x,y)$ and compute as follows. First, choose $(\bm{x},\bm{y})$ uniformly at random from the set $\{(x,y),(1-x,-y)\}$ so that $\bm{x}+\bm{y}$ is uniformly distributed either in the set $\{0,1\}$ if $(x,y)$ was a $0$-input, or in the set $\{2,3\}$ if $(x,y)$ was a $1$-input. Finally, choose a random $\bm{a}\in\Z_4$ and output $(\bm{x}+\bm{a},\bm{y}-\bm{a})$.
\end{proof}
It is not hard to show that $\VER$ is in fact a minimum-size example of a versatile function: if $g\colon[a]\times[b]\to\{0,1\}$ is versatile then $a,b\geq 4$. Indeed, $\VER$ is the smallest two-party function for which our proof of \autoref{thm:two-party} applies. By comparison, the original proof of \autoref{thm:two-party}~\cite{huynh12virtue} uses a certain subfunction $\HN\leq\ThreeIND$ whose communication matrix is illustrated in \autoref{fig:hn}. Thus, somewhat interestingly, our proof yields a result that is incomparable to~\cite{huynh12virtue} since we have neither $\VER\leq\HN$ nor $\HN\leq\VER$.
Coincidentally, $\VER$ makes an appearance in Sherstov's pattern matrix method~\cite[\S12]{sherstov11pattern}, too. There, the focus is on exploiting the \emph{matrix-analytic} properties of the communication matrix of $\VER$. By contrast, in this work, we celebrate its \emph{self-reducibility} properties.
\subsection{Multi-party examples} \label{ssec:multi-party-examples}
In the multi-party setting we restrict our attention to $k$-party reductions $f_1\leq f_2$ for $k$-party functions $f_i\colon\mathcal{X}_i^k\to\{0,1\}$ that are determined by one-to-one mappings $\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_k$ satisfying
\[
f_1(x_1,\ldots,x_k)=f_2(\pi_1(x_1),\ldots,\pi_k(x_k))\qquad\text{for all}\quad(x_1,\ldots,x_k)\in \mathcal{X}_1^k.
\]
This way any player that sees an input $x_i$ can evaluate $\pi_i(x_i)$ without communication. As before, a randomised reduction can also depend on public coins.
\emph{Versatile} $k$-party functions $g_k\colon\mathcal{X}^k\to\{0,1\}$ are defined analogously to the two-party case: we require that the $k$-party $k$-bit $\AND_k$ function reduces to $g_k$, and that $g_k$ is both flippable and random-self-reducible---all under $k$-party reductions.
It is known that every $k$-party function is a subfunction of some, perhaps exponentially large random-self-reducible function~\cite{feige94minimal}. However, in the following, we are interested in finding examples of \emph{small} versatile $k$-party functions in order to optimise our constructions. We proceed to give two examples of well-studied $k$-party functions and prove them versatile.
\paragraph{First example: Quadratic character.}
Denote by $\chi\colon\Z_p^\times\to\{0,1\}$ the indicator function for quadratic residuosity modulo $p$, i.e., $\chi(x) = 1$ iff $x$ is a square in $\Z_p$. The pseudo-random qualities of $\chi$ have often made it an object of study in communication complexity~\cite{babai92multiparty,babai03communication,ada12nof}. Moreover, the self-reducibility properties of $\chi$ are famously useful in cryptography, starting with~\cite{goldwasser84probabilistic}.
For our purposes we let $p$ to be an $O(k)$-bit prime. Following~\cite[\S2.5]{babai92multiparty} the $k$-party quadratic character function $\QCS_k\colon\Z_p^k\to\{0,1\}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\textstyle
\QCS_k(x_1,\ldots,x_k):=\chi\big(\sum_i x_i\big).
\end{equation}
We leave $\QCS_k(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ undefined for inputs with $\sum_i x_i = 0$, i.e., we consider $\QCS_k$ to be a promise problem. Our three items of versatility fall out of the well-known properties of~$\chi$.
\begin{lemma}\label{qcs-versatile}
$\QCS_k$ is versatile.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\emph{Reduction from $\AND_k$:}
We need the following nonelementary fact (see, e.g., Lemma~6.13 in~\cite{babai03communication} or the recent work~\cite{wright13quadratic}): if $p$ is a large enough $O(k)$-bit prime then there are $k+1$ consecutive integers $\{a,a+1,\ldots,a+k\}\subseteq \Z^\times_k$ realising the pattern
\[
\chi(a) = \chi(a+1) = \cdots = \chi(a+k-1) = 0\qquad\text{and}\qquad \chi(a+k)=1.
\]
This immediately facilitates the reduction: an input $(y_1,\ldots,y_k)$ of $\AND_k$ is mapped to an input $(a+y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_k)$ of $\QCS_k$.
\emph{Flippability:}
Map $x_i\mapsto s\cdot x_i$ for all $i$, where $s\neq 0$ is a fixed quadratic nonresidue.
\emph{Random-self-reducibility:}
Choose a random quadratic residue $\bm{r}\in\Z_p$ and numbers $\bm{a}_1,\ldots,\bm{a}_k\in\Z_p$ satisfying $\bm{a}_1+\cdots+\bm{a}_k = 0$. The random self-reduction maps $x_i\mapsto \bm{r}\cdot x_i + \bm{a}_i$ for all $i$.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Second example: Pointer jumping.}
Next, we observe that certain variants of the $k$-party pointer jumping function are versatile. To explain this idea, we begin by describing a simple construction where each of the $k$ inputs requires $\Theta(k\log k)$ bits to represent. After this we improve on the construction by using known results on branching programs; we note that similar ideas have been used in the context of secure multi-party computations~\cite{cramer03efficient}.
Define the $k$-party \emph{pointer jumping} function $\Jump_k\colon \mathcal{X}^k\to\{0,1\}$ as follows. The inputs are permutations $x_i\colon [2k]\to[2k]$, $i\in[k]$, and the function value is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:jump-k}
\Jump_k(x_1,\ldots,x_k) = 0 \quad\iff\quad (x_k\circ x_{k-1}\circ \cdots \circ x_1)(1) \in [k].
\end{equation}
A useful way to view the input $(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ is as a layered digraph: there are $k+1$ layers, each containing $2k$ nodes; the input $x_i$ defines a perfect matching between layers $i$ and $i+1$; and the nodes on the last layer are labelled in a \emph{balanced} way with $k$ zeroes and $k$ ones. The value of the function is the label of the sink that is reachable from the $1$st node of the $1$st layer.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:jump}
$\Jump_k$ is versatile.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\emph{Reduction from $\AND_k$:}
Given an input $(y_1,\ldots,y_k)$ of $\AND_k$ we reduce it to an input $(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ of $\Jump_k$ as follows (see \autoref{fig:pointer}). If $y_i=0$ then $x_i$ is defined to be the identity permutation on $[2k]$, otherwise $x_i$ is the cyclic permutation that maps $j\mapsto j+1$ for $j\in[2k-1]$ and $2k\mapsto 1$.
\emph{Flippability:}
Replace the input $x_k$ with $\pi\circ x_k$, where $\pi\colon[2k]\to[2k]$ is some fixed permutation that swaps the sets $[k]$ and $[k+1,2k]$, i.e., $\pi([k])=[k+1,2k]$.
\emph{Random-self-reducibility:}
The random self-reduction is best visualised as acting on the layered graph associated with an input $(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$. First, sample $k+1$ permutations $\bm{\pi}_1,\ldots,\bm{\pi}_{k+1}\colon[2k]\to[2k]$ uniformly and independently at random under the restrictions that $\bm{\pi}_1$ fixes the element $1$ and $\bm{\pi}_{k+1}$ fixes the set $[k]$. Then use $\bm{\pi}_i$ to relabel the nodes on the $i$-th layer. Formally this means that the input $x_i$ is mapped to $\bm{\pi}_{i+1}\circ x_i\circ \bm{\pi}^{-1}_i$.
\end{proof}
The reduction $\AND_k\leq\Jump_k$ above was implicitly using a simple read-once permutation branching program for $\AND_k$; see \autoref{fig:pointer}. We will now
optimise this construction by using more efficient branching programs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\floatbox[{\capbeside\thisfloatsetup{capbesideposition={left,top},capbesidewidth=6.5cm}}]{figure}[\FBwidth]
{\caption{Example of $\AND_3\leq\Jump_3$. The input $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ of $\Jump_3$ is the result of applying the reduction to the input $(1,0,1)$ of $\AND_3$.}
\label{fig:pointer}}
{\begin{lpic}[l(1.4cm),r(2cm),t(-.5cm)]{figs/pointer(.33)}
\small
\lbl[l]{140,103.7;{---~~layer $1$}}
\lbl[l]{140,78.3;{---~~layer $2$}}
\lbl[l]{140,52.8;{---~~layer $3$}}
\lbl[l]{140,27.5;{---~~layer $4$}}
\lbl[l]{151.5,14.9;{(labelled)}}
\large
\lbl[r]{-8,91;$x_1\colon$}
\lbl[r]{-8,65.5;$x_2\colon$}
\lbl[r]{-8,40.2;$x_3\colon$}
\normalsize
\lbl[c]{10.2,14.9;$0$}
\lbl[c]{32.3,14.9;$0$}
\lbl[c]{54.5,14.9;$0$}
\lbl[c]{76.6,14.9;$1$}
\lbl[c]{98.8,14.9;$1$}
\lbl[c]{120.9,14.9;$1$}
\end{lpic}}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}[PBPs]
A \emph{permutation branching program} (PBP) of width $w$ and length $\ell$ is defined by a sequence of instructions $(i_l,\pi_l,\tau_l)$, $l\in[\ell]$, where $\pi_l,\tau_l\colon[w]\to[w]$ are permutations and each $i_l\in[n]$ indexes one of the $n$ input variables $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. Let an input $x\in\{0,1\}^n$ be given. We say that an instruction $(i,\pi,\tau)$ \emph{evaluates to $\pi$} if $x_i=0$; otherwise the instruction \emph{evaluates to~$\tau$}. The PBP \emph{evaluates} to the composition of the permutations evaluated at the instructions. Finally, if $\gamma\colon[w]\to[w]$ is a permutation, we say that the PBP \emph{$\gamma$-computes} a function $f\colon\{0,1\}^n\to\{0,1\}$ if it evaluates to the identity permutation $e\colon[w]\to[w]$ on each $0$-input in $f^{-1}(0)$ and to the permutation $\gamma\neq e$ on each $1$-input in $f^{-1}(1)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:pbp-to-versatile}
Suppose there exists a width-$w$ length-$\ell$ PBP that computes the $\AND_k$ function. Then there exists a versatile $k$-party function on $O(\ell w \log w)$ input bits.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix a width-$w$ PBP $(i_l,\pi_l,\tau_l)$, $l\in[\ell]$, that $\gamma$-computes $\AND_k$. By modifying the PBP if necessary, we may assume that $w$ is even and $\gamma(1)\in[w/2+1,w]$. The versatile function corresponding to the given PBP is the pointer jumping function $\Jump_k^\ell(x_1,\ldots,x_\ell)$ defined similarly to (\ref{eq:jump-k}):
\[
\Jump_k^\ell(x_1,\ldots,x_\ell) = 0 \quad\iff\quad (x_\ell\circ x_{\ell-1}\circ \cdots \circ x_1)(1) \in [w/2].
\]
To define the input partition, let $L_i:=\{l\in[\ell] : i_l = i\}$ be the set of layers where the PBP reads the $i$-th input. We let the $i$-th player hold (on its forehead) the inputs $x_l$ for $l\in L_i$.
\emph{Reduction from $\AND_k$:}
The reduction $\AND_k\leq \Jump_k^\ell$ is naturally determined by the PBP: given an input $(y_1,\ldots,y_k)$ of $\AND_k$, we define $x_l$ to be the permutation that the instruction $(i_l,\pi_l,\tau_l)$ evaluates to under $(y_1,\ldots,y_k)$. Because of our input partition, it is possible to compute $x_l$ without communication.
\emph{Flippability and random-self-reducibility:}
Same as in the proof of \autoref{lem:jump}.
\end{proof}
Barrington's celebrated theorem~\cite{barrington89bounded} gives a PBP implementation of $\AND_k$ with parameters $w=5$ and $\ell=O(k^2)$. This corresponds to having $O(k)$ input bits per player, matching the quadratic character example above. Cleve~\cite{cleve91towards} has improved this to a tradeoff result where for any $\epsilon>0$ one can take $\ell=k^{1+\epsilon}$ provided that $w=w(\epsilon)$ is a large enough constant. Cleve's construction also has the property that every input variable of $\AND_k$ is read equally many times (i.e., the $L_i$ in the above proof have the same size). Thus, letting $w$ grow sufficiently slowly, we get a versatile $k$-party gadget on $O(\ell w\log w)= k^{1+o(1)}$ bits, which is~$k^{o(1)}$ bits per player.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:gadget}
There are versatile $k$-party gadgets $g_k\colon\mathcal{X}^k\to\{0,1\}$ where $\log|\mathcal{X}| = k^{o(1)}$. \qed
\end{corollary}
\section{Communication Lower Bound} \label{sec:cc-lb}
In this section we prove the communication lower bound for two parties (\autoref{thm:two-party}) assuming that $g$ is a versatile gadget. The generalisation to multiple parties (\autoref{thm:multi-party}) follows by the same argument---one only needs to replace $g$ with a versatile $k$-party gadget $g_k$.
Our proof builds on a result of Zhang~\cite{zhang09tightness} that lower bounds the two-party communication complexity of a composed function $f\circ g^n$ in terms of the block sensitivity of $f$. We start by outlining Zhang's approach.
\subsection{Functions: Zhang's approach} \label{ssec:zhang}
Zhang~\cite{zhang09tightness} proved the following theorem by a reduction from the \emph{unique-disjointness} function $\UDISJ_n$. Here, $\UDISJ_n = \OR_n\circ\AND^n$ is the usual set-disjointness function together with the promise that if $\UDISJ_n(a,b) = 1$, then there is a unique coordinate $i\in[n]$ such that $a_i=b_i=1$. The randomised communication complexity of $\UDISJ_n$ is well-known to be $\Theta(n)$~\cite{kalyanasundaram92probabilistic,razborov92distributional,bar-yossef04information}. Zhang's proof works for any gadget $g$ with $\AND,\OR\leq g$.%
\begin{theorem}[Zhang]
There is a two-party gadget $g\colon \mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}\to\{0,1\}$ such that if $f\colon\{0,1\}^n\to Q$ is a function, then $f\circ g^n$ has communication complexity $\Omega(\mathrm{bs}(f))$.
\end{theorem}
The proof runs roughly as follows. Fix an input $\alpha\in\{0,1\}^n$ for $f$ that witnesses the block sensitivity $\mathrm{bs}(f,\alpha)=\mathrm{bs}(f)$. Also, let $B_1,\ldots,B_\mathrm{bs}\subseteq[n]$ be the sensitive blocks of $f$ at~$\alpha$. Given an input $(a,b)$ to $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}$ the goal in the reduction is for the two parties to compute, without communication, an input $(x,y)$ for $f\circ g^n$ such that
\begin{description}[noitemsep]
\item[(T1)] \emph{0-inputs:} If $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=0$, then $g^n(x,y) = \alpha$.
\item[(T2)] \emph{1-inputs:} If $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=1$ with $a_i=b_i=1$, then $g^n(x,y)=\alpha^{B_i}$.
\end{description}
Clearly, if we had a reduction $(a,b)\mapsto(x,y)$ satisfying (T1--T2), then the output of $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)$ could be recovered from $(f\circ g^n)(x,y)$. Thus, an $\epsilon$-error protocol for $f\circ g^n$ would imply an $\epsilon$-error protocol for $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}$ with the same communication cost.
\subsection{Search problems: Our approach}
We are going to prove \autoref{thm:two-party} (restated below) in close analogy to the proof template (T1--T2) above. However, as discussed below, noncritical inputs to search problems introduce new technical difficulties.
\twoparty*
\paragraph{Setup.}
Fix any versatile gadget $g\colon \mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}\to\{0,1\}$.
Let $\Pi$ be a randomised $\epsilon$-error protocol for a composed search problem $S\circ g^n$. Recall that an input $(x,y)$ for the problem $S\circ g^n$ is \emph{critical} if there is exactly one solution $q$ with $((x,y),q)\in S\circ g^n$. In particular, if $g^n(x,y)$ is critical for $S$, then $(x,y)$ is critical for $S\circ g^n$. The behaviour of the protocol $\Pi$ on a critical input $(x,y)$ is predictable: the protocol's output $\Pi(x,y)$ is the unique solution with probability at least $1-\epsilon$.
However, noncritical inputs $(x,y)$ are much trickier: not only can the distribution of the output $\Pi(x,y)$ be complex, but the distributions of $\Pi(x,y)$ and $\Pi(x',y')$ can differ even if $(x,y)$ and $(x',y')$ encode the same input $g^n(x,y)=g^n(x',y')$ of $S$. The latter difficulty is the main technical challenge, and we address it by using random-self-reducible gadgets.
\paragraph{Defining a function $\bm{f\subseteq S}$.}
We start by following very closely the initial analysis in the proof of Huynh and Nordstr{\"o}m~\cite{huynh12virtue}. First, we record for each $\alpha\in\{0,1\}^n$ the \emph{most likely feasible output} of $\Pi$ on inputs $(x,y)$ that encode $\alpha$. More formally, for each $\alpha$ we define $\mu_\alpha$ to be the uniform distribution on the set of preimages of $\alpha$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mu-alpha}
\mu_\alpha\enspace\text{is uniform on}\enspace \{(x,y) : g^n(x,y) = \alpha \}.
\end{equation}
Alternatively, this can be viewed as a product distribution
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mu-z}
\mu_\alpha = \mu_{\alpha_1} \times \mu_{\alpha_2} \times \cdots \times \mu_{\alpha_n},
\end{equation}
where $\mu_z$, $z\in\{0,1\}$, is the uniform distribution on $g^{-1}(z)$.
The most likely feasible solution output by $\Pi$ on inputs $(\bm{x},\bm{y})\sim\mu_\alpha$ is now captured by a total function $f\subseteq S$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def-f}
f(\alpha)\ :=\ \argmax_{q:(\alpha,q)\in S} \Pr_{(\bm{x},\bm{y})\sim\mu_\alpha}[\,\Pi(\bm{x},\bm{y}) = q\,].
\end{equation}
Here, ties are broken arbitrarily and the randomness is taken over both $(\bm{x},\bm{y})\sim\mu_\alpha$ and the random coins of the protocol $\Pi$. (Note that, in general, the most likely output of $\Pi(\bm{x},\bm{y})$ may not be feasible. However, above, we explicitly pick out the most likely \emph{feasible} solution. Thus, $f$ is indeed a subfunction of $S$.)
\paragraph{The sensitive critical input.}
We can now use the critical block sensitivity of $S$: there is a critical input $\alpha$ such that $\mathrm{bs}(f,\alpha)\geq\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S)$. Let $B_1,\ldots,B_\mathrm{bs}\subseteq[n]$ be the sensitive blocks with $f(\alpha^{B_i})\neq f(\alpha)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:distinguish}
The protocol $\Pi$ can distinguish between $\mu_\alpha$ and $\mu_{\alpha^{B_i}}$ in the sense that
\begin{alignat}{3}
(\bm{x},\bm{y}) &\sim \mu_\alpha
&\quad\implies\quad& \Pr[\,\Pi(\bm{x},\bm{y})=f(\alpha)\,] \geq 1-\epsilon, \label{eq:f-crit}\\
(\bm{x},\bm{y}) &\sim \mu_{\alpha^{B_i}}
&\quad\implies\quad& \Pr[\,\Pi(\bm{x},\bm{y})= f(\alpha)\,] \leq 1/2. \label{eq:f-noncrit}
\end{alignat}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The consequent in the first property (\ref{eq:f-crit}) is true even for each individual $(x,y)$ in the support of $\mu_\alpha$ since $\alpha$ is critical. To see that the second property (\ref{eq:f-noncrit}) is true, suppose for a contradiction that we had $\Pr[\,\Pi(\bm{x},\bm{y})= f(\alpha)\,] > 1/2$ for $(\bm{x},\bm{y})\sim\mu_{\alpha^{B_i}}$. By averaging, there is a fixed input $(x,y)$ in the support of $\mu_{\alpha^{B_i}}$ such that $\Pr[\,\Pi(x,y)= f(\alpha)\,] > 1/2$. By the correctness of $\Pi$ (i.e., $1-\epsilon > 1/2$) this implies that $f(\alpha)$ is feasible for $\alpha^{B_i}$. Thus, $f(\alpha)$ is the most likely feasible solution output by $\Pi(\bm{x},\bm{y})$, that is, $f(\alpha^{B_i})=f(\alpha)$ by the definition~\eqref{eq:def-f}. But this contradicts the fact that $f$ is sensitive to $B_i$ at $\alpha$.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{The reduction.}
\autoref{lem:distinguish} suggests a reduction strategy analogous to the template (T1--T2) of \autoref{ssec:zhang}. Given an input $(a,b)$ for $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}$ our goal is to describe a randomised reduction $(a,b)\mapsto(\bm{x},\bm{y})$ such that
\begin{description}[noitemsep]
\item[(P1)] \emph{0-inputs:} If $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=0$, then $(\bm{x},\bm{y})\sim \mu_\alpha$.
\item[(P2)] \emph{1-inputs:} If $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=1$ with $a_i=b_i=1$, then $(\bm{x},\bm{y})\sim \mu_{\alpha^{B_i}}$.
\end{description}
Suppose for a moment that we had a reduction with properties (P1--P2). Let $\Pi'$ be the protocol that on input $(a,b)$ first applies the reduction $(a,b)\mapsto(\bm{x},\bm{y})$ with properties (P1--P2), then runs $\Pi$ on $(\bm{x},\bm{y})$, and finally outputs $0$ if $\Pi(\bm{x},\bm{y})=f(\alpha)$ and $1$ otherwise. \autoref{lem:distinguish} tells us that
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item If $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=0$, then $\Pi'(a,b)=0$ with probability at least $1-\epsilon$.
\item If $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=1$, then $\Pi'(a,b)=1$ with probability at least $1/2$.
\end{itemize}
The error probability of $\Pi'$ can be bounded away from $1/2$ by repeating $\Pi'$ twice and outputting~$0$ iff both runs of $\Pi'$ output $0$. (Here we are assuming that $\epsilon$ is small enough, say at most $1/4$. If not, we can use some other standard success probability boosting tricks.) This gives a randomised protocol for $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}$ with the same communication cost (up to constants) as that of $\Pi$. \autoref{thm:two-party} follows.
Indeed, it remains to implement a reduction $(a,b)\mapsto(\bm{x},\bm{y})$ satisfying (P1--P2). We do it in three steps; see \autoref{fig:reduction}.
\begin{figure}[t]%
\ffigbox[.9\textwidth]
{\caption{The reduction $(a,b)\mapsto(\bm{x},\bm{y})$. In this example $\mathrm{bs}=2$ and $n=7$. The critical input is $\alpha=1011010$ and the two sensitive blocks are $B_1=\{2,3,4\}$ and $B_2=\{6,7\}$. The input pair $(a_i,b_i)$, $i=1,2$, is plugged in for the block $B_i$.}
\label{fig:reduction}}
{\begin{lpic}[r(2cm),t(3mm),b(3mm)]{figs/reduction(.35)}
\large
\lbl[t]{91,23;$(a_1,b_1)$}
\lbl[t]{224,23;$(a_2,b_2)$}
\lbl[c]{91,47;$\AND\leq g$}
\lbl[c]{224,47;$\AND\leq g$}
\lbl[c]{14,95;$(1,1)$}
\lbl[c]{166.7,95;$(0,0)$}
\lbl[c]{14,168;$g$}
\lbl[c]{52.2,168;$g$}
\lbl[c]{90.3,168;$g$}
\lbl[c]{128.5,168;$g$}
\lbl[c]{166.7,168;$g$}
\lbl[c]{204.3,168;$g$}
\lbl[c]{243,168;$g$}
\lbl[c]{128.5,228.5;\Large$S$}
\normalsize
\lbl[l]{270,130;{\bf-----~~Step 3}}
\lbl[l]{270,95;{\bf-----~~Step 2}}
\lbl[l]{270,47;{\bf-----~~Step 1}}
\end{lpic}}
\hspace{5mm}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Step 1.}
On input $(a,b)=(a_1\ldots a_\mathrm{bs},b_1\ldots b_\mathrm{bs})$ to $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}$ we first take each pair $(a_i,b_i)$ through the reduction $\AND\leq g$ to obtain instances $(a'_1,b'_1),\ldots,(a'_\mathrm{bs},b'_\mathrm{bs})$ of $g$. Note that
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item if $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=0$, then $g(a'_i,b'_i)=0$ for all $i$;
\item if $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=1$, then there is a unique $i$ with $g(a'_i,b'_i)=1$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Step 2.}
Next, the instances $(a'_i,b'_i)$ are used to populate a vector $(x,y)=(x_1\ldots x_n,y_1\ldots y_n)$ carrying $n$ instances of $g$, as follows. The instance $(a'_i,b'_i)$ is plugged in for the coordinates $j\in B_i$ with the copies corresponding to $\alpha_j=1$ flipped. That is, we define for $j\in B_i$:
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item if $\alpha_j = 0$, then $(x_j,y_j) := (a'_i,b'_i)$;
\item if $\alpha_j = 1$, then $(x_j,y_j) := (\pi_A(a'_i),\pi_B(b'_i))$, where $(\pi_A,\pi_B)$ is the reduction $\neg g\leq g$.
\end{itemize}
For $j\notin \cup_i B_i$ we simply fix an arbitrary $(x_j,y_j)\in g^{-1}(\alpha_j)$. We now have that
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item if $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=0$, then $g^n(x,y) = \alpha$;
\item if $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}(a,b)=1$ with $a_i=b_i=1$, then $g^n(x,y)= \alpha^{B_i}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Step 3.}
Finally, we apply a random-self-reduction independently for each component $(x_i,y_i)$ of $(x,y)$: this maps a $z$-input $(x_i,y_i)$ to a uniformly random $z$-input $(\bm{x}_i,\bm{y}_i)\sim \mu_z$. The result is a random vector $(\bm{x},\bm{y})$ that has a distribution of the form (\ref{eq:mu-z}) and matches our requirements (P1--P2), as desired.
\bigskip\noindent
This concludes the proof of \autoref{thm:two-party}. The proof of the multi-party version (\autoref{thm:multi-party}) is exactly the same, except with $g$ and $\UDISJ_\mathrm{bs}$ replaced by a versatile $g_k$ and $\UDISJ_{k,\mathrm{bs}}$.
\pagebreak[2]
\section{Critical Block Sensitivity Lower Bounds} \label{sec:cbs}
In this section we prove our new critical block sensitivity bounds, Theorems \ref{thm:tseitin} and \ref{thm:pebbling}.
\subsection{Tseitin sensitivity} \label{sec:tseitin}
Let $G=(V,E,\ell)$ be a connected graph with an odd-weight labelling $\ell\colon V\to\{0,1\}$. Recall that in the problem $S(\text{\slshape Tse}_G)$ the input is an assignment $\alpha\colon E\to\{0,1\}$ and the goal is to find a parity violation, that is, a node in $\text{Viol}(\alpha) := \{v\in V : C_v(\alpha) = 0\}$.
For the readers' convenience, we recall some basic facts about $\text{\slshape Tse}_G$. Since each edge $e\in E$ participates in two constraints, the sum $\sum_v\sum_{e:v\in e} \alpha(e)$ will be even. By contrast, the sum $\sum_v\ell(v)$ is odd. It follows that $|\text{Viol}(\alpha)|$ must be odd, and, in particular, non-empty. Conversely, for every odd-size set $U\subseteq V$, there is an $\alpha$ with $\text{Viol}(\alpha)=U$. To see this, start with any assignment $E\to\{0,1\}$ and let $p$ be a simple path in $G$. If we flip the truth values of the edges in $p$, we end up flipping whether or not the constraints at the endpoints of $p$ are satisfied. Depending on whether the endpoints of $p$ were satisfied to begin with, this results in one of the following scenarios: (1) we create a pair of violations; (2) we remove a pair of violations; or (3) we move a violation from one endpoint of $p$ to the other. It is not hard to see that by using (1)--(3) repeatedly, we can design an assignment $\alpha$ such that $\text{Viol}(\alpha)=U$.
We are now ready to prove \autoref{thm:tseitin}.
\tseitin*
\begin{proof}
Let $G=(V,E,\ell)$ be $(\kappa+1)$-routable. Fix a set $T\subseteq V$ of size $|T|=2\kappa+1$ such that whenever $M$ is a set of $\kappa$ disjoint pairs of nodes from $T$, there are $\kappa$ edge-disjoint paths connecting each pair in $M$. We denote by $\text{Paths}(M)$ some canonical set of such paths.
Consider the following bipartite auxiliary graph on \emph{left} and \emph{right} vertices:
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,leftmargin=\parindent]
\item {\bf Left vertices} are pairs $(\alpha,M)$, where $\alpha\colon E\to\{0,1\}$ has a \emph{unique} violation that is in $T$ (i.e., $|\text{Viol}(\alpha)| = 1$ and $\text{Viol}(\alpha)\subseteq T$), and $M$ is a partition of the set $T \smallsetminus \text{Viol}(\alpha)$ into $\kappa$ pairs of nodes.
\item {\bf Right vertices} are pairs $(\alpha',M')$, where $\alpha'\colon E\to\{0,1\}$ has \emph{three} violations that are all in $T$ (i.e., $|\text{Viol}(\alpha')| = 3$ and $\text{Viol}(\alpha')\subseteq T$), and $M'$ is a partition of the set $T \smallsetminus \text{Viol}(\alpha')$ into $\kappa-1$ pairs of nodes.
\item {\bf Edges} are defined as follows. A left vertex $(\alpha,M)$ is connected to a right vertex $(\alpha',M')$ if $M' \subseteq M$ and $\alpha'$ is obtained from $\alpha$ by flipping the values along the path in $\text{Paths}(M)$ that connects the pair $\text{Viol}(\alpha')\smallsetminus\text{Viol}(\alpha)$.
\end{itemize}
The key fact, which is easy to verify, is that the auxiliary graph is \emph{biregular}: its left-degree is $\kappa$ and its right-degree is $3$.
To prove the block sensitivity bound, let $f$ be a function solving $S(\text{\slshape Tse}_G)$. We say that an edge from $(\alpha,M)$ to $(\alpha',M')$ in the auxiliary graph is \emph{sensitive} if $f(\alpha) \neq f(\alpha')$. Clearly, for each right vertex exactly two (out of three) of its incident edges are sensitive. Thus, by averaging, we may find a left vertex $(\alpha,M)$ such that at least a fraction $2/3$ of its incident edges are sensitive. But this means that $\alpha$ is a critical input with block sensitivity at least~$2\kappa/3$; the blocks are given by a subset of $\text{Paths}(M)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Pebbling sensitivity}
\begin{figure}[t]%
{\caption{Pyramid graph viewed as a subgraph of a tensor product of paths.}
\label{fig:pyramid}}
{\begin{lpic}{figs/pyramid(.474)}
\normalsize
\lbl[c]{42,50;$t$}
\lbl[c]{150,50;$t$}
\Large
\lbl[c]{92,24;$\subseteq$}
\lbl[c]{203,23.55;$=$}
\lbl[c]{310,24.3;$\times$}
\end{lpic}}
\end{figure}
\pebbling*
\paragraph{Overview.}
Our proof of \autoref{thm:pebbling} generalises the original proof from~\cite{huynh12virtue} that held for pyramid graphs. The key idea is natural: In a pyramid graph, each horizontal layer can be interpreted as a path---this is made precise by viewing the pyramid graph as a subgraph of a tensor product of paths as in \autoref{fig:pyramid}. The analysis in the original proof suffered from the fact that random walks do not mix well on paths. So, we replace the paths by graphs with better mixing properties! (Perhaps surprisingly, we do not need to rely on expanders here.)
\paragraph{Definition of $\bm{G}$.}
Let $H$ be the $3$-dimensional grid graph on $m=r^3$ nodes where $r$ is odd. For convenience, we think of $H$ as a directed Cayley graph on $\Z_r^3$ generated by the $6$ elements
\[
\mathcal{B}=\{\pm (1,0,0),\pm (0,1,0),\pm (0,0,1)\}.
\]
That is, there is an edge $(v,u)\in E(H)$ iff $u = v+b$ for some $b\in\mathcal{B}$.
The key property of $H$ (which is not satisfied by $d$-dimensional grid graphs for $d<3$) is the following.
\begin{lemma}[Partial cover time] \label{lem:pct}
Starting from any node of $H$ the expected number of steps it takes for a random walk to visit at least half of the nodes of $H$ is $\pct(H)=O(m)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemma~2.8 in~\cite{lovasz93random} and the fact that the maximum hitting time of $H$ is $O(m)$ (e.g.,~\cite{chandra96electrical}).
\end{proof}
Let $\ell:=2\cdot\pct(H)+1=\Theta(m)$ so that by Markov's inequality a random walk of length $\ell-1$ in $H$ will cover a at least a fraction $1/2$ of $H$ with probability at least $1/2$. Let $P$ be the directed path on $[\ell]$ with edges $(i,i+1)$, $i\in[\ell-1]$. We construct the tensor product graph
\[
G:= H\times P
\]
that is defined by $V(G)=\Z_r^3\times[\ell]$ and there is a directed edge from $(v,i)$ to $(u,j)$ iff $j=i+1$ and $u = v + b$ for some $b\in\mathcal{B}$.
The $n=m\ell$ nodes of $G$ are naturally partitioned into~$\ell$ \emph{layers} (or \emph{steps}). In order to turn $G$ into a pebbling formula, we need to fix some \emph{sink} node $t$ in the $\ell$-th layer and delete all nodes from which $t$ is not reachable. We do not let this clean-up operation affect our notations, though. For example, we continue to think of the resulting graph as $G=H\times P$. The nodes $\Z_r^3\times\{1\}$ of indegree $0$ will be the \emph{sources}.
Note that each source--sink path $p$ in $G$ contains exactly one node from each layer. We view the projection of $p$ onto $H$ as a walk of length $\ell-1$ in $H$; we can describe the walk uniquely by a sequence of $\ell-1$ generators from $\mathcal{B}$. We denote by $\pi(p)\subseteq V(H)$ the set of nodes visited by the projected walk.
We can now study the search problem $S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G)$ associated with the pebbling formula~$\text{\slshape Peb}_G$.
\paragraph{Pebbling number.}
The pebbling strategy for $G$ that uses $O(\sqrt{n})=O(m)$ pebbles proceeds as follows. We first pebble the $1$st layer (the sources), then the $2$nd layer, then remove pebbles from the $1$st layer, then pebble the $3$rd layer, then remove pebbles from the $2$nd layer, etc.
The matching lower bound follows from the fact that $G$ contains a pyramid graph on $\Omega(n)$ nodes as a subgraph, and the pebbling number of pyramid graphs is $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$~\cite{cook74observation}.
\paragraph{Decision tree complexity.}
The deterministic decision tree that uses $O(\sqrt{n})=O(m)$ queries proceeds as follows. We start our search for a violated clause at the sink $t$. If the sink variable is false, we query its children to find a child $v$ whose associated variable is false. The search continues at $v$ in the same manner. In at most $\ell-1=O(m)$ steps we find a false node $v$ whose children are all true (perhaps $v$ is a source node).
The matching lower bound follows from the critical block sensitivity lower bound proved below, and the fact that critical block sensitivity is a lower bound on the decision tree complexity.
\paragraph{Critical block sensitivity.}
It remains to prove that $\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G))=\Omega(m)$. The following proof is a straightforward generalisation of the original proof from (the full version of)~\cite{huynh12virtue}.
All \emph{paths} that we consider in the following are source--sink paths in $G$. We associate with each path $p$ a critical input $\alpha_p\colon V(G)\to\{0,1\}$ that assigns to each node on $p$ the value $0$ and elsewhere the value $1$. This creates a unique clause violation at the source where $p$ starts.
If $p$ and $q$ are two paths, we say that $p$ and $q$ are \emph{paired at $i\geq 2$} if the following hold.
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item \emph{Agreement:} $p$ and $q$ do not meet before layer $i$, but they agree on all layers $i,\ldots,\ell$.
\item \emph{Mirroring:} if the first $i-1$ steps of $p$ are described by $(b_1,b_2,\ldots,b_{i-1})\in\mathcal{B}^{i-1}$, then the first $i-1$ steps of $q$ are described by $(-b_1,-b_2,\ldots,-b_{i-1})\in\mathcal{B}^{i-1}$.
\end{itemize}
Each path can be paired with at most $\ell-1$ other paths---often, there are plenty such:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:plenty}
Each path $p$ is paired with at least $|\pi(p)|-1$ other paths.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each node $v\in \pi(p)$, except the starting point of $p$, we construct a pair $q$ for $p$. To this end, let $i\geq2$ be the first step at which the projection of $p$ visits $v$. Since the mirroring property uniquely determines $q$ given $p$ and $i$, we only need to show that this~$q$ satisfies the agreement property. Thus, suppose for a contradiction that $p$ and $q$ meet at some node $(u,j)$ where $j<i$. We have, in $\Z_r^3$ arithmetic,
\begin{align*}
v &= u + b_j + b_{j+1} + \cdots + b_{i-1} \qquad(\text{according to $p$}),\\
v &= u - b_j - b_{j+1} - \cdots - b_{i-1} \qquad(\text{according to $q$}).
\end{align*}
This implies $2v=2u$, but since $r$ is odd, we get $v=u$. This contradicts our choice of $i$.
\end{proof}
If $p$ and $q$ are paired, we can consider the assignment $\alpha_{p\cup q}$ that is the node-wise logical $\AND$ of the assignments $\alpha_p$ and $\alpha_q$. In $\alpha_{p\cup q}$ we have \emph{two} clause violations associated with the two starting points of the paths.
To prove the critical block sensitivity bound $\Omega(m)$, let $f$ be a function solving $S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G)$. Consider the following auxiliary graph.
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item The {\bf vertices} are the source--sink paths.
\item There is a {\bf directed edge} from $p$ to $q$ iff $p$ and $q$ are paired and $f(\alpha_{p\cup q})$ is the starting point of $q$. Thus, each two paired paths are connected by an edge one way or the other.
\end{itemize}
Recall that if we start a random walk of length $\ell-1$ on $H$ at any fixed node, the walk covers a fraction $\geq 1/2$ of $H$ with probability $\geq 1/2$. If we view a source-sink path~$p$ in $G$ in the \emph{reverse order} (starting at the sink and going towards the source), this translates into saying that $|\pi(p)|\geq m/2$ for a fraction $\geq 1/2$ of all paths $p$. Applying \autoref{lem:plenty} for such paths we conclude that the auxiliary graph has average outdegree at least $d=m/8-1$. By averaging, we can now find a path~$p$ with out-neighbours $q_1,\ldots,q_d$. Define $q'_i := q_i \smallsetminus p$. Clearly the critical assignment $\alpha_p$ is sensitive to each $q'_i$. To see that the $q'_i$ are pairwise disjoint, we note that they take steps in the same direction in $\mathcal{B}$ at each layer (i.e., opposite to that of $p$), and the $q_i$ meet $p$ for the first time at distinct layers. This concludes the proof of \autoref{thm:pebbling}.
\section{Applications: Monotone Depth} \label{sec:monotone-proofs}
In this section we prove Theorems~\ref{thm:RM-transformation} and \ref{thm:average-case} (restated below) that translate our communication lower bounds to monotone depth lower bounds. The starting point for these theorems is the well-known characterisation of monotone depth due to Karchmer and Wigderson~\cite{karchmer88monotone}. They showed that if $f\colon\{0,1\}^N\to\{0,1\}$ is a monotone function, then $\depth(f)$ is equal to the (deterministic) communication complexity of the following search problem:
\begin{quote}
{\bf Monotone KW-game for $\bm{f}$:} Alice holds a $a\in f^{-1}(1)$ and Bob holds a $b\in f^{-1}(0)$. The goal is to find a coordinate $i\in[N]$ such that $a_i=1$ and $b_i=0$.
\end{quote}
Note that a feasible coordinate is guaranteed to exist as $f$ is monotone.
\subsection{Raz--McKenzie transformation}
\RMtransformation*
\begin{proof}
(Generalisation of Lemma 3.5 in \cite{raz99separation}.)
We start by defining $f$. Each of its $N$ input coordinates will be indexed by a pair $(C,\ell)$, where $C$ is a constraint of $F$, and $\ell\colon \text{vars}(C) \to \mathcal{X}$ is a labelling of the variables in $C$. We now define $f$ by the following rule.
\begin{quote}
Function $f$ evaluates to $1$ iff there is a global labelling $\ell: \text{vars}(F) \to \mathcal{X}$ such that for each constraint $C$ the coordinate indexed by $(C,\ell\upharpoonright\text{vars}(C))$ is $1$.
\end{quote}
Here $\ell\upharpoonright\text{vars}(C)$ is the restriction of $\ell$ to $\text{vars}(C)$. Clearly $f$ is monotone.
\emph{\itshape Reduction.}
To prove the theorem, it suffices to show how to reduce the search problem $S(F)\circ g^n$ to the monotone KW-game for $f$. To this end, let $(x,y)$ be an input to the search problem $S(F)\circ g^n$ and compute as follows.
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$]
\item Alice maps $x\colon \text{vars}(F) \to \mathcal{X}$ to an instance of $f$ by setting all coordinates of the form $(C,x\upharpoonright\text{vars}(C))$ to $1$ and others $0$.
\item Bob maps $y\colon \text{vars}(F) \to \mathcal{Y}$ to an instance of $f$ by setting a coordinate $(C,\ell)$ to $1$ iff $C$ is satisfied under the partial assignment $v\mapsto g(\ell(v),y(v))$ where $v\in\text{vars}(C)$.
\end{itemize}
Alice clearly constructs a $1$-instance of $f$. To see that Bob constructs a $0$-instance of~$f$, suppose for a contradiction that there is a global labelling $\ell\colon\text{vars}(F)\to\mathcal{X}$ such that all coordinates of the form $(C,\ell\upharpoonright\text{vars}(C))$ are set to $1$ by Bob. This would mean that the global assignment $v\mapsto g(\ell(v),y(v))$ satisfies all the constraints. But this contradicts the unsatisfiability of $F$.
Assume then that Alice and Bob run a protocol for the monotone KW-game on the instances constructed above. As output of the protocol, they get an index $(C,\ell)$ that is $1$ in Alice's $1$-instance but $0$ in Bob's $0$-instance. Because Alice's $1$-instance was constructed so that for each constraint~$C$ exactly one coordinate of the form $(C,\cdot)$ is $1$, we must have that $\ell = x\upharpoonright\text{vars}(C)$. On the other hand, Bob's construction of the $0$-instance tells us that $C$ is not satisfied under the assignment $v \mapsto g(\ell(v),y(v))=g(x(v),y(v))$. Thus, we have found a violated constraint $C$ for the original search problem.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Protocols from average-case circuits}
\AverageCase*
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi = (\pi_A,\pi_B)$ be a reduction from the search problem $S(F)\circ g^n$ to the monotone KW-game for $f$. Choose $\bm{x}\in\mathcal{X}^n$ and $\bm{y}\in\mathcal{Y}^n$ uniformly at random and define $\bm{a}=\pi_A(\bm{x})$ and $\bm{b}=\pi_B(\bm{y})$. Recall that $f(\bm{a})=1$ and $f(\bm{b})=0$. Let $\mu_A$ and $\mu_B$ denote the distributions of $\bm{a}$ and $\bm{b}$, respectively. We define
\[
\mu = \frac{1}{2}\cdot\mu_A + \frac{1}{2}\cdot\mu_B.
\]
Suppose then that $\tilde{f}$ is a monotone function that $\delta$-correlates with $f$ under $\mu$. We describe a randomised bounded-error protocol for $S(F)\circ g^n$ using the monotone KW-game for $\tilde{f}$.
On input $(x,y)$ the protocol proceeds in two stages:
\begin{description}
\item[Stage 1:] Alice and Bob first apply a random self-reduction to each of the $n$ coordinates of $(x,y)$ to obtain a pair $(\bm{x},\bm{y})$. Then Alice privately computes $\bm{a}=\pi_A(\bm{x})$ and sends Bob the bit $\tilde{f}(\bm{a})$. Similarly, Bob privately computes $\bm{b}=\pi_B(\bm{y})$ and sends Alice the bit $\tilde{f}(\bm{b})$.
If $\tilde{f}(\bm{a}) = 1$ and $\tilde{f}(\bm{b}) = 0$, they proceed to Stage 2; otherwise they restart Stage 1.
\item[Stage 2:] Alice now holds a $1$-input $\bm{a}$ of $\tilde{f}$ and Bob holds a $0$-input $\bm{b}$ of $\tilde{f}$. Thus, they can run an optimal protocol for the monotone KW-game for $\tilde{f}$ to find a coordinate $i\in[N]$ such that $\bm{a}_i=1$ and $\bm{b}_i=0$. As in the proof of \autoref{thm:RM-transformation} above, this allows the players to solve the original instance $(x,y)$.
\end{description}
The correctness of the protocol (given that it finishes) is evident.
It remains to analyse the communication cost. Consider Stage 1 first. By the properties of the random-self-reducible gadget $g$, both $\bm{x}\in\mathcal{X}^n$ and $\bm{y}\in\mathcal{Y}^n$ are uniformly distributed (but not mutually independent). We can now define a random variable $\bm{z}\sim\mu$ by choosing $\bm{z}$ uniformly at random from $\{\bm{a},\bm{b}\}$. The following calculation estimates the probability of needing to restart Stage 1.
\begin{align*}
\Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{a}) = 0\ \text{or}\ \tilde{f}(\bm{b})=1\,]
&\leq \Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{a}) = 0\,] +\Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{b})=1\,] \tag{union bound}\\
&= \Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{a}) \neq f(\bm{a})\,] +\Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{b})\neq f(\bm{b})\,] \\
&= \Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{z}) \neq f(\bm{z})\mid \bm{z}=\bm{a}\,]
+\Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{z})\neq f(\bm{z})\mid \bm{z}=\bm{b}\,] \\
&= 2\Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{z}) \neq f(\bm{z})\ \text{and}\ \bm{z}=\bm{a}\,]
+2\Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{z})\neq f(\bm{z})\ \text{and}\ \bm{z}=\bm{b}\,] \\
&= 2\Pr[\,\tilde{f}(\bm{z}) \neq f(\bm{z})\,] \\
&\leq 2(1/2-\delta) \tag{$\tilde{f}$ and $f$ are $\delta$-correlated} \\
&= 1-2\delta.
\end{align*}
In other words, each run of Stage 1 succeeds with probability at least $2\delta$. Hence, we need $O(\delta^{-1})$ iterations in expectation where each iteration involves just $2$ bits of communication. Finally, the cost of Stage 2 is simply $\depth(\tilde{f})$ by the Karchmer--Wigderson theorem. In summary, the expected (and thus the bounded-error) communication cost is $O(\delta^{-1}) + \depth(\tilde{f})$.
\end{proof}
\section{Applications: Proof Complexity} \label{sec:proof-complexity}
In this section we prove our new proof complexity lower bounds as stated in \autoref{sec:app-proof}. We start by reviewing some standard proof complexity terminology.
\subsection{Background}
In this work we focus on proof systems that refute unsatisfiable CNF formulas. Given a proof system, a \emph{refutation} (or a \emph{proof}) $P$ of an unsatisfiable CNF formula $F$ in the system is expressed as a sequence of {\em lines}, denoted $\text{Lines}(P)$, each of which is either (a translation of) a clause of $F$ or follows from some previous lines via some sound {\em inference rule}. The refutation ends with some trivially false line.
For each proof $P$ we can associate a directed acyclic graph $G_P=(V,E)$ where $V=\text{Lines}(P)$ and there is an edge $(u,v)\in E$ if $v$ is derived via some inference rule using line $u$.
\paragraph{Complexity measures.}
For the purposes of this work, we define the \emph{size} of a proof $P$ simply as the number of lines $|\text{Lines}(P)|$. The \emph{rank} of $P$ is the length of the longest path in $G_P$. The \emph{size complexity} and \emph{rank complexity} of $F$ in a proof system are the minimum size and minimum rank, respectively, of all refutations of $F$ in that system.
We consider $G_P$ to be a tree if every internal node has fan-out one, that is, the clauses of $F$, which are not internal nodes, can be repeated.
If $G_P$ is a tree, we say that $P$ is \emph{tree-like}. The \emph{tree-like size complexity} of $F$ is the minimum size of a tree-like refutation of $F$. Note that restricting a refutation to be tree-like does not increase the rank because each line can be re-derived multiple times without affecting the rank. Tree-like size, however, can be much larger than general size.
\paragraph{Examples of proof systems.}
We mention some of the most well-studied proof systems.
In each of these systems, there is a set of derivation rules (which can be
thought of as inference schemas) of the form $F_1,F_2,\ldots, F_t\vdash F_{t+1}$
and each inference in a proof must be an instantiation of one of these rules.
A basic system is \emph{Resolution} whose lines are clauses.
Its only rule is the \emph{resolution rule}: the clause $(A \lor B)$
can be derived from $(A \lor x)$ and $(B \lor \neg x)$, where $A$ and
$B$ are arbitrary disjunctions of literals and $x$ is a variable.
A Resolution refutation of an unsatisfiable CNF formula $f$
is a sequence of clauses, ending with the empty clause,
such that each clause in the sequence is either a clause of $f$,
or follows from two previously derived clauses via the resolution rule.
Another proof system is the \emph{Cutting Planes} ($\mathsf{CP}$) proof system that manipulates integer linear inequalities. A $\mathsf{CP}$ refutation is a sequence
of inequalities, ending with $0 \geq 1$, such that all inequalities
are either translations of clauses of $F$, or follow from
two previously derived inequalities via one of the
two $\mathsf{CP}$ rules, addition and division with rounding. There is a natural extension of $\mathsf{CP}$, denoted $\mathsf{CP}(k)$, in
which the above $\mathsf{CP}$ proof rules may also be applied when the lines are
allowed to be degree $k$ multivariate polynomials.
Other important well-studied proof systems are the Lov\'asz--Schrijver\xspace
proof systems ($\mathsf{LS}_0$, $\mathsf{LS}$, $\mathsf{LS}_+$, and $\mathsf{LS}_{+,\star}$)
which are dynamic proof systems that manipulate polynomial inequalities of degree at most 2;
the Sherali--Adams and Lasserre (SOS) systems that are static proof systems
allowing polynomial inequalities of higher degree; and the
dynamic Lasserre (dynamic SOS), and $\mathsf{LS}^{k}_{+,\star}$ systems, which generalize
the Lov\'asz--Schrijver\xspace systems to higher degree.
We refer the reader to~\cite{odonnell13approximability} for formal definitions and a thorough history
for these and related proof sytems.
\paragraph{Semantic proof systems.}
Each of the above proof systems has a specific set of inference rule schemas, which allows them to have polynomial-time verifiers. In this work we consider more powerful \emph{semantic} proof systems that restrict the form of the lines and the fan-in of the inferences but dispense with the requirement of a polynomial-time verifier and allow any semantically sound inference rule with a given fan-in. The fan-in must be restricted because the semantic rules are so strong. The following system was introduced
in~\cite{beame07lower}.
\begin{definition}[Degree $k$ threshold proofs]
We denote by $\Th{k}$ the semantic proof system whose proofs have fan-in 2 and each line in a refutation of a formula $F$ is a polynomial inequality of degree at most $k$ in the variables of $F$. In particular, each clause of $F$ enters the system as translated into a linear inequality (similarly to the $\mathsf{CP}$ system discussed above).
\end{definition}
The following lemma follows from Caratheodory's Theorem.
\begin{lemma}\label{caratheodory-app}
$\mathsf{CP}$ and $\mathsf{LS}$ proofs can be efficiently converted into $\Th{k}$ proofs:
\begin{itemize}
\item Any $\mathsf{CP}$ proof of size (tree-like size) $s$ and rank $r$ can be converted
to a $\Th{1}$ proof of size (tree-like size) $O(s)$ and rank $O(r\log s)$.
\item Any $\mathsf{LS}_0$, $\mathsf{LS}$, or $\mathsf{LS}_+$ proof of size (tree-like size) $s$ and rank
$r$ can be converted to a $\Th{2}$ proof of size (tree-like size) $O(s)$ and
rank $O(r\log s)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Moreover, it is not hard to show that one can extend the above
simulations by $\Th{k}$ proofs to $\mathsf{CP}(k)$, $\mathsf{LS}^{k}_{+,\star}$, and
degree $k$ (dynamic) Lasserre proofs.
In this paper we consider semantic proof systems that are even more general than $\Th{k}$, namely those for which the fan-in is bounded and the truth value of each line can be computed by an efficient multi-party NOF communication protocol.
\begin{definition}[Proofs with $k$-party verifiers]
We denote by $\Tcc{k,c}$ the semantic proof system of fan-in $2$ in which
each proof line is a boolean function whose value, for every $k$-partition of the input variables, can be computed by a $c$-bit randomised $k$-party NOF protocol of error at most $1/4$. Both $k=k(s)$ and $c=c(s)$ may be functions of $s$, the size of the input formula. In keeping with the usual notions of what constitutes efficient communication, we use $\Tcc{k}$ to denote $\Tcc{k,\polylog s}$.
\end{definition}
Note that via standard boosting, we can replace the error $1/4$ in the above definition by $\epsilon$ at the cost of increasing $c$ by an $O(\log 1/\epsilon)$ factor. Therefore, without loss of generality, in the definition of $\Tcc{k}$ we can assume that the error is at most $2^{-\polylog s}$.
For polylogarithmic $k$, the following lemma
shows that $\Th{k}$ is a subclass of $\Tcc{k+1}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{th-to-rcc}
Every $\Th{k}$ refutation of an $n$-variable CNF formula is a $\Tcc{k+1,O(k^3\log^2 n)}$ refutation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the well-known result of Muroga~\cite{muroga71threshold}, linear threshold functions on
$n$ boolean variables only require coefficients of $O(n \log n)$ bits.
Since a degree $k$ threshold polynomial is a linear function on at most $n^k$
monomials, it is equivalent to a degree $k$ threshold polynomial
with coefficients of $O(kn^k \log n)$ bits.
As shown in~\cite{beame07lower},
over any input partition
there is a randomized $(k+1)$-party communication protocol of cost
$O(k\log^2 b)$
and error $\le 1/b^{\Omega(1)}$
to verify a degree $k$ polynomial inequality with $b$-bit coefficients.
\end{proof}
The following lemma, which is implicit in~\cite{beame07lower},
gives the key relationships between $\Tcc{k}$
and randomised communication protocols for $S(F)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{proof-to-com}
If a CNF formula $F$ has a $\Tcc{k,c}$ refutation of rank $r$ then, over any $k$-partition of the variables, there is a randomised bounded-error $k$-party NOF protocol for $S(F)$ with communication cost $O(c\cdot r\log r)$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Lifting CNF formulas}
In order to import our communication lower bounds to proof complexity, we need to encode composed search problems $S\circ g^n_k$ as CNF formulas. We describe a natural way of doing this in case $S=S(F)$ is the search problem associated with some CNF formula $F$.
Fix a $d$-CNF formula $F$ on $n$ variables and $m$ clauses. Also, fix a $k$-party gadget $g_k\colon\mathcal{X}^k\to\{0,1\}$ where each player holds $l:=\log|\mathcal{X}|$ bits as input. We construct a new $D$-CNF formula $F\circ g^n_k$ on $N$ variables and $M$ clauses, where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:params}
D=d\cdot kl,\qquad N=n\cdot kl,\qquad\text{and}\qquad M\leq m\cdot 2^{dkl}.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Variables of $\bm{F\circ g_k^n}$.}
For each variable $x$ of $F$ we create a matrix of variables
\[
X=\{\, X_{ij} : i \in [k],\, j \in [l]\,\}.
\]
The idea is that truth assignments $\alpha_X \colon X \to\{0,1\}$ are in a natural one-to-one correspondence with the set $\mathcal{X}^k$, the domain of $g_k$. Namely, the value of the $j$-th bit of the $i$-th player is encoded by $X_{ij}$. We take the variable set of $F\circ g_k^n$ to be the union $X\cup Y \cup \ldots$, where $x,y,\ldots$ are the original variables of $F$.
\paragraph{Clauses of $\bm{F\circ g_k^n}$.}
Let $C$ be a clause of $F$; suppose first that $C=(x\lor \neg y)$ for simplicity. We will replace $C$ with a set of clauses $\mathcal{C}$ on the variables $X\cup Y$ such that all clauses of $\mathcal{C}$ are satisfied under an assignment $\alpha\colon X\cup Y\to\{0,1\}$ if and only if $g_k(\alpha_X) = 1$ or $g_k(\alpha_Y) = 0$; here $\alpha_X$ and $\alpha_Y$ are elements of $\mathcal{X}^k$ associated with the restrictions of $\alpha$ to $X$ and $Y$. Indeed, let $X^\alpha_{ij} = X_{ij}$ if $\alpha(X_{ij}) = 1$, and $X^\alpha_{ij} = \neg X_{ij}$ if $\alpha(X_{ij}) = 0$, and similarly for $Y^\alpha_{ij}$. Define a clause
\[
C_\alpha =
\Big(\neg \bigwedge_{i,j} X^\alpha_{ij}\Big) \vee
\Big(\neg \bigwedge_{i,j} Y^\alpha_{ij}\Big),
\]
and let $\mathcal{C}$ consist of all the clauses $C_\alpha$ where $\alpha$ is such that $g_k(\alpha_X)=0$ and $g_k(\alpha_Y)=1$.
More generally, if we had started with a clause on $d$ variables, each clause $C_\alpha$ would involve $dkl$ variables and so we would have $|\mathcal{C}| \leq 2^{dkl}$. This completes the description of $F\circ g_k^n$.
\bigskip\noindent
The formula $F\circ g_k^n$ comes with a natural partition of the variables into $k$ parts as determined by the $k$-party gadget. Thus, we can consider the canonical search problem $S(F\circ g_k^n)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:lifted-search}
The two problems $S(F\circ g_k^n)$ and $S(F)\circ g_k^n$ have the same $k$-party communication complexity up to an additive $dkl$ term.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As discussed above, the \emph{inputs} to the two problems are in a natural one-to-one correspondence. How about translating \emph{solutions} between the problems? Given a violated clause $C_\alpha$ in the problem $S(F\circ g_k^n)$, it is easy to reconstruct $C$ from $C_\alpha$ without communication. Moreover, given a violated clause $C$ of $F$ in the problem $S(F)\circ g_k^n$, we can construct a violated $C_\alpha$ by first finding out what encoding $\alpha$ was used for each of the $d$ variables of $C$. This can be done by communicating $dkl$ bits (even in the number-in-hand model).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Rank lower bounds}
We are now ready to prove \autoref{thm:rank-lb}, restated here for convenience.
\rankbounds*
\begin{proof}
We start with a Tseitin formula $F$ with $n$ variables, $O(n)$ clauses, and width $O(1)$ that is associated with a $\Omega(n/\log n)$-routable bounded-degree graph. Let $k=k(n)$ be a parameter. We construct the formula $F\circ g_k^n$ where $g_k^n\colon\mathcal{X}^k\to\{0,1\}$ is the gadget of \autoref{cor:gadget}. Recall that $\log|\mathcal{X}|=k^{\epsilon}$ where $\epsilon=\epsilon(k)\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$. Using~\eqref{eq:params}, we observe
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item $F\circ g_k^n$ has size $s=O(n)\cdot \exp(O(k^{1+\epsilon}))$,
\item $F\circ g_k^n$ has width $O(k^{1+\epsilon})$,
\item $S(F\circ g_k^n)$ has $k$-party NOF communication complexity $\mathsf{CC}=\Omega(\sqrt{n/\log n}/2^kk)$; this follows from \autoref{lem:lifted-search}, Theorems \ref{thm:multi-party} and \ref{thm:tseitin}, and Sherstov's lower bound~\cite{sherstov13communication}. (Alternatively, the complexity is $\Omega(n/\log n)$ in case $k=2$.)
\end{itemize}
Fix $\delta>0$ and choose $k=(\log n)^{1-\delta}$. For large $n$, the above bounds translate into:
\[
s= n^{1+o(1)},\qquad
\text{width}\leq \log n,\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\mathsf{CC} \geq n^{1/2-o(1)}.
\]
Therefore, by \autoref{proof-to-com}, there are no $\Tcc{k}$ refutations of $F\circ g_k^n$ with rank at most $n^{1/2-o(1)}/\polylog n=n^{1/2-o(1)}$. The result follows by letting $\delta\to 0$ sufficiently slowly.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Length--space lower bounds} \label{sec:pebbling}
In order to study the space that is required by a refutation, we need to switch to a more appropriate \emph{space-oriented} view of proofs.
\begin{definition}[{Space-oriented proofs. E.g., \cite[\S2.2]{nordstrom13pebble}}] A refutation of a CNF formula $F$ in \emph{length} $L$ and \emph{space} $\text{\itshape Sp}$ is a sequence of \emph{configurations} $\mathbb{D}_0,\ldots,\mathbb{D}_L$ where each $\mathbb{D}_i$ is a set of lines (of the underlying proof system) satisfying $|\mathbb{D}_i|\leq \text{\itshape Sp}$ and such that $\mathbb{D}_0 = \emptyset$, $\mathbb{D}_L$ contains a trivially false line, and $\mathbb{D}_i$ is obtained from $\mathbb{D}_{i-1}$ via one of the following derivation steps:
\begin{itemize}[label=$-$,noitemsep]
\item {\bf Clause download:} $\mathbb{D}_i = \mathbb{D}_{i-1}\cup \{v_C\}$ where $v_C$ is a translation of some clause $C$ of $F$.
\item {\bf Inference:} $\mathbb{D}_i = \mathbb{D}_{i-1} \cup \{v\}$ where $v$ follows from some number of lines of $\mathbb{D}_{i-1}$ by an inference rule of the system.
\item {\bf Erasure:} $\mathbb{D}_i = \mathbb{D}_{i-1} \smallsetminus \{v\}$ for some $v\in\mathbb{D}_{i-1}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Huynh and Nordstr{\"o}m \cite{huynh12virtue} proved that if $F$ has a $\Tcc{2}$ refutation of short
length and small space, then there is a low-cost randomised two-party protocol for~$S(F)$.
It is straightforward to show that this result holds more generally for $\Tcc{k}$ proofs and $k$-party protocols. The high level idea is that the players can use the refutation of $F$ to do a binary search for a violated clause.
\begin{lemma}[Simulation of space-bounded proofs]\label{hn-sizespace}
Fix a CNF formula $F$ of size $s$ and some $k$-partition of its variables. If $F$ has a $\Tcc{k}$ refutation of length $L$ and space $\text{\itshape Sp}$, then there is a $k$-party randomised bounded-error protocol for $S(F)$ of communication cost
\[
\text{\itshape Sp}\cdot \log L\cdot \polylog s.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha\colon \text{vars}(F)\to\{0,1\}$ be an input to the search problem $S(F)$.
Fix a length-$L$ space-$\text{\itshape Sp}$ refutation of $F$ with configurations $\mathbb{D}_0,\ldots,\mathbb{D}_L$.
We will describe a $k$-party protocol to find a clause of $F$ that is violated under $\alpha$. The $k$ players first consider the configuration $\mathbb{D}_{L/2}$ in the refutation and communicate in order to evaluate the truth value of all lines in $\mathbb{D}_{L/2}$ under $\alpha$. If all lines of $\mathbb{D}_{L/2}$ are true, they continue their search on the subderivation $\mathbb{D}_{L/2},\ldots,\mathbb{D}_L$, and otherwise the search continues on the subderivation $\mathbb{D}_0,\ldots,\mathbb{D}_{L/2}$. In this way, we do a binary search, always maintaining the invariant that the first configuration in the subderivation evaluates to true, but some line in the last configuration evaluates to false. After $\log L$ steps, the players will find an $i \in [L]$ such that all of $\mathbb{D}_{i-1}$ evaluates to true but some line in $\mathbb{D}_i$ is false under $\alpha$. By the soundness of the proof system, the false line in $\mathbb{D}_i$ must have been a download of a some clause of $F$ and this clause solves the search problem.
Let us analyse the communication complexity of the protocol. The cost of evaluating any particular configuration with error at most $(4\log L)^{-1} \leq (4s)^{-1}$ is $\text{\itshape Sp}\cdot \polylog s$. Thus the overall cost is $\text{\itshape Sp}\cdot \log L\cdot \polylog s$ and the total error is at most $1/4$.
\end{proof}
Huynh and Nordstr{\"o}m proceeded to construct formulas $\text{\slshape Peb}_G$ of size $s$ such that they admit Resolution refutations of size $O(s)$, but for which any $\Tcc{2}$ refutation in space $\text{\itshape Sp}$ and length $L$ must satisfy $\text{\itshape Sp}\cdot\log L = s^{1/4-o(1)}$. Using our multi-party lower bounds, we can now generalise this tradeoff result to $\Tcc{k}$ proof systems. Namely, we prove the following result, which was stated in the introduction.
\tradeoffs*
\begin{proof}
The formula family, parameterised by $n\in\N$, is
\[
\text{\slshape Peb}_G\circ g_k^n,
\]
where $G$ is the graph from \autoref{thm:pebbling} with $n$ nodes and maximum degree $d=O(1)$, and where $k=k(n)$ is a parameter, and where $g_k\colon\mathcal{X}^k\to\{0,1\}$ is again our gadget from \autoref{cor:gadget}. In particular, letting $l=\log|\mathcal{X}|$, these formulas have size
\[
s \leq \Theta(n)\cdot 2^{dkl}.
\]
\paragraph{Lower bound.}
Using $\bs_{\mathit{crit}}(S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G))=\Omega(n^{1/2})$ and an argument similar to the proof of \autoref{thm:rank-lb}, we conclude that $S(\text{\slshape Peb}_G\circ g_k^n)$ has $k$-party randomised communication complexity $\Omega(n^{1/4-o(1)})$ when we choose $k=(\log n)^{1-o(1)}$ appropriately. (Alternatively, the complexity is $\Omega(n^{1/2-o(1)})$ for $k=2$.) Recall also that with this choice of~$k$, we have $s=n^{1+o(1)}$. This proves the lower bound \eqref{eq:tradeoff} in view of \autoref{hn-sizespace}.
\paragraph{Upper bound (sketch).}
To see that the lifted formula $\text{\slshape Peb}_G\circ g_k^n$ has a Resolution refutation of length $s^{1+o(1)}$ and space $s^{1/2+o(1)}$, we will mimic the usual length-$O(n)$ space-$O(n^{1/2})$ refutation of the original formula $\text{\slshape Peb}_G$. This refutation follows the pebbling of $G$: whenever a node $v$, with in-neighbours $w_1,\ldots,w_d$, is pebbled, we derive the clause $(v)$ from previously derived clauses $(w_1),\ldots,(w_d)$ and the clause $(\neg w_1 \lor\cdots\lor \neg w_d \lor v)$ of $\text{\slshape Peb}_G$.
For the lifted version $\text{\slshape Peb}_G\circ g_k^n$ we want to do the same thing, deriving the lifted clauses associated with $(v)$ from the lifted clauses associated with $(w_1),\ldots,(w_d)$ and $(\neg w_1 \lor\cdots\lor \neg w_d \lor v)$. The number of lifted variables that underlie each pebbling step is $dkl$, and since there is always a Resolution refutation of size exponential in the number of variables, it follows that each resolution step in the original refutation of $\text{\slshape Peb}_G$ can be simulated by $O(2^{dkl})=s^{o(1)}$ steps in the lifted proof. Thus the total length of the lifted refutation is $O(n)\cdot s^{o(1)}=s^{1+o(1)}$. Similarly, the space used is $s^{1/2+o(1)}$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Yuval Filmus for pointing out the quadratic character example, and Jakob Nordstr{\"o}m and Thomas Watson for providing helpful suggestions based on an early draft of this work. We also thank Anil Ada, Paul Beame, Trinh Huynh, and Robert Robere for discussions.
\DeclareUrlCommand{\Doi}{\urlstyle{same}}
\renewcommand{\path}[1]{\footnotesize\sf{\Doi{#1}}}
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $C$ be an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code (Type II code) of length $n$.
It was shown by Zhang \cite{Zhang(1999)} that $C$ does not exist if $n=24m$ ($m \geq 154)$,
$24m+8$ ($m \geq 159$), $24m+16$ ($m \geq 164$).
A $t$-$(v,k,{\lambda})$ design is a pair
$\mathcal{D}=(X,\mathcal{B})$, where $X$ is a set of points of
cardinality $v$, and $\mathcal{B}$ a collection of $k$-element subsets
of $X$ called blocks, with the property that any $t$ points are
contained in precisely $\lambda$ blocks.
It follows that every
$i$-subset of points $(i \leq t)$ is contained in exactly
$\lambda_{i}= \lambda \binom{v-i}{t-i} / \binom{k-i}{t-i}$ blocks.
The support $\mbox{supp} (c)$ of a codeword $c=(c_{1}, \dots, c_{n}) \in C$
is
the set of indices of its nonzero coordinates: $\mbox{supp} (c) = \{ i : c_{i} \neq 0 \}$.
The support design of $C$ for a given nonzero weight $w$
($w \equiv 0 \pmod 4$ and $4 \lfloor n/24 \rfloor +4 \leq w \leq n-(4 \lfloor n/24 \rfloor +4)$)
is the design
for which the points are the $n$ coordinate indices, and the blocks are the supports of all codewords of weight $w$.
Let $D_{w}$ be the support design of $C$ for a weight $w$.
Then it is known from the Assmus--Mattson theorem \cite{assmus-mattson}
that $D_{w}$ of all weights becomes a $5$-, $3$- and $1$-design for $n=24m$, $24m+8$ and $24m+16$,
respectively.
Note that no $t$-design for $t \geq 6$ has yet been obtained
from the support designs for codes.
Let
\begin{align*}
s(C)&:=\max\{t\in \mathbb{N}\mid \exists w; \mbox{ s.t.~}
D_{w} \mbox{ is a } t\mbox{-design}\},\\
\delta(C)&:=\max\{t\in \mathbb{N}\mid \forall w;
D_{w} \mbox{ is a } t\mbox{-design}\}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\delta(C)\leq s(C)$.
The following theorem gives the lower bound of $\delta(C)$ due to Janusz \cite{Janusz}.
\begin{Thm}\label{thm:Janusz}
Let $C$ be an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n=24m+8r$, $r=0,1$ or $2$.
Then either $\delta(C) \geq 7-2r$, or
$\delta(C)= 5-2r$ and there is no nontrivial weight $w$ such that $D_{w}$ holds a $(1+ \delta(C))$-design.
\end{Thm}
In this paper, we investigate an upper bound of $s(C)$.
First, we collect some known results for the support $t$-design of the minimum weight.
Let $D_{4m+4}^{24m}$ be the support $t$-designs of the minimum weight ($w=4m+4$) of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual $[24m,12m,4m+4]$ code.
By the Assmus--Mattson theorem, $D_{4m+4}^{24m}$ is a $5$-$(24m,4m+4,\binom{5m-2}{m-1})$ design.
Suppose that $D_{4m+4}^{24m}$ is a $t$-$(24m,4m+4,\lambda_{t})$ design with $t \geq 6$.
Then $\lambda_{t}= \binom{5m-2}{m-1} \binom{4m-1}{t-5}/\binom{24m-5}{t-5}$ is a nonnegative integer.
It is known that if $D_{4m+4}^{24m}$ is a $6$-design, then it is a $7$-design
by a strengthening of the Assmus--Mattson theorem \cite{strengthening of the Assmus-Mattson theorem}.
In 2006, Bannai et al.~\cite{Bannai-Koike-Shinohara-Tagami} showed that $D_{4m+4}^{24m}$ is never a $9$-design.
In \cite{extremal design H-M-N}, we give the following theorem.
\begin{Thm}
[\cite{extremal design H-M-N,errataHMN}]
\label{thm:minimum weight bound H-K-N}
Let $D_{4m+4}^{24m}$, $D_{4m+4}^{24m+8}$ and $D_{4m+4}^{24m+16}$ be the support $t$-designs of the minimum weight of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual $[24m,12m,4m+4]$ code $($$m \leq 153$$)$,
$[24m+8,12m+4,4m+4]$ code $($$m \leq 158$$)$ and $[24m+16,12m+8,4m+4]$ code $($$m \leq 163$$)$, respectively.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$] If $D_{4m+4}^{24m}$ becomes a $6$-design, then $D_{4m+4}^{24m}$ is a $7$-design and $m$ must be in the set
$\{15$, $52$, $55$, $57$,
$59$, $60$, $63$, $90$, $93$, $104$,
$105$, $107$, $118$,
$125$, $127$, $135$, $143$, $151 \}$.
Finally,
$D_{4m+4}^{24m}$ is never an $8$-design.
\item[$(2)$]
If $D_{4m+4}^{24m+8}$ becomes a $4$-design, then $D_{4m+4}^{24m+8}$ is a $5$-design and $m$ must be in the set
$\{15$, $35$, $45$, $58$, $75$, $85$, $90$, $95$, $113$, $115$, $120$, $125 \}$.
If $D_{4m+4}^{24m+8}$ becomes a $6$-design, then $m$ must be $58$.
If $D_{4m+4}^{24m+8}$ becomes a $7$-design, then $m$ must be $58$.
Finally, $D_{4m+4}^{24m+8}$ is never an $8$-design.
\item[$(3)$]
If $D_{4m+4}^{24m+16}$ becomes a $2$-design, then $D_{4m+4}^{24m+16}$ is a $3$-design and $m$ must be in the set
$\{5$, $10$, $20$, $23$, $25$, $35$, $44$, $45$, $50$, $55$,
$60$, $70$, $72$, $75$, $79$,
$80$, $85$, $93$, $95$, $110$, $118$, $120$,
$121$, $123$, $125$, $130$, $142$, $144$,
$145$, $149$, $150$, $155$, $156$, $157$,
$160$, $163$$\}$.
If $D_{4m+4}^{24m+16}$ becomes a $4$-design, then $m$ must be in the set
$\{10$, $23$, $79$,
$93$, $118$, $120$,
$123$, $125$, $142$$\}$.
If $D_{4m+4}^{24m+16}$ becomes a $5$-design, then $m$ must be in the set
$\{23$, $79$,
$93$, $118$, $120$,
$123$, $125$, $142$$\}$.
Finally, $D_{4m+4}^{24m+16}$ is never a $6$-design.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
We investigate the support designs of
the non minimum weights and
as a corollary, we have an upper bound of $s(C)$.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:Har},
we give the definition and some properties
of the harmonic weight enumerators,
which are used to study the support designs for the non minimum weights.
In particular, we remark that the harmonic weight enumerators of
Type II codes relate some invariant rings of the finite subgroup of
$GL(2,\C)$.
Using this facts, in order to show our results, we extend the methods of Bachoc \cite{Bachoc} and Bannai et al.~\cite{Bannai-Koike-Shinohara-Tagami}.
Our results is the following theorem.
\begin{Thm}\label{thm:main upper bound}
Let $C$ be an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$] If $n=24m$, then $\delta(C)=s(C)=5$ or $\delta(C)=s(C)=7$.
\item[$(2)$] If $n=24m+8$, then $\delta(C)=s(C)=3$ or $5 \leq \delta(C) \leq s(C) \leq 7$.
\item[$(3)$] If $n=24m+16$, then $\delta(C)=s(C)=1$ or $3 \leq \delta(C) \leq s(C) \leq 5$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
Thus we conclude that $\delta(C) \leq s(C) \leq 7$ for any extremal Type II code $C$.
\section{Harmonic weight enumerators}\label{sec:Har}
\subsection{Harmonic weight enumerators}\label{subsec:hw}
In this section, we extend a method of
the harmonic weight enumerators
which were used by Bachoc \cite{Bachoc} and
Bannai et al.~\cite{Bannai-Koike-Shinohara-Tagami}.
For the readers convenience we quote from \cite{Bachoc,Delsarte}
the definitions and properties of discrete harmonic functions
(for more information the reader is referred to \cite{Bachoc,Delsarte}).
Let $\Omega=\{1, 2,\ldots,n\}$ be a finite set (which will be the set of coordinates of the code) and
let $X$ be the set of its subsets, while, for all $k= 0,1, \ldots, n$, $X_{k}$ is the set of its $k$-subsets.
We denote by $\R X$, $\R X_k$ the free real vector spaces spanned by respectively the elements of $X$, $X_{k}$.
An element of $\R X_k$ is denoted by
$$f=\sum_{z\in X_k}f(z)z$$
and is identified with the real-valued function on $X_{k}$ given by
$z \mapsto f(z)$.
Such an element $f\in \R X_k$ can be extended to an element $\tilde{f}\in \R X$ by setting, for all $u \in X$,
$$\tilde{f}(u)=\sum_{z\in X_k, z\subset u}f(z).$$
If an element $g \in \R X$ is equal to some $\tilde{f}$, for $f \in \R X_{k}$, we say that $g$ has degree $k$.
The differentiation $\gamma$ is the operator defined by linearity from
$$\gamma(z) =\sum_{y\in X_{k-1},y\subset z}y$$
for all $z\in X_k$ and for all $k=0,1, \ldots n$, and $\Harm_{k}$ is the kernel of $\gamma$:
$$\Harm_k =\ker(\gamma|_{\R X_k}).$$
\begin{Thm}[\cite{Delsarte}]\label{thm:design}
A set $\mathcal{B} \subset X_{k}$ of blocks is a $t$-design
if and only if $\sum_{b\in \mathcal{B}}\tilde{f}(b)=0$
for all $f\in \Harm_k$, $1\leq k\leq t$.
\end{Thm}
In \cite{Bachoc}, the harmonic weight enumerator associated to a binary linear code $C$ was defined as follows:
\begin{Def}
Let $C$ be a binary code of length $n$ and let $f\in\Harm_{k}$.
The harmonic weight enumerator associated to $C$ and $f$ is
$$W_{C,f}(x,y)=\sum_{c\in C}\tilde{f}(c)x^{n-\wt(c)}y^{\wt(c)}.$$
\end{Def}
Let $G$ be the subgroup of $\GL(2,\C)$ generated by elements
$$T_{1}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix}, \
T_{2}= \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & i \end{pmatrix}.$$
We consider the group $G= \langle T_{1}, T_{2} \rangle$ together with the characters $\chi_{k}$ defined by
$$\chi_{k}(T_{1})=(-1)^{k},\ \chi_{k}(T_{2})=i^{-k}.$$
We denote by $I_{G}= \C [x,y]^{G}$ the ring of polynomial invariants of $G$ and by $I_{G,\chi_{k}}$
the ring of relative invariants of $G$ with respect to the character $\chi_{k}$.
Let $P_{8}=x^8+14x^4y^4+y^8$, $P_{12}=x^2y^2(x^4-y^4)^2$,
$P_{18}=xy(x^8-y^8)(x^8-34x^4y^4+y^8)$,
$P_{24}=x^4y^4(x^4-y^4)^4$, $P_{30}=P_{12}P_{18}$ and
\begin{align*}
I_{G,\chi_{k}}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\langle P_8,P_{24}\rangle &\mbox{ if }k \equiv 0\pmod{4}\\
P_{12}\langle P_8,P_{24}\rangle &\mbox{ if }k \equiv 2\pmod{4}\\
P_{18}\langle P_8,P_{24}\rangle &\mbox{ if }k \equiv 3\pmod{4}\\
P_{30}\langle P_8,P_{24}\rangle &\mbox{ if }k \equiv 1\pmod{4}
\end{array}.
\right.
\end{align*}
Then the structure of these invariant rings is described as follows:
\begin{Thm}[\cite{Bachoc}]\label{thm:invariant}
Let $C$ be an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n$, and let $f \in \Harm_{k}$.
Then we have $W_{C,f}(x,y) =(xy)^{k} Z_{C,f} (x,y)$. Moreover, the polynomial $Z_{C,f} (x,y)$ is degree of $n-2k$
and is in $I_{G, \chi_{k}}$, the space of the relative invariants of $G$ with respect to the character $\chi_{k}$.
\end{Thm}
We recall the slightly more general definition of the notion of a $T$-design, for a subset $T$ of $\{ 1,2, \ldots, n \}$:
a set $\mathcal{B}$ of blocks is called a $T$-design if and only if $\sum_{b\in \mathcal{B}}\tilde{f}(b)=0$
for all $f\in \Harm_k$ and for all $k \in T$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:design}, a $t$-design is
a $T= \{1, \ldots, t \}$-design.
Let $W_{C,f}=\sum_{i=0}^{n}c_f(i)x^{n-i}y^i$.
Then we note that $D_w$ is a $T$-design if and only if $c_f(w)=0$
for all $f\in \mbox{Harm}_j$ with $j\in T$.
The following theorem is called a strengthening of the Assmus--Mattson theorem.
\begin{Thm}
\cite{{strengthening of the Assmus-Mattson theorem}}]\label{thm:strengthening of the Assmus-Mattson theorem}
Let $D_{w}$ be the support design of an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $n \equiv 0 \pmod{24}$, $D_{w}$ is a $\{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7\}$-design.
\item If $n \equiv 8 \pmod{24}$, $D_{w}$ is a $\{1, 2, 3, 5\}$-design.
\item If $n \equiv 16 \pmod{24}$, $D_{w}$ is a $\{1, 3\}$-design.
\end{itemize}
\end{Thm}
We remark that Bachoc gave an alternative proof of a strengthening of the Assmus--Mattson theorem
in \cite[Theorem~4.2]{Bachoc}.
Bannai--Koike--Shinohara--Tagami \cite[Theorem 6 and Remark 5]{Bannai-Koike-Shinohara-Tagami}
proved the following theorem which is essentially an alternative proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Janusz}.
\begin{Thm}[\cite{Bannai-Koike-Shinohara-Tagami}]\label{Thm:Bannai et al. thm6}
Let $D_{w}$ be the support design of an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$] If $n \equiv 0 \pmod{24}$, $D_{w}$ of all weights are $6$-designs or not simultaneously.
\item[$(2)$] If $n \equiv 8 \pmod{24}$, $D_{w}$ of all weights are $4$-designs or not simultaneously.
\item[$(3)$] If $n \equiv 16 \pmod{24}$, $D_{w}$ of all weights are $2$-designs or not simultaneously.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
\subsection{Harmonic weight enumerators of extremal Type II codes}
In this section,
we give the explicit description of
the harmonic weight enumerators of
extremal Type II codes of for the particular cases, which will be needed
in the proof of the our theorems in Section \ref{sec: proof of thm}.
We set $n=24m+8r$ the length of a code $C$.
\paragraph{\underline{Case $t=4$ and $r=2$.}}
Let us assume that $t=4$, and $C$ is an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of
length $n=24m+16$.
Then by the Theorem~\ref{thm:invariant} we have $W_{C,f}(x,y) =c(f) (xy)^{4} Z_{C,f} (x,y)$,
where $c(f)$ is a linear function from Harm$_{t}$ to $\R$ and $Z_{C,f} (x,y) \in I_{G,\chi_{0}}$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:invariant},
$Z_{C,f} (x,y)$ is written in the following form:
\[
Z_{C,f}(x,y) = \sum_{i=0}^{m}a_{i}P_{8}^{3(m-i)+1} P_{24}^{i}.
\]
Since the minimum weight of $C$ is $4m+4$,
we have $a_{i}=0$ for $i \neq m$.
Therefore, $W_{C,f}(x,y)$ is written in the following form:
\begin{align}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{4} P_{8} P_{24}^{m} \notag \\
& =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m}
(x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}). \label{eqn:W_ 4l}
\end{align}
The other cases are as follows.
\paragraph{\underline{Case $t=5$ and $r=2$.}}
$W_{C,f}(x,y)$ is written in the following form:
\begin{align*}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{5} Z_{C,f} (x,y) \notag \\
&=c(f) (xy)^{5} P_{30} \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}a_{i}P_{8}^{3(m-i)-3} P_{24}^{i}.
\end{align*}
If $C$ is extremal, then
\begin{align}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{5} P_{30} P_{24}^{m-1} \notag \\
&=c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-1}(x^{4}+y^{4}) \notag \\
& \hspace{15pt} (x^{8}-34x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}). \label{eqn:W_ 4l+1}
\end{align}
\paragraph{\underline{Case $t=6$ and $r=1,2$.}}
$W_{C,f}(x,y)$ is written in the following form:
\begin{align*}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{6} Z_{C,f} (x,y) \notag \\
&=c(f) (xy)^{6} P_{12} \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}a_{i}P_{8}^{3(m-i)-3+r} P_{24}^{i}.
\end{align*}
If $C$ is extremal, then
\begin{align}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{6} P_{12} P_{8}^{r} P_{24}^{m-1} \notag \\
&=c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-2} (x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})^{r}. \label{eqn:W_ 4l+2}
\end{align}
\paragraph{\underline{Case $t=7$ and $r=1$.}}
$W_{C,f}(x,y)$ is written in the following form:
\begin{align*}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{7} Z_{C,f} (x,y) \notag \\
&=c(f) (xy)^{7} P_{18} \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}a_{i}P_{8}^{3(m-i)-3} P_{24}^{i}.
\end{align*}
If $C$ is extremal, then
\begin{align}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{7} P_{18} P_{24}^{m-1}\notag\\
&=c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-3}(x^{4}+y^{4})\notag\\
&\hspace{15pt}(x^{8}-34x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}).\label{eqn:W_ 4l+3}
\end{align}
\paragraph{\underline{Case $t=8$ and $r=0,1$.}}
$W_{C,f}(x,y)$ is written in the following form:
\begin{align*}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{8} Z_{C,f} (x,y) \notag \\
&=c(f) (xy)^{8} \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}a_{i}P_{8}^{3(m-i)-2+r} P_{24}^{i}.
\end{align*}
If $C$ is extremal, then
\begin{align}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{8} P_{8}^{r+1} P_{24}^{m-1} \notag \\
& =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-4}
(x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})^{r+1}. \label{eqn:W_ 4l,8}
\end{align}
\subsection{Coefficients of the harmonic weight enumerators of extremal Type II codes}
As we mentioned in Section \ref{subsec:hw},
it is important for the support designs of a code $C$ whether the coefficients of $W_{C,f}(x,y)$ are zero or not.
Therefore, we investigate it and show the the following lemmas.
\begin{Lem}\label{lem:poly. zero 1}
Let $Q=(x^{4}-y^{4})^{\alpha} (x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})^{\beta}$
with $0\leq \alpha \leq 652$ and $\beta= 1 ,2$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$] In the case $\beta =1$,
if the coefficients of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+2-i}(-y^{4})^{i}$ in $Q$ are equal to $0$
for $0 \leq i \leq \frac{\alpha+2}{2}$,
then $(\alpha, i)=(14,1)$, $(223,15)$.
\item[$(2)$] In the case $\beta =2$,
the coefficients of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+4-i}(-y^{4})^{i}$ in $Q$ are equal to $0$
for $0 \leq i \leq \frac{\alpha+4}{2}$,
then $(\alpha, i)=(28,1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
We recall that
$C$ does not exist if $n=24m$ ($m \geq 154)$,
$24m+8$ ($m \geq 159$), $24m+16$ ($m \geq 164$).
Then $0\leq \alpha \leq 652$ satisfy the condition
for $m \leq 163$ in equations (\ref{eqn:W_ 4l})--(\ref{eqn:W_ 4l,8}).
$(1)$ In the case $\beta =1$,
\begin{align*}
Q = & (x^{4}-y^{4})^{\alpha}(x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}) \\
= & \sum_{j=0}^{\alpha} \binom{\alpha}{j} (-1)^{j}(x^{4})^{\alpha-j}(y^{4})^{j}(x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}).
\end{align*}
For $0\leq \alpha \leq 2$, it is easily seen by a direct computation that
the all coefficients of $(x^{4})^{\alpha+2-i}(-y^{4})^{i}$ in $Q$ are not equal to $0$.
Therefore, let $\alpha \geq 3$.
It is clear that the coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+2}$ in $Q$ (similarly $(y^{4})^{\alpha+2}$) is equals to $1$.
Next, the coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+1}(y^{4})$ in $Q$ (similarly $(-1)^{\alpha}(x^{4})(y^{4})^{\alpha+1}$) is equals to $14- \binom{\alpha}{1}$.
Hence if $\alpha=14$, this coefficient is equals to $0$.
The coefficients of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-1)}(y^{4})^{j+1}$ in $Q$ for $1 \leq j \leq \alpha-1$ are the following formula:
\begin{align*}
&\binom{\alpha}{j-1} (-1)^{j-1}(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-1)}(y^{4})^{j-1} \times y^{8} \\
&+\binom{\alpha}{j} (-1)^{j}(x^{4})^{\alpha-j}(y^{4})^{j} \times 14x^{4}y^{4} \\
&+\binom{\alpha}{j+1} (-1)^{j+1}(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j+1)}(y^{4})^{j+1} \times x^{8} \\
&= \left( \frac{j}{\alpha-j+1} -14 + \frac{\alpha-j}{j+1} \right)
\binom{\alpha}{j} (-1)^{j-1}(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-1)}(y^{4})^{j+1}.
\end{align*}
If
\begin{align*}
\left( \frac{j}{\alpha-j+1} -14 + \frac{\alpha-j}{j+1} \right)=\frac{16j^{2}-16 \alpha j + \alpha^{2}-13 \alpha -14}{(\alpha-j+1)(j+1)}=0,
\end{align*}
we have $16j^{2}-16 \alpha j + \alpha^{2}-13 \alpha -14=0$ and
\begin{align*}
j= \frac{2 \alpha \pm \sqrt{(3\alpha+7)(\alpha+2)}}{4}.
\end{align*}
Since $j$ is a nonnegative integer, $(3\alpha+7)(\alpha+2)$ is a square number.
Let $\ell$ be the greatest common divisor of $3\alpha+7$ and $\alpha+2$.
We set $3\alpha+7= \ell z_{1}$ and $\alpha+2 =\ell z_{2}$,
where $z_{1}$, $z_{2}$ are nonnegative integers.
Then we have $\ell(3z_{2}-z_{1})=-1$. Hence we have $\ell=1$.
Therefore, both $3\alpha+7$ and $\alpha+2$ are square numbers.
Let
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
3\alpha+7 = X^{2} \\
\alpha+2 =Y^{2} \label{eqn: alpha+2}
\end{cases},
\end{align}
where $X$ and $Y$ are nonnegative integers.
Then we have
\begin{equation}
X^{2}-3Y^{2}=1. \label{eqn:pell eq}
\end{equation}
This equation is the instance of Pell equation $X^{2}-nY^{2}=1$ for $n=3$.
The solving of the Pell equation is well known \cite[page 276]{IR}.
The equation (\ref{eqn:pell eq}) has the nontrivial smallest integer solution $(X_{1},Y_{1})=(2,1)$.
Then all remaining solutions may be calculated as
$X_{k}+Y_{k} \sqrt{3}=(X_{1}+Y_{1} \sqrt{3})^{k}=(2+\sqrt{3})^{k}$.
Equivalently, we may calculate subsequent solutions via the recurrence relation
\begin{align*}
\begin{cases}
X_{k+1} =X_{1}X_{k}+3Y_{1}Y_{k} =2X_{k}+3Y_{k} \\
Y_{k+1} =Y_{1}X_{k}+ X_{1}Y_{k} = X_{k}+2Y_{k}
\end{cases}.
\end{align*}
The above recurrence formulas generates the infinite sequence of solutions
$$(2,1), (7,4), (26,15), (97,56), (362,209), \ldots.$$
By (\ref{eqn: alpha+2}), we obtain
$$\alpha= -1,14,223,3134,43679, \ldots.$$
Therfore the equation $\left( \frac{j}{\alpha-j+1} -14 + \frac{\alpha-j}{j+1} \right)=0$
has a solution $(\alpha, j)=(223,14)$ for $3 \leq \alpha \leq 652$ and $1\leq j\leq \alpha -1$.
This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (1).
$(2)$ In the case $\beta =2$,
\begin{align*}
Q = & (x^{4}-y^{4})^{\alpha}(x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})^{2} \\
= & \sum_{j=0}^{\alpha} \binom{\alpha}{j} (-1)^{j}(x^{4})^{\alpha-j}(y^{4})^{j}
(x^{16}+28x^{12}y^{4}+198x^{8}y^{8}+28x^{4}y^{12}+y^{16}).
\end{align*}
For $0\leq \alpha \leq 4$, it is easily seen by a direct computation that
the all coefficients of $(x^{4})^{\alpha+4-i}(-y^{4})^{i}$ in $Q$ are not equal to $0$.
Therefore, let $\alpha \geq 5$.
It is clear that the coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+4}$ in $Q$ (similarly $(y^{4})^{\alpha+4}$) is equals to $1$.
The coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+3}(y^{4})$ in $Q$ (similarly $(-1)^{\alpha}(x^{4})(y^{4})^{\alpha+3}$) is equals to $28- \binom{\alpha}{1}$.
Hence if $\alpha=28$, this coefficient is equals to $0$.
The coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+2}(y^{4})^{2}$ in $Q$ (similarly $(-1)^{\alpha}(x^{4})^{2}(y^{4})^{\alpha+2}$) is equals to
$198- 28 \binom{\alpha}{1}+ \binom{\alpha}{2}$.
The equation $198- 28 \binom{\alpha}{1}+ \binom{\alpha}{2}=0$ has no integer solution.
The coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+1}(y^{4})^{3}$ in $Q$ (similarly $(-1)^{\alpha}(x^{4})^{3}(y^{4})^{\alpha+1}$) is equals to
$28- 198 \binom{\alpha}{1}+ 28 \binom{\alpha}{2}- \binom{\alpha}{3}$.
The equation $28- 198 \binom{\alpha}{1}+ 28 \binom{\alpha}{2}- \binom{\alpha}{3}=0$ has no integer solution.
The coefficients of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-2)}(y^{4})^{j+2}$ in $Q$ for $2 \leq j \leq \alpha-2$ are equal to
$\left(\frac{j(j-1)}{(\alpha -j+2)(\alpha-j+1)} - \frac{28j}{\alpha-j+1} +198
- \frac{28(\alpha-j)}{j+1} + \frac{(\alpha-j)(\alpha -j-1)}{(j+1)(j+2)} \right)
\binom{\alpha}{j} (-1)^{j-2}$.
By a computer search, the equation \\
$\left(\frac{j(j-1)}{(\alpha -j+2)(\alpha-j+1)} - \frac{28j}{\alpha-j+1} +198
- \frac{28(\alpha-j)}{j+1} + \frac{(\alpha-j)(\alpha -j-1)}{(j+1)(j+2)} \right)=0$
has no integer solution
for $5 \leq \alpha \leq 652$ and $2 \leq j \leq \alpha -2$.
This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{Lem}\label{lem:poly. zero 2}
Let $\alpha \geq 1$ and $R=(x^{4}-y^{4})^{\alpha}(x^{4}+y^{4})(x^{8}-34x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})$.
If the coefficients of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+3-i}(-y^{4})^{i}$ in $R$ are equal to $0$ for $0 \leq i \leq \frac{\alpha+3}{2}$,
then $\alpha=2i-3$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
If $\alpha=1$, $R=x^{16}-34x^{12}y^{4}+34x^{4}y^{12}+y^{16}$.
In this case, if the coefficients of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+3-i}(-y^{4})^{i}$ in $R$ are equal to $0$, then $i=2$.
For $\alpha = 2$, it is easily seen by a direct computation that
the all coefficients of $(x^{4})^{\alpha+2-i}(-y^{4})^{i}$ in $R$ are not equal to $0$.
Therefore, let $\alpha \geq 3$.
It is clear that the coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+3}$ in $R$ (similarly $(y^{4})^{\alpha+3}$) is equals to $1$.
The coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+2}(y^{4})$ in $R$ (similarly $(-1)^{\alpha}(x^{4})(y^{4})^{\alpha+2}$) is equals to
$-34- \binom{\alpha}{1} +1<0$.
The coefficient of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha+1}(y^{4})^{2}$ in $R$ (similarly $(x^{4})^{2}(y^{4})^{\alpha+1}$) is equals to
$1-34-\binom{\alpha}{1}(1-34) +\binom{\alpha}{2}=33 (\alpha-1) +\binom{\alpha}{2} >0$.
The coefficients of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-1)}(y^{4})^{j+1}$ in $(x^{4}-y^{4})^{\alpha}(x^{8}-34x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})$
for $1 \leq j \leq \alpha-1$ are the following formula:
\begin{equation*}
\left( \frac{j}{\alpha-j+1} +34 + \frac{\alpha-j}{j+1} \right)
\binom{\alpha}{j} (-1)^{j-1}(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-1)}(y^{4})^{j+1}.
\end{equation*}
Hence the coefficients of
$(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-1)}(y^{4})^{j+2}$ in $R$
for $1 \leq j \leq \alpha-1$ are the following formula: \\
$\left( \frac{j}{\alpha-j+1} +34 + \frac{\alpha-j}{j+1} \right)
\binom{\alpha}{j} (-1)^{j-1}(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-1)}(y^{4})^{j+1} \times y^{4}$ \\
$+\left( \frac{j+1}{\alpha-(j+1)+1} +34 + \frac{\alpha-(j+1)}{(j+1)+1} \right)
\binom{\alpha}{j+1} (-1)^{j} (x^{4})^{\alpha-j}(y^{4})^{j+2} \times x^{4}$ \\
$=\left(\frac{j}{{\alpha}-j+1}+33-33\frac{({\alpha}-j)}{j+1}-\frac{({\alpha}-j)({\alpha}-j-1)}{(j+1)(j+2)}\right)\binom{\alpha}{j} (-1)^{j-1}(x^{4})^{\alpha-(j-1)}(y^{4})^{j+2}$.
Let $$J=\frac{j}{{\alpha}-j+1}+33-33\frac{({\alpha}-j)}{j+1}-\frac{({\alpha}-j)({\alpha}-j-1)}{(j+1)(j+2)}.$$
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
J &=& \frac{j}{{\alpha}-j+1}+33-33\frac{({\alpha}-j)}{j+1}-\frac{({\alpha}-j)({\alpha}-j-1)}{(j+1)(j+2)} \\
&=& \frac{33\alpha -32j+33}{\alpha-j+1} -\frac{(\alpha-j)(\alpha +32j +65)}{(j+1)(j+2)} \\
&=& \frac{33(\alpha -2j-1)+34j+66}{\alpha-j+1} -\frac{(\alpha-j)(\alpha -2j -1)+(\alpha-j)(34j +66)}{(j+1)(j+2)} \\
&=& \frac{(\alpha-2j-1) \Big( 33(j+1)(j+2)-(\alpha-j+1)(\alpha-j) -(\alpha+2)(34j+66) \Big)}{(\alpha-j+1)(j+1)(j+2)} \\
&=& \frac{(\alpha-2j-1) \Big( 32j^{2}-32(\alpha-1)j -(\alpha+1)(\alpha+66) \Big)}{(\alpha-j+1)(j+1)(j+2)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $3 \leq \alpha \leq 652$ and $1 \leq j \leq \alpha-1$, we have $32j^{2}-32(\alpha-1)j=32 (j - \frac{\alpha-1}{2})^{2} -8(\alpha-1)^{2} \leq 0$.
Then we have $32j^{2}-32(\alpha-1)j -(\alpha+1)(\alpha+66)<0$.
Hence if $J=0$, $\alpha= 2j+1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorems}\label{sec: proof of thm}
\subsection{Case for $n=24m$}
In this section, we consider the case of length $n=24m$.
Let $D_{w}^{24m}$ be the support $t$-design of weight $w$ of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual $[24m,12m,4m+4]$ code $($$m \leq 153$$)$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Janusz} and Theorem~\ref{thm:minimum weight bound H-K-N} (1),
we remark that if there exists $w'$ such that
$D_{w'}^{24m}$ becomes a $6$-design,
then $D_{w}^{24m}$ is a $7$-design for any $w$, and
$m$ must be in the set
$\{15$, $52$, $55$, $57$, $59$, $60$, $63$, $90$, $93$, $104$, $105$, $107$, $118$, $125$, $127$, $135$, $143$, $151 \}$.
For $t \geq 8$, we give the following proposition.
\begin{Prop}\label{prop:length 24m}
For any extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n=24m$,
the support designs of all weights are $8$-designs or not simultaneously.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
If $r=0$ in the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 4l,8}), we have
$$W_{C,f}(x,y) =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-4} (x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}).$$
We recall that
$C$ does not exist if $n=24m$ ($m \geq 154)$ \cite{Zhang(1999)}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (1),
the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $4m+4 \leq i \leq n-(4m+4)$ are
all nonzero if $c(f)\neq 0$ or zero if $c(f)=0$ for $m\leq 153$.
Therefore, the support designs of all weights are $8$-designs or not simultaneously.
\end{proof}
We apply the results of Theorem~\ref{thm:minimum weight bound H-K-N} (1)
to Proposition~\ref{prop:length 24m}.
Then we obtain the following theorem.
\begin{Thm}\label{thm:main thm 1}
$D_{w}^{24m}$ is never an $8$-design for any $w$.
\end{Thm}
Thus the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main upper bound} (1) is completed.
\subsection{Case for $24m+8$}
In this section, we state the cases of length $n=24m+8$.
Let $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ be the support $t$-design of weight $w$ of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual $[24m+8,12m+4,4m+4]$ code ($m \leq 158$).
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Janusz} and Theorem~\ref{thm:minimum weight bound H-K-N} (2),
we remark that if there exists $w'$ such that
$D_{w'}^{24m+8}$ becomes a $4$-design,
then $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ is a $5$-design for any $w$, and
$m$ must be in the set
$\{15$, $35$, $45$, $58$, $75$, $85$, $90$, $95$, $113$, $115$, $120$, $125 \}$.
For $t \geq 6$, we give the following proposition.
We call $w$ the middle weight if $w= n / 2$.
\begin{Prop}\label{prop:length 24m+8}
Let $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ be the support $t$-design of weight $w$ of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n=24m+8$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] Assume that $m \neq 4$.
Then $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ of all weights $w$ are $6$-designs or not simultaneously.
\item[{\rm (i\hspace{-.1em}i)}]
Assume that $m= 4$. \\
Then $D_{w}^{104}$ is a
$
\begin{cases}
\{1,2,3,5 \}\text{-design} & \text{if}\ w \neq 24 \\
\{1,2,3,5,6 \}\text{-design} & \text{if}\ w= 24.
\end{cases}
$
\end{enumerate}
\item[$(2)$]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}]
$D_{w}^{24m+8}$ of all weights $w$ except for $w = 12m+4$ are $7$-designs
or not simultaneously.
\item[{\rm (i\hspace{-.1em}i)}]
$D_{12m+4}^{24m+8}$ is a $\{1,2,3,5,7 \}$-design.
\end{enumerate}
\item[$(3)$]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] Assume that $m \neq 8$.
Then $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ of all weights $w$ are $8$-designs or not simultaneously.
\item[{\rm (i\hspace{-.1em}i)}]
Assume that $m= 8$. \\
Then $D_{w}^{200}$ is a
$
\begin{cases}
\{1,2,3,5 \}\text{-design} & \text{if}\ w \neq 40 \\
\{1,2,3,5,8 \}\text{-design} & \text{if}\ w= 40.
\end{cases}
$
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
$(1)$
If $r=1$ in the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 4l+2}), we have
$$W_{C,f}(x,y) =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-2} (x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}).$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (1), if $m \neq 4$, the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $4m+4 \leq i \leq n-(4m+4)$ are
all nonzero or zero at the same time.
Therefore, if $m \neq 4$, $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ of all weights $w$ are $6$-designs or not simultaneously.
Let $m=4$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (1),
if $i \neq 24$, the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $20 \leq i \leq 84$ are
all nonzero or zero at the same time.
Also, the coefficient of $x^{24}$ is equals to $0$.
Therefore, if $w \neq 24$, $D_{w}^{104}$ is a $\{1,2,3,5 \}$-design.
Also, $D_{24}^{104}$ is a $\{1,2,3,5,6 \}$-design.
$(2)$
By the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 4l+3}), we have
$$W_{C,f}(x,y) =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-3}(x^{4}+y^{4})(x^{8}-34x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}).$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 2}, if $i \neq 12m+4$, the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $4m+4 \leq i \leq n-(4m+4)$ are
all nonzero or zero at the same time.
Therefore, the support designs of all weights except for the middle weight are $7$-designs or not simultaneously.
We consider the case that $w$ is the middle weight. By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 2},
the coefficient of $x^{12m+4}$ is equals to $0$.
Hence $D_{12m+4}^{24m+8}$ is a $\{1,2,3,5,7 \}$-design.
$(3)$
If $r=1$ in the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 4l,8}), we have
$$W_{C,f}(x,y) =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-4} (x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})^{2}.$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (2), if $m \neq 8$,
the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $4m+4 \leq i \leq n-(4m+4)$ are
all nonzero or zero at the same time.
Therefore, if $m \neq 8$, the support designs of all weights are $8$-designs or not simultaneously.
Let $m=8$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (2),
if $i \neq 40$, the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $36 \leq i \leq 164$ are
all nonzero or zero at the same time.
Also, the coefficient of $x^{40}$ is equals to $0$.
Therefore, if $w \neq 40$, $D_{w}^{200}$ is a $\{1,2,3,5 \}$-design.
Also, $D_{40}^{200}$ is a $\{1,2,3,5,8 \}$-design.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}
In Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (1), the solution $(\alpha,i)=(223,15)$
corresponds to the polynomial $Q=(x^{4}-y^{4})^{223} (x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})$.
In the case $t=9$ and $r=1$, if $C$ is extremal, then the harmonic weight enumerator is
\begin{align}
W_{C,f}(x,y) &=c(f) (xy)^{9} P_{30}P_{8} P_{24}^{m-2}\notag\\
&=c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-5}(x^{4}+y^{4})\notag\\
&\hspace{15pt}(x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})(x^{8}-34x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}). \label{eqn:W_ 9}
\end{align}
The polynomial $Q$ is contained in the case of $m=57$ in the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 9}).
By a computation, the coefficients of $x^{i}$ in the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 9})
with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $4m+4 \leq i \leq n-(4m+4)$
are not equal to $0$.
Thus the solution $(\alpha,i)=(223,15)$ does not give a design.
\end{Rem}
We apply the results of Theorem~\ref{thm:minimum weight bound H-K-N} (2)
to Proposition~\ref{prop:length 24m+8}.
Then we obtain the following theorem.
\begin{Thm}\label{thm:main thm 2}
Let $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ be the support $t$-design of weight $w$ of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual $[24m+8,12m+4,4m+4]$ code $($$m \leq 158$$)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}]
In the case $w \neq 12m+4$. If $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ becomes a $6$-design, then $m$ must be $58$.
If $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ becomes a $7$-design, then $m$ must be $58$.
\item[{\rm (i\hspace{-.1em}i)}]
In the case $w = 12m+4$.
If $D_{12m+4}^{24m+8}$ becomes a $6$-design,
then $D_{12m+4}^{24m+8}$ becomes a $7$-design and $m$ must be $58$.
\end{enumerate}
\item[$(2)$] $D_{w}^{24m+8}$ is never a $8$-design for any $w$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
Thus the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main upper bound} (2) is completed.
\subsection{Case for $24m+16$}
In this section, we state the cases of length $n=24m+16$.
Let $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ be the support $t$-design of weight $w$ of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual $[24m+16,12m+8,4m+4]$ code ($m \leq 163$).
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Janusz} and Theorem~\ref{thm:minimum weight bound H-K-N} (3),
we remark that if there exists $w'$ such that
$D_{w'}^{24m+16}$ becomes a $2$-design,
then $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ is a $3$-design for any $w$, and
$m$ must be in the set
$\{5$, $10$, $20$, $23$, $25$, $35$, $44$, $45$, $50$, $55$,
$60$, $70$, $72$, $75$, $79$,
$80$, $85$, $93$, $95$, $110$, $118$, $120$,
$121$, $123$, $125$, $130$, $142$, $144$,
$145$, $149$, $150$, $155$, $156$, $157$,
$160$, $163$$\}$.
For $t \geq 4$, we give the following proposition.
\begin{Prop}\label{prop:length 24m+16}
Let $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ be the support $t$-design of weight $w$ of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n=24m+16$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$] $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ of all weights $w$ are $4$-designs or not simultaneously.
\item[$(2)$]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}]
$D_{w}^{24m+16}$ of all weights $w$ except for the middle weight
$($$w = 12m+8$$)$ are $5$-designs or not simultaneously.
\item[{\rm (i\hspace{-.1em}i)}]
$D_{12m+8}^{24m+16}$ is a $\{1,2,3,5 \}$-design.
\end{enumerate}
\item[$(3)$] $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ of all weights $w$ are $6$-designs or not simultaneously.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
$(1)$
If $r=2$ in the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 4l}), we have
$$W_{C,f}(x,y) =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m} (x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}).$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (1), the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $4m+4 \leq i \leq n-(4m+4)$ are
all nonzero or zero at the same time.
Therefore, the support designs of all weights are $4$-designs or not simultaneously.
$(2)$
By the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 4l+1}), we have
$$W_{C,f}(x,y) =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-1}(x^{4}+y^{4})(x^{8}-34x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8}).$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 2}, if $i \neq 12m+8$, the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $4m+4 \leq i \leq n-(4m+4)$ are
all nonzero or zero at the same time.
Therefore, the support designs of all weights except for the middle weight are $5$-designs or not simultaneously.
We consider the case that $w$ is the middle weight. By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 2}, the coefficient of $x^{12m+8}$ is equals to $0$.
Hence $D_{12m+8}^{24m+16}$ is a $\{1,2,3,5 \}$-design.
$(3)$
If $r=2$ in the equation (\ref{eqn:W_ 4l+2}), we have
$$W_{C,f}(x,y) =c(f) x^{4m+4}y^{4m+4} (x^{4}-y^{4})^{4m-2} (x^{8}+14x^{4}y^{4}+y^{8})^{2}.$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:poly. zero 1} (2), the coefficients of $x^{i}$ with $i \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and $4m+4 \leq i \leq n-(4m+4)$ are
all nonzero or zero at the same time.
Therefore, the support designs of all weights are $6$-designs or not simultaneously.
\end{proof}
We apply the results of Theorem~\ref{thm:minimum weight bound H-K-N} (3)
to Proposition~\ref{prop:length 24m+16}.
Then we obtain the following theorem.
\begin{Thm}\label{thm:main thm 3}
Let $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ be the support $t$-design of weight $w$ of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual $[24m+16,12m+8,4m+4]$ code $($$m \leq 163$$)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}]
In the case $w \neq 12m+8$.
If $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ becomes a $4$-design,
then $m$ must be in the set
$\{10$, $23$, $79$,
$93$, $118$, $120$,
$123$, $125$, $142$$\}$.
If $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ becomes a $5$-design,
then $m$ must be in the set
$\{23$, $79$,
$93$, $118$, $120$,
$123$, $125$, $142$$\}$.
\item[{\rm (i\hspace{-.1em}i)}]
In the case $w = 12m+8$.
If $D_{12m+8}^{24m+16}$ becomes a $4$-design,
then $D_{12m+8}^{24m+16}$ becomes a $5$-design and $m$ must be in the set
$\{10$, $23$, $79$,
$93$, $118$, $120$,
$123$, $125$, $142$$\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item[$(2)$] $D_{w}^{24m+16}$ is never a $6$-design for any $w$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
Thus the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main upper bound} (3) is completed.
\begin{Rem}
Let $\mathcal{D}=(X, \mathcal{B})$ be a $t$-design.
The complementary design of $\mathcal{D}$ is $\bar{\mathcal{D}}=(X, \bar{\mathcal{B}})$,
where $\bar{\mathcal{B}}= \{ X \setminus B : B \in \mathcal{B} \}$.
If $\mathcal{D}= \bar{\mathcal{D}}$, $\mathcal{D}$ is called a self-complementary design.
Let $D_{n/2}$ be the support $t$-design of the middle weight of
an extremal binary doubly even self-dual code of length $n$.
It is easily seen that $D_{n/2}$ is self-complement.
Alltop \cite{alltop} proved that
if $\mathcal{D}$ is a $t$-design with an even integer $t$ and self-complementary,
then $\mathcal{D}$ is also a $(t+1)$-design.
Hence $D_{n/2}$ is a $\{ 1,3,5, \ldots, 2s+1\}$-design.
Thus Alltop's theorem gives an alternative proof of
Propositions~\ref{prop:length 24m+8} (2) \rm (i\hspace{-.1em}i)
and \ref{prop:length 24m+16} (2) \rm (i\hspace{-.1em}i).
\end{Rem}
|
\section{Introduction and Summary}
In recent years it has become necessary to develop statistical methods for
analyzing data coming from diverse areas such as, environment, marine
biology, agriculture, finance etc. The data which comes from these areas,
are usually, functions of both spatial coordinates \ and temporal
coordinates. Any statistical analysis developed must take into account \
both spatial dependence, temporal dependence and interaction, if any,
between these two. There is a vast literature on spatial analysis, (see \cit
{Cressie1993}, for example) but not \ to the same extent in the case of
spatio-temporal data. An addition of temporal dimension, which cannot be
imbedded into spatial dimension, results in several problems, such as \ in
spatio-temporal kriging, construction of finite parameter models \ for the
data etc. One of the important problems often encountered and considered to
be extremely important is \ the spatio-temporal prediction, commonly known
as spatio-temporal kriging in the literature. The object in kriging, in the
present \ context, is to predict the data at a known location where time
series is not observed, given \ the time series data at other locations. If
one restricts to the \ construction of linear predictors \ as a linear
combination of the entire observed data ( the dimensions of which will be
extremely large because of the number of spatial locations and number of
time points) the optimal linear predictor will be a function of the
covariance functions \ of the process which are functions of the space and
time, and also a function of the data at the location $\mathbf{s}_{0}$ which
is \ not observed. Besides, as pointed out by Cressie and Wikle \cit
{Cressie2011}(see chapter 6, p. 323-324), the problem is also related to
ordering. Finding a suitable spatio-temporal covariance function, similar to
Matern class, which is positive definite has become a challenge. \ However,
\cite{cressie1999classes}, \cite{gneiting2002nonseparable}, \cit
{diggle2007model}, \cite{stein2005space}, \cite{craigmile2011space} and \cit
{ma2002spatio} and several authors \ in recent years (see \cite{Cressie2011}
for details) have defined interesting classes of \ covariance functions
which are positive definite. The estimation of the parameters of these
functions have been discussed by \cite{cressie1999classes} and \cit
{gneiting2002nonseparable} and others, and recently \ \cite{SubbaRaoa}
proposed a frequency domain approach based on frequency domain version of
variogram for the estimation of the parameters which does not involve the
inversion of matrices. \ The methodologies proposed \ by several authors for
the spatio-temporal prediction \ which are in the time domain depend not
only on the knowledge of the covariance function, but also on \ the
inversion of large dimensional \ covariance matrices, the dimensions of
which \ will increase as\ the number of observations over time and also the
number of locations increases. \ In our present paper, based on the
covariance functions \ of the Finite Fourier Transforms of the data we
propose a method for the estimation of the \ entire data \ set at the known
location $\mathbf{s}_{0}$ and \ also we \ consider the prediction of the
future value \ at $\left( n+v,v>0\right) $, i.e. estimation of $Z\left(
\mathbf{s}_{0},n+v\right) $. Before modelling \ the spatio-temporal data, it
is important to test the null hypothesis that the time series data observed
over all the locations are independent., and \ here we propose a statistical
test to test such a null hypothesis.
In section 1, the notation ,spectral representation of the spatio-temporal
random processes \ are introduced . The spectral representations of the
processes and \ the properties of \ the discrete Fourier transforms are
discussed in section 2. Expressions for the spatio-temporal covariances and
spectral density functions when the random processes satisfy parametric
models are derived in section 3 \ The estimation of the parameters of the
spatio-temporal covariance functions are considered in section 4. The
prediction of the data at a known location given the data in the
neighbourhood using the Fourier transforms is discussed in section 5. \
Testing for spatial indepence of the spatio-temporal data is considered in
section 6.
\subsection{Notation and Preliminaries.}
Let $Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) $, where $\left\{ \left( \mathbf{s
,t\right) :\mathbf{s}\in \mathbb{R}^{d},t\in \mathbb{Z}\right\} $, denote
the spatio-temporal random process. We assume that the random process is
spatially and temporally second order stationary, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray*}
E\left[ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right] &=&\mu \\
Var\left[ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right] &=&\sigma _{Z}^{2}<\infty \\
Cov\left[ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) ,Z\left( \mathbf{s}+\mathbf{h
,t+u\right) \right] &=&c\left( \mathbf{h},u\right) ,\quad \mathbf{h}\in
\mathbb{R}^{d},\,u\in \mathbb{Z}\mathbf{.}
\end{eqnarray*
We note that $c\left( \mathbf{h},0\right) $ and $c\left( \mathbf{0},u\right)
$ correspond to the purely spatial and purely temporal covariances of the
process respectively. A further common stronger assumption that is often
made is that the process is not only \ spatially stationary but also it \ is
isotropic. The assumption of isotropy is a stronger assumption on the
process \ The process is said to be isotropic if
\begin{equation*}
c\left( \mathbf{h},u\right) =c\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert
,u\right) ,\quad \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \in \mathbb{R}^{1},\,u\in
\mathbb{Z}
\end{equation*
where $\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert $ is the Euclidean distance. Without
loss of generality, we set the mean $\mu $ equal to zero. As in the case of
spatial processes, one can define the spatio-temporal variogram for $\left\{
Z\left( \mathbf{h},t\right) \right\} $. It is defined as
\begin{equation}
2\gamma \left( \mathbf{h},u\right) =Var\left[ Z\left( \mathbf{s}+\mathbf{h
,t+u\right) -Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right] . \label{eq 1.1.}
\end{equation
If the random process $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right\} $ is
spatially and temporally stationary, then we can rewrite the above as
\begin{equation}
2\gamma \left( \mathbf{h},u\right) =2\left[ c\left( \mathbf{0},0\right)
-c\left( \mathbf{h},u\right) \right] , \label{eq 1.2.}
\end{equation
and for an isotropic process, $\gamma \left( \mathbf{h},u\right) =\gamma
\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,u\right) $. We note\ that $\gamma
\left( \mathbf{h},u\right) $ is defined as the semi-variogram. \ Recently,
\cite{SubbaRaoa} proposed a frequency domain version of the variogram which
is used later for the estimation of the parameters of space-time covariance
functions.
In view of our assumption that the zero mean random process $\left\{ Z\left(
\mathbf{s},t\right) \right\} $ is second order spatially and temporally
stationary, it has the spectral representatio
\begin{equation}
Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) =\int\limits_{-\infty }^{\infty
}\int\limits_{-\pi }^{\pi }e^{i\left( \mathbf{s}\cdot \underline{\lambda
+t\mu \right) }dZ_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) ,
\label{eq 1.3.}
\end{equation
where $\mathbf{s}\cdot \underline{\lambda }=\tsum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\mathbf{s
_{i}\lambda _{i}$ and $\int\limits_{-\infty }^{\infty }$ represents $d-$fold
multiple integral. We note that $Z_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu
\right) $ is a zero mean complex valued random process with orthogonal
increments, with
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[ dZ_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) \right] &=&0 \notag \\
E\left\vert dZ_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) \right\vert ^{2}
&=&dF_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) , \label{eq 1.4.}
\end{eqnarray
where $F_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) $ is a non-decreasing
function. If we assume further that $F\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu
\right) $ is differentiable in all its $\left( d+1\right) $ arguments
\underline{$\lambda $} and $\mu $, then $dF\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu
\right) =f\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) \,d\underline{\lambda
\,d\mu $. Here $f\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) $ which is strictly
positive and real valued, is defined as the spatio-temporal spectral density
function of the random process $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right\}
$, and $-\infty <\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},\ldots ,\lambda _{d}<\infty
,\quad -\pi \leq \mu \leq \pi $. In view of the orthogonality of the
function $Z_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) $, we can show that
the positive definite covariance function $c\left( \mathbf{h},u\right) $ has
the spectral representatio
\begin{equation}
c\left( \mathbf{h},u\right) =\int\limits_{-\infty }^{\infty
}\int\limits_{-\pi }^{\pi }e^{i\left( \mathbf{h}\cdot \underline{\lambda
+u\mu \right) }f\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) \,d\underline
\lambda }\,d\mu \label{eq 1.5.}
\end{equation
and by the Fourier inversion, we have
\begin{equation}
f\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) =\frac{1}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{d+1
}\sum\limits_{u}\int\limits_{-\infty }^{\infty }e^{-i\left( \mathbf{h\cdot
\underline{\lambda }+u\mu \right) }c\left( \mathbf{h},u\right) \,d\mathbf{h},
\label{eq 1.6.}
\end{equation
where $d\mathbf{h}=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{d}\emph{d}h_{i}$. We further note $\
that if the process is spatially symmetric $c\left( \mathbf{h},u\right)
=c\left( -\mathbf{h},-u\right) $ and $f\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu
\right) =f\left( -\underline{\lambda },-\mu \right) $ and $f\left(
\underline{\lambda },\mu \right) >0$ for all $\underline{\lambda }$ and $\mu
$. Here $\underline{\lambda }$ is the frequency associated with spatial
coordinates (usually called wave number) and $\mu $ is the temporal frequency
\section{Discrete Fourier Transforms and their properties}
Let us assume that we have a sample $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right)
;i=1,2,...m;\ t=1,\ldots ,n\right\} $ from the zero mean spatio-temporal
stationary process $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right\} $. \ We now
consider the time series data $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) ;\
t=1,\ldots ,n\right\} $ at the location $\mathbf{s}_{i}$, and define the
discrete Fourier transform
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n}
\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) e^{-it\omega _{k}},
\label{eq 2.1.}
\end{equation
where $\omega _{k}=\frac{2\pi k}{n},\ k=0,\pm 1,\ldots ,\pm \left[ \frac{n}{
}\right] $. Define the corresponding second order periodogram by
\begin{equation*}
I_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) =\left\vert J_{\mathbf{s
_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right\vert ^{2}.
\end{equation*
It is well known that the periodogram \ is asymptotically an unbiased
estimator of the second order spectral density function, but it is not mean
square consistent, and \ it is also well known that (see \ for example
Priestley,1981\cite{Priestley_book-81})
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left( J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right) &=&0 \notag \\
Var\left( J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right) &=&E\left( I_
\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right) \simeq g_{\mathbf{s
_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) . \label{eq 2.2.}
\end{eqnarray
In view of our assumption of spatial stationarity the second order spectral
density function of the process, $\{Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) \}$ is
same for all locations and hence we have$,
\begin{equation*}
g_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) =g\left( \omega _{k}\right)
\text{for all }i
\end{equation*
where $g_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $ is the second order
spectral density function \ of the spatial process $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{
},t\right) \right\} .$We assume that the second order spectral density
function is a function of some $p_{1}$ parameters, say $\underline{\vartheta
}_{1}$. From now onwards, we denote this spectral density function by
g\left( \omega _{k},\underline{\vartheta }_{1}\right) $. In view of our
assumption that $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) \right\} $ is
temporally second order stationary, it can be shown, that for large $n$,
\begin{equation*}
Cov\left( J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) ,J_{\mathbf{s
_{i}}\left( \omega _{k^{^{\prime }}}\right) \right) \simeq 0,\quad k\neq
k^{\prime }\text{.}
\end{equation*
(see \cite{Brill-book-01}, \cite{Priestley_book-81}, \cite{dwivedi2011test
). If the random process $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) \right\} $
is Gaussian, then the complex valued random variables $\left\{ J_{\mathbf{s
_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) ;\ k=0,1,\ldots ,\left[ \frac{n}{2}\right]
\right\} $ will be asymptotically independent,\ and will be complex
Gaussian, each $J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $ will be
distributed with mean zero and variance proportional to $f_{\mathbf{s
_{i}}\left( \omega _{k},\underline{\vartheta }_{1}\right) $, which \ is
equal to $g\left( \omega _{k},\underline{\vartheta }_{1}\right) $ in view of
our assumption of spatial stationarity. Let us now evaluate the covariance
function between $\ $the complex Fourier transforms $J_{\mathbf{s
_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $ and $J_{\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega
_{k}\right) $. For large $n$, we can show (\cite{Priestley_book-81})
\begin{equation}
Cov\left( J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) ,J_{\mathbf{s
_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right) =E\left[ I_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s
_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right] \simeq \frac{1}{2\pi
\sum\limits_{n=-\infty }^{\infty }c\left( \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s
_{j},n\right) e^{-in\omega _{k}}\text{.} \label{eq 2.3.}
\end{equation
We note that $I_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $
is the cross periodogram between the spatial processes $\left\{ Z\left(
\mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) \right\} $ and $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s
_{j},t\right) \right\} $, and \ unlike the second order periodogram defined
earlier which is always real \ valued, the cross periodogram is usually a
complex valued function. and is aymptotically an unbiased estimator of the
cross spectral density function given by
\begin{equation}
f_{\left( \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s}_{j}\right) }\left( \omega \right) =\frac
1}{2\pi }\sum\limits_{n=-\infty }^{\infty }c\left( \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s
_{j},n\right) e^{-in\omega },\quad \left\vert \omega \right\vert \leq \pi
\label{eq 2.4.}
\end{equation
is also usually a complex valued function. However, under spatial isotropy
and temporal stationarity assumptions, we have
\begin{equation*}
c\left( \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s}_{j},n\right) =c\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{s
_{i}-\mathbf{s}_{j}\right\Vert ,n\right) =c\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}
\mathbf{s}_{j}\right\Vert ,-n\right) \text{.}
\end{equation*
and which in turn implies that the cross spectrum can be written as
\begin{equation}
f\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s}_{j}\right\Vert ,\omega \right)
=C(\parallel \mathbf{h}\parallel ,\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi
\sum\limits_{n=-\infty }^{\infty }c(\left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s
_{j}\right\Vert ,n)e^{-in\omega },\quad \left\vert \omega \right\vert \leq
\pi \label{eq 2.5.}
\end{equation
which is symmetric and is \ strictly positive and real valued,. The above is
a \ function of the Euclidean distance $\parallel \mathbf{h}\parallel
=\left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s}_{j}\right\Vert $ and the temporal
frequency $\omega $. \ We use this function later when we consider
prediction of \ the data at a known location. To obtain \ the
spatio-temporal spectral density function of the random process defined
earlier from the above function, we need to take Fourier transforms of the
above over the Euclidean distance $\left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s
_{j}\right\Vert $. We will obtain expressions for the spatio-temporal
density functions of the processes when they satisfy specific parametric
models.
We now obtain an analytic expression for $f\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}
\mathbf{s}_{j}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) $ under the assumption that random
process satisfies a finite parameter model. (see\ \cite{Whittle_mult_53},
\cite{Whittle1954}). The expression derived will be similar to Matern's
class of functions, but the parameters are functions of the second order
spectral density of the random process. \ Later we use this \ covariance
function for prediction. which is one of our \ main objects in this paper.
\subsection{Fourier transform and Spectral Representation}
In order to achieve the above objectives, we need a spectral representation
for the discrete Fourier transform \ and this will be considered in the
following section.
Consider the discrete Fourier transform (\ref{eq 2.1.})
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathbf{s}}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n}
\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) e^{-it\omega },\quad
\left\vert \omega \right\vert \leq \pi \label{eq 2.6.}
\end{equation
for any fixed location $\mathbf{s}\in \mathbb{R}^{d}$. Now substitute the
spectral representation (\ref{eq 1.3.}) for $Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) $
in (\ref{eq 2.6.}), and after some simplification, we obtain
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathbf{s}}\left( \omega \right) =\int\limits_{{}}\int\limits_{{}}e^{
\underline{s}\,\underline{\lambda }}\left[ e^{i\left( n+1\right) \frac
\varphi }{2}}F_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \varphi \right) \right] dZ_{z}\left(
\underline{\lambda },\mu \right) \label{eq 2.7.}
\end{equation
where $\varphi =\mu -\omega $, $\int\limits_{{}}$ is a $d$ dimensional
multiple integral, (see Priestley, 1981.\cite{Priestley_book-81}, page 419.)
and in obtaining the above, we used the fact that
\begin{equation*}
\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}e^{it\varphi }=e^{i\left( n+1\right) \frac{\varphi }{2}
\left[ \frac{\sin n\frac{\varphi }{2}}{\sin \frac{\varphi }{2}}\right] \text
,}
\end{equation*
and the Fej\'{e}r kernel $F_{n}\left( \varphi \right) $ is given b
\begin{equation*}
F_{n}\left( \varphi \right) =\frac{1}{2\pi n}\frac{\sin ^{2}n\frac{\varphi }
2}}{\sin ^{2}\frac{\varphi }{2}}\text{.}
\end{equation*
Hence
\begin{equation*}
\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}e^{it\varphi }=e^{i\left( n+1\right) \frac{\varphi }{2}
\sqrt{2\pi n}F_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \varphi \right) \text{.}
\end{equation*
It is well known that the Fej\'{e}r kernel behaves like a Dirac Delta
function as $n\rightarrow \infty $ and as $\varphi \rightarrow 0$,
F_{n}\left( \varphi \right) =0\left( n\right) $. As pointed out by Priestley
(1981.\cite{Priestley_book-81}, p. 419), $F_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \varphi
\right) $ does not strictly tend to a Dirac Delta $\delta $ -function as
n\rightarrow \infty $, nevertheless, behaves in a similar manner to a
\delta $ function. In particular as $n\rightarrow \infty $ and for all
\varphi \neq 0$, $F_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \varphi \right) \rightarrow 0$,
and as $\varphi \rightarrow 0$, $F_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \varphi \right)
\rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{n}{2\pi }}$. Therefore, as $n\rightarrow \infty $,
F_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \varphi \right) $ vanishes everywhere except at
the origin. In view of this, for large $n$, we can approximately write (\re
{eq 2.7.}) as
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathbf{s}}\left( \omega \right) \simeq \int\limits_{{}}e^{i\underline{s
\,\underline{\lambda }}\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\pi }}dZ_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda
},\omega \right) \text{,} \label{eq 2.8.}
\end{equation
We note \ that the above integral is over the wave number space only. We use
(\ref{eq 2.8.}) later in our derivation of an expression for the
spatio-temporal covariance function. In the following section we define a
model similar to the models defined by Whittle(1953,1954 )\cit
{Whittle_mult_53}, \cite{Whittle1954}, Jones and Zhang(1997)\cit
{jones1997models}, but we use the Laplacian operators on the complex valued
random variables ( \ Discrete Fourier transforms) \ to obtain expressions
for the spatio-temporal spectral density functions and covariances which are
functions of the spatial distances and the temporal frequencies. In their
derivation, Jones and Zhang(1997)\cite{jones1997models} use a first order
time derivative to accommodate the temporal dynamics, but in our derivation
we use the frequency response function of the process to account for the
temporal \ linear dependence in the time series.
\section{Model and\ Derivation of the \ covariance function}
We assume that corresponding to the spatio-temporal random process \newline
$\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) ;\mathbf{s}\in \mathbb{R}^{d},t\in
\mathbb{Z}\right\} $, we have a spatio-temporal random process \newline
$\left\{ e\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) ;\mathbf{s}\in \mathbb{R}^{d},t\in
\mathbb{Z}\right\} $ which is like a \ white noise process in space and
time. Similar assumptions are often made in spatial \ spatio-temporal
analysis ( for example see \ \cite{Cressie2011}, \cit
{gneiting2002nonseparable}, \cite{Sherman2011}) We assume \ that the random
process $\left\{ e\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right\} $ satisfies the \
following stationarity condition
\begin{eqnarray*}
E\left( e\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right) &=&0 \\
Var\left( e\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right) &=&\sigma _{e}^{2},\text{ does
not depend on }\mathbf{s}\text{ or }t\text{.} \\
Cov\left( e\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) ,e\left( \mathbf{s}^{\prime
},t^{\prime }\right) \right) &=&\sigma _{e}^{2}I\left( \mathbf{s},\mathbf{s
^{\prime }\right) I\left( t,t^{\prime }\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
I(\mathbf{s},\mathbf{s}^{\prime }) &=&\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
1\text{ if }\mathbf{s}=\mathbf{s}^{\prime } \\
0\text{ otherwise
\end{array
\right. \\
I(t,t^{\prime }) &=&\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
1\text{ if }t=t^{\prime } \\
0\text{ otherwise.
\end{array
\right.
\end{eqnarray*
As before, we assume that we have a sample \newline
$\left\{ e\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) ;i=1,\ldots ,m;t=1,\ldots
,n\right\} $ corresponding to the observable spatio-temporal \ data \newline
$\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) ;i=1,\ldots ,m;t=1,\ldots
,n\right\} $. We define the discrete Fourier transform of these white noise
processes
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathbf{s},e}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n}
\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}e\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) e^{-it\omega },
\label{eq 3.1.}
\end{equation
where we assume, that $\ $the stationary process $e\left( \mathbf{s
,t\right) $ has the spectral representation
\begin{equation}
e\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) =\int \int e^{i\left( \underline{s}.\,\underline
\lambda }+t\mu \right) }dZ_{e}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) ,
\label{eq 3.2.}
\end{equation
where the orthogonal random process $Z_{e}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu
\right) $ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
E\left[ dZ_{e}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) \right] &=&0 \\
E\left\vert dZ_{e}\left( \underline{\lambda },\mu \right) \right\vert ^{2}
&=&\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{d+1}}d\underline{\lambda
d\mu \text{.}
\end{eqnarray*
Substituting (\ref{eq 3.2.}) in (\ref{eq 3.1.}) and proceeding as before, we
obtain, for a fixed temporal frequency $\omega $
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathbf{s},e}\left( \omega \right) \simeq \int e^{i\mathbf{s}\cdot
\underline{\lambda }}\left[ \sqrt{\frac{n}{2\pi }}\right] dZ_{e}\left(
\underline{\lambda },\omega \right) \text{.} \label{eq 3.3.}
\end{equation
where $\int $ is a multiple integral. It is important to note that the
integration is over only a wave number space.
For convenience\ of exposition, we consider the case $d=2$., and later we
will generalize \ this to any $d$. We define the Laplacian operator on the
complex valued random variables, $J_{\mathbf{s}}\left( \omega \right) $ and
J_{\mathbf{s},e}\left( \omega \right) $ (here $\mathbf{s}=\left(
s_{1},s_{2}\right) $). Let $\upsilon $ $>$\ $0,$ and define the mode
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial s_{1}^{2}}+\frac{\partial ^{2}}
\partial s_{2}^{2}}-\left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}\right]
^{\nu }J_{s}\left( \omega \right) =J_{s,e}\left( \omega \right) .
\label{eq 3.4.}
\end{equation
where $J_{s}\left( \omega \right) $ and $J_{s,e}\left( \omega \right) $ are
given by (\ref{eq 2.8.}) and (\ref{eq 3.3.}) respectively. We will see the
significance of the frequency dependent function $c\left( \omega \right) $
in the above equation when we specialize the case $\nu =1$. Now substitute
the representations (\ref{eq 2.8.}) and (\ref{eq 3.3.}) in (\ref{eq 3.4.})
and taking the operators inside the integrands and equating the integrands
both sides of the equations ( because of the uniqueness of the Fourier
transforms this is valid), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left( -\lambda _{1}^{2}-\lambda _{2}^{2}-\left\vert c\left( \omega \right)
\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\nu }dZ_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\omega
\right) =dZ_{e}\left( \underline{\lambda },\omega \right) \text{,}
\label{eq 3.5.}
\end{equation
where $\underline{\lambda }=\left( \lambda _{1},\lambda _{2}\right) $.
Taking \ the modulus square, and taking expectations both sides of the \
modulus squares we obtain the spatio-temporal spectral density function. of
the spatio-temporal process $Z\left( s,t\right) $ satisfying the above model
and it is given by
\begin{equation}
f_{z}\left( \underline{\lambda },\omega \right) =\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}
\left( 2\pi \right) ^{2}\left( \lambda _{1}^{2}+\lambda _{2}^{2}+\left\vert
c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{2\nu }} \label{eq 3.6.}
\end{equation
Now we use the result \ for inverse transforms \ given in Whittle
(1954.equation (65) ) (note that we are considering \ the Isotropic
processes) to obtain covariance function. We have,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{4\pi ^{2}}\int \int \frac{e^{i\left( x\omega _{1}+y\omega
_{2}\right) }}{\left( \omega _{1}^{2}+\omega _{2}^{2}+\alpha ^{2}\right)
^{\mu +1}}d\omega _{1}d\omega _{2}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left( \frac{r}{2\alpha
\right) ^{\mu }\frac{K_{\mu }\left( \alpha r\right) }{\Gamma \left( \mu
+1\right) }\text{,}
\end{equation*
where $r=\left( x^{2}+y^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}$, $K_{\mu }\left( x\right)
$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind of order $\mu $, \ \ We
\ use the above result to the equation (\ref{eq 3.6.}) to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{2}}\int \int \frac{e^{i\left(
h_{1}\lambda _{1}+h_{2}\lambda _{2}\right) }}{\left( \lambda
_{1}^{2}+\lambda _{2}^{2}+\left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert
^{2}\right) ^{2\nu }} &&d\lambda _{1}d\lambda _{2} \label{eq 3.7.} \\
&=&\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}{2\pi }\left( \frac{\left\Vert \mathbf{h
\right\Vert }{2\left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert }\right) ^{2\nu
-1}\frac{K_{2\nu -1}\left( \left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \right) }{\Gamma (2\nu )} \notag
\end{eqnarray
where $\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert =\left( h_{1}^{2}+h_{1}^{2}\right) ^
\frac{1}{2}}$. Under isotropy assumption, (\ref{eq 3.7.}) is the covariance
between $\ $the discrete Fourier Transforms $\ J_{\mathbf{s}}\left( \omega
\right) $ and $J_{\mathbf{s}+\mathbf{h}}\left( \omega \right) $, where
\mathbf{h}=\left( h_{1},h_{2}\right) $. This covariance function is a
function of the distance$\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert $ and the temporal
frequency $\omega $ Hence, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
Cov\left( J_{\mathbf{s}}\left( \omega \right) ,J_{\mathbf{s}+\mathbf{h
}\left( \omega \right) \right) &=&C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert
,\omega \right) \notag \\
&=&\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}{2\pi }\left( \frac{\left\Vert \mathbf{h
\right\Vert }{2\left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert }\right) ^{2\nu
-1}\frac{K_{2\nu -1}\left( \left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \right) }{\Gamma (2\nu )} \label{eq 3.8.}
\end{eqnarray
We have seen earlier that $Var\left( J_{s}\left( \omega \right) \right) $ is
proportional to the spectral density function $g\left( \omega \right) \ $of
the random process for all $s$. So it is interesting to examine the behavior
of $C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) $ when
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \rightarrow 0$, as the limit must tend to
the second order spectral density function $g\left( \omega \right) $ of the
process defined earlier.
It is well known that, for all $\nu >0$,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}\frac{x^{\nu }K_{\nu }\left( x\right) }{2^{\nu
-1}\Gamma \left( \nu \right) }=1\text{.} \label{eq 3.9.}
\end{equation
Therefore, if we take limit of $C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert
,\omega \right) $ given by (\ref{eq 3.8.}) as $\left\Vert \mathbf{h
\right\Vert \rightarrow 0$, we get (using (\ref{eq 3.9.}))
\begin{equation}
C\left( 0,\omega \right) =\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}{2\left( \left\vert c\left(
\omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{2\nu -1}\left( 2\nu -1\right)
=g\left( \omega \right) \text{.} \label{eq 3.10.}
\end{equation
From (\ref{eq 3.8.}) and (\ref{eq 3.10.}), we obtain the correlation
coefficient
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho \left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) &=&\frac
C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) }{C\left( 0,\omega
\right) }= \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{2^{2\nu -2}}\frac{1}{\Gamma \left( 2\nu -1\right) }\left(
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \left\vert c\left( \omega \right)
\right\vert \right) ^{2\nu -1}K_{2\nu -1}\left( \left\vert c\left( \omega
\right) \right\vert \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \right) \text{.}
\label{eq 3.11.}
\end{eqnarray
From (\ref{eq 3.10.}), we observe that the function $\left\vert c\left(
\omega \right) \right\vert $, which we used in defining the model (\ref{eq
3.4.}) is in fact related to the second order spectral density function.
Consider the case of general $d$. Let $\rho =\left\Vert \underline{\lambda
\right\Vert $,
\begin{eqnarray*}
C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) &=&\frac{\sigma
_{e}^{2}}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{d}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\frac{e^{-i\mathbf
h\cdot }\underline{\lambda }}}{\left( \left\Vert \underline{\lambda
\right\Vert ^{2}+\left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}\right)
^{2\nu }}d\underline{\lambda } \\
&=&\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{d}}\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac
\rho ^{d-1}}{\left( \rho ^{2}+\left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert
^{2}\right) ^{2\nu }}\int_{\mathbb{S}_{d-1}}e^{-i\rho \left\Vert \mathbf{h
\right\Vert \cos \alpha }d\Omega d\rho
\end{eqnarray*
where $\mathbb{S}_{d-1}$ is the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\Omega $
is Lebesque element of surface area on $\mathbb{S}_{d-1}$. Further we know
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{S}_{d-1}}e^{-i\rho \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \cos
\alpha }d\Omega =\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{d}{2}}\left( \rho \left\Vert
\mathbf{h}\right\Vert \right) ^{-\frac{d}{2}+1}\mathcal{J}_{\frac{d}{2
-1}\left( \rho \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \right) ,
\end{equation*
where $\mathcal{J}_{\frac{d}{2}-1}$ denotes the Bessel function of the first
kind, see \cite{SteinWeiss}, p.176. Now we use Hankel-Nicholson Type
Integral, see \cite{Abramowit12}, 11.4.44, if $d<4\nu +3$, then
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{\mathcal{J}_{\frac{d}{2}-1}\left( r\rho \right) }
\left( \rho ^{2}+\left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}\right)
^{2\nu }}\rho ^{\frac{d}{2}}d\rho =\frac{r^{2\nu -1}\left\vert c\left(
\omega \right) \right\vert ^{\frac{d}{2}-2\nu }}{2^{2\nu -1}\Gamma \left(
2\nu \right) }K_{\frac{d}{2}-2\nu }\left( r\left\vert c\left( \omega \right)
\right\vert \right) .
\end{equation*
Using the above both integrals and noting $K_{\frac{d}{2}-2\nu }=K_{2\nu
\frac{d}{2}}$, we obtain for all $d$ the covariance functio
\begin{equation*}
C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) =\frac{\sigma
_{e}^{2}}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac{d}{2}}2^{2\nu -1}\Gamma \left( 2\nu
\right) }\left( \frac{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert }{\left\vert c\left(
\omega \right) \right\vert }\right) ^{2\nu -\frac{d}{2}}K_{2\nu -\frac{d}{2
}\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \left\vert c\left( \omega \right)
\right\vert \right) ,
\end{equation*
and the correlation function is given b
\begin{equation*}
\rho \left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) =\frac{\left(
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \left\vert c\left( \omega \right)
\right\vert \right) ^{2\nu -\frac{d}{2}}}{2^{2\nu -\frac{d}{2}-1}\Gamma
\left( 2\nu -\frac{d}{2}\right) }K_{2\nu -\frac{d}{2}}\left( \left\Vert
\mathbf{h}\right\Vert \left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert \right) ,
\end{equation*
because
\begin{equation*}
C\left( 0,\omega \right) =\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{\frac
d}{2}}2^{\frac{d}{2}}\left( \left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert
^{2}\right) ^{2\nu -\frac{d}{2}}}\frac{\Gamma \left( 2\nu -\frac{d}{2
\right) }{\Gamma \left( 2\nu \right) }=g\left( \omega \right) .
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Special case:}
To understand the significance of the above observation, we consider the
special case $\nu =1$. By substituting $\nu =1$ in (\ref{eq 3.11.}), we
obtain
\begin{equation*}
\rho \left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) =\left(
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \left\vert c\left( \omega \right)
\right\vert \right) K_{1}\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert \left\vert
c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert \right) ,
\end{equation*
a well known form except that the argument of the Bessel function is in
terms of the function of $c\left( \omega \right) ,$a function of the
temporal frequency. From (\ref{eq 3.10.}), we get when $\nu =1
\begin{equation*}
C\left( 0,\omega \right) =\frac{\sigma _{e}^{2}}{2\left( \left\vert c\left(
\omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) }=g\left( \omega \right) >0,
\end{equation*
which implies that $\left\vert c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}$ is
proportional to $g^{-1}\left( \omega \right) $, which is defined as the
inverse second order spectral density function of the process. Let us assume
that $g^{-1}\left( \omega \right) $ is absolutely integrable, then
g^{-1}\left( \omega \right) $ can be expanded in Fourier series,
\begin{equation*}
g^{-1}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{1}{2\pi }\sum\limits_{k=-\infty }^{\infty
}ci\left( k\right) \cos k\omega ,\quad \left\vert \omega \right\vert \leq
\pi \text{.}
\end{equation*
where we used the fact that $g^{-1}\left( \omega \right) =g^{-1}\left(
-\omega \right) $. The functions $\left\{ ci\left( k\right) \right\} $ are
known as inverse autocovariance functions, and are usually used to estimate
the order of the linear time series models. For example, if the series
\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right\} $ satisfies for each $s$ an
autoregressive model of order $p$ say, then it can easily be shown that
ci\left( k\right) =0$ for all $k>p$, hence can be used to determine the
order of the model. In other words, the covariance function $C\left(
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) $ \ which is in terms of
the modified Bessel function is related to the spatial distance $\left\Vert
\mathbf{h}\right\Vert $, and also a function which is related to the
temporal dependence.
Now it is interesting to examine the case when $g(\omega )$ is independent
of the frequency, which implies that the time series at each location is a
white noise process. This assumption in turn implies that \ $\left\vert
c\left( \omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}$ is a constant, say $\alpha ^{2}$.
Substituting this in (\ref{eq 3.6.}) we see that the spatio-temporal
spectral density function is proportional to only a positive definite
function of the \ wave number \ $\lambda $.
\section{Estimation of the parameters of the covariance function.}
Let $C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) ,$ given by
\ref{eq 3.8.}), be a function of the parameter vector $\underline{\vartheta }
$, and now onwards we denote this function by $C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h
\right\Vert ,\omega ;\ \underline{\vartheta }\right) $, and similarly we
write the correlation function given by (\ref{eq 3.11.}) as $\rho \left(
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega ;\ \underline{\vartheta }\right) $.
Our object is to estimate $\underline{\vartheta }$. We note $\ $\ that
\omega $ is the temporal frequency, $\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert $ is \
the spatial Euclidean distance. To estimate the parameters $\underline
\vartheta }$, we use the frequency domain method recently proposed by Subba
\cite{SubbaRaoa} based on frequency variogram defined. We briefly summarize
the procedure of \cite{SubbaRaoa}. We \ now define a new spatio temporal
random process from $\left\{ Z\left( s,t\right) \right\} $.
\begin{equation*}
Y_{ij}\left( t\right) =Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) -Z\left( \mathbf{s
_{j},t\right) ,\quad \ \text{for each \ }t=1,2,\ldots ,n
\end{equation*
and for all locations $\mathbf{s}_{i}$, $\mathbf{s}_{j}$ where $\mathbf{s
_{i}$ and $\mathbf{s}_{j}$ $(i$ $\neq $\ $j)$are the pairs that belong to
the set $N(\mathbf{h}_{l})=\left\{ \mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j};\
\left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s}_{j}\right\Vert =\left\Vert \mathbf{h
_{l}\right\Vert ,\ l=1,2,\ldots ,L\right\} $. Define the Finite Fourier
transform (F.T.) of the new time series $\left\{ Y_{ij}\left( t\right) ;\
i\neq j\right\} $ at the Fourier frequencies $\omega _{k}=\frac{2\pi k}{n
,k=0,1,\ldots ,\left[ \frac{n}{2}\right] $
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt
2\pi }n}\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}Y_{ij}\left( t\right) e^{-it\omega _{k}}=J_
\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) -J_{\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega
_{k}\right) \text{,} \label{eq 4.1.}
\end{equation
where
\begin{equation*}
J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }n
\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) e^{-it\omega _{k}},\
\left( i=1,2,\ldots ,m\right) \text{.for all }i
\end{equation*
Let $I_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $ be the
second order periodogram of the time series $\left\{ Y_{ij}\left( t\right)
\right\} $ given by
\begin{equation*}
I_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) =\left\vert J_
\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right\vert ^{2}
\frac{1}{2\pi }\sum\limits_{u=-\left( n-1\right) }^{n-1}\hat{c}_{y,ij}\left(
u\right) e^{-iu\omega _{k}}\text{,}
\end{equation*
where
\begin{equation*}
\hat{c}_{y,ij}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n-\left\vert u\right\vert
}\left( Y_{ij}\left( t+u\right) -\overline{Y}_{ij}\right) \left(
Y_{ij}\left( t\right) -\overline{Y}_{ij}\right) ,\ \left\vert u\right\vert
\leq n-1
\end{equation*
is the sample autocovariance of lag $u$ of the time series $\left\{
Y_{ij}\left( t\right) \right\} $, and $\overline{Y}_{ij}=\frac{1}{n
\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}Y_{ij}\left( t\right) $. From (\ref{eq 4.1.}), we
obtain
\begin{equation}
E\left[ I_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right] =
\left[ I_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right] +E\left[ I_
\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right] -2\ Real\ E\left[ I_
\mathbf{s}_{i}\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) \right] ,
\label{eq 4.2.}
\end{equation
where $I_{\mathbf{s}_{i}\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $ is the
cross periodogram between the processes $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s
_{i},t\right) \right\} $ and $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{j},t\right)
\right\} $. For large $n$, we can show for an isotropic process, the
expectation (\ref{eq 4.2.}) is
\begin{equation}
g_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k};\underline{\vartheta
\right) =g_{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert }\left( \omega _{k};\underline
\vartheta }\right) =2\left[ C\left( 0,\omega _{k};\ \underline{\vartheta
\right) -C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega _{k};\ \underline
\vartheta }\right) \right] \text{,} \label{eq 4.3.}
\end{equation
where $g_{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert }\left( \omega _{k};\underline
\vartheta }\right) $ is the spectral density function of the stationary
process $\left\{ Y_{ij}\left( t\right) \right\} $, $C\left( 0,\omega _{k};\
\underline{\vartheta }\right) =g\left( \omega _{k},\vartheta \right) $ is
the spectral density of the process $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right)
\right\} $ for all $i$, and $C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert
,\omega _{k};\ \underline{\vartheta }\right) $ is the spatio temporal
covariance between $J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $ and $J_
\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $ an expression \ of \ which we
obtained earlier (\ref{eq 3.8.}). \ \cite{SubbaRaoa} $g_{\mathbf{s}_{i}
\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k};\underline{\vartheta }\right) $ as the
frequency domain version of the variogram. It has similar properties as in
the case of time domain as can be shown below.
\subsection{Frequency Variogram,measurement errors \newline
and Nugget Effect}
Consider the variogram equation (\ref{eq 4.3.}). We would expect, the
function $g_{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert }\left( \omega ;\underline
\vartheta }\right) $ if plotted against the distance $\parallel \mathbf{h
\parallel $(for all $\omega )$, will pass through the origin( i.e. as
\parallel \mathbf{h}\parallel $ tends to zero$)$. Let us assume that there
are measurement errors in the observed data, i.e. we assume that we observe
\ $\widetilde{Z}(\mathbf{s},t)$ instead of $Z(\mathbf{s},t),$ where for each
$\mathbf{s}$ and $t$, \ $\widetilde{Z}(\mathbf{s},t)=$ $Z(\mathbf{s},t)+\eta
(\mathbf{s},t).$ We assume that the random errors $\eta (\mathbf{s},t)$ are
independent of $Z(\mathbf{s},t),$ and further behave like a white noise
process in both $\mathbf{s}$ and $t$,. Also assume that it has zero mean and
variance equal to $\sigma _{\eta }^{2}.$ Then we can easily show that the
function $g_{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert }\left( \omega ;\underline
\vartheta }\right) $ instead of passing through the origin will have jump of
magnitude proportional to $\sigma _{\eta }^{2}$ which will be second order
spectral density function of the white noise process. This is called Nugget
effect in the context of spatial analysis.
\ Now for the estimation of the parameter vector $\underline{\vartheta }$ we
proceed as in \cite{SubbaRaoa}. \ We consider the complex valued random
vector
\begin{equation*}
\underline{J}_{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert }^{\prime }\left( \omega
\right) =\left[ J_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{1}\right)
,J_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{2}\right) ,\ldots ,J_
\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{M}\right) \right]
\end{equation*
which is distributed asymptotically \ as normal with mean zero and with
variance covariance matrix with diagonal elements $\left[ g_{\left\Vert
\mathbf{h}\right\Vert }\left( \omega _{1}\right) ,g_{\left\Vert \mathbf{h
\right\Vert }\left( \omega _{2}\right) ,\ldots ,g_{\left\Vert \mathbf{h
\right\Vert }\left( \omega _{M}\right) \right] $. We note that because of \
asymptotic independence of Fourier transforms at Fourier frequencies
defined, the off diagonal elements of the variance covariance matrix are
zero. The minus log likelihood function can be shown to be proportional t
\begin{equation}
Q_{n,N\left( \mathbf{h}\right) }\left( \underline{\vartheta }\right) =\frac{
}{\left\vert N\left( \mathbf{h}\right) \right\vert }\sum\limits_{\left(
\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}\right) \in N\left( \mathbf{h}\right)
}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{M}\left[ \ln g_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left(
\omega _{k};\underline{\vartheta }\right) +\frac{I_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s
_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) }{g_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left(
\omega _{k};\underline{\vartheta }\right) }\right] \text{.} \label{eq 4.4.}
\end{equation
where $g_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k};\underline
\vartheta }\right) $ is the variogram given by (\ref{eq 4.3.}) and $I_
\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) $ is the periodogram
of the $\left\{ Y_{ij}\left( t\right) \right\} $. Here $N\left( \mathbf{h
\right) $ is the collection of all district pairs $\mathbf{s}_{i}$ and
\mathbf{s}_{j}$ such that $N\left( \mathbf{h}\right) =\left\{ \left( \mathbf
s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}\right) ;\ \left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s
_{j}\right\Vert =N\left( \mathbf{h}\right) \right\} $. The above criterion
\ref{eq 4.4.}) is defined only for one distance $\left\Vert \mathbf{h
\right\Vert $. Suppose we now define $L$ spatial distances from the above
data, we can define an over all criterion
\begin{equation}
Q_{n}\left( \vartheta \right) =\frac{1}{L}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{L}Q_{n,N\left(
\mathbf{h}_{l}\right) }\left( \underline{\vartheta }\right) \label{eq 4.5.}
\end{equation
and minimize (\ref{eq 4.5.}) with respect to $\underline{\vartheta }$. In
defining the above, we have given equal weights to all distances. The
asymptotic normality of the estimator $\underline{\vartheta }$ obtained by
minimizing (\ref{eq 4.4.}) has been proved in Theorem 2 of the paper of \cit
{SubbaRaoa}. It has been shown, that under certain conditions
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{n}\left( \underline{\vartheta }_{n}-\vartheta _{0}\right) \overset{D}
\longrightarrow }N\left( \underline{0},\nabla ^{2}Q_{n}^{-1}\left(
\underline{\vartheta }_{0}\right) V\nabla ^{2}Q_{n}^{-1}\left( \underline
\vartheta }_{0}\right) \right) ,
\end{equation*
where $V=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty }var\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}
\nabla Q_{n}\left( \vartheta _{0}\right) \right] $, $\nabla Q_{n}\left(
\vartheta _{0}\right) $ is a vector of first order partial derivatives,
\nabla ^{2}Q_{n}\left( \vartheta _{0}\right) $ is the matrix of second order
partial derivatives. In view of the relation (\ref{eq 4.3.}) and because
\ref{eq 4.4.}) and (\ref{eq 4.5.}) are in terms of the frequency variogram
g_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k};\vartheta \right) $, we
can rewrite the above expression in (\ref{eq 4.4.}) in terms of $\rho \left(
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega ;\ \vartheta \right) $ as well. We
note
\begin{equation}
g_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega _{k};\vartheta \right)
=2C\left( 0,\omega _{k};\ \vartheta \right) \left[ 1-\rho \left( \left\Vert
\mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega ;\ \vartheta \right) \right] \text{,}
\label{eq 4.6.}
\end{equation
where $\left\vert \rho \left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega
_{k};\ \vartheta \right) \right\vert \leq 1$. This correlation coefficient
is the coherency coefficient defined earlier by \cite{SubbaRaoa}. Therefore,
we can rewrite (\ref{eq 4.4.}) as
\begin{eqnarray*}
Q_{n,N\left( \mathbf{h}\right) }\left( \underline{\vartheta }\right) &=
\frac{1}{\left\vert N\left( \mathbf{h}\right) \right\vert
\sum\limits_{\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}\right) \in N\left( \mathbf
h}\right) }\sum\limits_{k=1}^{M}\left[ \ln 2+\ln C\left( 0,\omega _{k};\
\vartheta \right) \right. \\
&&\left. +\ln \left[ 1-\rho \left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega
_{k};\ \vartheta \right) \right] +\frac{I_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s
_{j}}\left( \omega _{k}\right) }{2C\left( 0,\omega _{k};\ \vartheta \right)
\left[ 1-\rho \left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega _{k};\
\vartheta \right) \right] ^{-1}\right] \text{.}
\end{eqnarray*
Since $\left\vert \rho \left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega
_{k};\ \underline{\vartheta }\right) \right\vert <1$, as an approximation we
may consider alternatively minimizing, $\overline{Q}_{n,N\left( \mathbf{h
\right) }\left( \underline{\vartheta }\right) $, given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{Q}_{n,N\left( \mathbf{h}\right) }\left( \underline{\vartheta
\right) &\simeq &\frac{1}{\left\vert N\left( \mathbf{h}\right) \right\vert
\sum\limits_{\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}\right) \in N\left( \mathbf
h}\right) }\sum\limits_{k=1}^{M}\left[ \ln C\left( 0,\omega _{k};\underline
\vartheta }\right) \right. \\
&&\left. +\rho \left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega
_{k};\vartheta \right) +\frac{I_{\mathbf{s}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{j}}\left( \omega
_{k}\right) }{2C\left( 0,\omega _{k};\ \vartheta \right) }\rho \left(
\left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega _{k};\vartheta \right) \right]
\text{.}
\end{eqnarray*}
\section{Spatio-temporal prediction}
Our object in this section is to estimate $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s
,t\right) ;\ t=1,2,\ldots ,n\right\} $ at \ the location $\mathbf{s}_{0}$
given the \ $m-$time series $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) ;\
i=1,2,\ldots ,m;t=1,2,\ldots ,n\right\} $ from the spatio-temporal
stationary and isotropic process $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right)
\right\} $. \ In other words, we are estimating the entire data set at \ the
location $\mathbf{s}_{0}$ over the same period . \ Using the estimated set
of observations \ at the location $\mathbf{s}_{0}$, we will also obtain
optimal linear predictors of the future values, following \ a methodology
similar to \cite{Box-Jenkins76}.As in the case of the observed data $\left\{
Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) \right\} $, we define the discrete Fourier
transform of $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{0},t\right) \right\} $ the data of
which is not available, by
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathbf{s}_{0}}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi }n)
\sum\limits_{t=1}^{n}Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{0},t\right) e^{-it\omega }\text{,}
\label{eq 5.1.}
\end{equation
and by inversion, we have
\begin{equation}
Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{0},t\right) =\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\pi }}\int\limits_{-\pi
}^{\pi }J_{\mathbf{s}_{0}}\left( \omega \right) e^{it\omega }d\omega \text{.}
\label{eq 5.1. a}
\end{equation
In other words given $\left\{ J_{\mathbf{s}_{0}}\left( \omega \right) ,\
\text{for all }-\pi \leq \omega \leq \pi \right\} $, we can uniquely recover
the sequence\ $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{0},t\right) ;\ t=1,\ldots
,n\right\} $. In view of this observation, we consider here the estimation
of\ Fourier Transform $J_{\mathbf{s}_{0}}\left( \omega \right) $ for all
\omega $, and from these \ complex valued observations, we can estimate
\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{0},t\right) \right\} $ using the \ above
equation. Consider the vector of the discrete Fourier transforms at a single
frequency $\omega ,$
\begin{equation*}
\underline{J}_{m}^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) =\left[ J_{\mathbf{s
_{1}}\left( \omega \right) ,J_{\mathbf{s}_{2}}\left( \omega \right) ,\ldots
,J_{\mathbf{s}_{m}}\left( \omega \right) \right] \text{.}
\end{equation*
We note
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[ \underline{J}_{m}\left( \omega \right) \right] &=&0 \notag \\
E\left[ \underline{J}_{m}\left( \omega \right) \underline{J}_{m}^{\ast
}\left( \omega \right) \right] &=&\underline{F}_{m}\left( \omega \right)
\text{,} \label{eq 5.2.}
\end{eqnarray
where $\ $the \ square matrix $F_{m}\left( \omega \right) =\left( C\left(
\left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{i}-\mathbf{s}_{j}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) ;\
i,j=1,2,\ldots ,m\right) $, and each\ element $\ C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{
}_{i}-\mathbf{s}_{j}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) $ is given by (\ref{eq 3.8.
). The complex random vector $\underline{J}_{m}\left( \omega \right) $ has a
multivariate complex Gaussian distribution with mean zero and variance
covariance matrix \ $\underline{F}_{m}\left( \omega \right) $, and the
matrix is real and symmetric. Consider now the $\left( m+1\right) $
dimensional \ complex valued random vector,
\begin{equation*}
\underline{J}_{m+1}^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) =\left[ J_{0}\left(
\omega \right) ,\underline{J}_{m}^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) \right]
\text{,}
\end{equation*
which has zero mean, and variance covariance matrix
\begin{eqnarray*}
E\left[ \underline{J}_{m+1}\left( \omega \right) \underline{J}_{m+1}^{\ast
}\left( \omega \right) \right] &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
C_{0}\left( 0,\omega \right) & E\left( J_{0}\left( \omega \right) \underline
J}_{m}^{\ast \prime }\left( \omega \right) \right) \\
E\left( \underline{J}_{m}\left( \omega \right) J_{0}^{\ast }\left( \omega
\right) \right) & E\left( \underline{J}_{m}\left( \omega \right) \underline{
}_{m}^{\ast }\left( \omega \right) \right
\end{array
\right] \\
&=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
C_{0}\left( 0,\omega \right) & \underline{G}_{0}^{\prime }\left( \omega
\right) \\
\underline{G}_{0}\left( \omega \right) & \underline{F}_{m}\left( \omega
\right
\end{array
\right] \text{,}
\end{eqnarray*
where $C_{0}\left( 0,\omega \right) =E\left( J_{0}\left( \omega \right)
J_{0}^{\ast }\left( \omega \right) \right) =C\left( 0,\omega \right) $,
which is the second order spectral density function of the spatial process
and \ it is given by (\ref{eq 3.10.}), and the row vector $\underline{G
_{0}^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) $ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underline{G}_{0}^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) &=&E\left[ J_{0}\left(
\omega \right) J_{m}^{\ast \prime }\left( \omega \right) \right] \\
&=&\left[ C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{0}-\mathbf{s}_{1}\right\Vert
,\omega \right) ,C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{0}-\mathbf{s}_{2}\right\Vert
,\omega \right) ,\ldots ,C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{s}_{0}-\mathbf{s
_{m}\right\Vert ,\omega \right) \right]
\end{eqnarray*
and $\underline{F}_{m}\left( \omega \right) $ is defined above.. Therefore,
the optimal linear least squares prediction of $J_{0}\left( \omega \right) $
given the vector $\underline{J}_{m}\left( \omega \right) $, is given by the
conditional expectation
\begin{equation}
E\left[ J_{0}\left( \omega \right) |\underline{J}_{m}\left( \omega \right)
\right] =\underline{G}_{0}^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) \underline{F
_{m}^{-1}\left( \omega \right) \underline{J}_{m}\left( \omega \right)
\label{eq 5.3.}
\end{equation
and the minimum mean square error is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma _{m}^{2}\left( \omega \right) =C\left( 0,\omega \right) -\underline{G
_{0}^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) \underline{F}_{m}^{-1}\left( \omega
\right) \underline{G}_{0}\left( \omega \right) \text{.} \label{eq 5.4.}
\end{equation
It is interesting and important to note from the equations (\ref{eq 5.3.}
and \ \ref{eq 5.4.}) that the evaluation of the conditional \ expectation
and the minimum mean square error involves only inversion of $\ m\times m$
dimensional matrices, unlike \ in the case of the time domain approach for
prediction where one needs to invert $\ mn\times mn$ dimensional matrices.
In many real data analysis the number of time points $n$ will be \ very
large. and $m$ can be large too $\ $. Besides, there is no ordering problem
involved here (see \cite{Cressie2011} p. 324). Once \ we have an expression
for covariance function $C\left( \left\Vert \mathbf{h}\right\Vert ,\omega
\right) $, all the elements of the column vector $G_{0}\left( \omega \right)
$ and the elements of $F_{m}\left( \omega \right) $ are known. By
substituting the \ relevant expressions, we can evaluate (\ref{eq 5.3.}) and
(\ref{eq 5.4.}). It is usual, the covariance functions will have parameters
which need to be estimated, and this was considered earlier.
In obtaining the above, we assumed that the mean of the random process i.e.
E\left( Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right) =0,$which is known as Ordinary
Kriging in the literature. If $E\left( Z\left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \right)
=\mu \left( \mathbf{s},t\right) \neq 0,$ the usual approach is to model it
in terms of covariates, and consider the estimation of the parameters. Once
the parameters are estimated, one can use the estimated mean function in
defining the Fourier Transforms., and consider the estimation \ and
prediction as before. The estimation and the properties of the estimators
will be considered in later publications.
. Let us \ now denote the estimate of the conditional expectation (\ref{eq
5.3.}) by $\hat{J}_{0}\left( \omega \right) $, and therefore the estimate of
$J_{0}\left( \omega \right) $ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}_{0}\left( \omega \right) =\underline{\hat{G}}_{0}^{\prime }\left(
\omega \right) \underline{\hat{F}}_{m}^{-1}\left( \omega \right) J_{m}\left(
\omega \right) \text{.} \label{eq 5.5.}
\end{equation
As pointed out earlier,in evaluating the above expression we need the
spatio-temporal \ covariances, and the estimates of the parameters of the
covariance functions which were considered earlier.. These involve unknown
parameters, and can be estimated using \ methods described earlier. \ We use
these estimated covariances to calculate the above Fourier transform.\ Using
the above estimated Fourier Transform, we can now estimate the entire \ time
series $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{0},t\right) ;\ t=1,2,\ldots ,n\right\}
.,.Using this as our data, we \ can find optimal linear predictors of $Z
\mathbf{s}_{0},n+v)$ for all $v>.0.$The methodology is well known, and will
be briefly mentioned. In the parametric approach, a suitable linear time
series model is assumed and fitted \ and, then the fitted model is used for
the prediction of the future values. Since we have already computed Fourier
transforms, it is convenient to describe the frequency domain approach for
the estimation, which is based on Whittle likelihood approximation.
Briefly we describe Whittle likelihood approach.. Let us assume that the
second order stationary time series $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{0},t\right)
\right\} $ satisfies a linear time series model, and let $\ g_{0}\left(
\omega ,\underline{\psi }\right) \ \left\vert \omega \right\vert \leq \pi $
\ denote the second order spectral density function of the process and let
the parameter vector be denoted by a $q$ dimensional vector $\underline{\psi
}^{\prime }:=\left( \psi _{1},\psi _{2},\ldots ,\psi _{q}\right) $. \ We
have the Fourier Transforms $J_{0}\left( \omega \right) $ for all $\omega $
The parameter vector $\underline{\psi }$ can\ now be estimated by minimizing
the approximate negative log likelihood function,.
\begin{equation*}
\int \left[ \ln g_{0}\left( \omega ,\underline{\psi }\right) +\frac
\left\vert J_{0}\left( \omega \right) \right\vert ^{2}}{g_{0}\left( \omega
\underline{\psi }\right) }\right] d\omega
\end{equation*
with respect to $\underline{\psi }$. The asymptotic \ sampling properties of
the estimator $\psi $ are now well established. and hence will not be
repeated here. Having fitted a linear model to the data, it is now possible
to obtain the \ optimal forecasts of the future values. \ Since the
methodology is well known we omit the details. But these will be made clear
when we \ consider an example later
\ Before we consider \ modelling the spatial time series, it is important to
test the null hypothesis that the $m$ time series are spatially independent.
\ Such tests are available and are well known in the case of \ spatial data
(see \cite{cliff1981spatial}). As far as we are aware, no such tests are
available for testing independence of $m$ spatial time series, even though
similar tests are available in the classical multivariate analysis. We can
construct \ a test using the Frequency domain approach, and the test is
similar to the test proposed by \cite{wahba1971some}.
\section{Test for independence of $m$ spatial time series}
Let $\underline{Z}^{\prime }\left( t\right) =\left( Z\left( \mathbf{s
_{1},t\right) ,Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{2},t\right) ,\ldots ,Z\left( \mathbf{s
_{m},t\right) \right) $ be a m dimensional time series, and let us assume
that the vector is a zero mean stationary Gaussian time series with second
order spectral density matrix
\begin{equation}
\underline{F}\left( \omega \right) =\left( f_{ij}\left( \omega \right)
\right) ,\quad \left\vert \omega \right\vert \leq \pi \label{eq 6.1.}
\end{equation
where $f_{ij}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{1}{2\pi }\sum\limits_{n=-\infty
}^{\infty }E\left( Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) Z\left( \mathbf{s
_{j},t+n\right) \right) e^{-in\omega }$. Under the Gaussianity assumption,
testing for independence of the spatial time series, i.e. testing
independence between $\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{i},t\right) \right\} $ and
$\left\{ Z\left( \mathbf{s}_{j},t\right) \right\} $ for all $i$, $j$ such
that $i\neq j$, is equivalent to testing the null hypothesis that the
spectral matrix $\underline{F}\left( \omega \right) $ is a diagonal matrix
for all $\omega $. For testing this null hypothesis, we can use the method
proposed by \cite{wahba1971some}. We briefly outline her method (see \cit
{wahba1971some}. for details). We may note that for constructing the test,
the only assumption (besides Gaussianity) is that the vector time series
\underline{Z}\left( t\right) $ is temporally second order stationary, and no
assumption of spatial stationarity is required, here. Considerthe discrete
Fourier transforms defined earlier $\ \ $For each location $i,$ let the
Fourier Transform be given by $J_{\mathbf{s}_{i}}\left( \omega _{l}\right)
, $\ $where $\omega _{l}=\frac{2\pi j_{l}}{n}$, and $j_{l}=\left( l-1\right)
\left( 2K+1\right) +\left( K+1\right) ,\ l=1,2,\ldots ,M_{1}$, where $K$ and
$M_{1}$ are chosen such that $\left( 2K+1\right) M_{1}=\frac{n-1}{2}$ (here
n$\ the number of observations are assumed to be odd). As in \cit
{wahba1971some}, we define the cross spectral estimate of $f_{ij}\left(
\omega \right) $ by
\begin{equation}
\hat{f}_{ij}\left( \omega _{l}\right) =\frac{1}{2K+1}\su
\limits_{j=-K}^{K}I_{ij}\left( \omega _{l}+\frac{2\pi j}{n}\right) ,\quad
l=1,2,\ldots ,M_{1}, \label{eq 6.2.}
\end{equation
where the cross periodogram $I_{ij}\left( \omega _{l}\right) =J_{\mathbf{s
_{i}}\left( \omega _{l}\right) J_{\mathbf{s}_{j}}^{\ast }\left( \omega
_{l}\right) $. Under \ the spatial stationarity and isotropy assumptions,
the cross spectral density function which is usually a complex valued
function, will be real valued as we have seen earlier. In this section when
we are considering the test for spatial independence, we did not assume
spatial stationarity. We further note,that in view of the smoothing, the
spectral estimate $\hat{f}_{ij}\left( \omega _{l}\right) $ is a consistent
estimate of $f_{ij}\left( \omega _{l}\right) $ (see \ for example \cit
{wahba1971some}, \cite{Brill-book-01}). Let
\begin{equation*}
\hat{F}\left( \omega _{l}\right) =\left( \hat{f}_{ij}\left( \omega
_{l}\right) \right) \quad \left( l=1,2,\ldots ,M_{1}\right) \text{.}
\end{equation*
We note that the random matrices $\hat{F}\left( \omega _{l}\right) $,
l=1,2,\ldots ,M_{1}$, for large $K$ approximately distributed as random
matrices $\tilde{F}\left( \omega _{l}\right) $, $\left( l=1,2,\ldots
,M\right) $ which are distributed as complex Wishart, \ usually denoted by
W_{e}\left( F,m,2K+1\right) $ (see \cite{wahba1971some} for details). \cit
{wahba1971some} has shown that the likelihood ratio test for testing the
null hypothesis that $\ $the matrix $F\left( \omega _{l}\right) $ is
diagonal for each $l=1,2,\ldots ,M_{1}$ leads to the test statistic, for
each $\omega _{l}$,
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\lambda}_{l}=\frac{\left\vert \tilde{F}\left( \omega _{l}\right)
\right\vert }{\prod \tilde{f}_{jj}\left( \omega _{l}\right) },\quad
l=1,2,\ldots ,M_{1}\text{,}
\end{equation*
and the\ over all test statistic to consider is $\Lambda =-\frac{1}{M_{1}
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{M_{1}}\ln \tilde{\lambda}_{l}$. For large $K$ and $M_{1}
, under the null hypothesis, of spatial independence $\Lambda $ is
asymptotically distributed as normal with mean
\begin{equation*}
E\left( \Lambda \right) =\sum\limits_{j=1}^{m-1}\frac{m-j}{K^{\prime }-j}
\end{equation*
and variance
\begin{equation*}
var\left( \Lambda \right) =\frac{1}{M_{1}}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{m-1}\frac{m-j}
\left( K^{\prime }-j\right) ^{2}}\text{,}
\end{equation*
where $K^{\prime }=2K+1$. So under the null hypothesis, for large $K$ and
M_{1,}$the statistic $S=(\Lambda -E\left( \Lambda \right) )/\sqrt{var\left(
\Lambda \right) }$ is distributed as standard normal.
\bigskip
\begin{acknowledgement}
The publication was supported by the T\'{A}MOP-4.2.2.C-11/1/KONV-2012-0001
project. The project has been supported by the European Union, co-financed
by the European Social Fund.
\end{acknowledgement}
\bibliographystyle{aalpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
In Refs.~\cite{Sor04,Dup05,Sor06,Sor10}, the Poincar\'{e} algebra of rotations $\bm{J}_{ab}$ and
translations $\bm{P}_{a}$ in $D$-dimensional spacetime has been extended by the
inclusion of the second-rank tensor generator $\bm{Z}_{ab}$ in the following way:
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{J}_{ab}, \bm{J}_{cd} \right] & = \eta_{ad} \bm{J}_{bc} + \eta_{bc} \bm{J}_{ad} -
\eta_{ac} \bm{J}_{bd} - \eta_{bd} \bm{J}_{ac}, \label{eext1} \\
\left[ \bm{J}_{ab}, \bm{P}_{c} \right] & = \eta_{bc} \bm{P}_{a} - \eta_{ac} \bm{P}_{b}, \\
\left[ \bm{P}_{a}, \bm{P}_{b} \right] & = c \bm{Z}_{ab}, \\
\left[ \bm{J}_{ab}, \bm{Z}_{cd} \right] & = \eta_{ad} \bm{Z}_{bc} + \eta_{bc} \bm{Z}_{ad} -
\eta_{ac} \bm{Z}_{bd} - \eta_{bd} \bm{Z}_{ac}, \\
\left[ \bm{Z}_{ab}, \bm{P}_{c} \right] & = \frac{4a^{2}}{c} \left( \eta_{bc} \bm{P}_{a} -
\eta_{ac} \bm{P}_{b} \right), \\
\left[ \bm{Z}_{ab}, \bm{Z}_{cd} \right] & = \frac{4a^{2}}{c} \left[ \eta_{ad} \bm{Z}_{bc} +
\eta_{bc} \bm{Z}_{ad} - \eta_{ac} \bm{Z}_{bd} - \eta_{bd} \bm{Z}_{ac} \right], \label{2.1}
\end{align}
where $a$ and $c$ are constants.
It is remarkable that the Lie algebra~(\ref{eext1})--(\ref{2.1}) is semi-simple,
in contrast to the Poincar\'{e} and extended Poincar\'{e} algebras [cf.~eqs.~(1.1) and~(1.2) of Ref.~\cite{Sor06}].
Note that, in the $a \rightarrow 0$ limit, the algebra~(\ref{eext1})--(\ref{2.1})
reduces to the algebra in eq.~(1.2) of Ref.~\cite{Sor06}.
The \emph{semi-simple} extended Poincar\'{e} (SSEP) algebra~(\ref{eext1})--(\ref{2.1}) can be
rewritten in the form
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{N}_{ab}, \bm{N}_{cd} \right] & = \eta_{ad} \bm{N}_{bc} + \eta_{bc} \bm{N}_{ad} - \eta
_{ac}\bm{N}_{bd} - \eta_{bd} \bm{N}_{ac}, \label{2.7} \\
\left[ \bm{L}_{AB}, \bm{L}_{CD} \right] & = \eta_{AD} \bm{N}_{BC} + \eta_{BC} \bm{N}_{AD} -
\eta_{AC} \bm{N}_{BD} - \eta_{BD} \bm{N}_{AC}, \label{2.8} \\
\left[ \bm{N}_{ab}, \bm{L}_{CD} \right] & = 0, \label{2.9}
\end{align}
where the metric tensor $\eta_{AB}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\eta_{AB} = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\eta_{ab} & 0 \\
0 & -
\end{array}
\right] \label{2.10}
\end{equation}
and the $\bm{N}_{ab}$ generators read
\begin{equation}
\bm{N}_{ab} = \bm{J}_{ab} - \frac{c}{4a^{2}} \bm{Z}_{ab}. \label{2.11}
\end{equation}
The $\bm{N}_{ab}$ generators form a basis for the Lorentz algebra $\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,1 \right)$.
The $\bm{L}_{AB}$ generators, on the other hand, are given by
\begin{equation}
\bm{L}_{AB} = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\bm{L}_{ab} & \bm{L}_{a,D} \\
\bm{L}_{D,a} & \bm{L}_{D,D
\end{array}
\right] = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{c}{4a^{2}} \bm{Z}_{ab} & \frac{1}{2a} \bm{P}_{a} \\
-\frac{1}{2a} \bm{P}_{a} &
\end{array}
\right] \label{2.12}
\end{equation}
and form a basis for the anti-de~Sitter (AdS) $\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2 \right)$ algebra.
The SSEP algebra (\ref{2.7})--(\ref{2.9}) is thus seen to be the direct sum
$\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,1 \right) \oplus \mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2 \right)$
of the $D$-dimensional Lorentz algebra and the $D$-dimensional AdS algebra.
Using (\ref{2.11}) and (\ref{2.12}) in (\ref{2.7})--(\ref{2.9}) we find that
the SSEP algebra~(\ref{eext1})--(\ref{2.1}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{N}_{ab},\bm{N}_{cd}\right] & =\eta _{ad}\bm{N}_{bc}+\eta _{bc}\bm{N}_{ad}-\eta
_{ac}\bm{N}_{bd}-\eta _{bd}\bm{N}_{ac}, \label{2.12'} \\
\left[ \bm{L}_{ab},\bm{L}_{cd}\right] & =\eta _{ad}\bm{L}_{bc}+\eta _{bc}\bm{L}_{ad}-\eta
_{ac}\bm{L}_{bd}-\eta _{bd}\bm{L}_{ac}, \\
\left[ \bm{L}_{ab},\bm{L}_{c,D}\right] & =\eta _{bc}\bm{L}_{a,D}-\eta _{ac}\bm{L}_{b,D}, \\
\left[ \bm{L}_{a,D},\bm{L}_{c,D}\right] & =\bm{L}_{ac}, \\
\left[ \bm{N}_{ab},\bm{L}_{cd}\right] & =0, \\
\left[ \bm{N}_{ab},\bm{L}_{c,D}\right] & =0. \label{2.13}
\end{align}
It is the purpose of this Letter to show that the SSEP algebra
$\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,1 \right) \oplus \mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2 \right)$
can be obtained from the AdS algebra $\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2 \right)$ via the $S$-expansion procedure with an
appropriate semigroup $S$ \cite{Iza06b,Iza09a}.
The $S$-expansion method also allows
us to compute an invariant tensor for the SSEP
algebra, which is a key ingredient in the construction of the more general
action for Chern--Simons (CS) gravity in $2+1$ dimensions.
The article is organized as follows.
In section~\ref{sec:sexpp} we briefly review the main aspects of the $S$-expansion procedure.
In section~\ref{sec:sexpAdS} we cast the SSEP algebra as an $S$-expansion
of the $D$-dimensional AdS algebra
$\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2 \right)$ through an appropriate semigroup $S$.
Section~\ref{sec:Casgral} is devoted to a systematic exposition of the construction of Casimir operators for $S$-expanded Lie algebras.
This general procedure is applied in section~\ref{sec:Caspart} to the case of the SSEP algebra.
In section~\ref{sec:CS} we compute an invariant tensor for the SSEP algebra and put it to use by
constructing the more general action for CS gravity in $2+1$ dimensions.
A brief comment in section~\ref{sec:final} concludes the paper.
\section{The $S$-Expansion Procedure}
\label{sec:sexpp}
In this section we briefly review the general abelian semigroup expansion procedure ($S$-expansion for short).
We refer the interested reader to Ref.~\citep{Iza06b} for further details.
Consider a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and a finite abelian
semigroup $S = \left\{ \lambda_{\alpha} \right\}$. According to Theorem~3.1
from Ref.~\cite{Iza06b}, the direct product $S \times \mathfrak{g}$ is also a Lie
algebra. Interestingly, there are cases when it is possible to
systematically extract subalgebras from $S \times \mathfrak{g}$. Start by
decomposing $\mathfrak{g}$ in a direct sum of subspaces, as in $\mathfrak{g}
= \bigoplus_{p\in I}V_{p}$, where $I$ is a set of indices. The internal
structure of $\mathfrak{g}$ can be codified through the mappin
\footnote{Here $2^{I}$ stands for the set of all subsets of $I$.}
$i : I \times I \rightarrow 2^{I}$ according to
$\left[ V_{p}, V_{q} \right] \subset \bigoplus_{r \in i \left( p,q \right)} V_{r}$.
When the semigroup $S$
can be decomposed in subsets $S_{p}$, $S = \bigcup_{p \in I} S_{p}$, such
that they satisfy the ``resonant condition'' $S_{p} \cdot S_{q}
\subset \bigcap_{r \in i \left( p,q \right)} S_{r}$
\footnote{Here $S_{p} \cdot S_{q}$ denotes the set of all the products of all elements from $S_{p}$ with all elements from $S_{q}$.}
then we have that
$\mathfrak{G}_{\text{R}}=\bigoplus_{p\in I}S_{p}\times V_{p}$ is a
``resonant subalgebra'' of $S \times \mathfrak{g}$ (see Theorem~4.2 from
Ref.~\cite{Iza06b}).
An even smaller algebra can be obtained when there is a zero element in the
semigroup, i.e., an element $0_{S}\in S$ such that, for all $\lambda_{\alpha
}\in S$, $0_{S}\lambda_{\alpha}=0_{S}$. When this is the case, the whole
$0_{S}\times\mathfrak{g}$ sector can be removed from the resonant subalgebra
by imposing $0_{S}\times\mathfrak{g}=0$. The remaining piece, to which we
refer to as ``$0_{S}$-reduced algebra,'' continues to be a Lie algebra
(see $0_{S}$-reduction and Theorem~6.1 from Ref.~\cite{Iza06b}).
\section{$S$-Expansion of the anti-de~Sitter Algebra}
\label{sec:sexpAdS}
In this section we sketch the steps to be undertaken in order to obtain the SSEP algebra,
$\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,1 \right) \oplus \mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2 \right)$,
as an $S$-expansion of the AdS algebra,
$\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2 \right)$.
The first step consists of splitting the AdS algebra in subspaces, i.e.,
$\mathfrak{so}\left( D-1,2\right) =V_{0}\oplus V_{1}$,
where $V_{0}$ corresponds to the Lorentz subalgebra
$\mathfrak{so}\left(D-1,1\right)$, which is generated by $\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}$,
and $V_{1}$ corresponds to the AdS ``boosts,'' generated by $\bar{\bm{P}}_{a}$.
The generators $\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}$, $\bar{\bm{P}}_{a}$ satisfy the following commutation relations:
\begin{align}
\left[ \bar{\bm{P}}_{a},\bar{\bm{P}}_{b}\right] &=\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab} \\
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},\bar{\bm{P}}_{c}\right] &=\eta _{cb}\bar{\bm{P}}_{a}-\eta _{ca
\bar{\bm{P}}_{b} \\
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd}\right] &=\eta _{ad}\bar{\bm{J}}_{bc}+\eta _{bc
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ad}-\eta _{ac}\bar{\bm{J}}_{bd}-\eta _{bd}\bar{\bm{J}}_{ac}.
\end{align}
The subspace structure can be written as
\begin{align}
\left[ V_{0},V_{0}\right] & \subset V_{0}, \label{V000} \\
\left[ V_{0},V_{1}\right] & \subset V_{1}, \\
\left[ V_{1},V_{1}\right] & \subset V_{0}. \label{dos14}
\end{align}
The second step consists of finding an abelian semigroup $S$ which can be
partitioned in a ``resonant'' way with
respect to eqs.~(\ref{V000})--(\ref{dos14}).
We shall consider the expansion procedure using two different semigroups.
\subsection{Semigroup $S_{\text{S3}}$}
\label{sec:S3}
Let us consider first the semigroup
$S_{\text{S3}} = \left\{
\bar{\lambda}_{0},
\bar{\lambda}_{1},
\bar{\lambda}_{2},
\bar{\lambda}_{3}
\right\}$
defined by the following multiplication table:
\begin{equation}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
& $\bar{\lambda}_{0}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{1}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{2}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ \\
\hline
$\bar{\lambda}_{0}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{2}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{0}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ \\
$\bar{\lambda}_{1}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{1}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ \\
$\bar{\lambda}_{2}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{0}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{2}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ \\
$\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$
\end{tabular}
\label{dos15}
\end{equation}
A straightforward but important observation is that, for each $\lambda_{\alpha }\in S$, we have that $\bar{\lambda}_{3}\bar{\lambda}_{\alpha }=\bar{\lambda}_{3}$,
so that $\bar{\lambda}_{3}$ is seen to play the r\^{o}le of the zero element inside $S$.
Consider now the partition $S=S_{0}\cup S_{1}$, with
\begin{align}
S_{0}& =\left\{ \bar{\lambda}_{1},\bar{\lambda}_{2},\bar{\lambda
_{3}\right\} , \label{dos10} \\
S_{1}& =\left\{ \bar{\lambda}_{0},\bar{\lambda}_{3}\right\}.
\label{dos11}
\end{align
This partition is said to be resonant, since it satisfies
[cf.~eqs.~(\ref{V000})--(\ref{dos14})]
\begin{align}
S_{0} \cdot S_{0} & \subset S_{0}, \\
S_{0} \cdot S_{1} & \subset S_{1}, \\
S_{1} \cdot S_{1} & \subset S_{0}. \label{dos12}
\end{align}
Theorem~4.2 from Ref.~\cite{Iza06b} now assures us that
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{G}_{\text{R}}=W_{0}\oplus W_{1} \label{dos13}
\end{equation
is a \emph{resonant subalgebra} of $S_{\text{S3}}\times \mathfrak{g,}$wher
\begin{align}
W_{0} & =
S_{0} \times V_{0} =
\left\{
\bar{\lambda}_{1}, \bar{\lambda}_{2},\bar{\lambda}_{3}
\right\}
\otimes
\left\{ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab} \right\} =
\left\{
\bar{\lambda}_{1} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\lambda}_{2} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\lambda}_{3} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}
\right\},
\label{2.14} \\
W_{1} & =
S_{1} \times V_{1} =
\left\{
\bar{\lambda}_{0},
\bar{\lambda}_{3}
\right\}
\otimes
\left\{ \bar{\bm{P}}_{a} \right\} =
\left\{
\bar{\lambda}_{0} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a},
\bar{\lambda}_{3} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a}
\right\}.
\label{2.15}
\end{align}
As a last step, impose the condition $\lambda _{3}\times \mathfrak{g}=0$ on
$\mathfrak{G}_{\text{R}}$ and relabel its generators as
$\bm{J}_{ab,1} = \bar{\lambda}_{1} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}$,
$\bm{J}_{ab,2} = \bar{\lambda}_{2} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}$, and
$\bm{P}_{a,0} = \bar{\lambda}_{0} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a}$.
This procedure leads us to the following commutation relations:
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{J}_{ab,1}, \bm{J}_{cd,1}\right] & =
\bar{\lambda}_{1} \bar{\lambda}_{1}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{J}}_{cd} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\bar{\lambda}_{1}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{J}}_{cd}\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\eta_{ad} \bm{J}_{bc,1} + \eta_{bc} \bm{J}_{ad,1} - \eta_{ac} \bm{J}_{bd,1} - \eta_{bd} \bm{J}_{ac,1},
\label{2.16a}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{J}_{ab,2}, \bm{J}_{cd,2} \right] & =
\bar{\lambda}_{2} \bar{\lambda}_{2}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{J}}_{cd} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\bar{\lambda}_{2}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{J}}_{cd} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\eta_{ad} \bm{J}_{bc,2} + \eta_{bc} \bm{J}_{ad,2} - \eta_{ac} \bm{J}_{bd,2} - \eta_{bd} \bm{J}_{ac,2},
\label{2.16b}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{J}_{ab,1}, \bm{J}_{cd,2} \right] & =
\bar{\lambda}_{1} \bar{\lambda}_{2}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{J}}_{cd} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\bar{\lambda}_{3}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{J}}_{cd} \right]
\nonumber \\ & = 0,
\label{2.16c}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{J}_{ab,1}, \bm{P}_{c,0} \right] & =
\bar{\lambda}_{1} \bar{\lambda}_{0}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{P}}_{c} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\bar{\lambda}_{3}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{P}}_{c}\right]
\nonumber \\ & = 0,
\label{2.16d}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{J}_{ab,2}, \bm{P}_{c,0} \right] & =
\bar{\lambda}_{2} \bar{\lambda}_{0}
\left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{P}}_{c} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\bar{\lambda}_{0} \left[ \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}, \bar{\bm{P}}_{c} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\eta _{bc} \bm{P}_{a,0} - \eta _{ac} \bm{P}_{b,0}
\label{2.16e}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[ \bm{P}_{a,0}, \bm{P}_{b,0} \right] & =
\bar{\lambda}_{0} \bar{\lambda}_{0}
\left[ \bar{\bm{P}}_{a}, \bar{\bm{P}}_{b} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\bar{\lambda}_{2}
\left[ \bar{\bm{P}}_{a}, \bar{\bm{P}}_{b} \right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\bm{J}_{ab,2},
\label{2.16f}
\end{align}
where we have used the commutation relations of the AdS algebra
and the multiplication law~(\ref{dos15}) of the semigroup $S_{S3}$.
The identification
$\bm{N}_{ab} = \bm{J}_{ab,1}$,
$\bm{L}_{ab} = \bm{J}_{ab,2}$, and
$\bm{L}_{a,D} = \bm{P}_{a,0}$
shows that the algebra~(\ref{2.16a})--(\ref{2.16f}), obtained by $S_{S3}$-expansion and $0_{S}$-reduction of
the AdS algebra $\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2\right)$, coincides with the SSEP algebra~(\ref{2.12'})--(\ref{2.13})
obtained by semisimple extension of the Poincar\'{e} algebra in Refs.~\cite{Sor04,Dup05,Sor06}.
\subsection{Semigroup $S_{\text{S2}}$}
\label{sec:S2}
Let us now consider the semigroup
$S_{\text{S2}}=
\left\{
\lambda_{0},
\lambda_{1},
\lambda_{2}
\right\}$
defined by the multiplication law
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{\alpha} \lambda_{\beta} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\lambda_{\alpha + \beta} & \text{if } \alpha + \beta \leq 2 \\
\lambda_{\alpha +\beta -2} & \text{if } \alpha + \beta > 2
\end{array}
\right.,
\label{3.1}
\end{equation}
or, equivalently, by the multiplication table
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c|ccc}
& \lambda_{0} & \lambda_{1} & \lambda_{2} \\
\hline
\lambda_{0} & \lambda_{0} & \lambda_{1} & \lambda _{2} \\
\lambda_{1} & \lambda_{1} & \lambda_{2} & \lambda _{1} \\
\lambda_{2} & \lambda_{2} & \lambda_{1} & \lambda _{2}
\end{array}
\label{3.2}
\end{equation}
Take now the partition $S=S_{0}\cup S_{1}$, with
\begin{align}
S_{0} & =\left\{ \lambda _{0},\lambda _{2}\right\} , \label{3.3} \\
S_{1} & =\left\{ \lambda _{1} \right\} . \label{3.4}
\end{align}
This partition is said to be resonant, since it satisfies
[cf.~eqs.~(\ref{V000})--(\ref{dos14})]
\begin{align}
S_{0} \cdot S_{0} & \subset S_{0}, \\
S_{0} \cdot S_{1} & \subset S_{1}, \\
S_{1} \cdot S_{1} & \subset S_{0}.
\end{align}
Theorem~4.2 from Ref.~\cite{Iza06b} now assures us that
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{G}_{\text{R}} = W_{0} \oplus W_{1}
\end{equation}
is a \emph{resonant subalgebra} of $S_{\text{S2}}\times \mathfrak{g}$, where
\begin{align}
W_{0} & =
S_{0} \times V_{0} =
\left\{
\lambda_{0},
\lambda_{2}
\right\}
\otimes
\left\{
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}
\right\} =
\left\{
\lambda_{0} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\lambda_{2} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}
\right\},
\\
W_{1} & =
S_{1} \times V_{1} =
\left\{
\lambda_{1}
\right\}
\otimes
\left\{
\bar{\bm{P}}_{a}
\right\} =
\left\{
\lambda_{1} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a}
\right\}.
\end{align}
Relabeling the generators of the resonant subalgebra as
$\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,0} = \lambda_{0} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}$,
$\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,2} = \lambda_{2} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab}$, and
$\bar{\bm{P}}_{a,1} = \lambda_{1} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a}$,
we are left with the following commutation relations:
\begin{align}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,0},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd,0}
\right]
& =
\lambda_{0} \lambda _{0}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\lambda_{0}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\eta_{ad} \bar{\bm{J}}_{bc,0} +
\eta_{bc} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ad,0} -
\eta_{ac} \bar{\bm{J}}_{bd,0} -
\eta_{bd} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ac,0},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,2},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd,2}
\right]
& =
\lambda_{2} \lambda _{2}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\lambda_{2}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\eta_{ad} \bar{\bm{J}}_{bc,2} +
\eta_{bc} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ad,2} -
\eta_{ac} \bar{\bm{J}}_{bd,2} -
\eta_{bd} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ac,2},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,0},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd,2}
\right]
& =
\lambda_{0} \lambda_{2}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\lambda_{2}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{J}}_{cd}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\eta_{ad} \bar{\bm{J}}_{bc,2} +
\eta_{bc} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ad,2} -
\eta_{ac} \bar{\bm{J}}_{bd,2} -
\eta_{bd} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ac,2},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,0},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{c,1}
\right]
& =
\lambda_{0} \lambda _{1}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{c}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\lambda_{1}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{c}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\eta_{cb} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a,1} -
\eta_{ac} \bar{\bm{P}}_{b,1},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,2},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{c,1}
\right]
& =
\lambda_{2} \lambda _{1}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{c}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\lambda_{1}
\left[
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{c}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\eta_{bc} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a,1} -
\eta_{ac} \bar{\bm{P}}_{b,1},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left[
\bar{\bm{P}}_{a,1},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{b,1}
\right]
& =
\lambda_{1} \lambda_{1}
\left[
\bar{\bm{P}}_{a},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{b}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\lambda_{2}
\left[
\bar{\bm{P}}_{a},
\bar{\bm{P}}_{b}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,2},
\end{align}
where we have used the commutation relations of the AdS algebra
and the multiplication law~(\ref{3.1}) of the semigroup $S_{\text{S2}}$.
The identifications
$\tilde{\bm{J}}_{ab} = \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,0}$,
$\tilde{\bm{Z}}_{ab} = \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab,2}$, and
$\tilde{\bm{P}}_{a} = \bar{\bm{P}}_{a,1}$
lead to the following algebra:
\begin{align}
\left[
\tilde{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\tilde{\bm{J}}_{cd}
\right]
& =
\eta_{ad} \tilde{\bm{J}}_{bc} +
\eta_{bc} \tilde{\bm{J}}_{ad} -
\eta_{ac} \tilde{\bm{J}}_{bd} -
\eta_{bd} \tilde{\bm{J}}_{ac},
\\
\left[
\tilde{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\tilde{\bm{P}}_{c}
\right]
& =
\eta_{bc} \tilde{\bm{P}}_{a} -
\eta_{ac} \tilde{\bm{P}}_{b},
\\
\left[
\tilde{\bm{P}}_{a},
\tilde{\bm{P}}_{b}
\right]
& =
\tilde{\bm{Z}}_{ab},
\\
\left[
\tilde{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\tilde{\bm{Z}}_{cd}
\right]
& =
\eta_{ad} \tilde{\bm{Z}}_{bc} +
\eta_{bc} \tilde{\bm{Z}}_{ad} -
\eta_{ac} \tilde{\bm{Z}}_{bd} -
\eta_{bd} \tilde{\bm{Z}}_{ac},
\\
\left[
\tilde{\bm{Z}}_{ab},
\tilde{\bm{P}}_{c}
\right]
& =
\eta_{bc} \tilde{\bm{P}}_{a} -
\eta_{ac} \tilde{\bm{P}}_{b},
\\
\left[
\tilde{\bm{Z}}_{ab},
\tilde{\bm{Z}}_{cd}
\right]
& =
\eta_{ad} \tilde{\bm{Z}}_{bc} +
\eta_{bc} \tilde{\bm{Z}}_{ad} -
\eta_{ac} \tilde{\bm{Z}}_{bd} -
\eta_{bd} \tilde{\bm{Z}}_{ac},
\end{align}
which matches the SSEP algebra~(\ref{eext1})--(\ref{2.1}) obtained in Refs.~\cite{Sor04,Dup05,Sor06,Sor10}, up to (inessential) numerical factors.
\subsection{Relationship between the multiplication tables of the semigroups
$S_{\text{S3}}$ and $S_{\text{S2}}$}
In section~\ref{sec:S3}, the SSEP algebra~(\ref{2.12'})--(\ref{2.13}) was obtained
through an $S$-expansion using the semigroup $S_{\text{S3}}$,
whose multiplication table is given in eq.~(\ref{dos15}).
The procedure involves imposing the condition known as $0_{S}$-reduction~\cite{Iza06b}.
In section~\ref{sec:S2}, the SSEP algebra~(\ref{eext1})--(\ref{2.1}) was obtained
(up to inessential numerical factors)
through an $S$-expansion using the semigroup $S_{\text{S2}}$,
whose multiplication table is given in eq.~(\ref{3.2}).
In stark contrast with the previous case, the procedure does not involve imposing the $0_{S}$-reduction.
This curious state of affairs can be clarified by
promoting the semigroup $S_{\text{S2}}$ to a \emph{ring
\footnote{Here we do not require that the elements of the ring form a group under multiplication, but rather only a semigroup.}
and setting
\begin{align}
\tilde{\lambda}_{1} & = \lambda _{0} - \lambda _{2}, \\
\tilde{\lambda}_{2} & = \lambda _{2}, \label{3.5} \\
\tilde{\lambda}_{0} & = \lambda _{1}.
\end{align}
This amounts to a change of basis in $S_{\text{S2}}$ and leads to the following multiplicacion table:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c|ccc}
& \tilde{\lambda}_{0} & \tilde{\lambda}_{1} & \tilde{\lambda}_{2} \\
\hline
\tilde{\lambda}_{0} & \tilde{\lambda}_{2} & 0 & \tilde{\lambda}_{0} \\
\tilde{\lambda}_{1} & 0 & \tilde{\lambda}_{1} & 0 \\
\tilde{\lambda}_{2} & \tilde{\lambda}_{0} & 0 & \tilde{\lambda}_{2}
\end{array}
\label{3.6}
\end{equation}
This multiplication table exactly matches the multiplication table of the $S_{\text{S3}}$ semigroup
[see eq.~(\ref{dos15})],
except for the rows and columns involving $\lambda_{3}$.
In place of $\lambda_{3}$, the symbol ``0'' in~(\ref{3.6}) now stands for the \emph{additive} zero of the $S_{\text{S2}}$ ring.
The generators $\bm{N}_{ab}$ and $\bm{L}_{AB}$ can be recovered by setting
\begin{align}
\bm{N}_{ab} & =
\tilde{\lambda}_{1} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab} =
\left(
\lambda_{0} - \lambda_{2}
\right)
\bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\\
\bm{L}_{ab} & =
\tilde{\lambda}_{2} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab} =
\lambda_{2} \bar{\bm{J}}_{ab},
\\
\bm{L}_{a,D} & =
\tilde{\lambda}_{0} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a} =
\lambda_{1} \bar{\bm{P}}_{a},
\end{align}
without invoking the $0_{S}$-reduction.
The advantage of not using the $0_{S}$-reduction is that it facilitates the construction of Casimir operators,
as discussed in section~\ref{sec:Casgral}.
\section{Casimir operators for $S$-expanded Lie Algebras}
\label{sec:Casgral}
In this section we consider the construction of Casimir operators for
$S$-expanded Lie algebras.
We then compute the Casimir operators for the SSEP algebra
obtained by Soroka et~al.\ in Refs.~\cite{Sor04,Dup05,Sor06,Sor10}.
\subsection{Construction of Casimir operators for $S$-expanded Lie algebras}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie algebra and let
$\left\{ \bm{T}_{A}, A=1,\ldots,\dim \mathfrak{g} \right\}$
be the generators of $\mathfrak{g}$.
A Casimir operator $\bm{C}_{m}$ of degree $m$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\bm{C}_{m} =
C^{A_{1 }\cdots A_{m}}
\bm{T}_{A_{1}} \cdots \bm{T}_{A_{m}},
\label{3.7}
\end{equation}
which, by definition, satisfies the condition that,
$\forall~\bm{T}_{A_{0}} \in \mathfrak{g}$,
\begin{equation}
\left[
\bm{T}_{A_{0}},
\bm{C}_{m}
\right]
= 0,
\label{3.8}
\end{equation}
where the coefficients $C^{A_{1} \cdots A_{m}}$ form a symmetric invariant tensor for the corresponding Lie group.
This means that the operators $\bm{C}_{m}$ ($m=2,3,\ldots$) are invariants of the enveloping algebra.
From eqs.~(\ref{3.7}) and~(\ref{3.8}) we have
\begin{equation}
\left[
\bm{T}_{A_{0}},
\bm{C}_{m}
\right] =
\left(
\sum_{p=1}^{m}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{p}}
C^{A_{1} \cdots A_{p-1} B A_{p+1} \cdots A_{m}}
\right)
\bm{T}_{A_{1}}
\cdots
\bm{T}_{A_{m}},
\label{3.9}
\end{equation}
where $\swne{f}{AB}{C}$ are the structure constants of $\mathfrak{g}$.
Therefore, the ``Casimir Condition''~(\ref{3.8}) is seen to be equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\sum_{p=1}^{m}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{(A_{p}}
C^{A_{1} \cdots A_{p-1} | B | A_{p+1} \cdots A_{m})} = 0.
\label{3.10}
\end{equation}
For the standard, quadratic (i.e., $m=2$) Casimir operator, eq.~(\ref{3.10}) reads
\begin{equation}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{1}}
C^{B A_{2}} +
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{2}}
C^{A_{1} B} = 0.
\label{3.11}
\end{equation}
The structure constants of an $S$-expanded Lie algebra are given by
\begin{equation}
\swne{f}{\left( A, \alpha \right) \left( B, \beta \right)}{\left( C, \gamma \right)} =
\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{\gamma}
\swne{f}{AB}{C},
\label{Ec_S_Ctes}
\end{equation}
where $\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{\gamma}$ stands for the ``two-selector'' of the semigroup $S$~\cite{Iza06b}.
The (quadratic) Casimir condition for an $S$-expanded Lie algebra thus reads
\begin{equation}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{1}}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{1}}
C^{\left( B, \beta \right) \left( A_{2}, \alpha _{2} \right)} +
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{2}}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{2}}
C^{\left( A_{1}, \alpha_{1} \right) \left( B, \beta \right)} = 0.
\label{Ec_Casimir_Cuadratico}
\end{equation}
Consider now the following ansatz for the components of the (quadratic) Casimir operator of an $S$-expanded algebra:
\begin{equation}
C^{\left( A, \alpha \right) \left( B, \beta \right)} =
m^{\alpha \beta } C^{AB},
\label{3.12}
\end{equation
where $C^{AB}$ are the components of the (quadratic) Casimir operator for the original
algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and $m^{\alpha \beta}$ are the components of a
symmetric tensor, associated to the semigroup $S$, which must be determined.
Introducing~(\ref{Ec_S_Ctes}) in~(\ref{Ec_Casimir_Cuadratico}) we obtai
\begin{equation}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{1}}
m^{\beta \alpha_{2}}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{1}}
C^{B A_{2}} +
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{2}}
m^{\alpha_{1} \beta}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{2}}
C^{A_{1} B} = 0.
\label{3.13}
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{3.13}) is satisfied if the following condition holds:
\begin{equation}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{1}}
m^{\beta \alpha_{2}} =
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{2}}
m^{\alpha_{1} \beta}.
\label{Ec_Cond_m}
\end{equation}
To check this, let us plug eq.~(\ref{Ec_Cond_m}) into eq.~(\ref{3.13}) to find
\begin{equation}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{1}}
m^{\beta \alpha_{2}}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{1}}
C^{B A_{2}} +
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{2}}
m^{\alpha_{1} \beta}
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{2}}
C^{A_{1} B} =
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{1}}
m^{\beta \alpha_{2}}
\left(
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{1}}
C^{B A_{2}} +
\swne{f}{A_{0} B}{A_{2}}
C^{A_{1} B}
\right) = 0,
\end{equation}
where the expression in parentheses vanishes because $C^{AB}$
are the components of the (quadratic) Casimir operator for the
original algebra $\mathfrak{g}$
[cf.~eq.~(\ref{3.11})].
The following Theorem provides us with a way of finding a tensor $m^{\alpha \beta}$
with the required properties.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{\gamma}$ be the two-selector for an abelian semigroup $S$, and define
\begin{equation}
m_{\alpha \beta} = \alpha_{\gamma} \swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{\gamma},
\label{3.15}
\end{equation}
where the $\alpha_{\gamma}$ are numerical coefficients.
If the $\alpha_{\gamma}$ are chosen in such a way that $m_{\alpha \beta}$ is an invertible ``metric,''
then its inverse
$m^{\alpha \beta}$
(which, by definition, satisfies
$m^{\alpha \lambda} m_{\lambda \beta} = \delta_{\beta}^{\alpha}$)
fulfills eq.~(\ref{Ec_Cond_m}).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the associativity and commutativity of the inner binary
operation (``multiplication'') of the semigroup $S$, we have
\begin{equation}
\left(
\lambda_{\alpha_{0}}
\lambda_{\mu}
\right)
\lambda_{\nu} =
\left(
\lambda_{\alpha_{0}}
\lambda_{\nu}
\right)
\lambda_{\mu}.
\label{3.16}
\end{equation
In terms of the two-selectors $\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{\gamma}$,
eq.~(\ref{3.16}) may be cast as
\begin{equation}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \mu}{\alpha_{1}}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{1} \nu}{\lambda} =
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \nu}{\alpha_{2}}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{2} \mu}{\lambda}.
\label{3.17}
\end{equation}
Multiplying~(\ref{3.17}) by $\alpha_{\lambda}$, we find
\begin{align}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \mu}{\alpha_{1}}
m_{\alpha_{1} \nu}
& =
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \nu}{\alpha_{2}}
m_{\alpha_{2} \mu}
\nonumber \\
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{1}}
\delta_{\mu}^{\beta}
m_{\alpha_{1} \nu}
& =
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{2}}
\delta_{\nu}^{\beta}
m_{\alpha_{2} \mu}
\nonumber \\
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{1}}
m^{\beta \alpha_{2}}
m_{\alpha_{2} \mu}
m_{\alpha_{1} \nu}
& =
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{2}}
m^{\alpha_{1} \beta}
m_{\alpha_{2} \mu}
m_{\alpha_{1} \nu},
\label{3.18}
\end{align}
so that
\begin{equation}
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{1}}
m^{\beta \alpha_{2}} =
\swne{K}{\alpha_{0} \beta}{\alpha_{2}}
m^{\alpha_{1} \beta},
\label{3.19}
\end{equation}
as we set out to prove.
\end{proof}
This means that if
$\bm{C} = C^{AB} \bm{T}_{A} \bm{T}_{B}$
is the (quadratic) Casimir operator for the original algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, then
\begin{equation}
\bm{C} =
m^{\alpha \beta}
C^{AB}
\bm{T}_{\left( A, \alpha \right)}
\bm{T}_{\left( B, \beta \right)}
\label{3.20}
\end{equation}
is the (quadratic) Casimir operator for the $S$-expanded Lie algebra.
\subsection{Casimir operators for anti-de~Sitter algebra}
Using the representation given by the Dirac matrices for the AdS algebra,
\begin{align}
\bm{P}_{a} & =
\frac{1}{2} \Gamma_{a}, \\
\bm{J}_{ab} & =
\frac{1}{2} \Gamma_{ab},
\label{3.21}
\end{align}
we have that the Killing metric $k_{AB}$ for the AdS algebra can be written as
\begin{align}
k_{AB} & =
\frac{1}{\Tr \left( \openone \right)}
\Tr
\left(
\bm{T}_{A}
\bm{T}_{B}
\right)
\\ & =
\frac{1}{\Tr \left( \openone \right)}
\Tr
\left(
\frac{1}{2}
\left\{
\bm{T}_{A},
\bm{T}_{B}
\right\}
\right),
\end{align}
which for $d\geq 4$ is given by
\begin{align}
k_{a,b} & = \frac{1}{4} \eta_{ab} \\
k_{ab,cd} & = -\frac{1}{4} \eta_{\left[ ab \right] \left[ cd \right]},
\label{3.22} \\
k_{ab,c} & = 0,
\label{eq:m12=0}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\left[ ab \right] \left[ cd \right]} =
\delta_{ab}^{mn} \eta_{mc} \eta_{nd}.
\label{3.23}
\end{equation}
For an arbitrary algebra, the quadratic Casimir operator is given by
\begin{equation}
\bm{C} = k^{AB} \bm{T}_{A} \bm{T}_{B},
\label{3.24}
\end{equation}
where $k^{AB}$ stands for the inverse of the Killing metric $k_{AB}$.
For the AdS algebra we have
\begin{align}
k^{a,b} & = 4 \eta^{ab} \label{eq:kAdSab}\\
k^{ab,c} & = 0, \\
k^{ab,cd} & = - \eta^{\left[ ab \right] \left[ cd \right]},
\label{3.25}
\end{align
so that
\begin{equation}
\bm{C}_{\text{AdS}} = 4
\left(
\bm{P}^{a}
\bm{P}_{a}
- \frac{1}{2}
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{J}^{ab}
\right).
\label{3.26}
\end{equation}
This result is valid for any dimension $d \geq 4$.
There is another Killing ``metric'' that can be constructed only in $d=4$.
This is given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{k}_{AB} =
\frac{1}{\Tr \left( \openone \right)}
\Tr
\left(
\Gamma_{\ast}
\bm{T}_{A}
\bm{T}_{B}
\right),
\label{3.27}
\end{equation
where $\Gamma _{\ast}$ is the usual $\gamma_{5}$ matrix.
A direct calculation shows that
\begin{align}
\bar{k}_{a,b} & = 0, \\
\bar{k}_{ab,cd} & = - \frac{1}{4} \epsilon_{abcd}, \\
\bar{k}_{ab,c} & = 0.
\label{3.28}
\end{align}
This ``metric,'' however, is not invertible,
so that we cannot construct a Casimir operator for the AdS algebra from it.
On second thought, it \emph{is} possible to use this ``metric'' to construct a Casimir operator for the
Lorentz subalgebra, because, when so restricted, the metric turns out to be invertible.
We find
\begin{equation}
\bar{k}^{ab,cd} = - \epsilon^{abcd}.
\label{3.29}
\end{equation}
This means that a (quadratic) Casimir operator for the Lorentz group is given by
\begin{equation}
\bm{\bar{C}}_{\text{L}} = - \epsilon^{abcd} \bm{J}_{ab} \bm{J}_{cd}.
\label{3.30}
\end{equation}
\section{Casimir Operators for the semi-simple extended Poincar\'{e} algebra}
\label{sec:Caspart}
We consider the construction of the metric $m_{\alpha \beta }$ corresponding
to the semigroup $S_{\text{S2}}$, whose multiplication law is given in eqs.~(\ref{3.1}) and~(\ref{3.2}).
The semigroup $S_{\text{S2}}$ is interesting
because, although it is not a group, it is \emph{cyclic} (i.e., similar to $\mathbbm{Z}_{3}$). The
elements of the semigroup can be represented by the following set of matrices:
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{0} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right),
\quad
\lambda_{1} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 &
\end{array
\right),
\quad
\lambda_{2} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 &
\end{array
\right).
\label{3.31}
\end{equation
It is straightforward to verify that the representation~(\ref{3.31}) faithfully
satisfies eqs.~(\ref{3.1}) and~(\ref{3.2}).
The two-selectors
$\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{\gamma}$
of $S_{\text{S2}}$ can be represented as
[cf.~eqs.~(1)--(2) from Ref.~\cite{Iza06b}]
\begin{equation}
\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{0} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right),
\quad
\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{1} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 &
\end{array
\right),
\quad
\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{2} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 &
\end{array
\right).
\label{3.32}
\end{equation}
This, in turn, implies that a generic metric $m_{\alpha \beta}$ for $S_{\text{S2}}$ reads
\begin{equation}
m_{\alpha \beta} =
\alpha_{\lambda}
\swne{K}{\alpha \beta}{\lambda} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_{0} & \alpha_{1} & \alpha_{2} \\
\alpha_{1} & \alpha_{2} & \alpha_{1} \\
\alpha_{2} & \alpha_{1} & \alpha_{2}
\end{array}
\right),
\label{3.33}
\end{equation
where the $\alpha_{\lambda}$ are numerical coefficients.
The inverse metric is given by
\begin{equation}
m^{\alpha \beta} =
\frac{1}{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_{2}^{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} &
0 &
-\left( \alpha_{2}^{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} \right)
\\
0 &
\alpha_{2} \left( \alpha_{0} - \alpha_{2} \right) &
-\alpha_{1} \left( \alpha_{0} - \alpha_{2} \right)
\\
-\left( \alpha_{2}^{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} \right) &
-\alpha_{1} \left( \alpha_{0} - \alpha_{2} \right) &
\alpha_{0} \alpha_{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2}
\end{array
\right),
\label{3.34}
\end{equation
where $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ must be chosen so that
\begin{equation}
\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right) =
\left( \alpha_{0} - \alpha_{2} \right)
\left( \alpha_{2} + \alpha_{1} \right)
\left( \alpha_{2} - \alpha_{1} \right)
\neq 0.
\label{3.35}
\end{equation}
The quadratic Casimir operators for the SSEP algebra has the for
\footnote{The $m^{12}$-term is absent from the sum because the corresponding components of the Casimir operator for the AdS algebra in $d \geq 4$ vanish, $C^{ab,c} = C^{a,bc} =0$ [see eq.~(\ref{eq:m12=0})].}
\begin{align}
\bm{C} & =
m^{\alpha \beta}
C^{AB}
\bm{T}_{\left( A, \alpha \right)}
\bm{T}_{\left( B, \beta \right)}
\nonumber \\ & =
m^{00}
C^{ab,cd}
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{J}_{cd} +
m^{11}
C^{ab}
\bm{P}_{a}
\bm{P}_{b} +
2 m^{02}
C^{ab,cd}
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{Z}_{cd} +
m^{22}
C^{ab,cd}
\bm{Z}_{ab}
\bm{Z}_{cd}
\nonumber \\ & =
\frac{1}{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}
\left[
\left( \alpha_{2}^{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} \right)
C^{ab,cd}
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{J}_{cd} +
\alpha _{2} \left( \alpha_{0} - \alpha_{2} \right)
C^{ab}
\bm{P}_{a}
\bm{P}_{b} +
\right.
\nonumber \\ &
\left. -
2 \left( \alpha_{2}^{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} \right)
C^{ab,cd}
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{Z}_{cd} +
\left( \alpha_{0} \alpha_{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} \right)
C^{ab,cd}
\bm{Z}_{ab}
\bm{Z}_{cd}
\right],
\label{3.36}
\end{align}
where $C^{AB}$ are the components of the Casimir operator for the AdS algebra.
Plugging eqs.~(\ref{eq:kAdSab})--(\ref{3.25}) into eq.~(\ref{3.36}) we find
\begin{equation}
\bm{C}=\frac{4}{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}\left[ \frac{1}{2}\left( \alpha
_{2}^{2}-\alpha _{1}^{2}\right) \bm{J}_{ab}\bm{J
^{ab}+\alpha _{2}\left( \alpha _{0}-\alpha _{2}\right) \bm{P}_{a
\bm{P}^{a}-\left( \alpha _{2}^{2}-\alpha _{1}^{2}\right) \bm
J}_{ab}\bm{Z}^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}\left( \alpha _{0}\alpha _{2}-\alpha
_{1}^{2}\right) \bm{Z}_{ab}\bm{Z}^{ab}\right] . \label{3.37}
\end{equation}
Defining
\begin{align}
\alpha & =
\alpha_{2} \alpha_{0} - \alpha_{2}^{2}, \\
\beta & =
\alpha_{2} \alpha_{0} - \alpha_{1}^{2},
\label{3.38}
\end{align
eq.~(\ref{3.37}) can be cast in the form
\begin{align}
\bm{C}& =\frac{4}{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}\left[ \frac{1}{2}\left( \beta -\alpha
\right) \bm{J}_{ab}\bm{J}^{ab}+\alpha \bm{P}_{a
\bm{P}^{a}-\left( \beta -\alpha \right) \bm{J}_{ab
\bm{Z}^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}\beta \bm{Z}_{ab}\bm{Z}^{ab
\right] \notag \\
& =\frac{4}{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}\left[ \alpha \left( \bm{P}_{a}\bm{P}^{a}
\frac{1}{2}\bm{J}_{ab}\bm{J}^{ab}+\bm{J}_{ab
\bm{Z}^{ab}\right) +\beta \left( \frac{1}{2}\bm{J}_{ab
\bm{J}^{ab}-\bm{J}_{ab}\bm{Z}^{ab}+\frac{1}{2
\bm{Z}_{ab}\bm{Z}^{ab}\right) \right] \label{3.39}
\end{align}
Since $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are arbitrary,
subject only to the condition $\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right) \neq 0$,
we can conclude that eq.~(\ref{3.39}) shows that
the SSEP possess
\emph{two} independent Casimir operators, namely
\begin{align}
\bm{C}_{1}& =\frac{4\alpha }{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}\left( \bm{P}_{a
\bm{P}^{a}+\bm{J}_{ab}\bm{Z}^{ab}-\frac{1}{2
\bm{J}_{ab}\bm{J}^{ab}\right) , \label{3.40} \\
\bm{C}_{2}& =\frac{2\beta }{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}\left( \bm{Z}_{ab
\bm{Z}^{ab}-2\bm{J}_{ab}\bm{Z}^{ab}+\bm{J
_{ab}\bm{J}^{ab}\right) . \label{3.41}
\end{align}
There exists a third Casimir operator,
but it is valid only for the subspace spanned by $\bm{J}_{ab}$ and $\bm{Z}_{ab}$,
and not for the full SSEP algebra.
This Casimir operator is constructed from
$\bar{k}^{\left( ab,cd \right)} = - \epsilon^{abcd}$
[cf.~eq.~(\ref{3.29})],
and is given by
\begin{align}
\bar{\bm{C}}_{JZ} & =
-\frac{1}{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}
\left[
\left( \alpha_{2}^{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} \right)
\epsilon^{abcd}
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{J}_{cd} -
2 \left( \alpha_{2}^{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} \right)
\epsilon^{abcd}
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{Z}_{cd} +
\left( \alpha_{0} \alpha_{2} - \alpha_{1}^{2} \right)
\epsilon^{abcd}
\bm{Z}_{ab}
\bm{Z}_{cd}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & = -
\frac{\epsilon^{abcd}}{\det \left( m_{\alpha \beta} \right)}
\left[
\alpha
\bm{Z}_{ab}
\bm{Z}_{cd} -
2 \left( \beta - \alpha \right)
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{Z}_{cd} +
\left( \beta - \alpha \right)
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{J}_{cd}
\right].
\label{3.43}
\end{align}
The Casimir operators of the SSEP algebra
obtained in Refs.~\cite{Sor04,Dup05,Sor06,Sor10} are apparently different from the ones shown
in eqs.~(\ref{3.40})--(\ref{3.41}).
The mismatch, however, is only superficial.
Indeed, if we take $c=1$ and $a=i/2$ in eqs.~(2.2) and~(2.3) from Ref.~\cite{Sor06},
we readily get the operators $\bm{C}_{1}$ and $\bm{C}_{2}$ shown in eqs.~(\ref{3.40})--(\ref{3.41}).
Performing the same rescaling and choosing
$\alpha $ $=1$ y $\beta $ $=2$ in $\bm{\bar{C}}_{JZ}$,
we can verify that the Casimir operator $\bm{C}_{3}$ of Ref.~\cite{Sor06}
exactly matches our $\bm{\bar{C}}_{JZ}$ Casimir operator.
\section{A generalized action for Chern--Simons gravity in $2+1$ dimensions}
\label{sec:CS}
In this section we find a rank-two, symmetric invariant tensor for the SSEP algebra
and use it to build the more general action for CS gravity in $2+1$ dimensions.
\subsection{The Invariant Tensor}
It is easy to see that the most general symmetric invariant tensor of rank two for the AdS algebra
in three-dimensional spacetime is given by
(see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Iza09a})
\begin{align}
\left\langle
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{J}_{cd}
\right\rangle
& =
\tilde{\mu}_{0}
\left(
\eta_{ad} \eta_{bc} - \eta_{ac} \eta_{bd}
\right),
\label{ti1} \\
\left\langle
\bm{J}_{ab}
\bm{P}_{c}
\right\rangle
& =
\tilde{\mu}_{1}
\epsilon_{abc},
\label{ti2} \\
\left\langle
\bm{P}_{a}
\bm{P}_{b}
\right\rangle
& =
\tilde{\mu}_{0}
\eta_{ab},
\label{ti3}
\end{align}
where $\mu_{0}$ and $\mu_{1}$ are arbitrary constants.
Theorem~7.2 from Ref.~\cite{Iza06b} assures us that the only nonzero components
of the corresponding symmetric invariant tensor for the SSEP algebra are
\begin{align}
\left\langle
\bm{N}_{ab}
\bm{N}_{cd}
\right\rangle & =
\alpha_{0}
\left(
\eta_{ad}
\eta_{bc} -
\eta_{ac}
\eta_{bd}
\right),
\label{ti4}
\\
\left\langle
\bm{L}_{ab}
\bm{L}_{cd}
\right\rangle & =
\alpha_{2}
\left(
\eta_{ad}
\eta_{bc} -
\eta_{ac}
\eta_{bd}
\right),
\label{ti6}
\\
\left\langle
\bm{L}_{ab}
\bm{L}_{c3}
\right\rangle & =
\alpha_{1}
\epsilon_{abc},
\label{ti8}
\\
\left\langle
\bm{L}_{a3}
\bm{L}_{b3}
\right\rangle & =
\alpha_{2}
\eta_{ab},
\label{ti9}
\end{align}
where $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ are arbitrary constants.
\subsection{Chern--Simons action for the semi-simple extended Poincar\'{e}
algebra in $2+1$ dimensions}
A generic CS Lagrangian in $\left( 2+1 \right)$-dimensional spacetime reads~\cite{Cha89,Cha90,Zan05}
\begin{equation}
L_{\text{CS}}^{2+1} =
2 k
\int_{0}^{1} dt
\left\langle
\bm{A} \left( t \mathrm{d} \bm{A} + t^{2} \bm{A}^{2} \right)
\right\rangle =
k
\left\langle
\bm{A} \left( \mathrm{d} \bm{A} + \frac{2}{3} \bm{A}^{2} \right)
\right\rangle,
\label{chs1}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{A}$ is a Lie algebra-valued one-form gauge connection and $k$ is an arbitrary coupling constant
\footnote{Wedge product between differential forms is understood throughout. Note that commutators between Lie algebra-valued differential forms carry the expected sign changes, so that, e.g.,
$\left[ \bm{A}, \bm{A} \right] = 2 \bm{A} \bm{A} = 2 \bm{A}^{2}$.}
For the SSEP algebra we may write
\begin{equation}
\bm{A} =
\frac{1}{2}
\varpi^{ab}
\bm{N}_{ab} +
\frac{1}{2}
\omega^{AB}
\bm{L}_{AB} =
\frac{1}{2}
\varpi^{ab}
\bm{N}_{ab} +
\frac{1}{2}
\omega^{ab}
\bm{L}_{ab} +
\omega^{a3}
\bm{L}_{a3}.
\label{chs2}
\end{equation
For the sake of convenience, let us define the SSEP-valued one-form gauge fields
\begin{align}
\bm{\varpi} =
\frac{1}{2} \varpi^{ab} \bm{N}_{ab}, \\
\bm{\omega} =
\frac{1}{2} \omega^{ab} \bm{L}_{ab}, \\
\bm{\varphi} =
\omega^{a3} \bm{L}_{a3}.
\end{align}
In terms of these, $\bm{A}$ takes on the simple form
\begin{equation}
\bm{A} = \bm{\varpi} + \bm{\omega} + \bm{\varphi}.
\label{chs3}
\end{equation
A straightforward calculation shows that the CS Lagrangian for the SSEP algebra in three-dimensional spacetime may be written as
\begin{align}
L_{\text{SSEP}}^{2+1} & = k
\left\langle
\bm{\varpi} \mathrm{d} \bm{\varpi} +
\bm{\varpi} \mathrm{d} \bm{\omega} +
\bm{\varpi} \mathrm{d} \bm{\varphi} +
\frac{1}{3} \bm{\varpi}
\left[
\bm{\varpi},
\bm{\varpi}
\right]
\right\rangle +
\nonumber \\ & + k
\left\langle
\bm{\omega} \mathrm{d} \bm{\varpi} +
\bm{\omega} \mathrm{d} \bm{\omega} +
\bm{\omega} \mathrm{d} \bm{\varphi} +
\frac{1}{3} \bm{\omega}
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\omega}
\right] +
\frac{2}{3} \bm{\omega}
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\varphi}
\right] +
\frac{1}{3} \bm{\omega}
\left[
\bm{\varphi},
\bm{\varphi}
\right]
\right\rangle
\nonumber \\ & + k
\left\langle
\bm{\varphi} \mathrm{d} \bm{\varpi} +
\bm{\varphi} \mathrm{d} \bm{\omega} +
\bm{\varphi} \mathrm{d} \bm{\varphi} +
\frac{1}{3} \bm{\varphi}
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\omega}
\right] +
\frac{2}{3} \bm{\varphi}
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\varphi}
\right] +
\frac{1}{3}
\bm{\varphi}
\left[
\bm{\varphi},
\bm{\varphi}
\right]
\right\rangle.
\label{chs5}
\end{align}
The SSEP two-form curvature reads
\begin{align}
\bm{F} & =
\mathrm{d} \bm{A} + \bm{A}^{2}
\nonumber \\ & =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varpi} +
\mathrm{d} \bm{\omega} +
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varphi} +
\bm{\varpi} \bm{\varpi} +
\bm{\omega} \bm{\omega} +
\bm{\varphi} \bm{\varphi} +
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\varphi}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & =
\left(
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varpi} +
\bm{\varpi} \bm{\varpi}
\right) +
\left(
\mathrm{d} \bm{\omega} +
\bm{\omega} \bm{\omega}
\right) +
\left(
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varphi} +
\bm{\varphi} \bm{\varphi} +
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\varphi}
\right]
\right),
\label{chs6}
\end{align}
so that it proves convenient to define the following partial curvatures:
\begin{align}
\tilde{\bm{R}} & =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varpi} +
\bm{\varpi} \bm{\varpi} =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varpi} +
\frac{1}{2}
\left[
\bm{\varpi},
\bm{\varpi}
\right],
\label{chs7} \\
\bm{R} & =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\omega} +
\bm{\omega} \bm{\omega} =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\omega} +
\frac{1}{2}
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\omega}
\right],
\\
\tilde{\bm{T}} & =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varphi} +
\bm{\varphi} \bm{\varphi} +
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\varphi}
\right] =
\bm{T} +
\frac{1}{2}
\left[
\bm{\varphi},
\bm{\varphi}
\right],
\end{align}
where $\bm{T} = \mathrm{d} \bm{\varphi} + \left[ \bm{\omega}, \bm{\varphi} \right]$.
From the definition of covariant derivative we can write
\begin{align}
\mathrm{D} \bm{\varpi} & =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varpi} +
\left[
\bm{\varpi},
\bm{\varpi}
\right]
\\
\mathrm{D} \bm{\omega} & =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\omega} +
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\omega}
\right] +
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\varphi}
\right],
\\
\mathrm{D} \bm{\varphi} & =
\mathrm{d} \bm{\varphi} +
\left[
\bm{\omega},
\bm{\varphi}
\right] +
\left[
\bm{\varphi},
\bm{\varphi}
\right] =
\bm{T} +
\left[
\bm{\varphi},
\bm{\varphi}
\right].
\label{chs9}
\end{align}
Using eqs.~(\ref{chs7})--(\ref{chs9}) in~(\ref{chs5}), we get
\begin{align}
L_{\text{SSEP}}^{2+1} & =
\frac{k}{4}
\varpi^{ab}
\left(
\mathrm{d} \varpi^{cd} +
\frac{2}{3}
\nwse{\varpi}{c}{e}
\varpi^{ed}
\right)
\left\langle
\bm{N}_{ab}
\bm{N}_{cd}
\right\rangle +
\frac{k}{4}
\omega^{ab}
\left(
\mathrm{d} \omega^{cd} +
\frac{2}{3}
\nwse{\omega}{c}{e}
\omega^{ed}
\right)
\left\langle
\bm{L}_{ab}
\bm{L}_{cd}
\right\rangle +
\nonumber \\ & + k
\left(
R^{ab}
\omega^{c3} -
\frac{2}{3}
\omega^{a3}
\omega^{b3}
\omega^{c3}
\right)
\left\langle
\bm{L}_{ab}
\bm{L}_{c3}
\right\rangle +
k \mathrm{D} \omega^{a3}
\omega^{c3}
\left\langle
\bm{L}_{a3}
\bm{L}_{c3}
\right\rangle
- \mathrm{d}
\left(
\frac{k}{2}
\omega^{ab}
\omega^{c3}
\left\langle
\bm{L}_{ab}
\bm{L}_{c3}
\right\rangle
\right).
\label{chs10}
\end{align}
Introducing the invariant tensor~(\ref{ti4})--(\ref{ti9}) in eq.~(\ref{chs10}),
we find that the CS action for the SSEP algebra, in the
$\left\{ \bm{N}_{ab}, \bm{L}_{CD} \right\}$
basis, is given b
\footnote{Here we have absorbed $k$ in the $\alpha_{i}$ constants.}
\begin{align}
S_{\text{SSEP}}^{\left( 2+1 \right)} & =
\int_{M}
\frac{1}{2}
\alpha_{0}
\nwse{\varpi}{a}{c}
\left(
\mathrm{d} \nwse{\varpi}{c}{a} +
\frac{2}{3}
\nwse{\varpi}{c}{d}
\nwse{\varpi}{d}{a}
\right) +
\alpha_{1}
\epsilon_{abc}
\left(
R^{ab}
\omega^{c3} +
\frac{1}{3}
\omega^{a3}
\omega^{b3}
\omega^{c3}
\right) +
\nonumber \\ & +
\alpha_{2}
\mathrm{D} \omega^{a3}
\swne{\omega}{a}{3} +
\frac{1}{2}
\alpha_{2}
\nwse{\omega}{a}{c}
\left(
\mathrm{d}
\nwse{\omega}{c}{a}+
\frac{2}{3}
\nwse{\omega}{c}{d}
\nwse{\omega}{d}{a}
\right) -
\mathrm{d}
\left(
\frac{\alpha_{1}}{2}
\epsilon_{abc}
\omega^{ab}
\omega^{c3}
\right).
\end{align}
Relabeling $\omega ^{a3} = e^{a}/l$, where $l$ is a length, we may write
\begin{align}
S_{\text{SSEP}}^{\left( 2+1 \right)} & =
\frac{\alpha_{0}}{2}
\int_{M}
\nwse{\varpi}{a}{c}
\left(
\mathrm{d} \nwse{\varpi}{c}{a} +
\frac{2}{3}
\nwse{\varpi}{c}{d}
\nwse{\varpi}{d}{a}
\right) +
\nonumber \\ & +
\frac{\alpha_{1}}{l}
\left[
\int_{M}
\epsilon_{abc}
\left(
R^{ab}
e^{c} +
\frac{1}{3l^{2}}
e^{a}
e^{b}
e^{c}
\right) -
\frac{1}{2}
\int_{\partial M}
\epsilon_{abc}
\omega^{ab}
e^{c}
\right]
\nonumber \\ & +
\frac{\alpha _{2}}{2}
\int_{M}
\left[
\nwse{\omega}{a}{c}
\left(
\mathrm{d} \nwse{\omega}{c}{a} +
\frac{2}{3}
\nwse{\omega}{c}{d}
\nwse{\omega}{d}{a}
\right) +
\frac{2}{l^{2}}
e_{a}
T^{a}
\right],
\label{chs12}
\end{align
where we have used
$\mathrm{D} \omega^{a3} =
\mathrm{D} e^{a} / l =
T^{a} / l$.
The action in eq.~(\ref{chs12}) is probably the most general action for CS
gravity in $2+1$ dimensions.
\section{Comments}
\label{sec:final}
We have shown that:
(i)~the SSEP algebra
$\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,1 \right) \oplus \mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2\right)$
of Refs.~\cite{Sor04,Dup05,Sor06,Sor10} can be obtained from the AdS algebra
$\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2 \right)$ via the $S$-expansion procedure~\cite{Iza06b,Iza09a}
with an appropriate semigroup $S$;
(ii)~there exists a prescribed method for computing Casimir operator for $S$-expanded algebras,
which is exemplified through the SSEP algebra; and
(iii)~the above-mentioned $S$-expansion methods allowed us to obtain an invariant tensor for the
SSEP algebra, which in turn permits the construction of
the more general action for CS gravity in $2+1$ dimensions.
The interesting facts here are that the resultant theory corresponds to the sum
of the CS forms associated to the direct sum of
$\mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,1\right) \oplus \mathfrak{so} \left( D-1,2\right)$
of the Lorentz and the AdS Lie algebras.
The action~(\ref{chs12}) includes among its terms:
(i)~a term corresponding to the so-called ``exotic Lagrangian''
for the connection $\bm{\varpi}$, which is invariant under the Lorentz algebra~\cite{Zan05}; and
(ii)~the topological Mielke--Baekler action for three-dimensional gravity (for details, see Ref.~\cite{Mie91}).
\begin{acknowledgments}
P.~S.\ was supported in part by
Direcci\'{o}n de Investigaci\'{o}n, Universidad de Concepci\'{o}n through Grant \# 210.011.053-1.0
and in part by
Fondecyt through Grant \# 1080530.
Three of the authors (O.~F., N.~M. and O.~V.) were supported by grants from the
Comisi\'{o}n Nacional de Investigaci\'{o}n Cient\'{\i}fica y Tecnol\'{o}gica CONICYT and from
Universidad de Concepci\'{o}n, Chile.
J.~D.\ was supported in part by Universidad Arturo Prat.
F.~I.\ and E.~R.\ were supported by the
National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research, Chile, through Fondecyt research grants 11080200 and 11080156, respectively.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{utphys}
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an advanced modality for noninvasive medical diagnosis with continuously growing clinical applications. In comparison with other medical imaging modalities, such as x-ray computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound, MRI is beneficiary in a way that it provides very safe scanning, high spatial resolution and flexible contrast for displaying body tissues. It is, however, also known that the data acquisition of MRI is a relatively long process, which is governed by the time required for physical excitation and relaxation of the radio frequency (RF) magnetic field. The relatively low speed of MRI scan can be an uncomfortable experience for patients and can result in low patient throughput of MRI scan operation. It can also cause motion artifacts in images, typically for respiratory or cardiac organs which have motions during the examination.
To accelerate the scan speed without compromising the image quality has been an important and challenging problem in the MRI research. For this purpose, modern MRI scanners implement multiple receiver coils in phased array mode for parallel acquisition of MRI data in the $k$-space. This technology is known as parallel MRI (pMRI). In pMRI, distinct spatial sensitivities of the receiver coils can enable simultaneous acquisition of $k$-space data containing complementary information.
As a result, the pMRI can accelerate MRI scans to considerably reduce the overall scan time and a combined set of undersampled partial $k$-space data acquired from different receiver coils can provide sufficient information for image reconstruction.
The MRI produces gray value images displaying the spatial magnetic spin density function of the imaged object. The magnetized spin density function is complex valued with magnitude and phase and is determined by the proton density of the imaged object, the external magnetic field and RF excitation pulses. The coil sensitivity functions are also complex valued and bounded due to their finite inductance values \cite{roemer_1990}. To reconstruct the MR image from the $k$-space data of a single receiver coil scanner is an inverse Fourier transform process under the uniform sensitivity assumption. But the pMRI reconstruction using undersampled $k$-space data is not a straightforward task. It requires knowledge of spatial sensitivity functions of the multiple receiver coils, which are in general not only determined by the coil instrumentation but also dependent upon the imaged object. There have been numerous algorithms developed in past years for pMRI reconstruction. Depending on how the information of sensitivity functions is incorporated into the image reconstruction and how the image information is reconstructed, the existing reconstruction algorithms can be classified into three groups.
The first group of algorithms pre-estimates the complex valued sensitivity functions and use the estimated results to reconstruct the magnitude and phase functions of the complex valued image. The performance of the algorithms depends on the accuracy of the pre-estimated sensitivity functions. Typical algorithms of this group are SMASH\cite{sodik_1997}, SENSE \cite{pruessmann_1999}, and their extensions such as \cite{kyria_2000, liu_2007, Madore_2004}. Also included in this group are some algorithms based on estimation of sensitivity functions and regularized optimization e.g. \cite{majumdar_2012, chen_2012, liu_2008, liang_2009, huang_2010}. The second group of algorithms estimates the sensitivity encoded images of each receiver coil first followed by a image reconstruction operation to obtain the image. These algorithms do not require knowledge of the sensitivity functions but the reconstructed image function is magnitude only without containing the phase information. Typical algorithms of this group is GRAPPA \cite{griswold_2002}, IIR GRAPPA \cite{zhaolin_2010} and their extensions using the sum-of-squares (SOS) operation \cite{roemer_1990}. There are also recent algorithms which reconstruct the sensitivity encoded images by regularized optimization, e.g. \cite{lustig_2010, murphy_2012, weller_2013, park_2012}. The third group of algorithms formulates the pMRI reconstruction into a regularized optimization problem without requiring estimation of sensitivity functions \cite{leslie_2007,uecker_2008,huajun_2010,derya_2011,knoll_2012}. The algorithms jointly compute the complex valued image and sensitivity functions by minimizing a performance index function which incorporates the reconstruction error and regularization terms. Because of the inherent cross product terms of the image and sensitivity functions, the formulated optimization problem is bilinear in the optimization variables and hence nonconvex. It therefore can only result in a local solution depending on the selection of initial condition and has difficulties in finding the global optimal solution as well as computational complexity.
This paper considers the pMRI reconstruction problem by regularized optimization without using knowledge of the sensitivity functions and tackles the difficulties of nonconvex optimization and local solution of the third group of algorithms. It is shown that, if only the magnitudes of the image and sensitivity functions are reconstructed, the pMRI reconstruction can be formulated into a linear and convex optimization problem which has a global optimal solution. The linear and convex formulation of the problem can lead to efficient computing of the solution and the global optimal solution can outperform other pMRI reconstruction algorithms. Without loss of popularity and as the second group of algorithms including GRAPPA and its extensions have done, the magnitude only image reconstruction can meet the needs of most clinical applications. It is also noted that there are some application cases, such as phase contrast imaging for detection of the velocity of flow \cite{pelc_1991}, where the phase infromation of the image is required and the magnitude only image reconstruction is not sufficient.
Like the two-step procedure of GRAPPA and its extensions, which first estimate the sensitivity encoded image functions of each coil followed by an SOS operation to construct the magnitude image, the proposed pMRI reconstruction in this paper is formulated into a two-step convex optimization problem, with the first step optimization solving the sensitivity encoded image functions of each coil and the second step optimization solving the magnitude image function. The two optimization steps operate sequentially in a way that the second step optimization is carried out after completion of the first step optimization, which is different from the iterative alternating optimization for solving the nonlinear optimization problems. The two-step convex optimization is implemented with an algorithm based on Split-bregman method\cite{goldstein_2009} and nuclear norm regularization\cite{majumdar_2011} and applied to in-vivo $k$-space data for pMRI reconstruction. Its performance in reconstruction accuracy and efficiency in comparison with other methods is demonstrated.
In this paper, $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{R}_+$ and $\mathbb{C}$ denote the sets of real, nonnegative real and complex numbers, respectively. The lower bold case letter denotes vectors and the capital bold case letter denotes matrices. $\preceq$ and $\succeq$ denote the elementwise operations of $\leq$ and $\geq$ on vectors, respectively. $\odot$ denotes the Hadamard or elementwise product of vectors. $| \cdot |$ takes
elementwise magnitude of vectors and $\angle$ unitizes elements of vectors, such that $\mathbf{v} = |\mathbf{v}|\odot \angle \mathbf{v}$ for a complex valued vector $\mathbf{v}$.
$\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ denotes the inner product of vectors. $\mathbf r = (x,y)$ and $\mathbf k=(k_x,k_y)$ denote the 2D coordinate systems of the spatial image and $k$-space domains, respectively.
\section{Formulation of the $k$-space data for convex optimization}
\subsection{The undersampled $k$ space data}
Consider a pMRI scanner implemented with $L$ receiver coils. Let $h(\mathbf{r})\in \mathbb{C}$ be the 2D spatial MR image function and $s_i(\mathbf{r}) \in \mathbb{C}$, $i=1,\cdots, L$, be the 2D spatial sensitivity functions of the coils. The sensitivity encoded image functions of the coils are $z_i(\mathbf{r})=h(\mathbf{r})s_i(\mathbf{r}) \in \mathbb{C}$, $i=1,\cdots, L$, which are products of $h(\mathbf{r})$ and $s_i(\mathbf{r})$. The MRI scan creates the following $k$-space functions of the $L$ receiver coils
\begin{equation}\label{model1}
g_i(\mathbf{k})= \int \int z_i(\mathbf{r})e^{-j2\pi\langle\mathbf{k},\mathbf{r}\rangle}d\mathbf{r},\quad i=1,\cdots,L,
\end{equation}
which are the Fourier transforms of $z_i(\mathbf{r})=h(\mathbf{r})s_i(\mathbf{r})$.
The discrete version of the Fourier transform equations in
(\ref{model1}) can be written in the vector forms as
\begin{equation}\label{dft}
\mathbf g_i =\mathbf{F} \mathbf{z}_i = \mathbf{F} (\mathbf{s}_i\odot\mathbf{h}), \ \ i=1,2,\cdots,L,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{h}, \ \mathbf{s_i}, \ \mathbf{z_i}, \ \mathbf{g_i} \in \mathbb{C}^{N^2}$, $i=1,\cdots, L$, are the discretized vectors of $h(\mathbf{r})$, $s_i(\mathbf{r})$, $z_i(\mathbf{r})$ and $g_i(\mathbf{k})$,
respectively, and the matrix $\mathbf{F} \in \mathbb{C}^{N^2\times N^2}$ operates the 2D discrete Fourier transform (DFT) on the vectorized form of 2D matrices. The undersampled vectors of the $k$-space data $\mathbf g_i$, denoted by $\tilde {\mathbf g}_i \in \mathbb{C}^M $, with $M < N^2$, can be represented as
\begin{equation}\label{undersampled}
\tilde {\mathbf g}_i = \tilde {\mathbf F} \mathbf{z }_i = \tilde {\mathbf F} (\mathbf{s}_i\odot\mathbf{h}), \ \ i=1,2,\cdots,L,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde {\mathbf F} \in \mathbb{C}^{M\times N^2}$ is the corresponding undersampled
2D DFT matrix operating on vectors.
\subsection{The convex solution space}
Given the undersampled $k$-space data vectors $\tilde {\mathbf g}_i$ in the form (\ref{undersampled}), to find a joint solution for the image ${\mathbf h}$ and sensitivity functions ${\mathbf s}_i$ is in general a nonlinear and nonconvex problem. If only the magnitude of the image function is considered, it is possible to construct a convex solution space for the magnitude image and the sensitivity encoded functions ${\mathbf z}_i$, which can further lead to a convex optimization formulation of the image reconstruction. An intuitive observation of the convex solution space is provided below.
Let ${\mathbf h}_m = \in \mathbb{R}_+^{N^2}$ be the magnitude of the image vector ${\mathbf h}$. Since the magnitudes of ${\mathbf s}_i$ are bounded due to bounded inductances of the coils, there exist constant vectors ${\mathbf b}_i \in \mathbb{R}_+^{N^2}$ such that $|{\mathbf s}_i| \preceq {\mathbf b}_i$, $i=1, \cdots, L$. It follows that
\begin{equation}\label{bounds}
|{\mathbf z}_i| \preceq \mathbf{b}_i \odot \mathbf{h}_m, \ \ i=1,\cdots,L.
\end{equation}
In each bilinear equation ${\mathbf z}_i=\mathbf{s}_i \odot \mathbf{h}_m$ of the sensitivity encoded image functions, there are two independent variable vectors which, if known, can determine the third vector variable. If ${\mathbf h}_m$ and ${\mathbf z}_i$ are considered as the solution variables, the inequalities (\ref{bounds}) form a cone shaped convex hull containing the solutions of ${\mathbf h}_m$ and ${\mathbf z}_i$, with properly chosen constant bound vectors ${\mathbf b}_i$. Such a convex solution space is
displayed in Fig. \ref{cone}, on top of the complex plane of ${\mathbf z}_i$, for the scalar case of ${\mathbf h}_m \in \mathbb{R}_+$ and ${\mathbf z}_i\in \mathbb{C}$. This solution space provides a basis for the convex optimization of the pMRI reconstruction problem and its extension to the high dimensional convex solution space is straightforward. It is, however, noted that
the convex solution space only exists for the magnitude image ${\mathbf h}_m$ but not for any other real or complex valued image vectors.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline
{\includegraphics[width=3in]{cone.jpg}}
\caption{Convex solution space for ${\mathbf h}_m$ and ${\mathbf z}_i$. }
\label{cone}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Linear formulation of the pMRI reconstruction}
The solution space for ${\mathbf h}_m$ and ${\mathbf z}_i$, as shown in Fig.\ref{cone}, displays the
convex nature of the problem. But, as seen from (\ref{undersampled}), the magnitude image ${\mathbf h}_m$ is a bilinear variable, coupled with ${\mathbf s}_i$, of the composite vectors ${\mathbf z}_i$, $i=1,\cdots,L$, so is not a linear variable of the problem equation.
To facilitate formulation of a linear model for the convex optimization, introduce the magnitude and phase vectors of $\mathbf{z}_i$ denoted by $\mathbf{m}_i=|\mathbf{s}_i\odot\mathbf{h}|$ and $\mathbf{p}_i=\angle (\mathbf{s}_i \odot \mathbf{h})$, respectively, such that $\mathbf{z}_i=\mathbf{m}_i \odot \mathbf{p}_i$, $i=1,\cdots,L$. Further introduce decoupling parameter vectors ${\mathbf d}_i \in \mathbb{R}_+^{N^2}$, $i=1,\cdots, L$, and denote their corresponding diagonal matrices as ${\mathbf D}_i$. Using ${\mathbf d}_i$, the magnitude vectors ${\mathbf m}_i$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{mi}
{\mathbf m}_i = -{\mathbf d}_i \odot {\mathbf h}_m + (|{\mathbf s}_i|+{\mathbf d}_i)\odot {\mathbf h}_m
= [-{\mathbf D}_i \ \ {\mathbf I}]
\left[\begin{array}{c} {\mathbf h}_m \\
{\mathbf {\bar m}}_i \end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
$i=1,\cdots, L$, where ${\mathbf {\bar m}}_i= (|{\mathbf s}_i|+{\mathbf d}_i)\odot {\mathbf h}_m$. It follows from $|{\mathbf s}_i| \preceq {\mathbf b}_i$ that ${\mathbf {\bar m}}_i$ are linearly and elementwisely bounded by ${\mathbf h}_m$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{bmi}
{\mathbf {\bar m}}_i \preceq {\mathbf c}_i \odot {\mathbf h}_m, \ \
i=1,\cdots, L
\end{equation}
where ${\mathbf c}_i={\mathbf b}_i+{\mathbf d}_i$.
Let $\tilde {\mathbf g}\in \mathbb{C}^{LM}$, ${\mathbf z}, {\mathbf p} \in \mathbb{C}^{LN^2}$ and ${\mathbf m}, \bar {\mathbf m} \in \mathbb{R}_+^{LN^2}$ be
the stacked vectors of ${\mathbf g}_i, \ {\mathbf z}_i, \ {\mathbf p}_i, \ {\mathbf m}_i$ and $\bar {\mathbf m_i}$, $i=1,\cdots, L$, respectively.
The undersampled $k$-space vectors $\tilde {\mathbf g}_i$ in (\ref{undersampled}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{tildeg}
\tilde {\mathbf g} =\mathbf{\bar F} {\mathbf z} =\mathbf{\bar F} ({\mathbf m} \odot {\mathbf p}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\bar F} \in \mathbb{C}^{LM \times LN^2}$ is the blocked diagonal matrix of $\tilde {\mathbf F}$. The stacked vector form of ${\mathbf m}_i$ in (\ref{mi}) is
\begin{equation}\label{m}
{\mathbf m} = \bar {\mathbf D}
\left[\begin{array}{c} {\mathbf h}_m \\
{\mathbf {\bar m}} \end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
where
$$\bar {\mathbf D} = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
-{\mathbf D}_1 & & & \\
\vdots & &{\mathbf I} & \\
-{\mathbf D}_L & & &
\end{array}\right]\in \mathbb{R}^{LM\times(L+1)N^2}.
$$
The vector equation (\ref{m}) shows that the magnitude ${\mathbf h}_m$ of the image function is linearly decoupled from the magnitude vector ${\mathbf m}$ of the sensitivity encoded image functions. This technical result is instrumental for the proposed convex optimization for pMRI reconstruction.
\section{Two-step convex optimization for pMRI reconstruction}
\subsection{General formulation}
It is observed from (\ref{tildeg}) that the global solution for the sensitivity encoded image vector ${\mathbf z}$ and hence its magnitude ${\mathbf m}$ and phase ${\mathbf p}$ can be obtained by solving the linear equation ${\mathbf {\tilde g}}={\mathbf {\bar F}} {\mathbf z}$. Using the solution
for ${\mathbf m}$, the linear equation (\ref{m}) can be further solved to obtain a solution for the magnitude ${\mathbf h}_m$ of the image. Once the magnitude ${\mathbf h}_m$ is obtained. The magnitudes $|{\mathbf s}_i|$, $i=1,\cdots, L$, of the sensitivity functions can be further determined using (\ref{mi}).
Based on this observation, the general formulation of the proposed pMRI reconstruction consists of two sequential convex optimization steps ${\cal P}_1$ and ${\cal P}_2$ as follows.
Based on [\ref{tildeg}], the first step solves the complex valued sensitivity encoded image vector ${\mathbf z}$ and hence its magnitude ${\mathbf m}$ and phase ${\mathbf p}$
by the following regularized convex optimization
\begin{equation}\label{dconvex1}
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal P}_1:
\begin{array}{l}
\min_{\mathbf{z}} {1 \over 2}\| \tilde {\mathbf{g}} - \bar {\mathbf{F}} {\mathbf{z}}\|_2^2 + R_1({\mathbf{z}}),
\end{array}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $R_1({\mathbf{z}})$ is a convex regularization function to be further specified according to application conditions.
Suppose that $\mathbf{z}^o=\mathbf{m}^o \odot \mathbf{p}^o$ is the optimal solution of the optimization problem ${\cal P}_1$ with $\mathbf{m}^o = |\mathbf{z}^o| \in \mathbb{R}_+^{LN^2}$ and
$\mathbf{p}^o = \angle \mathbf{z}^o \in \mathbb{C}^{LN^2}$ being the corresponding optimal solutions of $\mathbf{m}$
and $\mathbf{p}$, respectively. Substituting $\mathbf{m}^o=\mathbf{m}$ into (\ref{m}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{mo}
{\mathbf m}^o = \bar {\mathbf D}
\left[\begin{array}{c} {\mathbf h} \\
{\mathbf {\bar m}} \end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
Given ${\mathbf m}^o$, the second step of the proposed convex optimization is
\begin{equation}\label{dconvex2}
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal P}_2:
\begin{array}{l}
\min_{\mathbf{h}_m,\mathbf{\bar m}} {1 \over 2} \left\|
\bar {\mathbf m}^o - \bar {\mathbf D} \left[\begin{array}{c} {\mathbf h} \\
{\mathbf {\bar m}} \end{array}\right] \right\|_2^2 + R_2(\mathbf{h}_m,\mathbf{\bar m}),\\
\textrm{subject to:} \ \ \mathbf{h}_m \succeq {\mathbf 0}, \
{\mathbf 0} \preceq \mathbf{\bar m} \preceq {\mathbf c} \odot {\mathbf {\bar h_m}},
\end{array}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $R_2(\mathbf{h}_m,\mathbf{\bar m})$ is a convex regularization function to be further specified according to application conditions, ${\mathbf {\bar{h}_m}}, {\mathbf c} \in \mathbb{R}_+^{LN^2}$ are the $L$-fold stacked vector of ${\mathbf h_m}$ and the stacked vector of ${\mathbf c}_i$, $i=1, \cdots, L$, respectively. Since the linear equation (\ref{mo}) is underdetermined and has infinite number of solutions, the inequality ${\mathbf 0} \preceq \mathbf{\bar m} \preceq {\mathbf {\bar h}_m}$ based on (\ref{bmi}) forms a convex hull to constrain ${\mathbf h}_m$ and $\bar {\mathbf m}$ in the solution space. The solution for ${\cal P}_2$ provides the optimal magnitude image $\mathbf{h}_m^o$ as well as the optimal $\bar {\mathbf{m}}^o$. The corresponding optimal solutions $|\mathbf{s}_i|^o$, $i=1,\cdots, L$, for the magnitude of sensitivity functions can be further determined by
${\mathbf{\bar m}}_i^o=
(|{\mathbf{s}}_{i}|+{\mathbf{d}}_i) \odot {\mathbf{h}}_m^o$.
At some points where the image function has zero values, feasible solution values for sensitivity functions are not available. Proper interpolation may be introduced at these points for reconstruction of the magnitude sensitivity functions based on their smooth property.
In the two optimization steps ${\cal P}_1$ and ${\cal P}_2$, ${\cal P}_1$ is to optimize the solution for (\ref{tildeg}) and is originally a linear problem. The convexity of the optimization problem ${\cal P}_2$ is built upon the decoupled linear equation (\ref{mo}) and convex solution space specified by (\ref{bmi}). This is possible only if the solution variable is the magnitude only image vector. For complex valued ${\mathbf{z}}^o$ and ${\mathbf{h}}$, although a decoupling linear equation in the same form of (\ref{mo}) can be formulated, a convex set in the solution space does not exist for the decoupled variables, so the problem remains nonlinear and nonconvex.
\subsection{Split-bregman and nuclear norm regularized optimizations}
The above formulated convex optimization steps ${\cal P}_1$ and ${\cal P}_2$ are in general forms and can be implemented with different regularity functions and variable constraints. Taking into account properties of MR images and sensitivity functions, this subsection presents an implementation of
${\cal P}_1$ with split-bregman method and the nuclear norm regularized optimization for implementation and computation of ${\cal P}_2$.
The sensitivity encoded function $\mathbf{z}$ to be optimized in problem ${\cal P}_1$ is a product of the image and sensitivity functions and typically can have a piecewise smooth characteristic. The implementation of problem ${\cal P}_1$ takes this characteristic into account and incorporates it into the regularization function $R_1(\mathbf{z})$.
It is known that Bregman iteration \cite{bregman_1967} can solve a broad class of regularized optimization problems. It can result in superior image reconstruction performance when a hybrid of Bounded-Variation (BV) and Besov regularization is used \cite{goldstein_2009} and has been applied to MR image reconstruction, e.g. \cite{liu_2009}. Applying the split-bregman method to ${\cal P}_1$,
the regularization function $R_1({\mathbf{z}})$ can be formulated as
\begin{equation}\label{j11}
R_1({\mathbf{z}}) = {\lambda_1}\|{\mathbf{z}}\|_{BV} + {\gamma_1}\|{\mathbf{W}}{\mathbf{z}}\|_1,
\end{equation}
where $\|\cdot\|_{BV}$ denotes the bounded variation norm defined as $\|{\mathbf{z}}\|_{BV} = \sum \sqrt {|\nabla_x z|^2+|\nabla_y z|^2}$ with
$\nabla_x$ and $\nabla_y$ being the difference operators in the $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively,
${\mathbf{W}}$ is a wavelet transform matrix and $\lambda_1$ and $\gamma_1$ are regularization parameters. The regularization terms $\|{\mathbf{z}}\|_{BV}$ and $\|{\mathbf{W}}{\mathbf{z}}\|_1$ in (\ref{j11}) are to promote, respectively, the piecewise smoothness of and energy compactness of ${\mathbf{z}}$.
The two regularization terms, together with (\ref{dconvex1}), yield the following split-bregman regularized optimization for solving ${\cal P}_1$
\begin{equation}\label{opt11}
\min_{\mathbf{z}}
{1\over 2}\|\bar {\mathbf{F}}_c{\mathbf{z}}-\tilde {\mathbf{g}}\|_2^2 + {\lambda_1} \|{\mathbf{z}}\|_{BV} + {\gamma_1} \|{\mathbf{W}}{\mathbf{z}}\|_1.
\end{equation}
In the optimization of problem ${\cal P}_2$, a reduction of the magnitude ${\mathbf h}_m$ in the solution of the underdetermined linear equation (\ref{mo}) can result in the value of $\mathbf{\bar m}$ and hence the values of $|\mathbf{s}_i|$ to grow. Thus it requires a proper scale of the solutions for
${\mathbf h}_m$ and $\bar {\mathbf m}$ by the regularization function $R_2({\mathbf h}_m,\bar {\mathbf m})$ and appropriate constraints on the solutions. The implementation of ${\cal P}_2$ considers the nuclear norm regularized optimization \cite{recht_2010} which has shown promising results in computational efficiency and accuracy in the application to MR image reconstruction \cite{majumdar_2011}, \cite{majumdar_2012}. The nuclear norm of the magnitude image vector, denoted by $\|{\mathbf h}_m\|_\ast$, is defined as the sum of singular values of
${\mathbf h}_m$. To use $\|{\mathbf h}_m\|_\ast$ as a regularization term together with the inequalities [\ref{bmi}], which specify that the solution for $\mathbf{\bar m}$ is linearly bounded by ${\mathbf h}_m$ in a convex hull, can provide proper scaling and effective constraints on ${\mathbf h}_m$ and $\bar {\mathbf{m}}$ for computing the solution for ${\cal P}_2$. As a result, the convex optimization problem
${\cal P}_2$ is formulated as
\begin{equation}\label{opt21}
\min_{\mathbf{h},\mathbf{\tilde m}_z}{1 \over 2} \left\| \bar {\mathbf D}
\left[\begin{array}{c} {\mathbf h} \\
{\mathbf {\bar m}}_z \end{array}\right] - {\mathbf m}^o\right\|_2^2 +
{\lambda_2} \|{\mathbf{h}}_m\|_\ast,
\end{equation}
$$\textrm{subject to:}\ \mathbf{h}_m \succeq {\mathbf 0} \ \textrm{and} \
{\mathbf 0}\preceq \mathbf{\bar m} \preceq {\mathbf c} \odot {\bar {\mathbf{h}}_m}.$$
The above convex optimization problem (\ref{opt21}) can be equivalently formulated as
\begin{equation}\label{opt22}
\min_{\mathbf{h},\mathbf{\bar m},\mathbf{q}}
{1 \over 2} \left\| \bar {\mathbf D}
\left[\begin{array}{c} {\mathbf h} \\
{\mathbf {\bar m}} \end{array}\right] - \bar {\mathbf m}^o\right\|_2^2 +
{\lambda_2} \|{\mathbf{h}}_m\|_\ast +
{\gamma_2} \|{\mathbf c} \odot \mathbf{\bar h}-\mathbf{\bar m}-\mathbf{q}\|_2^2,
\end{equation}
$$\textrm{subject to:}\ \mathbf{h}_m \succeq {\mathbf 0}, \ \mathbf{\bar m} \succeq {\mathbf 0} \ \textrm{and} \
{\mathbf {q}}\succeq \mathbf{0},$$
where $\lambda_2$ and $\gamma_2$ are regularization parameters.
\section{Phantom and in-vivo data experiments}
\subsection{Cartesian and Non-Cartesian Data}
Two sets of in-vivo MRI data
were adopted to test the proposed convex reconstruction algorithm. The first is a brain data set (available at \url{http://black.bme.ntu.edu.tw/tool\_sense.html}) of a healthy human volunteer was acquired by a 3 Tesla SIEMENS Trio scanner with an eight-channel head array and an MPRAGE (3D Flash with IR prep.) sequence. The parameters of the scan were $TR/TE =2530/3.45$ ms, $TI = 1100 ms$, $N^2 =256\times 256$, flip angle $= 7^{\circ}$, slice Thickness $=1.33$ mm and $FOV =256\times 256$ mm$^2$. The fully acquired $k$-space data in the cartesian co-ordinate system are manually undersampled to obtain the uniform sampling with additional auto-calibration signal (USACS) patterns of $4$-, $8$-, $12$- and $16$-fold acceleration rates, respectively, with additional 36 extra auto-calibrating signal (ACS) lines in the central $k$ space region along the phase encoding direction in each pattern. As a result, the corresponding net reduction factors are $f_{net}=2.56, \ 3.76, \ 4.49$, and $4.92$, respectively.
Another $in-vivo$ data set of spine (available at \url{http://ece.tamu.edu/jimji/pulsarweb/downloads.htm}) was acquired from a $4$-channel cervical-thoracic-lumbar spine array using a fast spoiled gradient-echo sequence and parameters $TR/TE =300/12$ ms, $RBW = 62.5 kHz$, $N^2 =256\times 256$, tip angle $= 15^{\circ}$ and $FOV= 32\times 32$ cm$^2$. The fully acquired $k$-space data in the cartesian coordinate system are undersampled to generate the USACS patterns of $4$-, $6$- and $8$-fold acceleration rates, respectively, with each pattern having $32$ extra ACS lines along the phase encoding direction.
The proposed two-step convex optimization algorithm is also applied to a set of scanned non-cartesian phantom data, which is available at
\url{http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/\~mlustig}.
The phantom data set was scanned on a GE Signa-Excite 1.5T scanner using a $5$-channel cardiac coil set with a spiral gradient echo sequence.
The spiral trajectory was designed with $60$ interleaves, $30$ cm field of view, $0.75$ mm in-plane resolution and readout time of $5$ ms. The $k$-space Data was undersampled by choosing $20$ out of $60$ interleaves. For image reconstruction in case of non-cartesian data sets, the NUFFT code by \cite{fessler_2003} was applied.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline
{\includegraphics[width=3in]{fig1.jpg}}
\caption{Two examples of initial images}
\label{f1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline
{\includegraphics[width=3in]{brain1z2.jpg}}
\caption{Images reconstructed by our method for $8$ channel Brain Data,corresponding error images have been shown adjointly, Fig (a), (c), (e) and (g) resulted by a nominal reduction factor of $4, \ 8, \ 12$ and $16$ respectively and Fig (b), (d), (f) and (h) are the corresponding error images.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Computational set ups}
The computation of the split-bregman based optimization problem (\ref{opt11}) was implemented using the iterative algorithm proposed in \cite{goldstein_2009}. The algorithm proposed in \cite{majumdar_2011}, together with the result in \cite{law_1974}, was adopted for resolving the nuclear norm regularized optimization problem (\ref{opt21}). LSQR \cite{law_1974} tools were used in nuclear norm regularized optmization. For wavelet transformations in the $l_1$
Wavelet regularized reconstruction, David Donoho's Wavlab codes\cite{donoho_1996} were used. Two wavelet familes, "Haar" and "Daubechies" were selected as the sparsifying transform basis. The regularization parameters were empirically chosen and a tolerance value of $10^{-6}$ is selected for each step of iteration. Both algorithms are programmed with Matlab (Math-Works, Natick, MA, USA).
To evaluate the reconstruction accuracy, the reconstructed images, denoted by $\mathbf h^o$, are compared with the sum of square (SOS) image, denoted as $\mathbf h_{SOS}$, which is reconstructed using the fully sampled $k$-space data. The the normalized mean square error (NMSE) of $\mathbf h^o$ is defined as
$$e_{NMSE}={{\|\mathbf h^o-\mathbf h_{SOS}\|^2}\over {\|\mathbf h_{SOS}\|^2}}.$$
The reconstructed images by the proposed algorithm are computed and compared with the reconstructed images by conjugate gradient (CG)-SPIRiT \cite{lustig_2010} with $l_1$ penalty, GRAPPA \cite{griswold_2002}, JSENSE\cite{leslie_2007} and IRGN-TGV \cite{knoll_2012} algorithms for the in-vivo $8$ channel brain data sets under the same data reduction conditions. The Matlab codes as well as the regularization parameters and initial conditions, where applicable, for computations of these algorithms are originated from \url{http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~mlustig/Software.html} for GRAPPA and CG-SPIRiT,
\url{http://cai2r.net/sites/default/files/software/irgntv.zip} for IRGN-TGV and \url{https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/leiying/www/index_files/software.htm} for JSENSE.
The global solutions of the proposed convex optimization algorithm are tested with different initial image conditions. Two typical initial image conditions, a randomly generated matrix and diagonal lines matrix, shown in Fig. \ref{f1}, of compatible dimensions with reconstructed images.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centerline
{\includegraphics[width=6in]{comp4.jpg}}
\caption{Comparison between reconstructed images by different algorithms, nominal reduction factor is $f_{nom}=8$, Figures (a)-(e) represent the reconstructed images by the proposed method, IRGN-TGV, CG-SPIRiT, GRAPPA and JSENSE, respectively. A selected area of the image is zoomed for comparison and shown in the corresponding Figures (f)-(j).}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{In-vivo cartesian reconstruction}
Fig.\ref{fig3} (a), (c), (e) and (g) display the reconstructed images from manually under-sampled data of acceleration factors $4, \ 8, \ 12$ and $16$, respectively, for the eight-channel brain image in comparison with the reference image reconstructed by SOS from the full $k$-space data set. The regularization parameters are selected as $\lambda_1=0.01$, $\gamma_1=1$, $\lambda_2=50$ and $\gamma_2=0.05$, using the "Haar" transform. At a smaller acceleration rate such as $f_{nom}=4$, the reconstructed image portrays good quality with very small difference from the reference image. Some quality degradation can be observed from the reconstructed images with higher acceleration factor such as $f_{nom}=16$. The NMSEs of the images are computed as $0.0027$, $0.0040$, $0.0052$ and $0.0067$ for the acceleration factors of $4, \ 8, \ 12$ and $16$, and the corresponding error images are shown in Fig.\ref{fig3} (b), (d), (f) and (h), respectively.
{\small
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\caption{Comparison between NMSE of different algorithms}
\label{trf}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\bfseries $f_{nom}$ & \bfseries SPIRiT & \bfseries GRAPPA & \bfseries JSENSE & \bfseries IRGN & \bfseries Our Method\\
\hline\hline
4 & 0.0032 & 0.0064 & 0.0072 & 0.0036 & 0.0027\\
8 & 0.0049 & 0.0102 & 0.0096 & 0.0048 & 0.0040\\
12 & 0.0068 & 0.0125 & 0.0120 & 0.0065 & 0.0052\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline
{\includegraphics[width=2.9in]{spinef.jpg}}
\caption{Reconstruction images of the spine data set by the proposed method. Fig.\ref{fig6} (a)-(c) are resulted from reduction rates $f_{nom}=$$4, 6$ and $8$ respectively.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline
{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{spiral.jpg}}
\caption{Reconstruction results of the spiral non-cartesian data. Fig.\ref{fig7} (a) and (b) are the reconstructed image by our method and CG-SPIRiT and Fig.\ref{fig7} (c) and (d) are their error images in comparison with the reference image, respectively. Fig.\ref{fig7} (e) and (f) display a zoomed portion of the images reconstructed by our method and CG-SPIRiT, respectively, in comparison with the same portion of the reference image.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
For the brain date set of acceleration factor $8$, Fig.\ref{fig5} presents the reconstruction image of the proposed method in comparison with the images reconstructed by other commonly known algorithms, which are IRGN-TGV, CG-SPIRiT, GRAPPA and JSENSE. A selected area, as blocked within the marked rectangle in the reference image of Fig.\ref{fig5}, is zoomed for each reconstructed image and jointly displayed with the corresponding full size image for ease of comparison. Among these algorithms, GRAPPA and CG-SPIRiT are members of the second group using the SOS operation and IRGN-TGV and JSENSE are nonlinear optimization algorithms of the third group. Noticeable errors and artifacts are shown in reconstruction results of Fig.\ref{fig5} (c), (d) and (e) of CG-SPIRiT, GRAPPA and JSENSE algorithms, respectively. More careful observation can also find artifacts in the zoomed image Fig.\ref{fig5} (g) reconstructed by the nonlinear iterative algorithm IRGN-TGV. The NMSE values of the reconstructed images by the different algorithms are listed in Table \ref{trf}. The the average computational time durations of repeatedly running the original Matlab codes of the different reconstruction algorithms on a workstation with Intel Xeon Processor E5-2609 and 16 GB RAM are given in Table \ref{trc}.
For the in-vivo spine data set, the regularization parameters of the proposed algorithm are chosen as $\lambda_1=0.05$, $\gamma_1=0.5$, $\lambda_2=10$ and $\gamma_2=0.1$. The wavelet transform matrix is ${\mathbf{W}}=$"Haar". The reference image constructed by the full data set and SOS operation is given in Fig.\ref{fig6}, followed that the reconstructed images by the proposed method, for nominal undersampling rate $f_{nom}=4$ in Fig.\ref{fig6}(a). The estimated NMSE
of this reconstructed image is $e_{NMSE}=0.0038$. For higher reduction rates of $f_{nom}=6$ and $f_{nom}=8$, the corresponding reconstructed images by the proposed algorithm are shown in Fig.\ref{fig6}(b) and \ref{fig6}(c), with estimated NMSE values of $0.0044$ and $0.0049$, respectively.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\caption{Average computational times (secs) of different algorithms
over six repeated reconstruction processes}
\label{trc}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\bfseries SPIRiT & \bfseries GRAPPA & \bfseries JSENSE & \bfseries IRGN & \bfseries Our Method\\
\hline\hline
23 & 31 & 221 & 228 & 64\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Non-cartesian data reconstruction of phantom}
For the phantom data of the spiral pattern, a reference image as given in Fig.\ref{fig7} is produced by applying the NUFFT and SOS operations on the full data set.
The proposed algorithm, with regularization parameters $\lambda_1=0.01$, $\gamma_1=0.001$, $\lambda_2=10$, $\gamma_2=0.5$ and the wavelet transform matrix ${\mathbf{W}}=$"Daubechies", is applied to the undersampled spiral phantom data and produces the reconstructed image in Fig.\ref{fig7}(a) and the corresponding error image, with respect to the reference image, in Fig.\ref{fig7}(c). Another algorithm CG-SPIRiT which is capable of non-cartesian reconstruction is also applied to the same undersampled data set, resulting in the reconstructed image
in Fig.\ref{fig7}(b) and the corresponding error image in Fig.\ref{fig7}(d). A selected area from both reconstruction results are cropped and scaled up, as shown in Fig.\ref{fig7} (e) and (f) respectively, to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm.
\section{Discussions}
The proposed convex optimization approach to pMRI reconstruction is build upon a
convex solution space which exists only for the magnitude image function but does not exist for any real and complex valued images. This paper formulated a two-step convex optimization to solve the pMRI reconstruction and it is possible to solve the convex optimization problem with alternative formulations.
The solution space of the proposed two-step optimization is a convex hull specified by the constraints in (\ref{opt21}) which contains the true solution for the image and sensitivity functions. In general, the optimal solution and its computation depend on selections of the regularization parameters as well as the constraint vector $\mathbf c$ in (\ref{opt21}). A priori knowledge of the image and sensitivity functions and empirical tests of the parameter and constraints can be helpful for efficient and accurate computing of the solution. The proposed algorithm produces a global solution in the sense that the solution is unique and independent of the initial
image value for the computational algorithm. This is a distinctive characteristic of the proposed method, because all other existing methods for optimization of the image reconstruction, without using previously estimated sensitivity values or the SOS operation, can provide only local solutions, which are dependent on the initial value of the algorithm. In the phantom and in-vivo data reconstructions by the proposed method, all global solutions of the proposed algorithms were tested with different initial conditions including that shown in Fig.\ref{f1} and their uniqueness was verified. In contrast, the solutions of other algorithms based on non-convex optimization, such as IRGN-TGV and JSENSE, are local only. Our experiments showed that their reconstruction results are very different subject to different initial conditions.
The experiments of the in-vivo and phantom data sets demonstrated better image reconstruction quality of the proposed method than that of GRAPPA and CG-SPIRiT which are algorithms of the second group using SOS operation. It indicates that the optimization with properly specified regularization terms can provide better reconstruction results than that of the simple SOS operation. This reconstruction improvement, however, involves more workload in the iterative computing of the optimal solution, which can be seen from Table\ref{trc} of the computational time durations. Because of the linear and convex nature of our proposed algorithm, it has faster and more efficient computation of the optimal solutions in comparison with the nonlinear optimization algorithms IRGN-TGV and JSENSE as shown by their computational time durations in Table\ref{trc}.
The proposed algorithm for computing the phantom and in-vivo images is only a specific realization of the general linear and convex optimization method in terms of the two-step
optimization problems ${\cal P}_1$ and ${\cal P}_2$. Algorithms using other regularization terms and realizations
relevant to different reconstruction requirements can be possible and will be subject to future studies.
\section{Conclusion}
The reconstruction of MR images based on undersampled $k$-space data by optimization methods for pMRI is known as a nonlinear and nonconvex problem. It is a recently active research area in MRI
reconstruction and the existing optimization methods without using estimated sensitivity functions or the SOS operation can only provide local but not global solutions. And the solutions for such a nonlinear and nonconvex problem involve complicated computational procedures and iterations. In this paper, a linear equation is derived for the undersampled $k$-space data set in terms of the magnitude image function, which enables the formulation of the pMRI reconstruction into a two-step convex optimization problem. It is applicable to both cartesian and non-cartesian data sets and can provide a globally optimal solution and faster computation for the pMRI reconstruction problem. An algorithm is presented in this paper and applied to phantom and in-vivo MRI data sets to demonstrate the reconstruction performance and effectiveness of the proposed method.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{On gluins of affine semigroups}
In this section we take a quick tour summarizing some of the more relevant results on the gluing of affine semigroups. We also introduce concepts and notations that will be used later on in the paper.
An \emph{affine semigroup} $S$ is finitely generated submonoid of $\mathbb Z^m$ for some positive integer $m$. If $S \cap (-S) = 0$, that is to say $S$ is reduced, it can be shown that it has a unique minimal system of generators (see for instance \cite[Chapter 3]{RGS99}). The cardinality of the minimal generating system of $S$ is known as the \emph{embedding dimension} of $S$. Recall that each reduced affine semigroup can be embedded into $\mathbb{N}^m$ for some $m$. In the following we will assume that our affine semigroups are submonoids of $\mathbb{N}^m$.
Given an affine semigroup $S\subseteq \mathbb N^m$, denote by $\G(S)$ the group spanned by $S$, that is,
\[\G(S)=\big\{ \mathbf z \in \mathbb Z^m \mid \mathbf z= \mathbf a - \mathbf b, \mathbf a, \mathbf b\in S \big\}.\]
Let $A$ be the minimal generating system of $S$, and $A=A_1\cup A_2$ be a nontrivial partition of $A$. Let $S_i=\langle A_i\rangle$ (the monoid generated by $A_i$), $i\in \{1,2\}$. Then $S=S_1+S_2$. We say that $S$ is the \emph{gluing} of $S_1$ and $S_2$ by $\mathbf d$ if
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbf d\in S_1\cap S_2$ and,
\item $\G(S_1)\cap \G(S_2) = \mathbf d\mathbb Z$.
\end{itemize}
We will denote this fact by $S=S_1+_{\mathbf d} S_2$.
There are several properties that are preserved under gluings, and also some invariants of a gluing $S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$ can be computed by knowing their values in $S_1$ and $S_2$. We summarize some of them next.
Assume that $A=\{\mathbf a_1,\ldots,\mathbf a_k\}$. The monoid homomorphism $\varphi: \mathbb N^k\to S$ induced by $\mathbf e_i\mapsto \mathbf a_i$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$ is an epimorphism (where $\mathbf e_i$ is the $i$th row of the $k\times k$ identity matrix). Thus $S$ is isomorphic as a monoid to $\mathbb N^k/\ker\varphi$, where $\ker\varphi$ is the kernel congruence of $\varphi$, that is, the set of pairs $(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\in\mathbb N^k\times \mathbb N^k$ with $\varphi(\mathbf a)=\varphi(\mathbf b)$. A \emph{presentation} of $S$ is a system of generators of $\ker\varphi$. A \emph{minimal presentation} is a presentation such that none of its proper subsets is a presentation. All minimal presentations have the same (finite) cardinality (see for instance \cite[Corollary 9.5]{RGS99}). Suppose that $S=S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$, with $S_i=\langle A_i\rangle$, $i\in\{1,2\}$ and $A=A_1\cup A_2$ a nontrivial partition of $A$. We may assume without loss of generality that $A_1=\{\mathbf a_1,\ldots,\mathbf a_l\}$ and $A_2=\{\mathbf a_{l+1},\ldots,\mathbf a_k\}$. According to \cite[Theorem 1.4]{gluing}, if we know minimal presentations $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ of $S_1$ and $S_2$, respectively, then \[\rho=\rho_1\cup\rho_2\cup\{(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\}\] is a minimal presentation of $S$, for every $(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\in \mathbb N^k\times \mathbb N^k$ with $\varphi(\mathbf a)=\varphi(\mathbf b)$, the first $l$ coordinates of $\mathbf b$ equal to zero and the last $k-l$ coordinates of $\mathbf a$ equal to zero (actually, \cite[Theorem 1.4]{gluing} asserts that this characterizes that $S=S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$).
For an affine semigroup $S$ define $\Betti(S)$ as the set of $\mathbf s\in S$ for which there exists $\mathbf a,\mathbf b\in \varphi^{-1}(\mathbf s)$ such that $(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)$ belongs to a minimal presentation of $S$. Theorem 10 in \cite{uniquely} states that
\[\Betti(S_1+_\mathbf d S_2)=\Betti(S_1)\cup\Betti(S_2)\cup\{\mathbf d\}.\]
Since several invariants as the catenary degree and the maximum of the delta sets depend on the Betti elements of $S$ (\cite{cat-tame} and \cite{delta}, respectively), the computation of these invariants for $S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$ can be performed once we know their values for $S_1$, $S_2$ and $\mathbf d$ (see for instance \cite[Corollary 4]{acpi}).
Affine semigroups with a single Betti element can be characterized as a gluing of several copies of affine semigroups with empty minimal presentation (and thus isomorphic to $\mathbb N^t$ for some positive integer $t$) along this single Betti element (\cite{single-betti}).
We say that $S$ is \emph{uniquely presented} if for every two minimal presentations $\sigma$ and $\tau$ and every $(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\in \sigma$, either $(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\in \tau$ or $(\mathbf b,\mathbf a)\in \tau$, that is, there is a unique minimal presentation up to rearrangement of the pairs of the minimal presentation. It is known (\cite[Theorem 12]{uniquely}) that $S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$ is uniquely presented if and only if $S_1$ and $S_2$ are uniquely presented and $\pm(\mathbf d-\mathbf a)\not\in S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$ for every $\mathbf a\in \Betti(S_1)\cup\Betti(S_2)$.
It is well known that the cardinality of any minimal presentation of an affine semigroup is greater than or equal to its embedding dimension minus the dimension of the vector space spanned by the semigroup. An affine semigroup is a \emph{complete intersection} affine semigroup if the cardinality of any of its minimal presentations attains this lower bound. It can be shown that an affine semigroup is a complete intersection if and only if it is either isomorphic to $\mathbb N^t$ for some positive integer $t$ or it is the gluing of two complete intersection affine semigroups (\cite{fischer97}). This result generalizes \cite{ci-simplicial} which generalizes the classical result by Delorme for numerical semigroups (\cite{delorme}; actually the definition of gluing was inspired in that paper).
A \emph{numerical semigroup} is a submonoid of $\mathbb N$ with finite complement in $\mathbb N$. It is easy to see that every numerical semigroup is finitely generated (see for instance \cite[Chapter 1]{ns-book}) and thus every numerical semigroup is an affine semigroup. Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup. The largest integer not belonging to $S$ is known as its \emph{Frobenius number}, $\F(S)$. By definition $\F(S)+1+\mathbb N\subseteq S$. This is why the integer $\F(S)+1$ is known as the \emph{conductor} of $S$. Delorme in \cite{delorme} shows that the conductor of a numerical semigroup that is a gluing, say $S_1+_d S_2$, can be computed in terms of the conductors of $S_1$, $S_2$ and $d$. Thus a formula for the Frobenius number of a numerical semigroup that is a gluing is easily derived (this idea is exploited in \cite{ags} to give a procedure to compute the set of all complete intersection numerical semigroups with given Frobenius number). One of the aims of this paper is to generalize this formula for affine semigroups.
Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup. An element $g\in \mathbb Z\setminus S$ is a \emph{pseudo-Frobenius number} if $g+(S\setminus\{0\})\subseteq S$. In particular $\F(S)$ is always a pseudo-Frobenius number. The cardinality of the set of pseudo-Frobenius numbers is known as the (Cohen-Macaulay) \emph{type} of $S$, $\type(S)$. A numerical semigroup is \emph{symmetric} if its type is one (there are plenty of characterizations of this property, see for instance \cite[Chapter 3]{ns-book}). Delorme in his above mentioned paper \cite{delorme} also proved that a numerical semigroup that is a gluing $S_1+_d S_2$ is symmetric if and only if $S_1$ and $S_2$ are symmetric. Nari in \cite[Proposition 6.6]{nari} proved that for a numerical semigroup of the form $S_1+_d S_2$,
\[\type(S_1+_d S_2)=\type(S_1)\type(S_2)\]
(actually the definition of gluing for numerical semigroups is slightly different and we have to divide $S_1$ and $S_2$ by their greatest common divisors in order to get $S_1$ and $S_2$ numerical semigroups; see the paragraph after Theorem \ref{th-gl-hil}). This formula can be seen as a generalization of the fact that the gluing of symmetric numerical semigroups is again symmetric, and it also shows that
\begin{itemize}
\item the gluing of pseudo-symmetric numerical semigroups (the only pseudo-Frobenius numbers are the Frobenius number and its half) cannot be pseudo-symmetric,
\item the gluing of two nonsymmetric almost symmetric numerical semigroup is not almost symmetric ($S$ is almost symmetric if the cardinality of $\mathbb N\setminus S$ equals $(\F(S)+\type(S))/2$).
\end{itemize}
Let $S$ be an affine semigroup, and let $\mathbf s\in S\setminus\{0\}$. The \emph{Ap\'ery} set of $\mathbf s$ in $S$ is the set
\[\Ap(S,\mathbf s)=\{ \mathbf x\in S\mid \mathbf x-\mathbf s \not \in S\}.
\]
This set has in general infinitely many elements. If $S$ is a numerical semigroup and $s\in S\setminus\{0\}$, then $\Ap(S,s)$ has exactly $s$ elements (one for each congruent class modulo $s$). Let $m$ be the least positive integer belonging to $S$, which is known as the \emph{multiplicity} of $S$, and assume that $S$ is minimally generated by $\{n_1,\ldots, n_k\}$, with $n_1<\cdots<n_k$. Clearly, $n_1=m$ and
$\Ap(S,m)\subseteq \{ \sum_{i=2}^k a_i n_i\mid a_i\le \alpha_i, i\in\{2,\ldots,k\}\}$, with $\alpha_i=\max\{ k\in \mathbb N\mid kn_i\in \Ap(S,m)\}$. When the equality holds we say that the Ap\'ery set of $S$ is $\alpha$-rectangular. Theorem 2.3 in \cite{dms} shows that every numerical semigroup with $\alpha$-rectangular Ap\'ery set other than $\mathbb N$ can be constructed by gluing a numerical semigroup with the same property and a copy of $\mathbb N$.
For a given affine semigroup $S$ and a field $K$, the \emph{semigroup ring} $K[S]$ is defined as $K[S]=\bigoplus_{s\in S} K t^s$ with $t$ an indeterminate. Addition is performed componentwise and the product is calculated by using distributive law and $t^{s}t^{s'}=t^{s+s'}$ for all $s,s'\in S$. If $S$ is a numerical semigroup, then $K[S]$ is a subring of $K[t]$. Recently (\cite{gsl}), it has been shown that if for every relative $I$ ideal of $K[S_i]$, $i\in \{1,2\}$ generated by two monomials, $I \otimes_{K[S_i]} I^{-1}$ has nontrivial torsion, then the same property holds for $S_1+_d S_2$, solving partly a conjecture stated by Huneke and Wiegand (see \cite{gsl} for details; also the restriction of being generated by just two elements can be removed if we take $S_2$ as a copy of $\mathbb N$).
If $S$ is a numerical semigroup minimally generated by $\{n_1,\ldots,n_k\}$, then $\mathfrak m=(t^{n_1},\ldots, t^{n_k})$ is the unique maximal ideal of the power series ring $R=K[[t^{n_1},\ldots, t^{n_k}]]=K[[S]]$. The Hilbert function of the associated graded ring $\mathrm{gr}_\mathfrak m(R)=\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb N} \mathfrak m^n/\mathfrak m^{n+1}$ is defined as $n\mapsto \dim_K (\mathfrak m^n/\mathfrak m^{n+1})$. In \cite{ams} it is shown that if the Hilbert functions of the associated graded rings of $K[[S_1]]$ and $K[[S_2]]$ are nondecreasing, then so is the Hilbert function of the associated graded ring of $K[[S_1+_d S_2]]$ when the gluing is a ``nice'' gluing (see \cite[Theorem 2.6]{ams} for details; this nice gluing has been also exploited in \cite{jz}).
Lately, for $T=\langle an_1,an_2,an_3,an_4\rangle+_{ab} \langle b\rangle$, Barucci and Fr\"oberg have been able to compute the Betti numbers of the free resolution of $K[T]$ in terms of that of $K[S]$, with $S=\langle n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4\rangle$ (\cite{bf}).
\section{Gluings and cones}
Given an affine semigroup $S\subseteq \mathbb N^m$, denote by $\cone(S)$ the cone spanned by $S$, that is,
\[\cone(S)=\big\{ q\, \mathbf a \mid q\in \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}, \mathbf a \in S \big\}.\] Observe that $\cone(S)$ is pointed (the only subspace included in it is $\{0\}$), because $S$ is reduced.
Clearly, if $A$ is finite and generates $S$, then
\[\G(S)=\left\{\sum_{\mathbf a\in A} z_{\mathbf a} \mathbf a \mid z_{\mathbf a}\in \mathbb Z \hbox{ for all } \mathbf a\right\}\hbox{ and } \cone(S)=\left\{\sum_{\mathbf a\in A} q_{\mathbf a} \mathbf a \mid q_{\mathbf a} \in \mathbb Q_{\geq 0} \hbox{ for all } \mathbf a\right\}.\]
We will write $\aff(S)$ for the affine span of $S$, that is,
\[\aff(S) = G(S) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} \mathbb{Q}.\]
As usual we use the notation
\[\langle A\rangle= \{\sum_{\mathbf a\in A} n_{\mathbf a}\mathbf a\mid n_{\mathbf a}\in \mathbb N \hbox{ for all } \mathbf a\in A\}
\]
(all sums are finite, that is, if $A$ has infinitely many elements, all but a finite number of $z_\mathbf a$, $q_\mathbf a$ and $n_\mathbf a$ are zero).
\begin{lemma}\label{int-cone-char}
Let $\mathbf r_1,\ldots,\mathbf r_k, \mathbf r_{k+1}$ and $\mathbf{x} \in \cone(\mathbb N^m) \setminus \{0\}$, for some positive integers $m$ and $k$. If $\cone(\mathbf r_1,\ldots, \mathbf r_k)=\cone(\mathbf r_1,\ldots, \mathbf r_k, \mathbf r_{k+1})$, then the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item There exist $q_1,\ldots q_k\in \mathbb Q_{>0}$ such that $x=q_1 \mathbf r_1+\cdots +q_k \mathbf r_k$.
\item There exist $q_1',\ldots, q_{k+1}'\in \mathbb Q_{>0}$ such that $x=q_1'\mathbf r_1+\cdots +q_k' \mathbf r_k+q_{k+1}' \mathbf r_{k+1}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that from the hypothesis, $\mathbf r_{k+1}\in \cone(\mathbf r_1,\ldots, \mathbf r_k)$, and thus there exists $t_1,\ldots, t_k\in \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}$ such that $\mathbf r_{k+1}=t_1 \mathbf r_1+\dots+t_k \mathbf r_k$. From this it easily follows (2) implies (1).
Assume that there exist $q_1,\ldots q_k\in \mathbb Q_{> 0}$ such that $\mathbf x=q_1 \mathbf r_1+\cdots +q_k \mathbf r_k$. Let $N\in \mathbb N$ be such that for all $i\in \{1,\ldots,k\}$, $t_i/N< q_i$ (this is possible since $q_i>0$ for all $i$). Take $q_i'=q_i-t_i/N$ (which is a positive rational number) for all $i\in \{1,\ldots, k\}$, and $q_{k+1}'=1/N$. Then $q_1' \mathbf r_1+\cdots +q_k'\mathbf r_k+q_{k+1}'\mathbf r_{k+1}=q_1 \mathbf r_1+\cdots + q_k \mathbf r_k-1/N \mathbf r_{k+1}+1/N \mathbf r_{k+1}= \mathbf x$.
\end{proof}
Given $\mathbf r_1,\ldots, \mathbf r_k\in \cone(\mathbb N^m) \setminus \{0\}$, we define the \emph{relative interior} of $\cone(\mathbf r_1,\ldots,\mathbf r_k)$ by
\[ \mathrm{int}(\cone(\mathbf r_1,\ldots, \mathbf r_k))= \big \{ q_1 \mathbf r_1+\cdots + q_k \mathbf r_k\mid q_1,\ldots, q_k\in \mathbb Q_{> 0} \big\}.\]
Observe that the relative interior of a cone $C$ is the topological interior of $C$ in its affine span, $\aff(\mathbf r_1,\ldots, \mathbf r_k),$ with the subspace topology.
For $A\subseteq \mathbb N^m$, we say that $F$ is a \emph{face} of $\cone(A)$ if $F\neq \emptyset$ and there exists $\mathbf c\in \mathbb Q^m\setminus\{0\}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $F=\{\mathbf x\in \cone(A)\mid \mathbf c\cdot \mathbf x=0\}$ and
\item $\mathbf c\cdot \mathbf y\ge 0$ for all $\mathbf y\in \cone(A)$.
\end{itemize}
An element $\mathbf{a}\in A$ is an \emph{extremal ray} of $\cone(A)$ if $\mathbb Q_{\ge 0}\mathbf a$ is a one dimensional face of $\cone(A)$.
Now, according to Lemma \ref{int-cone-char}, if $A$ is the minimal system of generators of an affine semigroup $S\subseteq \mathbb N^m$, then we can say that $\mathbf x\in \mathrm{int}(\cone(S))$ if and only if $\mathbf x\in \mathrm{int}(\cone(A))$, even if $A$ contains elements that are not extremal rays. We get also the following consequence.
\begin{proposition}\label{int-sum}
Let $A$ be a nonempty subset of $\mathbb N^m$, with $m$ a positive integer. Assume that $A=A_1\cup A_2$ is a nontrivial partition of $A$. Then $\mathrm{int}(\cone(A)) = \mathrm{int}(\cone(A_1)) + \mathrm{int}(\cone(A_2))$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Obviously, if $\mathbf x_i \in \mathrm{int}(\cone(A_i))$, $i \in\{1,2\}$, then $\mathbf x_1 + \mathbf x_2 \in \mathrm{int}(\cone(A))$. Now, consider $\mathbf{x} \in \mathrm{int}(\cone(A))$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $\mathbf{x} = \sum_{\mathbf{a} \in A} q_\mathbf{a} \mathbf{a}$ with $q_\mathbf{a} \in \mathbb{Q}_{> 0}$. Thus, by taking $\mathbf{x}_i = \sum_{\mathbf{a} \in A_i} q_\mathbf{a} \mathbf{a}$, we are done.
\end{proof}
Notice that if $S$ is the gluing of $S_1$ and $S_2$ by $\mathbf{d}$, then $$\mathbf{d} \not\in \mathrm{int}(\cone(S)) \hbox{ implies } \mathbf{d} \not\in \mathrm{int}(\cone(S_1)) \cap \mathrm{int}(\cone(S_2)).$$ Otherwise, we may take $\mathbf x_i = (1/2) \mathbf{d},\ i \in\{ 1,2\}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{suma-exteriores}
Let $A$ be a nonempty subset of $\mathbb N^m$, with $m$ a positive integer. Assume that $A=A_1\cup A_2$ is a nontrivial partition of $A$. Let $F$ be a face of $\cone(A)$. Then every $\mathbf x\in F$ can be expressed as $\mathbf x_1+\mathbf x_2$ with $\mathbf x_i$ in a face of $\cone(A_i)$, $i\in\{1,2\}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathbf x\in F$. Then there exists $\mathbf c\in \mathbb Q^m\setminus\{0\}$ such that $\mathbf c\cdot \mathbf x=0$ and $\mathbf c\cdot \mathbf y\ge 0$ for all $\mathbf y\in \cone(A)$. Notice that $\cone(A)=\cone(A_1)+\cone(A_2)$. Hence there exists $\mathbf x_i\in \cone(A_i)$, $i\in\{1,2\}$ such that $\mathbf x=\mathbf x_1+\mathbf x_2$. As $\cone(A_i)\subseteq \cone(A)$, $\mathbf c\cdot \mathbf y_i\ge 0$, for $i\in\{1,2\}$ and all $\mathbf y_i\in \cone(A_i)$. Hence $0=\mathbf c\cdot\mathbf x=\mathbf c\cdot\mathbf x_1+\mathbf c\cdot\mathbf x_2$ forces $\mathbf c\cdot \mathbf x_1=\mathbf c\cdot\mathbf x_2=0$. We conclude that $\mathbf x_i$ is in the face $\{\mathbf x\in \mathbf Q^n\mid \mathbf c\cdot\mathbf x=0\}\cap\cone(A_i)$ of $\cone(A_i)$, $i\in\{1,2\}$.
\end{proof}
We end this section by giving an affine-geometric characterization of gluings.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop3}
Let $S$ be an affine semigroup and $\mathbf{d} \in \mathbb{N}^n \setminus \{0\}$. If $S = S_1 +_\mathbf{d} S_2$ then $$\cone(S_1) \cap \cone(S_2) = \mathbf d \mathbb{Q}_{\geq 0}.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By definition, $\mathbf d \in S_1\cap S_2$ and, clearly, $\mathbf d \mathbb{Q}_{\geq 0} \subseteq \cone(S_1) \cap \cone(S_2)$. If $\mathbf{d}' \in \cone(S_1) \cap \cone(S_2)$, then $\mathbf{d}' = \frac{z_1}{t_1} \mathbf{a}_1 = \frac{z_2}{t_2} \mathbf{a}_2$, with $z_1, z_2, t_1, t_2 \in \mathbb{N}$, and $\mathbf a_i \in S_i$, $i \in\{1,2\}$. Hence, $t_1 t_2 \mathbf{d}' \in \G(S_1)\cap \G(S_2) = \mathbf d\mathbb Z$, that is, $\mathbf d' \in \mathbf d \mathbb{Q}_{\geq 0}$.
\end{proof}
The above result may be also obtained as a consequence of \cite[Lemma 4.2]{thoma}.
Observe that the inverse statement is not true as the following simple example shows. Let $S$ be semigroup generated by the columns of the matrix $$A = \left(\begin{array}{ccc|ccc} 4 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 4 \end{array}\right)$$ and let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be the semigroups generated by the three first and the three last columns of $A$, repectively. In this case, $\mathbf{d} := (6,6)^\top \in S_1 \cap S_2$ and $\cone(S_1) \cap \cone(S_2) = \mathbf d \mathbb{Q}_{\geq 0}.$ However, $S_1$ and $S_2$ cannot be glued by $\mathbf d$ because $\G(S_1) \cap \G(S_2)$ has rank $2$; indeed, $3 (2,2) = 2 (3,3)$ and $(0,4) = -2 (4,0)+2(3,1)+(2,2)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{carac-to-one-dim}
Let $S $ be an affine semigroup minimally generated by $A$. Let $A=A_1\cup A_2$ be a nontrivial partition of $A$, and let $S_i=\langle A_i\rangle$, $i\in\{1,2\}$. Set $V=\aff(S_1) \cap \aff(S_2)$. Then, $S=S_1 +_\mathbf{d} S_2$ for some $\mathbf{d} \in \mathbb{N}^n \setminus \{0\}$, if and only if $V = \mathbf d \mathbb Q$ and $S \cap V = (S_1 \cap V) +_\mathbf d (S_2 \cap V)$ for some $\mathbf{d} \in \mathbb{N}^n \setminus \{0\}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $S = S_1 +_\mathbf{d} S_2$ for some $\mathbf{d} \in \mathbb{N}^n \setminus \{0\}$, by an argument similar to the given in the proof of Proposition \ref{Prop3}, we have that $V = \mathbf{d} \mathbb{Q}$. Now, since $\mathbf d \in (S_1 \cap V) \cap (S_2 \cap V)$ and $\G(S_1 \cap V) \cap \G(S_2 \cap V) = \G(S_1) \cap \G(S_2) = \mathbf d \mathbb Z$, we conclude that $S \cap V$ is the gluing of $S_1 \cap V$ and $S_2 \cap V$ by $\mathbf{d}$. Conversely, let $V = \mathbf{d} \mathbb{Q}$. Since $\G(S_1) \cap \G(S_2) = \G(S_1 \cap V) \cap \G(S_2 \cap V) = \mathbf d \mathbb Z$ and $\mathbf d \in (S_1 \cap V) \cap (S_2 \cap V) = S_1 \cap S_2$, because $\G(S_1) \cap \G(S_2) \subset V$, we are done.
\end{proof}
Let $S$ be the semigroup generated by the columns of the following matrix
$$A = \left(\begin{array}{ccc|ccc} 4 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 3 \end{array}\right)$$ and let $S_1$ ($S_2$, respectively) be the semigroup generated by the three first (last, respectively) columns of $A$. Clearly, $V = \aff(S_1) \cap \aff(S_2) = (1,1,0)^\top \mathbb{Q}$.
Now, since $S_1 \cap V \cong 2 \mathbb N$, $S_2 \cap V \cong 3 \mathbb N$ and
$S \cap V \cong 2 \mathbb N +_6 3 \mathbb N$, in the light of the above corollary, we conclude that $S = S_1 +_\mathbf{d} S_2$, with $\mathbf d = (6,6,0)^\top$.
\section{Gluings and Frobenius vectors}
Let $S$ be an affine semigroup. We say that $S$ has a \emph{Frobenius vector} if there exists $\mathbf f\in \G(S)\setminus S$ such that
\[\mathbf f+\mathrm{int}(\cone(S))\cap\G(S)\subseteq S\setminus\{0\}\subseteq S.\]
Notice that $\mathbf f+(\mathrm{int}(\cone(S))\cap\G(S))\subseteq S\setminus\{0\}$ is equivalent to $(\mathbf f+\mathrm{int}(\cone(S)))\cap\G(S)\subseteq S\setminus\{0\}$, and thus we omit the parenthesis in the above condition.
We are going to prove that if $S_1$ and $S_2$ have Frobenius vectors, then so does $S=S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$.
\begin{theorem}\label{frob-gluing}
Let $S$ be an affine semigroup.
Assume that $S=S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$. If $S_1$ and $S_2$ have Frobenius vectors, so does $S$. Moreover, if $\mathbf f_1$ and $\mathbf f_2$ are respectively Frobenius vectors of $S_1$ and $S_2$, then
\[\mathbf f=\mathbf f_1+\mathbf f_2+\mathbf d\]
is a Frobenius vector of $S$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G_1=\G(S_1)$, $G_2=\G(S_2)$, and $G=\G(S)$. Clearly $G=G_1+G_2$, since $S=S_1+S_2$.
We start by proving that $\mathbf f\in G \setminus S$. As $\mathbf f_1\in G_1$, $\mathbf f_2\in G_2$ and $\mathbf d\in G_1\cap G_2$, we have $\mathbf f\in G$. Assume that $\textbf f\in S$. Then there exist $\mathbf s_1\in S_1$ and $\mathbf s_2\in S_2$ such that $\mathbf f=\mathbf s_1+\mathbf s_2$. Then $\mathbf f_1+\mathbf d-\mathbf s_1=\mathbf s_2-\mathbf f_2\in G_1\cap G_2=\mathbf d\mathbb Z$. So, we can find $k\in \mathbb Z$ such that $\mathbf f_1+\mathbf d-\mathbf s_1=\mathbf s_2-\mathbf f_2=k\mathbf d$. If $k\le 0$, then $\mathbf f_2=\mathbf s_2-k\mathbf d\in S_2$, a contradiction. If $k>0$, then $\mathbf f_1=\mathbf s_1+(k-1)\mathbf d\in S_1$, which is also impossible, and this proves that $\mathbf f\not\in S$.
In order to simplify the notation, set $C_1=\mathrm{int}(\cone(S_1))$, $C_2=\mathrm{int}(\cone(S_2))$ and $C=\mathrm{int}(\cone(S))$.
Now let us prove that for all $\mathbf x\in C \cap G$, we have that $\mathbf f+\mathbf x\in S$. Since $\mathbf f+\mathbf x\in G$, there must be $\mathbf g_1\in G_1$ and $\mathbf g_2\in G_2$ such that $\mathbf f+\mathbf x=\mathbf g_1+\mathbf g_2$. In light of Proposition \ref{int-sum}, there exists $\mathbf x_1\in C_1$ and $\mathbf x_2\in C_2$ such that $\mathbf x=\mathbf x_1+\mathbf x_2$. Then $\mathbf f+\mathbf x=\mathbf f_1+\mathbf f_2+\mathbf d+\mathbf x_1+\mathbf x_2=\mathbf g_1+\mathbf g_2$. Let $t\in \mathbb Z_{> 0}$ be such that $\mathbf s_1=t\mathbf x_1\in S_1$ and $\mathbf s_2=t\mathbf x_2\in S_2$. This yields $t\mathbf f_1+t\mathbf d+\mathbf s_1-t\mathbf g_1=t\mathbf g_2-t\mathbf f_2-\mathbf s_2=k\mathbf d$ for some integer $k$. Assume that $k\le 0$. Then $t \mathbf f_1+\mathbf s_1+(t-k)\mathbf d=t\mathbf g_1$, and thus $\mathbf f_1+(\mathbf x_1+\frac{t-k}t \mathbf d)=\mathbf g_1$. Observe that $\mathbf x_1+\frac{t-k}t\mathbf d\in C_1$, which implies that $\mathbf g_1\in S_1$ because $\mathbf f_1$ is a Frobenius vector for $S_1$.
Let $n$ the maximum nonnegative integer such that $\mathbf g_1-nd\in S_1$.
Hence $\mathbf g_1-(n+1)\mathbf d=\mathbf f_1+\mathbf x_1+\frac{t-k}t\mathbf d -(n+1)\mathbf d\not\in S_1$, and consequently $tn+k>0$, since otherwise $\frac{t-k}t-(n+1)\ge 0$ and this would lead to $\mathbf x_1+\frac{t-k}t\mathbf d -(n+1)\mathbf d\in C_1$, yielding $\mathbf g_1-(n+1)\mathbf d\in S_1$, a contradiction. Now, $t\mathbf g_2-t\mathbf f_2-\mathbf s_2+tn\mathbf d=(tn+k)\mathbf d$, which means that $\mathbf g_2+n\mathbf d=\mathbf f_2+\mathbf x_2+\frac{tn+k}t\mathbf d$. As $\mathbf x_2+\frac{tn+k}t\mathbf d\in C_2$, and $\mathbf f_2$ is a Frobenius vector for $S_2$, we deduce that $\mathbf g_2+n\mathbf d\in S_2$. Finally $\mathbf f+\mathbf x=\mathbf g_1+\mathbf g_2=(\mathbf g_1-n\mathbf d)+(\mathbf g_2+n\mathbf d)\in S_1+S_2=S$.
If $k\ge 0$, then $t \mathbf f_2+\mathbf s_2+t\mathbf d -t\mathbf g_2=t\mathbf g_1-t\mathbf f_2-\mathbf s_1=-k\mathbf d$, and we repeat the above argument by swapping $\mathbf g_1$ and $\mathbf g_2$.
\end{proof}
If $A$ is a set of positive integers, and $S=\langle A\rangle$, then $T=S/\gcd(A)$ is a numerical semigroup, and $\F(T)=\max(\mathbb N\setminus T)$. It follows easily that $\F(S)=\gcd(A)\F(T)$. Recall that the conductor of $T$ is defined as the Frobenius number of $T$ plus one. Hence Theorem \ref{frob-gluing} generalizes the well known formula for the gluing of two submonoids of $\mathbb N$ (\cite[Proposition 10 (i)]{delorme}).
\begin{lemma}\label{frob-indep}
Let $S$ be an affine semigroup minimally generated by $A$. If $A$ is a set of linearly independent elements, then $\mathbf f=-\sum_{\mathbf a\in A}\mathbf a$ is a Frobenius vector for $S$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathbf x \in \mathrm{int}(\cone(S)) \cap G(S)$. Then $\mathbf x=\sum_{\mathbf a\in A}q_\mathbf a\mathbf a =\sum_{\mathbf a\in A} z_\mathbf a\mathbf a$, with $q_\mathbf a\in \mathbb Q_{> 0}$ and $z_\mathbf a\in \mathbb Z$ for all $\mathbf a$. Since the elements in $A$ are linearly independent, this forces $z_\mathbf a = q_\mathbf a$ for all $\mathbf a$; in particular, $z_\mathbf a - 1 \geq 0$ for all $\mathbf a$.
Hence $\mathbf f+\mathbf x=\sum_{\mathbf a\in A} (z_\mathbf a-1)\mathbf a \in S$.
\end{proof}
Since every complete intersection affine semigroup has either no relations (free in the categorical sense, that is, its minimal set of generators is a set of linearly independent vectors) or it is the gluing of two affine semigroups (\cite{fischer97}), we get the following result.
\begin{theorem}
Let $S$ be a complete intersection affine semigroup. Then $S$ has a Frobenius vector.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{free}
Let $S=S_1+_\mathbf dS_2$ be the gluing of $S_1$ and $S_2$ by $\mathbf d$, and assume that that $S_2=\langle\mathbf v\rangle$. Hence $\mathbf d=\theta\mathbf v$ for some $\theta\in {\mathbb N}$. Clearly $-\mathbf v$ is a Frobenius vector for $S_2$ (Lemma \ref{frob-indep}), and if $S_1$ has a Frobenius vector $\mathbf f_1$, then the formula of Theorem 3 implies that
$\mathbf f=\mathbf f_1-\mathbf v+\theta\mathbf v=\mathbf f_1+(\theta-1)\mathbf v$ is a Frobenius vector of $S$. More generally let $\mathbf v_1,\ldots,\mathbf v_e$ be a set of ${\mathbb Q}$ linearly independent vectors of ${\mathbb N}^e$. Let $S_0=\langle\mathbf v_1,\ldots,\mathbf v_e\rangle$, and let $\mathbf v_{e+1},\ldots,\mathbf v_{e+h}$ be a set of vectors of ${\mathbb N}^e\cap \cone(\mathbf v_1,\ldots,\mathbf v_e)$. Set $S_i=\langle \mathbf v_1,\ldots,\mathbf v_{e+i}\rangle $ for all $1\leq i\leq h$ and assume that $S_i=S_{i-1}+_{\theta_i\mathbf v_i}\langle\mathbf v_{i}\rangle$ (such semigroups are called free semigrous). A Frobenius vector $\mathbf f_0$ of $S_0$ being $\mathbf f_0=-\sum_{k=1}^e\mathbf v_k$ (Lemma \ref{frob-indep}), it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{ecu2}
\mathbf f_i=\sum_{j=1}^i(\theta_j-1)\mathbf v_j-\sum_{k=1}^e\mathbf v_k
\end{equation}
is a Frobenius vector of $S_i$. This formula has also been proved by the first author in \cite{free}, and gave the following uniqueness condition: this Frobenius vector $\mathbf f$ is minimal with respect to the order induced by $\cone(S)$, that is, for every other Frobenius vector $\mathbf f'$ of $S$, $\mathbf f'\in \mathbf f+\cone(S)$.
We recall that a reduced affine semigroup $S$ is said to be \emph{simplicial} if there are linearly independent elements
$\mathbf{a}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{a}_n \in S$ such that $\cone(S) = \cone(\mathbf{a}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{a}_n)$. Under this hypothesis, conditions for the existence and conditions for uniqueness of a Frobenius vector of $S$ are given in \cite{ponomarenko}.
\end{remark}
The formula (\ref{ecu2}) is a special case of the following general formula for a Frobenius vector of a complete intersection affine semigroup.
\begin{remark}\label{gluing-ci}
Recall that according to \cite{fischer97}, any complete intersection affine semigroup is either generated by a set of linearly independent vectors or it is a gluing of two complete intersection numerical semigroups. Thus, repeating this argument recursively, if $S$ is a complete intersection affine semigroup $A$, then there exists a partition $A_1\cup \cdots \cup A_t=A$ such that $A_i$ are sets of linearly independent vectors and
\[S=S_1+_{\mathbf d_1} S_2+_{\mathbf d_2}\cdots +_{\mathbf d_{t-1}} S_t,\]
with $S_i=\langle A_i \rangle$. From Theorem \ref{frob-gluing} and Lemma \ref{frob-indep}, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{ecu1}
\sum_{i=1}^{t-1} \mathbf d_i -\sum_{\mathbf a\in A}\mathbf a
\end{equation}
is a Frobenius vector for $S$.
\end{remark}
Next we show that this Frobenius vector is unique in the sense defined above.
\begin{proposition}\label{f-mas-caras}
Let $S$ be a complete intersection affine semigroup and let $\mathbf f$ be defined as in \eqref{ecu1}. Then for every face $F$ of $\cone(S)$, $(\mathbf f+F)\cap S$ is empty.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since either $S$ is free or the gluing of two complete intersection affine semigroups $S_1$ and $S_2$, we proceed by induction. If $S$ is free, then Lemma \ref{frob-indep} asserts that $\mathbf f=-\sum_{\mathbf a\in A}\mathbf a$, with $A$ the minimal generating set of $S$. Clearly in this case the assertion is true.
Now assume that $S=S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$ for some $\mathbf d\in S_1\cap S_2$. From Theorem \ref{frob-gluing}, $\mathbf f=\mathbf f_1+\mathbf f_2+\mathbf d$, where $\mathbf f_i$, $i\in\{1,2\}$, is also defined by \eqref{ecu1}. By induction hypothesis, for every face $F_i$ of $\cone(S_i)$, $i\in\{1,2\}$, $(\mathbf f_i+F_i)\cap S_i=\emptyset$.
Assume to the contrary that there exists $\mathbf x\in F$ such that $\mathbf f_1+\mathbf f_2+\mathbf d+\mathbf x\in S$. According to Proposition \ref{suma-exteriores}, there exists $\mathbf x_i\in F_i$, $i\in\{1,2\}$, such that $\mathbf x=\mathbf x_1+\mathbf x_2$, for some face $F_i$ of $\cone(S_i)$. Hence there are $\mathbf s_1\in S_1$ and $\mathbf s_2\in S_2$ such that $\mathbf f_1+\mathbf f_2+\mathbf d+\mathbf x_1+\mathbf x_2= \mathbf s_1+\mathbf s_2$.
Then $\mathbf f_1+\mathbf x_1-\mathbf s_1=\mathbf s_2-\mathbf f_2-\mathbf d-\mathbf x_2=k \mathbf d$ for some integer $k$. As by induction hypothesis, $\mathbf f_1+\mathbf x_1\not\in S_1$, we deduce $k<0$. Therefore $\mathbf f_2+\mathbf x_2=\mathbf s_2-(k+1)\mathbf d$. But $\mathbf f_2+\mathbf x_2\not\in S_2$, which forces $k+1>0$, or equivalently $k\ge 0$. But this is in contradiction with $k<0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $S$ be a complete intersection and let $\mathbf f$ be as in \eqref{ecu1}. Assume that $\mathbf f'$ is another Frobenius vector of $S$. Then $\mathbf f'\in \mathbf f+\cone(S)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Write $\mathbf f=\mathbf a-\mathbf b$ and $\mathbf f'=\mathbf a'-\mathbf b'$ with $\mathbf a,\mathbf a', \mathbf b, \mathbf b'\in S$, and let $\mathbf c\in \mathrm{int}(\cone(S))$. Then $\mathbf x=\mathbf f+\mathbf b+\mathbf a'+\mathbf c=\mathbf f'+\mathbf b'+\mathbf a+\mathbf c\in (\mathbf f+\mathrm{int}(\cone(S)))\cap(\mathbf f'+\mathrm{int}(\cone(S)))$.
Assume that $\mathbf f'\not\in \mathbf f+\cone(S)$. Then the segment joining $\mathbf f'$ and $\mathbf x$ cuts some face of $\mathbf f+ \cone(S)$. Denote by $\mathbf f+F$ this face and let $\mathbf f+\mathbf y$ be this intersection point ($\mathbf y\in F$ and $F$ is a face of $\cone(S)$). There exists a positive integer $k$ such that $k\mathbf y$ is in $S$, and thus $\mathbf f+k\mathbf y\in \G(S)\cap (\mathbf f+F)$. Notice that $\mathbf f+\mathbf y=\mathbf f'+\mathbf y'$ for some $\mathbf y'\in \mathrm{int}(\cone(S))$. As $\mathbf y\in F$, $(k-1)\mathbf y\in \cone(S)$, and consequently $\mathbf f+k\mathbf y=\mathbf f'+(\mathbf y'+(k-1)\mathbf y)\in \mathbf f'+\mathrm{int}(\cone(S))$. Hence $\mathbf f+k\mathbf y\in (\mathbf f'+\mathrm{int}(\cone(S)))\cap \G(S)\subseteq S$, in contradiction with Proposition \ref{f-mas-caras}.
\end{proof}
\section{Gluings and Hilbert series}
The \emph{Hilbert series} of $S$ is the Hilbert series associated to $K[S]$: $\HH(S,\mathbf x)=\sum_{\mathbf s\in S} \mathbf x^\mathbf s$, where for $\mathbf s=(s_1,\ldots,s_m)\in \mathbb N^m$, $\mathbf x^\mathbf s=x_1^{s_1}\cdots x_m^{s_m}$. This map is sometimes known in the literature as generating function of $S$, and it has been shown to be of the form $g(S,\mathbf x)/\prod_{\mathbf a\in A}(1-\mathbf x^\mathbf a)$, with $A$ the minimal generating set of $S$ (see \cite[\S 7.3]{bw}).
The next lemma is a straightforward generalization of (4) in \cite{ra-r}.
\begin{lemma}\label{hilbert-ap}
Let $S$ be an affine semigroup and let $\mathbf m\in S\setminus\{0\}$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{hilbert-apery}
\HH(S,x)=\frac{1}{1-x^\mathbf m}\sum_{\mathbf w\in \Ap(S,\mathbf m)} x^\mathbf w.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows directly from the definition of $\Ap(S,\mathbf m)$, that for every $\mathbf s\in S$, there exist unique $k\in \mathbb N$ and $\mathbf w\in \Ap(S,\mathbf m)$ such that $\mathbf s=k\mathbf m+\mathbf w$. Hence
\[\HH(S,\mathbf x)=\sum_{k\in \mathbb N,\mathbf w\in \Ap(S,\mathbf m)} \mathbf x^{k\mathbf m+\mathbf w}= \sum_{k\in \mathbb N}(\mathbf x^\mathbf m)^\mathbf k\sum_{\mathbf w\in \Ap(S,\mathbf m)}x^\mathbf w.\]
The proof follows by taking into account that $\sum_{k\in \mathbb N}(\mathbf x^\mathbf m)^\mathbf k = 1/(1-\mathbf x^\mathbf m)$.
\end{proof}
The following result can also be understood as a generalization of (4) in \cite{ra-r}, since for simplicial affine semigroups that are Cohen-Macaulay the set $\bigcap_{i=1}^m \Ap(S,\mathbf v_i)$, with $\mathbf v_1,\ldots,\mathbf v_m$ a set of extremal rays of $S$, plays a similar role to the Ap\'ery set of an element in a numerical semigroup (compare \cite[Theorem 1.5]{cm} and \cite[Lemma 2.6]{ns-book}).
\begin{proposition}
Let $S$ be a simplicial affine semigroup with extremal rays $\mathbf v_1,\ldots,\mathbf v_m$. Then $\HH(S,\mathbf x)=\frac{P(\mathbf x)}{\prod_{i=1}^m(1-\mathbf x^{\mathbf v_i})}$, with $P(\mathbf x)$ a polynomial.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $Ap=\bigcap_{i=1}^m \Ap(S,\mathbf v_i)$. In view of \cite[Section 1]{cm}, this set is finite. Moreover, from \cite[Theorem~1.5]{cm} we know that every element $\mathbf s$ in $S$ can be expressed uniquely as $\mathbf s=\sum_{i=1}^m a_i \mathbf v_i+ \mathbf w$ with $a_1,\ldots, a_d\in \mathbb N$ and $\mathbf w\in Ap$. Arguing as in Lemma \ref{hilbert-ap},
\[ \HH(S,\mathbf x)=\sum_{\mathbf s\in S}\mathbf x^\mathbf s= \frac{\sum_{\mathbf w\in Ap}\mathbf x^\mathbf w}{\prod_{i=1}^m(1-x^{\mathbf v_i})},\]
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{th-gl-hil}
Let $S$, $S_1$ and $S_2$ be affine semigroups, and let $\mathbf d\in S$. Assume that $S=S_1+_\mathbf d S_2$. Then
\[
\HH(S_1+_\mathbf d S_2,\mathbf x)= (1-\mathbf x^d)\HH(S_1,\mathbf x)\HH(S_2,\mathbf x).
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From \eqref{hilbert-apery},
\[\HH(S,\mathbf x)= \frac{1}{1-\mathbf x^\mathbf d}\sum_{\mathbf w\in \Ap(S,\mathbf d)}\mathbf x^\mathbf w.\]
From \cite[Theorem 1.4]{gluing}, the mapping
\begin{equation}\label{sum-ap}
\Ap(S_1,\mathbf d)\times \Ap(S_2,\mathbf d)\to \Ap(S,\mathbf d),\ (x,y)\mapsto x+y
\end{equation}
is a bijection, and thus $\Ap(S,\mathbf d)=\Ap(S_1,\mathbf d)+\Ap(S_2,\mathbf d)$.
Hence,
\[
\sum_{\mathbf w\in \Ap(S\mathbf ,d)} x^\mathbf w = \sum_{\mathbf w_1\in\Ap(S_1,\mathbf d)} \sum_{\mathbf w_2\in\Ap(S_2,\mathbf d)} \mathbf x^{\mathbf w_1+\mathbf w_2} = \left(\sum_{\mathbf w_1\in \Ap(S_1,\mathbf d)}\mathbf x^{\mathbf w_1}\right)\left(\sum_{\mathbf w_2\in \Ap(S_2,\mathbf d)}\mathbf x^{\mathbf w_2}\right).
\]
As $\HH(S_1,\mathbf x)= \frac{1}{1-\mathbf x^{\mathbf d}}\sum_{\mathbf w_1\in\Ap(S_1,\mathbf d)}x^{\mathbf w_1}$ and $\HH(S_2,\mathbf x)= \frac{1}{1-\mathbf x^{\mathbf d}}\sum_{\mathbf w_2\in\Ap(S_2,\mathbf d)}\mathbf x^{\mathbf w_2}$, we get
\[
\HH(S,\mathbf x)= (1-\mathbf x^{\mathbf d})\HH(S_1,\mathbf x)\HH(S_2,\mathbf x).\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
If $S$ is a numerical semigroup ($\gcd(S)=1$), and it is a gluing of $M_1$ and $M_2$, then $S_1=M_1/d_1$ and $S_2=M_2/d_2$ are also numerical semigroups, with $d_i=\gcd(M_i)$, $i\in\{1,2\}$. Hence $S=d_1S_1+_{d_1d_2}d_2S_2$ and $\mathrm{lcm}(d_1,d_2)=d_1d_2$. We say in this setting that $S$ is a gluing of $S_1$ and $S_2$ at $d_1d_2$.
From the definition of Hilbert series associated to a submonoid $M$ of $N$, it follows easily that if $k\mid \gcd(M)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{hilbert-cociente}
\HH(M/k,x^k)=\HH(M,x).
\end{equation}
We get the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor-gl-hil}
Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup. Assume that $S=d_1S_1+_{d_1d_2}d_2S_2$ is a gluing of the numerical semigroups $S_1$ and $S_2$. Then
\[\HH(S,x)=(1-x^{d_1d_2})\HH(S_1,x^{d_1})\HH(S_2,x^{d_2}).\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{example}
Let $S=\langle a,b\rangle$ with $a$ and $b$ coprime positive integers. Then $S=a\mathbb N+_{ab} b\mathbb N$. Then by Corollary \ref{cor-gl-hil}, \[\HH(\langle a,b\rangle,x)= (1-x^{ab})\HH(\mathbb N, x^a)\HH(\mathbb N, x^b)= \frac{1-x^{ab}}{(1-x^a)(1-x^b)}.\]
If we do this computation by using the formula $\HH(\langle a,b\rangle,x)=\frac{1}{1-x^a}\sum_{w\in \Ap(\langle a,b\rangle, a)} x^w$, we obtain, $\HH(\langle a,b\rangle,x)=\frac{1}{1-x^a} \sum_{k=0}^{a-1} x^{kb} = \frac{1}{1-x^a}\frac{1-x^{ab}}{1-x^b}$. Observe that this is a particular case of \cite[Proposition 2]{ra-r} (see also \cite[Theorem 4]{m} for a relationship with inclusion-exclusion polynomials).
\end{example}
This idea can be generalized to any complete intersection affine semigroup. The base setting is the following.
\begin{lemma}
Let $A\subseteq \mathbb N^m$ be a set of linearly independent vectors. Then
\[
\HH(\langle A\rangle,\mathbf x)=\frac{1}{\prod_{\mathbf a\in A}(1-\mathbf x^\mathbf a)}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $A=\{\mathbf a_1,\ldots,\mathbf a_k\}$, and write $S=\langle A\rangle$. Notice that the map $\mathbb N^k\to S$, $(n_1,\ldots,n_k)\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^k n_i\mathbf a_i$ is a monoid isomorphism. Hence
\[\sum_{\mathbf s\in S}x^s=\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb N, \ldots, n_k\in \mathbb N} \mathbf x^{n_1\mathbf a_1+\cdots +n_k\mathbf a_k}= \prod_{i=1}^k \sum_{n\in \mathbb N} (x^{\mathbf a_i})^n,\]
and the proof follows easily.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
Let $S$ be a free affine semigroup. Assume that
\[S=(\cdots(\langle \mathbf v_1,\ldots, \mathbf v_e\rangle+_{\theta_{e+1}\mathbf v_{e+1}}\langle \mathbf v_{e+1}\rangle)+_{\theta_{e+2}\mathbf v_{e+2}}\cdots) +_{\theta_{e+h}\mathbf v_{e+h}}\langle \mathbf v_{e+h}\rangle.\]
Then
\[ \HH(S,\mathbf x)= \frac{\prod_{i=1}^h (1-\mathbf x^{\theta_{e+i}\mathbf v_{e+i}})}{\prod_{i=1}^{e+h} (1-\mathbf x^\mathbf v_i)}.\]
\end{proposition}
This is indeed a particular case of the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{formula-hilbert-ci}
Let $S$ be a complete intersection affine semigroup minimally generated by $A$. Let $\mathbf d_1,\ldots, \mathbf d_{t-1}$ be as in Remark \ref{gluing-ci},
\[\HH(S,\mathbf x) = \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{t-1}(1-\mathbf x^{\mathbf d_i})}{\prod_{\mathbf a\in A}(1-\mathbf x^\mathbf a)}.\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Observe that if we substract the degree of the numerator and denominator of the formula given in Theorem \ref{formula-hilbert-ci} we obtain Formula (\ref{ecu1}).
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
Let $S=\langle 4,5,6\rangle = \langle 4,6\rangle +_{10} 5\mathbb N=(4\mathbb N+_{12}6\mathbb N)+_{10}5\mathbb N$. Then
\[\HH(\langle 4,5,6\rangle,x)=\frac{(1-x^{10})(1-x^{12})}{(1-x^4)(1-x^5)(1-x^6)}.\]
The Frobenius number of $S$ is $10+12-(4+5+6)=7$.
\end{example}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Part of this research was performed while the second author visited the Universit\'e d'Angers, and he wants to thank the D\'epartement de Math\'ematiques of this university for its kind hospitality
|
\section{Introduction} \label{intro}
Discrete equations play an important role in Mathematical Physics for its double role. From one side discrete space time seems to be basic in the description of fundamental phenomena of nature as provided by quantum gravity. From the other, from discrete equations one can easily by continuous limit obtain differential difference and differential equations and thus discrete equations may provide good numerical schemes for integrating differential equations. A classification of integrable partial difference equation has been given by Adler, Bobenko and Suris~\cite{abs1} in the particular case of equations defined on four lattice points using the consistency around the cube condition with some symmetry constrains to be able to get definite results. Due to the constraints introduced, this classification is partial and already new equations with respect to those contained in the ABS classification have been obtained \cite{Viallet,SGR,LY,GY,GH,A}.
In this paper we provide necessary conditions for the integrability of a class of real, autonomous difference equations in the variable $u: \mathbb Z^2
\rightarrow \mathbb R$ defined on a~$\mathbb{Z}^2$ square-lattice
\begin{equation}\label{e}
{\mathcal Q} (u_{n,m},u_{n+ 1,m},u_{n,m + 1}, u_{n + 1,m + 1}; \beta_1, \beta_2,...)=0,
\end{equation}
where the $\beta_i$'s are real, autonomous parameters. Integrability conditions will be determined through a multiscale perturbative expansion. This approach has the distinctive advantage of providing criteria in a manner completely independent from other current approaches. Multiscale developments can be used to reinforce, enhance or augment our previous knowledge of discrete integrable systems given by other techniques.
To be able to propagate in all the $\mathbb Z^2$ plain, we will suppose, as in~\cite{abs1}, that (\ref{e}) is linear-affine in every variable, implying that the equation is invariant under
the M\"obius transformation $T$
\begin{equation}\label{eqMob}
u_{n,m}\overset{T}{\mapsto} u_{n,m}'=\frac{Au_{n,m}+B}{Cu_{n,m}+D}.
\end{equation}
thus providing a geometrical significance to the classification. In this case, (\ref{e}) reduces to a polynomial equation in its variables with at most fourth order nonlinearity:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq}
{\mathcal Q}_{IV}&=&f_0+a_{00}\, u_{00}+ a_{01}\, u_{01} + a_{10}\, u_{10} + a_{11}\, u_{11}+
(\alpha_1{-}\alpha_2) u_{00}\, u_{10} + (\beta_1{-}\beta_2) u_{00}\, u_{01}
\\ \nonumber
&& \qquad + d_1 u_{00}\, u_{11}+ d_2\, u_{01}\, u_{10} +
(\beta_1{+}\beta_2)\, u_{10}\, u_{11} +
(\alpha_1{+}\alpha_2)\, u_{01}\, u_{11}\\ \nonumber
&& \qquad +
(\tau_1{-}\tau_3) u_{00}\, u_{01}\, u_{10}+ (\tau_1{+}\tau_3) u_{00}\, u_{10}\, u_{11}
+ (\tau_2{+}\tau_4) u_{00}\, u_{01}\, u_{11}
\\ \nonumber
&& \qquad +
(\tau_2{-}\tau_4)\, u_{10}\, u_{01}\, u_{11}
+ f_1\, u_{00}\, u_{01}\, u_{10}\, u_{11}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where all coefficients are taken to be real and independent on $n$ and $m$.
We consider here the multiple scale expansion around the dispersive solution
\begin{eqnarray} \label{e2}
u_{n,m} = K^n \Omega^m,
\end{eqnarray}
of the linearized equation of (\ref{eq}). Rewriting the constants~$K$ and~$\Omega$ as $K=e^{{\rm{i}} k}$ and $\Omega=e^{-{\rm{i}}\omega}$, and introducing the solution (\ref{e2}) into the linear part of
Eq.~(\ref{eq}) we get a dispersion relation~$\omega=\omega\left(k\right)$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{e3}
\omega=\arctan \left[ \frac{a_{00} a_{01} + a_{10} a_{11} +(a_{00} a_{11} + a_{01} a_{10} ) \cos(k)}{(a_{00} a_{11} - a_{10} a_{01}) \sin(k)} \right],
\end{eqnarray}
if $f_0=0$.
The solution (\ref{e2}) of (\ref{eq}) with $f_0=0$ is dispersive if~$\omega(k)$ is a real nonlinear function of the wave number $k$. This leads to the constraint
\begin{eqnarray} \label{e4}
a_{00}^2 -a_{01}^2+a_{10}^2-a_{11}^2 +2(a_{00} a_{10}-a_{01} a_{11}) \cos(k) = 0
\end{eqnarray}
The constraint (\ref{e4}) implies that one of the two following conditions must be satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $a_{00}=a_{11}\equiv a_1$, $a_{01}=a_{10}\equiv a_2$,
\item $a_{00}=-a_{11}\equiv a_1$, $a_{01}=-a_{10}\equiv a_2$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the dispersion relation (\ref{e3}) reduces to:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{e5+}
\omega_{\pm}(k) =\arctan\left[\pm\frac{2a_1 a_2 \pm (a_1^2+a_2^2)\cos(k)}{\left(a_1^2-a_2^2\right)\sin(k)}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
We denote the family of equations~(\ref{eq}) satisfying the condition~(1) with dispersion relation $\omega_{+}(k)$ as ${\mathcal Q}^+$ and the one with dispersion relation $\omega_{-}(k)$ as~${\mathcal Q}^-$. In all the cases $a_1$ and ~$a_2$ cannot be zero and their ratio cannot be equal to $\pm 1$ to get a nontrivial dispersion relation.
In the following we will consider the integrability conditions for the class of equations ${\mathcal Q}^+$. The study of the class ${\mathcal Q}^-$ is left to a future work.
The result of this work are a series of integrability theorems and a table of equations, invariant under a restricted M\"obius transformations that pass the very stringent integrability conditions obtained by considering the multiple scale expansion up to $\varepsilon^6$ order.
In Section \ref{s1} we present the main result on the discrete multiscale integrability test and all the conditions up to order $\varepsilon^6$ for a dispersive discrete equation ${\mathcal Q}$ defined on a square lattice which at the lowest order gives a Nonlinear Schr\"odinger Equation (NLSE) and in Section \ref{s2} we apply it to the classification of the dispersive multilinear equation ${\mathcal Q}^+$. Section \ref{s3} is devoted to some conclusive remarks.
\section{The discrete multiscale integrability test}\label{s1}
Let us consider a dispersive discrete equation of the form ${\mathcal Q}$, which at the lowest perturbation order gives a NLSE. An example of such a case is given by ${\mathcal Q}={\mathcal Q}^+$ however the results presented below will not be limited to such a case. In such a case the discrete multiscale integrability test may be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{i.}] One considers a small amplitude solution of Eq.~(\ref{e}) given by
$u_{n,m}=\varepsilon w_{n,m}$, $0 < |\varepsilon| \ll 1$. In such a way (\ref{e}) will split into linear and nonlinear terms:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal Q}= \sum_{i=1}^N \varepsilon^i {\mathcal Q}_i=0, \label{exp}
\end{equation}
where $N \in \mathbb{N}$ is the nonlinearity order.
$N$ will be infinite only if the nonlinearity of Eq.~(\ref{e}) comes from a non-polynomial
function. In the case ${\mathcal Q}={\mathcal Q}^+$ $N \le 4$.
In the formal expansion (\ref{exp}) each term ${\mathcal Q}_i$ contains only
homogeneous polynomials of degree $i$ in the field variables $w_{n,m}$ defined on the square.
If the discrete equation is dispersive then the linear part ${\mathcal Q}_1$ admits a solution
$
w_{n,m}=\exp [{\rm{i}}( \kappa n -\omega m)]=K^n \Omega^m,
$
where
$\omega=\omega(\kappa)$, the dispersion relation, is a real function of $\kappa$.\\
\item[\textbf{ii.}] The multiscale expansion of the basic field variable $w_{n,m}$ around the harmonic $K^n \Omega^m$reads
\begin{equation}
w_{n,m}= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \varepsilon^\ell\sum_{\alpha=-\ell-1}^{\ell+1}
K^{\alpha n} \Omega^{\alpha m} u_{\ell+1}^{(\alpha)},
\label{bas}
\end{equation}
where $u^{(\alpha)}_\ell =u^{(\alpha)}_\ell (n_1, \{m_j\})$ is a bounded slowly varying function of its arguments and $u^{(-\alpha)}_{\ell}=\bar u^{(\alpha)}_{\ell}$,
$\bar u_{\ell}$ being the complex conjugate of $u_{\ell}$ as we are looking at real solutions.
Here $n_1= \varepsilon n$, $m_j = \varepsilon^j m$ $j= 1, 2, \dots$ are the slow-varying lattice
variables.\\
\item[\textbf{iii.}] The nearest-neighbors fields are expanded according to the following
formulas:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& w_{n + 1,m} = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \varepsilon^\ell \sum_{\alpha=-\ell-1}^{\ell+1}
K^{\alpha (n+ 1)} \Omega^{\alpha m}
\sum_{j= {\rm max} (0, |\alpha|-1)}^{\ell}
{\mathcal A}_{ \ell- j} u_{j+1}^{(\alpha)} , \label{n} \\
&& w_{n ,m + 1} = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \varepsilon^\ell \sum_{\alpha=-\ell-1}^{\ell+1}
K^{\alpha n} \Omega^{\alpha (m - 1)}
\sum_{j= {\rm max} (0, |\alpha|-1)}^{\ell}
{\mathcal B}_{ \ell- j} u_{j+1}^{(\alpha)} , \label{m} \\
&& w_{n + 1 ,m + 1} = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \varepsilon^\ell \sum_{\alpha=-\ell-1}^{\ell+1}
K^{\alpha (n + 1)} \Omega^{ \alpha (m - 1)}
\sum_{j= {\rm max} (0, |\alpha|-1)}^{\ell}
{\mathcal C}_{ \ell- j} u_{j+1}^{(\alpha)} , \label{nm}
\end{eqnarray}
where the operators ${\mathcal A}_i,{\mathcal B}_i,{\mathcal C}_i,
$
are equal to one when $i=0$, while for the lowest values of $i$ they are presented in the following Table:\\
$$\begin{array}{||c||c|c|c|c||}\hline
& i=1 & i=2 & i=3& i=4\\ \hline\hline
& & & & \\
{\mathcal A}_i & \delta_{n_1} & \frac12\delta_{n_1}^2 & \frac16\delta_{n_1}^3 & \frac{1}{24}\delta_{n_1}^4\\
& & & & \\ \hline
& & & & \\
{\mathcal B}_i & \delta_{m_1} &\frac12\delta_{m_1}^2 + \delta_{m_2} &
\frac16\delta_{m_1}^3+\delta_{m_1}\delta_{m_2}+\delta_{m_3} & \frac{1}{24}\delta_{m_1}^4+\frac12\delta_{m_1}^2\delta_{m_2}+\frac12\delta_{m_2}^2+\delta_{m_1}\delta_{m_3}+\delta_{m_4}\\
& & & & \\ \hline
& & & & \\
{\mathcal C}_i & \nabla & \frac12\nabla^2+\delta_{m_2} &
\frac16 \nabla^3+\nabla\delta_{m_2}+\delta_{m_3} & \frac{1}{24}\nabla^4+\frac12\nabla^2\delta_{m_2}+\frac12\delta_{m_2}^2+\nabla\delta_{m_3}+\delta_{m_4}\\
& & & & \\ \hline
\end{array}
$$\\
where $\delta_{k}$ are the formal derivatives with respect to the index $k$, $\delta_k\doteq\partial_k$ and $\nabla\doteq\delta_{m_1}+\delta_{n_1}$. The operator $\delta_k$ can always be expressed in terms of powers of the difference operators by the well known identity
$$
\delta_{k}= \sum_{i=1}^\infty
\frac{(-1)^{i-1}}{i}\Delta_{k}^i,
$$
where $\Delta_{k}$ is the discrete first right difference
operator with respect to the variable $k$, i.e.
$\Delta_k u_k \doteq u_{k+1} - u_k$.
A function $f_k$ will be a {\it slow-varying} function of order $L$ if $\Delta_k^{L+1} f_k \approx 0$. In such a case the $\delta_k$-operators, which in principle are formal series containing infinite
powers of $\Delta_k$, when acting on {\it slow-varying} functions of finite
order $L$ reduce
to polynomials in $\Delta_k$ at most of order $L$.
We shall assume here that we are dealing with functions of an infinite slow-varying order, i.e. $L=\infty$,
so that the $\delta_k$-operators
may be taken as differential operators acting on the indexes of the harmonics $u_j^{(\alpha)}$.\\
\item[\textbf{iv.}] When we substitute the expansions (\ref{bas}-\ref{nm}) into (\ref{exp}), we get an equation of the following
form:
\begin{equation}
\sum_j \varepsilon^j \sum_{\alpha} {\mathcal W}_j^{(\alpha)}K^{\alpha n} \Omega^{\alpha m} =0, \label{eee}
\end{equation}
i.e. we must have
$
{\mathcal W}_j^{(\alpha)}=0$ for all $\alpha$ and $j$.
Let us notice that the equations ${\mathcal W}_j^{(\alpha)}=0$ are equations for the slowly varying functions $u_{\ell+1}^{(\alpha)}$ with $\ell \leq j$.
\end{itemize}
The multiscale expansion of the ${\mathcal Q}$ equation for functions of infinite order will thus give rise to a set of continuous partial differential equation\added{s}. By assumption, at lowest order (slow-time $m_{2}$) we get a NLSE. To define the values of the constants appearing in ${\mathcal Q}$ for which the equation is integrable, we will consider the orders beyond that at which one obtains for the first harmonic $u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}$ the (integrable) NLSE. The first attempts to go beyond the NLSE order in the case of partial difference equations have been presented by Santini, Degasperis and Manakov in \cite{DMS} and by Kodama and Mikhailov using normal forms\cite{KM}. In \cite{DMS}, the authors, starting from integrable models, through a combination of asymptotic functional analysis and spectral methods, succeeded in removing all the secular terms from the reduced equations, order by order. Their results are summarized in the following statements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The number of slow-time variables required for the amplitudes $u^{\left(\alpha\right)}_{j}$s coincides with the number of nonvanishing coefficients $\omega_{j}\left(k\right)=\frac{1}{j!}\frac{d^j \omega(k)}{dk^j}$;
\item The amplitude $u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}$ evolves at the slow-times $t_{\sigma}$, $\sigma\geq 3$ according to the $\sigma$-th equation of the NLSE hierarchy;
\item The amplitudes of the higher perturbations of the first harmonic $u^{\left(1\right)}_{j}$, $j\geq 2$ evolve at the slow-times $t_{\sigma}$, $\sigma\geq 2$ according to certain {linear, nonhomogeneous} equations when taking into account some {asymptotic boundary conditions}.
\end{enumerate}
From the previous statements one can conclude that the cancellation at each stage of the perturbation process of all the secular terms is a {\it sufficient condition} to uniquely fix the evolution equations followed by every $u^{\left(1\right)}_{j}$, $j\geq 1$ for each slow-time $t_\sigma$. Conversely from \cite{DP} we can affirm that this expansion results secularity-free. In this way this procedure provides \emph{necessary and sufficient} conditions to get secularity-free reduced equations.
Following \cite{DP} we can state the following proposition:
\begin{prop}
If a nonlinear dispersive partial difference equation is integrable, then under a multiscale expansion the functions $u^{\left(1\right)}_{l}$, $l\geq1$ satisfy the equations
\begin{subequations}\label{Valentia}
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{t_{\sigma}}u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}=K_{\sigma}\left[u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}\right],\label{Valentia1}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
M_{\sigma}u^{\left(1\right)}_{j}=f_{\sigma}(j),\ \ \ M_{\sigma}\doteq\partial_{t_{\sigma}}-K_{\sigma}^{\prime}\left[u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}\right],\label{Valentia2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
$\forall\ j,\ \sigma\geq 2$, where $K_{\sigma}\left[u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}\right]$ is the $\sigma$-th flow in the nonlinear Schr\" odinger hierarchy. All the other $u_{j}^{(\kappa)}$, $\kappa\geq 2$ are expressed in terms of differential monomials of $u_{\rho}^{(1)}$, $\rho\leq j$.
\end{prop}
In (\ref{Valentia2}) $f_{\sigma}(j)$ is a nonhomogeneous \emph{nonlinear} forcing term depending on all the $u^{(1)}_{\kappa}$, $1\leq\kappa\leq j-1$, their complex conjugates and their $\xi$-derivatives, where $\xi$ is a variable depending on the group velocity and expressed through a linear combination of the slow-space and the first slow-time $t_{1}$, while $K_{\sigma}^{\prime}\left[u\right]v$ is the Frechet derivative of the nonlinear term $K_{\sigma}[u]$ along the direction $v$ defined by
$
K_{\sigma}^{\prime}[u]v\doteq\frac{d} {ds}K_{\sigma}[u+sv]\mid_{s=0},\nonumber
$
i.e. the linearization of the expression $K_{\sigma}[u]$ along the direction $v$ near the function $u$.
In order to characterize the flows $K_{\sigma}\left[u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}\right]$ and the nonlinear forcing terms $f_{\sigma}(j)$, following \cite{Dg}, we introduce the finite dimensional vector spaces $\mathcal{P}_{\ell}$, $\ell\geq 2$, as being the set of all homogeneous, fully-nonlinear, differential polynomials in the functions $u_{j}^{(1)}$, $j\geq 1$, their complex conjugates and their $\xi$-derivatives of homogeneity degree $\ell$ in $\varepsilon$ and $1$ in $e^{{\rm{i}}\theta}$, where
$$
\mbox{order}_{\varepsilon}\left(\partial_{\xi}^{\kappa}u^{(1)}_{j}\right)=\mbox{order}_{\varepsilon}\left(\partial_{\xi}^{\kappa}\bar u^{(1)}_{j}\right)=\kappa+j,\quad \kappa\geq 0.
$$
We introduce the subspaces $\mathcal{P}_{ \ell}(\jmath)$ of $\mathcal{P}_{\ell}$, $\jmath\geq 1$, $\ell\geq 2$, whose elements are homogeneous, fully-nonlinear, differential polynomials in the functions $u_{k}^{(1)}$, their complex conjugates and their $\xi$-derivatives, with $1\leq k\leq \jmath$. From these definitions it follows that $\mathcal{P}_{\ell}=\mathcal{P}_{\ell}\left(\ell-2\right)$, that is $\jmath\leq \ell-2$. In fact the terms $u^{(1)}_{\ell}$ and $\bar u^{(1)}_{\ell}$, as well as $\partial_{\xi}u^{(1)}_{\ell-1}$ and $\partial_{\xi}\bar u^{(1)}_{\ell-1}$, are not included in $\mathcal{P}_{\ell}$ as any monomial should enter nonlinearly and terms like $u^{(1)}_{\ell-1}$ and $\bar u^{(1)}_{\ell-1}$ cannot be combined with any other of the monomials $u^{(1)}_{1}$ or $\bar u^{(1)}_{1}$ to give the right homogeneity degree in $e^{{\rm{i}}\theta}$. For the same reasons, terms of the types $\partial_{\xi}^{\kappa}u^{(1)}_{\ell-\kappa}$, $\partial_{\xi}^{\kappa}\bar u^{(1)!
}_{\ell-\kappa}$, $0\leq\kappa\leq \ell-1$ and $\partial_{\xi}^{\kappa}u^{(1)}_{\ell-\kappa-1}$, $\partial_{\xi}^{\kappa}\bar u^{(1)}_{\ell-\kappa-1}$, $0\leq\kappa\leq \ell-2$ cannot appear. So the space $\mathcal{P}_{\ell}(\jmath)$ is defined as that functional space generated by the base of monomials of the following types
\begin{eqnarray}
\prod_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta}\left(\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}u^{(1)}_{\beta}\right)^{\rho\left(\alpha,\beta\right)}\left(\partial_{\xi}^{\gamma}\bar u^{(1)}_{\delta}\right)^{\sigma\left(\gamma,\delta\right)},\ \ \ \rho\left(\alpha,\beta\right)\geq 0,\ \ \forall\alpha,\beta,\ \ \ \sigma\left(\gamma,\delta\right)\geq 0,\ \ \forall\gamma,\delta,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the product is carried out for all $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ such that $1\leq\beta,\delta\leq \jmath\leq \ell-2$, $0\leq\alpha\leq \ell-\beta-2$ and $0\leq\gamma\leq \ell-\delta-2$, so that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta}\left(\alpha+\beta\right)\rho\left(\alpha,\beta\right)+\left(\gamma+\delta\right)\sigma\left(\gamma,\delta\right)=\ell,\nonumber\\
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta}\rho\left(\alpha,\beta\right)-\sigma\left(\gamma,\delta\right)=1\nonumber.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\end{eqnarray}
For $n\geq 3$ the subspaces $\mathcal{P}_{\ell}(\jmath)$, can be generated recursively starting from the lowest one, corresponding to $\ell=2$ by the following relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}_{\ell}(\jmath)=\partial_{\xi}\mathcal{P}_{\ell-1}(\jmath)\cup\left\{\prod_{\beta,\delta}\left(u^{(1)}_{\beta}\right)^{\rho\left(\beta\right)}\left(\bar u^{(1)}_{\delta}\right)^{\sigma\left(\delta\right)}\right\},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho\left(\beta\right)\geq 0$ $\forall\beta$, $\sigma\left(\delta\right)\geq 0$ $\forall\delta$ and the product is extended for $1\leq\beta,\delta\leq \jmath\leq \ell-2$, so that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{\beta,\delta}\beta\rho\left(\beta\right)+\delta\sigma\left(\delta\right)=\ell,\ \ \ \sum_{\beta,\delta}\rho\left(\beta\right)-\sigma\left(\delta\right)=1.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It is then clear that in general $K_{n}\left[u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}\right]\in\left\{\partial_{\xi}^{\ell}u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}\right\}\cup\mathcal{P}_{\ell+1}(1)$ and that $f_{\sigma}(j)\in\mathcal{P}_{\sigma+j}(j-1)$, $\forall\sigma$, $j\geq 2$.
Eqs.~(\ref{Valentia}) are \emph{necessary} conditions for integrability and represent a hierarchy of \emph{compatible} evolutions for the function $u^{\left(1\right)}_{1}$ at different slow-times. The compatibility of (\ref{Valentia2}) implies some commutativity conditions among their r.h.s.~$f_{\sigma}(j)$. If they are satisfied the operators $M_{\sigma}$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{Valentia2}) commute among themselves.
Once we fix the index $j\geq 2$ in the set of Eqs.~(\ref{Valentia2}), this commutativity condition implies the following \emph{compatibility} conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\sigma}f_{\sigma'}\left(j\right)=M_{\sigma'}f_{\sigma}\left(j\right),\ \ \ \forall\, \sigma,\sigma'\geq 2,\label{Lavinia}
\end{eqnarray}
where, as $f_{\sigma}\left(j\right)$ and $f_{\sigma'}\left(j\right)$ are functions of the different perturbations of the fundamental harmonic up to degree $j-1$, the time derivatives $\partial_{t_{\sigma}}$, $\partial_{t_{\sigma'}}$ of those harmonics appearing respectively in $M_{\sigma}$ and $M_{\sigma'}$ have to be eliminated using the evolution equations (\ref{Valentia}) up to the index $j-1$. The commutativity conditions (\ref{Lavinia}) turn out to be an {\bf integrability test}.
We finally define the {\bf degree of integrability} of a given equation:
\begin{definition}\label{FrancescoColonnaRomano}
{\it If the relations (\ref{Lavinia}) are satisfied up to the index $j$, $j\geq 2$, we say that our equation is asymptotically integrable of degree $j$ or $A_{j}$\added{-}integrable.}
\end{definition}
Conjecturing that an $A_{\infty}$ degree of asymptotic integrability actually implies integrability, we have that under this assumption the relations (\ref{Valentia}, \ref{Lavinia}) are a \emph{sufficient} condition for the integrability or that integrability is a \emph{necessary} condition to have a multiscale expansion where all the Eqs.~(\ref{Valentia}) are satisfied. So the multiscale integrability test tell us that ${\mathcal Q}$ will be integrable if its multiscale expansion will follow all the infinite relations (\ref{Valentia}, \ref{Lavinia}). The higher the degree of asymptotic integrability, the closer the equation will be to an integrable one. However, as we can test the conditions (\ref{Valentia}, \ref{Lavinia}) only up to a finite order (actually $4$), from them we can only derive necessary conditions for integrability, so we will not be able to state with $100\%$ certainty that the discrete equation is integrable. The results obtained at a finite but sufficiently high o!
rder will have a good probability to correspond to an integrable equation, but we need to use other techniques to prove it with $100\%$ certainty.
Let us present for completeness in the following the lowest order conditions for asymptotic integrability of order $k$ or $A_{k}$-integrability conditions. To simplify the notation, we will use for $u^{\left(1\right)}_{j}$ the concise form $u(j)$, $j\geq 1$. Moreover, for convenience of the reader, we list the fluxes $K_{\sigma}\left[u\right]$ of the NLSE hierarchy for $u$ up to $\sigma=5$:
\begin{subequations}\label{Rutuli}
\begin{align}
K_{1}[u]&\doteq Au_{\xi},\\
K_{2}[u]&\doteq-{\rm{i}}\rho_{1}\left[u_{\xi\xi}+\frac{\rho_{2}} {\rho_{1}}|u|^2u \right], \label{Rutuli1}\\
K_{3}[u]&\doteq B\left[u_{\xi\xi\xi}+\frac{3\rho_{2}} {\rho_{1}}|u|^2u_{\xi}\right],\label{Rutuli2}\\
K_{4}[u]&\doteq-{\rm{i}} C\left\{u_{\xi\xi\xi\xi}+\frac{\rho_{2}} {\rho_{1}}\left[\frac{3\rho_{2}} {2\rho_{1}}|u|^4u+4|u|^2u_{\xi\xi}+3u_{\xi}^2\bar u+2|u_{\xi}|^2u+u^2\bar u_{\xi\xi}\right]\right\},\label{Rutuli3}\\
K_{5}[u]&\doteq D\bigg\{u_{\xi\xi\xi\xi\xi}\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\frac{5\rho_{2}}{\rho_{1}}\left[\frac{3\rho_{2}}{2\rho_{1}}|u|^4u_{\xi}+|u_{\xi}|^2u_{\xi}+u\bar u_{\xi}u_{\xi\xi}+2\bar uu_{\xi}u_{\xi\xi}+uu_{\xi}\bar u_{\xi\xi}+|u|^2u_{\xi\xi\xi}\right]\bigg\},\label{Rutuli4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and the corresponding $K_{\sigma}^{'}[u]v$ up to $\sigma=4$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&K_{1}^{\prime}[u]v= Av_{\xi},\label{Arenta}\\
&K_{2}^{\prime}[u]v=-{\rm{i}}\rho_{1}\left\{v_{\xi\xi}+\frac{\rho_{2}} {\rho_{1}}\left[u^2\bar v+2|u|^2v\right]\right\},\label{ArtemideEfesina}\ \ \ \ \ \ \\
&K_{3}^{\prime}[u]v=B\left\{v_{\xi\xi\xi}+\frac{3\rho_{2}} {\rho_{1}}\left[|u|^2v_{\xi}+\bar uu_{\xi}v+uu_{\xi}\bar v\right]\right\},\label{Abruzzo3}\\
&K_{4}^{\prime}\left[u\right]v=-iC\left\{v_{\xi\xi\xi\xi}+\frac{\rho_{2}}{\rho_{1}}\left[u^{2}\bar v_{\xi\xi}+4|u|^{2}v_{\xi\xi}+2uu_{\xi}\bar v_{\xi}+2u\bar u_{\xi}v_{\xi}+6\bar u u_{\xi}v_{\xi}+4uu_{\xi\xi}\bar v+\right.\right.
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\quad\quad\qquad\left.\left.+3u_{\xi}^{2}\bar v+\frac{3\rho_{2}}{\rho_{1}}|u|^{2}u^{2}\bar v+4\bar u u_{\xi\xi}v+2u\bar u_{\xi\xi}v+\frac{9\rho_{2}}{2\rho_{1}}|u|^{4}v+2|u_{\xi}|^{2}v\right]\right\},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $A\not=0$, $\rho_{1}\not=0$, $\rho_{2}$, $B\not=0$, $C\not=0$ and $D\not=0$, if $\rho_{2}\not=0$, are arbitrary real constants.
\subsection{The $A_{1}$-integrability condition.}\ \\
The $A_{1}$-integrability condition is given by the reality of the coefficient $\rho_{2}$ of the nonlinear term in the NLSE. It is obtained commuting the NLSE flux $K_{2}[u]$ with the flux $B\left[u_{\xi\xi\xi}+\tau |u|^2u_{\xi}+\mu u^2\bar u_{\xi}\right]$ with $\tau$ and $\mu$ constants. This commutativity condition gives, if $\rho_{2}\not =0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\operatorname{Im}\left[\rho_{2}\right]=\operatorname{Im}\left[B\right]=\operatorname{Im}\left[\rho_{1}\right]=0,\ \ \ \ \ \tau=3\rho_{2}/\rho_{1},\ \ \ \ \ \mu=0.\label{Montesiepi}
\end{eqnarray}
We remark that, when $\rho_{2}\not=0$, by the same method it is possible to determine all the coefficients of all the higher NLSE-symmetries (\ref{Rutuli}) together with the reality conditions of the coefficients $A$, $C$ and $D$.
\subsection{The $A_{2}$-integrability conditions.}\ \\
The $A_{2}$- integrability conditions are obtained choosing $j=2$ in the compatibility conditions (\ref{Lavinia}) with $\sigma=2$ and $\sigma'=3$ or alternatively $\sigma'=4$, respectively
\begin{subequations}
\begin{gather}
M_{2}f_{3}\left(2\right)=M_{3}f_{2}\left(2\right),\label{Turno}\\
M_{2}f_{4}\left(2\right)=M_{4}f_{2}\left(2\right).\label{Turno1}
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
In this case $f_{2}(2)$, $f_{3}(2)$ and $f_{4}(2)$ will be respectively identified by 2, ($a, b$), 5, ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta, \epsilon$), and 8, ($\theta_1, \cdots, \theta_8$), complex constants
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
f_{2}(2)&\doteq au_{\xi}(1)|u(1)|^2+b\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(1)^2,\label{Abruzzo1}\\
f_{3}(2)&\doteq\alpha |u(1)|^4u(1)+\beta |u_{\xi}(1)|^2u(1)+\gamma u_{\xi}(1)^2\bar u(1)+\label{Abruzzo2}\\
&\qquad{}+\delta\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(1)^2+\epsilon |u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi}(1),\nonumber\\
f_{4}\left(2\right)&\doteq\theta_{1}|u\left(1\right)|^{4}u_{\xi}\left(1\right)+\theta_{2}|u\left(1\right)|^{2}u\left(1\right)^{2}\bar u_{\xi}\left(1\right)+\theta_{3}|u_{\xi}\left(1\right)|^{2}u_{\xi}\left(1\right)+\\
&\qquad{}+\theta_{4}u\left(1\right)\bar u_{\xi}\left(1\right)u_{\xi\xi}\left(1\right)+\theta_{5}\bar u\left(1\right)u_{\xi}\left(1\right)u_{\xi\xi}\left(1\right)+\theta_{6}u\left(1\right)u_{\xi}\left(1\right)\bar u_{\xi\xi}\left(1\right)+\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\theta_{7}|u\left(1\right)|^{2}u_{\xi\xi\xi}\left(1\right)+\theta_{8}u\left(1\right)^{2}\bar u_{\xi\xi\xi}\left(1\right).\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
As $\rho_{2}\not=0$, eliminating from Eq.~(\ref{Turno}) the derivatives of $u(1)$ with respect to the slow-times $t_{2}$ and $t_{3}$ using the evolutions (\ref{Valentia1}) with $\sigma=2$ and $\sigma'=3$ and equating term by term, we obtain the following 2 $A_{2}$-integrability conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
a=\bar a,\ \ \ b=\bar b.\label{CieloUrbico}
\end{eqnarray}
So we have two conditions obtained when requiring the reality of the coefficients $a$ and $b$. The expressions of $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\alpha$, $\delta$ in terms of $a$ and $b$ are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha=\frac{3{\rm{i}} Ba\rho_{2}} {4\rho_{1}^2},\ \ \ \beta=\frac{3{\rm{i}} Bb} {\rho_{1}},\ \ \ \gamma=\frac{3{\rm{i}} Ba} {2\rho_{1}},\ \ \ \delta=0,\ \ \ \epsilon=\gamma.\label{Molise}
\end{eqnarray}
The same integrability conditions (\ref{CieloUrbico}) can be derived using Eq.~(\ref{Turno1}). As in our analysis we will need them, here follow the explicit expressions of the coefficients of the forcing term $f_{4}\left(2\right)$
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\theta_{1}=\frac{6Ca\rho_{2}}{\rho_{1}^2},\ \ \ \theta_{2}=\frac{3Cb\rho_{2}}{\rho_{1}^2},\ \ \ \theta_{3}=\frac{\left(a+3b\right)C}{\rho_{1}},\ \ \ \theta_{4}=\frac{\left(a+4b\right)C}{\rho_{1}},
\\
\theta_{5}=\frac{5Ca}{\rho_{1}},\ \ \ \theta_{6}=\frac{\left(a+2b\right)C}{\rho_{1}},\ \ \ \theta_{7}=\frac{2Ca}{\rho_{1}},\ \ \ \theta_{8}=\frac{Cb}{\rho_{1}}.
\end{gathered}\label{Moly}
\end{equation}
\subsection{The $A_{3}$-integrability conditions.}\ \\
The $A_{3}$-integrability conditions are derived in a similar way setting $j=3$ in the compatibility conditions (\ref{Lavinia}) with $\sigma=2$ and $\sigma'=3$, so that $M_{2}f_{3}\left(3\right)=M_{3}f_{2}\left(3\right)$. In this case $f_{2}(3)$ and $f_{3}(3)$ will be respectively identified by 12 and 26 complex constants
\begin{subequations} \label{f23}
\begin{align}
f_{2}(3)&\doteq\tau_{1}|u(1)|^4u(1)+\tau_{2}|u_{\xi}(1)|^2u(1)+\tau_{3}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi}(1)+\tau_{4}\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(1)^2\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\tau_{7}\bar u_{\xi}(2)u(1)^2+\tau_{8}u(2)^2\bar u(1)+\tau_{9}|u(2)|^2u(1)+\tau_{10}u(2)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(1)\label{Lazio4}\\
&\qquad{}+\tau_{11}u(2)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(1)+\tau_{12}\bar u(2)u_{\xi}(1)u(1)+\tau_{5}u_{\xi}(1)^2\bar u(1)+\tau_{6}u_{\xi}(2)|u(1)|^2,\nonumber\\
f_{3}(3)&\doteq\gamma_{1}|u(1)|^4u_{\xi}(1)+\gamma_{2}|u(1)|^2u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi}(1)+\gamma_{3}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1)\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\gamma_{5}|u_{\xi}(1)|^2u_{\xi}(1)+\gamma_{6}\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u_{\xi}(1)u(1)+\gamma_{7}u_{\xi\xi}(1)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(1)\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\gamma_{9}|u(1)|^4u(2)+\gamma_{10}|u(1)|^2u(1)^2\bar u(2)+\gamma_{11}\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(2)^2+\gamma_{12}u_{\xi}(1)|u(2)|^2\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\gamma_{13}|u_{\xi}(1)|^2u(2)+\gamma_{14}|u(2)|^2u(2)+\gamma_{15}u_{\xi}(1)^{2}\bar u(2)+\gamma_{16}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi}(2)\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\gamma_{17}u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi}(2)+\gamma_{18}u(2)\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(1)+\gamma_{19}u(2)u_{\xi\xi}(1)\bar u(1)\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\gamma_{21}u(2)u_{\xi}(2)\bar u(1)+\gamma_{22}\bar u(2)u_{\xi}(2)u(1)+\gamma_{23}u_{\xi}(2)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(1)\nonumber\\
&\qquad{}+\gamma_{25}\bar u_{\xi}(2)u_{\xi}(1)u(1)+\gamma_{26}\bar u_{\xi}(2)u(2)u(1)+\gamma_{4}u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1) \nonumber \\
&\qquad{}+\gamma_{8}u_{\xi\xi}(1)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(1)+\gamma_{20}\bar u(2)u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(1)+\gamma_{24}u_{\xi}(2)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(1).\label{Lazio5}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Let us eliminate from Eq.~(\ref{Turno}) with $j=3$ the derivatives of $u(1)$ with respect to the slow-times $t_{2}$ and $t_{3}$ using the evolutions (\ref{Valentia1}) respectively with $\sigma=2$ and $\sigma'=3$ and the derivatives of $u(2)$ using the evolutions (\ref{Valentia2}) with $\sigma=2$ and $\sigma'=3$. Let us equate the remaining terms term by term, if $\rho_{2}\not=0$, and, indicating with $R_{i}$ and $I_{i}$ the real and imaginary parts of $\tau_{i}$, $i=1,\ldots,12$, we obtain the following 15 $A_{3}$-integrability conditions
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
R_{1}=-\frac{aI_{6}} {4\rho_{1}},\qquad R_{3}=\frac{(b-a)I_{6}} {2\rho_{2}}-\frac{aI_{12}} {2\rho_{2}},\qquad R_{4}=\frac{R_{2}} {2}+\frac{(a-b)I_{6}} {4\rho_{2}}+\frac{aI_{12}} {4\rho_{2}},\\
R_{5}=\frac{R_{2}} {2}+\frac{(a-b)I_{6}} {4\rho_{2}}+\frac{(2b-a)I_{12}} {4\rho_{2}},\qquad R_{6}=-\frac{aI_{8}} {\rho_{2}},\qquad R_{7}=R_{12}+\frac{(a-b)I_{8}} {\rho_{2}},\\
R_{8}=R_{9}=0,\qquad R_{10}=R_{12},\qquad R_{11}=R_{12}+\frac{(a-2b)I_{8}} {\rho_{2}},\\
I_{4}=\frac{(b+a)R_{12}} {4\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}} {\rho_{2}}+\frac{I_{2}-I_{3}-2I_{5}} {4}+\frac{\left[2b(a-b)+a^2\right]I_{8}} {4\rho_{2}^2},\qquad I_{7}=0,\\
I_{9}=2I_{8},\qquad I_{10}=I_{12},\qquad I_{11}=I_{6}+I_{12}.
\end{gathered}\label{Siculi}
\end{equation}
For completeness we give the expressions of $\gamma_{j}$, $j=1,\ldots,26$ as functions of $\tau_{i}$, $i=1,\ldots,12$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\gamma_{1}=\frac{3B} {8\rho_{1}^2}\left[-2bR_{12}-8\rho_{1}I_{1}+2(I_{2}-2I_{3}-2I_{5})\rho_{2}+{\rm{i}} (b-5a)I_{6}+\frac{2a^2I_{8}} {\rho_{2}}-3{\rm{i}} aI_{12}\right],
\\
\gamma_{2}=-\frac{3Ba} {4\rho_{1}^2}\left[{\rm{i}} I_{6}+\frac{(a-2b)I_{8}} {\rho_{2}}+\tau_{12}\right],\quad \gamma_{3}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{3}} {2\rho_{1}},\quad \gamma_{4}=0,\quad \gamma_{5}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{2}} {2\rho_{1}},
\\
\gamma_{6}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{4}} {\rho_{1}},\quad \gamma_{7}=\gamma_{5},\quad \gamma_{8}=\gamma_{3}+\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{5}} {\rho_{1}},\quad \gamma_{9}=-\frac{3B(\rho_{2}I_{6}+3a{\rm{i}} I_{8})} {4\rho_{1}^2},
\\
\gamma_{10}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\rho_{2}R_{6}} {2\rho_{1}^2},\quad \gamma_{11}=0,\quad \gamma_{12}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{9}} {2\rho_{1}},\quad \gamma_{13}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{11}} {2\rho_{1}},\quad \gamma_{14}=0,
\\
\gamma_{15}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{12}} {2\rho_{1}},\quad\gamma_{16}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{6}} {2\rho_{1}},\quad \gamma_{17}=\gamma_{18}=0,\quad \gamma_{19}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{10}} {2\rho_{1}},\quad \gamma_{20}=\gamma_{15},
\\
\gamma_{21}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{8}} {\rho_{1}},\quad\gamma_{22}=\gamma_{12},\quad \gamma_{23}=\gamma_{16}+\gamma_{19},\quad \gamma_{24}=\gamma_{13},\quad \gamma_{25}=\frac{3{\rm{i}} B\tau_{7}} {\rho_{1}},\quad \gamma_{26}=0.
\end{gathered}\label{gam}
\end{equation}
\subsection{The $A_{4}$-integrability conditions.}\ \\[4.5mm]
\nopagebreak
\indent The $A_{4}$-integrability conditions are derived similarly from (\ref{Lavinia}) with $j=4$, that is $M_{2}f_{3}\left(4\right)=M_{3}f_{2}\left(4\right)$. Now $f_{2}(4)$ and $f_{3}(4)$ are respectively defined by 34 and 77 complex constants
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{f24}
\begin{aligned}
f_{2}\left(4\right)&\doteq\eta_{1}|u(1)|^4u_{\xi}(1)+\eta_{2}|u(1)|^2u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi}(1)+\eta_{3}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1)\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{5}|u_{\xi}(1)|^2u_{\xi}(1)+\eta_{6}\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u_{\xi}(1)u(1)+\eta_{7}u_{\xi\xi}(1)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(1)\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{9}|u(1)|^4u(2)+\eta_{10}|u(1)|^2u(1)^2\bar u(2)+\eta_{11}\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(2)^2+\eta_{12}u_{\xi}(1)|u(2)|^2\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{13}|u_{\xi}(1)|^2u(2)+\eta_{14}|u(2)|^2u(2)+\eta_{15}u_{\xi}(1)^{2}\bar u(2)+\eta_{16}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi}(2)\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{17}u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi}(2)+\eta_{18}u(2)\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(1)+\eta_{19}u(2)u_{\xi\xi}(1)\bar u(1)\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{21}u(2)u_{\xi}(2)\bar u(1)+\eta_{22}\bar u(2)u_{\xi}(2)u(1)+\eta_{23}u_{\xi}(2)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(1)\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{25}\bar u_{\xi}(2)u_{\xi}(1)u(1)+\eta_{26}\bar u_{\xi}(2)u(2)u(1)+\eta_{4}u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1) \\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{8}u_{\xi\xi}(1)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(1)+\eta_{20}\bar u(2)u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(1)+\eta_{24}u_{\xi}(2)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(1)+\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{27}u(1)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(3)+\eta_{28}\bar u(1)u_{\xi}(1)u(3)+\eta_{29}u(1)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(3)+\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{30}u(1)\bar u(2)u(3)+\eta_{31}\bar u(1)u(2)u(3)+\eta_{32}u(1)u(2)\bar u(3)+\\
&\qquad{}+\eta_{33}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi}(3)+\eta_{34}u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi}(3),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{f34}
f_{3}(4)&\doteq\kappa_{1}u(1)|u(1)|^6+\kappa_{2}|u(1)|^2\bar u(1)u_{\xi}(1)^2+\kappa_{3}|u(1)|^2u(1)|u_{\xi}(1)|^2+\kappa_{4}u(1)^3\bar u_{\xi}(1)^2\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{5}|u(1)|^4u_{\xi\xi}(1)+\kappa_{6}|u(1)|^2u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)+\kappa_{7}|u_{\xi}(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi}(1)+\kappa_{8}u_{\xi}(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{9}u(1)|u_{\xi\xi}(1)|^2+\kappa_{10}\bar u(1)u_{\xi\xi}(1)^2+\kappa_{11}\bar u(1)u_{\xi}(1)u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1)+\kappa_{12}u(1)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{13}u(1)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1)+\kappa_{14}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi\xi\xi}(1)+\kappa_{15}u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi\xi\xi}(1)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{16}|u(1)|^2\bar u(1)u(2)^2+\kappa_{17}|u(1)|^2u(1)|u(2)|^2+\kappa_{18}u(1)^3\bar u(2)^2\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{19}|u(1)|^2\bar u(1)u_{\xi}(1)u(2)+\kappa_{20}|u(1)|^2u(1)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(2)+\kappa_{21}|u(1)|^2u(1)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{22}u(1)^3\bar u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(2)+\kappa_{23}\bar u_{\xi}(1)u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(2)+\kappa_{24}u_{\xi}(1)\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{25}u_{\xi}(1)u_{\xi\xi}(1)\bar u(2)+\kappa_{26}u(1)\bar u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1)u(2)+\kappa_{27}\bar u(1)u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1)u(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{28}u(1)u_{\xi\xi\xi}(1)\bar u(2)+\kappa_{29}\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(2)^2+\kappa_{30}u_{\xi\xi}(1)|u(2)|^2+\kappa_{31}|u(1)|^4u_{\xi}(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{32}|u(1)|^2u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi}(2)+\kappa_{33}|u_{\xi}(1)|^2u_{\xi}(2)+\kappa_{34}u_{\xi}(1)^2\bar u_{\xi}(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{35}\bar u(1)u_{\xi\xi}(1)u_{\xi}(2)+\kappa_{36}u(1)\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u_{\xi}(2)+\kappa_{37}u(1)u_{\xi\xi}(1)\bar u_{\xi}(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{38}u(1)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u_{\xi\xi}(2)+\kappa_{39}\bar u(1)u_{\xi}(1)u_{\xi\xi}(2)+\kappa_{40}u(1)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u_{\xi\xi}(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{41}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi\xi}(2)+\kappa_{42}u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi\xi}(2)+\kappa_{43}\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(2)u_{\xi}(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{44}u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(2)u_{\xi}(2)+\kappa_{45}u_{\xi}(1)u(2)\bar u_{\xi}(2)+\kappa_{46}u(1)|u_{\xi}(2)|^2+\kappa_{47}\bar u(1)u_{\xi}(2)^2\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{48}\bar u(1)u(2)u_{\xi\xi}(2)+\kappa_{49}u(1)\bar u(2)u_{\xi\xi}(2)+\kappa_{50}u(1)u(2)\bar u_{\xi\xi}(2)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{51}|u(2)|^2u_{\xi}(2)+\kappa_{52}u(2)^2\bar u_{\xi}(2)+\kappa_{53}|u(1)|^4u(3)+\kappa_{54}|u(1)|^2u(1)^2\bar u(3)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{55}\bar u(1)u(3)^2+\kappa_{56}u(1)|u(3)|^2+\kappa_{57}|u(2)|^2u(3)+\kappa_{58}u(2)^2\bar u(3)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{59}|u_{\xi}(1)|^2u(3)+\kappa_{60}u_{\xi}(1)^2\bar u(3)+\kappa_{61}u(1)\bar u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(3)+\kappa_{62}\bar u(1)u_{\xi\xi}(1)u(3)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{63}u(1)u_{\xi\xi}(1)\bar u(3)+\kappa_{64}u(1)\bar u_{\xi}(1)u_{\xi}(3)+\kappa_{65}\bar u(1)u_{\xi}(1)u_{\xi}(3)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{66}u(1)u_{\xi}(1)\bar u_{\xi}(3)+\kappa_{67}|u(1)|^2u_{\xi\xi}(3)+\kappa_{68}u(1)^2\bar u_{\xi\xi}(3)+\kappa_{69}u_{\xi}(1)\bar u(2)u(3)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{70}\bar u_{\xi}(1)u(2)u(3)+\kappa_{71}u_{\xi}(1)u(2)\bar u(3)+\kappa_{72}\bar u(1)u_{\xi}(2)u(3)+\kappa_{73}u(1)\bar u_{\xi}(2)u(3)\\
&\quad{}+\kappa_{74}u(1)u_{\xi}(2)\bar u(3)+\kappa_{75}u(1)\bar u(2)u_{\xi}(3)+\kappa_{76}\bar u(1)u(2)u_{\xi}(3)+\kappa_{77}u(1)u(2)\bar u_{\xi}(3).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
If we indicate with $S_{j}$ and $T_{j}$ respectively the real and imaginary parts of $\eta_{j}$, $j=1$, \ldots, $34$, when $\rho_{2}\not=0$, the $A_{4}$-integrability conditions are represented by $48$ real relations whose expressions are presented in the Appendix.
To study the distance between an integrable partial differential equation and its discretizations other integrability conditions have been constructed in \cite{S}, corresponding to $M_{4}f_{2}\left(3\right)=M_{2}f_{4}\left(3\right)$ ($A_{3}$-integrability conditions) and to $M_{4}f_{2}\left(5\right)=M_{2}f_{4}\left(5\right)$ ($A_{5}$-integrability conditions) in the subspaces characterized by $u\left(2n\right)=0$, $n\geq1$ with purely imaginary coefficients. In this case the $A_{3}$-integrability conditions are given by one real relation which can be deduced from (\ref{Siculi}) and corresponds to $I_{4}=\rho_{1}I_{1}/\rho_{2}+\left(I_{2}-I_{3}-2I_{5}\right)/4$. The next integrability condition, the $A_{5}$-integrability condition, is given by 14 real conditions, not included in the integrability conditions given here.
The results presented in this Section will be used in the following Sections to classify integrable nonlinear equation on the square lattice.
\section{Dispersive affine-linear equations on the square lattice} \label{s2}
The aim of this Section is to derive the necessary conditions for the integrability of the simplest class of $\mathbb{Z}^2$-lattice equations, that of dispersive and multilinear equations~(\ref{eq}) defined on the square lattice, satisfying the condition~(1) with dispersion relation $\omega_{+}(k)$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal Q}^+\doteq a_1 (u_{n,m} + u_{n+1,m+1}) + a_2 (u_{n+1,m} + u_{n,m+1}) \\
& \qquad{}+ (\alpha_1-\alpha_2) \, u_{n,m}u_{n+1,m} + (\alpha_1+\alpha_2)\,
u_{n,m+1}u_{n+1,m+1} \\
&\qquad + \, (\beta_1-\beta_2)\, u_{n,m}u_{n,m+1} + (\beta_1+\beta_2)\,
u_{n+1,m}u_{n+1,m+1} \\
&\qquad{}+ \, \gamma_1 u_{n,m}u_{n+1,m+1} + \gamma_2 u_{n+1,m}u_{n,m+1} \\
&\qquad{}+ \, (\xi_1-\xi_3)\, u_{n,m}u_{n+1,m}u_{n,m+1} + (\xi_1+\xi_3)\,
u_{n,m}u_{n+1,m}u_{n+1,m+1} \\
&\qquad{}+ \, (\xi_2-\xi_4)\, u_{n+1,m}u_{n,m+1}u_{n+1,m+1} + (\xi_2+\xi_4)\,
u_{n,m}u_{n,m+1}u_{n+1,m+1} \\
&\qquad{}+ \, \zeta u_{n,m} u_{n+ 1,m} u_{n,m + 1} u_{n + 1,m + 1}=0, \label{q4}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $a_1,a_2 \in \mathbb R\setminus \{0\}$, $|a_1| \neq |a_2|$, are the coefficients appearing in the
linear part while $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2,$ $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,$
$\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3, \xi_4, \zeta$ are real parameters which enter in the nonlinear part of the system. Here we will look, by using
the multiscale procedure described in Section \ref{s1} into the values of these coefficients such that the class ${\mathcal Q}^+$ is $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$ and $A_4$ integrable
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.1em}
\begin{picture}(200,140)(-50,-20)
\put( 0, 0){\vector(1,0){100}}
\put( 100, 0){\vector(-1,0){100}}
\put( 0,100){\vector(1,0){100}}
\put( 100,100){\vector(-1,0){100}}
\put( 0, 0){\vector(0,1){100}}
\put( 0, 100){\vector(0,-1){100}}
\put(100, 0){\vector(0,1){100}}
\put(100, 100){\vector(0,-1){100}}
\put(0, 0){\line(1,1){100}}
\put(100, 0){\line(-1,1){100}}
\put(97, -3){$\bullet$}
\put(-3, -3){$\bullet$}
\put(-3, 97){$\bullet$}
\put(97, 97){$\bullet$}
\put(-32,-13){$u_{n,m}$}
\put(-45,47){$\beta_1-\beta_2$}
\put(110,47){$\beta_1+\beta_2$}
\put(30,-15){$\alpha_1-\alpha_2$}
\put(30,110){$\alpha_1+\alpha_2$}
\put(65,80){$\gamma_1$}
\put(25,80){$\gamma_2$}
\put(103,-13){$u_{n+1,m}$}
\put(103,110){$u_{n+1,m+1}$}
\put(-32,110){$u_{n,m+1}$}
\end{picture}
\caption{Graphical representation of the quadratic nonlinearities of ${\mathcal Q}^+$}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To perform a classification of the equations ${\mathcal Q}^+$, we need to find the set of transformations that leave them invariant, i.e.~the equivalence group. As mentioned before, a generic multilinear equation of the form (\ref{e}) is invariant under a M\"obius transformation~(\ref{eqMob}). The constant term~$f_0$ and the differences~$a_{00}-a_{11}$, $a_{01}-a_{10}$ transform according to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqTr3}
&&f_0\overset{T}{\mapsto} f_0'=D^4f_0+
B^4\zeta+
2 B^3D
\left(\xi _1+\xi
_2\right)+ B^2 D^2
\left[\gamma_1+\gamma_2+2
\left(\alpha _1+\beta
_1\right)\right]\\ \nonumber
&&\qquad \qquad+2BD^3
\left(a_{00}+a_{11}+a_{01}+a_{10}\right),
\\ \nonumber
&&a_{00}-a_{11}\overset{T}{\mapsto}a_{00}'-a_{11}'=\Delta \left[D^2 \left(a_{00}-a_{11}\right)+B^2
\left(\xi _1-\xi _2-\xi_3+\xi_4\right)-2 B D
\left(\alpha _2+\beta _2\right)\right]
\\ \nonumber
&&a_{01}-a_{10}\overset{T}{\mapsto} a_{01}'-a_{10}'=\Delta\left[D^2 \left(a_{01}-a_{10}\right)-B^2
\left(\xi _1-\xi _2+ \xi _3-\xi _4\right)+2 B D
\left(\alpha _2-\beta _2\right)\right]
\end{eqnarray}
with~$\Delta=A D-B C$. These formulas allow to determine when a given linear-affine equation~(\ref{e}) can be transformed into one belonging to class~${\mathcal Q}^+$. For this to happen all three terms must be null, so setting the l.h.s.~of (\ref{eqTr3}) to zero we get three polynomial equations for~$B/D$ or~$D/B$. If simultaneously solved (over the reals), we have an equation of the class~${\mathcal Q}^+$. One could try to write the conditions over the coefficients of a general linear-affine equation~(\ref{e}) by using resultant calculations on the three polynomial conditions, but they turn out to be too complicated. A solution of (\ref{eqTr3}) is given by restricted simultaneous M\"obius transformations $R$ of the form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{M}
u_{n,m}\mapsto u_{n,m}'=u_{n,m}/(Cu_{n,m}+D),\qquad \forall \; n,\,m
\end{eqnarray}
which will be our {\bf equivalence transformation}. Under ~(\ref{M}) the coefficients of Eq. ~(\ref{q4}) undergo the following transformations:
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&a_1\overset{R}{\mapsto} a_1'= D^3a_1,\ \ \ a_2\overset{R}{\mapsto} a_2'= D^3a_2,\ \ \ \alpha_1\overset{R}{\mapsto}\alpha_1'= D^2 \left[\alpha _1+C\left(a_1+a_2\right)
\right],\ \ \ \alpha_2\overset{R}{\mapsto}\alpha_2'= D^2\alpha_2,
\\ \nonumber
&&\beta_1\overset{R}{\mapsto} \beta_1'= D^2 \left[\beta _1+C\left(a_1+a_2\right)
\right],\quad \beta_2\overset{R}{\mapsto}\beta_2'= D^2\beta_2,
\\ \nonumber
&&\gamma_1\overset{R}{\mapsto} \gamma_1'= D^2 \left(\gamma_1+2C a_1 \right),\quad \gamma_2\overset{R}{\mapsto} \gamma_2'= D^2 \left(\gamma_2+2C a_2 \right),
\\ \nonumber
&&\xi_1\overset{R}{\mapsto} \xi_1'= D \xi _1+\tfrac{1}{2} C D \left[3C
\left(a_1+a_2\right)
+\gamma_1+\gamma_2+2 \left(\alpha
_1-\alpha _2+\beta
_1\right)\right],
\\ \nonumber
&&\xi_2\overset{R}{\mapsto} \xi_2'= D \xi _2+\tfrac{1}{2} C D \left[3C
\left(a_1+a_2\right)
+\gamma_1+\gamma_2+2 \left(\alpha
_1+\alpha _2+\beta
_1\right)\right],
\\ \nonumber
&&\xi_3\overset{R}{\mapsto} \xi_3'= D \xi _3+\tfrac{1}{2} C D \left[C(a_1
-a_2)+\gamma_1-\gamma_2+2 \beta
_2\right],
\\ \nonumber
&&\xi_4\overset{R}{\mapsto} \xi_4'= D \xi _4+\tfrac{1}{2} C D \left[C(a_1
-a_2)+\gamma_1-\gamma_2-2 \beta
_2\right],
\\
&&\zeta\overset{R}{\mapsto} \zeta'= \zeta+C^2 \left[2C
\left(a_1+a_2\right)
+\gamma_1+\gamma_2+2 \left(\alpha
_1+\beta _1\right)\right]+2C
\left(\xi _1+\xi
_2\right).\label{eqtrzeta}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent We will indicate by~${\mathcal N}$ the number of free parameters (although not all of them essential under $R$) appearing in each sub case of~\fref{q4}. Its maximum number is~${\mathcal N}=13$, the number of free coefficients in~\fref{q4}.
\subsection{Classification at order $\varepsilon^3$.}\ \\
By performing the multiscale expansion of Eq.~(\ref{q4}), the following statement holds for the $A_{1}$-asymptotic integrability
\begin{prop} \label{the1}
The lowest order necessary conditions for the integrability of equations ${\mathcal Q}^+$ read:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case 1 (${\mathcal N}=9$):
\begin{equation} \label{S1}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\alpha_2 = \beta_2 = 0, \\
{\displaystyle{ {\xi_1 = \xi_2}}},\quad{\displaystyle{ {\xi_3 = \xi_4}}}.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\item Case 2 (${\mathcal N}=7$) :
\begin{equation} \label{S2}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\alpha_2 = \beta_2,\quad \alpha_1 = \beta_1, \\
a_1 =2 a_2 , \\
\gamma_1 = 2 \gamma_2,\\
a_1 (\xi_1 - \xi_2) = - a_1 (\xi_3 - \xi_4) = -2\alpha_2 \gamma_2.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\item Case 3 (${\mathcal N}=7$):
\begin{equation} \label{S3}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\alpha_2 = - \beta_2,\quad \alpha_1 = \beta_1, \\
a_2 =2 a_1 , \\
\gamma_2 = 2 \gamma_1,\\
a_1 (\xi_1 - \xi_2) = a_1 (\xi_3 - \xi_4)=
- \alpha_2 \gamma_1.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\item Case 4 (${\mathcal N}=8$):
\begin{equation} \label{S4}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
a_2\alpha_1 = a_2\beta_1=\frac12 (a_1+
a_2)\gamma_2, \\
a_2\gamma_1=a_1\gamma_2,\\
a_1 (\xi_1 - \xi_2) = -\alpha_2 \gamma_1, \\
a_1 (\xi_3 - \xi_4) = \beta_2 \gamma_1 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\item Case 5 (${\mathcal N}=8$):
\begin{equation} \label{S5}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
(a_2-a_1)\beta_2= (a_2+a_1) \alpha_2, \\
2 a_1 a_2 (a_1 - a_2) \alpha_1 = (a_1 + a_2) (\gamma_2 a_1^2-\gamma_1
a_2^2), \\
2 a_1 a_2 \beta_1 = \gamma_1 a_2^2 + \gamma_2 a_1^2,
\\
(a_2- a_1)(\xi_1 - \xi_2)=
(\gamma_1 - \gamma_2)\alpha_2, \\
(a_2 - a_1)^2(\xi_3 - \xi_4)= \left[ \gamma_2 (a_2 - 3 a_1 )-
\gamma_1 (a_1 - 3 a_2 )\right] \alpha_2 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\item Case 6 (${\mathcal N}=8$):
\begin{equation} \label{S6}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
(a_2+a_1)\beta_2= (a_2- a_1) \alpha_2, \\
2 a_1 a_2 \alpha_1 = \gamma_1 a_2^2 + \gamma_2 a_1^2,
\\
2 a_1 a_2 (a_1 - a_2) \beta_1 =(a_1 + a_2) (\gamma_2 a_1^2-\gamma_1
a_2^2), \\
(a_2^2 - a_1^2)(\xi_1 - \xi_2)= \left[ \gamma_1 (a_1 - 3 a_2 )-
\gamma_2 (a_2 - 3 a_1 )\right] \alpha_2, \\
(a_1+ a_2)(\xi_3 - \xi_4)= (\gamma_2 - \gamma_1)\alpha_2.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The obtained six subclasses of equation~\fref{q4} are invariant under the restricted M\"obius transformation~(\ref{M}).
\end{prop}
{\underline{Proof:}} Following the procedure described in Section \ref{s1} we
expand the fields appearing in equation ${\mathcal Q}^+$ according to formulas
(\ref{bas}-\ref{nm}).
The lowest order necessary conditions for the integrability of ${\mathcal Q}^+$ are obtained
by considering the equation ${\mathcal W}_3$ (see (\ref{eee})), namely the order
$\varepsilon^3$ of the multiscale expansion. At this order we get
the $m_2$-evolution equation for the harmonic $u_0^{(1)}$, that is a NLSE of the form
\begin{equation}
{\rm{i}} \delta_{m_2} u_1^{(1)} + \rho_1\delta_{\xi}^2 u_1^{(1)}+
\rho_2 u_1^{(1)} |u_1^{(1)}|^2=0, \qquad \xi\doteq n_1 - \frac{d\omega}{d \kappa} m_1, \label{nls}
\end{equation}
where the coefficients $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ will depend on the parameters of
the equation ${\mathcal Q}^+$ and on the wave parameters $\kappa$ and $\omega=\omega_+$, with
$\omega_+$ expressed in terms of $\kappa$ through the dispersion relation (\ref{e5+}).
According to our multiscale test the lowest order necessary
condition for ${\mathcal Q}^+$ to be an integrable lattice equation is that Eq.~(\ref{nls}) be integrable itself, namely $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ have
to be real coefficients.
Let us outline the construction of Eq.~(\ref{nls}).
At ${\mathcal O}(\varepsilon)$ we get:
\begin{itemize}
\item for $\alpha=1$ a linear equation which is identically satisfied by the
dispersion relation (\ref{e5+}).
\item for $\alpha=0$ a linear equation whose solution is $u_1^{(0)}=0$.
\end{itemize}
At ${\mathcal O}(\varepsilon^2)$, taking into account the dispersion relation (\ref{e5+}),
we get:
\begin{itemize}
\item for $\alpha=2$ an algebraic relation between $u_2^{(2)}$ and $u_1^{(1)}$.
\item for $\alpha=1$ a linear wave equation for $u_1^{(1)}$, whose solution is
given by $u_1^{(1)}(n_1,m_1,m_2)=u_1^{(1)}(\xi,m_2)$, where
$\xi\doteq n_1 - (d\omega/d \kappa) m_1$.
\item for $\alpha=0$ an algebraic relation between $u_2^{(0)}$ and $u_1^{(1)}$.
\end{itemize}
Notice that from the ${\mathcal O}(\varepsilon^2)$ we find that the dependence of all the harmonics
on the slow-variables $n_1$ and $m_1$ is given by $\xi$.
At ${\mathcal O}(\varepsilon^3)$, for $\alpha=1$, by using the results obtained at the previous
orders, one gets the NLSE (\ref{nls}) with
$$
\rho_1 = \frac{a_1 a_2 (a_1^2-a_2^2) \sin \kappa }{ (a_1^2+a_2^2+2 a_1 a_2
\cos \kappa)^2}, \qquad
\rho_2 = {\mathcal R}_1 + {\rm{i}} {\mathcal R}_2, \label{r2}
$$
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {\mathcal R}_1=\frac{\sin \kappa \left[ {\mathcal R}_1^{(0)} + {\mathcal R}_1^{(1)} \cos \kappa
+ {\mathcal R}_1^{(2)} \cos^2 \kappa+ {\mathcal R}_1^{(3)} \cos^3 \kappa +{\mathcal R}_1^{(4)} \cos^4 \kappa \right]}
{(a_1+a_2)(a_1^2+a_2^2+2 a_1 a_2 \cos \kappa)^2 \left[(a_1-a_2)^2 + 2 a_1 a_2 \cos
\kappa (1+ \cos \kappa) \right]}, \label{r21} \\
&& {\mathcal R}_2=\frac{{\mathcal R}_2^{(0)} + {\mathcal R}_2^{(1)} \cos \kappa
+ {\mathcal R}_2^{(2)} \cos^2 \kappa+ {\mathcal R}_2^{(3)} \cos^3 \kappa +{\mathcal R}_2^{(4)} \cos^4
\kappa
+{\mathcal R}_2^{(5)} \cos^5 \kappa}
{(a_1+a_2)(a_1^2+a_2^2+2 a_1 a_2 \cos \kappa)^2 \left[(a_1-a_2)^2 + 2 a_1 a_2 \cos
\kappa (1+ \cos \kappa) \right]}. \label{r22}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the coefficients ${\mathcal R}_1^{(i)}$, $0 \leq i \leq 4$, and ${\mathcal R}_2^{(i)}$, $0
\leq i \leq 5$, are polynomials
depending on the coefficients $a_1,a_2 ,\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2,$ $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,$
$\xi_1,...,\xi_4$ and their expressions are cumbersome, so that we omit
them.
Note that $\rho_1$ is a real coefficient depending only on the parameters
of the linear part of ${\mathcal Q}^+$, while $\rho_2$ is a complex one. Hence
the integrability of the NLSE (\ref{nls}) is equivalent to the request
${\mathcal R}_2 =0 \; \forall \, \kappa$, that is
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal R}_2^{(i)}=0, \qquad 0\leq i \leq 5. \label{sys}
\end{equation}
Eqs.~(\ref{sys}) are a nonlinear algebraic system of six equations in twelve unknowns. By solving it one gets the six solutions contained in Proposition 1.
These solutions are computed taking into account that
$a_1,a_2 \in \mathbb R\setminus \{0\}$ with $|a_1| \neq |a_2|$.
One can solve two of the six equations (\ref{sys}) for $\xi_1$
and $\xi_3$, thus expressing them in terms of the remaining ten coefficients.
The resulting system of four equations turns out to be
$\xi_2$ and $\xi_4$-independent and linear in the
four variables~$\alpha_1$, $\beta_1$, $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$. Therefore we may write the remaining four equations as
a matrix equation with coefficients depending nonlinearly on
$\alpha_2$, $\beta_2$, $a_1$ and $a_2$. The rank of the matrix is three. The six solutions are obtained by requiring that the matrix be of rank 3, 2, 1 and 0, and correspond to the six classes \fref{q4} that pass integrability conditions up to order~$ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^3)$. A direct calculation proves the invariance of the six classes with respect to the restricted M\"obius transformation $R$.
\begin{flushright}$\square$\end{flushright}
\begin{cor}
If the coefficients $a_1,a_2 ,\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2,$ $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,$
$\xi_1,...,\xi_4$ of equation ${\mathcal Q}^+$ do not satisfy one of the conditions
given in (\ref{S1}--\ref{S6}) then ${\mathcal Q}^+$ is not integrable.
\end{cor}
{\bf Quadratic difference equations} are a subclass of ${\mathcal Q}^+$ which have attracted a deal of attention. These equations are not M\"obius invariant, but we can spot those that belong to the class~${\mathcal Q}^+$ and pass our integrability conditions, just by inspection of~(\ref{S1}--\ref{S4}). We have:
\begin{rem}\label{the1bis}
For quadratic equations, when $\xi_1=\xi_2=\xi_3=\xi_4=\zeta=0$ in equations ${\mathcal Q}^+$, the
lowest order necessary conditions for the integrability of
the resulting equation read:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case Q1: $\alpha_2=\beta_2=0$;
\item Case Q2: $\alpha_2=\beta_2$, $\alpha_1=\beta_1$, $a_1=2a_2$, $\gamma_1=\gamma_2=0$, $\alpha_{j}\not=0$, $j=1$, $2$;
\item Case Q3: $\alpha_2=-\beta_2$, $\alpha_1=\beta_1$, $a_2=2a_1$, $\gamma_1=\gamma_2=0$, $\alpha_{j}\not=0$, $j=1$, $2$;
\item Case Q4: $\alpha_1=\beta_1=\gamma_1=\gamma_2=0$, $\left(\alpha_{2},\beta_{2}\right)\not=\left(0,0\right)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\subsection{Classification at order $\varepsilon^4$.}\ \\
\indent For what concerns the $A_{2}$-asymptotically integrable cases satisfying the integrability conditions (\ref{CieloUrbico}), the following statement holds
\begin{prop}\label{the11}
At order $\varepsilon^4$, the necessary conditions for the integrability of equations ${\mathcal Q}^+$ read:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case 1 (${\mathcal N}=9$):
\begin{equation} \label{S11}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\alpha_2 = \beta_2 = 0, \\
{\displaystyle{ {\xi_1 = \xi_2}}},\quad{\displaystyle{ {\xi_3 = \xi_4}}}.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\item Case 4 (${\mathcal N}=8$):
\begin{equation} \label{S44}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\alpha_{1}=\beta_{1}=\frac{\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)\gamma_{1}}{2a_{1}},\\
\gamma_{2}=\frac{a_{2}\gamma_{1}}{a_{1}},\\
a_1 (\xi_1 - \xi_2) = -\alpha_2 \gamma_1, \\
a_1 (\xi_3 - \xi_4) = \beta_2 \gamma_1 ,\\
\left(\alpha_{2},\beta_{2}\right)\not=\left(0,0\right).
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\vspace{2mm}
The corresponding two subclasses of equations are non overlapping and invariant under the restricted M\"obius transformation~(\ref{M}).
\end{prop}
\noindent As one can see, of the six $A_{1}$-asymptotically integrable cases listed in Proposition~\ref{the1}, Case~\emph{1} and Case~\emph{4} automatically satisfy the $A_{2}$-integrability conditions (\ref{CieloUrbico}), while the remaining four cases \emph{2}, \emph{3}, \emph{5} and \emph{6} reduce to some sub cases.
\begin{rem} \label{the1bis1}
For quadratic equations, when $\xi_1=\xi_2=\xi_3=\xi_4=\zeta=0$ in equations ${\mathcal Q}^+$, the order $\left(\varepsilon^4\right)$ necessary conditions for the integrability of
the resulting equation read:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case Q1: $\alpha_2=\beta_2=0$;
\item Case Q4: $\alpha_1=\beta_1=\gamma_1=\gamma_2=0$, $\left(\alpha_{2},\beta_{2}\right)\not=\left(0,0\right)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\noindent As one can see, only two out the previous four quadratic cases in {\bf Remark 1} survive, the Cases Q1 and Q4: the first one is a sub case of Case 1, while the second is a sub case of Case 4.
\subsection{Classification at order $\varepsilon^5$.}\ \\
\indent It is possible to find all the cases satisfying the $A_{3}$-integrability conditions (\ref{Siculi}). They are given by the following proposition
\begin{prop}
The necessary and sufficient conditions for $\varepsilon^{5}$ asymptotic integrability are:\\\\\indent Case (a): (${\mathcal N}=4$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=0,\ \ \ \gamma_{2}=\alpha_{1}+\beta_{1}-\gamma_{1},\ \ \ a_{2}=2a_{1},\ \ \ \left(2\alpha_{1}-3\gamma_{1},\ 2\beta_{1}-3\gamma_{1}\right)\not=\left(0,\ 0\right),\\
\nonumber\xi_{1}=\xi_{2}=\frac{\alpha_{1}\beta_{1}} {2a_{1}},\ \ \ \xi_{3}=\xi_{4}=-\frac{\left(\alpha_{1}-\gamma_{1}\right)\left(\beta_{1}-\gamma_{1}\right)} {2a_{1}},\ \ \ \zeta=\frac{\gamma_{1}\left[3\gamma_{1}^2-3\gamma_{1}\left(\alpha_{1}+\beta_{1}\right)+4\alpha_{1}\beta_{1}\right]} {4a_{1}^2};
\end{eqnarray}\\
\indent Case (b): (${\mathcal N}=4$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=0,\ \ \ \gamma_{1}=\alpha_{1}+\beta_{1}-\gamma_{2},\ \ \ a_{1}=2a_{2},\ \ \ \left(2\alpha_{1}-3\gamma_{2},\ 2\beta_{1}-3\gamma_{2}\right)\not=\left(0,\ 0\right)\\
\nonumber\xi_{1}=\xi_{2}=\frac{\alpha_{1}\beta_{1}} {2a_{2}},\ \ \ \xi_{3}=\xi_{4}=\frac{\left(\alpha_{1}-\gamma_{2}\right)\left(\beta_{1}-\gamma_{2}\right)} {2a_{2}},\ \ \ \zeta=\frac{\gamma_{2}\left[3\gamma_{2}^2-3\gamma_{2}\left(\alpha_{1}+\beta_{1}\right)+4\alpha_{1}\beta_{1}\right]} {4a_{2}^2};
\end{eqnarray}\\
\indent Case (c): (${\mathcal N}=5$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber\alpha_{1}=\beta_{1}=\frac{\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)\gamma_{1}} {2a_{1}},\ \ \ \alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=0,\ \ \ \gamma_{2}=\frac{a_{2}\gamma_{1}} {a_{1}},\ \ \ \xi_{1}=\xi_{2},\\
\nonumber\xi_{3}=\xi_{4}=\frac{\left(a_{2}-a_{1}\right)\gamma_{1}^2}{4a_{1}^2}-\frac{\left(a_{2}-a_{1}\right)} {\left(a_{2}+a_{1}\right)}\xi_{2},\ \ \ \rho\doteq\left[\frac{8a_{1}^2\xi_{2}} {\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)}-3\gamma_{1}^2\right]\frac{1}{\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)^2}\not=0;
\end{eqnarray}\\
\indent Case (d): (${\mathcal N}=5$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber\alpha_{1}=\beta_{1}=\frac{\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)\gamma_{1}} {2a_{1}},\ \ \ \alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=0,\ \ \ \gamma_{2}=\frac{a_{2}\gamma_{1}} {a_{1}},\ \ \ \xi_{1}=\xi_{2},\\
\nonumber\xi_{3}=\xi_{4}=\frac{\left(a_{1}-a_{2}\right)\gamma_{1}^2}{2a_{1}^2}-\frac{\left(a_{1}-a_{2}\right)} {\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)}\xi_{2},\ \ \ \rho\doteq\left[\frac{8a_{1}^2\xi_{2}} {\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)}-3\gamma_{1}^2\right]\frac{1}{\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)^2}\not=0;
\end{eqnarray}\\
\indent Case (e): (${\mathcal N}=4$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber\alpha_{1}=\beta_{1}=\frac{\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}} {2},\ \ \ \alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=0,\ \ \ \gamma_{2}\not=\frac{a_{2}\gamma_{1}}{a_{1}},\ \ \ \frac{a_{2}}{a_{1}}\not=\frac{1}{2},\ 2,\\
\nonumber\xi_{1}=\xi_{2}=\frac{3\left(\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}\right)^2} {8\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)},\ \ \ \xi_{3}=\xi_{4}=\frac{9\left(a_{1}-a_{2}\right)\left(a_{1}\gamma_{2}-a_{2}\gamma_{1}\right)^2}{8a_{1}a_{2}\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)^2}-\frac{a_{1}\gamma_{2}^2-a_{2}\gamma_{1}^2}{8a_{1}a_{2}},\\
\nonumber\zeta=\frac{\left(\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}\right)^3}{4\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)^2}+\frac{\left(a_{1}-a_{2}\right)\left(a_{1}\gamma_{2}-a_{2}\gamma_{1}\right)^3}{a_{1}^2a_{2}^2\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)^2};
\end{eqnarray}\\
\end{prop}
\indent{\bf Notes:} In all of the cases $a_{2}/a_{1}\not=(0$, $\pm 1)$; the values $a_{2}/a_{1}=(2, \,\frac12)$ are excluded in Case (e) because they would provide a sub case of Case (a) or of Case (b). All the Cases (a)-(e) are sub cases of Case~1. So nothing survives out of Case~4 at order $\varepsilon^5$
\begin{rem} \label{the1bis2}
For quadratic equations, when $\xi_1=\xi_2=\xi_3=\xi_4=\zeta=0$ in equations ${\mathcal Q}^+$, the
$\varepsilon^5$ order necessary conditions for the integrability of
the resulting equation read:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case Q$_{\alpha}$: $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=\gamma_{1}=0$, $\beta_{1}=\gamma_{2}\not=0$, $a_{2}=2a_{1}$;
\item Case Q$_{\beta}$: $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=\gamma_{2}=0$, $\beta_{1}=\gamma_{1}\not=0$, $a_{2}=2a_{1}$;
\item Case Q$_{\gamma}$: $\beta_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=\gamma_{1}=0$, $\alpha_{1}=\gamma_{2}\not=0$, $a_{2}=2a_{1}$;
\item Case Q$_{\delta}$: $\beta_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=\gamma_{2}=0$, $\alpha_{1}=\gamma_{1}\not=0$, $a_{2}=2a_{1}$;
\item Case Q$_{\eta}$: $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=\gamma_{1}=0$, $\beta_{1}=\gamma_{2}\not=0$, $a_{1}=2a_{2}$;
\item Case Q$_{\theta}$: $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=\gamma_{2}=0$, $\beta_{1}=\gamma_{1}\not=0$, $a_{1}=2a_{2}$;
\item Case Q$_{\kappa}$: $\beta_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=\gamma_{1}=0$, $\alpha_{1}=\gamma_{2}\not=0$, $a_{1}=2a_{2}$;
\item Case Q$_{\lambda}$: $\beta_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=\gamma_{2}=0$, $\alpha_{1}=\gamma_{1}\not=0$, $a_{1}=2a_{2}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\noindent The Cases Q$_{\alpha}$-Q$_{\delta}$ are sub cases both of the Case Q1 and Case (a); the Cases Q$_{\eta}$-Q$_{\lambda}$ are sub cases both of the Case Q1 and Case (b)
\subsubsection{Canonical forms for $\varepsilon^5$ asymptotically integrable cases.}
We will now use the M\"obius transformation to reduce the equation to normal form, i.e. to eliminate the maximum number of free parameters appearing in the nonlinear difference equation and reduce the coefficients of the linear part in $v_{n,m}$ and $v_{n+1,m+1}$ to 1.
In the Case (a) of Proposition 4, performing the M\"obius transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber u_{n,m}=\frac{\alpha v_{n,m}+\beta} {\gamma v_{n,m}+\delta},
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \beta=0,\ \ \ \ \gamma=-\frac{\gamma_{1}\delta} {2},\ \ \ \ \alpha=a_{1}\delta,\ \ \ \delta\not=0,
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain the canonical form:\\\\
\indent \emph{Case (a$^{\prime}$): (${\mathcal N}=2$)}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber &&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+2\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}\right)+\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\left(v_{n+1,m}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n,m+1}\right)\tau_{2}+\left(v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}\right)\tau_{1}+\\
\label{s1a} &&\quad+v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)\tau_{1}\tau_{2}=0,
\end{eqnarray}\\
\noindent where $(\tau_{1}, \tau_{2})\doteq\left(\alpha_{1}-\frac{3\gamma_{1}}{2}, \beta_{1}-\frac{3\gamma_{1}}{2}\right)\not=(0, 0)$. Performing a further rescaling on (\ref{s1a}), we can fix, in all generality, the coefficients to either $\tau_{1}=0$ and $\tau_{2}=1$ or $\tau_{1}=1$ with $\tau_{2}$ arbitrary and we obtain the following two canonical forms respectively
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+2\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+\label{Lebano1}\\
\nonumber &&\quad+v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}+v_{n+1,m}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n,m+1}=0,\\
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+2\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(1+\tau_{2}\right)+\label{Lebano2}\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\left(v_{n+1,m}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n,m+1}\right)\tau_{2}+v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}+\\
\nonumber &&\quad+v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)\tau_{2}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
representing the two non overlapping subclasses of \emph{Case (a)} defined respectively by the additional conditions $\alpha_{1}=\frac{3\gamma_{1}}{2}$ and $\alpha_{1}\not=\frac{3\gamma_{1}}{2}$. As under a restricted M\"obious transformation $\tau_{2}$ is invariant, we see that two canonical forms (\ref{Lebano2}), specified by two invariants $\tau_{2a}$ and $\tau_{2b}$, form two disconnected components of the same conjugacy subclass unless $\tau_{2a}=\tau_{2b}$.\\
In the Case (b) of Proposition 4, performing the M\"obius transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber u_{n,m}=\frac{\alpha v_{n,m}+\beta} {\gamma v_{n,m}+\delta},
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \beta=0,\ \ \ \ \gamma=-\frac{\gamma_{2}\delta} {2},\ \ \ \ \alpha=a_{2}\delta,\ \ \ \delta\not=0,
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain the canonical form:\\\\
\indent \emph{Case (b$^{\prime}$): (${\mathcal N}=2$)}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber &&2\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)+v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}\right)+\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\left(v_{n+1,m}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n,m+1}\right)\tau_{2}+\left(v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}\right)\tau_{1}+\\
\label{s2a} &&\quad+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)\tau_{1}\tau_{2}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\tau_{1}, \tau_{2})\doteq\left(\alpha_{1}-\frac{3\gamma_{2}}{2}, \beta_{1}-\frac{3\gamma_{2}}{2}\right)\not=(0, 0)$. Performing a further rescaling on (\ref{s2a}) we can fix, in all generality, the parameters either to $\tau_{1}=0$ and $\tau_{2}=1$ or to $\tau_{1}=1$ with $\tau_{2}$ arbitrary and we obtain respectively the two canonical forms
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&2\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)+v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}+\label{Lebano3}\\
\nonumber &&\quad+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n+1,m}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n,m+1}=0,\\
&&2\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)+v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(1+\tau_{2}\right)+\label{Lebano4}\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\left(v_{n+1,m}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n,m+1}\right)\tau_{2}+v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}+\\
\nonumber &&\quad+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)\tau_{2}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
representing the two non overlapping subclasses of \emph{Case (b)} defined respectively by the additional conditions $\alpha_{1}=\frac{3\gamma_{2}}{2}$ and $\alpha_{1}\not=\frac{3\gamma_{2}}{2}$. As $\tau_{2}$ is invariant under a restricted M\"obious transformation, we see that two canonical forms (\ref{Lebano4}), specified by two invariants $\tau_{2a}$ and $\tau_{2b}$, form two disconnected components of the same conjugacy subclass unless $\tau_{2a}=\tau_{2b}$.\\
In the Cases (c) and (d) of Proposition 4, performing the M\"obius transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber u_{n,m}=\frac{\alpha v_{n,m}+\beta} {\gamma v_{n,m}+\delta},
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \alpha=\frac{2a_{1}\delta} {\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)\sqrt{\left|\rho\right|}},\ \ \ \beta=0,\ \ \ \gamma=-\frac{\gamma_{1}\delta} {\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)\sqrt{\left|\rho\right|}},\ \ \ \delta\not=0,
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain the canonical forms:
\emph{Case (c$^{\prime}$): (${\mathcal N}=2$)}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+\epsilon\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+\label{Kroton1}\\*
\nonumber &&\quad+\operatorname{sgn}\left(\rho\right)\left[\epsilon v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)\right]+\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\zeta^{\prime}v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\emph{Case (d$^{\prime}$): (${\mathcal N}=2$)}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+\epsilon\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+\label{Kroton2}\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\operatorname{sgn}\left(\rho\right)\left[v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)+\epsilon v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)\right]+\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\zeta^{\prime}v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon\doteq a_{2}/a_{1}\not=0,\pm 1$ and $\zeta^{\prime}\doteq 8s\left|\frac{\pi^2}{\rho^3}\right|^{1/2}/\left(1+\epsilon\right)^2$, $\pi\doteq\left[\zeta-2\frac{\gamma_{1}} {a_{1}}\xi_{2}+\frac{\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)\gamma_{1}^3} {2a_{1}^3}\right]/\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)$ and $s\doteq\pm 1$. As under a restricted M\"obius transformation $\rho\rightarrow\rho\left(\alpha/\delta\right)^2$ and $\pi\rightarrow\pi\left(\alpha/\delta\right)^3$, we see that the absolute value of $\zeta^{\prime}$ and $\operatorname{sgn}\left(\rho\right)$ are invariant under such a transformation. With another rescaling we can always fix $\zeta^{\prime}\geq 0$ and the two canonical forms, specified by the two set of invariants $\left(\epsilon_{a}, \operatorname{sgn}\left(\rho_{a}\right), \zeta^{\prime}_{a}\right)$ and $\left(\epsilon_{b}, \operatorname{sgn}\left(\rho_{b}\right), \zeta^{\prime}_{b}\right)$, form two disconnected components of the conjugacy class unless the two sets are the same.
In the Case (e) of Proposition 4, performing the M\"obius transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber u_{n,m}=\frac{\alpha v_{n,m}+\beta} {\gamma v_{n,m}+\delta},
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \beta=0,\ \ \ \ \gamma=-\frac{\left(\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}\right)\alpha} {2\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)},\ \ \ \ \delta=\frac{\left(a_{2}\gamma_{1}-a_{1}\gamma_{2}\right)\alpha} {a_{1}\left(a_{1}+a_{2}\right)},\ \ \ \alpha\not=0,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent we obtain the canonical form:
\emph{Case (e$^{\prime}$): (${\mathcal N}=1$)}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+\epsilon\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}-v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}+\label{Kroton3}\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\left(1-\frac{1} {\epsilon}\right)\left[v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)-v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)\right]+\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\left(1-\frac{1} {\epsilon^2}\right)v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon\doteq a_{2}/a_{1}\not=0,\pm 1,2,1/2$. As $\epsilon$ is invariant under a restricted M\"obius transformation, we see that two canonical forms, specified by the two invariants $\epsilon_{a}$ and $\epsilon_{b}$, form two disconnected components of the conjugacy class unless $\epsilon_{a}=\epsilon_{b}$.
\subsubsection{Comparison with the ABS list.}
As our allowed transformations are sub cases of the full M\"obius transformations allowed in the ABS approach \cite{abs1}, any conjugacy class of ours is either completely contained into one of the ABS classification or is totally disjointed from them. Considering that no one out of the canonical forms (a$^{\prime}$)-(e$^{\prime}$) possesses the invariance (up to an overall sign) under the transformation $v_{n,m}\leftrightarrow v_{n+1,m}$, $v_{n,m+1}\leftrightarrow v_{n+1,m+1}$, we can conclude that no intersection can exist between our classes and those generated by the $ABS$ list. Even more, no equation in our list is of Klein-type or, that is the same \cite{LY2}, a sub case of the $Q_{V}$ equation.
We can enlarge our class of transformations by including also an exchange $n\leftrightarrow m$ between the two independent variables. The subclass (\ref{Lebano1}) can be discarded because under this exchange we would get it from subclass (\ref{Lebano2}) with $\tau_{2}=0$; similarly the subclass (\ref{Lebano3}) can be discarded because under this exchange we would get it from subclass (\ref{Lebano4}) with $\tau_{2}=0$; finally the subclasses (\ref{Kroton1}-\ref{Kroton3}) are invariant under this transformation.
Let us include also the inversion $n\rightarrow -n$. Setting $\tilde v_{n,m}\doteq v_{-n,m}$, we have that, if $v_{n,m}$ satisfies (\ref{Lebano2}), then $\tilde v_{n,m}$ satisfies (\ref{Lebano4}); if $v_{n,m}$ satisfies (\ref{Kroton1}) with parameters $\epsilon$ and $\zeta^{\prime}$, then $\tilde v_{n,m}\doteq \operatorname{sgn}\left(\epsilon\right)v_{-n,m}$ satisfies (\ref{Kroton1}) with parameters $1/\epsilon$ and $\zeta^{\prime}/\left|\epsilon\right|$ and similarly for Eq. (\ref{Kroton2}); if $v_{n,m}$ satisfies (\ref{Kroton3}) with parameter $\epsilon$, then $\tilde v_{n,m}\doteq -v_{-n,m}/\epsilon$ satisfies (\ref{Kroton3}) with parameter $1/\epsilon$ (this implies that, if $v_{n,m}$ satisfies one of the four canonical forms (\ref{Lebano4}), (\ref{Kroton1}-\ref{Kroton3}), then also $\tilde v_{n,m}\doteq v_{-n,-m}$ does). As a consequence, under this enlarged class of transformations, (\ref{Lebano4}) can be discarded and in the case of (\ref{Kroton1}-\ref{Kroton3}) we can limit the p!
arameter $\epsilon$ to the range $-1<\epsilon<1$, $\epsilon\not=0$ as the equation with parameters $1/\epsilon$ and $\zeta^{\prime}$ can be obtained from the corresponding with parameters $\epsilon$ and $\zeta^{\prime}\left|\epsilon\right|$.
\noindent{\bf Remarque:} The Cases (c') and (d'), when $\pi=0$, i.e. $\zeta^{\prime}=0$, reduce to the integrable cases analyzed in Levi-Yamilov \cite{LY2} and Ramani-Grammaticos \cite{SGR}.
\subsection{Classification at order $\varepsilon^6$.}\ \\
Now we perform a multiscale reduction at order $\varepsilon^6$ on the four canonical forms (\ref{Lebano4}), (\ref{Kroton1}-\ref{Kroton3}) and we find that all the so far obtained equations satisfy the $A_{4}$-integrability conditions (\ref{Phoenix}). Hence we can state the following proposition
\begin{prop}
Up to a restricted M\"obius transformations $\tilde v_{n,m}\doteq v_{n,m}/\left(\alpha v_{n,m}+\beta\right)$, exchanges $n\leftrightarrow m$ and inversions $n\rightarrow -n$, all the $A_{4}$-asymptotically integrable cases in the class ${\mathcal Q}^{+}$ are given by
\begin{subequations}\label{Quadrelli}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+2\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(1+\tau\right)+\label{Quadrelli1}\\
\nonumber &&\quad +\left(v_{n+1,m}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n,m+1}\right)\tau+v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}+\\
\nonumber && \quad +v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)\tau=0; \\
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+\epsilon\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+\label{Quadrelli2}\\
\nonumber &&\quad +\delta\left[\epsilon v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)\right]+\\
\nonumber && \quad +\tau v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}=0,\ \ \ -1<\epsilon<1,\ \ \ \epsilon\not=0,\ \ \ \delta\doteq\pm 1,\ \ \ \tau\geq 0;\\
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+\epsilon\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+\label{Quadrelli3}\\
\nonumber &&\quad +\delta\left[v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)+\epsilon v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)\right]+\\
\nonumber &&\quad +\tau v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}=0,\ \ \ -1<\epsilon<1,\ \ \ \epsilon\not=0,\ \ \ \delta\doteq\pm 1,\ \ \ \tau\geq 0;\\
&&v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}+\epsilon\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)+v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}-v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}+\label{Quadrelli4}\\
\nonumber &&\quad +\left(1-\frac{1} {\epsilon}\right)\left[v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}\left(v_{n,m}+v_{n+1,m+1}\right)-v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m+1}\left(v_{n+1,m}+v_{n,m+1}\right)\right]+\\
\nonumber &&\quad +\left(1-\frac{1} {\epsilon^2}\right)v_{n,m}v_{n+1,m}v_{n,m+1}v_{n+1,m+1}=0,\ \ \ -1<\epsilon<1,\ \ \ \epsilon\not=0,\ \frac{1}{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\end{prop}
\indent If, when $\tau=0$ in (\ref{Quadrelli1}), we apply the (not allowed) transformation $v_{n,m}\doteq\sqrt{3}w_{n,m}-1$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{kj1}w_{n,m}w_{n+1,m}+w_{n+1,m}w_{n,m+1}+w_{n,m+1}w_{n+1,m+1}-1=0,
\end{eqnarray}
which in the direction $n$ satisfies two necessary integrability conditions given in \cite{LY2} but does't admit any three-points generalized symmetries either autonomous or not, while in the direction $m$ the integrability conditions given in \cite{LY2} are not satisfied;\\
\indent If, when $\tau=1$ in (\ref{Quadrelli1}), we apply the (not allowed) transformation $v_{n,m}\doteq 2^{1/3}w_{n,m}-1$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{jk2}w_{n+1,m}w_{n,m+1}\left(w_{n,m}+w_{n+1,m+1}\right)-1=0,
\end{eqnarray}
an integrable equation considered in \cite{MX}, which possesses a $3\times 3$ Lax pair and which is a degeneration of the discrete integrable Tzitzeica equation proposed by Adler in \cite{A}.
Finally, if we choose $\tau\not=0$, $1$ in (\ref{Quadrelli1}), we can apply the (not allowed) transformation $v_{n,m}\doteq \frac{1-\tau}{\tau}w_{n,m}-1$ and we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{jk3}w_{n,m}w_{n+1,m}+w_{n,m+1}w_{n+1,m+1}+w_{n+1,m}w_{n,m+1}\left(1+w_{n,m}+w_{n+1,m+1}\right)+\chi=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi\doteq\frac{\left(\tau-3\right)\tau^2}{\left(1-\tau\right)^3}$. This system is the sum of (\ref{kj1}), (\ref{jk2}) and an arbitrary constant and doesn't satisfy the integrability conditions given in \cite{LY2} for three-points generalized symmetries either autonomous or not, either in the direction $n$ or $m$.
If in (\ref{Quadrelli2}), (\ref{Quadrelli3}) we apply respectively the (not allowed) transformations $w_{n,m}\doteq\delta \operatorname{sgn}\left(\epsilon\right)/v_{n,m}$ and $\tilde w_{n,m}\doteq\delta/v_{n,m}$, we obtain
\begin{subequations}\label{IXI}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{k1}&&\frac{\tau}{\left|\epsilon\right|}+w_{n,m}+w_{n+1,m+1}+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left(w_{n+1,m}+w_{n,m+1}\right)+\\
\nonumber && \quad+\delta\left[\frac{1}{\epsilon}w_{n+1,m}w_{n,m+1}\left(w_{n,m}+w_{n+1,m+1}\right)+w_{n,m}w_{n+1,m+1}\left(w_{n+1,m}+w_{n,m+1}\right)\right]=0,\\
\label{k2}&&\tau+\tilde w_{n,m}+\tilde w_{n+1,m+1}+\epsilon\left(\tilde w_{n+1,m}+\tilde w_{n,m+1}\right)+\\
\nonumber &&\quad+\delta\left[\tilde w_{n+1,m}\tilde w_{n,m+1}\left(\tilde w_{n,m}+\tilde w_{n+1,m+1}\right)+\epsilon \tilde w_{n,m}\tilde w_{n+1,m+1}\left(\tilde w_{n+1,m}+\tilde w_{n,m+1}\right)\right]=0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Eqs.(\ref{k1}, \ref{k2}) are just an almost trivial looking modification of the two integrable systems discussed in \cite{SGR}, which are recovered when $\tau=0$. In \cite{SGR} it was shown that, when $\tau=0$, (\ref{k2}, \ref{k1}) are mapped through a M\"obious transformation respectively to the Hirota discrete sine-Gordon equation and to its potential form. After we replace $\epsilon\rightarrow 1/\epsilon$ in (\ref{k1}) and $\delta\rightarrow s\delta$, with $s\doteq \operatorname{sgn}\left(\epsilon\right)$, in (\ref{k2}) the precise form of the potentiation induced between them is
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber w_{n,m}=|\epsilon|^{1/2}\frac{\tilde w_{n+1,m}+\tilde w_{n,m+1}}{1+s\delta \tilde w_{n+1,m}\tilde w_{n,m+1}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Eqs.(\ref{k1}, \ref{k2}), if and only if $\tau=0$, satisfy the integrability conditions given in \cite{LY2} for three-points generalized symmetries either autonomous or not which, in the $n$ direction, are given respectively by
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber w_{n,m,t}&=&\frac{\left(\delta w_{n,m}^2-\epsilon\right)\left(\delta\epsilon w_{n,m}^2-1\right)\left(w_{n+1,m}-w_{n-1,m}\right)}{\left(1+\delta w_{n,m}w_{n+1,m}\right)\left(1+\delta w_{n,m}w_{n-1,m}\right)},\\
\nonumber\tilde w_{n,m,\tilde t}&=&Y\frac{\left(\delta\tilde w_{n,m}^2-1\right)\left(\tilde w_{n+1,m}-\tilde w_{n-1,m}\right)}{\delta\tilde w_{n+1,m}\tilde w_{n-1,m}-1}+\left[\left(-1\right)^n\kappa+\left(-1\right)^m\theta\right]\left(\delta\tilde w_{n,m}^2-1\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $t$ and $\tilde t$ are two group parameters, and, in the $m$ direction, by expressions obtained changing $w_{n+1,m}\rightarrow w_{n,m+1}$ and $w_{n-1,m}\rightarrow w_{n,m-1}$. When $\tau=0$ (\ref{k2}) admits a two parameters non autonomous point symmetry. Eqs.~(\ref{k1}, \ref{k2}) are invariant under the transformation $w_{n,m}\doteq -v_{n,m}$; Eq. (\ref{k1}) is covariant under the inversion $w_{n,m}\doteq 1/v_{n,m}$ as $\epsilon$ is changed into $1/\epsilon$, while (\ref{k2}) is invariant. Eqs.~(\ref{k1}, \ref{k2}), under the non autonomous transformation $w_{n,m}\doteq \left(-1\right)^{n+m}v_{n,m}$, are covariant as in the first case $\epsilon$ is changed into $-\epsilon$ and $\delta$ into $-\delta$ while in the second one $\epsilon$ is changed into $-\epsilon$, implying that we can limit ourselves to the range $0<\epsilon<1$. Eq. (\ref{k2}) is invariant under the non autonomous transformation $\tilde w_{n,m}\doteq [v_{n,m}]^{\left(-1\right)^{n+m}}$ when $\delta=1$ !
and covariant when $\delta=-1$ as $\epsilon$ is changed into $\delta\epsilon$. Finally (\ref{k1}, \ref{k2}) are covariant under the transformation $w_{n,m}\doteq{\rm{i}} v_{n,m}$ as $\delta$ is changed into $-\delta$, this implying that we can always take $\delta=1$ even if in general, allowing such a transformation, the solution will be no more real.
If we apply the (not allowed) transformation $v_{n,m}\doteq\frac{|\rho|^{1/2}w_{0,0}+1}{|\rho|^{1/2}w_{0,0}-1/\epsilon}$, with $\rho\doteq\frac{-1+2\epsilon}{\epsilon\left(\epsilon-2\right)}\not=0$, to (\ref{Quadrelli4}) we obtain
{\small\begin{eqnarray}
\label{jk4}w_{n,m}+w_{n+1,m+1}+w_{n,m}w_{n+1,m+1}\left[\delta\left(w_{n+1,m}+w_{n,m+1}\right)+\epsilon|\rho|^{3/2}w_{n+1,m}w_{n,m+1}\right]+\frac{\delta}{\epsilon|\rho|^{3/2}}=0,
\end{eqnarray}}
where $\delta\doteq \operatorname{sgn}\left(\rho\right)=\operatorname{sgn}\left(1/\epsilon-2\right)$, which, for $\delta=-1$, is a real discrete Tzitzeica equation with coefficient $c=1/\left(\epsilon|\rho|^{3/2}\right)$ and, for $\delta=1$, through the (not allowed) transformation $w_{n,m}\rightarrow{\rm{i}} w_{n,m}$ becomes a complex Tzitzeica equation with coefficient $c={\rm{i}}/\left(\epsilon|\rho|^{3/2}\right)$. We remember that the discrete Tzitzeica equation is integrable and it admits a $3\times 3$ Lax pair \cite{A}.\\
\indent We note that (\ref{Quadrelli}), beside not being sub cases of the $Q_{V}$ equation, except for (\ref{Quadrelli2}, \ref{Quadrelli3}) with $\tau=0$, where a five-points generalized symmetry depending on the points $\left(n+1,m\right)$, $\left(n,m+1\right)$, $\left(n,m\right)$, $\left(n-1,m\right)$ and $\left(n,m-1\right)$ exists, is also not included into the Garifullin-Yamilov class \cite{GY}.
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{s3}
In this paper we have considered the application of a multiple scale expansion to the class of dispersive multilinear partial difference equation on the square lattice, ${\mathcal Q}$. A great effort has been directed to extend the expansion up to order $\varepsilon^6$ so as to be able to check the order $\varepsilon^5$ results. The integrability conditions we obtain, when we require that the multiple scale expansion of the discrete class of equations is equivalent to the equations of the NLSE hierarchy, reduce the $13-$parameters initial class to four equations depending on few parameters. The $A_3$ integrable equations are invariant under the $A_4$ integrability conditions, indicating that we might have already filtered out all the nonintegrable cases and that the obtained equations might be integrable.
Two open problems seem of great importance now:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The consideration of the second class of dispersive multilinear partial difference equations on the square lattice, ${\mathcal Q}={\mathcal Q}^-$ is will provide by sure new classes of integrable equations, as in this case the lowest order integrability conditions appear already at order $\varepsilon^2$ and will not be an equation of the NLSE type but more likely a coupled wave equations.
\item We may assume that (\ref{Quadrelli}) are all integrable but in this article we are not able to prove it. We have to apply different techniques. In particular what remains to be analyzed are the four sub cases (\ref{kj1}), (\ref{jk3}) and (\ref{IXI}) when $\tau>0$. We are now working for proving that these systems have generalized symmetries, i.e. there exist some flows in the group parameter $\lambda$ commuting with our equations
$$v_{n,m,\lambda}=g(v_{n+k,m}, v_{n+k-1,m}, \cdots, v_{n-k,m}, v_{n,m+\ell}, v_{n,m+\ell-1}, \cdots, v_{n,m-\ell}).$$ It is easy to prove that there are no symmetries with $k=\ell=1$. Thus it seems important to consider the case when $k=\ell\ge 2$.
\end{enumerate}
Work is in progress in both open problems. In particular in \cite{SHL} one has proved the integrability of (\ref{kj1}) by constructing two generalized symmetries defined on five points, one with $k=2$ and $\ell=0$ and one with $k=0$ and $\ell=2$.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
LD and SC have been partly supported by the Italian Ministry of Education and Research, PRIN
``Nonlinear waves: integrable fine dimensional reductions and discretizations" from 2007
to 2009 and PRIN ``Continuous and discrete nonlinear integrable evolutions: from water
waves to symplectic maps" from 2010. RHH thanks the INFN, Sezione Roma Tre and the UPM for their support during his visits to Rome. We thank Matteo Petrera for many enlightening discussion in the first stage of this paper.
\section*{Appendix}
Here we present explicitly the $48$ conditions for $\varepsilon^6$ $S$-asymptotic integrability ($A_{4}$-integrability) involving the real ($S_{j}$) and imaginary parts ($T_{j}$) of the coefficients $\eta_{j}$, $j=1$,\ldots, $34$ of the differential polynomial (\ref{f24}). The expressions of the coefficients $\kappa_{m}$ , $m=1$,\ldots, $77$ of the differential polynomial (\ref{f34}) as functions of the $\eta_{j}$, $j=1$,\ldots, $34$ are complicated, so we will omit them. These $48$ conditions are, as far as we know, presented here for the first time.
{\tiny\begin{align}\label{Phoenix}
T_{2}&=\left(\frac{a}{11}+\frac{3b}{4}\right)\frac{S_{10}}{\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{13a}{11}+\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{S_{18}-S_{15}}{2\rho_{1}}+\left(\frac{37a}{11}+b\right)\frac{I_{6}S_{27}}{8\rho_{1}\rho_{2}}+T_{1}+\left(\frac{a^2}{2}+\frac{13ab}{11}+\frac{b^2}{2}\right)\frac{T_{22}}{4\rho_{1}\rho_{2}}+\\
&\quad{}+\left[I_{1}+\left(37a^2-15ab-11b^2\right)\frac{I_{8}}{44\rho_{1}\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left[\left(\frac{13a}{11}+\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{R_{2}}{8}-\left(32a^2+27ab-189b^2\right)\frac{I_{6}}{352}+\left(\frac{a}{11}+\frac{b}{4}\right)\frac{aI_{12}}{8}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{1}\rho_{2}}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left[\left(9a-\frac{7b}{2}\right)\frac{R_{12}}{22\rho_{1}\rho_{2}}+\frac{I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+\frac{7I_{2}-29I_{3}-14I_{5}}{44\rho_{1}}+\left(39a^2-53ab+\frac{67b^2}{2}\right)\frac{I_{8}}{44\rho_{1}\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{33}}{2},\nonumber\\
T_{3}&=\frac{a}{2\rho_{2}}\left(\frac{\rho_{1}}{\rho_{2}}S_{10}+S_{15}-S_{18}+S_{20}\right)-\left(a-\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{I_{6}S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}^2}-\frac{abT_{22}}{4\rho_{2}^2}+\left[\frac{aR_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}-I_{3}-\left(a-b\right)\frac{aI_{8}}{2\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left[R_{2}+\frac{\left(3a+b\right)I_{6}+aI_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{aT_{32}}{8\rho_{2}^2}-\left[\left(3a+b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{4\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}-\frac{I_{2}+3I_{3}+2I_{5}}{4}-\left(a^2-3ab+2b^2\right)\frac{I_{8}}{4\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{4}&=\left(\frac{35a}{33}+\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{\rho_{1}S_{10}}{2\rho_{2}^2}-\left(\frac{35a}{33}-\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{S_{15}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{34a}{33}+\frac{b}{4}\right)\frac{S_{18}}{\rho_{2}}-\frac{aS_{20}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left[\frac{R_{2}}{2}+\frac{67aI_{6}}{33\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}+b\right)\frac{I_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}T_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left(\frac{a^2}{2}+\frac{101ab}{33}+\frac{b^2}{2}\right)\frac{T_{22}}{4\rho_{2}^2}+\left[-\left(a-b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{8\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}-\frac{I_{2}-I_{3}-2I_{5}}{8}+\left(\frac{17a^2}{33}-\frac{103ab}{264}+\frac{b^2}{8}\right)\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{\rho_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left[\left(\frac{101a}{33}+\frac{3b}{2}\right)\frac{R_{2}}{2}-\left(\frac{19a^2}{3}+\frac{97ab}{4}-\frac{591b^2}{4}\right)\frac{I_{6}}{22\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{17a^2}{33}+\frac{3ab}{8}+\frac{b^2}{2}\right)\frac{I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{4\rho_{2}^2}+\left[\left(\frac{37a}{2}-35b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{66\rho_{2}}+\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad{}\left.+\frac{35I_{2}-2I_{3}-70I_{5}}{66}-\left(\frac{25a^2}{3}-\frac{317ab}{6}+\frac{323b^2}{4}\right)\frac{I_{8}}{22\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{5}&=-\frac{\rho_{1}}{\rho_{2}}\left(S_{1}+\frac{3S_{2}}{2}\right)+\frac{9}{2}\left(S_{3}+S_{4}\right)-S_{6}+\frac{S_{7}}{2}-\left(a^2+\frac{7ab}{2}+\frac{b^2}{4}\right)\frac{S_{22}}{2\rho_{2}^2}\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left[-\left(5a-7b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{16\rho_{2}}-\frac{7\rho_{1}I_{1}}{4\rho_{2}}-\frac{7I_{2}-35I_{3}+18I_{5}}{16}-\left(\frac{7a}{16}+b\right)\frac{aI_{8}}{\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{S_{27}}{\rho_{2}}+\left(a+7b\right)\frac{\rho_{1}T_{10}}{4\rho_{2}^2}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left(a-\frac{5b}{2}\right)\frac{T_{15}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(a+\frac{3b}{2}\right)\frac{T_{18}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(a+b\right)\frac{T_{20}}{4\rho_{2}}-\left[3R_{2}+\left(a-23b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}+b\right)\frac{3I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{8\rho_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left\{\left(\frac{a^2}{2}-ab+3b^2\right)\frac{R_{12}}{8\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}aI_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+\frac{\left(3a-5b\right)I_{2}+\left(a+39b\right)I_{3}}{16}+\left(\frac{a}{4}-b\right)\frac{I_{5}}{2}+\left[\frac{a\left(5a+13b\right)}{2}-11b^2\right]\frac{aI_{8}}{8\rho_{2}^2}\right\}\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{2}^2}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left[7R_{2}+\left(7a+15b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}+b\right)\frac{7I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{33}}{8\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{5}&=-\left(\frac{31a}{11}-3b\right)\frac{\rho_{1}S_{10}}{4\rho_{2}^2}+\left(\frac{31a}{11}-5b\right)\frac{S_{15}}{4\rho_{2}}-\left(\frac{53a}{11}-3b\right)\frac{S_{18}}{4\rho_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left(a-\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{S_{20}}{\rho_{2}}-\left[\frac{R_{2}}{2}+\left(\frac{97a}{44}-b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}+b\right)\frac{I_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\frac{\rho_{1}T_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+T_{6}-\left(3a^2+\frac{31ab}{11}-b^2\right)\frac{T_{22}}{8\rho_{2}^2}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left\{\left(a-\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{R_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}-\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{2\rho_{2}}+\frac{I_{2}-I_{3}-4I_{5}}{4}-\left[\frac{a\left(8a-19b\right)}{11}+\frac{9b^2}{8}\right]\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}^2}\right\}\frac{T_{27}}{\rho_{2}}-\left[\left(\frac{75a}{11}-b\right)R_{2}+\left(\frac{49a^2}{2}-205ab+\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad{}\left.\left.+\frac{615b^2}{2}\right)\frac{I_{6}}{11\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{9a}{11}+7b\right)\frac{aI_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{16\rho_{2}^2}\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left\{\left(\frac{9a}{2}+b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{44\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{2\rho_{2}}-\frac{I_{2}-12I_{3}+20I_{5}}{44}-\left[13a^2-\frac{\left(585a-533b\right)b}{8}\right]\frac{I_{8}}{22\rho_{2}^2}\right\}\frac{T_{33}}{\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{7}&=-\left(\frac{23a}{11}+\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{\rho_{1}S_{10}}{\rho_{2}^2}+\left(\frac{23a}{11}-\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{S_{15}}{\rho_{2}}-\left(\frac{34a}{11}+\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{S_{18}}{\rho_{2}}+\frac{3aS_{20}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left[R_{2}+\left(\frac{123a}{11}-b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}+b\right)\frac{I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\frac{2\rho_{1}T_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+T_{6}-\left(\frac{a^2}{2}+\frac{45ab}{11}+\frac{b^2}{2}\right)\frac{T_{22}}{2\rho_{2}^2}+\left[\left(a-\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{R_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}-\frac{2\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+\frac{I_{2}-3I_{3}-2I_{5}}{4}-\left(\frac{17a^2}{11}-\frac{57ab}{44}+\frac{b^2}{4}\right)\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{\rho_{2}}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left\{3\left(\frac{15a}{11}+\frac{b}{2}\right)R_{2}+\left[47a^2-\frac{\left(107a-815b\right)b}{2}\right]\frac{I_{6}}{22\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{17a^2}{11}+\frac{3ab}{4}+b^2\right)\frac{I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right\}\frac{T_{32}}{4\rho_{2}^2}-\left[\left(81a-59b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{44\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad{}\left.+\frac{59\left(I_{2}-I_{3}\right)-162I_{5}}{44}-\left(\frac{105a^2}{4}-71ab+\frac{457b^2}{4}\right)\frac{I_{8}}{11\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{8}&=-\frac{2\rho_{1}S_{2}}{\rho_{2}}+3S_{3}+6S_{4}-2S_{6}+S_{7}-\left(\frac{a^2}{2}+ab+\frac{b^2}{2}\right)\frac{S_{22}}{\rho_{2}^2}\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left[\left(a+b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{4\rho_{2}}-\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}-\frac{I_{2}-5I_{3}+6I_{5}}{4}-\left(\frac{a}{4}+b\right)\frac{aI_{8}}{\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{S_{27}}{\rho_{2}}+\left(a+b\right)\frac{\rho_{1}T_{10}}{\rho_{2}^2}-\frac{b}{\rho_{2}}\left(T_{15}-T_{18}\right)-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left[R_{2}+\left(a-5b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}+b\right)\frac{I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left[a\left(a+b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{4\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}aI_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+\frac{b\left(I_{2}+5I_{3}-4I_{5}\right)}{4}+a\left(\frac{a^2}{2}+\frac{ab}{4}-b^2\right)\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{2}^2}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left[R_{2}+\left(a+3b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}+b\right)\frac{I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{8}&=-\left(\frac{31a}{11}-b\right)\frac{\rho_{1}S_{10}}{2\rho_{2}^2}+\left(\frac{31a}{11}-3b\right)\frac{S_{15}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left(\frac{53a}{11}-b\right)\frac{S_{18}}{2\rho_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left(2a-b\right)\frac{S_{20}}{\rho_{2}}-\left[R_{2}+\left(\frac{97a}{22}-b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}+b\right)\frac{I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\frac{2\rho_{1}T_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+T_{6}-\left(a^2+\frac{75ab}{44}-b^2\right)\frac{T_{22}}{4\rho_{2}^2}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left[\left(a-b\right)\frac{3R_{12}}{4\rho_{2}}-\frac{2\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}+\frac{3\left(I_{2}-I_{3}-2I_{5}\right)}{4}-\left(\frac{53a^2}{44}-\frac{16ab}{11}+\frac{3b^2}{4}\right)\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{\rho_{2}}-\left[\left(\frac{75a}{11}+b\right)\frac{R_{2}}{8}-\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad{}\left.-\left(\frac{39a^2}{16}+5ab-\frac{461b^2}{16}\right)\frac{I_{6}}{11\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{53a^2}{44}+\frac{ab}{4}+b^2\right)\frac{I_{12}}{4\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{2}^2}-\left\{\left(5a-\frac{31b}{4}\right)\frac{R_{12}}{11\rho_{2}}+\frac{31I_{2}-9I_{3}-62I_{5}}{44}-\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad{}\left.-\left[19a^2-\frac{\left(255a-313b\right)b}{2}\right]\frac{I_{8}}{44\rho_{2}^2}\right\}\frac{T_{33}}{\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{9}&=\frac{S_{10}}{2}-\frac{\rho_{2}}{2\rho_{1}}\left(S_{15}-S_{18}\right)+\frac{I_{6}S_{27}+bT_{22}}{4\rho_{1}}+\left(a-b\right)\frac{I_{8}T_{27}}{4\rho_{1}\rho_{2}}+\left[R_{2}+\frac{\left(3a-7b\right)I_{6}+aI_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{8\rho_{1}}+\frac{3bI_{8}T_{33}}{4\rho_{1}\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{9}&=T_{10}-\frac{I_{1}T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}}-\frac{I_{6}T_{33}}{4\rho_{1}},\qquad S_{11}=\frac{S_{22}}{2}-\left[\frac{R_{12}}{2}+\left(a-b\right)\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}},\qquad T_{11}=T_{22}+\frac{I_{8}T_{27}-\left(I_{6}+I_{12}\right)T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{12}&=-\frac{I_{8}S_{27}}{\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{a}{2}-b\right)\frac{I_{8}T_{32}}{\rho_{2}^2},\qquad T_{12}=-\frac{I_{8}\left(T_{27}-T_{33}\right)}{\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{13}&=-\frac{2\rho_{1}S_{10}}{\rho_{2}}+2S_{15}-S_{18}+S_{20}-\frac{I_{6}S_{27}}{\rho_{2}}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\frac{aT_{22}}{\rho_{2}}-2\left(a-b\right)\frac{I_{8}T_{27}}{\rho_{2}^2}-\left[R_{2}+\left(5a-7b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left(\frac{a}{2}-b\right)\frac{I_{12}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(3a-4b\right)\frac{I_{8}T_{33}}{\rho_{2}^2},\nonumber\\
T_{13}&=T_{18}+T_{20}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left[\left(a+b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{4\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}-\frac{I_{2}-I_{3}+2I_{5}}{4}+\left(\frac{a^2}{2}+ab-b^2\right)\frac{I_{8}}{2\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{14}&=0,\qquad T_{14}=-\frac{I_{8}T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{16}&=-\frac{I_{6}S_{27}+aT_{22}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(a-\frac{3b}{2}\right)\frac{I_{6}T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}^2}+\frac{R_{12}T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\qquad T_{16}=\frac{aS_{22}-I_{6}T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(\frac{aR_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}-I_{3}\right)\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(I_{6}+I_{12}\right)\frac{T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{17}&=S_{15}+\frac{I_{12}S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left(a-b\right)\frac{I_{8}T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}^2}+\left[\left(2a+3b\right)I_{6}+bI_{12}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{4\rho_{2}^2}+\left(a-\frac{5b}{4}\right)\frac{I_{8}T_{33}}{\rho_{2}^2},\qquad T_{17}=-\frac{aS_{22}}{2\rho_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left(R_{12}-\frac{bI_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right)\frac{S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}T_{10}}{\rho_{2}}+\left[\left(a+3b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{4\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}-\frac{I_{2}-I_{3}-2I_{5}}{4}+\left(\frac{3a^2}{2}-ab-b^2\right)\frac{I_{8}}{2\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{19}&=S_{20},\qquad
T_{19}=T_{20},\qquad S_{21}=S_{22},\qquad T_{21}=T_{22},\nonumber\\
S_{23}&=-\frac{2\rho_{1}S_{10}}{\rho_{2}}+2S_{15}-S_{18}+S_{20}-\left(I_{6}-\frac{I_{12}}{2}\right)\frac{S_{27}}{\rho_{2}}-\left(a+b\right)\frac{T_{22}}{2\rho_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left[R_{12}-\left(a-b\right)\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left[R_{2}-\left(\frac{a}{2}-3b\right)\frac{I_{6}}{\rho_{2}}+\left(a-b\right)\frac{I_{12}}{2\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left(R_{12}-\frac{3bI_{8}}{2\rho_{2}}\right)\frac{T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{23}&=\left(a-\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{S_{22}}{\rho_{2}}-\left(R_{12}-\frac{bI_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right)\frac{S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\frac{\rho_{1}T_{10}}{\rho_{2}}+T_{15}+T_{18}+\frac{I_{12}T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left[\left(\frac{a}{2}-b\right)\frac{R_{12}}{\rho_{2}}+\frac{I_{2}-I_{3}-4I_{5}}{2}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left(\frac{a}{2}-b\right)\frac{aI_{8}T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}^3}-\frac{I_{12}T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{24}&=S_{18}+S_{20}-\frac{\left(I_{6}-I_{12}\right)S_{27}+bT_{22}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left[R_{12}+\left(a-b\right)\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left[\left(a-\frac{3b}{2}\right)I_{6}+\frac{bI_{12}}{4}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{2}^2}-\left(a-\frac{5b}{4}\right)\frac{I_{8}T_{33}}{\rho_{2}^2},\nonumber\\
T_{24}&=\left(a+b\right)\frac{S_{22}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left(R_{12}+\frac{bI_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right)\frac{S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\frac{\rho_{1}T_{10}}{\rho_{2}}+T_{15}+T_{18}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left(I_{6}-I_{12}\right)\frac{T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left[\frac{I_{2}+I_{3}}{2}+\left(\frac{a}{2}-b\right)\frac{aI_{8}}{\rho_{2}^2}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}}+\frac{I_{6}T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{25}&=2S_{15}+\frac{I_{12}S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left(a-b\right)\frac{T_{22}}{2\rho_{2}}-\nonumber\\
&\quad{}-\left[R_{12}+\left(a-b\right)\frac{3I_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}-\left[\left(3a-\frac{13b}{2}\right)I_{6}-\frac{bI_{12}}{2}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}^2}+\left[\frac{R_{12}}{2}+\left(3a-\frac{19b}{4}\right)\frac{I_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right]\frac{T_{33}}{\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{25}&=-\left(a-\frac{b}{2}\right)\frac{S_{22}}{\rho_{2}}+\left(R_{12}-\frac{bI_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right)\frac{S_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}T_{10}}{\rho_{2}}+T_{15}+T_{20}+\frac{I_{12}T_{27}}{2\rho_{2}}+\left[\frac{3bR_{12}}{4\rho_{2}}+\frac{\rho_{1}I_{1}}{\rho_{2}}-\frac{I_{2}-I_{3}-I_{5}}{2}\right]\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+\left(a^2-b^2\right)\frac{I_{8}T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}^3}-\frac{I_{12}T_{33}}{2\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
S_{26}&=-\frac{I_{8}S_{27}}{\rho_{2}}-\left(R_{12}+\frac{aI_{8}}{\rho_{2}}\right)\frac{T_{32}}{2\rho_{2}},\qquad T_{26}=T_{22}-\frac{I_{6}T_{32}-I_{8}T_{33}}{\rho_{2}},\qquad
S_{28}=S_{27}-\left(\frac{a}{2}-b\right)\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{28}&=T_{27}-T_{33},\qquad
S_{29}=S_{27}-\left(\frac{a}{2}-b\right)\frac{T_{32}}{\rho_{2}},\qquad
T_{29}=T_{27}-T_{33},\qquad
S_{30}=0,\qquad T_{30}=T_{32},\nonumber\\
S_{31}&=0,\qquad T_{31}=T_{32},\qquad S_{32}=0,\qquad S_{33}=-\frac{aT_{32}}{2\rho_{2}},\qquad S_{34}=S_{27}+\frac{bT_{32}}{2\rho_{2}},\qquad T_{34}=0,\nonumber\\
4a&\left[2\rho_{2}\left(\rho_{1}S_{10}-\rho_{2}S_{15}+\rho_{2}S_{18}\right)+\rho_{2}\left(I_{6}S_{27}+bT_{22}\right)+\left(a-b\right)I_{8}T_{27}\right]+a\left[2\rho_{2}R_{2}+\left(a+3b\right)I_{6}+aI_{12}\right]T_{32}+\nonumber\\
&\quad{}+2\left[2\rho_{2}\left(a-b\right)R_{12}+2\rho_{2}^2\left(I_{2}-I_{3}-2I_{5}\right)+a\left(b-2a\right)I_{8}\right]T_{33}=0,\qquad I_{6}T_{32}-I_{8}T_{33}=0.\nonumber
\end{align}}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the last decade nuclear structure theory has been characterized by remarkable developments in \textit{ab initio} calculations beyond the lightest elements. Approaches like coupled cluster (CC) \cite{Hagen:2012sh, Hagen:2012fb, Binder:2012mk}, Dyson self-consistent Green's functions (SCGF) \cite{Barbieri:2009ej, Barbieri:2012rd, Cipollone:2013b} and in-medium similarity renormalization group (IM-SRG) \cite{Tsukiyama:2010rj, Hergert:2013uja} are nowadays able to successfully describe properties of nuclei in the region $A\sim15\!-\!50$ starting solely from the knowledge of elementary two- and three-nucleon forces.
Such methods, while differing in the way they solve the many-body Schr\"odinger equation, produce results with a similar degree of accuracy, e.g. for ground-state energies in the oxygen chain \cite{Hagen:2012sh, Cipollone:2013b, Hergert:2013uja}. Even more recently, nuclear lattice effective field theory (NLEFT) has joined the group of promising ab-initio methods applicable to mid-mass nuclei~\cite{Lahde:2013uqa}.
We focus here on SCGF theory whose implementation within Dyson's formalism has been typically limited to doubly closed-shell nuclei so far\footnote{A key feature of SCGF theory is to access the spectral strength distribution associated with one neutron/proton addition or removal, i.e. it automatically delivers the spectrum of $\text{A}\pm1$ systems out of the calculation of the A-body ground state~\cite{Dickhoff:2004xx, Rios:2009gb, Rios:2011zd}.}. In a few cases superfluid systems have been addressed within the Nambu-Gorkov formalism by including quasiparticle-phonon couplings in the self-energy, either phenomenologically \cite{VdSluys1993} or in the framework of nuclear field theory \cite{Idini2012}. Recently, we have introduced a fully \textit{ab initio} approach based on the Gorkov ansatz that extends the SCGF formalism to open-shell nuclei~\cite{Soma:2011GkvI,Soma:2013rc}. Together with the latest advances on elementary inter-nucleon interactions, such a development paves the way for an \textit{ab initio} description of complete isotopic and isotonic chains in the mid-/heavy-mass region of the nuclear chart.
A crucial issue for \textit{ab initio} approaches concerns the ability of performing numerical calculations in increasingly large model spaces, with the aims of thoroughly checking the convergence and of constantly extending the reach to heavier systems.
More generally, \textit{ab initio} methods must eventually assess all sources of theoretical uncertainties and attribute theoretical error bands to their predictions. This is a necessary condition to be in the position of exploiting the remaining discrepancy with experiment as a measure of the quality of the input many-body Hamiltonian. The intent of the present work is to discuss the numerical implementation of Gorkov-Green's function techniques for finite systems and evaluate uncertainties associated with model-space truncations and the algorithm used to solve Gorkov's equation. Other sources of error, including uncertainties related to renormalization group transformations of the Hamiltonian and to many-body truncations have already been discussed in the literature~\cite{Cipollone:2013b, Hergert:2013uja} and will be addressed thoroughly for Gorkov theory in future works.
A long-standing problem with self-consistent calculations of one-body propagators in finite systems concerns the rapid increase of the number of poles generated at each iterative step. The fast growth is expected as the Lehmann representation of one-body Green's functions (see Eqs.~\eqref{eq:leh} and \eqref{eq:leh_self} below) develops a continuous cut along the real energy axis in connection with unbound states.
This cut is discretized by a growing number of discrete energy states as the the size of the model space is increased. In practical calculations, one needs to limit the number of discretized poles in a way that self-bound systems can still be accurately calculated.
Traditionally, this has been achieved by either binning the self-energy poles along the energy axis or by employing Lanczos algorithms to project the energy denominators onto smaller Krylov spaces~\cite{VanNeck:1991,VanNeck:1993,Muether1993,Muether1995,Dewulf:1997Bagel,VanNeck2001}.
The latter approach is preferable since the original self-energy is retrieved in the limit of increasing Krylov basis size. However, corresponding calculations relied on the further approximation that the self-energy is diagonal in the one-body Hilbert space.
This approximation can result in significant inaccuracies and should be avoided. Moreover, several pivots are necessary to correctly reproduce the off-diagonal features of the self-energy, leading to a block Lanczos algorithm~\cite{Schirmer1989}.
Other works have avoided Krylov projection techniques and performed self-consistent calculations by manually selecting the set of poles carrying the largest strength while collecting the others into few effective poles. These \textit{ad hoc} procedures have led to successful investigations~\cite{Barbieri2002,Barbieri:2006sq} but do not offer the possibility to systematically assess errors.
Our recent SCGF calculations~\cite{Barbieri:2009nx,Waldecker:2011by,Soma:2013rc,Cipollone:2013b} have relied on modified Lanczos and Arnoldi algorithms to perform reduction to Krylov spaces defined by multiple pivots, as originally suggested in Ref.~\cite{Schirmer1989}. This approach guarantees convergence to the full original self-energy in the limit of increasing Krylov space dimension and, hence, is suitable for \textit{ab initio} calculations. However, no account has been given so far of the performance and accuracy of this method in nuclear structure applications. One aim of the present work is to fill this gap.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:GGFtheory} Gorkov-Green's function theory is briefly
reviewed, with a focus on the aspects inherent to the solution of Gorkov's equation.
In Sec. \ref{sec:numerical} the numerical implementation of Gorkov's equation is discussed,
with particular emphasis on the modified Lanczos
algorithm employed in the diagonalization.
A remainder of the relevant Lanczos formulae as well as details on the treatment of chemical potentials can be found in the Appendix.
The performance of the Krylov projection is analyzed in Sec. \ref{sec:lanczos}.
In Sec. \ref{sec:self} different degrees of self-consistency in the iterative solution of Gorkov's equations are compared.
The dependence of the results on the size of the single-particle model space, i.e. on the basis used to represent the matrix elements of one and two-body operators at play, is investigated in Sec. \ref{sec:mod_sp}, followed by final remarks in Sec. \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Gorkov-Green's function theory}
\label{sec:GGFtheory}
\subsection{Gorkov's equation}
\label{subsec:gkv_eq}
Given the intrinsic Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:H}
H_{\text{int}}\equiv T+V-T_{CM} \: \: ,
\end{equation}
Gorkov-SCGF theory targets the ground state $| \Psi_0 \rangle$ of the grand-canonical-like potential $\Omega \equiv H_{\text{int}} - \mu_p \, \hat{Z} -\mu_n \, \hat{N}$, having the targeted proton $Z = \langle \Psi_0 | \hat{Z} | \Psi_0 \rangle$ and neutron $N = \langle \Psi_0 | \hat{N} | \Psi_0 \rangle$ numbers on average. Here, $\mu_p$ ($\mu_n$) denotes the proton (neutron) chemical potential and $\hat{Z}$ ($\hat{N}$) the proton- (neutron-)number operator.
The complete dynamics is embodied in a set of four Green's functions known as Gorkov's propagators~\cite{Gorkov:1958}%
\footnote{Two-dimensional matrices in Gorkov space are denoted in boldface throughout the paper. Non-boldface quantities are used for vectors and matrices defined on the one-body Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{1}$. Matrix elements of the latter are denoted by latin letter subscripts $\{a, b, \ldots \}$, which label single-particle basis states of ${\cal H}_{1}$.}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Gprop}
\mathbf{G}(\omega) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
G^{11}(\omega) & G^{12}(\omega) \\
G^{21}(\omega) & G^{22}(\omega)
\end{array} \right) \, ,
\end{equation}
whose matrix elements read in the Lehmann representation as
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:leh}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:leh11}
G^{11}_{ab} (\omega) &=& \sum_{k} \left\{
\frac{\mathcal{U}_{a}^{k} \,\mathcal{U}_{b}^{k*}}
{\omega-\omega_{k} + \textrm{i} \eta}
+ \frac{\bar{\mathcal{V}}_{a}^{k*} \, {\bar{\mathcal{V}}_{b}^{k}}}{\omega+\omega_{k} - \textrm{i} \eta} \right\} \: ,\\
\label{eq:leh12}
G^{12}_{ab} (\omega) &=& \sum_{k}
\left\{
\frac{\mathcal{U}_{a}^{k} \,\mathcal{V}_{b}^{k*}}
{\omega-\omega_{k} + \textrm{i} \eta} + \frac{\bar{\mathcal{V}}_{a}^{k*} \, {\bar{\mathcal{U}}_{b}^{k}}}{\omega+\omega_{k} - \textrm{i} \eta}
\right\} \, ,\\
\label{eq:leh21}
G^{21}_{ab} (\omega) &=& \sum_{k}
\left\{
\frac{\mathcal{V}_{a}^{k} \,\mathcal{U}_{b}^{k*}}
{\omega-\omega_{k} + \textrm{i} \eta}
+ \frac{\bar{\mathcal{U}}_{a}^{k*} \, {\bar{\mathcal{V}}_{b}^{k}}}{\omega+\omega_{k} - \textrm{i} \eta}
\right\} \, ,\\
\label{eq:leh22}
G^{22}_{ab} (\omega) &=& \sum_{k} \left\{
\frac{\mathcal{V}_{a}^{k} \,\mathcal{V}_{b}^{k*}}
{\omega-\omega_{k} + \textrm{i} \eta}
+ \frac{\bar{\mathcal{U}}_{a}^{k*} \, {\bar{\mathcal{U}}_{b}^{k}}}{\omega+\omega_{k} - \textrm{i} \eta} \right\} \: .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The poles of the propagators are given by $\omega_{k} \equiv \Omega_k - \Omega_0$, where the index $k$ refers to normalized eigenstates of $\Omega$ over Fock space
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kapp}
\Omega \, | \Psi_{k} \rangle = \Omega_{k} \, | \Psi_{k} \rangle \: .
\end{equation}
The residue of $\mathbf{G}(\omega)$ associated with pole $\omega_{k}$ relates to the probability amplitudes
$\mathcal{U}^k$ ($\mathcal{V}^k$) to reach state $| \Psi_{k} \rangle$ by adding (removing) a nucleon to (from) $| \Psi_{0} \rangle$
on a single-particle state%
\footnote{The component of vector $\mathcal{U}^k$ associated with a single-particle state $a$ is denoted by $\mathcal{U}_{a}^{k}$. Correspondingly, the component associated with the time-reversed state $\bar{a}$ is denoted by $\bar{\mathcal{U}}_{a}^{k}$~\cite{Soma:2011GkvI}.}.
Dressed one-body propagators (Eqs.~(\ref{eq:leh})) are solutions of Gorkov's equation of motion
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gorkov}
\left.
\left(
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.2cm} $T + \Sigma^{11}(\omega)- \mu_{q_k} \qquad \quad \Sigma^{12}(\omega)$ \\
$\Sigma^{21}(\omega) \qquad \quad \hspace{-0.4cm} -T + \Sigma^{22}(\omega) + \mu_{q_k} $
\end{tabular}
\right)
\right|_{\omega_k}
\hspace{-0.2cm}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hspace{-0.1cm} \mathcal{U}^k \\
\hspace{-0.1cm} \mathcal{V}^k
\end{array} \hspace{-0.1cm} \right)
\hspace{-0.1cm}
= \omega_{k}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hspace{-0.1cm} \mathcal{U}^k \\
\hspace{-0.1cm} \mathcal{V}^k
\end{array} \hspace{-0.1cm} \right) ,
\end{equation}
whose output is the set of vectors $(\mathcal{U}^k, \mathcal{V}^k)$ and energies $\omega_{k}$. The chemical potential $\mu_{q_k}$ is equal to $\mu_p$ or $\mu_n$ depending on the charge quantum number $q_k$ carried by the pole~$k$. Equation~(\ref{eq:gorkov}) reads as a one-body eigenvalue problem in which the normal [$\Sigma^{11}(\omega)$ and $\Sigma^{22}(\omega)$] and anomalous [$\Sigma^{12}(\omega)$ and $\Sigma^{21}(\omega)$] irreducible self-energies act as {\it energy-dependent} potentials. Notice that $\Sigma^{11}(\omega)$ is also identified with the microscopic nucleon-nucleus optical potential~\cite{Capuzzi96,Waldecker:2011by}, allowing for the computation of scattering states~\cite{Barbieri:2005NAscatt}.
For a detailed discussion on the computation of observables, we refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{Soma:2011GkvI}. Let us limit ourselves here to defining quantities that will effectively appear in the various figures below. The total binding energy of the A-body system is computed via the Koltun sum rule~\cite{Koltun:1972}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:koltun_gorkov}
E^{\text{A}}_0 &=&
\frac{1}{4 \pi i} \int_{C \uparrow} d \omega \, \text{Tr}_{{\cal H}_{1}}\!\left[ G^{11} (\omega) \left[ T
+ \omega \right] \right] \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
which is exact for two-body Hamiltonians. Separation energies between the A-body ground state and eigenstates of $\text{A}\pm1$ systems are related to the poles $\omega_k$ through
\begin{eqnarray}
E_k^{\pm} \equiv \mu_{q_k} \pm \omega_k
&=& \pm \left[\langle \Psi_k | H_{\text{int}} | \Psi_k \rangle - \langle \Psi_0 | H_{\text{int}} | \Psi_0 \rangle\right]
\nonumber \\
&& \mp \mu_{q_k} \left[\langle \Psi_k | \hat{Z} + \hat{N} | \Psi_k \rangle - (\text{A} \pm 1)\right] \, , ~~~
\label{eq:epmk1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the second bracket takes care of the error associated with the difference between the average number of particles in $| \Psi_k \rangle$ and the targeted particle number $\text{A}\pm1$. The spectral function associated with the {\it direct} addition or removal of a nucleon is then obtained according to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:sfunc2_11}
S (E) &=& \sum_{k} \mathcal{U}^k \mathcal{U}^{k \, \dagger} \, \delta(E-E^+_{k}) + \mathcal{V}^{k \, \ast} \mathcal{V}^{k \, T} \, \delta(E-E^-_{k}) \, , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
from which the spectral strength distribution (SSD) is extracted through ${\cal S}p (E) \equiv \text{Tr}_{{\cal H}_1} \left[S (E)\right] $, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:SSDan}
{\cal S}p (E) &=& \sum_k SF_{k}^{+} \, \delta(E-E^+_k) + SF_{k}^{-} \, \delta(E-E^-_k) \: ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
SF_{k}^{+} \hspace{-0.1cm} &\equiv& \text{Tr}_{{\cal H}_{1}}\!\left[\mathcal{U}^k \mathcal{U}^{k \, \dagger}\right] \, , \\
SF_{k}^{-} \hspace{-0.1cm} &\equiv& \text{Tr}_{{\cal H}_{1}}\!\left[\mathcal{V}^{k \, \ast} \mathcal{V}^{k \, T}\right] \, ,
\label{eq:SF}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
define spectroscopic factors. The SSD provides the probability to leave the system with the relative energy $E$ when adding/removing a nucleon to/from $| \Psi_0 \rangle$. Last but not least, effective single-particle energies (ESPEs) introduced by Baranger as centroids $e^{\text{cent}}_a$ of one-nucleon addition and removal spectra $E_k^{\pm}$ can be naturally computed in the present context as the eigenvalues of the first moment of the spectral function~\cite{Soma:2011GkvI,Duguet2011}.
\subsection{Self-energy expansion}
\label{subsec:se-expansion}
The solution of eigenvalue problem~(\ref{eq:gorkov}) yields the complete set of $\{\mathcal{U}^k, \mathcal{V}^k, \omega_{k}\}$ from which one can reconstruct Gorkov's propagators. This requires the knowledge of the self-energy, which can always be written as the sum of a static (i.e. energy independent) contribution and a dynamical term, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{\Sigma}(\omega) \equiv \mathbf{\Sigma}^{(\infty)} + \mathbf{\Sigma}^{(dyn)}(\omega) \, .
\label{eq:Sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
The four static self-energies read~\cite{Soma:2011GkvI}
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:lambda_h}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma^{11 \, (\infty)}_{ab} &=& +\sum_{cd}\bar{v}_{acbd} \, \rho_{dc}
\equiv +\Lambda_{ab}
= + \Lambda_{ab}^{\dagger}
\\ \displaystyle
\Sigma^{22 \, (\infty)}_{ab} &=& -\sum_{cd}\bar{v}_{\bar{b}d\bar{a}c} \, \rho_{cd}^*
= - \Lambda_{\bar{a}\bar{b}}^* \, ,
\\ \displaystyle
\label{eq:h_tilde}
\Sigma^{12 \, (\infty)}_{ab} &=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{cd} \bar{v}_{a\bar{b}c\bar{d}} \, \tilde{\rho}_{cd}
\equiv + \tilde{h}_{ab} \: ,
\\ \displaystyle
\label{eq:h_tilde_dagger}
\Sigma^{21 \, (\infty)}_{ab} &=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{cd} \bar{v}_{b\bar{a}c\bar{d}}^* \, \tilde{\rho}_{cd}^* = + \tilde{h}_{ab}^{\dagger}
\: ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $\bar{v}_{acbd}$ denote antisymmetrized matrix elements of the two-body interaction entering Eq.~\eqref{eq:H}, whereas
$\rho_{ab}$ and $\tilde{\rho}_{ab}$ are respectively the normal and anomalous density matrices
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:allbdm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:nobdm}
\rho_{ab} &\equiv& \langle \Psi_0 | a_b^{\dagger} a_a | \Psi_0 \rangle
= \sum_{k} \bar{\mathcal{V}}_{b}^k \, \bar{\mathcal{V}}_{a}^{k*} \: , \\
\label{eq:aobdm}
\tilde{\rho}_{ab} &\equiv& \langle \Psi_0 | \bar{a}_b a_a | \Psi_0 \rangle
= \sum_{k} {\bar{\mathcal{U}}_{b}^k} \, \bar{\mathcal{V}}_{a}^{k*} \: .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Equations~(\ref{eq:lambda_h}) are formally of first order in $V$ and resemble plain Hartree-Fock and Bogoliubov one-body fields. However, they are expressed in terms of {\it fully correlated} ground-state density matrices $\rho$ and $\tilde{\rho}$. Thus, they implicitly sum all {\it static} higher-order diagrams in perturbation theory. In the presence of three- or higher many-body interactions, they acquire further contributions due to additional interaction reducible diagrams~\cite{Carbone:2013eqa}.
If only first-order contributions to the self-energy are actually retained, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:gorkov}), (\ref{eq:lambda_h}) and (\ref{eq:allbdm}) do reduce to an \textit{ab initio} Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) problem. At higher orders, the self-energy acquires energy dependent contributions and the solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:gorkov}) complicates.
The dynamical part of the self-energy can be expressed through its Lehmann representation as follows
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:leh_self}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:leh_self11}
\Sigma_{ab}^{11 \, (dyn)} (\omega) &=&
\sum_{\kappa} \left\{
\frac{{\mathcal{C}^{\kappa}_{a}}
\, ({\mathcal{C}^{\kappa}_{b}})^{*}}{\omega-E_{\kappa} + \textrm{i} \eta}
+ \frac{({\bar{\mathcal{D}}^{\kappa}_{a}})^{*}
\, \bar{\mathcal{D}}^{\kappa}_{b}}{\omega+E_{\kappa} - \textrm{i} \eta}
\right\} , \quad\quad
\\ \displaystyle
\label{eq:leh_self12}
\Sigma_{ab}^{12 \, (dyn)} (\omega) &=&
\sum_{\kappa} \left\{
\frac{{\mathcal{C}^{\kappa}_{a}}
\, ( {\mathcal{D}}^{\kappa}_{b} )^* }{\omega-E_{\kappa} + \textrm{i} \eta}
+ \frac{({\bar{\mathcal{D}}^{\kappa}_{a}})^{*}
\, {\bar{\mathcal{C}}^{\kappa}_{b}}}{\omega+E_{\kappa} - \textrm{i} \eta}
\right\} , \quad
\\ \displaystyle
\label{eq:leh_self21}
\Sigma_{ab}^{21 \, (dyn)} (\omega) &=&
\sum_{\kappa} \left\{
\frac{{\mathcal{D}^{\kappa}_{a}}
\, ({\mathcal{C}^{\kappa}_{b}})^{*}}{\omega-E_{\kappa} + \textrm{i} \eta}
+ \frac{({\bar{\mathcal{C}}^{\kappa}_{a}})^*
\, \bar{\mathcal{D}}^{\kappa}_{b}}{\omega+E_{\kappa} - \textrm{i} \eta}
\right\} , \quad
\\ \displaystyle
\label{eq:leh_self22}
\Sigma_{ab}^{22 \, (dyn)} (\omega) &=&
\sum_{\kappa} \left\{
\frac{{\mathcal{D}^{\kappa}_{a}}
\, (\mathcal{D}^{\kappa}_{b})^*}{\omega-E_{\kappa} + \textrm{i} \eta}
+ \frac{({\bar{\mathcal{C}}^{\kappa}_{a}})^*
\, {\bar{\mathcal{C}}^{\kappa}_{b}}}{\omega+E_{\kappa} - \textrm{i} \eta}
\right\} , \quad
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ account for the coupling of one quasi-particle excitations to configurations involving $2n+1$ quasi-particles, with $n\geq1$, while $E_{\kappa}$ labels the energy of such configurations. The structure of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:leh_self}) does not change if additional many-body interactions enter the Hamiltonian. Up to this point no approximation has been made, i.e. if the exact self-energy is employed in Eqs~(\ref{eq:lambda_h}) and~(\ref{eq:leh_self}) then Gorkov's Eq.~(\ref{eq:gorkov}) is equivalent to solving the exact \hbox{$A$-body} Schr\"odinger equation.
In actual calculations, a truncation in the expansion of $\mathbf{\Sigma}(\omega)$ has to be adopted to approximate the coupling amplitudes ($\mathcal{C}^\kappa$, $\mathcal{D}^\kappa$) and their poles $E_\kappa$. In the present work first- and second-order self-energy contributions are considered~\cite{Soma:2011GkvI}. Summing the eight second-order skeleton diagrams expressed in terms of correlated propagators, one obtains an approximation for $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(dyn)}(\omega)$ with the same form of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:leh_self}) where the label $\kappa$ runs over all possible three-quasiparticles (3QP) excitations $\kappa = \{ k_1, k_2, k_3 \}$.
The corresponding poles are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:E2nd}
E_{\kappa} = E_{k_1 k_2 k_3} \equiv \omega_{k_1} + \omega_{k_2} + \omega_{k_3}
\end{equation} \\
while the coupling amplitude read
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:CD2nd}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{C}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a} &\equiv& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \left [ {\mathcal{M}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}} + {\mathcal{M}^{k_2k_3k_1}_{a}} + {\mathcal{M}^{k_3k_1k_2}_{a}} \right ] ,\quad
\\
\mathcal{D}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a} &\equiv& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \left [ {\mathcal{N}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}} + {\mathcal{N}^{k_2k_3k_1}_{a}} + {\mathcal{N}^{k_3k_1k_2}_{a}} \right ] , \quad
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:mpr}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{M}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a} &\equiv& \sum_{ijk} \bar{v}_{akij} \,\mathcal{U}_{i}^{k_1} \mathcal{U}_{j}^{k_2} \bar{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{k_3} \, , \\
\mathcal{N}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a} &\equiv& \sum_{ijk} \bar{v}_{akij} \, \mathcal{V}_{i}^{k_1} \mathcal{V}_{j}^{k_2} \bar{\mathcal{U}}_{k}^{k_3} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\begin{widetext}
\subsection{Energy-independent form of Gorkov's equation}
\label{subsec:energy}
Using Eq.~\eqref{eq:leh_self}, an alternative formulation of Gorkov's equation can be derived. Introducing the two additional amplitudes $\mathcal{W}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$ that describe the admixtures of 3QP configurations according to
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:wz}
\begin{eqnarray}
(\omega_k-E_{k_1 k_2 k_3}) \, \mathcal{W}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{k} &\equiv&
\sum_a \left[ ({\mathcal{C}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}})^{*} \, \mathcal{U}^k_a + ({\mathcal{D}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}})^{*} \, \mathcal{V}^k_a \right] \: ,
\\
(\omega_k+E_{k_1 k_2 k_3}) \, \mathcal{Z}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{k} &\equiv&
\sum_a \left[ \bar{\mathcal{D}}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a} \, \mathcal{U}^k_a + {\bar{\mathcal{C}}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}} \, \mathcal{V}^k_a \right] \: ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Eq.~\eqref{eq:gorkov} can be rewritten as
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:gorkov_premat}
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_k \, \mathcal{U}^k_a &=& \sum_b \left [ (T_{ab} - \mu \, \delta_{ab} + \Lambda_{ab}) \, \mathcal{U}^k_b + \tilde{h}_{ab} \, \mathcal{V}^k_b \right]
+ \sum_{k_1k_2k_3} \left [ {\mathcal{C}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}} \, \mathcal{W}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{k}
+ ({\bar{\mathcal{D}}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}})^{*} \, \mathcal{Z}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{k} \right] \: ,
\\
\omega_k \, \mathcal{V}^k_a &=& \sum_b \left [\tilde{h}_{ab}^{\dagger} \, \mathcal{U}^k_b -(T_{ab} - \mu \, \delta_{ab} + \Lambda_{\bar{a}\bar{b}}^*) \, \mathcal{V}^k_b\right]
+ \sum_{k_1k_2k_3} \left [{\mathcal{D}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}} \, \mathcal{W}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{k}
+ ({\bar{\mathcal{C}}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{a}})^{*} \, \mathcal{Z}^{k_1k_2k_3}_{k} \right] \: .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The four relations above provide a set of coupled equations for unknowns $\mathcal{U}$, $\mathcal{V}$, $\mathcal{W}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$ that can be recast in a matrix form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:xi}
\Xi
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{U} \\ \mathcal{V} \\ \mathcal{W} \\ \mathcal{Z}
\end{array}
\right)_k \equiv
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
h & \tilde{h} &\quad \mathcal{C} \ &\quad \bar{\mathcal{D}}^{*} \\
\tilde{h}^{\dagger} & -\bar{h}^* &\quad \mathcal{D} &\quad \bar{\mathcal{C}}^* \\
\mathcal{C}^{\dagger} & \mathcal{D}^{\dagger} &\quad E &\quad 0 \\
\bar{\mathcal{D}}^{T} & \bar{\mathcal{C}}^{T} &\quad 0 &\; \; -E
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{U} \\ \mathcal{V} \\ \mathcal{W} \\ \mathcal{Z}
\end{array}
\right)_k
= \omega_k
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{U} \\ \mathcal{V} \\ \mathcal{W} \\ \mathcal{Z}
\end{array}
\right)_k
\: ,
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where $h \equiv T-\mu+\Lambda$ and $E \equiv \text{diag} \{ E_\kappa \}$. The derivation of the energy-independent matrix $\Xi$ can be generalized to higher-order truncations of the self-energy as long as the latter can be expressed through the Lehmann representation~\eqref{eq:leh_self}.
\section{Numerical algorithm}
\label{sec:numerical}
Identical solutions are associated with Gorkov's equation in the form \eqref{eq:gorkov} or \eqref{eq:xi}.
Numerically, however, the treatment of an energy-dependent eigenvalue equation is not particularly desirable.
Attempts solve Eq.~\eqref{eq:gorkov} directly have revealed problematic due to the presence of the energy denominators in ${\bf \Sigma}(\omega)$ that imply drastic variations of the self-energy near its poles~\cite{Bergli2011}. Even with very fine meshes in energy, this issue severely limits the resolution of the calculation~\cite{Brand1988}. Alternatively, each pole can be searched for individually~\cite{YuanPhD1994,Barbieri2002,Barbieri:2007Atoms} but this involves a lengthy numerical procedure that does not guarantee the access to all solutions of Eq. \eqref{eq:gorkov}, i.e. a sizeable fraction of the spectral strength may be neglected.
Working with Eq. \eqref{eq:xi}, on the other hand, avoids divergences and automatically guarantees the extraction of all the poles at once. The price to pay is a severe growth in the dimension of Gorkov's matrix, with consequent limitations on its diagonalization and a stringent requirement in memory storage. Nevertheless, this eventually results in a gain of more than one order of magnitude in computational time with respect to solving Eq.~\eqref{eq:gorkov} directly. As discussed at length in the following, the large dimension of $\Xi$ does not preclude convergence in model spaces that are large enough for modern \textit{ab initio} nuclear structure calculations.
\subsection{Self-consistency and dimensionality}
\label{sec:sc-dim}
Gorkov's matrix depends on eigenvalues $\omega_k$ and amplitudes ($\mathcal{U}^k$,$\mathcal{V}^k$), which implies that the solution must be searched for iteratively. To see how the energy-independent form, Eq. \eqref{eq:xi}, involves a drastic increase of the dimensionality of the problem at each iteration, let us partition the matrix $\Xi$ as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:xi_12}
\Xi
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc|cc}
h & \tilde{h} &\quad \mathcal{C} \ &\quad \bar{\mathcal{D}}^{*} \\
\tilde{h}^{\dagger} & -\bar{h}^* &\quad \mathcal{D} &\quad \bar{\mathcal{C}}^* \\ \hline
\mathcal{C}^{\dagger} & \mathcal{D}^{\dagger} &\quad E &\quad 0 \\
\bar{\mathcal{D}}^{T} & \bar{\mathcal{C}}^{T} &\quad 0 &\; \; -E
\end{array}
\right)
\equiv
\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\Xi^{(1)} & \Xi^{(2)} \\ \hline
\Xi^{(2) \, \dagger} & \mathcal{E}
\end{array}
\right)
\: .
\end{equation}
The number of states in the single-particle basis, $N_b$, defines the dimension of the first-order block $\Xi^{(1)}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:xi}).
\begin{figure}[h]
$$
\begin{tabular}{m{1.25cm}m{0.55cm}|m{0.55cm}|m{0.55cm}|m{1.5cm}|m{1.5cm}|c}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\overbrace{\hspace{3cm}}^{\mbox{\small{$2N_s$}}}$} & \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\overbrace{\hspace{1.5cm}}^{\mbox{\small{$N_s$}}}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\cline{3-6} \multirow{2}{*}{$2 N_b \left\{ \mbox{\fontsize{26}{40}\selectfont \phantom{I}} \right.$} &
\hspace{-0.5cm} $N_b \left\{ \mbox{\fontsize{16}{40}\selectfont \phantom{I}} \right.$ & \centering$h$ & \centering$\tilde{h}$ & \centering$ \mathcal{C}$ & \centering$ \bar{\mathcal{D}}^{*}$ &
\multirow{4}[4]{*}{\hspace{-0.6cm} $\left. \mbox{\fontsize{88}{70}\selectfont \phantom{I}} \right\} N_{tot}$} \\
\cline{3-6} & \mbox{\fontsize{21}{40}\selectfont \phantom{I}} & \centering$ \tilde{h}^{\dagger}$ & \centering$-h$ & \centering $\mathcal{D}$ & \centering $\bar{\mathcal{C}}^*$ & \\
\cline{3-6} \multicolumn{2}{m{0.75cm}|}{$\mbox{\fontsize{55}{40}\selectfont \phantom{I}}$}
& \centering $\mathcal{C}^{\dagger}$ & \centering $\mathcal{D}^{\dagger}$ & \centering $E$ & \centering 0& \\
\cline{3-6} \multicolumn{2}{m{0.75cm}|}{$\mbox{\fontsize{55}{40}\selectfont \phantom{I}}$}
& \centering $\bar{\mathcal{D}}^{T}$ & \centering $\bar{\mathcal{C}}^{T}$ & \centering 0 & \centering $-E$ & \\
\cline{3-6}
\end{tabular}
$$
\caption{Dimension scheme for the Gorkov matrix $\Xi$.}
\label{fig:xi}
\end{figure}
Each of the four sub-blocks in $\Xi^{(1)}$ is $N_b \times N_b$, for a total of $2 N_b \times 2 N_b$ matrix elements. The matrix $E$ is diagonal for second-order self-energies and its elements are all possible combinations of three pole energies $\{ \omega_{k_1}, \omega_{k_2}, \omega_{k_3}\}$. A product state solution of the HFB problem is typically chosen as the reference state so that
$N_b$ positive quasi-particle energies are involved at the first iteration. In this situation, the number of poles in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:leh_self}) is
\begin{equation}
N_s \approx \left(
\begin{array}{c}
N_b \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
\approx \frac{N_b^3}{6}
\: .
\end{equation}
Since $N_b \ll (N_b)^3$ it follows that dim$(\Xi) = N_{tot} \approx N_b^3/3$. In a general, e.g. m-scheme, implementation $N_b$ of order of a few hundreds is typically needed to achieve convergence. Thus, the diagonalization of Gorkov's matrix for large model spaces may be infeasible with current computational resources, even for the first iteration.
Diagonalizing $\Xi$ the first time, about $(N_b)^3/6$ new poles (i.e. one quasi-particle states) are generated, which represent the new fragments carrying each a fraction of the spectral strength distribution. In the second iteration, the number of possible three quasi-particle energies $E_{k_1 k_2 k_3}$ has increased accordingly, resulting in $N_s \approx N_b^9/216/6$, which leads to dim$(\Xi) \approx N_b^9/1000 \times N_b^9/1000$. In the $n$-th iteration the matrix $\Xi$ will have expanded to dimensions of order $N_b^{3^n} \times N_b^{3^n}$. This growth clearly prevents the exact treatment of all poles in an actual (self-consistent) calculation and one has to keep dim($\Xi$) below a threshold that makes the scheme computationally tractable.
\subsection{Krylov projection}
\label{subsec:krylov}
We follow Ref.~\cite{Schirmer1989} and project the energy denominators of ${\bf \Sigma}^{(dyn)}(\omega)$ to a smaller Krylov subspace. Doing so, the dimensional growth of Gorkov's matrix is contained and a sustainable computational procedure can be developed.
We consider a set of pivot vectors $p^i$ with elements
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pivots}
p^i_\kappa = \sum_a \, \mathcal{C}_a^\kappa U^i_a \; + \; \sum_a \, \mathcal{D}_a^\kappa V^i_a
\: ,
\end{equation}
where ($U^i$, $V^i$) are linearly independent vectors in the space of HFB quasi-particle states, i.e of the $2N_b$ eigensolutions of $\Xi^{(1)}$. In general, one needs as many pivots as there are single-particle basis states in the model space to properly converge all off-diagonal elements of Eqs. \eqref{eq:leh_self}~\cite{Schirmer1989}. Up to $N_p=2 N_b$ starting pivots are thus used to generate a Krylov subspace $\mathcal{K}$ associated with the submatrix $E$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi}).
Our particular implementation uses a Lanczos-type algorithm that uses one pivot at a time and iterates it $N_\ell$ times, independently of the others. Each time Lanczos iterations are started with a new pivot, $p^i$, it is first orthogonalised with respect to the basis vectors already generated. This is equivalent to a block Lanczos reduction based on a slightly modified set of pivots $\{p^i{}'\}$. Eventually, the dimension of the Krylov space is the number of \textit{total} Lanczos iterations, $N_L=$ dim$(\mathcal{K})= N_\ell \times N_{p}$.
Full details of the algorithm are given in Appendix~\ref{app:lanczos}.
The block $\mathcal{E}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi_12}) reduces to a matrix of lower dimensions
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Krylov_E}
\mathcal{E} \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}' =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{L}^{\dagger} \, E \, \mathcal{L} \\
& - \mathcal{L}^{\dagger} \, E \, \mathcal{L}
\end{array}
\right)
\: ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}$ is the collection of vectors generated by the Lanczos procedure.
The two off-diagonal blocks $\Xi^{(2)}$ and $\Xi^{(2) \, \dagger}$ are transformed accordingly:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:Krylov_Xi}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Xi^{(2)} &\longrightarrow& \Xi'^{(2)} = \Xi^{(2)} \, \left( \begin{array}{c} \mathcal{L} \\ \mathcal{L} \end{array} \right) \:\: , \\
\Xi^{(2)\, \dagger} &\longrightarrow& \Xi'^{(2)\, \dagger} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \mathcal{L}^\dagger & \mathcal{L}^\dagger \end{array} \right) \, \Xi^{(2)\, \dagger} \:\: .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
These projected blocks are inserted in the original Gorkov matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:xi_12prime}
\Xi \longrightarrow \Xi'
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\Xi^{(1)} & \Xi'^{(2)} \\ \hline
\Xi'^{(2)\, \dagger} & \mathcal{E}'
\end{array}
\right)
\: ,
\end{equation}
whose dimension is now dim$(\Xi') = N'_{tot} \times N'_{tot} = (2 N_b + 2 N_L) \times (2 N_b + 2 N_L)$. Gorkov-Krylov's matrix $\Xi'$ is finally (fully) diagonalized with standard diagonalization routines. For a sufficiently large number of iterations \hbox{dim$(\mathcal{K})$ $\rightarrow$ dim$(E)$} and the exact result is recovered. In terms of Lehmann representation, Eq.~\eqref{eq:leh_self}, the Krylov projected quantities results in approximating the exact self-energy as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma^{(2)} = \mathcal{C} \frac{1}{\mathbb{1} \omega - E} \mathcal{C}^{\dagger} \:\: \longrightarrow \:\:
\Sigma'^{(2)} = \mathcal{C} \, \mathcal{L} \frac{1}{\mathbb{1} \omega - \mathcal{L}^{\dagger} \, E \, \mathcal{L}} \mathcal{L}^{\dagger} \, \mathcal{C}^{\dagger} \: ,
\label{eq:Krylov_prop}
\end{equation}
where only the first term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:leh_self11} has been considered for illustration. The other terms follow accordingly.
The technique outlined here differs in spirit from the standard use of Lanczos or Arnoldi algorithms in large-scale
shell-model diagonalizations. While these methods aim at excellent estimates of the lowest eigenvalues of a large matrix, in SCGF calculations one is also interested in reproducing most of the key features of the spectral distribution.
The Krylov projection of a matrix ensures a fast convergence at the extremes of its eigenvalue spectrum. Thus, it is important that the Lanczos algorithm is applied separately to both sub-blocks $E$ and $-E$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi_12}), which are mirrored across the Fermi energy. In this way the quasiparticle spectrum near the Fermi surface is recovered accurately upon diagonalizing Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi_12prime}). The other important property of Krylov projection techniques is that the first $2 N_\ell$ moments of each pivot are conserved during the projection. This ensures that the overall SSD converges quickly, which is important for achieving good estimates for all observables after a relatively small number of Lanczos iterations.
\subsection{Calculation scheme}
\label{subsec:calculation_scheme}
To obtain the self-consistent solution for the four Gorkov propagators, the following steps are performed
\begin{enumerate}
\item Reference propagators are used as an initial set of $\{ \mathcal{U}^k, \mathcal{V}^k, \omega_k \}$ and $\{ \mu_p, \mu_n \}$. They are typically generated by solving the first-order HFB eigenvalue problem.
\item Second-order self-energies are computed through Eqs.~\eqref{eq:E2nd} to~\eqref{eq:mpr}.
\item The Krylov projection is performed according to Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Krylov_E} and~\eqref{eq:Krylov_Xi}.
\item Energy-independent self-energies entering $\Xi^{(1)}$ are computed by means of Eqs. \eqref{eq:lambda_h}.
\item Matrix $\Xi'$ [Eq. \eqref{eq:xi_12prime}] is constructed and diagonalized.
\item Chemical potentials $\mu_p$ and $\mu_n$ are adjusted to yield on average the proton and neutron numbers of the targeted nucleus according to Eq. \eqref{eq:adjust_mu}. This involves several re-diagonalizations of matrix $\Xi'$ along with repeated adjustments of $\mu_p$ and $\mu_n$.
\item The solution (i.e. a new set of $\{ \mathcal{U}^k, \mathcal{V}^k, \omega_k \}$ and $\{ \mu_p, \mu_n \}$) provides updated Gorkov's propagators and is used as an input to the next iteration. The procedure re-starts from point 2 for full self-consistency (or from point 4 for the partial ``sc0'' scheme discussed below).
\end{enumerate}
The above procedure is repeated until convergence is achieved. The convergence is typically assessed by looking at the variation of the chemical potentials and/or of the total binding energy. In the present work the convergence criterion is set by variations in the total energy that are smaller than 1~keV. As discussed in the next section, such a value is smaller than the systematic error induced by the numerical algorithm.
Repeating points 2--6 above provides the fully self-consistent (``sc'') implementation of Gorkov-Green's function theory. In this case, converged results are completely independent of the reference state adopted at point 1. A computationally cheaper alternative---referred to as ``sc0'' in the following---consists of iterating only points 4--6. In other words, self-consistency is limited to the energy independent part of the self-energy [$\Xi^{(1)}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:xi_12}] whereas ${\bf\Sigma}^{(dyn)}(\omega)$ is computed once and frozen afterwards. In actual calculations we employ HFB propagators to generate the second-order skeleton diagrams contributing to ${\bf\Sigma}^{(dyn)}(\omega)$. Thus, a substantial portion of self-energy insertion diagrams (beyond second order) are effectively recovered. Effectively, the partial self-consistency of the sc0 approach already retains the most important features since it implicitly generates all energy independent diagrams above first order through the dressing of propagators in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:lambda_h} and~\eqref{eq:allbdm}. As opposed to perturbation theory, the self-consistent character of Green's function methods guarantees the resummation of self-energy insertions to all orders and makes the method intrinsically non-perturbative and iterative. Since the self-energy is computed at second order in skeleton diagrams, both sc0 and sc generate all diagrams entering ${\bf\Sigma}^{(\infty)}$ up to third order and all those entering ${\bf\Sigma}^{(dyn)}(\omega)$ up to second order. In both cases, the self-consistency in ${\bf\Sigma}^{(\infty)}$ automatically includes all-order resummations of several diagrams beyond third order.
The two schemes will be compared in details in Sec.~\ref{sec:self}, where it will be shown that the sc0 degree of self-consistency is capable of grasping most of the correlations introduced by second-order self-energies.
\subsection{Numerical scaling}
\label{subsec:scaling}
An important issue for \textit{ab initio} approaches concerns the possibility to perform numerical calculations with increasingly large model spaces, so that it is possible to control their convergence and access heavier systems. Thus, we analyse the numerical scaling of Gorkov-Green's function calculations. Provided that a full diagonalization of the unprojected Gorkov matrix is computationally too expensive, we directly consider the cost of calculations based on the Lanczos algorithm.
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:krylov}, the benefit of the Krylov projection regards the reduced dimensionality of Gorkov's eigenvalue problem due to the fact that $N_L \ll N_s$. Not only $\mbox{dim}(\mathcal{K}) \ll \,\mbox{dim}(E)$ but $N_L= 2 \, N_b \times N_\ell $ is independent of the number of poles in the iterated propagator. Thus, $\mbox{dim}(\mathcal{K})$ remains small due to the Krylov projections at each iteration, allowing for self-consistent calculations even for large bases.
Before comparing the overall costs of sc0 and sc calculations, we investigate the scaling of separate steps defining the algorithm presented in Sec.~\ref{subsec:calculation_scheme}. The three main steps are (i) the calculation of Gorkov's matrix, (ii) its Krylov reduction and (iii) its diagonalization. Only the last step is iterated in a sc0 calculation. These operations display different scaling behaviors when varying the size of model and Krylov spaces
\begin{enumerate}
\item While matrix $E$ is trivial at second order, $\Xi^{(2)}$ is made of $2 N_b \times 2 N_s$ elements to be computed. For the first iteration and the sc0 scheme, $N_s \approx N_b^3$/6 and the elements of $\Xi^{(2)}$ are the interaction matrix elements, Eq.~\eqref{eq:CD2nd}, expressed in the reference (HFB) basis. For successive iterations, $N_s \propto N_L^3$ while $\Xi^{(2)}$ requires projecting the interaction on Gorkov orbitals [see Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mpr})]. This requires a number of operations of order $N_b \times N_s \times N_b^3$. Hence, calculating Gorkov's matrix scales as
\begin{enumerate}
\item $N_b^4$ for the first iteration and sc0;
\item $N_b^7 \, N_\ell^3$ for successive iterations in sc.
\end{enumerate}
\item The Lanczos algorithm iteratively generates $N_L$ basis vectors of dimension $N_s$. Within this procedure, the most time consuming part is the projection of the coupling amplitudes to obtain $\Xi'^{(2)}$ [see Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Krylov_Xi})], which is a matrix multiplication requiring $2N_b \times N_s \times N_L$ steps. Hence, the Krylov projection scales as
\begin{enumerate}
\item $N_b^5 \, N_\ell$ for the first iteration and sc0;
\item $N_b^5 \, N_\ell^4$ for successive iterations in sc.
\end{enumerate}
\item The diagonalization of Gorkov-Krylov's matrix scales as $(N'_{tot})^3 \propto N_b^3 \, N_\ell^3$, for large values of $N_\ell$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=.35\linewidth]{scaling_new_Nmax_se_v3.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=.35\linewidth]{scaling_new_Nmax_itr_v3.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) CPU time spent performing specific operations during a typical sc0 calculation as a function of $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$
and for different values of $N_\ell$. The contribution of the various partial waves $\alpha$ are added.
Left panel: time needed to calculate the self-energies and project them
to Krylov's subspace (points 1 and 2 of Sec.~\ref{subsec:scaling}).
Right panel: time required to diagonalize Gorkov's matrix over 100 sc0 iterations (point 3 of Sec.~\ref{subsec:scaling}).
Dashed lines show scalings of the type $(N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}})^\gamma$, with $\gamma=$6 (left panel) and~3 (right panel).
}
\label{fig:scaling}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Considerations made so far are valid for a general choice of the single-particle basis $\{ a_a^{\dagger} \}$, e.g. in an m-scheme calculation, and represent a worst case scenario. Our actual implementation
considers nuclei that are assumed to be in a $J^\Pi = 0^+$ state, for which Gorkov's equation separates
into partial waves of a given charge, angular momentum and parity, $\alpha \equiv (q, j , \pi)$~\cite{Soma:2011GkvI}.
The basis associated with a partial wave $\alpha$ has a dimension $N_b^{\alpha}$ that corresponds
to the number of its principal levels included in the model space. The dimension of the Krylov space, $N_L^{\alpha} = 2 \, N_b^{\alpha} \, N_\ell$, varies with $\alpha$ accordingly. This changes the above stated scaling properties in a non trivial way.
Present calculations use a spherical harmonic oscillator basis with all orbits included up to a maximum
shell $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=\max\{2n_\alpha + \ell_\alpha\}$. This basis has $N_b^\alpha \leq N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}/2$ but the overall scaling gains an extra power in $N_b^\alpha$ because the same calculation is performed separately for each partial wave: more precisely, $\sum_\alpha (N_b^\alpha)^\gamma \propto (N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}})^{\gamma +1}$ for large $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$.
Note, however, that the relevant quantity for the m-scheme case is the total number of all possible single particle orbits, $N^{tot}_b=\sum_\alpha N_b^\alpha \propto (N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}})^2 $. Hence, decoupling all partial waves results
in a high gain in computational time.
In addition, for a fixed $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$, the dimension of the Lanczos vectors, $N_s^\alpha$, is no longer proportional
to $(N_b^\alpha)^3$ but displays a bell shape with increasing angular momentum $j_\alpha$ that results from the combinatorics involved in coupling angular momenta. This also affects the considerations at points 1 and 2 above and results in a more gentle scaling.
Since the actual scaling in computer time depends non trivially on the model space chosen, we tested our code
directly in actual calculations. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling} for a series of sc0 runs on a single processor.
Left panel shows the time required to generate the Gorkov-Krylov matrix (steps 1 and 2 above) for different model-space sizes and values of $N_\ell$. For large $N_\ell$ the computation time is dominated by the Lanczos procedure and scales as $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}^6$, as expected.
The calculation of the second order self-energy (step 1) is significant only when using very few Lanczos iterations (when step 2 is negligible). However, it increases more rapidly with respect to $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$, indicating that for large model spaces an improvement
of our algorithm for step 1 might be in order.
Right panel shows the time required for 100 diagonalizations of Gorkov-Krylov's matrix (steps 4-6
of Sec.~\ref{subsec:calculation_scheme}).
This is representative of the typical number of sc0 iterations needed in actual calculations to converge both the propagator
and the chemical potentials. The diagonalization of Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi_12prime}) becomes dominant
for large $N_\ell$ and scales as $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}^3$. Both panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling} reflect the actual computing time of a typical sc0 calculation and indicate that resources are evenly split between the Krylov projection and the sc0 iterations needed to reach self-consistency.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{CPU_usage.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) CPU time requirements (in minutes) to perform 100 iterations within typical sc and sc0 self-consistency calculations. Results are shown for different numbers $N_\ell$ of Lanczos iterations per pivot as a function of the model-space size $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$.}
\label{fig:cpu}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The full sc scheme is significantly more expensive than the sc0 implementation. This is illustrated as a function of the model-space size $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$ in Fig. \ref{fig:cpu} for typical Gorkov calculations performed using different numbers $N_\ell$ of Lanczos iterations per pivot.
In fact, even when projecting the initial matrix onto a small Krylov space, the time required to run the sc scheme can easily become prohibitive in practice.
On the other hand, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:self}, the sc0 scheme already grasps the relevant physics leading to accurate results (see also Refs.~\cite{Soma:2013rc,Cipollone:2013b}) and could be applied to larger model spaces necessary to handle SRG-unevolved NN interactions and/or heavy systems.
The sc0 scheme therefore constitutes an optimal choice for practical applications.
\section{Performance}
\label{sec:Performance}
As already mentioned, we assume the nuclei under study to be in a $J^\Pi = 0^+$ state and expand Gorkov's propagators on a spherical harmonic oscillator basis characterized by quantum number $a~= (n, q, j, m, \pi)\equiv(n, \alpha, m)$, where $n$ and $m$ label the principal quantum number and the projection of the third component of the angular momentum, respectively. As a result, Gorkov's equation can be written in a block diagonal form that separates out the partial waves $\alpha$.
Unless otherwise stated, the two-body potential employed is a next-to-next-to-next-to-leading-order (N$^{3}$LO) 2N chiral interaction~\cite{N3LO:2003,MacEnt2011} ($\Lambda_{\chi}=$500\,MeV) complemented by the Coulomb force.
The resulting isospin-symmetry breaking interaction is then softened using free-space similarity renormalization group (SRG) techniques~\cite{Bogner:2009bt} down to a momentum scale of \hbox{$\lambda = 2.0$ fm$^{-1}$}.
\subsection{Krylov projection}
\label{sec:lanczos}
\subsubsection{Choice of Lanczos pivots}
\label{subsec:pivots}
In exact arithmetic, the Lanczos algorithm generates basis vectors that are all orthogonal to each other, until the full original space is spanned. On a computer, the finite precision of the machine will at some point spoil the orthogonality, resulting in a set of linearly dependent vectors. This can be usually corrected, e.g., by means of selective orthogonalization techniques~\cite{Parlett:1979la}.
In the following we take instead a pedantic approach and orthogonalize after each iteration the new Lanczos vector with respect to all previous ones. This procedure is increasingly costly in the limit of large $N_L$, but it is doable and provides the safest option for actual calculations where one is interested in relatively small Krylov spaces.
An additional mechanism causing the sudden loss of orthogonality relates to the convergence of the eigenvalues of the Krylov-projected matrix, known as Ritz (eigen)values, to machine precision. This however happens only for extremely large spaces that approach the dimension of the original space [Eq.~\eqref{eq:limitnl} below] and does not affect in practice our Gorkov calculations. Nevertheless, we still check for sudden losses of orthogonality between successive Lanczos vectors\footnote{Following Ref.~\cite{Parlett:1979la}, two vectors $\mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{w}$ are considered orthogonal if $\mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{w} < \sqrt{\epsilon_m}$, where $\epsilon_m$ is the machine precision. In the case of the present calculations $\epsilon_m=1.11 \cdot 10^{-16}$.}. If this occurs we stop the projection just before, at a corresponding number $N_L^{crit}$ of Lanczos iterations.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N_\ell$ & ~$N_p$~ & $N_L$/$N_L^{crit}$ & E$_{\nu s_{1/2}}$ [MeV] \\
\hline
\hline
1 & 4 & 4 & -2.286045527516 \\
5 & 4 & 20 & -2.285370055029 \\
10 & 4 & 40 & -2.285503728538 \\
50 & 4 & 200 & -2.285578135207 \\
100 & 4 & 400 & -2.285580911804 \\
150 & 4 & 600 & -2.285580911686 \\
200 & 4 & 800 & -2.285580911686 \\
297 & 4 & 1111$^*$ & -2.285580911686 \\
300 & 3 & 1121$^*$ & -2.285580911686 \\
400 & 3 & 1113$^*$ & -2.285558373049 \\
800 & 2 & 1103$^*$ & -2.285504651650 \\
1000 & 2 & 1029$^*$ & -2.285580911687\\
1188 & 1 & 1029$^*$ & $\,\,\,$ -2.215766990937 $\,\,\,$ \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|l}{Exact diagonalization:~~~} & -2.285580911686 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contribution to the total binding energy from the neutron $s_{1/2}$ partial wave in $^{12}$C, for different numbers of
pivots used ($N_p$) and number of iterations per pivot ($N_\ell$).
Asterisks ($^*$) indicate a truncation of the Lanczos iterations at $N_L^{crit}$ due to a sudden loss of orthogonality. Otherwise,
a total number $N_L$=$N_p\times N_\ell$ vectors is generated. The dimension of the full 3QP space is $N_s^{\nu s_{1/2}}$=1188. }
\label{tab:loss1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N_\ell$ & ~$N_p$~ & $N_L$ & E$_{\nu s_{1/2}}$ [MeV] \\
\hline
\hline
~600~ & 1 & 600 & -2.109743018672 \\
300 & 2 & 600 & -2.268918978484 \\
200 & 3 & 600 & -2.279490387096 \\
150 & 4 & 600 & $\,\,\,$ -2.285580911686 $\,\,\,$\\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|l}{Exact diagonalization:~~~} & -2.285580911686 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Same as Tab.~\ref{tab:loss2} but for a fixed total number of Lanczos vectors and varying the number of linearly independent pivots.}
\label{tab:loss2}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\end{table}
A first basic test concerns the limit
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:limitnl}
\mbox{dim}(\mathcal{K}) \longrightarrow \mbox{dim}( E ) \:
\end{equation}
[see also Eq.~\eqref{eq:limitK}], where the Krylov subspace coincides with the initial one and the exact result must be recovered.
To this extent, we calculate the partial contribution of one specific channel to the binding energy of $^{12}$C, Eq.~\ref{eq:koltun_gorkov},
in a small model space where the Krylov projection can be compared to the exact diagonalization of the original matrix. Tables~\ref{tab:loss1} and~\ref{tab:loss2} list the contribution of neutron orbits characterized by $j^\pi=1/2^+$ ($\alpha$=$\nu s_{1/2}$) to the Koltun sum rule in a small model space of 4 major oscillator shells ($N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=3$) and for different numbers of iterations and pivots used.
In this case $N_s^{\nu s_{1/2}}=1188$, $N_b^{\nu s_{1/2}}=2$ and the total dimension of the HFB space is 4. Thus, only up to $N_p^{\nu s_{1/2}}=4$ Lanczos pivots can be generated from linearly independent vectors in the HFB space [Eq.~(\ref{eq:pivots})].
As long as the number of iterations per pivot, $N_\ell$, is small enough to allow for all the
$2 N_b^{\nu s_{1/2}}$ pivots to be used, the Krylov-projected energy converges to the exact value in the limit of Eq.~\eqref{eq:limitnl}.
Table~\ref{tab:loss1} shows that $N_L=600$, which corresponds to half of the original 3QP configurations, is enough to recover the exact diagonalization to thirteen significant digits. Even for $N_\ell$=50, results are converged to better than 10~eV. However, when $N_\ell$ increases a smaller number of pivots is exploited before the full space is saturated.
The accuracy gradually worsens as the number of pivots used decreases, although results close to the exact one are found down to two pivots. In principle, one single pivot should be sufficient to recover the exact diagonalization in the limit \eqref{eq:limitnl}.
In practice, however, no more than a few \% accuracy is achieved before the loss of orthogonality kicks in. Conversely, adding just a few extra iterations of a second pivot brings the calculated energy close to the exact result. The dependence of the result on the number of pivots used is shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:loss2} for a fixed dimension of the Krylov space. This demonstrates that the best possible accuracy is obtained when all linearly independent pivots are iterated. We further found that including all pivots is important to quickly converge off diagonal matrix elements of the self-energies, Eqs.~\eqref{eq:leh_self}, in accordance with the finding of Ref.~\cite{Schirmer1989}. This dependence on the number of pivots relates to having enough degrees of freedom to span the original HFB space, which is particularly important when resolvent operators are involved in the projection, as it is the case in Green's function theory.
In general, any set of linearly independent vectors in the HFB space can be used to generate the pivots through Eq.\eqref{eq:pivots}.
In our calculations, the optimal choice consists of using the HFB eigenstates themselves, which were indeed employed in the above tests. Vectors in the harmonic oscillator basis as well as random basis vectors lead to a worse convergence in all cases considered. Calculations of different partial waves, nuclei, interactions or model spaces validate the above findings. Given this, the $2 N_b$ HFB eigenstates are used as pivots throughout the following.
\subsubsection{$N_\ell$ dependence}
\label{subsec:nl}
When going to the large model spaces necessary to converge calculations with realistic nuclear interactions, currently available computational resources set severe limits on the dimension of matrix $\Xi$. A crucial issue concerns how large should the Krylov subspace be in order to achieve a satisfactory accuracy in the solution of Gorkov's equation. We now examine the dependence of the results on the number of Lanczos iterations per pivot, $N_\ell$. We first do so on the basis of a single partial wave, as already done in connection with Tab.~\ref{tab:loss1}. Then, we investigate the convergence for a single Gorkov iteration but involving all partial waves at once. Finally, we terminate with complete self-consistent sc0 calculations.
For a given model space, the dimensions of both the 3QP space, $N^{\alpha}_s$, and the single-particle basis, $N^{\alpha}_b$, depends on the partial wave $\alpha=(q,j,\pi)$. For a fixed number of Lanczos iterations $N_\ell$, the fraction of the initial space spanned by the Krylov-projected matrix depends on $\alpha$ as well. In general \hbox{$N_L^\alpha \propto N_b^\alpha$} so that partial waves with low angular momentum will be better reproduced on average, since for a given $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$ truncation the number of harmonic oscillator orbits $N_b^\alpha$ decreases with increasing $j_\alpha$. This is actually desirable because low angular-momentum waves correspond to the most occupied orbits and give the largest contributions to the binding energy. To quantify the fraction of the initial 3QP configuration space spanned by the Krylov projection for a given partial wave $\alpha$, we introduce
\begin{equation}
K^\alpha \equiv 100 * \frac{\mbox{dim}(\mathcal{K}{}^\alpha)}{\mbox{dim}(E^\alpha)} = \frac{100* N_\ell * N_p^\alpha}{\mbox{dim}(E^\alpha)} \, .
\label{eq:K}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{be_Lanczos_C12_e3_e5_scaled.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Relative error for the contribution of a given partial wave $\alpha$ to the Koltun sum rule in $^{12}$C
as a function of $K^\alpha$ (see text). Results refer to a single diagonalization and different model-space sizes. }
\label{fig:nlvsexact}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:nlvsexact} displays in $^{12}$C the convergence of the contribution of two different partial waves to the Koltun sum rule, Eq~\eqref{eq:koltun_gorkov}, as a function of $K^\alpha$. Results are representative of how the error associated with a given partial-wave decreases by orders of magnitude when increasing $N_\ell$. Interestingly, relatively small values of $K^\alpha$ are sufficient to achieve precisions of the order of the keV in both cases. After this initial transient, the error follows a exponentially decreasing trend.
The $\nu s_{1/2}$ wave reaches the exact results up to machine precision when half of the 3QP space is projected to the Krylov subspace, as already seen in Table \ref{tab:loss1}. The convergence to the exact result is slower for the largest of the two model spaces used but the transient of the first few iterations remains.
To analyse the combined contributions from all partial waves, we now define the overall fraction of the 3QP space retained through
\begin{equation}
K' \equiv 100 * \frac{\sum_{\alpha} \mbox{dim}(\mathcal{K}{}^\alpha)}{\sum_{\alpha} \mbox{dim}(E^\alpha)}
= \frac{100* N_\ell * \sum_{\alpha} N_p^{\alpha}}{\sum_{\alpha} \mbox{dim}(E^\alpha)} \, ,
\label{eq:Kprime}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ runs over all partial waves. Values obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq:Kprime} are displayed in Tab.~\ref{tab:dim} for different $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$. For a fixed $N_\ell$, the fraction $K'$ becomes progressively small when increasing the size of the model space.
However, the total number of configurations still grows rapidly with $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c||c|}
\hline
$N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$ & $\alpha_{\mbox{\footnotesize{tot}}}$
& $\sum_{\alpha}$ dim$(E^\alpha)$ & $\sum_{\alpha} 2 N_b^{\alpha}$ & $K'(N_\ell=100) [\%]$ \\
\hline
\hline
3 & 7 & 12 226 & 20 & 16.358 \\
\hline
4 & 9 & 57 029 & 30 & 5.260 \\
\hline
5 & 11 & 411 968 & 42 & 1.019\\
\hline
7 & 15 & 3 265 512 & 72 & 0.220\\
\hline
9 & 19 & 16 808 456 & 110 & 0.065\\
\hline
11 & 23 & 65 305 228 & 156 & 0.023\\
\hline
13 & 27 & \, 208 096 960 \, & 210 & 0.010\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Values obtained from Eq. \eqref{eq:Kprime} for various model spaces. The sum over $\alpha$ is limited to neutrons only (including protons would require a factor 2 in columns 2, 3 and 4 that would cancel out in $K'$). As an example, $K'$ values for $N_\ell=100$ are displayed in the last column.}
\label{tab:dim}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{be_Lanczos_Ca44_e3-e4_scaled.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Relative error in the total binding energy of $^{44}$Ca after one second-order iteration as a function of $K'$ (see text) for two different model-space sizes.}
\label{fig:allexact_scaled}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Nmax7-13.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Convergence of the (sc0) binding energy of $^{44}$Ca as a function of $N_{\ell}$, for different model spaces.}
\label{fig:lanczos7-13}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:allexact_scaled} demonstrates the accuracy obtained on the total binding energy as a function of $K'$, when all partial waves are accounted for in the calculation of $^{44}$Ca.
Relative errors are given with respect to the result of one exact diagonalization in the original 3QP space. Errors for both $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=3$ and $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=4$ models spaces are comparable for $K'>\,$1\% and eventually decrease in a similar fashion as in Fig.~\ref{fig:nlvsexact}. On the other hand, convergence to few keV is reached for smaller values of $K'$ in the larger model space.
Realistic calculations will differ from the above cases because diagonalizations have to be repeated iteratively to reach the self-consistent solution and because large model spaces must be employed. In Fig.~\ref{fig:lanczos7-13}, converged sc0 energies are displayed as a function of $N_\ell$ for different model-space sizes. One notices that all cases show a similar dependence on $N_\ell$: a dip, a steep rise after $N_\ell=2$ and a smooth decay towards an asymptotic value. This behaviour is rather independent of $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$ and indicates that $N_\ell$ is in fact a more appropriate parameter than $K'$ to gauge the convergence of the Krylov projection. Small fluctuations may still occur for $N_\ell > 10$, especially for the larger models spaces, which suggests that somewhat larger values of $N_\ell$ might be needed to reach the desired accuracy as $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$ increases.
In general, this behaviour seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:lanczos7-13} is in accordance with the above observation that, when increasing $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$, a smaller value of $K'$ is needed to reach a few keV accuracy. Arguably, binding energies are well reproduced once one includes the number of degrees of freedom sufficient to resolve the system's wave function (or propagator). The Krylov projection characterized by $N_\ell$ is a very efficient way to select those degrees of freedom as it preserves the corresponding moments of the 3QP matrix $E$.
The trend observed in Figs.~\ref{fig:nlvsexact} and~\ref{fig:allexact_scaled} suggest that $K'$ might instead control the exponential convergence to the exact diagonalization. From Fig.~\ref{fig:lanczos7-13} one sees that the energy reaches a plateau for $N_\ell > 30$, rather independently of the model-space size. Eventually, we estimate that the Lanczos procedure performed with $N_\ell \approx 50$ induces inaccuracies of about 100 keV for the largest model space considered ($N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=13$).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{DOS_Ti40_e13_G5.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Density of $J^{\Pi}=1/2^+$ states in $^{41}$Ti as a function of their excitation energy with respect to the Fermi level $\mu_n$ of $^{40}$Ti, for increasing $N_\ell$. The distribution, discretized in the calculation, is convoluted with Lorentzian curves of 5~MeV width for display purposes.}
\label{fig:dos}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{SP_Ti40_e13_G5.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) One-neutron addition and removal spectral strength distribution in $^{40}$Ti limited to $J^{\Pi}=1/2^+$ final states in $^{39,41}$Ti. The distribution, discretized in the calculation, is convoluted with Lorentzian curves of 5~MeV width for display purposes.}
\label{fig:sp}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is also instructive to look at the convergence of spectroscopic quantities. To this purpose, the doubly open-shell nucleus $^{40}$Ti is considered in a model space of 14 major shells. Figure~\ref{fig:dos} displays the density of $J^{\Pi}=1/2^+$ states\footnote{The density of states (DOS) in question is obtained from the SSD [Eq.~(\ref{eq:SSDan})] by setting $SF^{+}_k=1$ and $SF^{-}_k=0$ for all $k$.} in $^{41}$Ti as a function of their energy relative to the Fermi surface of $^{40}$Ti, for increasing $N_\ell$. The exact density of states would display a bell shape due to the rise of the number of (physical) degrees of freedom which is eventually stopped by the truncation of the model space. As seen from Tab.~\ref{tab:dim}, only a very small fraction of those configurations is effectively retained here. As the dimension of Gorkov-Krylov's matrix increases, only the density of states at the edges of the eigenvalue spectrum start to converge, which is a typical feature of Krylov methods.
Despite the reduced DOS at the center of the spectrum, the spectral strength distribution [Eq.~(\ref{eq:SSDan})] is shown to converge rather rapidly at all energies when increasing $N_\ell$~\cite{CaurierRMP2005}. This is seen in Fig. \ref{fig:sp} where the neutron SSD in $^{40}$Ti, limited to $J^{\Pi}=1/2^+$ final states of $^{39,41}$Ti, is displayed. The curves obtained for $N_\ell=50$ and $N_\ell=100$ are essentially indistinguishable for most energies, with the SSD already converging to a resolution better than 10~MeV (5~MeV) for $N_\ell$=50 ($N_\ell=100$). Even for projections onto relatively small Krylov spaces, the result conserves the overall features of the SSD, which guarantees the quick convergence of observables and spectroscopic quantities in general.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{ESPE_Ti40_e13.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Selected neutron and proton effective single-particle energies in $^{40}$Ti as a function of the number of Lanczos iterations per pivot $N_\ell$. Results are displayed relative relative to the values obtained for $N_\ell=100$. Calculations are performed in an $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=13$ model space.}
\label{fig:espe}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:espe} compares effective single-particle energies in $^{40}$Ti for different values of $N_\ell$. Results are given as the deviation to ESPEs computed for $N_\ell=100$, which is the most accurate truncation used. Difference between $N_\ell=10$ and $N_\ell=100$ are of the order of few tens to few hundreds keV, and decrease to 10~keV for $N_\ell$=50-100 for all ESPEs. This is also representative of the accuracy reached for one-nucleon separation energies
associated with the dominant quasiparticle states, which carry the main part of the strength.
Similar results are obtained for other nuclei and different model spaces.
Summarizing, the Krylov projection is shown to be reliable in all considered cases. The loss of orthogonality is well understood for small model spaces and never occurs in practice for large model spaces, where one is limited to a small number of Lanczos iterations. Both binding energies and one-nucleon separation energy spectra are well converged for relatively small values of $N_\ell$, nearly independently of the original dimension of Gorkov's matrix. This indicates that the Krylov projection is a reliable and computationally affordable tool that can be extended to large model spaces. For a typical large-scale calculation, a projection with $N_\ell=50$ is expected to yield a sufficient degree of accuracy for applications to mid-mass nuclei.
In this case, a conservative estimate of the systematic error induced by the projection is of the order of 300 keV on the converged total energy and 50 keV on one-nucleon separation energies associated with states carrying the dominant part of the strength, as well as on ESPEs. This can of course be improved by increasing~$N_\ell$.
\subsection{Self-consistency schemes}
\label{sec:self}
Section~\ref{subsec:calculation_scheme} outlines two different self-consistent calculation schemes. The sc implementation corresponds to a fully self-consistent solution of Gorkov's equation. Instead, the sc0 scheme iterates self-consistently only the static part of the self energy ${\bf \Sigma}^{(\infty)}$. A priori, there is no guarantee that one of these two many-body truncations will give results systematically closer to the exact binding energy than the other. However, the sc approach is conceptually superior both because it includes more diagrams (to very high orders) and because it guarantees that solutions satisfy fundamental conservation laws \cite{Baym:1961zz}. From the computational cost point of view the sc0 approach is much more gentle than the sc scheme (see Fig.~\ref{fig:cpu}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{BE_He-O_sc-sc0.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Binding energy of $^4$He (left) and $^{20}$O (right) as a function of the number $N_\ell$ of Lanczos iterations per pivot, for different model-space sizes. Dashed (solid) lines correspond to the sc (sc0) self-consistent scheme.}
\label{fig:sc-sc0}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The two implementations are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:sc-sc0} for $^4$He and $^{20}$O. Results for total binding energies are displayed for different model spaces and small Krylov subspace projections, for which full sc calculations are possible. For all the cases considered, the two schemes yield results that differ at the level of 1$\%$. This is similar to the error induced by the many-body truncation employed in third- and higher-order SCGF calculations~\cite{Barbieri2012, Cipollone:2013b}.
Thus, Fig.~\ref{fig:sc-sc0} confirms the excellent performance of the partially self-consistent sc0 approach, making it an optimal compromise between high accuracy and an affordable computational cost.
\subsection{Model space convergence}
\label{sec:mod_sp}
The above discussion focused on the different technical steps that enable an efficient numerical solution of Gorkov's equation \eqref{eq:xi} for a given model space. We now turn to the convergence of Gorkov results as a function of the model space size.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Ca44_HFB.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Ca44_sc0_insert.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Binding energies of $^{44}$Ca from first-order (upper panel) and second-order (lower panel) Gorkov calculations as a function of the harmonic oscillator spacing $\hbar \Omega$ and for increasing size $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$ of the single-particle model space. The insert shows a zoom on the most converged results.}
\label{fig:hwplots}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{SP_Ti40_Nmax.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) $^{40}$Ti one-neutron removal spectral strength distribution associated with $J^{\Pi}=1/2^+$ final states as a function of the model space dimension $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$. The distribution, discretized in the calculation, is convoluted with Lorentzian curves of 5~MeV width for display purposes.}
\label{fig:spnmax}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the harmonic oscillator model space considered here, this translates into requiring the independence of the results on the oscillator spacing $\hbar \Omega$ and the number~$N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}+1$ of major shells used. Figure~\ref{fig:hwplots} displays the convergence of the binding energy of the open-shell $^{44}$Ca nucleus.
As $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$ increases, results become independent of $\hbar \Omega$ and quickly converge to a fixed value. Energies generated at first (second) order in the self-energy expansion vary by only 10 keV (30 keV) when going from $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=11$ to $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=13$, well below the systematic error introduced by the Krylov projection. Similar convergence patterns have been found for closed-shell calcium isotopes, as well as for heavier systems such as $^{74}$Ni \cite{Soma:2013rc}.
Similar conclusions can be drawn for other quantities such as the SSD. In Fig.~\ref{fig:spnmax}, the neutron removal spectral strength distribution in $^{40}$Ti associated with $J^{\Pi}=1/2^+$ final states is plotted for different values of $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}$. Details of the SSD close to the Fermi surface ($\omega=0$) are well converged already at $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=9$, while $N_{\mbox{\footnotesize{max}}}=11$ is sufficient to converge the strength at very high (negative) energies to within the resolution set by the Lorentzian of 5\,MeV width used to convolute the spectrum.
For a given many-body method and truncation scheme, the convergence depends on the input NN (and 3N) interaction. In this sense, the robust behavior displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:hwplots} confirms the softness of SRG-evolved potentials used in this work, for which 14 major shells are sufficient to ensure well converged calculations. Our present implementation leaves room for improvement of the algorithms and better parallelisation so that the method can be pushed to larger model spaces. This presents opportunities for either going to even heavier systems or to employ interactions with a higher SRG cutoff. Both paths will be explored in forthcoming works.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have detailed the numerical implementation of self-consistent Gorkov-Green's function (Gorkov SCGF) theory applied to finite nuclei~\cite{Soma:2011GkvI}. This many-body method extends the reach of first-principle calculations to several hundreds of open-shell mid-mass nuclei that have been so far inaccessible via \textit{ab initio} techniques. In this work, the numerical solution of Gorkov's equation of motion is discussed, paying particular attention to diagonalization, convergence and self-consistency issues. Numerical performances of this \textit{ab initio} scheme are analysed on the basis a N$^{3}$LO chiral nucleon-nucleon interaction, evolved down through similarity renormalization group (SRG) techniques to a resolution scale of \hbox{$\lambda = 2.0$ fm$^{-1}$}. Three-nucleon forces are currently being incorporated into Gorkov SCGF calculations following the recent step taken within Dyson's framework~\cite{Cipollone:2013b,Carbone:2013eqa}. We will report on this achievement in a forthcoming publication. While it is of importance to confirm the conclusions provided below when three-nucleon forces are in operation, the performance of the algorithm discussed in Secs.~\ref{sec:numerical} and~\ref{sec:lanczos} is of general character and should not be altered by the use of stronger two-nucleon interactions and/or of three-body forces.
A distinctive feature of Green's function methods is the automatic access to $\text{A}\pm1$ spectral strength distributions when computing the A-body ground-state. Self-energy contributions beyond first order account for dynamical correlations and induce the fragmentation of those spectral distributions. The self-consistent treatment of the fragmented strength requires a careful handling of the increasing number of poles generated at each iteration. Due to the doubling of the effective degrees of freedom associated with the use of Bogoliubov algebra, dealing with this issue within Gorkov's formalism is even more delicate than within Dyson's framework. The growth of the number of poles in Gorkov's propagators is controlled via Krylov projection techniques within a scheme that extends methods already in use in Quantum Chemistry~\cite{Schirmer1989}. The procedure can be executed to arbitrary accuracy, i.e. it recovers the exact result when the projection space coincides with the original one. The corresponding multi-pivot Lanczos algorithm is presented in details and its performances are tested thoroughly.
The main conclusions reached in this work are that
\begin{enumerate}
\item Gorkov SCGF calculations performed on the basis of Krylov projection techniques display a favourable numerical scaling that authorizes systematic calculations of mid-mass nuclei.
\item The corresponding multi-pivot Lanczos algorithm is manageable from the numerical point of view, stable and was benchmarked favourably against numerically exact solution of Gorkov's equation for small model spaces. The Krylov projection selects efficiently the appropriate degrees of freedom while spanning a very small fraction of the original space. For typical large-scale calculations of mid-mass nuclei, a Krylov projection employing $N_\ell\approx 50$ Lanczos iterations per pivot yields a sufficient degree of accuracy on binding energies, global features of spectral strength distributions, one-nucleon separation energies associated with states carrying the dominant part of the strength and on reconstructed effective single-particle energies.
\item Fully self-consistent calculations of mid-mass systems in large enough model spaces are actually out of reach with currently available computational resources. A partially self-consistent scheme coined as "sc0" was designed and shown to reproduce well fully self-consistent solutions in small model spaces. The sc0 scheme provides an excellent compromise between accuracy and computational feasibility. Results of large-scale calculations shown in the present paper along with those already published~\cite{Soma:2013rc} or to be published in the future rely on this partially self-consistent scheme.
\item The dependence of the results on the size of the harmonic oscillator model space was eventually investigated, showing a fast convergence for several observables of interest when employing SRG-evolved interactions. Given the gentle scaling of the numerical implementation we have developed, converged Gorkov SCGF calculations based on harder, e.g. original Chiral, interactions can be envisioned in the future.
\end{enumerate}
From the technical point of view, this work demonstrates that self-consistent Gorkov-Green's function calculations constitute a solid and viable candidate for the \textit{ab initio} description of medium-mass open-shell nuclei. The method has proven to perform well for both singly- and doubly-magic systems up to nickel isotopes~\cite{Soma:2013rc}. The numerical scaling and performances offer the possibility to apply the method to even heavier systems in the future. Together with the on-going implementation of three-nucleon interactions and the development of a more accurate many-body truncation scheme, the present work sets the basis for systematic calculations of full isotopic and isotonic chains from an \textit{ab initio} perspective.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported by the United Kingdom Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) under Grants No. ST/I003363/1 and No.ST/J000051/1, by the DFG through Grant No. SFB 634, and by the Helmholtz Alliance Program, Contract No. HA216/EMMI. VS acknowledges support from Espace de Structure Nucl\'eaire Th\'eorique (ESNT) at CEA/Saclay. Calculations were performed using HPC resources from GENCI-CCRT (Grants No. 2012-050707 and 2013-050707) and the DiRAC Data Analytic system at the University of Cambridge (BIS National E-infrastructure capital grant No. ST/K001590/1 and STFC grants No. ST/H008861/1, ST/H00887X/1, and ST/K00333X/1).
|
\section{General Overview}
The \aipcls{} is a \LaTeXe{} document class for conference proceedings
of the American Institute of Physics and other documents with similar
layout requirements. Your file will be used to reproduce
your paper as is, the only modifications done by the publisher are
adding appropriate page numbers and the copyright line. It is
therefore essential that you embed all fonts when saving your file.
This version of the guide explains all features of the class some of
which are only applicable to certain proceeding layouts.
The class provides essentially the same markup as implemented by
\LaTeX's standard
\texttt{article} class. In addition to this it implements the
following:
\begin{itemize}
\item extended set of front matter commands,
\item automatic placement of floats into column or page areas
including turning of table floats by 90\textdegree{} if necessary,
\item allows mixing column and page-wide floats without getting the
numbering out of sync,
\item footnotes will appear below bottom floats,
\item extended set of citation commands if the \texttt{natbib} system
is installed,
\item support for table notes,
\item support for textual page references like ``on the next page''.
\end{itemize}
Due to the extended functionality an article written for \LaTeX{}'s
standard article class might need adjustments in the following places
before it can be used with the \aipcls{}
(a more detailed description is given in later sections):
\begin{itemize}
\item
In the preamble, since the \aipcls{} requires a |\layoutstyle|
declaration.
\item
In the front matter, since the \aipcls{} uses an extended set of
title/author declarations.
\item
In the body of floats, since the \aipcls{} only allows a single
|\caption| command and processes the body in horizontal mode.
\end{itemize}
\section{Checking your \LaTeX{} distribution}
To ensure that your installation of \LaTeX{} contains everything
necessary to successfully use the \aipcls{}, run the file
\texttt{aipcheck.tex} through \LaTeX, e.g.,
\begin{verbatim}
latex aipcheck
\end{verbatim}
It will try to determine if everything
necessary is available and if not, will make recommendations what can
be done about it. In certain cases you might be able to use the class
if you follow the suggestions, in other cases the only solution is to
upgrade your \LaTeX{} installation.
Unfortunately it is impossible to check for all potential problems. If
\texttt{aipcheck.tex} claims everything is fine, but you nevertheless
have difficulties, consult the ``Frequently Asked Question''
(\texttt{FAQ.txt}) and the readme file in the distribution.
\section{Class details}
\subsection{Selecting the target layout}
The class supports different layouts. These are selected by
placing a |\layoutstyle| declaration in the preamble of the document.
\BDefC{layoutstyle}[m]{layout name}
This command is required.
With version 1.3 of the \aipcls{} the
following \Larg{layout name}s can be specified.
\begin{description}
\item[6x9] Layout for the AIP Conference Proceedings with
6 x 9 inches single column format (short name |6s|).
\item[8x11single] Layout for the AIP Conference Proceedings with
8.5 x 11 inches single column format (short name |8s|).
\item[8x11double] Layout for the AIP Conference Proceedings with
8.5 x 11 inches double column format (short name |8d|).
\item[arlo] Layout for the ``Acoustics Research Letters Online'' --- ARLO.
\end{description}
For example, the current guide was produced using the declaration
|\layoutstyle{|\texttt{\selectedlayoutstyle}|}|.
\subsection{Supported options}\label{suppopt}
As the class is based on the article class of standard \LaTeX{} all
reasonable\footnote{Reasonable means not conflicting with fixed
requirements for the AIP class, e.g., as this class requires 10pt body
size option \texttt{11pt} and \texttt{12pt} are ignored and produce a
warning.} options of this class are supported automatically.
In addition there are a number of options unique to the \aipcls.
\subsubsection{Paper selection}
Two options control the placement of the text on the physical
page. Choose the one that corresponds to your printer paper.
\begin{description}
\item[letterpaper] Directs the class to assume that the output is
printed on US letter sized paper (default).
\emph{Please note that the paper format is typically also specified in
the program that turns the \LaTeX{} output into PostScript. For
example, some \texttt{dvips} installations have A4 as their default
paper (typically those in Europe). In that case you have to call the
\texttt{dvips} program with the option \texttt{-t letter} to ensure
that the resulting PostScript file has the correct margins!}
\item[4apaper] Directs the class to assume that the output is
printed on A4 sized paper.
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Font selection}
Five options control the selection of fonts in the document; use at
most one of them.
\begin{description}
\item[mathptmx] Directs the class to use PostScript Times and Symbol
fonts (a few missing glyphs are taken from Computer Modern) for
math by loading the \texttt{mathptmx} package.
This option is the default.
This option does not support the |\boldmath| command since there
exists no PostScript Symbol font in bold. It is possible, however to
use |\mathbf| which allows you to get at least a bold Latin
Alphabet.
\item[mathptm] Directs the class to use PostScript Times and Symbol
fonts but used the older package \texttt{mathptm} which has upright
greek lowercase letters.
This option does not support the |\boldmath| command since there
exists no PostScript Symbol font in bold. It is possible, however to
use |\mathbf| which allows you to get at least a bold Latin
Alphabet.
\item[mathtime] Directs the class to use MathTime fonts for math by
loading the \texttt{mathtime} package. These fonts are commercial so
that this option will not work if you don't own them.
If this option is chosen one can also use the options for this
package as global options to the class.
\item[mtpro] Directs the class to use MathTime Professional fonts for math by
loading the \texttt{mtpro} package. These fonts are commercial (the
successors to the MathTime fonts from the previous option) so
that this option will not work if you don't own them.
If this option is chosen one can also use the options for this
package as global options to the class.
\item[nomathfonts] Directs the class not to set up math fonts (which
means using the installation default which is usually Computer
Modern). This option is intended in case a special math font setup
is loaded in the document preamble.
\item[cmfonts] Directs the class to use standard Computer Modern fonts
for math and text. This does not conform to the specification for this
class and is intended for draft preparation in environments where
the required fonts are unavailable.
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Textual references}
The next options enable textual references; if this is desired select
one of them:
\begin{description}
\item[varioref] Loads the \texttt{varioref} package
(see \cite[p.68ff]{A-W:MG04})
allowing to produce textual page references. See section on
Cross-references~\vpageref{xref} for details.
\item[nonvarioref] Disables the |\reftextvario| command so that the
strings produced by \texttt{varioref} commands will not depend on
the number of references seen so far. Implies the varioref option.
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Table note markers}
Notes to tables can be influenced as follows:
\begin{description}
\item[tnotealph] Produce raised lower case alphabetic marks to
indicate table notes.
\item[tnotesymbol] Use footnote symbols to indicate table notes
(default).
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Citation mode}
The citation mode can be influenced with the following two options:
\begin{description}
\item[numcites] Citations are typeset using numbers. Depending on the
proceeding style these might appear raised or in brackets, etc.~(default).
\item[bibliocites] Citations are typeset using an author/year
scheme. This requires the installation of the \texttt{natbib} system.
\end{description}
In some layout styles these options might be without effect.
\subsubsection{Heading numbers}
Heading numbers can be turned on or off with the following two options:
\begin{description}
\item[numberedheadings] Headings are numbered.
\item[unnumberedheadings] Headings are unnumbered (default).
\end{description}
In some layout styles these options might be without effect.
\subsubsection{Drafts}
Finally there is one standard \texttt{article} class option which has
its functionality extended:
\begin{description}
\item[draft] Allows |\tableofcontents| and similar commands to work
without error message (during development of article). It marks
overfull boxes and
also provides page numbers in the printout.
\textbf{Remove this option when producing the final paper.}
\end{description}
\subsection{Front matter}
The class supports an extended set of front matter commands. These
commands differ from those used by standard \LaTeX's \texttt{article}
class. Thus, if an article already written is adapted to be used with
the \aipcls{}, the front matter has to be modified somewhat.
Some of the commands below
are required only for certain proceedings. Declarations that are not
required will be silently ignored.
\BDefC{title}[om]{short title}{title text}
In standard \LaTeX{} this command has no optional argument. In the
\aipcls{} one can specify an abbreviated title text which is used,
for example, in the running footer in draft mode.
\BDefC{author}[mm]{author name}{author information}
In standard \LaTeX{} this command had only one argument containing
both author name and address information. In this class it has two
arguments and the second argument contains data structured using
key/value pairs separated by commas.
For example, the authors of this paper have been specified as:
\begin{verbatim}
\author{F. Mittelbach}{
address={Zedernweg 62, Mainz},
,email=
{<EMAIL>}}
\author{D. P. Carlisle}{
address={Willow House, Souldern},
,email={<EMAIL>}}
\end{verbatim}
Supported keywords will be \texttt{address}, \texttt{email},
\texttt{altaddress}, \texttt{homepage},
and \texttt{thanks}.
(With release 1.3 of \aipcls{} only
\texttt{address}, \texttt{altaddress} and \texttt{email} should be used; support for the other
keywords will be added later.)
Depending on the layout of the target proceedings
some of the keys may get ignored!
\BDefC{classification}[m]{data}
Some proceedings require classification data, e.g., PACS numbers. If not,
this declaration is ignored.
\BDefC{keywords}[m]{data}
Some layouts require keyword data. If not, this declaration is
ignored.
\BDefC{copyrightholder}[m]{name}
Some layouts require copyright information. Normally a default
is provided by the class. With this declaration the copyright holder
can be overwritten.
\BDefC{copyrightyear}[m]{year}
Some layouts require copyright data. With this declaration the
copyright year can be specified. (If such data is required the current
year is provided as default).
\BDefE{abstract}
In contrast to standard \LaTeX{} the abstract environment has to
appear before the |\maketitle| command.
\BDefC{maketitle}
This command inserts the actual front matter data. It has to follow the
above declarations.
\subsubsection{Multiple authors}
Multiple authors are entered by specifying one |\author| command per
author. Care needs to be taken when specifying shared addresses: they
have to be absolutely identical. Depending on the chosen layout the
class will merge such addresses but will recognize them only as
identical, if the input including spaces is the same!
The |\and| command as defined in the \texttt{article} class to
separate multiple authors is not supported.
\subsubsection{Dates}
\BDefC{received}[m]{date}
\BDefC{revised}[m]{date}
\BDefC{accepted}[m]{date}
Some layouts require specification of date of arrival, revision,
and/or acceptance. The above declarations provide a way to specify such
dates if necessary.
\BDefC{date}[m]{date}
The article class provides the |\date| command which is not used
by \aipcls. If supplied it will be ignored unless the \texttt{draft}
option is specified in which case it will show up in a footer line
together with the title and the page number to ease document
development.
\subsubsection{Other front matter commands}
The |\tableofcontents|, |\listoffigures|, and |\listoftables| commands
are provided but produce (beside output) an error message unless the
\texttt{draft} option was selected. This is done since the \aipcls{}
does not support page numbering and thus the above commands
essentially produce incorrect data.
\subsection{Headings}
The \aipcls{} officially supports three heading levels, i.e.,
|\section|, |\subsection|, and |\subsubsection|.
It also supports the commands |\paragraph| and |\subparagraph|
although the latter heading levels are not part of the \aipcls{}
specification and are therefore discouraged.
In some layouts |\section| headings are changed to UPPERCASE. Special care is
taken not to uppercase math material, but this support is only available if
the package |textcase| is part of the \LaTeX{} distribution.
\subsection{Cross-references}\label{xref}
Cross-references to page numbers are not possible with the \aipcls{}
as the page numbers are determined after production. For this reason
the |\pageref| command of \LaTeX{} is disabled by default.
Since headings in most layouts do not carry numbers they can't be
referenced either.
References to tables, figures, and equations are possible using
the \LaTeX{} commands |\label| and |\ref|.
However if the class option \texttt{varioref} or \texttt{nonvarioref}
is used, references to page numbers are possible again as they will
generate textual references of the form ``on the following page'' or
``on an earlier page'' etc. The produced strings are customizable as
described in detail in the \texttt{varioref} package documentation or
in \cite[p.68ff]{A-W:MG04}.
The class defaults are as follows and can be changed with
|\renewcommand| in the document preamble. The \texttt{varioref}
package normally distinguishes between reference to facing pages and
references to pages that need turning over using different strings in
these cases. However, since with \aipcls{} class page numbers are not
determined at the time of production no assumption can be made that
page $x$ and $x+1$ actually fall onto the same double spread. For this
reason the defaults used here do not produce strings containing the
word ``facing'' or ``opposite''.
\begin{verbatim}
\renewcommand\reftextfaceafter
{on the next page}
\renewcommand\reftextfacebefore
{on the \reftextvario{previous}
{preceding} page}
\renewcommand\reftextafter
{on the \reftextvario{next}
{following} page}
\renewcommand\reftextbefore
{on the \reftextvario{previous
page}{page before}}
\renewcommand\reftextcurrent
{on \reftextvario{this}
{the current} page}
\end{verbatim}
Normally, text for references which are ``far away'' are produced
using |\reftextfaraway| in \texttt{varioref}. However, to produce
textual references without referring to actual page numbers even in
this case, this command was hijacked in the \aipcls{} and redefined to
determine whether or not this is a reference to some earlier or later
page. So instead of changing this command the class provides the
following two commands for customization:
\begin{verbatim}
\renewcommand\reftextearlier
{\reftextvario{on an earlier
page}{earlier on}}
\renewcommand\reftextlater
{\reftextvario{later on}
{further down}}
\end{verbatim}
To illustrate the result of this package all references in this
document are made using |\vref| or |\vpageref|, e.g., references to
Figure~\vref{fig:b} and Figure~\vref{fig:a}. These commands work best
if used only for important references. Be careful when using them
several times close to each other as the automatically generated texts
then may sound strange (as they do in the example in this paragraph).
\BDefC{eqref}[m]{label}
For reference to equation numbers |\eqref| can be used instead of
the standard |\ref| command. The |\eqref| command will automatically add any
frills required by the layout style, while |\ref| will only typeset
the plain number.
For example, in the \texttt{arlo} style it will
print ``Eq.~(1)'' while |\ref| would result in ``1''.
\subsection{Lists}
The \aipcls{} supports all standard list environments like
\texttt{itemize}, \texttt{enumerate}, etc.
\subsection{Graphics support}
Support for including and manipulating graphics is provided as the
standard \LaTeX{} \texttt{graphicx} package is automatically loaded by
the \aipcls. For detailed descriptions of the commands made available
by this package see~\cite{A-W:GMR97} or the package documentation
coming with the \LaTeX{} release. A sufficient introduction is also
given by~\cite{A-W:LLa94} although there only the \texttt{graphics}
package (a subset of the \texttt{graphicx} package) is described.
A typical application is given in the following example where a
picture is resized to span 70\% of one column:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{figure}[!b]
\resizebox{.7\columnwidth}{!}
{\includegraphics{escher}}
\source{Guy Shaw}
\caption{An illustration taken
from~\cite{A-W:MG04}}
\label{fig:a}
\end{figure}
\end{verbatim}
resulting in figure \vref{fig:a}.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\resizebox{.7\columnwidth}{!}
{\includegraphics[draft=false]{escher}}
\source{Guy Shaw}
\caption{An illustration taken
from~\cite{A-W:MG04}}
\label{fig:a}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Floats}
Floats are objects which do not have to stay in sync with the running
text but are allowed to move from their original place to some other
position where they fit better for page breaking reasons. Such objects
they are typically numbered so that they can be referenced from within
the running text.
\LaTeX{} by default supports two float types: figures and
tables. These float types are also supported by the \aipcls{} although
their internal implementation is quite different resulting in a number
of important differences in behavior:\footnote{There exist packages
that extend the number of float types. (This information is given as a
footnote to show that footnotes in this class come out below a bottom
float.)}
\begin{itemize}
\item The position of the float caption is determined automatically,
independently of the placement of the |\caption| command within the
float body.
\item
Depending on its width the float automatically spans two
columns.
In case of a table the whole object (including its caption)
might be rotated automatically if its exceeds |\textwidth|.
\item The body of the float environments are processed in L-R mode and
not in paragraph mode as in standard \LaTeX. This is necessary for
measuring its width. Thus if paragraph mode is needed one has to put
a \texttt{minipage} environment of the appropriate width (e.g.,
|\columnwidth|) into the body.
\item Only one |\caption| command per float is allowed.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Figures}
\BDefE{figure}[o]{pos}
Like with standard \LaTeX{} the optional \Larg{pos} argument can be
used to specify into which float areas this float is allowed to
migrate (default is |tbp|).
The environment \texttt{figure*} is not supported as figures that need
to span both columns are automatically recognized in two column mode.
\BDefC{source}[m]{text}
Command to specify the origin of the picture shown. The \Larg{text}
will be printed in small italics below the illustration.
A typical example of a figure float would be
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}
{\includegraphics{outline}}
\caption{PostScript example taken
from~\cite{A-W:MG04}}
\label{fig:b}
\source{F. Mittelbach}
\end{figure}
\end{verbatim}
The result is shown in Figure~\vref{fig:b}.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{.8\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[draft=false]{outline}}
\caption{PostScript example taken from~\cite{A-W:MG04}}
\label{fig:b}
\source{F. Mittelbach}
\end{figure}
\BDefC{spaceforfigure}[mm]{horizontal}{vertical}
If the illustration is to be manually pasted into the final document
one can leave the right amount of space by using this command as
follows:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{figure}
\spaceforfigure{2in}{1cm}
\caption{Caption for a figure to be
pasted in later}
\label{fig:3}
\source{F. Mittelbach}
\end{figure}
\end{verbatim}
All standard \TeX{} units can be used to specify the space needed. The
above example make room for an illustration that is two inches wide and
one centimeter high. The result is shown as Figure~\vref{fig:3}.
\begin{figure}
\spaceforfigure{2in}{1cm}
\caption{Caption for a figure to be
pasted in later}
\label{fig:3}
\source{F. Mittelbach}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Tables}
\BDefE{table}[o]{pos}
Like with standard \LaTeX{} the optional \Larg{pos} argument can be
used to specify into which float areas this float is allowed to
migrate (default is |tbp|).
The environment \texttt{table*} is not supported as tables that need
to span both columns are automatically recognized in two column mode.
Typically the body of the environment would consist of a
\texttt{tabular} environment responsible for producing the actual
table including the table and stub headers.
\BDefC{tablehead}[mmmm]{cols}{h-pos}{v-pos}{heading text}
To ease the production of tables the command |\tablehead| is provided
which is essentially and abbreviation for a |\multicolumn| command
that additionally boldens its text argument. I.e., \Larg{cols}
specifies the number of columns the \Larg{heading text} should span
and \Larg{h-pos} defines the horizontal positioning of the text of the
column(s), e.g., |l|, |r|, |c|, or |p{...}|. In contrast to a simple
|\multicolumn| command the \Larg{heading text} can be split vertically
by using |\\| to denote the line breaks. The \Larg{v-pos} argument
should contain either |t|, |c|, or |b| denoting the vertical placement
of the text in relation to other cells of that row. It is only
relevant if the \Larg{heading text} consists of more than one
line. See the example table \vpageref[below]{tab:source} that
demonstrates the use of this command.
\BDefC{source}[m]{text} Command to specify the origin of the data
given in the table. The \Larg{text} will be printed in small italics
below the table.
\BDefC{tablenote}[m]{text}
Command to produce a note to the table. It can only be used within a
\texttt{table} environment and should be used only at the right
end of a table cell. The command produces a raised footnote symbol at
the place used which sticks into the right margin. As far as \LaTeX{}
is concerned this symbol does not occupy any space. Thus is will not
modify the alignment of table columns. The \Larg{text} will appear
below the table.
In the current release notes to |\caption| or |\source| are not
possible.
\BDefC{tablenote*}[m]{text}
Like |\tablenote| but this time the raised footnote symbol will occupy
space. This version is intended to be used in the middle of cells.
An example showing the use of all commands described above is shown in
Table~\vref{tab:a}. It was produced by the following input:\label{tab:source}
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
\hline
&\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Single\\outlet}
&\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Small\tablenote
{2-9 retail outlets}\\multiple}
&\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Large\\multiple}
&\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Total} \\
\hline
1982 & 98 & 129 & 620 & 847\\
1987 & 138 & 176 & 1000 & 1314\\
1991 & 173 & 248 & 1230 & 1651\\
1998\tablenote{predicted}
& 200 & 300 & 1500 & 2000\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\source{Central Statistical Office,
UK}
\caption{Average turnover per shop: by
type of retail organisation}
\label{tab:a}
\end{table}
\end{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
\hline
& \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Single\\outlet}
& \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Small\tablenote{2-9 retail outlets}\\multiple}
& \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Large\\multiple}
& \tablehead{1}{r}{b}{Total} \\
\hline
1982 & 98 & 129 & 620 & 847\\
1987 & 138 & 176 & 1000 & 1314\\
1991 & 173 & 248 & 1230 & 1651\\
1998\tablenote{predicted} & 200 & 300 & 1500 & 2000\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\source{Central Statistical Office, UK}
\caption{Average turnover per shop: by type
of retail organisation}
\label{tab:a}
\end{table}
\BDefC{setlength}[mm]{\texttt{\upshape\string\hlinesep}}{value}
Vertical spacing between horizontal lines produced from |\hline|
inside a tabular environment is controlled by the length parameter
|\hlinesep| in this class. The default value (1pt) gives one point
extra space above such lines and three times as much (i.e. 3pt) extra
space below. This is done to implement the layout requirements for
tables in the AIP proceedings (which are not supposed to have vertical
lines in the tables). If tables with vertical lines are necessary for
some reason, then the value of this parameter should be set to
\texttt{0pt} either globally for the whole document or locally within
the \texttt{table} environment. Otherwise the vertical lines will have
strange gaps whenever a |\hline| command is used to produce a
horizontal line.
\subsubsection{Counters}
The |\alph| and |\fnsymbol| commands to represent counter values have
extended ranges. For example |\alph| will now count up to 52 (zz) and
the |\fnsymbol| command will produce the following symbols
\makeatletter
\@fnsymbol{1},
\@fnsymbol{2},
\@fnsymbol{3},
\@fnsymbol{4},
\@fnsymbol{5},
\@fnsymbol{6},
\@fnsymbol{7},
\@fnsymbol{8},
\@fnsymbol{9},
\@fnsymbol{10},
\@fnsymbol{11},
\@fnsymbol{12},
\@fnsymbol{13},
\@fnsymbol{14},
\@fnsymbol{15}, and
\@fnsymbol{16}.
\makeatother
This will allow for up to 16 table notes per table. For documents that
need a larger number of table notes select the option
\texttt{tnotealph} to switch to lower case alphabetic letters to mark
such notes.
\subsubsection{Long tables}
Tables which are longer than one page cannot be placed into a
\texttt{table} environment as floats cannot have a size larger than a
page. Such tables are supported by the standard \LaTeX{} package
\texttt{longtable} written by David Carlisle. However this package
only works in single column mode.
With two-column layouts, such as the one for the AIP 8x11 double
column proceedings, such tables can only be added at the end of the
paper by preceding the |longtable| environments with a |\onecolumn|
declaration.
The package is supported by the class in the sense that captions
within a \texttt{longtable} environment will be formatted using the
appropriate style; however in contrast to the \texttt{table}
environment it is the responsibility of the user to place the caption
at the top of the table. The commands |\source| and |\tablenote| are
not supported within this environment, but the |\tablehead| command
can be used to produce column heads if desired.
Refer to the \texttt{longtable} package documentation or to
\cite[p.122ff]{A-W:LLa94} for a detailed description of the syntax of
the \texttt{longtable} environment.
A possible alternative is the package \texttt{supertabular} written by
Johannes Braams; however in this case no attempt has been made to
ensure that a table produced with \texttt{supertabular} conforms to
the layout specification for the \aipcls{}. Be aware that this package
defines its own |\tablehead| command (with a completely different
function).
Refer to the package documentation for the syntax description. A
detailed comparison between \texttt{supertabular} and
\texttt{longtable} can be found in Chapter~5 of \cite{A-W:LLa94}.
\subsubsection{Building floats manually}
The original \LaTeX{} environments \texttt{figure} and \texttt{table}
as well as their star forms are still available under the names
\texttt{ltxfigure} and \texttt{ltxtable}. They should not be used in
normal circumstances but are provided in case the automatism of
the \aipcls{} needs overwriting.
Please note that if these environments are used the position of the
|\caption| command determines the placement of the caption within the
float body and that the special commands for figures and tables, e.g.,
|\tablenote|, etc.\ as provided by this class are not available within
these environments.
\begin{table}[!t]
\makeatletter
\if8\expandafter\@car\selectedlayoutstyle\@nil\relax
\else
\fontsize{7}{8}\selectfont
\fi
\makeatother
\begin{tabular}{rrrp{.6\textwidth}}
\hline
\tablehead{1}{r}{b}{File} &
\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Date} &
\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Version} &
\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Description} \\
\hline
aipproc.cls & 2000/08/31 & v1.2a & AIP Proceedings (FMi) \\
fixltx2e.sty & 1999/12/01 & v1.0b & fixes to LaTeX \\
calc.sty & 1998/07/07 & v4.1b & Infix arithmetic (KKT,FJ) \\
ifthen.sty & 1999/09/10 & v1.1b & Standard LaTeX ifthen package (DPC) \\
graphicx.sty & 1999/02/16 & v1.0f & Enhanced LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR) \\
keyval.sty & 1999/03/16 & v1.13 & key=value parser (DPC) \\
graphics.sty & 1999/02/16 & v1.0l & Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR) \\
trig.sty & 1999/03/16 & v1.09 & sin cos tan (DPC) \\
graphics.cfg & \\
dvips.def & 1999/02/16 & v3.0i & Driver-dependant file (DPC,SPQR) \\
url.sty & 1999/03/28 & ver 1.5x & Verb mode for urls, etc. \\
article.cls & 2000/05/19 & v1.4b & Standard LaTeX document class \\
size10.clo & 2000/05/19 & v1.4b & Standard LaTeX file (size option) \\
aipxfm.sty & \\
mathptm.sty & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 &Times + math package (SPQR) \\
times.sty & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 &Times font as default roman(SPQR) \\
ot1ptm.fd & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 & font definitions for OT1/ptm. \\
fontenc.sty & \\
t1enc.def & 2000/08/30 & v1.91 &Standard LaTeX file \\
t1ptm.fd & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 & font definitions for T1/ptm. \\
textcomp.sty & 2000/08/30 &v1.91 &Standard LaTeX package \\
ts1enc.def & 1998/06/12 & v3.0d & (jk/car/fm) Standard LaTeX file \\
varioref.sty & 1999/12/02 &v1.2c &package for extended references (FMi) \\
aip-8s.clo & \\
ttct0001.sty & \\
shortvrb.sty & 2000/07/04 &v2.0m & Standard LaTeX documentation package
(FMi) \\
hyperref.sty & 2000/05/08 &v6.70f & Hypertext links for LaTeX \\
pd1enc.def & 2000/05/08 &v6.70f & Hyperref: PDFDocEncoding definition
(HO) \\
hyperref.cfg & \\
hdvips.def & 2000/05/08 &v6.70f & Hyperref driver for dvips \\
pdfmark.def & 2000/05/08 &v6.70f & Hyperref definitions for pdfmark
specials \\
ts1cmr.fd & 1999/05/25 &v2.5h & Standard LaTeX font definitions \\
nameref.sty & 2000/05/08 &v2.18 & Cross-referencing by name of section \\
t1pcr.fd & 2000/01/12 &PSNFSS-v8.1 & font definitions for T1/pcr. \\
ot1ptmcm.fd & 2000/01/03 &Fontinst v1.801 & font definitions for
OT1/ptmcm. \\
omlptmcm.fd & 2000/01/03 &Fontinst v1.801 & font definitions for
OML/ptmcm. \\
omspzccm.fd & 2000/01/03 &Fontinst v1.801 & font definitions for
OMS/pzccm. \\
omxpsycm.fd & 2000/01/03 & Fontinst v1.801 &font definitions for
OMX/psycm. \\
ts1ptm.fd & 2000/01/12 & PSNFSS-v8.1 &font definitions for TS1/ptm. \\
escher.eps & && Graphic file (type eps) \\
outline.eps & & & Graphic file (type eps) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Files used by the \aipcls{}}
\label{tab:b}
\source{Output of \texttt{\string\listfiles} when processing
\texttt{aipguide.tex}}
\end{table}
\subsection{Urls}
\BDefC{url}[m]{data}
For documenting URLs and related data the |\url| command is provided.
It allows breaking the URL in certain places and typesets it in an
adequate font and format. Instead of using curly brackets the argument
can be delimited by two identical characters not used in the argument.
\subsection{Bibliography}
Referring to other articles, books, etc.\ can be done using the |\cite|
command of standard \LaTeX{}. The list of references itself can
either be produced using standard \LaTeX{} methods or using
\textsc{Bib}\TeX.
If installed, the \aipcls{} class includes the \texttt{natbib} system
which offers an extended set of citation commands. These commands have
been originally developed to support author/year citation styles but
are also useful with numerical citation styles.
The \texttt{natbib} system has two basic citation commands, |\citet| and
|\citep| for \emph{textual} and \emph{parenthetical} citations, respectively.
There also exist the starred versions |\citet*| and |\citep*| that print
the full author list, and not just the abbreviated one.
All of these may take one or two optional arguments to add some text before
and after the citation. Table~\vref{tab:natbib} shows some examples.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\quad$\Rightarrow$\quad}l}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l}{\bfseries Author/year style} \\
\hline
|\citet{jon90}| & Jones et al. (1990)\\
|\citet[chap.~2]{jon90}| & Jones et al. (1990, chap.~2)\\[0.5ex]
|\citep{jon90}| & (Jones et al., 1990)\\
|\citep[chap.~2]{jon90}| & (Jones et al., 1990, chap.~2)\\
|\citep[see][]{jon90}| & (see Jones et al., 1990)\\
|\citep[see][chap.~2]{jon90}| & (see Jones et al., 1990, chap.~2)\\[0.5ex]
|\citet*{jon90}| & Jones, Baker, and Williams (1990)\\
|\citep*{jon90}| & (Jones, Baker, and Williams, 1990) \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l}{\bfseries Numerical style} \\
\hline
|\citet{jon90}| & Jones et al. [21]\\
|\citet[chap.~2]{jon90}| & Jones et al. [21, chap.~2]\\[0.5ex]
|\citep{jon90}| & [21]\\
|\citep[chap.~2]{jon90}| & [21, chap.~2]\\
|\citep[see][]{jon90}| & [see 21]\\
|\citep[see][chap.~2]{jon90}| & [see 21, chap.~2]\\[0.5ex]
|\citep{jon90a,jon90b}| & [21, 32]\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example of \texttt{natbib} commands and their results}
\label{tab:natbib}
\end{table}
There are many more commands and variants, see \cite{man:Daly99a} or
\cite{man:Daly99b} for further details.
\subsubsection{Bibliography produced manually}
\BDefE{thebibliography}[m]{widest-label}
Environment to hold the list of references.
\BDefC{bibitem}[m]{label}
Command to start a bibliographical entry having the label \Larg{label}
for use in |\cite| commands. Refer to the publishers manual, e.g.,
\cite{man:aipproceed}, for information on how to lay out individual
entries. For example:
\begin{verbatim}
\bibitem{Brown2000}
M.~P. Brown and K. Austin,
\emph{The New Physique},
Publisher Name, Publisher City,
2000, pp. 212--213.
\end{verbatim}
If commands from \texttt{natbib} (e.g., from table~\ref{tab:natbib})
should be usable, then additional information has to be passed to the
|\bibitem| via an optional argument.
\BDefC{bibitem}[om]{display-info}{label}
The optional argument \Larg{display-info} should then, and only then,
contain the author(s) name(s) followed by the year in parentheses
without any spaces, for example:
\begin{verbatim}
\bibitem[Brown and Austin(2000)]
{Brown2000}
...
\end{verbatim}
The essential feature is that the label (the part in brackets) consists
of the author names, as they should appear in the citation, with the year
in parentheses following. There must be no space before the opening
parenthesis!
This will be automatically produced if \BibTeX{} is used.
\subsubsection{Bibliography produced using \textsc{Bib}\TeX}
The \aipcls{} is accompanied by \BibTeX{} style files which can be used
to produce compliant reference lists from \BibTeX{} database
files. To use \BibTeX{} one first has to run the source file through
\LaTeX{} then run \BibTeX{} and then rerun \LaTeX{} twice to get all
references resolved. \BibTeX{} is described in more detail in appendix
B of \cite{A-W:LLa94} and in chapter~13 of \cite{A-W:MG04}.
\BDefC{bibliographystyle}[m]{style-name}
This declaration specifies to \BibTeX{} that the style
\Larg{style-name} should be used. It can be placed anywhere within the
document but is usually positioned directly in front of the command
described below.
For a discussion which of the supplied \BibTeX{} styles should be used
for which proceedings see the section ``Special requirements\ldots''
below.
\BDefC{bibliography}[m]{bib-list}
This command denotes the position where the reference list produced by
\BibTeX{} will be included in the document. The \Larg{bib-list} is a
comma separated list of \BibTeX{} database files.
\section{General requirements and restrictions}
This class was designed to work with \LaTeXe{} release 1999/06/01 or a
later version. Earlier releases may work but have not been tested.
With the exception of the packages \texttt{natbib} and \texttt{url} it
only requires files which are part of a standard \LaTeX{}
distribution, i.e., it should work if your installation contains the
following components:
\texttt{base}, \texttt{tools}, \texttt{graphics}, and \texttt{psnfss},
see \vref{tab:b} for files used to produce this document.
The most recent \LaTeX{} distribution as well as \texttt{natbib} and
\texttt{url} can be obtained from CTAN sites (Comprehensive \TeX{}
Archive Network).
Refer to \url{http://www.tug.org} for more information on CTAN and
\TeX{} in general.
A ready to run \TeX{} system for various platforms which has
everything required is available on CD-ROM, look into
\url{http://www.tug.org/texlive.html}.
This \TeX{} implementation is also made available as an add-on to
several books on \LaTeX, e.g., \cite{A-W:KD04,A-W:MG04}.
For loading individual packages from a CTAN archive refer to
\url{http://www.ctan.org} and search for the package name. Please omit
extensions such as \texttt{.sty} when searching, e.g., search for
\texttt{natbib} rather than \texttt{natbib.sty}, as such packages are
often distributed in source form only, e.g., as a \texttt{.dtx} file.
It is also possible to download a complete \TeX/\LaTeX{} installation
from CTAN, e.g., Miktex + Winedit + Ghostview. Finally, it is also
possible to download a CD-ROM image of the \TeX-live CD from CTAN
(roughly 300MB): search for \texttt{texlive} (and make sure you select
a suitable mirror near you).
\section{Special requirements for individual layouts}
\subsection{AIP proceeding layout 6x9}
\begin{itemize}
\raggedright
\item
The entire paper will be reduced 15\% in the printing process. Please
make sure all figures as well as the text within the figures are
large enough in the manuscript to be readable in the finished book.
\item
The use of the |\source| command is discouraged.
\item
Compliant \BibTeX{} styles are \texttt{aipproc} (for use with
\texttt{natbib}) and \texttt{aipprocl} (if \texttt{natbib} is
missing at the site).
\item
The options \texttt{bibliocites} and \texttt{numberedheadings} have
no effect.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{AIP proceeding layout 8x11 single/double}
\begin{itemize}
\raggedright
\item
The use of the |\source| command is discouraged.
\item
Compliant \BibTeX{} styles are \texttt{aipproc} (for use with
\texttt{natbib}) and \texttt{aipprocl} (if \texttt{natbib} is
missing at the site).
\item
The options \texttt{bibliocites} and \texttt{numberedheadings} have
no effect.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{ARLO}
Note: the ARLO layout is no longer supported.
\begin{itemize}
\raggedright
\item
A copyright year (|\copyrightyear|) needs to be provided.
\item
Pacs numbers should be provided (|\classification|).
\item
The \texttt{arlo} layout offers one additional environment to specify
multimedia files:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{multimedia}
\multimediauid{523}
\multimediatype{gif}
\multimediasize{1.2Mb}
\multimediaurl{http://yorktown.%
eng.yale.edu/test/msXXX/}
\multimediacaption{Fancy video}
\label{fv}
\end{multimedia}
\end{verbatim}
References to a multimedia file can be made using |\label| and
|\ref|. Instead of the latter command |\multimediaref| can be used
to automatically get the appropriate frills, e.g., `Mm.~2' instead of
just `2' as produced by |\ref|.
\item
Select the \texttt{draft} option for the initial submission and the
copy-editing stage. Replace it by the \texttt{final} option when
producing the final paper, so that page numbers and other
items are stripped away.
\item
To conform to the layout specification for citations the
\texttt{natbib} system has to be installed.
\item
For ARLO two compliant \BibTeX{} styles are available:
\texttt{arlonum} should be used together with the class option
\texttt{numcites}, while \texttt{arlobib} should be used together with
the option \texttt{bibliocites}.
\item
The options \texttt{bibliocites} and \texttt{numberedheadings} can be
used to switch to author/year citation scheme and numbered headings,
respectively.
\end{itemize}
\section{Introduction}
At present, the two neutrino double beta ($2\nu\beta\beta$) decay process
has been detected in a total of 11 different nuclei. In $^{100}$Mo and
$^{150}$Nd, this type of decay was also detected for the transition to
the $0^+$ excited state of the daughter nucleus. For the case of the
$^{130}$Ba nucleus, evidence for the two neutrino double electron capture
process was observed via a geochemical experiments. All these results
were obtained in a few tens of geochemical experiments and in $\sim$ 40
direct (counting) experiments as well as and in one radiochemical experiment. In
direct experiments, for some nuclei there are as many as seven independent
positive results (e.g., $^{100}$Mo). In some experiments, the statistical
error does not always play the primary role in overall half-life
uncertainties. For example, the NEMO-3 experiment with $^{100}$Mo has detected
more than 219000 $2\nu\beta\beta$ events \cite{ARN05}, which results in a value for
the statistical error of $\sim$ 0.2\% . At the same time, the systematic
error in many experiments on $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay generally
remains quite high ($\sim 10-30\%$) and very often cannot be determined
very reliably. As a consequence, it is frequently difficult for the
user to select the best half-life value among the
results. Using an averaging procedure, one can produce the most
reliable and accurate half-life values for each isotope.
In the present work, a critical analysis of all positive experimental
results has been performed, and averaged (or recommended) values for all
isotopes are presented.
The first time this work was done was in 2001, and the
results were presented at MEDEX'01 \cite{BAR02}. Then revised half-life values were
presented at MEDEX'05 \cite{BAR06} and MEDEX'09 \cite{BAR09a,BAR10}. In the present paper,
new positive results obtained since 2009 have been added and analyzed.
\begin{table}
\caption{Present, positive $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay results.
Here, N is the number of useful events, S/B is the signal-to-background
ratio. $^{*)}$ For $E_{2e} > 1.2$ MeV. $^{**)}$ After correction (see text).
$^{***)}$ For SSD mechanism. $^{****)}$ In both peaks.}
\bigskip
\label{Table1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\rule[-2.5mm]{0mm}{6.5mm}
Nucleus & N & $T_{1/2}$, y & S/B & Ref., year \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{48}$Ca & $\sim 100$ & $[4.3^{+2.4}_{-1.1}(stat)\pm 1.4(syst)]\cdot 10^{19}$
& 1/5 & \cite{BAL96}, 1996 \\
& 5 & $4.2^{+3.3}_{-1.3}\cdot 10^{19}$ & 5/0 & \cite{BRU00}, 2000 \\
& 116 & $[4.4^{+0.5}_{-0.4}(stat)\pm 0.4(syst)\cdot 10^{19}$ & 6.8 & \cite{BAR11a}, 2011 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf 4.4^{+0.6}_{-0.5} \cdot 10^{19}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{76}$Ge & $\sim 4000$ & $(0.9\pm 0.1)\cdot 10^{21}$ & $\sim 1/8$
& \cite{VAS90}, 1990 \\
& 758 & $1.1^{+0.6}_{-0.3}\cdot 10^{21}$ & $\sim 1/6$ & \cite{MIL91}, 1991 \\
& $\sim$ 330 & $0.92^{+0.07}_{-0.04}\cdot 10^{21}$ & $\sim 1.2$ & \cite{AVI91}, 1991 \\
& 132 & $1.2^{+0.2}_{-0.1}\cdot 10^{21}$ & $\sim 1.4$ & \cite{AVI94}, 1994 \\
& $\sim 3000$ & $(1.45\pm 0.15)\cdot 10^{21}$ & $\sim 1.5$ & \cite{MOR99}, 1999
\\
& $\sim 80000$ & $[1.74\pm 0.01(stat)^{+0.18}_{-0.16}(syst)]\cdot 10^{21}$ & $\sim 1.5$
& \cite{HM03}, 2003 \\
& 7030 & $1.84^{+0.14}_{-0.10}\cdot 10^{21}$ & $\sim 4$ & \cite{AGO13}, 2013 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf 1.60^{+0.13}_{-0.10} \cdot 10^{21}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
& 89.6 & $1.08^{+0.26}_{-0.06}\cdot 10^{20}$ & $\sim 8$ & \cite{ELL92}, 1992 \\
$^{82}$Se & 149.1 & $[0.83 \pm 0.10(stat) \pm 0.07(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ & 2.3 &
\cite{ARN98}, 1998 \\
& 2750 & $[0.96 \pm 0.03(stat) \pm 0.1(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ & 4 & \cite{ARN05}, 2005\\
& & $(1.3\pm 0.05)\cdot 10^{20}$ (geochem.) & & \cite{KIR86}, 1986 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf (0.92\pm 0.07)\cdot 10^{20}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{96}$Zr & 26.7 & $[2.1^{+0.8}_{-0.4}(stat) \pm 0.2(syst)]\cdot 10^{19}$ & $1.9^{*)}$
& \cite{ARN99}, 1999 \\
& 453 & $[2.35 \pm 0.14(stat) \pm 0.16(syst)]\cdot 10^{19}$ & 1 & \cite{ARG10}, 2010\\
& & $(3.9\pm 0.9)\cdot 10^{19}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{KAW93}, 1993 \\
& & $(0.94\pm 0.32)\cdot 10^{19}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{WIE01}, 2001 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf (2.3 \pm 0.2)\cdot 10^{19}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{100}$Mo & $\sim 500$ & $11.5^{+3.0}_{-2.0}\cdot 10^{18}$ & 1/7 &
\cite{EJI91}, 1991 \\
& 67 & $11.6^{+3.4}_{-0.8}\cdot 10^{18}$ & 7 & \cite{ELL91}, 1991 \\
& 1433 & $[7.3 \pm 0.35(stat) \pm 0.8(syst)]\cdot 10^{18**)}$ & 3 &
\cite{DAS95}, 1995 \\
& 175 & $7.6^{+2.2}_{-1.4}\cdot 10^{18}$ & 1/2 & \cite{ALS97}, 1997 \\
& 377 & $[6.75^{+0.37}_{-0.42}(stat) \pm 0.68(syst)]\cdot 10^{18}$ & 10 &
\cite{DES97}, 1997 \\
& 800 & $[7.2 \pm 1.1(stat) \pm 1.8(syst)]\cdot 10^{18}$ & 1/9 &
\cite{ASH01}, 2001 \\
& 219000 & $[7.11 \pm 0.02(stat) \pm 0.54(syst)]\cdot 10^{18***)}$ & 40 &
\cite{ARN05}, 2005\\
& & $(2.1\pm 0.3)\cdot 10^{18}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{HID04}, 2004 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf (7.1\pm 0.4)\cdot 10^{18}$ & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\begin{table}
\caption{continued.}
\bigskip
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$^{100}$Mo - & $133^{****)}$ & $6.1^{+1.8}_{-1.1}\cdot 10^{20}$ & 1/7 &
\cite{BAR95}, 1995 \\
$^{100}$Ru ($0^+_1$) & $153^{****)}$ & $[9.3^{+2.8}_{-1.7}(stat) \pm 1.4(syst)]\cdot
10^{20}$ & 1/4 & \cite{BAR99}, 1999 \\
& 19.5 & $[5.9^{+1.7}_{-1.1}(stat) \pm 0.6(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ & $\sim 8$ &
\cite{DEB01}, 2001 \\
& 35.5 & $[5.5^{+1.2}_{-0.8}(stat) \pm 0.3(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ & $\sim 8$ &
\cite{KID09}, 2009 \\
& 37.5 & $[5.7^{+1.3}_{-0.9}(stat) \pm 0.8(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ & $\sim 3$ &
\cite{ARN07}, 2007 \\
& $597^{****)}$ & $[6.9^{+1.0}_{-0.8}(stat) \pm 0.7(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ & $\sim 1/10$ &
\cite{BEL10}, 2010 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf 6.2^{+0.7}_{-0.5}\cdot 10^{20}$ & & \\
\hline
$^{116}$Cd& $\sim 180$ & $2.6^{+0.9}_{-0.5}\cdot 10^{19}$ & $\sim 1/4$ &
\cite{EJI95}, 1995 \\
& 9850 & $[2.9\pm 0.06(stat)^{+0.4}_{-0.3}(syst)]\cdot 10^{19}$ & $\sim 3$ &
\cite{DAN03}, 2003 \\
& 174.6 & $[2.9 \pm 0.3(stat) \pm 0.2(syst)]\cdot 10^{19**)}$ & 3 &
\cite{ARN96}, 1996 \\
& 7000 & $[2.88 \pm 0.04(stat) \pm 0.16(syst)]\cdot 10^{19***)}$ & 10 & \cite{BAR11a}, 2011\\
& 4000 & $(2.5 \pm 0.5)\cdot 10^{19}$ & 5 & \cite{BAR11}, 2011\\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf (2.85 \pm 0.15)\cdot 10^{19}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{128}$Te& & $\sim 2.2\cdot 10^{24}$ (geochem.) & & \cite{MAN91}, 1991 \\
& & $(7.7\pm 0.4)\cdot 10^{24}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{BER93}, 1993 \\
& & $(2.41\pm 0.39)\cdot 10^{24}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{MES08}, 2008 \\
& & $(2.3\pm 0.3)\cdot 10^{24}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{THO08}, 2008 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Recommended value:} $\bf (2.0\pm 0.3)\cdot 10^{24}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{130}$Te& 260 & $[6.1 \pm 1.4(stat)^{+2.9}_{-3.5}(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ & 1/8 & \cite{ARN03}, 2003 \\
& 236 & $[7.0 \pm 0.9(stat) \pm 1.1(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ & 1/3 & \cite{ARN11}, 2011 \\
& & $\sim 8\cdot 10^{20}$ (geochem.) & & \cite{MAN91}, 1991 \\
& & $(27\pm 1)\cdot 10^{20}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{BER93}, 1993 \\
& & $(9.0\pm 1.4)\cdot 10^{20}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{MES08}, 2008 \\
& & $(8.0\pm 1.1)\cdot 10^{20}$ (geochem.)& & \cite{THO08}, 2008 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf (6.9\pm 1.3)\cdot 10^{20}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{136}$Xe & $\sim$ 50000 & $[2.30 \pm 0.02(stat) \pm 0.12(syst)]\cdot 10^{21}$ &
10 & \cite{GAN12}, 2012 \\
& $\sim$ 19000 & $[2.172 \pm 0.017(stat) \pm 0.060(syst)]\cdot 10^{21}$ & 6 &
\cite{ALB13}, 2013 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf(2.20\pm 0.06)\cdot 10^{21}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{150}$Nd& 23 & $[18.8^{+6.9}_{-3.9}(stat) \pm 1.9(syst)]\cdot 10^{18}$ &
1.8 & \cite{ART95}, 1995 \\
& 414 & $[6.75^{+0.37}_{-0.42}(stat) \pm 0.68(syst)]\cdot 10^{18}$ & 6 &
\cite{DES97}, 1997 \\
& 2018 & $[9.11^{+0.25}_{-0.22}(stat) \pm 0.63(syst)]\cdot 10^{18}$ & 2.8 & \cite{ARG09}, 2009\\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Average value:} $\bf(8.2\pm 0.9)\cdot 10^{18}$ & & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{150}$Nd - & $177.5^{****)}$ & $[1.33^{+0.36}_{-0.23}(stat)^{+0.27}_{-0.13}(syst)]\cdot 10^{20}$ &
1/5 & \cite{BAR09}, 2009 \\
$^{150}$Sm ($0^+_1$) & & {\bf Average value:} $\bf 1.33^{+0.45}_{-0.26}\cdot 10^{20}$ & \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{238}$U& & $\bf (2.0 \pm 0.6)\cdot 10^{21}$ (radiochem.) & & \cite{TUR91}, 1991 \\
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
$^{130}$Ba & & $\bf 2.1^{+3.0}_{-0.8} \cdot 10^{21}$ (geochem.) &
& \cite{BAR96}, 1996 \\
ECEC(2$\nu$)& & $\bf (2.2 \pm 0.5)\cdot 10^{21}$ (geochem.) &
& \cite{MES01}, 2001 \\
& & $\bf (0.60 \pm 0.11)\cdot 10^{21}$ (geochem.) &
& \cite{PUJ09}, 2009 \\
\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{10mm}
& & {\bf Recommended value:} $ \bf \sim 10^{21}$ & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Present experimental data}
Experimental results on $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay in different nuclei are
presented in Table 1. For direct experiments, the number of useful events
and the signal-to-background ratio are presented.
\section{Data analysis}
To obtain an average of the ensemble of available data, a standard weighted
least-squares procedure, as recommended by the Particle Data Group
\cite{PDG12}, was used. The weighted average and the corresponding error
were calculated, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\bar x\pm \delta \bar x = \sum w_ix_i/\sum w_i \pm (\sum w_i)^{-1/2} ,
\end{equation}
where $w_i = 1/(\delta x_i)^2$. Here, $x_i$ and $\delta x_i$ are
the value and error reported by the i-th experiment, and
the summations run over N experiments.
The next step is to calculate $\chi^2 = \sum w_i(\bar x - x_i)^2$ and
compare it with N - 1, which is the expectation value of $\chi^2$ if the
measurements are from a Gaussian distribution. If $\chi^2/(N - 1)$ is
less than or equal to 1 and there are no known problems with the data,
then one accepts the results to be sound. If $\chi^2/(N - 1)$ is very large ($>>$ 1),
one chooses
not to use the average. Alternatively, one may quote the calculated
average while making an educated guess of the error using a conservative
estimate designed to take into account known problems with the data.
Finally, if $\chi^2/(N - 1)$ is larger than 1 but not greatly so, it is still
best to use the average data but to increase the quoted error, $\delta \bar x$
in Eq. 1, by a factor of S, defined as
\begin{equation}
S = [\chi^2/(N - 1)]^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
For averages, the statistical and systematic errors are treated in quadrature
and use as a combined error $\delta x_i$. In some cases, only the results
obtained with high enough
signal-to-background ratio were used.
\subsection{$^{48}$Ca }
There are three independent experiments in
which $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay of $^{48}$Ca was observed \cite{BAL96,BRU00,BAR11a}.
The results are in good agreement. The weighted average value is
$$
T_{1/2} = 4.4^{+0.6}_{-0.5} \cdot 10^{19} yr.
$$
\subsection{$^{76}$Ge }
Let us consider the results of six
experiments. First of all, however, a few additional comments are
necessary:
1) Final result of the Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration is used \cite{HM03}.
2) In Ref. \cite{AVI91}, the value $T_{1/2} =
0.92^{+0.07}_{-0.04}\cdot 10^{21}$ yr was presented. However, after a more
careful analysis, this result has been changed to a value of
$T_{1/2} = 1.2^{+0.2}_{-0.1}\cdot 10^{21}$ yr \cite{AVI94},
which was used in our analysis.
Finally, in calculating the average, only the results of experiments
with signal-to-background ratios greater than 1 were used (i.e., the
results of Refs. \cite{AVI94,MOR99,HM03,AGO13}). The weighted average value is
$$
T_{1/2} = 1.6^{+0.13}_{-0.10} \cdot 10^{21} yr.
$$
\subsection{$^{82}$Se}
There are three independent counting
experiments and many geochemical measurements $(\sim 20)$. The geochemical
data are neither in good agreement with each other nor in good agreement
with the data from direct measurements. Typically, the accuracy of
geochemical measurements is on the level of $\sim$ 10\% and
sometimes even better. Nevertheless, the possibility of existing large
systematic errors cannot be excluded (see discussion in Ref. \cite{MAN86}).
Thus, to obtain a
average half-life value for $^{82}$Se, only the results of the direct
measurements \cite{ARN05,ARN98,ELL92} were used. The result of Ref.
\cite{ELL87} is the preliminary result of \cite{ELL92}; hence it has not
been used in our analysis. The result of Ref. \cite{ELL92} is presented
with very asymmetrical errors. To be more conservative, only
the top error in this case is used.
As a result,
the weighted average value is
$$
T_{1/2} = (0.92 \pm 0.07) \cdot 10^{20} yr.
$$
\subsection{$^{96}$Zr}
There are two positive geochemical results
\cite{KAW93,WIE01} and two results from the direct experiments of NEMO-2 \cite{ARN99} and
NEMO-3 \cite{ARG10} . Taking into account the comment in previous
section, I use the values from Refs. \cite{ARN99,ARG10} to obtain
a present weighted half-life value for $^{96}$Zr of:
$$
T_{1/2} = (2.3 \pm 0.2)\cdot 10^{19} yr.
$$
\subsection{$^{100}$Mo}
Formally, there are seven positive
results\footnote{I do not consider the result of Ref. \cite {VAS90a}
because of a potentially high background contribution that was
not excluded in this experiment.} from direct experiments and one
result from a geochemical experiment. I do not consider the
preliminary result of S. Elliott et al. \cite{ELL91} and instead use their
final result \cite{DES97}, plus I do not use the geochemical result
(again, see comment in section for $^{82}$Se). Finally, in calculating the average,
only the results of experiments with signal-to-background
ratios greater than 1 were used (i.e., the results of Refs.
\cite{DAS95,DES97,ARN05}). In addition, I have used the corrected
half-life value from Ref. \cite {DAS95}. Thus the original
result was decreased by 15\% because the calculated efficiency (by MC)
was overestimated (see Ref. \cite {VAR97}). In addition, the half-life
value was decreased by 10\%, taking into account that for
$^{100}$Mo, we have the Single State Dominance (SSD)
mechanism (see discussion in \cite {ARN04,SHI06}). The following weighted average value
for this half-life is then obtained:
$$
T_{1/2} = (7.1 \pm 0.4)\cdot 10^{18} yr .
$$
\subsection{$^{100}$Mo - $^{100}$Ru ($0^+_1$; 1130.29 keV)}
The
transition to the $0^+$ excited state of $^{100}$Ru was detected in six
independent experiments. The results are in good agreement, and the
weighted average for the half-life using results from \cite{BAR95,BAR99,KID09,ARN07,BEL10} is
$$
T_{1/2} = 6.2^{+0.7}_{-0.5}\cdot 10^{20} yr.
$$
The result from \cite{DEB01} was not used here because I consider the result from \cite{KID09}
as the final result of the TUNL-ITEP experiment.
\subsection{$^{116}$Cd}
There are five independent positive
results that are in good agreement with each other when taking into
account the corresponding error bars. Again, I use here the corrected
result for the half-life value from Ref. \cite{ARN96}. The original
half-life value was decreased by $\sim$ 25\% (see remark in section for $^{100}$Mo). The
weighted average value is
$$
T_{1/2} = (2.85 \pm 0.15)\cdot 10^{19} yr.
$$
\subsection{$^{128}$Te and $^{130}$Te}
For a long time, there were only geochemical
data for these isotopes. Although the half-life
ratio for these isotopes has been obtained with good accuracy $(\sim 3\%)$
\cite{BER93}, the absolute values for $T_{1/2}$ of each nuclei
are different from one experiment to the next. One group of authors
\cite{MAN91,TAK66,TAK96} gives $T_{1/2} \approx 0.8\cdot 10^{21}$ yr
for $^{130}$Te and $T_{1/2} \approx 2\cdot 10^{24}$ yr for $^{128}$Te,
whereas another group \cite{KIR86,BER93} claims $T_{1/2} \approx
(2.5-2.7)\cdot 10^{21}$ yr and $T_{1/2} \approx 7.7\cdot 10^{24}$ yr,
respectively. Furthermore, as a rule, experiments with young
samples ($\sim 100$ million years) give results of the half-life value of
$^{130}$Te in the range of $\sim (0.7-0.9)\cdot 10^{21}$ yr,
while for old samples ($> 1$ billion years) have half-life values in the
range of $\sim (2.5-2.7)\cdot 10^{21}$ yr.
Recently it was argued that short half-lives are more likely to be correct \cite{MES08,THO08}.
Using different young mineral results, the half-life values were estimated at
$(9.0 \pm 1.4)\cdot 10^{20}$ yr \cite{MES08} and $(8.0 \pm 1.1)\cdot 10^{20}$ yr \cite{THO08}
for $^{130}$Te and $(2.41 \pm 0.39)\cdot 10^{24}$ y \cite{MES08} and $(2.3 \pm 0.3)\cdot 10^{24}$ yr \cite{THO08}
for $^{128}$Te.
The first indication of a positive result for $^{130}$Te in a direct experiment was obtained in
\cite{ARN03}. More accurate and reliable value was obtained recently in NEMO-3 experiment \cite{ARN11}.
The results are in good agreement, and the weighted average value for half-life is
$$
T_{1/2} = (6.9 \pm 1.3)\cdot 10^{20} yr.
$$
Now, using very well-known ratio $T_{1/2}(^{130}{\rm Te})/T_{1/2}(^{128}{\rm Te}) =
(3.52 \pm 0.11)\cdot 10^{-4}$ \cite{BER93},
one can obtain half-life value for $^{128}$Te,
$$
T_{1/2} = (2.0 \pm 0.3)\cdot 10^{24} yr.
$$
I recommend to use these last two results as the best present half-life values for
$^{130}$Te and $^{128}$Te, respectively.
\subsection{$^{136}$Xe}
The half-life value was measured in two independent experiments, EXO \cite{ACK11,ALB13}
and Kamland-Zen \cite{GAN12a,GAN12}.
To obtain average value I use most precise results from these experiments, obtained in
\cite{GAN12,ALB13} (see Table 1).
The weighted average value is
$$
T_{1/2} = (2.20 \pm 0.06)\cdot 10^{21} yr.
$$
\subsection{$^{150}$Nd}
This half-life value was measured in three
independent experiments \cite{ART95,DES97,ARG09}. Using Eq. 1, and three
existing values, one
can obtain $T_{1/2} = (8.2 \pm 0.5)\cdot 10^{18}$ yr. Taking into account
the fact that $\chi^2 > 1$ and S = 1.89 (see Eq. 2) I finally obtain:
$$
T_{1/2} = (8.2 \pm 0.9)\cdot 10^{18} yr.
$$
\subsection{$^{150}$Nd - $^{150}$Sm ($0^+_1$; 740.4 keV)}
There is
only one positive result from a direct (counting) experiment \cite{BAR09}:
$$
T_{1/2} = [1.33^{+0.36}_{-0.23}(stat)^{+0.27}_{-0.13}(syst)]\cdot 10^{20} yr.
$$
The preliminary result of this work was published in \cite{BAR04}.
\subsection{$^{238}$U}
There is again only one positive result, but this time from
a radiochemical experiment \cite{TUR91}:
$$
T_{1/2} = (2.0 \pm 0.6)\cdot 10^{21} y.
$$
\subsection{$^{130}$Ba (ECEC)}
For $^{130}$Ba positive results were obtained in geochemical measurements only. First positive
result for $^{130}$Ba was mentioned in Ref. \cite{BAR96}. In this paper
positive result was obtained for one sample of barite
($T_{1/2} = 2.1^{+3.0}_{-0.8} \cdot 10^{21}$ yr), but for second sample only
limit was established ($T_{1/2} > 4 \cdot 10^{21}$ yr). Then more accurate
half-life values, $(2.2 \pm 0.5) \cdot 10^{21}$ yr \cite{MES01} and
$(0.60 \pm 0.11)\cdot 10^{21}$ yr \cite{PUJ09}, were obtained. The results are in
strong disagreement. One can not use usual
average procedure in this case. One just can conclude that half-life of $^{130}$Ba is
$\sim 10^{21}$ yr.
To obtain more precise and correct half-life value for $^{130}$Ba
new measurements are needed.
\section{Conclusion}
In summary, all positive $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay results were analyzed,
and average values for half-lives were calculated. For the cases of
$^{128}$Te and $^{130}$Ba, so-called recommended values
have been proposed. I strongly recommend the use of these values as
the most reliable presently.
|
\section{Introduction}
Spin dynamics in nonmagnetic wide-bandgap materials has received renewed attention due to the exceptionally long spin coherence times of spin centers in diamond\cite{Balasubramanian2009} and silicon carbide\cite{Koehl2011}, interest in spin injection into bulk doped SrTiO$_3$ (STO)\cite{Han2013} as well as Rashba coefficients\cite{Caviglia2010} and spin injection\cite{Reyren2012} in the strain-tunable and growth-tunable\cite{Jalan2011,Son2010} high-density, high-mobility two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) at the interface\cite{Ohtomo2004} between LaAlO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ (LAO/STO).
For well-explored materials such as III-V semiconductors and their heterostructures, effective pseudomagnetic fields\cite{Meier1984,Dresselhaus1955} arising from the inversion asymmetry of the crystal split most degeneracies of the electronic states, and these fields dominate spintronic properties of the material such as spin lifetimes\cite{Dyakonov1972,Lau2001}.
When materials have inversion symmetry, however, these fields vanish and the subtle spin-orbit entanglement of the wave functions controls spintronic properties\cite{Yafet1963} and dominates spin lifetimes through the scattering-driven Elliot-Yafet process\cite{Meier1984}. The construction of effective spin-orbit Hamiltonians for nonmagnetic scattering in semiconductors, that include the spin-orbit entanglement of the wave functions\cite{Li2011,Gmitra2013}, usually proceeds from a simple effective model of the material\cite{Yafet1963,Meier1984}, especially when only a small number of invariants are allowed by symmetry\cite{BirPikus}.
If such simple effective models are not apparent, such as for indirect-gap, multivalley semiconductors ({\it e.g.} diamond) or for single-valley bands with orbital degeneracy ({\it e.g.} the $d$-character conduction band of STO), then the process to construct a spin-orbit Hamiltonian is not clear. {\it ad hoc} and specialized approaches\cite{Li2011,Gmitra2013} can miss properties apparent in a more complete tight-binding approach\cite{Tang2012} or other full-zone approach\cite{Restrepo2012}. A formal prescription to construct an effective spin-orbit Hamiltonian is required, built off a full-zone description of the electronic structure.
Here a rigorous prescription for the construction of such an effective spin-orbit Hamiltonian near a point of pseudospin degeneracy is provided and applied to materials that are spatially inversion symmetric with doubly degenerate bands. We verify this prescription by testing it at the Brillouin zone center of direct-gap III-V semiconductors (where there is double degeneracy), comparing the Hamiltonian and spin lifetimes from a tight-binding band structure to those from a $\v k \cdot \v p~$ model describing the single conduction valley. We then extract from this formalism an effective spin-orbit Hamiltonian for STO, and use it to predict spin lifetimes for conduction electrons in strained STO and an LAO/STO 2DEG. We find exceptionally long spin lifetimes in both, suggesting that STO-based materials should have robust room-temperature spintronic properties. This prescription to construct an effective spin-orbit Hamiltonian should also be of assistance in calculating a broad assortment
of spin-related properties, including spin diffusion lengths, spin Hall conductivities, $g$-tensors, and spin precession lengths, relying on valid electronic structure calculations from a range of approaches. Thus it provides a complement to density-functional-theory-based calculations of spin lifetimes\cite{Restrepo2012,Fedorov2013}, which assume Kohn-Sham wave functions and energies accurately represent the material's single-particle properties, and are also challenging to implement for heterostructures.
\section{Formalism} In systems with time-reversal invariance and spatial inversion symmetry, the electronic states are (at least) doubly degenerate at each crystal momentum ${\bf k}$, and the spintronic properties will be governed by spin-orbit entanglement in the wave functions of the electronic states. We further focus on systems with exactly two-fold state degeneracy at each ${\bf k}$. The Bloch states are denoted by $\psi_{{\bf k},\alpha}({\bf r})=e^{i{\bf k} \cdot {\bf r}}u_{{\bf k},\alpha}({\bf r})$, where $\alpha=\pm 1$ is a pseudospin index that labels the two degenerate states at each ${\bf k}$, $u$ is a periodic function of ${\bf r}$, and $\psi$ and $u$ are two-component spinors. The corresponding energies are $E_{n{\bf k}}$, independent of $\alpha$. The two degenerate states are connected by the combination of a time-reversal and a spatial inversion operation:
\begin{equation}\label{TP}
u_{{\bf k},-\alpha}({\bf r})=i\sigma_y u^*_{{\bf k},\alpha}(-{\bf r})\,,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_y$ is the $y$ Pauli matrix. This model describes germanium, silicon and diamond, as well as STO where the orbital degeneracy at the conduction band minimum has been lifted due to strain or quantum confinement. For materials in which the spin and orbital degrees of freedom are strongly mixed, the pseudospin doublet described by the $u_{{\bf k}=0,\alpha}$ remains stable; hence here we focus on the lifetime of nonequilibrium populations of pseudospin and for simplicity of language drop the prefix ``pseudo''.
Consider a spin-orbit Hamiltonian (\textit{e.g.} a tight-binding Hamiltonian with spin-orbit interaction) describing a material, and determining the wave functions and their corresponding energies in the immediate vicinity of a valley minimum $\mathbf k_\mu$.
The conduction band (labeled $``c"$) has equivalent minima at symmetry-related points $\mathbf k_1 , \mathbf k_2 ,...,\mathbf k_N$ ({\it e.g.} $N = 4$ for Ge, $N = 6$ for Si and diamond,
$N=1$ for STO with strain or quantum confinement).
Describing each valley (at ${\bf k}_\mu$) independently, we set ${\bf k}={\bf k}_\mu+\tilde {\bf k}$ and call $\psi_{n,\alpha}({\bf r})= e^{i{\bf k}_\mu \cdot{\bf r}} u_{n,\alpha}({\bf r})$
the wave functions at ${\bf k}_\mu$ (here $n$ denotes a generic band index).
These $u_{n \alpha}({\bf r})$ -- a complete set of periodic functions -- form a basis to expand the periodic part of the wave function at small, {finite} $\tilde{\mathbf k}$,
\al{\label{Expansion}
u_{c \tilde{\mathbf k}\alpha}(\mathbf r, \sigma) \simeq u_{c \alpha}(\mathbf r, \sigma) -i\sum_{{\beta},{n}}\tilde{\mathbf k}\cdot \mathbf A_{c\alpha, n\beta}u_{n \beta}(\mathbf r, \sigma),
}
where
\al{\mathbf A_{c \alpha, n \beta}\equiv i \braket{u_{n \beta}}{\partial{u_{c \tilde{\mathbf k} \alpha}}/\partial{\tilde {\mathbf k}}}_{\tilde{\mathbf k} =0}=\mathbf A^* _{n \beta , c \alpha}.
}
The value of the coefficients $\mathbf A_{c \alpha , n \alpha}$ depends on an arbitrary choice of ${\bf k}$-dependent phase factors $e^{i\phi_{n,\alpha}(\tilde{\bf k})}$, by which the Bloch wave functions at $\tilde {\bf k} \neq 0$ can be multiplied. This arbitrariness is reduced by insisting that the periodic parts of the wave functions $u_{\tilde {\bf k},\alpha}$ and $u_{\tilde {\bf k},-\alpha}$ be related to each other by Eq.~(\ref{TP}). When this condition is satisfied,
\hbox{${\bf A}_{n\alpha,n\beta}=-{\bf A}_{n -\beta,n-\alpha}$}, which implies
\hbox{${\bf A}_{n\alpha,n\alpha}=-{\bf A}_{n-\alpha,n-\alpha} {\rm (real)}$} and
${\bf A}_{n\alpha,n-\alpha}=0\,$. (See Appendix~\ref{appA})
For $\mathbf A_{n \alpha , m \beta}$ with $n\neq m$,
a standard calculation leads to
\al{\label{connection}
-i\mathbf A_{n\alpha, m\beta}=\frac{\matrixel{u_{m \tilde{\mathbf k} \beta}}{\nabla_{\tilde{\mathbf k}}H_{\tilde{\mathbf k}}}{u_{n \tilde{\mathbf k} \alpha}}}{E_{n\tilde{\mathbf k}}-{E_{m\tilde{\mathbf k}}}}\,.}
Here $H_{\tilde{\mathbf k}}$ is the Hamiltonian of the periodically translationally invariant system, so $\tilde{\mathbf k}$, the crystal momentum difference from ${\mathbf k_\mu}$, is a good quantum number, and the operator ${\nabla_{\tilde{\mathbf k}}H_{\tilde{\mathbf k}}}$ is straightforward to evaluate.
\section{The Effective External Potential}
Construction of the effective spin-orbit Hamiltonian for a spin-independent scalar potential $V(\mathbf r)$ (slowly varying on the unit-cell scale) requires the evaluation of matrix elements of $V(\mathbf r)$ between conduction band states $\psi_{c \tilde{\mathbf k} \alpha}= e^{i({\bf k}_\mu+\tilde{\bf k})\cdot{\bf r}}u_{c \tilde{\mathbf k} \alpha}$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde V_{\tilde{\mathbf k}'\alpha',\tilde{\mathbf k}\alpha}=\int d\mathbf r \psi_{c\tilde{\mathbf k}'\alpha'}(\mathbf r)V(\mathbf r)\psi_{c\tilde{\mathbf k}\alpha}(\mathbf r)\,.
\end{equation}
Using Eq.~(\ref{Expansion}) and assuming $V(\mathbf r)$ varies slowly, Eq.~(\ref{matrixelement}) can be integrated over any unit cell. Summing over the unit cells and using the orthogonality properties of $u_{n \mathbf k,\alpha}(\mathbf r)$ yields (See Appendix~\ref{appB})
\al{
\begin{split}
\tilde V_{\tilde{\mathbf k'}\alpha',\tilde{\mathbf k}\alpha}=& \int d\mathbf r e^{i(\tilde{\mathbf k}-\tilde{\mathbf k'})\cdot \mathbf r}\Bigg[\delta_{\alpha' \alpha}V(\mathbf r)
+\sum_{ij} B^{ij}_{\alpha \alpha'}\nabla_i V(\mathbf r)\nabla_j\Bigg],\label{matrixelement}
\end{split}
}
where $i$ and $j$ can be $x$, $y$, or $z$ and
\al{B^{ij}_{\alpha' \alpha}\equiv
\braket{\frac{\partial {u_{c\tilde{\mathbf k}\alpha'}}}{{\partial \tilde{k_i}}} }{ \frac {\partial{u_{c\tilde{\mathbf k}\alpha}}} {\partial \tilde{k_j}}}_{\tilde{\mathbf k}=0}.
}
The symmetries of $B^{ij} _{\alpha \alpha'}$ emerge when written as an operator in
spin space:
\al{
B^{ij}_{\alpha \alpha'}=B_{ij0}\delta_{\alpha \alpha'}+\sum_k B_{ijk}[\sigma_k]_{\alpha' \alpha}\
}
where
\al{ B_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha \alpha'} B^{ij}_{\alpha \alpha'}[\sigma_k]_{\alpha \alpha'}\\
B_{ij0}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha} B^{ij}_{\alpha \alpha},}
and the index $k$ can be $x$, $y$, or $z$.
As defined $B_{ijk}=B^*_{jik}$, and from time reversal invariance $B_{ij0}$ is real, thus $B_{ij0}=\lambda _{ij}=\lambda _{ji}$.
In contrast, $B_{ijk}$ is imaginary and antisymmetric:
\al{B_{ijk}=i\lambda _{ijk}=-i\lambda _{jik}.}
In this notation the effective potential becomes
\begin{widetext}
\al{\label{eq:effpot}
\begin{split}
\tilde{V}(\uv{r},\unit{\sigma}) = \Bigg[V(\uv{r}) +\sum_{ij}\lambda_{ij}\nabla_i V(\uv{r}) \nabla_j\Bigg]
+ i\sum_{ijk}\lambda_{ijk}\nabla_i V(\uv{r}) \nabla_j \unit{\sigma}_k
\end{split}.
}
The tensor $\lambda_{ijk}$, which defines the effective spin-orbit interaction in the conduction band, can be expressed exactly as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:so-tensor}
\lambda_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}Im\sum_{\alpha \alpha'}[\sigma_k]_{\alpha \alpha'} \sum_{n\neq c, \beta} \frac{\matrixel{u_{c \tilde{\mathbf k} \alpha'}}{\nabla_{\tilde{k}_i} \unit H_{\tilde{\mathbf k}}} {u_{n \tilde{\mathbf k} \beta}} \matrixel{u_{n \tilde{\mathbf k} \beta}}{\nabla_{\tilde{k}_j} \unit H_{\tilde{\mathbf k}}}{u_{c \tilde{\mathbf k} \alpha}}}{(E_{c \tilde{\mathbf k}} -E_{n \tilde{\mathbf k}})^2} \Bigg |_{\tilde{\mathbf k}=0}\,,
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where the sum runs over all the bands ($n$) other than the conduction band ($c$) -- all intra-band contributions vanish by virtue of the identities
above.
Eq.~(\ref{eq:so-tensor}) is independent of any arbitrary ${\bf k}$-dependent phase factors by which the periodic parts of the Bloch wave functions may be multiplied. This formula, a principal result of this Letter, is suitable for numerical evaluation of the effective spin-orbit interaction, provided a calculation of the periodic parts of the Bloch wave functions $u_{n {\bf k},\alpha}$ is available.
\section{Scattering in the effective spin-dependent potential}
Knowledge of the $\lambda$'s allows us to construct the effective spin-orbit interaction between electrons in a specific band and scattering from a scalar spin-independent potential $V({\bf r})$ ({\it e.g.} impurity scattering or phonon scattering in a quasi-elastic approximation\cite{Yu3ed}) using Eq.~(\ref{eq:effpot}). For multiple conduction bands located near a single minimum, such as for strontium titanate based materials, the individual bands have Bloch functions that are orthogonal to each other at the conduction minimum, so scattering between bands is inefficient. In contrast the largest contribution to scattering will come from scattering within specific bands. If there is interest in scattering between widely separated (in ${\mathbf k}$) multiple conduction minima then the applicability of these calculations will depend on the importance of possible second-order corrections to the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{Expansion}). Consideration of these effects is beyond the scope of this publication, although we note that the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{Expansion}) could in principle be extended to higher-order polynomials in ${\mathbf k}$ to describe these effects.
The scattering amplitude between two states in a single conduction band, in the Born approximation, is the matrix element of the effective potential between simple plane wave states -- the periodic parts of the wave functions having already been incorporated in $\tilde V$.
For the case of a ${\bf k}$-independent potential:
\begin{equation}
\tilde V_{{\bf k}'\alpha',{\bf k}\alpha}=V_0\delta_{\alpha'\alpha}+iV_0\sum_{ijk} \lambda_{ijk} k_i k'_j [\sigma_k ]_{\alpha'\alpha}\ .
\end{equation}
The transition rate between states ${\bf k} \alpha$ and ${\bf k}'\alpha'$ is then
\al{ \label{eq:goldenrule}
P({\bf k}\alpha ;{\bf k}'\alpha')=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|\tilde V_{{\bf k}'\alpha',{\bf k}\alpha}|^2\delta(E_{c\v k'}-E_{c\v k}).
}
The scattering potential $V_0$ mimics the scattering that produces the experimental carrier mobility $\mu={e \tau_p}/{m^*}$, where $m^*$ is the effective mass of the band near $\Gamma$,
\al{\label{scatt}
{\tau_p^{-1}}=
{\sum_{{\bf k}\alpha,{\bf k}'\alpha'}P({\bf k}\alpha; {\bf k}'\alpha')f_{\bf k}(1-f_{{\bf k}'})}/{\sum_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'}f_{\bf k}(1-f_{{\bf k}'})}
}
is the momentum relaxation rate and $f_{\bf k}$ is the Fermi-Dirac equilibrium distribution function. The expression for the spin lifetime $\tau_s$ is like Eq.~(\ref{scatt}), but with the sum over $\alpha'$ restricted to $\alpha'= -\alpha$,
\al{\label{spinscatt}
{\tau_s^{-1}}=
{\sum_{{\bf k}\alpha,{\bf k}'}P({\bf k}\alpha; {\bf k}'-\alpha)f_{\bf k}(1-f_{{\bf k}'})}/{\sum_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'}f_{\bf k}(1-f_{{\bf k}'})}.
}Spin flips occur via mixing of different spin states into the wave functions of eigenstates of different momenta, which produces spin flips as the carriers scatter from interactions with impurities and phonons.
Equations~(\ref{eq:effpot})-(\ref{spinscatt}) are principal results of the formalism presented here. Although formally $\tau_s$ is a pseudospin lifetime, if the doubly-degenerate states at ${\bf k}_\mu$ can be written as unentangled product states of orbit and spin then $\tau_s$ can be identified as the actual spin lifetime. This occurs for the $s$-orbital conduction band of III-V semiconductors and the $d_{xy}$-orbital conduction band of strained STO or LAO/STO. We now verify results obtained from these equations for III-V semiconductors, and then apply the results to STO-based materials.
\section{III-V semiconductors}
A simple $\v k \cdot \v p~$ model of the electronic structure near zone center ${\bf k_\mu}=0$ incorporating eight bands and spin-orbit interaction can be analytically evaluated for $\lambda_{ijk}$. The Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathbf k} = H_{\mathbf k=0} + \frac{\hbar {\mathbf k}\cdot {\mathbf P}}{m}
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the electron's free mass and ${\mathbf P}$ is the momentum operator. The free kinetic energy of the electron is neglected. In the eight-band model the eigenstates of $H_{\mathbf k=0}$ correspond to the conduction band spin up and down states as well as heavy, light and split-off holes with spin up and down. The Hamiltonian for this set of basis states
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathbf k} =\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}
E_g&0&\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{2}m}{k_+}&0
&\frac{i\sqrt{2}\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_z &\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{6}m}k_-
&\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_z &\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_-\\
0&E_g&0&\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{2}m}{k_-}
&\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{6}m}k_+&\frac{i\sqrt{2}\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_z
&\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_+&\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_z\\
-\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{2}m}{k_-}&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&-\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{2}m}{k_+}&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
-\frac{i\sqrt{2}\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_z&-\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{6}m}k_-&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
-\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{6}m}k_+&-\frac{i\sqrt{2}\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_z&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
-\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_z &-\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_-&0&0&0&0&-\Delta&0\\
-\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_+&-\frac{i\hbar P}{\sqrt{3}m}k_z&0&0&0&0&0&-\Delta\\
\end{array}
\right]
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where $k_+ = k_x+ik_y$ and $k_- = k_x - ik_y$, E$_g$ is the band gap, $\Delta$ the spin orbit splitting in the the valence bands, and $P$ the magnitude of the momentum matrix element between conduction and valence bands\cite{Cardona1988}. Evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:so-tensor}) for this Hamiltonian results in $\lambda_{ijk}=\lambda\epsilon_{ijk}$ and the analytic expression
\begin{equation}
\lambda=\frac{\hbar^2P^2}{3m^{*2}}\left[\frac{1}{E_g^{2}}-\frac{1}{(E_g+\Delta)^{2}}\right].\label{lambdakp}
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{eq:so-tensor}) can also be straightforwardly evaluated for any tight-binding Hamiltonian, which are expressed as Hamiltonians between Bloch sums, labeled by orbital and atomic site\cite{Yu3ed}. The ${\mathbf k}$-dependent terms that appear in such Hamiltonians originate from overlap matrix elements between neighbors, and generally have the form
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\mathbf d_n} {\rm e}^{i {\mathbf k}\cdot{\mathbf d_n}}\label{bsform}
\end{equation}
where the ${\mathbf d_n}$ run over the distances between neighboring atoms coupled by the overlap matrix elements. Derivatives of terms such as those appearing in Eq.~(\ref{bsform}) with respect to ${\mathbf k}$ are simple to evaluate. The $\v k \cdot \v p~$ expression from Eq.~(\ref{lambdakp}) and the $\lambda$ computed from an spds$^*$ tight-binding Hamiltonian obtained from Ref.~\onlinecite{Jancu1998} agree, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:SOIcomparison}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|cccr|}
\hline
\textrm{Method}&
\textrm{GaAs}&
\textrm{InP}&
\textrm{GaSb}&
\textrm{InSb}\\
\hline
$\v k \cdot \v p$ & 4.4 & 1.7 & 32.5 & 544.1\\
Tight-binding & 4.6 & 1.8 & 34.6 & 583.8\\
From Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambdacomparison}) & 5.1 & 1.7 & 39.7 &630.9 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:SOIcomparison}
Spin-orbit interaction parameter $\lambda$ in units of \AA$^2$ }
\end{table}
A check of our spin lifetime is provided by an analytical expression derived from an eight-band $\v k \cdot \v p~$ model for the ratio of the spin lifetimes calculated for a ${\bf k}$-independent potential from the Elliott-Yafet mechanism and the momentum relaxation time\cite{Meier1984},
\al{\label{eq:opticalorientation}
\frac{\tau_p}{\tau_s}=\frac{32}{81}
\left(\frac{1}{E_g}\right )^2\eta^2 \left (\frac{1-\eta /2}{1-\eta /3}\right )^2 E_k^2,
}
where $E_g$ is the band gap, $\eta=\Delta /(E_g+\Delta)$, and $E_k=\hbar^2 k^2 /2m^{*}$.
The ratio from Eq.~(\ref{scatt}) is:
\al{
\frac{\tau_p}{\tau_s}=\lambda^2\frac{8{m^*}^2}{3\hbar^4} E_k^2
}
which has the same functional form. If
\al{\label{eq:lambdacomparison}
\lambda=\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^*}\frac{4}{3\sqrt 3}\frac{1}{E_g} \eta \left (\frac{1-\eta /2}{1-\eta /3}\right ),
}
then the two expressions agree. We report in Table \ref{tab:SOIcomparison} the implied value of $\lambda$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambdacomparison}), indicating good agreement between our formalism and previously-obtained results for spin lifetimes in III-V semiconductors. Experimental spin lifetimes in such materials are not useful for direct comparison, as they are dominated by effects absent in STO and other inversion-symmetric materials\cite{Meier1984}.
\section{Strontium Titanate based materials}
For STO there exists only one momentum corresponding to the conduction band minimum, and the electronic states near this minimum at the Brillouin zone center mostly consist of Ti \textit{d}-orbitals. The crystal potential splits these conduction bands into sixfold t$_{2g}$ bands (d$_{xy}$, d$_{yz}$, d$_{zx}$) and fourfold (higher-energy) e$_g$ bands (d$_{x^2-y^2}$, d$_{3z^2 -r^2}$); spin-orbit coupling results in a further splitting ($\approx$ 30 meV) of the lower t$_{2g}$ bands into fourfold and and twofold bands, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bands-lambda}(a). We consider strained STO, in which the compressive strain breaks the fourfold degeneracy at the $\Gamma$-point and results in well-resolved, doubly degenerate subbands in the plane perpendicular to the growth direction, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bands-lambda}(b) for a splitting of $\sim 50$~meV. The same energy splitting is produced by an interface and leads to the electronic structure of the LAO/STO 2DEG\cite{Salluzzo2009}.
The electronic structure is calculated using a tight-binding Hamiltonian with values from Ref.~\onlinecite{Kahn1964}; the parametrization omits \textit{s}-orbitals of strontium and includes nearest-neighbor interactions between \textit{2p}-orbitals of oxygen and full \textit{3d}-orbitals of titanium as opposed to simpler parameterizations with only t$_{2g}$ bands, such as in Ref.~\onlinecite{Mattheiss1972a} and Ref.~\onlinecite{Wolfram1972}. The spin-orbit couplings, absent in Ref.~\onlinecite{Kahn1964}, are computed from atomic spectra tables\cite{Moore12}.
This results in a 30 meV spin-orbit splitting, in agreement with first principle calculations\cite{Marel2011}.
Here the Rashba spin splittings induced by the effective confinement fields along the growth direction at the interface are ignored; these splittings further reduce the spin lifetimes,
thus our results can be viewed as the long spin lifetimes obtainable if the confinement field that induces the Rashba spin splitting has been compensated by another field, such as a gate field\cite{Lau2005}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{bands-lambda}
\caption{Conduction bands of STO calculated by the tight-binding method described in the text. (10\% of the Brillouin zone in each direction is shown) (a) \textit{unstrained:} the lowest conduction band at $\Gamma$ is four-fold degenerate (b) \textit{strained:} a compressive uniaxial stress induces a splitting (here 50~meV) that splits the degeneracy and results in three doubly degenerate conduction bands. (c) Magnitude of spin-orbit interaction $\lambda_k$ as a function of the conduction band splitting at $\Gamma$ due to strain or confinement. This formulation is not applicable to the case of zero strain due to the four-fold degeneracy at the $\Gamma$ point.}
\label{fig:bands-lambda}
\end{figure}
There are only six non-zero elements of $\lambda_{ijk}$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:so-tensor}) at the minimum of the conduction band (\m{\Gamma} point) for STO $\lambda_{ijk}=-\lambda_{jik}=\epsilon_{ij}\lambda_k$, where $i$, $j$, and $k$ all differ. From our tight-binding band structure of SrTiO$_3$, and taking $z$ the direction of a uniaxial strain, $\lambda_x=\lambda_y= 0.0047$~\AA $^2$ and $\lambda_z= 0.0021$~\AA$^2$ for a strain resulting in 50 meV splitting in the conduction band minimum. The dependence of $\lambda$ on the strain is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bands-lambda}(c). Large strain destroys $\lambda_x$ and $\lambda_y$ and leaves $\lambda_z$ constant at 0.0028 \AA$^2$. The strain value where $\lambda_x=\lambda_y=\lambda_z$ is around 110 meV, and the lowest conduction band ($d_{xy}$-like) has isotropic dispersion in the $xy$ plane.\footnote{Below a temperature of 100K STO undergoes a second-order phase transition from cubic to tetragonal structure while oxygens in STO start to rotate. \cite{Mattheiss1972a}. This rotation breaks the cubic symmetry and causes a further shift in the higher conduction bands, which we neglect here.} These values of $\lambda$ are approximately three orders of magnitude smaller than those for III-V semiconductors, which will lead to correspondingly longer spin coherence times (proportional to $\lambda^{-2}$).
Spin lifetimes for bulk strained strontium titanate for spin parallel to $\hat z$ ($\tau_{sz}$, Fig.~\ref{fig:sto}) were evaluated from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:goldenrule})-(\ref{scatt}) using reported\cite{Moos1995} carrier mobilities and densities.
Spins oriented along $\hat x$ or $\hat y$ exhibit the same lifetime dependence on temperature and strain, but are shorter by $\sim 15\%$ at low temperatures and $\sim 10\%$ at room temperature from $\tau_{sz}$. Strain splitting of the bands is increased uniformly from 50 meV to 110 meV which reduces the spin mixing of these bands, resulting in a longer spin lifetime.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{sto-lifetime-allstrains.pdf}
\caption{Spin relaxation time of bulk strontium titanate as a function of temperature and strain. The carrier concentration is $1.0\times 10^{18}$cm$^{-3}$ and the mobility varies from 5-7000 cm$^2$V$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$ as reported in Ref.~\onlinecite{Moos1995}. }
\label{fig:sto}
\end{figure}
Our calculated spin relaxation times for a LAO/STO 2DEG are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lao-sto}, for several experimentally achieved carrier densities (corresponding to several oxygen partial pressures during growth). The dominant source of the reduction of carrier spin lifetime with temperature is an increase in the scattering rate from phonons at higher temperatures. These spin lifetimes greatly exceed those of bulk III-V semiconductors at room temperature, and are one to two orders of magnitude longer than room-temperature spin lifetimes in specially-designed GaAs quantum wells grown along the [110] direction\cite{Karimov2003}. The resulting spin lifetimes are of the same order as those of the strained STO at low temperatures, but one order of magnitude greater at room temperature.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{lao-sto-lifetime.pdf}
\caption{(a) Spin relaxation time as a function of temperature for three densities of carriers in the LAO/STO 2DEG.
The mobilities and densities correspond to those reported in Ref.~\onlinecite{Kalabukhov2007}.}
\label{fig:lao-sto}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
This systematic approach to the calculation of the effective spin-orbit interaction and the Elliot-Yafet spin relaxation rate in doubly-degenerate bands is broadly applicable to centro-symmetric nonmagnetic materials. Starting from a calculated band structure we have derived a compact, gauge invariant formula for the spin-orbit interaction tensor, and applied it to spin lifetimes. These results reproduce previous calculations via ${\bf k}\cdot{\bf p}$ theory of spin lifetimes in III-V semiconductors. Our results also support the presence of robust, room-temperature spin dynamics in oxide materials such as STO and the LAO/STO interfacial 2DEG. As centro-symmetric materials have recently taken up a more prominent role in spin-dependent phenomena (e.g. large spin Hall effects in cubic metals, spin lifetimes in diamond-based materials) it is expected that this approach will apply to a broad range of materials and spin-dependent phenomena.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge support by an ARO MURI.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
This chapter offers a survey of ideas and results in the approach to quantum gravity based on supersymmetry, strings, and holography.
Extra spatial dimensions appear naturally in this approach,
so to set the stage we begin in Section \ref{s:Ddim} with a discussion of general relativity in more than four spacetime dimensions.
In higher dimensions, one encounters a richness of structure with no parallel in 4D. Even in vacuum gravity, this includes black hole solutions with non-spherical horizon topologies, black hole non-uniqueness, and regular multi-horizon black holes. We give an overview of such solutions and their properties, both in the context of Kaluza-Klein theory and for asymptotically flat boundary conditions.
A very interesting extension of general relativity is to include matter in such a way that the action becomes invariant under supersymmetry transformations.
Supersymmetry is a remarkable symmetry that relates bosons and fermions. It is the only possible extension of the Poincar\'e group for a unitary theory with non-trivial scattering processes. Supersymmetry is considered a natural extension of the standard model of particle physics; the study of how supersymmetry is broken at low energies, and its possible experimental consequences, is an important active research area in particle physics. Furthermore, independently of its potential phenomenology, supersymmetry offers strong calculational control and that makes it a tremendously powerful tool for analyzing fundamental properties of quantum field theories.
When supersymmetry and general relativity are combined, the result is supergravity. The metric field is accompanied by a spin-3/2 spinor field and this gives a beautiful and enticing playground for advancing our understanding of quantum gravity. Supergravity theories exist in spacetime dimensions $D \le 11$ and they provide a natural setting for studies of charged black holes. Certain extremal limits of charged black holes in supergravity are invariant under supersymmetry; such `supersymmetric black holes' are key for understanding the statistic mechanical nature of black hole thermodynamics, specifically the
microstates responsible for the Hawking-Bekenstein entropy. An example of a supersymmetric black hole is the extremal
Reissner-Nordstrom solution.
Section \ref{s:super} begins with a brief introduction to supersymmetry and supergravity, followed by a survey of supersymmetric black holes and their properties. We then discuss perturbative
quantization of gravity as a quantum field theory, an approach in which the metric field is quantized in a flat-space background and the resulting gravitons are point-like spin-2 particles. It is well-known that this approach leads to ultraviolet divergences, starting at
2-loop order in pure gravity, that --- unlike the corresponding infinities in gauge theories --- cannot be cured as gravity is a non-renormalizable theory. However, in supergravity, the symmetry between bosons and fermions results in crucial cancellations in graviton scattering amplitudes and this can delay the occurrence of the ultraviolet divergences to higher-loop order. It has even been suggested that with maximal supersymmetry, perturbative supergravity in 4D may be free of such ultraviolet divergences. We will offer a short description of these ideas and related results.
A profound solution to the problem of ultraviolet divergences in quantum gravity is to treat gravitons as extended one-dimensional objects: strings. Then the short-distance behavior is regulated by the finite extent of the string and scattering processes are free of ultraviolet divergences. Thus string theory is a very promising framework for a quantum theory of gravity.
String theory naturally incorporates supersymmetry, and general relativity --- and its extension to supergravity --- emerges as a low-energy effective theory. String theory predicts extra spatial dimensions, so compatibility with observations requires that either these extra dimensions are compact and small (incorporating Kaluza-Klein theory) or that we live on a $3+1$ dimensional subspace of this higher-dimensional spacetime.
Section \ref{s:strings} is dedicated to an introduction to string theory. We begin with an overview of perturbative string theory and then turn to nonperturbative aspects, specifically quantum black holes. One of the remarkable features of string theory is that it provides a precise
microscopic description of black hole entropy and Hawking radiation for certain
black holes, specifically the supersymmetric or near-supersymmetric black holes. We describe in detail the precision-counting of black hole microstates in string theory and its match to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.
At the nonperturbative level, there are arguments that quantum gravity might be holographic: this is the notion that physics in a region of space is completely described by degrees of freedom living on the boundary of this region. This idea was originally proposed based on considerations of black hole entropy. The entropy of a black hole scales with its area, in striking contrast to most systems which have an entropy proportional to their volume. This suggests that everything that happens inside the black hole might be encoded in degrees of freedom at the horizon. A precise formulation of holo\-graphy emerges from string theory and is called ``gauge/gravity duality". In Section \ref{s:adscft}, we discuss holography and present a detailed account of the motivation for gauge/gravity duality and the evidence in its favor. Recent years have seen applications of
gauge/gravity duality to a wide variety of problems in physics, including black holes, quark confinement, hydrodynamics, and
condensed matter physics. We give a brief survey of these results.
Section \ref{s:conclusion} contains some concluding remarks.
It is our hope that this chapter will convey the depth and richness of the subjects mentioned above and motivate the reader to pursue further information in the references provided throughout the text.
\section{Gravity in $D$ dimensions}
\label{s:Ddim}
At first sight, general relativity in a $D$-dimensional spacetime looks much like 4D general relativity. The Einstein equation takes the same form
\begin{equation}
G_{MN} = 8\pi G_D\, T_{MN} \,,
\end{equation}
in which $G_D$ is the $D$-dimensional Newton's constant and
the Einstein tensor is given
in terms of the Ricci tensor as $G_{MN} = R_{MN} - \frac{1}{2} g_{MN} R$. The spacetime indices $M,N$ run over $0,1,2,\dots,D-1$. The field equations can be derived using the variational principle from the $D$-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action
\begin{equation}
S_\text{EH} = \frac{1}{16 \pi G_D} \int d^D x \,\sqrt{-g}\,R
~+~
S_\text{matter}\,,
\end{equation}
where the stress-energy tensor is
$T_{MN} = - \frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_\text{matter}}{\delta g^{MN}}$.
Given the similarities, one expects that solutions to the 4D Einstein equation have straightforward generalizations to higher dimensions. This is indeed the case, for example the Schwarzschild metric generalizes to $D > 4$ dimensions as a solution to the vacuum Einstein equations. The metric of the $D$-dimensional
{\bf Schwarzschild-Tangherlini solution} \cite{Tangherlini:1963bw} found in 1963 is
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = -\bigg[1 - \Big(\frac{r_0}{r}\Big)^{D-3} \bigg]\, dt^2
+\bigg[1 - \Big(\frac{r_0}{r}\Big)^{D-3} \bigg]^{-1}dr^2
+ r^2 \,d\Omega_{D-2}^2 \,,
\label{DSchw}
\end{equation}
where $d\Omega_{d}^2$ is the line element for a $d$-dimensional round unit sphere, $S^d$.
The horizon is located at $r=r_0$ and has topology $S^{D-2}$. Black hole thermodynamics works the same in higher dimensions as in 4D.
This includes the first law and the area theorem.
For the $D$-dimensional Schwarzschild-Tangherlini
black holes,
the ADM mass, temperature (calculated from the surface gravity $\kappa$), and horizon `area' are\footnote{We will refer to the horizon volume as `area' although of course it is the volume of a $(D\!-\!2)$-dimensional manifold.}
\begin{equation}
M =\frac{(D-2) \Omega_{D-2} r_0^{D-3}}{16\pi G_D}\,,~~~~~
T = \frac{\kappa}{2 \pi} = \frac{D-3}{4\pi r_0}\,,~~~~~
A = \Omega_{D-2} r_0^{D-2}\,,~~
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_{d}$ the volume of the unit $d$-sphere. The entropy is
$S = A/(4G_D)$. These quantities satisfy $dM = T dS$, and the Smarr relation $(D-3)M = (D-2)TS$.
There are of course also important differences as $D$ varies. For example, it is well-known that there is no 3D vacuum black hole,\footnote{With a negative cosmological constant, there is a 3D black hole \cite{Banados:1992wn}.}
so the 4D Schwarzschild solution does not generalize as we go down in dimension. Might it be that there are black hole solutions in $D>4$ that do not exist in 4D? The answer turns out to be yes.
That gravity has richer structure in higher dimensions is apparent already from solutions to the linearized Einstein equation. For example, a gravitational wave in $D$ dimensions has $D(D-3)/2$ degrees of freedom. This formula counts the well-known 2 polarizations of a gravitational wave
in a $D=4$ dimensional spacetime. But it also tells us that in 3 dimensions there are no propagating modes of gravity. Going up in dimensions, we learn that a gravitational wave in 5D carries 5 degrees of freedom, in 6D it is 9 degrees of freedom, and so on.
This hints that gravitational dynamics has important dimensional dependence and that going up in spacetime dimension gives `more freedom' and new phenomena may be found. In this section, we give several examples of the rewards of studying gravity in spacetime dimensions $D>4$.
\subsection{Kaluza-Klein theory}
One motivation for studying higher-dimensional gravity is that it offers a method for unifying gravity with other forces, as first explored by Kaluza and Klein in the early 1920's \cite{Kaluza:1921tu,Klein:1926tv}.
The idea is that pure gravity in 5-dimensions can be viewed as a Maxwell-scalar-gravity system in 4-dimensions. To see how it works, we write an ansatz for the 5D metric
\begin{equation}
ds_\text{5D}^2
=
g_{MN} \, dX^M dX^N
=
e^{\phi/\sqrt{3}} \, g_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu
+ e^{-2\phi/\sqrt{3}} \big( dy + A_\mu dx^\mu \big)^2\,,
\label{KKansatz}
\end{equation}
where $M,N=0,1,2,3,4$ and $\mu=0,1,2,3$. Let us assume that $g_{\mu\nu}$, $\phi$ and $A_\mu$ are independent of $X^4= y$
and that the $y$ direction is a circle $S^1$ of radius $R$.
Evaluating the 5D Ricci tensor with this ansatz, one finds (after partial integration) that the 5D Einstein-Hilbert action can be written
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
S
&= \frac{1}{16 \pi G_5} \int d^5X\,\sqrt{-g_5}\, R_\text{5D}\\
&= \frac{1}{16 \pi G_4} \int d^4x\, \sqrt{-g}
\Big(
R_\text{4D}
- \tfrac{1}{2}
\partial_\mu \phi \,\partial^\mu \phi
- \tfrac{1}{4} e^{-\sqrt{3} \phi} F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}
\Big)\,,
\end{split}
\label{5dKK}
\end{equation}
where $F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$ is a Maxwell field strength and the 4D indices $\mu,\nu$ are lowered/raised with the 4D metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and its inverse.
The 4D Newton's constant is
related to the 5D one by
\begin{equation}
G_4 = G_5/(2\pi R)\,.
\end{equation}
Let us now consider the equations of motion derived from \reef{5dKK}. The 4D description gives the Einstein equation coupled to a Maxwell field and the scalar $\phi$ called the `dilaton'. In addition, we have the matter equations of motion: the Maxwell equation, with its non-minimal coupling to $\phi$, and the scalar equation of motion sourced by the Maxwell field.
This appears to be a rather complex gravity-electromagnetic system. However, from the 5D point of view, this is nothing but vacuum gravity: the 5D equation of motion is just the vacuum Einstein equation. Thus `lifting' the 4D system to 5D unifies electromagnetism with gravity!
This is a very clean and beautiful example of unification of forces.
In the {\bf Kaluza-Klein ansatz} \reef{KKansatz}, we assumed that the metric components were independent of the $S^1$ direction $y$. Generally, we could express the dependence of $y$ in terms of the Fourier modes of the 4D fields,
e.g.~
\begin{equation}
\phi(x,y) = \sum_n \phi_n(x) \,e^{i n y/R}\,.
\end{equation}
It follows from the $\phi$ equation of motion that the modes with non-zero $n$ have mass-terms of the order $|n|/R$.
If the radius of the Kaluza-Klein circle $R$ is very small compared to energies we are interested in (or that otherwise appear in the system), then in a low-energy long-wavelength approximation these modes do not contribute.
Thus we can truncate the
$n\!\ne\! 0$
modes and focus only on the massless modes. This means that we are effectively taking the fields to be independent of $y$, and that is exactly the Kaluza-Klein ansatz.
The $S^1$ {\bf Kaluza-Klein reduction} (also known as dimensional reduction) from 5D to 4D described above --- or, equivalently, the unifying lift from 4D to 5D --- can be generalized to $D$-dimensions with minor changes in the numerical coefficients for the dilaton dependence. It also has generalizations to reduction on other manifolds than a circle, for example on a torus $S^1 \times S^1$ or a sphere $S^d$.
The required key property is that the lower-dimensional equations of motion are consistent truncations of the higher-dimensional ones.
The Kaluza-Klein reduction is the proto-type for
{\bf compactifications}
of a higher-dimen\-sional system to a lower-dimensional one. Compactifications play a central role in many areas of high-energy theoretical physics, both in field theory and in string theory. For now, we focus on classical aspects of higher-dimensional gravity so we will consider various solutions to the $D$-dimensional Einstein equations, in the context of the Kaluza-Klein ansatz as well as more generally.
\subsection{Black strings}
\label{s:BS}
As a simple, but nonetheless quite interesting, example of a Kaluza-Klein spacetime, we consider
black strings.
Choose the Schwarzschild solution as the 4D solution in the
Kaluza Klein ansatz.
The ansatz \reef{KKansatz} then has $\phi=0$ and $A_\mu = 0$ and it tells us that the metric
\begin{equation}
ds_\text{5D}^2 = -\bigg(1 - \frac{2G_4M}{r} \bigg) dt^2
+ \bigg(1 - \frac{2G_4M}{r} \bigg)^{-1} dr^2
+ r^2 \,d\Omega_2^2 + dy^2
\label{bs}
\end{equation}
solves the 5D vacuum Einstein equation. At any constant $y$-slice, the geometry described by \reef{bs} looks like a 4D Schwarzschild black hole with mass $M$, so it describes a continuous uniform string of Schwarzschild black holes: it is called a {\bf homogeneous black string}. When $y$ is a circle, the topology of the black string horizon is $S^2 \times S^1$.
Now, let us think of the black string as a uniform distribution of mass along the circle parameterized by $y$. Suppose this distribution of mass is perturbed a little: then there will be regions of higher mass-density and regions of lower mass-density. The denser regions will tend to attract more matter and grow while the
lower-density
regions are depleted.
This indicates that the black string has a classical instability.
Indeed, when the radius of the circle $R$ is (roughly) larger than the Schwarzschild radius $2GM$, the homogeneous black string solution \reef{bs} is unstable to spherical
linear perturbations, as demonstrated first by Gregory and Laflamme \cite{Gregory:1993vy}. The evolution of
the {\bf Gregory-Laflamme instability}
is exactly as our intuition indicates: the black string horizon becomes non-uniform along $y$ as some parts of the string bulge while others shrink
when
the mass concentrates/depletes the corresponding regions. The $S^2$ of the constant $y$-slices are not perturbed, it remains round.
What is the endstate of the Gregory-Laflamme instability?
The intuitive description of the instability as mass concentrations in certain regions of the $y$ direction indicates that a localized black hole forms. Such a localized black hole would be like the $D=5$ Schwarzschild-Tangherlini
black hole \reef{DSchw}, but placed in a spacetime with a compact $S^1$ direction. We can easily imagine this when the black hole is much smaller than the $S^1$; the black hole does not `know' that the $y$-direction is compact, so it is essentially unaffected. However, if the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole is comparable to the size of the $S^1$, there will be a significant backreaction that deforms the shape of the horizon (while keeping its $S^3$ topology). Such
{\bf localized black hole} solutions have been constructed numerically; Fig.~\ref{fig:KKembed} shows the change of horizon shape as the mass of the black hole is increased for fixed size of the Kaluza-Klein circle at infinity.
For the localized black hole to be an endstate of the Gregory-Laflamme instability requires the horizon topology to transition from the $S^2 \times S^1$ of the string to the $S^3$ of the localized black hole. Classically, the horizon cannot bifurcate without forming a naked singularity at the pinch-off \cite{Hawking:1973uf}. In classical gravity the pinch-off is not reached in finite affine time along the null generators of the horizon \cite{Horowitz:2001cz}, but a numerical analysis \cite{Lehner:2011wc} indicates that a naked singularity forms in finite asymptotic time as the horizon pinches. In fact, the numerical work \cite{Lehner:2011wc} reveals that the horizon develops in an approximately
self-similar fashion at late times: the black string becomes a string of 5D black holes of various sizes connected by thin strings. These thin strings are themselves subject to the Gregory-Laflamme instability and this results in further clumping, thus giving a self-similar evolution. (This is similar to the behavior in a low-viscosity fluid stream: the Rayleigh-Plateau instability causes a cascade of spherical beads to
develop
in a self-similar manner along the stream \cite{Cardoso:2006ks}.)
Since a naked singularity forms without fine-tuning of the initial data, this constitutes a {\it violation of cosmic censorship}. Classical gravity can no longer be trusted near the singularity and it is expected that quantum gravity effects must be included to understand the evolution. However, the most natural outcome is simply that the horizon bifurcates
and the endstate of the Gregory-Laflamme instability is a localized black hole.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{EmbeddingHiRes.pdf}
\vspace{-10mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Embedding plots of $D=5$ Kaluza-Klein black hole horizons: A-E show the localized black holes and F-I are non-uniform black strings. (Plots from {\cite{Horowitz:2011cq}}.)}
\label{fig:KKembed}
\end{figure}
The homogeneous black string and the localized black holes are not the only static black hole solutions to the 5D vacuum Einstein equations with Kaluza-Klein boundary conditions. As one increases the mass of a localized black hole on a circle of fixed asymptotic size $L=2\pi R$, there is a critical mass $G_5 M/L^2 \sim 0.12$ where the horizon merges across the Kaluza-Klein circle and for larger masses one has a new {\bf inhomogeneous black string solution} whose horizon topology is $S^2 \times S^1$. It has been constructed numerically \cite{Wiseman:2002zc,Kudoh:2003ki,Kleihaus:2006ee}; embeddings of the horizon is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:KKembed}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.5cm]{Area.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Phase diagram for $D=5$ Kaluza-Klein black holes. The horizon `area' is plotted versus the black hole mass for fixed length $L=2\pi R$ of the Kaluza-Klein circle at asymptotic infinity. The localized black hole curve (solid) starts off
as
$A\propto M^{2/3}$ at small mass, since for small $G_5M/L^2$ it behaves as the asymptotically flat 5D Schwarzschild-Tangherlini black hole. The dashed curve for the homogeneous black string is $A \propto M^2$ reflecting the area dependence of the 4D Schwarzschild black hole of the string.
The inhomogeneous black string branch (also solid) begins
at the point $G_5M \approx 0.7 L^2$ where the Gregory-Laflamme instability first sets in. Numerics make it plausible that the branch of inhomogeneous black strings merge near $G_5M \approx 1.2 L^2$ with the localized black hole branch, as indicated in the plot. (Plot from \cite{Horowitz:2011cq}.)
}
\label{fig:KKphases}
\end{figure}
The 5D vacuum solutions discussed here --- the homogeneous and inhomogeneous black strings and the localized black hole --- all have Kaluza-Klein asymptotics: at large $r$, these 5D vacuum solutions approach 4D Minkowski spacetime times the Kaluza-Klein circle $S^1$. Fig.\,\ref{fig:KKphases} indicates the different solution branches in a ``phase diagram" where solutions are compared for fixed size of the Kaluza-Klein circle at infinity. Note that there can be more than one solution with the same mass; so we have {\bf black hole non-uniqueness} in 5D Kaluza-Klein
spacetimes! As shown in the phase diagram in Fig.\,\ref{fig:KKphases}, the inhomogeneous black string joins the homogeneous black string at the onset of the
Gregory-Laflamme
instability. This is expected due to the existence of a static inhomogeneous perturbation at this point. It is also clear from Fig.\,\ref{fig:KKphases} that the
entropy of the inhomogeneous black string is smaller than that of the homogeneous black string of the same mass, so
the area theorem implies that
it could not have been a viable endstate of the Gregory-Laflamme instability,
It interesting to note that there is no positive energy theorem for Kaluza-Klein spacetimes; in fact there exist solutions with arbitrarily low energy\footnote{For a definition of energy in Kaluza-Klein theory, see \cite{Deser:1988fc}.} \cite{Brill:1989di,Brill:1991qe}. Moreover, the simplest Kaluza-Klein spacetime, 4D Minkowski space times a circle, is actually unstable. It can undergo decay by nucleation of {\bf Kaluza-Klein bubbles}, which are obtained by a double analytic continuation of the 5D Schwarzschild-Tangherlini
black hole \cite{Witten:1981gj}. This instability can be removed, and a positive energy theorem proven,
by including fermions with periodic boundary conditions on the $S^1$ \cite{Dai}. These fermions are naturally included in the supersymmetric theories we discuss later.
The existence of Kaluza-Klein bubbles actually allow for even more classical solutions to the 5D Einstein equation with Kaluza-Klein boundary conditions: these are static, analytically known solutions that describe combinations of black strings, black holes, and Kaluza-Klein bubbles \cite{Elvang:2002br,Elvang:2004iz}.
In our presentation
of 5D Kaluza-Klein gravity, we have encountered a richness of structure: linearly unstable black strings, black hole non-unique\-ness, and violation of cosmic censorship. It turns out that this also carries over to black holes in asymptotically flat 5D spacetimes. This is the subject of the next section.
\subsection{Asymptotically flat black holes in $D=5$ vacuum gravity}
\label{s:D5BHs}
We have already described a black hole solution in $D$-dimensional asymptotically flat space, namely the Schwarzschild-Tangherlini
solution \reef{DSchw}.
Black holes in 4D vacuum gravity are characterized
by their mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$. The 4D rotating black hole described by the Kerr solution can be generalized to $D>4$ dimensions: the rotating black hole solutions of the $D>4$ dimensional vacuum Einstein equation were found analytically in 1986 \cite{Myers:1986un} and are called {\bf Myers-Perry black holes}.
In 4D
spacetime,
angular momentum is often associated with an
axis of rotation, but this is an artifact of having three spatial directions.
It is more general to associate angular momentum with {\em planes of rotation}; in three spatial dimensions a plane is characterized by its normal vector, but this is not true in higher dimensions.
The
independent
planes of rotation
in $D$ dimensions
can be characterized by the
$\lfloor (D-1)/2\rfloor$ independent generators of the Cartan subalgebra of the $D$-dimensional rotation group $SO(D-1)$.
Thus, in addition to its mass $M$, the 5D Myers-Perry black hole is characterized by two angular momenta $J_{1}$ and $J_{2}$ associated with rotations in two independent planes, say $(x^1x^2)$ and $(x^3x^4)$.
The 5D Myers-Perry metric is
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 &=& -dt^2 + \frac{\mu r^2}{\Delta}
\Big(
dt + a_1 \cos^2\theta\, d\phi_1+ a_2 \sin^2\theta\, d\phi_2
\Big)^2\\ \nonumber
&&+ \frac{\Delta}{(r^2 + a_1^2)(r^2 + a_2^2)-\mu r^2}\,dr^2\\[1.5mm] \nonumber
&&+ (r^2 + a_1^2) (\sin^2 \theta \, d\theta^2 + \cos^2\theta \,d\phi_1^2)
+ (r^2 + a_2^2) (\cos^2\theta \, d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \,d\phi_2^2)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta = (r^2 + a_1^2)(r^2 + a_2^2)
\bigg( 1
- \frac{a_1^2 \cos^2 \theta}{r^2+a_1^2}
-\frac{a_2^2 \sin^2 \theta}{r^2+a_2^2}\bigg)\,.
\end{equation}
The topology of the horizon is $S^3$, but with rotation turned on, its shape is no longer round, but pancaked in the planes of rotation. The mass and angular momentum are
\begin{equation}
M = \frac{3 \pi \, \mu}{8 G_5} \,,
~~~~J_i = \frac{\pi \, \mu}{4G_5} a_i \,.
\end{equation}
The first law of thermodynamics is now
$dM = TdS + \Omega_{1} dJ_{1} + \Omega_{2} dJ_{2}$ with $\Omega_{1,2}$ the angular velocities of the horizon. This is a straightforward generalization of the
first
law for Kerr black holes.
Just as for Kerr, there is an upper bound on the magnitude of the angular momentum for given mass:
$M^3 \ge \big( \tilde{J}_1^2 + \tilde{J}_2^2 +2|\tilde{J}_1 \tilde{J}_2| \big)$, where
$\tilde{J}_i = \sqrt{27\pi/32 G_5} J_i$
. When both angular momenta are non-vanishing, the 5D Myers-Perry solution approaches a smooth solution describing an extremal black hole with $T=0$, just like Kerr.
However, when one of the angular momenta vanishes, say $J_{2} = 0$, the maximally rotating 5D Myers-Perry black hole becomes singular. It is smooth for
$\tilde{J}_{1}^2 <M^3$, but as the angular momentum is increased from $\tilde{J}_{1} = 0$ to the maximum value, the horizon `area' decreases monotonically to zero as the horizon flattens out in the plane of rotation.
Now it turns out that
the
Myers-Perry black holes are not the only regular black hole solutions to the 5D vacuum Einstein equation: there is another class of solutions called {\bf black rings}.
The black rings
have horizon topology $S^2 \times S^1$ and
the metrics
are known analytically \cite{Emparan:2001wn,Emparan:2006mm}. To get some intuition for what a black ring is, recall the black string: suppose you take a 4D Schwarzschild black hole times a line, but instead of wrapping the string on a Kaluza-Klein circle, close it into a round ring in an asymptotically flat spacetime. Then we have a black hole with $S^2 \times S^1$ topology, i.e.~a black ring. The difference between a black ring and a black string is that the $S^1$ of the ring is contractible,
whereas the $S^1$ of the string is not.
A ring-like distribution of mass in space is going to collapse upon itself, so clearly no black ring solution can exist without something balancing its gravitational self-attraction. In vacuum, a static ring can be constructed in 5D asymptotically flat space, but it suffers from a conical excess angle inside the plane of the ring; the excess is needed to support the ring-shaped horizon topology. However, the black ring can be balanced against self-collapse by giving it angular momentum in the plane of the ring. For a given ADM mass $M$, the minimum angular momentum needed is $\tilde{J}^2 > \frac{27}{32} M^3$ \cite{Emparan:2001wn,Elvang:2003yy} and when this bound is satisfied there are black ring solutions that are smooth everywhere outside and on the horizon.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3cm]{ring_fat.pdf}\hspace{-1.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=3cm]{ring_med.pdf}\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=3cm]{ring_thin.pdf}
\\[-13mm]
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{BH-BR-BS.pdf}~~
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Phase diagram for asymptotically flat $D=5$ black holes with angular momentum in one plane: 5D Myers-Perry (light line),
black rings (dark line), and black saturns (gray shaded). The plot shows for fixed mass scale $M=1$ horizon area (entropy) $\mathcal{A}$ versus angular momentum $J$ in rescaled units $\tilde{\mathcal{A}} = \sqrt{27/(256\pi G_5^3)}\mathcal{A}$ and
$\tilde{J} = \sqrt{27\pi/(32G_5)} J$. (Plots from \cite{Elvang:2006dd,Elvang:2007hg}.)}
\label{fig:5dphases}
\end{figure}
As solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations, black hole thermodynamics is valid for black rings too,
with entropy proportional to the three-dimensional `area' of the
horizon.
Figure \ref{fig:5dphases} is a plot of entropy versus angular momentum $J$ for smooth 5D Myers-Perry black holes and the black rings. The black holes and rings in this plot have rotation only in one plane, and for the ring, this is the plane of its $S^1$, as needed to balance it.
Let us highlight some remarkable features:
\begin{itemize}
\item There are
{\it two branches of black rings},
the `lower' one consists of `fat' flattened-out black rings, while the higher entropy branch are thin black rings. The two branches meet at the cusp where the angular momentum takes its minimal possible value, $\frac{\tilde{J}^2}{M^3}=\frac{27}{32}$.
\item In the range $\frac{27}{32} \le \frac{\tilde{J}^2}{M^3}< 1$, three distinct black hole solutions exists: one Myers-Perry black hole and two black rings, thin and fat. This is an exciting (and historically first) example of
{\bf black hole non-uniqueness}
in an asymptotically flat spacetime. Of course, this is completely different from 4D in which the Kerr black hole famously is the only smooth asymptotically flat stationary black hole vacuum solution.
\item For the thin black rings, there is
{\it no upper bound on the magnitude of the angular momentum}.
As $J^2/M^{3}$ increases, the ring's $S^1$ radius grows and the ring becomes very thin. A small part of the ring will look like a piece of a boosted black string \cite{Elvang:2006dd} --- given that it is thin, one would expect it to undergo Gregory-Laflamme instability. As the instability develops, there will be gravitational radiation from the time-varying quadruple moment of the rotating bumps on the ring, but the
time scale
of radiating away these bumps cannot compete \cite{Elvang:2006dd} with the
time scale
of the horizon pinch, so the likely endstate of the instability of an ultra-spinning black ring is a pair of black holes flying apart in such a way that the angular momentum is preserved. The pinch of the horizon would go through a naked singularity, so this would also constitute a violation of cosmic censorship.
\end{itemize}
Now just as the Myers-Perry black holes can carry angular momentum in the two independent planes of $\mathbb{R}^4$, so can
black rings. As an intuitive picture, consider starting with a black string made from a Kerr black hole (instead of Schwarzschild) times a line. Then bend this Kerr string into a ring and set it into rotation in the plane of the $S^1$ of the ring. That gives a rotating black ring with angular momentum also on the $S^2$ of the ring cross-section. Saying the words is easy, but the construction of the {\bf doubly-rotating black ring} as a solution to the 5D Einstein equation is less trivial.
An exact solution does exist
\cite{Pomeransky:2006bd}; it was constructed using the {\em `inverse scattering method'} \cite{Belinsky:1971nt,Belinsky:1979mh,Belinski:2001ph}. An analysis of the physical properties of the doubly-rotating black ring can be found in \cite{Elvang:2007hs}.
The inverse scattering method is an integrability technique that uses Lax pairs to generate new solutions to non-linear partial differential equations with input of a known solution. The method was originally used to study solitonic waves in shallow water. In the late 1970's it was realized \cite{Belinsky:1971nt}
that such techniques can also be applied to the 4D Einstein equations for co-dimension 2 systems. For example, one can use inverse scattering to generate the full Kerr solution from flat Minkowski space \cite{Belinski:2001ph}.
Much more recently, the inverse scattering method was applied to generating solutions in 5D gravity and several new solutions were found. Let us survey them.
Consider the balance of the singly spinning black ring: for a given mass $M$ and $J$ above the lower bound, the ring adjusts its radius to achieve the needed balance. One can simulate this
with a Newtonian model of a rotating rubber band that wants to contract to zero size: balance between the band tension and the centrifugal force is obtained for only one special radius. Now suppose the ring (or rubber band) is placed in an external central attractive potential. It then has to rotate a bit faster to be balanced at the same radius. This situation can happen too in 5D general relativity: we can imagine a rotating black ring balanced around a central 5D Schwarzschild-Tangherlini black hole. Remarkably, there exists an exact analytic solution to the 5D Einstein vacuum equations that realizes this {\bf Black Saturn} configuration \cite{Elvang:2007rd}. It is completely smooth everywhere outside and on the two horizons \cite{Elvang:2007rd,Chrusciel:2010ix}. The Black Saturn solution was constructed using the inverse scattering technique.
Black Saturn displays a number of novel properties \cite{Elvang:2007rd}:
\begin{itemize}
\item It offers {\it 2-fold continuous black hole non-uniqueness}:
for given ADM mass $M$ (the total mass of the hole-ring system) and total ADM angular momentum $J$, there are continuously many ways of distributing the mass and angular momentum among the two black objects of the saturn system. The ring and hole can be co-rotating or counter-rotating.
\item It shows that the 5D Schwarzschild-Tangherlini
solution \reef{DSchw} is {\em not} the unique solution with zero ADM angular momentum. One can arrange the ring and hole of
Black
Saturn to be counter-rotating in such a way that the total system has zero angular momentum at infinity. This leaves the freedom of the mass distribution between the hole and the ring, thus leaving a continuous 1-parameter family of $J=0$ solutions which are degenerate (as far as asymptotic data goes) with the 5D Schwarzschild-Tangherlini
black hole (but have smaller entropy).
\item The Black Saturn system illustrates frame-dragging effects as can be seen by studying the effect of, say, the rotating ring on the central black hole.
\item No Black Saturn configuration has higher entropy than that of the 5D static
Schwarz\-schild-Tangherlini
black hole, but it can come arbitrarily close. In fact the whole gray shaded region of phase space with $S < S_\text{Schw}$ and $\tilde{J}\ge 0$ in Fig. \ref{fig:5dphases} is filled out by a continuum of Black Saturn configurations \cite{Elvang:2007hg}.
\end{itemize}
In our solar system, the planet Saturn has more than one ring and this is also possible for Black Saturn. One can use the inverse scattering method to construct exact Black Saturn solutions with any number of rings rotating in the same plane. And why keep the `planet'? Drop the black hole at the center and simply just have a {\bf multi-ring system}; the simplest case with two rings in the same plane is called a {\bf di-ring} solution
\cite{Iguchi:2007is,Evslin:2007fv}.
And we can take this even further: why should the rings be in the same plane? After all, we have two independent planes of rotation, so how about arranging two rotating rings in the two orthogonal planes? Such a system is known as a {\bf bi-ring} (or bicycling rings) and the exact solution has been constructed with
the inverse scattering method
\cite{Izumi:2007qx,Elvang:2007hs}.
The solutions we have discussed above are ``special" in the sense that they have more symmetry than is strictly needed: they have three commuting Killing vectors $\partial_t$, $\partial_{\phi_1}$, and $\partial_{\phi_2}$. The black hole rigidity theorem \cite{Hollands:2006rj,Moncrief:2008mr} requires only one rotational isometry, and even before these theorems were established it was conjectured that such less-symmetric non-static stationary black hole solutions exist \cite{Reall:2002bh,Moncrief:2008mr}. This has been demonstrated by the construction \cite{Emparan:2009vd} of so-called {\bf helical black rings}
using
asymptotic matching methods in the limit of large angular momenta. Helical black rings have the same horizon topology as the ring, $S^2 \times S^1$, but are shaped as a ``slinky" bent into a ring.
The richness of black holes in 5D Einstein vacuum gravity is clearly remarkable and unparalleled in 4D. Let us now briefly discuss what is known (and not known) about black holes in asymptotically flat spacetimes with $D>5$.
\subsection{Asymptotically flat black holes in $D>5$ vacuum gravity}
\label{s:Dge5}
Examples of black holes in higher-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory are easy to obtain as direct products of lower-dimensional vacuum solutions times circles. For instance, we get a 6D black string from 5D Schwarzschild-Tangherlini
times $S^1$. Or taking the product of 4D Schwarzschild and
a torus
$S^1 \times S^1$, we get a 6D {\bf black membrane}.
Of course this generalizes:
the product of $n$-dimensional Schwarzschild-Tangherlini
times a $p$-torus gives a {\bf black $p$-brane} in a spacetime with $D=(n+p)$ dimensions. One can
also construct stationary solutions such as a 6D rotating `black cylinder' as the product of a black ring and a circle.
The asymptotically flat black holes we met in 5D generalize to higher dimensions. This includes the Myers-Perry rotating black holes. Consider a $D$-dimensional Myers-Perry black hole with rotation just in one plane. The metric is \cite{Emparan:2003sy}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
ds^2 \,=\,
&
-dt^2
+ \frac{\mu}{r^{D-5} \rho^2} \Big( dt + a\, \sin^2 \theta \, d\phi\Big)^2
+ \big( r^2 + a^2 \big) \sin^2\theta \, d\phi^2 \\
&\,
+ \rho^2 \, d\theta^2
+ r^2 \cos^2\theta\, d\Omega_{D-4}^2
+\frac{\rho^2}{\Delta} \, dr^2\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\rho^2 = r^2 + a^2 \,\cos^2\theta
~~~~~\text{and}~~~~~
\Delta = r^2 + a^2 - \frac{\mu}{r^{D-5}} \,.
\end{equation}
The mass is $M = (D-2) \Omega_{D-2} \mu/(16\pi G_D)$ and the angular momentum is $J=2 M a/(D-2)$. While the angular momentum of the $D=5$ Myers-Perry black hole is bounded from above, it turns out that there is no such bound on the angular momentum for $D>5$: for given mass of the black hole, the angular momentum can be arbitrarily large. In this ultra-spinning limit, the black hole flattens out in the plane of rotation. At some stage it becomes very similar to a thin black membrane and is then expected \cite{Emparan:2003sy} to undergo an instability much like the Gregory-Laflamme instability. In several cases, this instability has been seen numerically. If the instability mode preserves the isometry of the generators of the rotation, then one can imagine that it causes a pinch that splits the rotating spherical black hole into a black ring! Or a black saturn. Or a multi-ring saturn-like system. (Generally, the fewer number of disconnected horizons, the higher the entropy of the system.) One can also imagine that there exist `lumpy' black holes whose horizons are topologically spherical analogous of the inhomogeneous black strings discussed in Section \ref{s:BS}. The possibilities and discussion of the phase diagram can be found in \cite{Emparan:2008eg}.
In $D \ge 5$, there are also black rings and di-rings and bi-rings and saturns; but beyond 5D, no exact solutions are currently known for these.
Black rings (and helical black rings) in $D > 5$
have been constructed using the {\bf blackfold method}
\cite{Emparan:2007wm,Emparan:2009at,Emparan:2009cs,Camps:2012hw}.
(There have also been numerical constructions \cite{Kleihaus:2012xh} of $D > 5$ black rings.)
The blackfold method exploits the fact that black holes in higher dimensions can have more than one characteristic scale. For example, for a black ring, there is one scale associated with the size $R_{S^1}$ of the $S^1$ of the ring and another $R_{S^2}$ with the $S^2$. In the ultra-rotating regime where the ring is thin, the scales are separated $R_{S^2} \ll R_{S^1}$. The blackfold methods exploit such separation of scales to solve the Einstein equations in a matched asymptotic expansion. The method has also been used to construct black holes with more exotic horizon topologies, for example products of odd-spheres. For an overview of possibilities for the horizon topologies in
$4 \le D \le 11$, see table 1 in \cite{Emparan:2009vd}.
So far, we have discussed only black holes in higher-dimensional Einstein vacuum gravity. It is natural to introduce matter fields and also consider charged black holes. This can be done in a general context, but with an aim toward constructing the quantum theory, in the following we will focus on supergravity theory.
\section{Supergravity}
\label{s:super}
Supersymmetry is a symmetry that mixes bosons and fermions. It is the only possible extension of Poincar\'e spacetime symmetry for a unitary theory with non-trivial scattering processes \cite{Coleman:1967ad,Haag:1974qh}. Not only does this make supersymmetry a natural candidate for physics beyond the standard model of particle physics and a beautiful path to the unification of forces, it also provides an extremely powerful tool for understanding gauge theories --- and black holes! The combination of general relativity with supersymmetry
is {\bf supergravity}.
We will briefly introduce the ideas of supersymmetry and supergravity and then
discuss their
impact on our understanding of charged black holes and how it improves the perturbative quantum theory.
\subsection{Supersymmetry}
\label{s:susy}
Let us begin with a simple, but concrete, example of supersymmetry. Consider in 4D flat space the Lagrangian for a 2-component Weyl fermion $\chi$ and
a
complex scalar field $\phi$ interacting via Yukawa terms and a quartic scalar interaction:
\begin{equation}
\label{Lsusy}
\mathcal{L} =
i \chi^\dagger \bar{\sigma}^\mu \partial_\mu \chi
- \partial_\mu \bar\phi \,\partial^\mu \phi
+\tfrac{1}{2} g \, \phi\, \chi \chi + \tfrac{1}{2} g^* \, \bar\phi \, \chi^\dagger \chi^\dagger
- \tfrac{1}{4}|g|^2\, |\phi|^4 \,.
\end{equation}
The bar on $\phi$ denotes the complex conjugate and we have introduced the $2\times 2$ matrices $\sigma^\mu = (1,\sigma^i)$ and $\bar{\sigma}^\mu = (1,-\sigma^i)$, where $\sigma^i$ are the Pauli matrices.
In addition to the usual Poincar\'e symmetry, $\mathcal{L}$ also has a symmetry that mixes the fermions and bosons:
\begin{equation}
\label{susytrInt}
\begin{array}{rclcrcl}
\delta_\epsilon \phi &\!\!\!=\!\!\!& \epsilon^\alpha \chi_\alpha \,,
&&
\delta_\epsilon \bar\phi &\!\!\!=\!\!\!& \epsilon^\dagger_{\dot{\alpha}} \chi^{\dagger{\dot{\alpha}}} \,,\\[1mm]
\delta_\epsilon \chi_\alpha &\!\!\!=\!\!\!& -i \sigma^\mu_{\alpha \dot{\beta}} \, \epsilon^{\dagger \dot{\beta}} \partial_\mu \phi
+ \tfrac{1}{2} g^* {\bar\phi}^2 \epsilon_\alpha\,,
&&
\delta_\epsilon \chi^\dagger_{\dot{\alpha}} &\!\!\!=\!\!\!&
i \partial_\mu \bar\phi\,\epsilon^{\beta} \sigma^\mu_{\beta \dot{\alpha}}
+ \tfrac{1}{2} g \phi^2\,\epsilon^\dagger_{\dot{\alpha}}
\, \,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
This is an example of a {\bf supersymmetry transformation}.
The anti-com\-muting constant spinor $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal supersymmetry parameter (a fermionic analogue of the infinitesimal angle $\theta$ of a rotation transformation).
The anti-commuting conserved Noether supercharges $Q$ and $Q^\dagger$ resulting from supersymmetry give symmetry generators that extend the
Poincar\'e algebra to a graded Lie algebra. The commutator of two supersymmetry transformations is a translation, $[\delta_{\epsilon_1},\delta_{\epsilon_2}] \sim (\epsilon_1^\dagger \sigma^\mu \epsilon_2)\, \partial_\mu$, so this induces the algebra
\begin{equation}
\{ Q^\dagger , Q\} \sim P^\mu\,,~~~~~
\{ Q , Q\} = 0\,,~~~~~
\{ Q^\dagger , Q^\dagger\} = 0\,.
\end{equation}
In addition, one has $[ Q^{(\dagger)}, P^\mu ]= 0$ and
$[ Q, M^{\mu\nu } ] \sim Q$.
In the quantum theory, the fields $\phi$ and $\chi$ in \reef{Lsusy} create a spin-0 or spin-$1/2$ particle from the vacuum, respectively. Since the fields are related by supersymmetry, so are the corresponding particles. The algebra outlined above implies that $P^2 = P_\mu P^\mu$ commutes with the supersymmetry generators, so this means that particles related by supersymmetry --- i.e.~in the same {\bf supermultiplet} --- must have the same mass. In our example \reef{Lsusy}, the boson and fermion are both massless. The supercharges act on a particle with spin $s$ by relating it to a particle with spin $s \pm \tfrac{1}{2}$.
Supersymmetry implies that the number of on-shell bosonic and fermonic degrees of freedom are equal.\footnote{Off-shell counting of bosonic and fermonic degrees of freedom also match by inclusion of auxiliary fields. See for example textbooks such as \cite{Wess:1992cp} and \cite{Freedman:2012zz}.}
In our example \reef{Lsusy},
the complex scalar encodes two real degrees of freedom and the on-shell Weyl fermion
similarly gives
two real degrees of freedom (the positive and negative helicity states of the massless spin-1/2 fermion). Similarly, the two helicity states $\pm1$ of
a
massless vector boson, as a photon or gluon, are matched by the two $\pm1/2$ helicity states of its supersymmetric partner fermion, a photino or gluino.
{\bf Extended supersymmetry} means that one has $\mathcal{N}$ pairs of supersymmetry charges $Q^A, Q_A^\dagger$ with $A=1,2,\dots,\mathcal{N}$. In that case, the supersymmetry algebra allows for the possibility of a central charge extension
$\{ Q_\alpha^A, Q_\beta^B\} \sim \epsilon_{\alpha\beta} Z^{AB}$, where
$Z^{AB}$ is antisymmetric.
The model we described above in \reef{Lsusy} has $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry.
In a supersymmetric theory, we distinguish
the internal `flavor' symmetries that commute with the supersymmetry generators
from
the {\bf R-symmetries} that do not. An $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric theory may have a $U(1)$ R-symmetry, while theories with extended supersymmetry can have non-abelian R-symmetry,
typically $SU(\mathcal{N})$,
that rotates the supercharges among each other.
In a 4D theory with spin no
greater
than 1, the maximal admissible amount of supersymmetry is $\mathcal{N}=4$. The 4D $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric theory turns out to be unique: it is the maximally supersymmetric extension of Yang-Mills theory and it is known as
``{\bf $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory}" (SYM).
Its spectrum of particles consists of
the gluon,
$(\mathcal{N}\!=)4$
spin-1/2 gluinos, and 6 scalars. With the two helicity states of the gluon and the 6 real scalars, this amounts to 8 bosonic degrees of freedom and $4 \times 2= 8$ fermionic degrees of freedom.
$\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM
has truly remarkable properties, for example the beta-function vanishes at all orders in perturbation theory, so there is no running of the gauge coupling. The theory is conformal, meaning that its super-Poincar\'e symmetry is enhanced to the superconformal group $SU(2,2|4)$.
The bosonic part of this group is the 4D conformal group $SU(2,2) \sim SO(4,2)$ and
$SU(4) \sim SO(6)$ R-symmetry. The fermionic part is generated by 16 supersymmetry generators $Q^A$ and $Q_A^\dagger$ and 16 superconformal generators $S^A$ and $S_A^\dagger$.
The $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory plays a key role in many modern developments in high energy physics. The theory can also be obtained by keeping only the massless modes of 10-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ super Yang-Mills theory after Kaluza-Klein reduction on a 6-torus.
Above we introduced supersymmetry in the context of flat Minkowski space and used a constant spinor, $\partial_\mu \epsilon = 0$, as the parameter in the supersymmetry transformations. This is called {\bf global} or {\bf rigid supersymmetry}.
The next possibility to consider is `gauged' supersymmetry, i.e.~{\bf local supersymmetry}, where the supersymmetry parameter depends generally on the local spacetime coordinates, $\epsilon = \epsilon(x)$: the result is {\bf supergravity}.
\subsection{Supergravity}
\label{s:sg}
Supergravity is the wonderful combination of supersymmetry and general relativity. A general feature of supergravity is that the gravitational field $g_{\mu\nu}$ is partnered with a Rarita-Schwinger field $\psi_\mu$; thus the spin-2 graviton is paired with a spin-$3/2$ gravitino. In spacetime dimensions $D=2,3,4$ (mod 8), the gravitino field $\psi_\mu$ can be Majorana
(real),\footnote{In other dimensions, one uses a Dirac or symplectic Majorana spinor; the super\-symmetry trans\-formations \reef{SGtransf} are then modified accordingly to ensure that $\delta_\epsilon e_\mu^a$ is real. For an overview of spinor representations in $D$-dimensions, see Table 3.2 in \cite{Freedman:2012zz}.}
and in these cases the most fundamental structure of supergravity can be described in terms of the following action \cite{Freedman:2012zz}\footnote{Here and henceforth, we use Greek letters $\mu,\nu\,\dots$ for the $D$-dimensional
coordinate frame indices.}
\begin{equation}
\label{SGaction}
S= \frac{1}{16 \pi G_D} \int d^D x \, \sqrt{-g} \, \Big[ R
- \overline{\psi}_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} D_\nu \psi_\rho \Big]\, .
\end{equation}
Here,
$\gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} = \gamma^{[\mu} \gamma^\nu\gamma^{\rho]}$ is the fully antisymmetric product of
three
$\gamma$-matrices of the $D$-dimensional Clifford algebra.
The gravitino covariant derivative,
\begin{equation}
D_\nu \psi_\rho = \partial_\nu \psi_\rho + \frac{1}{4} \omega_{\nu ab} \gamma^{ab} \psi_\rho\,,
\end{equation}
is given in terms of the torsion-free spin-connection $\omega_{\nu ab}$.
(The Christoffel connection is
not needed
because of the contraction with the antisymmetric gamma-matrix.)
Using the vielbein $e^\nu_a$, we have
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\mu}^{ab} = 2 e^{\nu[a} \partial_{[\mu} e_{\nu]}{}^{b]}
- e^{\nu [a} e^{b]\rho} e_{\mu c} \partial_\nu e_\rho{}^c\,.
\end{equation}
Consider the local supersymmetry transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{SGtransf}
\delta_\epsilon e_\mu^a = \frac{1}{2} \bar{\epsilon} \gamma^a \psi_\mu\,,
\hspace{1cm}
\delta_\epsilon \psi_\mu = D_\mu \epsilon \,.
\end{equation}
It is instructive to outline how \reef{SGtransf} acts on the action \reef{SGaction}; for full detail, see \cite{Freedman:2012zz}. First, recalling the derivation of Einstein's equation from the action principle, we are familiar with the result of varying the Einstein-Hilbert part of the action:
\begin{equation}
\delta_\epsilon \Big( \sqrt{-g} \, R\Big) ~\to~
\sqrt{-g} \,\Big(R _{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R\Big)
\big(-\bar{\epsilon}\, \gamma^\mu \psi^\nu\big)\,.
\label{delEH}
\end{equation}
Next, the variation of the spinors in the spin-3/2 kinetic term
gives
--- after partial integration and careful tracking of the order of the fermion fields --- a term proportional to $\gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} D_\mu D_\nu \psi_\rho$. Antisymmetrization of the Lorentz-indices on the covariant derivatives
allows
us to replace $[D_\mu, D_\nu]$ with the Riemann curvature tensor; explicitly we have, at linear order in the gravitino field,
\begin{equation}
\delta_\epsilon \Big(
-\sqrt{-g}\,\overline{\psi}_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} D_\nu \psi_\rho \Big)
\Big|_{\text{lin.}\,\psi}
~\to~
\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{-g} \,\bar{\epsilon} \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \gamma^{ab}
R_{\mu\nu ab} \psi_\rho\,.
\end{equation}
Now the product of gamma-matrices can be expanded on a basis of rank $r=1,3, 5$ antisymmetric products of gamma-matrices $\gamma^{\rho_1 \dots \rho_r}=\gamma^{[\rho_1} \cdots \gamma^{\rho_r]}$.
Upon contraction with the Riemann tensor, the rank-5 term
$\gamma^{\rho \mu\nu ab}R_{\mu\nu ab}$ vanishes thanks to the Bianchi identity. The rank-3 terms vanish as a result of application of the Bianchi identity and the symmetry properties of the Ricci tensor. Finally, one is left with two rank-1 contributions:
\begin{equation}
\delta_\epsilon \Big(
-\sqrt{-g}\,\overline{\psi}_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} D_\nu \psi_\rho \Big)
\Big|_{\text{lin.}\,\psi}
~\to~
\sqrt{-g} \,\Big(R _{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R\Big)
\big(\bar{\epsilon}\, \gamma^\mu \psi^\nu\big)\,.
\label{SGvarF}
\end{equation}
This cancels the variation of the Einstein-Hilbert term \reef{delEH} and we therefore see that the action \reef{SGaction} is invariant under the supersymmetry transformation \reef{SGtransf} to
{\em linear order in the fermions}. The cancellation of the variations \reef{delEH} and \reef{SGvarF} was first demonstrated in \cite{Freedman:1976xh}.
It is remarkable how the proof of linearized supersymmetry relies on a delicate interplay between fundamental identities: the commutator of covariant derivatives in Riemannian geometry, spin and the Clifford algebra, and Fermi-statistics and its connection to the anti-commutation of the fields without which the Majorana gravitino kinetic term would be a total derivative.
Invariance at non-linear order is dimension dependent and can require additional fields and other terms in the action.
For minimal $\mathcal{N}\!=\!1$ supergravity in 4D,
no other fields are needed, but the action \reef{SGaction} must be supplemented by terms quartic in the gravitino field \cite{Freedman:1976xh}.
Local supersymmetry was also demonstrated in \cite{Deser:1976eh}.
As with global supersymmetry, there is an equal number of fermionic and bosonic on-shell degrees of freedom in supergravity theories.
Massless particles in $D$-dimensional spacetime are characterized by the irreducible representations of the `little group' $SO(D-2)$ (the part of the Lorentz group that leaves the
null
momentum vector invariant). The graviton is symmetric and traceless, so that amounts to $D(D-3)/2$ bosonic degrees of freedom; this is
the same counting as the number of independent polarizations of a gravitational wave in $D$-dimensions, as discussed early in Section \ref{s:Ddim}. A Majorana gravitino in the vector-spinor representation of $SO(D-2)$ has $(D-3)2^{\lfloor (D-2)/2 \rfloor}$ degrees of freedom.
So for $D=4$, the graviton and the Majorana gravitino each have 2 degrees of freedom and hence the
\mbox{$\mathcal{N}\!=\!1$}
supergravity multiplet in 4D consists precisely of the graviton and the gravitino.
One can couple other fields to supergravity as `matter' supermultiplets. For example in 4D we can add to the $\mathcal{N}\!=\!1$ supergravity action
$N_v$ copies of
$\mathcal{N}\!=\!1$ vector multiplets (consisting of a gauge boson and its gaugino partner) or
$N_\chi$ copies of
$\mathcal{N}\!=\!1$ chiral multiplets (1 spin-1/2 fermion and 1 complex scalar) while preserving $\mathcal{N}\!=\!1$ supersymmetry. If a model has only the supergravity multiplet and no matter multiplets, we call it {\bf pure supergravity}.
Next, consider extended supergravity,
i.e.~supergravity theories with more than one gravitino field.
The $D=4$, $\mathcal{N}\!=\!2$ pure supergravity theory \cite{Ferrara:1976fu} has
2 bosonic degrees of freedom for the graviton, $2 \times 2$ fermionic degrees of freedom from the two gravitinos, and finally 2 more bosonic degrees of freedom from a spin-1 graviphoton. One can couple
to it
extra $\mathcal{N}\!=\!2$ vector supermultiplets (1 gauge boson, 2 gauginos, 1 complex scalar) and still preserve $\mathcal{N}\!=\!2$ supersymmetry of the full action.
We will be describing black holes in higher dimensions, so let us next consider supergravity in five dimensions. The on-shell 5D graviton has 5 degrees of freedom. There is no
spinor
representation that can match this, so in 5D we cannot have a simple $\mathcal{N}\!=\!1$ supergravity multiplet consisting of just a graviton and a gravitino. Instead, we can take the gravitino to be a symplectic Majorana spinor with $2\times 4$ degrees of freedom and include a graviphoton with 3 degrees of freedom in the on-shell supermultiplet. This is the field content of minimal supergravity theory in 5D and it has $\mathcal{N}\!=\!2$ supersymmetry \cite{Hawking:1981bu}.
The bosonic action for minimal supergravity in 5D is not just Einstein-Maxwell theory, but also has a Chern-Simons term $A \wedge F \wedge F$.
For a theory whose highest spin particle is the spin-2 graviton,\footnote{Theories with states of spin higher than 2 have been constructed in anti-de-Sitter space (AdS), see \cite{Fronsdal:1978rb}, \cite{Fradkin:1986qy} and the newer review \cite{Vasiliev:1999ba}. This is particular interesting in connection with the gauge-gravity duality, see for example \cite{Klebanov:2002ja} and \cite{Gaberdiel:2010pz}.} the maximal amount of supersymmetry allowed in 4D is $\mathcal{N}=8$.
This is easy to see by working down from the highest helicity state of $+2$ and reducing the helicity by 1/2 at each application of the supersymmetry charge.
After application of $\mathcal{N}=8$ supercharges, one reaches the helicity $-2$ state of the graviton. Thus having more than 8-fold supersymmetry would give states with spin higher than 2 in 4D.
$\mathcal{N}\!=\!8$ supersymmetry in 4D gives a uniquely determined supergravity theory, simply called
`{\bf $\mathcal{N}\!=\!8$ supergravity}'.
Its spectrum
of $2^8=256$ massless states is organized into fully antisymmetric rank $r$ representations of the global $SU(8)$ R-symmetry: the two states of the graviton, 8 pairs of gravitinos, 28 pairs of graviphotons, 56 pairs of spin-1/2 gravi-photinos, and 70 scalars.
Supergravity with
a
spin-2 graviton as the highest spin state exists in dimensions $D \le 11$. To see how the bound
on the spacetime dimension
arises, start in $D=11$ where the minimal spinor is a 32-component Majorana spinor. Upon dimensional reduction on a 7-torus, an 11D Majorana gravitino gives eight Majorana gravitinos in 4D. Indeed, the dimensional reduction of 11D supergravity on a 7-torus is
$\mathcal{N}\!=\!8$ supergravity theory in 4D.
The minimal spinor representation in $D>11$ has more than 32 components (e.g.~for $D=12$ it is 64), so starting with a gravitino in $D>11$ and reducing toroidally to 4D gives $\mathcal{N}>8$ gravitinos in 4D. If this were a 4D supergravity theory, it would have states with spin greater than 2. Thus we conclude that we cannot have supergravity in $D>11$.
In $D=11$, the gravitational field $g_{\mu\nu}$ encodes 44
on-shell
degrees of freedom. The 11D gravitino is a Majorana spinor in the vector-spinor representation, so it has 128 degrees of freedom. Matching the fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom requires an antisymmetric 3-form field $A^{(3)}_{\mu\nu\rho}$: it precisely contains the needed 84 bosonic degrees of freedom. The 11D supergravity theory is unique and the bosonic part of the action is \cite{Cremmer:1978km}
\begin{equation}\label{sugra11D}
S = \frac{1}{16 \pi G_{11}}
\int d^{11}x\, \bigg[\sqrt{-g}\Big( R
- \frac{1}{4!} F^{(4)}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F^{(4)\,\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \Big)
- \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} A^{(3)} \wedge F^{(4)} \wedge F^{(4)} \bigg]\,,
\end{equation}
where $F^{(4)}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ are the components of the 4-form field strength $F^{(4)}=dA^{(3)}$. The Chern-Simons term is needed for supersymmetry. The fermionic terms include the standard kinetic gravitino
term
of \reef{SGaction}, but also terms coupling the gravitinos to $F^{(4)}$. The 3-form potential $A^{(3)}$ naturally encodes the electric charge of a membrane in 11 dimensions; its electric charge is captured by Gauss' law $Q_\text{E} \propto \int_{S^7} \star F^{(4)}$, where $\star$ indicate the 11D Hodge dual and the $S^7$ is transverse to the membrane. Similarly,
$Q_\text{M} \propto\int_{S^4} F^{(4)}$ calculates the magnetic charge of an object extended in 5-spatial directions in 11D. Thus, the fundamental objects carrying electric and magnetic charges in 11D supergravity are 2-branes and 5-branes: they are called
M2-
and M5-branes and we will meet them again later in our discussion of
string theory and M-theory in Section \ref{s:strings}.
There are two distinct $\mathcal{N}\!=\!2$ supergravity theories in 10D: they are called Type IIA and Type IIB and differ by whether the supersymmetry generators have different chirality (Type IIA) or the same chirality (Type IIB). Type IIA
can be
obtained as the Kaluza-Klein reduction of 11D supergravity on a circle. Both Type IIA and Type IIB supergravity contain an antisymmetric 2-form potential $B_{\mu\nu}$. The objects that are electrically charged, $Q_\text{E} \propto \int_{S^7} \star H$, under the corresponding 3-form flux $H=dB$ are 1-dimensional: they are strings!
Indeed, it turns out that the Type II supergravity theories are low-energy limits of superstring theories with $\mathcal{N}\!=\!2$ supersymmetry.
Upon Kaluza-Klein compactification of the 11D supergravity theory to lower dimensions, one obtains many other interesting $D$-dimensional supergravity theories. For example, the 5D minimal $\mathcal{N}\!=\!2$ supergravity theory described above is a certain truncation of 11D supergravity on a 6-torus.
And,
as noted earlier,
$\mathcal{N}\!=\!8$ supergravity in 4D arises from 11D supergravity by reduction on a 7-torus.
In contemporary applications, compactifications of 11D supergravity, or 10D Type IIA/IIB supergravity, on curved manifolds
are
very important. When a Kaluza-Klein reduction of supergravity is performed on a manifold with positive curvature, such as a $p$-sphere $S^p$, the resulting lower-dimensional theory is `gauged' supergravity.
One can think of the `gauging' as having the gravitinos charged under the gauge fields. Gauged supergravity typically comes with a non-trivial scalar potential --- or in the simplest cases a negative cosmological constant. Whereas Minkowski space is the simplest `vacuum' solution for ungauged supergravity, anti-de-Sitter space (AdS) is a simplest solution in gauged supergravity. As an example, Type IIB supergravity on an $S^5$ gives a 5D gauged supergravity theory \cite{Gunaydin:1984qu} that plays a central role in studies of the gauge-gravity duality. We discuss this further in Section \ref{s:adscft}.
\subsection{Charged black holes, BPS bounds, and Killing spinors}
\label{s:bps}
In Section \ref{s:Ddim} we discussed higher-dimensional black holes as solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations. It is very interesting to study classical solutions in supergravity, in particularly those
with
special supersymmetric properties, as we now describe.
Denoting generic bosonic and fermonic fields by $B$ and $F$, supersymmetry transformations generically take the schematic form \cite{Freedman:2012zz}
\begin{equation}
\delta_\epsilon B = \bar{\epsilon}\, f(B)\, F + O(F^3)
\,,
~~~~~\text{and}~~~~~
\delta_\epsilon F = g(B)\,\epsilon + O(F^2) \,,
\label{susyFB}
\end{equation}
where $f$ and $g$ are functions of the bosonic fields
and their derivatives.
We are interested in classical solutions (of the supergravity equations of motion) that the supersymmetry transformations \reef{susyFB} leave invariant.
Typically, we consider solutions that only have non-trivial bosonic fields, i.e.~all the fermion fields are set to zero, $F=0$.
Since the supersymmetry variation of bosons \reef{susyFB} are proportional to the fermion fields, they automatically vanish, $\delta_\epsilon B=0$, on a purely bosonic solution. On the other hand, we get non-trivial constraints from the condition
that fermion variations vanish, $\delta_\epsilon F=0$. In the simplest form \reef{SGtransf}, the constraint is $0 = \delta_\epsilon \psi_\mu = D_\mu \epsilon$, so it requires the existence of a covariantly constant spinor $\epsilon$. More generally, there will be other fields involved in the condition $\delta_\epsilon F = 0$;
we will see examples shortly.
The spinors that solve the constraints arising from setting the supersymmetry variations of the fermion fields to zero are called {\bf Killing spinors}. If a classical solution has $n$ parameters characterizing its Killing spinors,
it is said to preserve $n$
supersymmetries.
The existence of Killing spinors
has
important implications. For example, the bispinor products of Killing spinors $\bar \epsilon_1 \gamma^\mu \epsilon_2$ are Killing vectors associated with the ordinary (bosonic) symmetries of the spacetime solution.
And very importantly, the Killing spinor equations imply a set of first order equations consistent with the equations of a motion, making it easier to find exact solutions.
Another important implication is that the existence of Killing spinors implies that certain energy bounds are saturated. These are called BPS bounds after Bogomol'nyi, Prasad, and Sommerfield \cite{Bogomolny:1975de,Prasad:1975kr}.
Thus solutions with Killing spinors are often called {\bf BPS solutions}.
As a simple example, Witten's proof of the positive energy theorem \cite{Witten:1981mf} shows that the ADM mass is positive $M \ge 0$ with equality precisely when there exists a covariantly constant spinor, $D_\mu \epsilon = 0$. In particular, Minkowski space has a covariantly constant Killing spinor
and obviously it has $M=0$. It is a BPS solution
in pure $\mathcal{N}=1$ supergravity.
Pure $\mathcal{N}=1$ {\em gauged} supergravity in 4D has a negative cosmological constant $\Lambda = -3/L^2$ and the Killing spinor equation is
\begin{equation}
0 = \delta_\epsilon \psi_\mu = D_\mu \epsilon - \frac{1}{2L} \,\gamma_\mu \epsilon \,.
\end{equation}
Four-dimensional anti-de-Sitter space (AdS$_4$)
admits such a Killing spinor, so AdS
with radius $L$
is a BPS solution in gauged supergravity.
Recall from Section \ref{s:sg} that the bosonic sector in pure $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity in 4D consists of the gravitational
field $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the graviphoton field $A_\mu$. The purely bosonic part of the action turns out to be Einstein-Maxwell theory. The vanishing of the supersymmetry transformation of the gravitino fields in this theory gives a Killing spinor equation of the form\footnote{Here we are setting $G_4 =1$ for simplicity.}
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}_\mu \epsilon
\,\equiv\, D_\mu \epsilon
- \tfrac{1}{4} F_{\nu\rho} \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma_\mu \epsilon
\,= \,0\,.
\end{equation}
An argument similar to Witten's \cite{Witten:1981mf} shows that the mass $M$ and electric and magnetic charges, $Q$ and $P$, of
regular
solutions to the equations of motion of $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity in 4D satisfy the bound \cite{Gibbons:1982fy}
\begin{equation}
M \ge \big( Q^2 + P^2\big)^{1/2} \,.
\label{MQP}
\end{equation}
Equality holds precisely when the solution admits a Killing spinor $\hat{D}_\mu \epsilon =0$.
The bound \reef{MQP} looks very familiar: it is precisely the bound the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole must satisfy in order to have a smooth horizon! Thus, the {\em extremal Reissner-Nordstrom black hole is a BPS solution of $\mathcal{N}\!=\!2$ supergravity in 4D}.
The temperature of the extremal Reissner-Nordstrom black hole is zero. However, extremality in the sense of zero temperature --- or coinciding inner and outer horizons --- does not necessarily mean that the solution is BPS. For example, the extremal Kerr black hole is not BPS: without an electromagnetic charge,
a
solution with $M>0$ cannot saturate the BPS bound \reef{MQP} and hence it does not admit a Killing spinor. Similarly, no Kerr-Newman black hole with $J \ne 0$ saturates the bound \reef{MQP}.
Hence, there are no asymptotically flat rotating BPS black holes in 4D ungauged supergravity.
Given our discussion in Section \ref{s:D5BHs} of vacuum solutions describing black holes and black rings in 5D, it is natural to ask if they have charged cousins. For simplicity, we first answer this question in the context of minimal 5D supergravity (described briefly in Section \ref{s:sg}) and then generalize. In 5D, the equivalent of the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole is a static, charged black hole with a round $S^3$ horizon. In its simplest form, it is an electrically charged solution of the equations of motion in minimal 5D supergravity. It has an extremal limit in which the inner and outer horizon coincide; in this limit, the solution is supersymmetric and saturates the appropriate 5D BPS bound $M \ge \tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2} Q$ \cite{Gibbons:1993xt}.
The 5D version of the Kerr-Newman solution is a charged version of the Myers-Perry black hole described in Section \ref{s:D5BHs}. It can have angular momenta $J_1$ and $J_2$ in both the two independent planes of 5D spacetime. The solution was first constructed in \cite{Cvetic:1996xz} and, in its simplest version, it is a solution to minimal 5D supergravity. The BPS limit of this charged rotating black hole is called the BMPV black hole \cite{Breckenridge:1996is}. The BMPV black hole has $M = \tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2} Q$ and
--- unlike in 4D --- it can still carry angular momentum provided that the magnitudes are the same in the two planes of rotation, $|J_1|=|J_2|$.
Black rings can also carry charges \cite{Elvang:2003yy} and they have limits in which they are BPS solutions. BPS black rings were first constructed as exact solutions in minimal 5D supergravity \cite{Elvang:2004rt}. These
BPS rings have $M = \tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2} Q$, but --- contrary to the BMPV
black holes --- the angular momentum $J_1$ in the plane of the ring must be strictly greater than the angular momentum of the $S^2$ (the orthogonal plane): $|J_1|>|J_2|$.
Charged
black rings
have a new feature: they carry a non-conserved `dipole' charge \cite{Elvang:2003yy,Elvang:2004rt} associated with application of Gauss' law with an $S^2$ surrounding a piece of the ring. This measures a string-like charge density along the $S^1$ of the black ring; since this ring is a contractible circle, the `dipole' charge is not conserved, but it impacts the solution non-trivially and is required for smoothness of the horizon.
The BMPV black hole and the charged black rings described above have a natural generalization \cite{Breckenridge:1996is,Bena:2004de,Elvang:2004ds,Gauntlett:2004qy} in which they carry conserved charges of 3 distinct gauge fields of a 5D supergravity theory obtained from reduction of Type IIB supergravity in 10D on a 5-torus. The `minimal' solutions are recovered in the limit where the three charges are equal.
The BPS black holes with three different charges play a key role in Section \ref{s:strings} when we discuss how string theory offers a precise microscopic account of black hole entropy.
\subsection{Perturbative quantum gravity}
\label{s:perturbative}
The focus of
this section is
on
the application of standard quantum field theory in flat spacetime to scattering of gravitons, the spin-2 particles associated with the quantization of the gravitational field $g_{\mu\nu}$. More precisely, we expand the gravitational field around a flat space background: $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \kappa h_{\mu\nu}$, where $\kappa^2 = 8\pi G_D$.
The fluctuating field $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the {\bf graviton field}.
Consider pure gravity without matter and expand the Einstein-Hilbert action in powers of $\kappa h_{\mu\nu}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
S_\text{EH}
&= \frac{1}{2\kappa^2} \int d^D x \,\sqrt{-g}\, R
\\
&= \int d^D x \,
\Big[
h \partial^2 h + \kappa \,h^2 \partial^2 h
+ \kappa^2 \,h^3 \partial^2 h
+ \kappa^3 \,h^4 \partial^2 h + \dots
\Big]\,.
\end{split}
\label{EHaction2}
\end{equation}
Since the Ricci-scalar $R$ involves two derivatives, every term in the expansion has two derivatives. There are infinitely many terms, with increasingly delightful assortments of index-structures; in \reef{EHaction2} we have written them schematically as $h^{n-1}\partial^2 h$. There are no mass terms in \reef{EHaction2}, so the particles associated with quantization of the gravitational field $h_{\mu\nu}$ are massless: they have spin-2 and are the {\bf gravitons}.
It is interesting to study graviton scattering processes, but we have to gauge fix the action \reef{EHaction2} before extracting the Feynman rules. A standard choice is {\bf de Donder gauge}, $\partial^\mu h_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2} \partial_\nu h_\mu{}^\mu$, which brings the quadratic terms in the action to the form
\begin{equation}
h \partial^2 h
~\to~
-\frac{1}{2} h_{\mu\nu} \Box h^{\mu\nu}
+ \frac{1}{4} h_{\mu}{}^\mu \Box h_\nu{}^\nu \,.
\end{equation}
The propagator resulting from these quadratic terms is
\begin{equation}
P_{\mu_1 \nu_1, \mu_2 \nu_2}
= -\frac{i}{2}
\Big(
\eta_{\mu_1\mu_2} \,\eta_{\nu_1\nu_2}
+\eta_{\mu_1\nu_2} \,\eta_{\nu_1\mu_2}
- \frac{2}{D-2} \, \eta_{\mu_1 \nu_1}\, \eta_{\mu_2 \nu_2}
\Big)
\frac{1}{\,\,k^2}\,.
\label{dedonder}
\end{equation}
The external lines in graviton Feynman diagrams have two Lorentz-indices that must be contracted with graviton polarization vectors. In 4D, the polarizations encode the two helicity $h=\pm 2$ physical graviton states. They can be constructed as products of
spin-1 photon polarization vectors
$\epsilon^\mu_\pm(p_i)$. Picking a basis where $\epsilon^\mu_\pm(p_i)^2 = 0$, the graviton polarizations
\begin{equation}
e_-^{\mu\nu}(p_i) = \epsilon^\mu_-(p_i) \epsilon^\nu_-(p_i) \,,
\hspace{1cm}
e_+^{\mu\nu}(p_i) = \epsilon^\mu_+(p_i) \epsilon^\nu_+(p_i) \,.
\label{gravpol}
\end{equation}
are automatically symmetric and traceless.
The infinite set of 2-derivative interaction terms $h^{n-1} \partial^2 h$ yield complicated Feynman rules for $n$-graviton vertices for {\em any} $n=3,4,5,\dots$. Together with the 3-term de Donder propagator \reef{dedonder}, this is a clear indication that calculation of tree-level graviton scattering amplitudes from Feynman diagrams is highly non-trivial.
Nonetheless, it turns out that the final result for the on-shell amplitudes can be written in a relatively simple form (for an overview, see \cite{Elvang:2013cua}). In fact, there is an interesting relationship between tree-level graviton amplitudes and gluon amplitudes in Yang-Mills theory. For the case of 4-particle amplitudes this relationship is
\begin{equation}
M^\text{tree}_4(1234)
=~ -
s \,A^\text{tree}_4[1234] \,A^\text{tree}_4[1243] \,,
\label{KLT4}
\end{equation}
where $M^\text{tree}_n$ denotes a tree
$n$-graviton
amplitude and $A_n^\text{tree}$ a (color-ordered) tree
$n$-gluon
amplitude.
The prefactor is the kinematic invariant Mandelstam variable
$s= - (p_1 + p_2)_\mu(p_1 + p_2)^\mu$.
In four dimensions, the relation between the scattering states in \reef{KLT4} is
\begin{equation}
\text{graviton}^{\pm 2}(p_i)
= \text{gluon}^{\pm 1}(p_i) \otimes \text{gluon}^{\pm 1}(p_i) \,,
\label{gravglue}
\end{equation}
where $\pm$ indicates the helicity state.
There are similar (although somewhat more involved, see Appendix A of \cite{Bern:1998sv}) expressions for $M^\text{tree}_n$ in terms of sums of products of two $A_n^\text{tree}$ for all $n$. These are called the {\bf KLT relations} after Kawai, Lewellen and Tye \cite{Kawai:1985xq} who first derived such relations between closed and open string amplitudes; the field theory relations, such as \reef{KLT4}, are obtained in the limit where the string tension goes to infinity and the string behaves as a point particle. We discuss string theory in Section \ref{s:strings}.
From the point of view of the
Lagrangian \reef{EHaction2}, the KLT relations are
very
surprising. Field redefinitions and clever gauge choices can bring the Feynman rules into a KLT-like form; see \cite{Bern:1999ji,Bern:2000mf,Siegel:1993xq} and the review \cite{Bern:2002kj}. More recently, another form of the relation between gravity and gauge theory amplitudes has been found: it is known as {\bf BCJ duality relations}, named after Bern, Carrasco, and Johansson \cite{BCJ}. Contrary to the KLT relations, the BCJ relations can also be applied at loop-level; not only do they offer a powerful alternative to the gravitational Feynman rules, they also hint at a possible deeper structure in perturbative gravity. The study of the surprisingly rich and enticing mathematical structure of scattering amplitudes in both Yang-Mills theory and in gravity is currently an exciting area of research (see for example \cite{ArkaniHamed:2012nw,Elvang:2013cua}).
Let us now discuss the behavior of graviton loop amplitudes in the high-energy (ultraviolet, UV) limit. Consider for example a 1-loop diagram with $m$ external gravitons and only cubic interactions. The numerator of the loop-integrand can have up to $2m$ powers of momenta, since each graviton interaction vertex has two derivatives, and with $m$ propagators, this naively gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{gravity 1-loop diagram}
\sim
\int^\Lambda d^4 k \,\frac{(k^2)^m}{(k^2)^m}
\sim
\Lambda^4 \,.
\label{mgon}
\end{eqnarray}
This is power-divergent as the UV cutoff $\Lambda$ is taken to $\infty$ for all $m$. On the other hand, for Yang-Mills theory, the interactions are at most 1-derivative, so the
integral
\reef{mgon}
(now with $m$ external gluons)
has at most $k^m$ in the numerator, and hence it is manifestly UV finite for $m>4$.
However, the power-counting is too naive. There can be cancellations within each diagram. Moreover, individual Feynman diagrams should not necessarily be taken too seriously since they are not gauge invariant. So cancellations of
{\bf UV divergences} can take place in the sum of diagrams, rendering the on-shell amplitude better behaved than naive power-counting indicates.
Actually, pure gravity in 4D is
finite at 1-loop order \cite{'tHooft:1974bx}: all the 1-loop UV divergences cancel!
This is can be seen from the fact that the only viable 1-loop counterterm in pure gravity in 4D must be quadratic in the Ricci tensor, but by a field redefinition such a term can be completed to the Gauss-Bonnet term which is a total derivative.
At 2-loop order, pure gravity indeed has a divergence \cite{Goroff:1985sz,vandeVen:1991gw}. In Yang-Mills theory, divergences are treated with the procedure of renormalization. However, in gravity, it would take an infinite set of local counterterms to absorb the divergences and hence the result is unpredictable: pure gravity is a non-renormalizable theory.
From the point of view of renormalization, the theory described by the Einstein-Hilbert action is naturally regarded as an {\bf effective field theory} that cannot be extrapolated to arbitrarily high energy.
To see this, note that the 4D gravitational coupling $\kappa \sim G_4^{1/2}$ has dimension of (mass)$^{-1}$. Perturbative calculations rely on an expansion in the small dimensionless coupling $E \kappa$, where $E$ is the energy scale of the scattering process. Thus, perturbation theory is only valid at energies much smaller than $G_4^{-1/2} \sim M_\text{Planck} \sim 10^{19}$\,GeV. In other words, perturbation breaks down at high energies and from this point of view Einstein gravity is an effective field theory.
As a classical effective field theory, general relativity is hugely successful and captures classical gravitational phenomena stunningly as shown by experimental tests.
Viewing gravity as an effective theory, we can study the perturbative amplitudes. The tree-level amplitudes capture the classical physics and there are no UV divergences to worry about. Could we imagine adding matter fields to cure the 2-loop divergence in pure gravity? Gravity with generic matter is 1-loop divergent \cite{'tHooft:1974bx,Deser:1974cz}, but it turns out that any 4D theory of pure ungauged supergravity is finite at 1- and 2-loop order \cite{Grisaru:1976ua,Grisaru:1976nn,Tomboulis:1977wd,Deser:1977nt}. {\it Supersymmetry helps to tame the UV divergences.} This is
in part
due to cancellations between the boson and fermion loops.
To date, only one explicit example of a UV divergence has been calculated in an amplitude in a pure ungauged supergravity theory in 4D, namely at 4-loop order in $\mathcal{N}=4$ supergravity \cite{Bern:2013uka}.
It has been proposed \cite{Bern:2006kd} that maximal supergravity, $\mathcal{N}=8$, in 4D could perhaps be ultraviolet finite. Explicit calculations \cite{Bern:2006kd,Bern:2007hh,Bern:2008pv,Bern:2009kd,Bern:2010tq} have demonstrated finiteness of 4-graviton amplitudes up to and including
4-loop order,
while symmetry arguments have established that no divergences can occur until 7-loop order \cite{Elvang:2010jv,Drummond:2010fp,Elvang:2010kc,Beisert:2010jx,Green:2008bf}.
This can also be analyzed using superspace methods, see \cite{Bossard:2011tq} and references therein.
The known symmetries do not constrain the divergences past 7-loop order, so it seems that UV finiteness would require the theory to have some hitherto hidden structure. Perhaps the relationships with Yang-Mills theory can clarify this.
From a field theory perspective, gravity needs a suitable UV completion, i.e.~another theory that reduces to general relativity in the low-energy limit. This is true for several reasons.
First, as we have just discussed, perturbation theory breaks down at high energies. Second, even if each order in a supergravity perturbation theory were UV finite, the perturbation series is not likely convergent; hence non-perturbative information is needed for a complete theory. Finally, the UV completion is also needed in order to make sense of microscopic quantum properties of non-perturbative objects such as black holes. A very successful candidate for such a UV complete theory of quantum gravity is string theory, which is the subject of our next section.
\section{String theory}
\label{s:strings}
String theory combines the ideas of the previous two sections (higher dimensions and supersymmetry) and reduces to supergravity in a
low-energy limit. In this section we give an overview of string theory, focussing on gravitational aspects of this large subject.\footnote{For an introduction to string theory, see \cite{Zwiebach:2004tj}. More complete references include \cite{Polchinski:1998rq,Becker:2007zj}.} We will see that it has many remarkable properties, including providing a theory of black hole microstates which reproduce both the Hawking-Bekenstein entropy and Hawking radiation.
\subsection{Perturbative string theory}
String theory starts with the idea that
particles are not really point-like, but excitations of a one-dimensional string. The string can be closed (topologically a circle) or open (a line segment). For now, we will focus on closed strings.
As a string travels through spacetime,
it traces out a two-dimensional worldsheet.
To describe the dynamics of this worldsheet, we introduce local coordinates $(\sigma,\tau)$ on the worldsheet and $X^\mu$ on spacetime, so the position of the worldsheet is given by $X^\mu(\sigma,\tau)$. If we introduce a nondynamical worldsheet metric $\gamma_{ab}$, then the string action can be written as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{polyakov}
S[X^\mu,\gamma_{ab}] = {1\over 4\pi \ell^2_s} \int d\tau d\sigma \sqrt{-\gamma} \gamma^{ab}\partial_a X^\mu \partial_b X^\nu g_{\mu\nu}\,.
\end{equation}
Here,
$\ell_s$ is a new length scale in string theory (called the ``string length") which determines the string tension $T = 1/(2\pi \ell_s^2)$. The worldsheet metric $\gamma_{ab}$ is essentially ``pure gauge" since $S$ is invariant under both worldsheet diffeomorphisms and Weyl rescalings. One can remove it by solving its equation of motion $\delta S /\delta \gamma_{ab} = 0$ to find that $\gamma_{ab} $ is proportional to the induced metric on the worldsheet. Substituting this back into $S$ reduces the action to just the area of the induced metric. In other words, the worldsheet must be an extremal surface. This is a useful way to picture the motion of classical strings, but to quantize the string in flat spacetime, it is much more convenient to work with (\ref{polyakov}), since it is quadratic in the dynamical fields $X^\mu$.
There are several different approaches to quantize this string (e.g. light cone gauge or covariant quantization) which differ in how one treats the gauge freedom, but they all agree on the physical results. The first thing one discovers is that the theory is only consistent in 26 spacetime dimensions. This surprising result arises in different ways depending on the approach one uses to quantize the string. If one completely fixes the gauge by going to a light cone gauge, one breaks manifest Lorentz invariance. Lorentz invariance is recovered only in $D=26$. In a covariant quantization, there are negative norm states created by the operators associated with $X^0(\sigma,\tau)$. These states are removed by constraints (associated with the gauge invariance) in $D=26$.
The physical spectrum of this bosonic string includes a scalar tachyon with $m^2 < 0$. The existence of this tachyon
shows
that 26-dimensional Minkowski space is unstable in this theory. Although it is possible that this theory has a stable ground state, it has never been found. Instead, one proceeds by adding fermions, $\psi^\mu$, to the worldsheet and makes the two-dimensional theory supersymmetric. Quantizing this superstring in flat spacetime, one now finds that it is consistent in ten spacetime dimensions.
The $D=10$ spectrum is now tachyon-free and consists of the following massless bosonic modes: a symmetric traceless ``graviton" $h_{\mu\nu}$, a scalar ``dilaton" $\phi$, an antisymmetric ``Kalb-Ramond" field $B_{\mu\nu}$, and some ``Ramond-Ramond" fields $F_{\mu \cdots \nu}$ which are higher rank generalizations of a Maxwell field. In addition, there
is
an infinite tower of higher mass and higher spin states. Finally, there are fermionic partners for each of these bosonic states so that the complete spectrum is invariant under spacetime supersymmetry. Note that we only impose worldsheet supersymmetry, but nevertheless, the spacetime spectrum turns out to be supersymmetric.\footnote{This involves imposing a consistency condition known as the GSO projection \cite{GSO}.} At large mass, the spectrum is highly degenerate, with an entropy proportional to the mass. This can be understood by thinking of a highly excited string as a random walk on a discrete grid, made up of segments of length $\ell_s$. Due to the tension, a string with $n$ segments has mass $M \sim n/\ell_s$. If the string can move in $p$ directions at each step, then the total number of configurations is\footnote{It is actually slightly less than this if we require the string to return to its starting point and form a closed loop, but this correction is subleading at large mass.} $p^n$, so the entropy is $S = n \log p \sim M\ell_s$.
The existence of the graviton is the first indication that a theory of strings has something to do with gravity. Much stronger evidence comes from quantizing the string in a static curved spacetime. As we have said, the action (\ref{polyakov}) is classically invariant under rescaling $\gamma_{ab}$, but quantum mechanically there is a conformal anomaly. To calculate this anomaly, one analytically continues the spacetime and worldsheet metrics to Euclidean
signature\footnote{To evaluate a path integral, one often analytically continues to Euclidean space to convert the oscillating integrand into a convergent integral.},
and expands $g_{\mu\nu}(X)$ in Riemann normal coordinates about a point $X_0$. The anomaly can then be computed perturbatively in powers of $\ell_s/L$ where $L$ is a typical length scale of the curvature. To leading order, the conformal anomaly vanishes if the spacetime satisfies Einstein's equation: $R_{\mu\nu} = 0$. If one couples the string to other background fields corresponding to other massless bosonic modes of the string, one recovers the equations of supergravity \cite{Callan:1985ia}.
This is an important point: {\it in string theory, the full classical equations of motion for the spacetime fields come from demanding conformal invariance of the quantized worldsheet theory.} It is a remarkable and deep fact about string theory that Einstein's equation arises as a condition on the background fields (which are like coupling constants) in a
two-dimensional
quantum field theory.
In general, these equations receive higher order corrections involving higher derivative terms, but they are usually negligible unless the curvature is of order the string scale. Thus general relativity (or supergravity) arises as the leading order classical equations of motion in string theory.
One of the early successes of string theory was that it provided a perturbatively finite quantum theory of gravity. To describe this we have to introduce string interactions. The basic assumption of string theory is that strings interact via a simple splitting and joining interaction. By quantizing a single string above, we have described a first quantized string. One might have thought that the next step would be to construct a string field theory in which the first quantized states $\Phi[X^\mu(\sigma), \psi^\mu(\sigma)]$ are promoted into field operators and one introduces interactions by adding cubic terms to the action. Progress has been made in this direction (see, e.g., \cite{Witten:1985cc,Sen:1999xm,Moeller:2000xv}), but perturbative scattering amplitudes in string theory are usually computed in a first quantized framework using analogs of Feynman diagrams, see Fig. \ref{fig:pants}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{pants.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{A one-loop string diagram.}
\label{fig:pants}
\end{figure}
This is most well developed starting with Minkowski spacetime, but it can be extended to other static backgrounds. One again analytically continues both the spacetime and worldsheet metrics to Euclidean signature. The scattering amplitudes are obtained by summing over worldsheet topology, and computing the path integral
\begin{equation}\label{pathint}
\int DX^\mu D \psi^\mu D\gamma_{ab}\ e^{-S[X^\mu, \psi^\mu, \gamma_{ab}] }
\end{equation}
for each topology.
One usually takes the external strings
to infinity, so the amplitude corresponds to an S-matrix element. By a conformal transformation, the external strings can then be mapped to points on a compact Riemann surface, with the state of the string represented by an operator inserted at that point.
After fixing the $\gamma_{ab}$ gauge freedom of diffeomorphisms and Weyl rescalings, there remains a
finite-dimensional
``moduli space" of metrics to integrate over for each worldsheet topology.
The analog of the loop expansion in ordinary quantum field theory is the genus expansion of the string worldsheet. The reason for this is that the dilaton couples to the string via the scalar curvature ${\cal R}$ of the string worldsheet. In other words, one adds to the string action (\ref{polyakov}) the term ${1\over 4\pi}\int \phi {\cal R}[\gamma]$. By the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, if the dilaton is a constant $\phi_0$, this contributes $\phi_0 \chi$ to the action where $\chi$ is the Euler number of the string worldsheet.
This is related to the genus $g$ by $\chi = 2(1-g)$.
In the path integral \eqref{pathint}
the net effect is to
weigh
different worldsheet topologies by $g_s^{-\chi}$ where the string coupling $g_s$ is determined by the dilaton: $g_s \equiv e^{\phi_0}$.
As an example, when the external states are all gravitons, the tree level amplitude for two strings to scatter into two strings reproduces the $2 \rightarrow 2$ graviton scattering of general relativity in a limit where strings become point-like.
Newton's constant is not an independent parameter in string theory, but determined in terms of $g_s$ and $\ell_s$. The ten-dimensional Newton's constant is $G_{10} = 8\pi^6 g_s^2 \ell_s^8$.
Unlike quantum field theory in which the number of Feynman diagrams grows rapidly with the order of perturbation theory, string theory has only one diagram at each loop order (for a fixed number of external legs). The statement that string theory is UV finite is the observation that for each loop order, the integral \eqref{pathint} has no UV divergences.
Intuitively, this is because the string is an extended object and there is no special point where the interaction takes place. The extent of the string regulates the short distance divergence in graviton scattering amplitudes that was discussed in
Section \ref{s:perturbative}.
When these amplitudes were first
computed
in the 1980's, there were some remaining subtleties associated with the fermions and the integration over ``supermoduli" space. However,
these issues have all been resolved \cite{Witten:2012bh,Witten:2013cia}.
While it is remarkable that string theory picks out a unique spacetime dimension,
it is clearly too large compared to our everyday observations of a 4D spacetime.
As discussed earlier, a standard way to make contact with the real world is to compactify six of the dimensions. To preserve spacetime supersymmetry in the remaining four noncompact dimensions, the internal space is highly constrained. It turns out that it must be a complex manifold with Ricci flat Kahler metric \cite{Candelas:1985en}. Such spaces are called {\bf Calabi-Yau spaces}. Simple examples include the six torus, $T^6$, $T^2 \times K3$, and a quintic hypersurface in
$\mathbb{CP}_4$.
The realization of the importance of Calabi-Yau spaces in string theory started a very fruitful collaboration between algebraic geometers and string theorists which has continued for over twenty five years.
A common problem in earlier studies of Kaluza-Klein compactification was to obtain chiral fermions (as observed in the standard model
of particle physics) in the lower-dimensional spacetime. Even if one starts with chiral fermions in the higher-dimensional spacetime, the reduced spacetime always had an equal number of left-handed and right-handed fermions. String theory has several ways to cure this problem. The simplest is to use the fact that the higher-dimensional theory is not just pure gravity. If one starts with nonzero gauge fields in the higher-dimensional spacetime, the lower-dimensional theory can have chiral fermions. In Calabi-Yau compactifications, various properties of fermions are simply related to the topology of the internal manifold (e.g., the number of generations is related to the Euler number).
Strings sense spacetime very differently from point particles. In particular, two geometrically different spacetimes can be indistinguishable in string theory. A simple example of this is flat spacetime with one direction compactified to a circle of radius $R$. The part of the string spectrum that depends on $R$ includes the usual momentum modes with energy $O(1/R)$,
but there are also winding modes with energy $O(R/\ell_s^2)$. If we change the radius to $\ell_s^2/R$, this spectrum is completely invariant. The winding and momentum modes simply trade places. In fact, one can show that all interactions are also invariant, and strings cannot tell the difference between these two spacetimes. This is the simplest example of {\bf T-duality} \cite{Giveon:1994fu}: whenever the solution is independent of a periodic spacelike direction, one can change variables in the path integral (\ref{pathint}) and rewrite the action in terms of a different set of background fields (which include inverting the radius of the periodic spacelike direction). Since a change of variables does not change the physics, the two backgrounds are equivalent in string theory.
Another example of different geometries being equivalent in string theory is {\bf mirror symmetry} \cite{Lerche:1989uy,Greene:1990ud}:
for solutions of the form $M_4 \times K$ where $M_4$ is
four-dimensional Minkowski space and $K$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold, one can change a sign of a certain charge in the worldsheet theory and the interpretation changes from strings moving on $M_4 \times K$ to strings moving on $M_4 \times \tilde K$ where $\tilde K$ is a geometrically and topologically different Calabi-Yau space. Since the sign of the charge is arbitrary from the worldsheet standpoint, these two compactifications are equivalent in string theory. As one striking application, mirror symmetry was used to count the number of holomorphic curves of various degrees in a given Calabi-Yau manifold \cite{Candelas:1990rm}, reproducing and greatly generalizing results that had been obtained by mathematicians.
Mirror symmetry has been used to show that spacetime topology change is possible in string theory.
A given Calabi-Yau space usually admits a whole family of
Ricci flat metrics, so one can construct a solution in which the four large
dimensions stay approximately flat and the geometry of the Calabi-Yau
space changes slowly from one Ricci flat metric to another. In this process
the Calabi-Yau space can develop a curvature singularity resulting from
a topologically nontrivial $S^2$ being shrunk down
to zero area. In the mirror geometry, there is no singularity and the evolution can be continued. In the original description,
the evolution corresponds to continuing through the geometrical
singularity to a nonsingular Calabi-Yau space on the other side with different topology \cite{Aspinwall:1993nu}. It should perhaps be emphasized that examples like this show that area is not quantized in string theory. In many supersymmetric examples, the area of certain surfaces in the internal space can vary continuously. They give rise to massless scalar fields in the noncompact directions that are known as ``moduli".
In the mid-1980's, {\it five} different perturbative string theories were constructed
that were all consistent in ten spacetime dimensions. There was a theory of open strings called Type I with $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry, and two theories of closed strings with $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetry \cite{Schwarz:1982jn}. The latter two differed in whether the two supersymmetry generators had different chirality (Type IIA) or the same chirality (Type IIB). As the names suggest, the
low-energy
limit of these two string theories are the $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity theories in
10D
mentioned in Section \ref{s:sg}. In addition, there were two theories of closed strings with $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry which required either $E_8\times E_8$ or $SO(32)$ gauge groups in ten dimensions (called {\bf heterotic strings}) \cite{Gross:1984dd}. These gauge groups were required by anomaly cancellation.
In fact,
it was this discovery \cite{Green:1984sg} that sparked an explosion of interest in string theory in 1984. It seemed remarkable that string theory not only picked a unique spacetime dimension, but also an essentially unique gauge group. A decade later it was realized that the five perturbative string theories are all related by a series of ``dualities" (which include T-duality), so there was really only one theory with different weak coupling limits. This new insight was possible due to an improved understanding of some nonperturbative aspects of string theory which we now discuss.
\subsection{Nonperturbative aspects of string theory and quantum black holes}
In the mid-1990's,
it was discovered that string theory is not just a theory of strings.
There are other extended objects called branes. The name comes from membranes which are two-dimensional, but branes
exist in any dimension: $p$-branes are $p$-dimensional extended objects. Branes are nonperturbative objects with a tension that is
inversely related to a power of the coupling $g_s$.
The most common type
of brane is called a {\bf D-brane} and it has a tension $T\propto 1/g_s$. So
one could never
see these objects in perturbation theory in $g_s$. Even though they are very
heavy, the gravitational field they produce is governed by $G_{10} T\sim g_s$
so as $g_s\rightarrow 0$, there should be a flat space description of these
objects and it was found by Polchinski \cite{Polchinski:1995mt}.
At weak coupling, a D-brane is a
surface in spacetime on which open strings can end. The D
stands for ``Dirichlet" and refers to the boundary conditions on the ends
of the open
strings. In fact, D-branes were discovered by applying T-duality to a theory of open strings. Open string worldsheets have boundaries, and by looking at how the Euler number changes when open strings interact, one finds that the open string
coupling constant, $g_o$, satisfies $g_o^2 = g_s$. The tension of a D-brane can be understood by viewing it as a soliton of the open string theory: $T \propto 1/g_o^2 \propto 1/g_s$.
The endpoints of the open strings move freely along the brane but cannot leave the brane unless they join and form a closed string. The
massless states of an open string include a spin-1 excitation, so
every D-brane comes with a $U(1)$ gauge field. When $N$ D-branes
coincide in spacetime, the open strings stretching from one to another also
become massless. This enhances the resulting gauge group from $U(1)^N$
to $U(N)$. These
D-branes are also sources for the $p$-form ``Ramond-Ramond" fields $F_p$.
D-branes have found applications in string phenomenology, i.e., the attempt to connect string theory with standard four-dimensional particle physics. String theory clearly unifies the graviton with many matter degrees of freedom.
One difficulty
is that one often has too many light degrees of freedom. In particular, the moduli associated with the size of certain surfaces in the internal directions correspond to
4D
massless scalars which we do not see. One way to make the models more realistic is, roughly speaking, to wrap a brane around the surface in the internal space (which will try to contract it) and also add flux associated with $F_p$
(which will try to expand it). Under certain circumstances these forces balance at one size of the surface \cite{Kachru:2003aw}. In terms of the lower-dimensional theory, the scalar field now has a large mass
and has no
low-energy
dynamical effects.
Soon after D-branes were discovered, evidence was found for a strong-weak coupling duality called {\bf S-duality}. The evidence included comparing the masses of certain BPS states whose masses are fixed by the charges. Using these dualities, it was argued that all the perturbative string theories are related. In addition, it was proposed that there is an
eleven-dimensional
theory called {\bf M-theory}, whose dimensional reduction on a circle of radius $R = g_s \ell_s$ yields Type IIA string theory \cite{Witten:1995ex}. In particular, D0-branes have just the right properties to represent the momentum modes around this circle. M-theory can thus be viewed as a strong coupling limit of Type IIA string theory.
Its
low-energy
limit is
eleven-dimensional
supergravity. As discussed in Section \ref{s:sg}, this theory has only a metric, four-form field strength and spin-$3/2$ field. The bosonic action is given in
(\ref{sugra11D}). The
four-form
can carry electric charges of 2-branes and magnetic charges of 5-branes, so we deduce that
M-theory is not a theory of strings, but a theory including
2-branes and 5-branes, which are called
M2- and M5-branes.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Mstar.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{A schematic view of different weak coupling limits of M-theory.}
\label{fig:Mstar}
\end{figure}
Putting all the dualities together, M-theory can be viewed as having six different weak coupling limits corresponding to the five different 10D perturbative string theories, and 11D supergravity (see Fig. \ref{fig:Mstar}). We do not yet understand the fundamental principles underlying M-theory. The best description we have of this theory is in terms of a matrix model, i.e., a quantum theory describing a collection of matrices depending only on time \cite{Banks:1996vh}. In this description, space emerges from the properties of the matrices.
One of the main successes of string theory is its ability to reproduce the Hawking-Bekenstein entropy of certain black holes as well as Hawking radiation, from a microscopic quantum theory. For many years it was thought that strings could not explain the entropy of Schwarzschild black holes since the string entropy is proportional to the mass, whereas the entropy of Schwarzschild (in $D=4$) goes like the mass squared. However, this is misleading. The string entropy is $S_\text{string} \sim M \ell_s$ whereas the black hole entropy is $S_\text{BH} \sim G_4 M^2$ and the
four-dimensional
Newton's constant is $G_4 \sim g_s^2 \ell_s^2$. So before one can ask if strings can explain black hole entropy, one must first specify the string coupling. The natural point to compare them is when the Schwarzschild radius is of order the string scale, since this is when the Schwarzschild solution starts to receive stringy corrections. At this point, the black hole entropy is \cite{Susskind:1993ws}
\begin{equation}
S_\text{BH} \sim M r_0 \sim M \ell_s \sim S_\text{string}\,,
\end{equation}
so the entropies agree. Since $r_0=2 G_4 M \sim \ell_s $ implies $g_s \sim (M \ell_s)^{-1/2}$, the coupling remains small for a large mass black hole.
This argument continues to hold in $D>4$, and can be generalized to include charges and angular momentum. It leads to a simple {\bf correspondence principle} between black holes and strings \cite{Horowitz:1996nw}: when the curvature at the horizon becomes of order the string scale, the typical black hole state becomes an excited string state with the same charges and angular momentum. This provides a simple picture for the endpoint of Hawking evaporation: when black holes evaporate down to the string scale, they turn into highly excited strings which then continue to decay down to an unexcited string which is just another elementary particle.
For certain black holes, the entropy can be reproduced exactly in string theory. This was first shown for nonrotating,
extremal 5D
black holes \cite{Strominger:1996sh} and soon generalized to
near-extremal
\cite{Callan:1996dv,Horowitz:1996fn} and rotating
\cite{Breckenridge:1996is} 5D black
holes.
Similar results hold for
extremal \cite{Maldacena:1996gb,Johnson:1996ga} and near-extremal \cite{Horowitz:1996ac} 4D black holes.
Due to the importance of this result, we now describe one example in some detail.
(The following discussion is based on \cite{Maldacena:1996ix}.) The Type IIB supergravity action includes the following terms:
\begin{equation}\label{IIBaction}
S = {1\over 16\pi G_{10}} \int d^{10} x \sqrt{-g}\left [ e^{-2\phi}[ R + 4 (\nabla \phi)^2] - \frac{1}{12} F_3^2 \right ] ,
\end{equation}
where $F_3$ is a Ramond-Ramond three-form field-strength and $\phi$ is the dilaton. This action is written in terms of the so-called string metric which is the metric that appears in (\ref{polyakov}), i.e., the metric that the strings directly couple to.
We will compactify four directions $x_i$ ($i = 6,7,8,9$) on circles of length\footnote{To simplify the presentation, for the remainder of this Section we will set $\ell_s = 1$.} $2\pi$. In the resulting six-dimensional spacetime, $F_3$ has both electric and magnetic type charges, each carried by one-dimensional extended objects:
\begin{equation}
Q_1 = {1\over 4\pi^2 g_s} \int e^{2\phi} *F_3\,,~~~~~~~
Q_5 = {1\over 4\pi^2 g_s} \int F_3\,.
\end{equation}
The integrals are over an $S^3 $ surrounding the object, and $*$ denotes the
six-dimensional
Hodge dual.
The factor of $e^{2\phi}$ is needed in the first integral since $ *F_3$ by itself is not a closed form after dimensional reduction to six dimensions.
The labels come from the fact that $Q_1$ is the charge carried by D1-branes and $Q_5$ is the charge carried by D5-branes (which wrap the $T^4$). The charges are normalized so that $Q_i$ are integers which simply count the number of branes of each type.
One can show that the following is a black brane solution to the equations of motion coming from the action (\ref{IIBaction}):
\begin{equation}\label{bhmetric}
ds^2 = f(r)^{-1} \left [-dt^2 + dx^2_5 + {r_0^2\over r^2} \big(\cosh \sigma dt + \sinh \sigma dx_5\big)^2 + \left( 1 +{g_sQ_1\over r^2}\right) dx_idx^i\right ]
\end{equation}
$$+ f(r) \left [ \left( 1-{r_0^2\over r^2}\right)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_3^2\right],$$
where
\begin{equation}
f(r) = \left( 1 +{g_sQ_1\over r^2}\right)^{1/2} \left( 1 +{g_sQ_5\over r^2}\right)^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
The matter fields take the form:
\begin{equation}
e^{-2\phi} = \left( 1 +{g_sQ_5\over r^2}\right) \left( 1 +{g_sQ_1\over r^2}\right)^{-1},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
F_3 = 2g_sQ_5 \epsilon_3 + 2g_sQ_1 e^{-2\phi} *\epsilon_3\,,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_3$ is the volume form on a unit $S^3$ and $*\epsilon_3$ is its six-dimensional dual.
If $x_5$ is periodically identified with period $2\pi R$, then momentum in this direction should be quantized: $P = n/R$. From (\ref{bhmetric}) one finds
\begin{equation}\label{bhmomentum}
n = {r_0^2 R^2 \sinh 2\sigma \over 2g_s^2}\,.
\end{equation}
If one Kaluza-Klein reduces to five dimensions, one has a spherical black hole with three charges $Q_1, Q_5, n$.
The total energy of this solution is\footnote{To compute the ADM energy, one should first conformally rescale the metric by a function of $\phi$ so the action (\ref{IIBaction}) contains the standard Einstein-Hilbert term. The result is called the Einstein metric.}
\begin{equation}\label{bhenergy}
E = {RQ_1\over g_s} + {RQ_5\over g_s} + {n\over R} + {Rr_0^2 e^{-2\sigma}\over 2g_s^2}\,.
\end{equation}
The
extremal
limit corresponds to $r_0 \rightarrow 0, \sigma \rightarrow \infty$ with $n$ fixed. In this limit the last term vanishes.
The remaining three terms are exactly what one would expect from $Q_1$ D1-branes wrapping the $S^1$ with radius $R$, $Q_5$ D5-branes wrapping the $T^4$ with unit radii and the $S^1$ with radius $R$, and momentum $P = n/R$. This is a consequence of the fact that the extremal solution is BPS, so the energy is uniquely determined by the charges.
The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is
\begin{equation}\label{bhentropy}
S_\text{BH} = {A\over 4G_{10}} = 2\pi \sqrt{Q_1 Q_5}\,{r_0 R\cosh\sigma\over g_s}.
\end{equation}
String theory can reproduce this entropy in both the
extremal and near-extremal limits
by counting states at weak coupling, i.e., in flat spacetime.
In the extremal case, one expects the number of states to be independent of coupling since the solution is supersymmetric and the states are BPS. (It was a surprise to find that this agreement continued to hold for slightly near extremal solutions also.)
So we want to count the number of bound states of D1-branes and D5-branes with given momentum in a flat spacetime compactified on a $T^4$ with unit radii
and an $S^1$ with radius $R$. Since the D5-branes wrap the small $T^4$,
low-energy
excitations only move along the $S^1$, and can be described by an effective $1+1$ dimensional theory.
In the
extremal
limit, the entropy reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{extbhentropy}
S_\text{BH} = 2\pi \sqrt{Q_1 Q_5 n}\,.
\end{equation}
Note that the dependence on all continuous parameters such as $R$ and
$g_s$
has
dropped out.
An examination of the low-energy excitations of $Q_1$ D1-branes and $Q_5$ D5-branes shows that there are $4Q_1Q_5$ massless bosons. These can be viewed as open strings connecting one of the D1-branes with one D5-brane. The factor of 4 arises since there are two possible orientations for the strings and for each orientation, the ground state is two-fold degenerate. When these D1-D5 strings are excited, the D1-D1 and D5-D5 open strings become massive and do not contribute to the entropy. This is reflection of the fact that branes are bound together.
Free fields in $1+1$ dimensions have
independent right and left moving modes.
BPS states with nonzero momentum correspond
to exciting only the right moving modes of these massless fields. So
one can simply count
the number of states of $4Q_1Q_5$ bosonic fields (plus an equal number of
fermionic fields required by supersymmetry) on a circle of radius $R$
with total right moving
momentum $P=n/R$. In the limit
of large $n$, the answer is $e^S$ where
\begin{equation}\label{stent}
S = 2\pi \sqrt{Q_1 Q_5 n}\,,
\end{equation}
in perfect agreement with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (\ref{extbhentropy}).
Now suppose we add a small amount of energy to the system keeping the charges fixed, so it is no longer
extremal.
To maximize the entropy, the energy will excite the lightest modes. If $R$ is large, the lightest modes are just the momentum modes. So the energy excites some additional left and right moving modes. At weak coupling there is very little interaction between the modes, but it is
not zero. However, if $r_0^2 \ll g_s Q_1, g_sQ_5$ and $g_s^2 n/R^2 \ll g_sQ_1, g_sQ_5$, we are in a ``dilute gas" regime where interactions are negligible. This corresponds to a
near-extremal
black hole. In this case, the entropy computed at weak coupling is just the sum of the entropies of the left and right moving modes:
\begin{equation}\label{stringentropy}
S = 2\pi \sqrt{Q_1 Q_5}\big(\sqrt {n_R} + \sqrt {n_L}\big)\,,
\end{equation}
where $n_R$ and $n_L$ are defined by setting $P = (n_R -n_L)/R$ and requiring that $(n_R + n_L)/R$ be the contribution to the energy from the momentum modes.
From (\ref{bhmomentum}) and (\ref{bhenergy}) we get
\begin{equation}
n_R = {r_0^2 R^2 e^{2\sigma} \over 4g_s^2}\,,
\qquad n_L = {r_0^2 R^2 e^{-2\sigma} \over 4g_s^2}\,.
\end{equation}
Substituting into (\ref{stringentropy}) we see that the counting at weak coupling precisely reproduces the entropy of the
near-extremal
black hole (\ref{bhentropy}).
We now include some interactions between the left and right moving modes. Occasionally, a left-moving mode
can combine with a right-moving mode to form a closed string which
can leave the brane. This corresponds to the decay of an excited configuration
of D-branes and is the
weak-coupling
analog of Hawking radiation.
Given the remarkable agreement between the entropy of the black hole
and the counting of states of the D-branes, the next step is
to ask how the radiation emitted by the D-brane compares to Hawking
radiation. In both cases, the radiation is
approximately thermal with the same temperature.
This is expected since the entropy as a function of energy
agrees in the two cases. What
is surprising is that the overall rate of radiation agrees \cite{Das:1996wn}.
What is even more remarkable is that the deviations from the
blackbody spectrum also agree \cite{Maldacena:1996ix}.
On the black hole side, these deviations
arise since the radiation has to propagate through the curved spacetime
outside the black hole. This contains potential barriers which give
rise to frequency-dependent greybody factors. On the D-brane side
there are deviations since the modes come from separate
left and right moving
sectors on the D-branes, with different effective temperatures. The calculations of these deviations
could not look more
different.
On the black hole side, one solves a wave equation in a black hole
background. The solutions involve hypergeometric functions. On the
D-brane side, one does a calculation in D-brane perturbation theory.
Remarkably, the answers are identical.
It is worth emphasizing that it is not just the dependence on a few parameters which agree. One is comparing the decay rate as a function of frequency and the entire
functional form agrees on both sides. It is as if the black hole
knows that its states are described by an effective $1+1$ dimensional
field theory with left and right moving modes.
As mentioned earlier, this precise agreement between D-branes and black holes holds for black holes in 4D as well as 5D,\footnote{For extensions to black rings, see for example \cite{Cyrier:2004hj,Bena:2004tk,Bena:2005ay}.} but always in the
near-extremal limit. Far from extremality, one still expects string theory
to provide a microscopic description of black holes, but one can no longer rely on the weak-coupling D-brane picture. The extrapolation to strong coupling now produces significant changes in the properties of the quantum states. One approach to this problem is discussed in the next section.
\section{Holography and gauge/gravity duality}
\label{s:adscft}
We begin in Section \ref{s:holo} by briefly reviewing some general arguments suggesting that quantum gravity might be holographic. In Section \ref{s:ggc}, we formulate gauge/gravity duality, a precise form of holography that emerges from string theory. We also discuss the evidence for this duality and its consequences. Section \ref{s:applications} offers an overview of some applications of gauge/gravity duality.
\subsection{Holography}
\label{s:holo}
The suggestion that quantum gravity might be holographic was originally motivated by black hole entropy \cite{'tHooft:1993gx,Susskind:1994vu}.
The idea was simply that the fact that a black hole has an entropy that scales with its area is in striking contrast to most systems which have an entropy that is proportional to their volume. This suggests that everything that happens inside the black hole could be somehow encoded in degrees of freedom at the horizon.
In trying to find a more precise formulation of holography, it is natural to consider spacetimes which asymptotically approach anti-de Sitter (AdS)
spacetime\footnote{See \cite{Avis:1977yn} for an early study of quantum field theory in AdS that set the stage for many later developments.}. There are several reasons for this. First, a static slice in AdS is a constant negative curvature hyperboloid, so the area of a sphere at proper radius $R$ grows exponentially with $R$. Thus, compared to flat space, there is ``more room at infinity" for the holographic description to live.
Second, the conformal boundary at infinity is timelike, so a holographic description at infinity could live on an ordinary spacetime. Finally, black hole thermodynamics is better behaved in AdS since the negative curvature acts like a confining box. In particular, large black holes in AdS have positive specific heat and can be in thermal equilibrium with their Hawking radiation \cite{Hawking:1982dh}.
A general argument for holography in quantum gravity was given recently by Marolf \cite{Marolf:2008mf}. His argument can be made for either asymptotically flat or asymptotically AdS boundary conditions, but we focus on the AdS case here. Consider first perturbative quantum gravity about AdS. At linear order, any field at a point in the interior can be evolved back and expressed as an integral over operators along a surface at large radius. Thus, the set of boundary operators defined at large radius form a complete set of operators at linear order. The same argument can be made at each order in perturbation theory. This is not yet a statement about holography, but more analogous to expressing the value of a field in terms of initial data at an earlier time. However the Hamiltonian itself is a boundary operator. This is a unique feature of diffeomorphism invariant theories coming from the fact that the Hamiltonian can be expressed as a surface integral at infinity. Since the Hamiltonian generates time evolution, we can express any boundary operator ${\cal O}$ at one time in terms of a boundary operator at a different time by solving
\begin{equation}\label{evolve}
{d\over dt} {\cal O}(t) = i[H,{\cal O}(t)].
\end{equation}
It follows that, at least in perturbation theory, any observable in the bulk can be expressed in terms of a boundary observable at one fixed time. This is a statement of holography.
At the full nonperturbative level, the argument for the completeness of boundary observables is less clear, not least because of the difficulty in defining observables in full quantum gravity. However, the Hamiltonian is still presumably a boundary observable, so given a set of boundary observables at one time, one can always evolve them using (\ref{evolve}) and relate them to observables at a later time. Thus any information available at the boundary at one time is also available at any later time. In particular, this is true for an evaporating black hole. This result can be called ``boundary unitarity". A similar argument can be made even for asymptotically flat spacetimes using observables defined on spacelike and null infinity.
\subsection{Gauge/gravity duality}
\label{s:ggc}
A much more precise formulation of holography was found by Maldacena by studying
extremal and near-extremal
black holes in string theory \cite{Maldacena:1997re}. The holographic theory turns out to be an ordinary (supersymmetric) gauge theory. The equivalence between the gravitational and gauge theories is often called gauge/gravity duality.
The motivation for this duality is the following. Consider a stack of $N$ D3-branes in Type IIB string theory.
At weak coupling,
$g_s N\ll1$,
the excitations are described by open strings on the brane and closed strings off the brane. The massless states consist of\
${\cal N} =4 $ supersymmetric $U(N)$ gauge theory
(described in Section \ref{s:susy}) on the brane and Type IIB supergravity off the brane. In a
low-energy
limit, one has only long wavelength supergravity modes, but
keeps
all modes of the gauge theory since this theory is conformally invariant. These two sectors decouple at low energy since the dimensionless coupling to gravity is $G_{10}E^8$.
When
$g_s N\gg1$,
the backreaction of the branes becomes important and
produces
the following metric:
\begin{equation}\label{D3brane}
ds^2 = H^{-1/2}\Big[-dt^2 + dx_1^2 +dx_2^2 +dx_3^2 \Big]
+ H^{1/2}\Big[dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_5^2\Big]\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{AdSradius}
H(r) = 1 + {L^4\over r^4}\,,\qquad L^4 = 4\pi g_s N \ell_s^4\,.
\end{equation}
The branes no longer appear explicitly, but are represented by a nonzero flux of a 5-form field strength $F_5$. This metric describes an extremal black brane. There is a smooth degenerate horizon at $r=0$. The excitations are closed strings in the above spacetime.
Low-energy
excitations consist of either arbitrary closed strings which are very close to the horizon (and hence have a large redshift) or massless closed strings far from the horizon with very low frequency. The latter sector is again long-wavelength modes of IIB supergravity.
In a low-energy
limit, these two sectors decouple, since the absorption cross section of the black hole goes to zero as $\omega \rightarrow 0$. The
near-horizon
limit of (\ref{D3brane}) is obtained by dropping the ``1"
in $H$, i.e., setting $H=L^4/r^4$. The resulting spacetime is the product of $S^5$ with radius $L$ and five-dimensional anti-de Sitter spacetime ($AdS_5$) with radius of curvature $L$:
\begin{equation}\label{Poincare}
ds^2 = {r^2\over L^2}\Big[-dt^2 + dx_1^2 +dx_2^2 +dx_3^2 \Big] +{ L^2 dr^2\over r^2}.
\end{equation}
We see that at both weak and strong coupling, the
low-energy
description of a stack of D3-branes has two decoupled sectors. In each case, one sector is
low-energy
supergravity modes. It is thus natural to identify the other two sectors. This means that we have a system which at weak coupling looks like supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) and at strong coupling looks like strings in $AdS_5\times S^5$. But SYM also exists at strong coupling, and string theory exists at weak coupling, so these two descriptions must be equivalent. Thus we are led to the following remarkable conjecture:
\vskip .5 cm
\noindent {\it Four-dimensional ${\cal N} =4 $ supersymmetric $U(N)$ gauge theory is equivalent to IIB string theory with $AdS_5\times S^5$ boundary conditions.}
\vskip .5 cm
\noindent This is the simplest (and most well studied) example of {\bf gauge/gravity duality},
the equivalence between a theory of (quantum) gravity and a nongravitational gauge theory. We will discuss some generalizations later.
String theory with boundary conditions $AdS_5\times S^5$ has two dimensionless parameters $ (g_s, L/\ell_s)$, and the gauge theory has two dimensionless parameters, $(g_\text{YM}, N)$. They are related by $ 4\pi g_s = g_\text{YM}^2$, and $ (L/\ell_s)^4 = g_\text{YM}^2 N$.
The coordinates (\ref{Poincare}) do not cover all of $AdS_5$ but only the so-called ``Poincare patch". As it stands, the duality is between string theory on spacetimes asymptotic to (\ref{Poincare}) and SYM on Minkowski spacetime, where the Minkowski space can be viewed as the conformal boundary of (\ref{Poincare}). However, it is easy to extend the duality to all of $AdS_5$ where the conformal boundary is now the Einstein static universe, $S^3\times R$, and the SYM lives on this spatially compact space. The interior of $AdS_5$ is often called the ``bulk".
Recall that Newton's constant in ten dimensions is given in string theory by $ G_{10} \sim g_s^2 \ell_s^8$. It follows from (\ref{AdSradius}) that $L^4 \sim N \ell_p^4$,
where $\ell_p$ is the Planck length. Thus if $N$ is $O(1)$, the curvature in the bulk is of order the Planck scale everywhere. This is an interesting regime from the standpoint of quantum gravity. The gauge theory is relatively simple, but it is hard to give a physical interpretation of any SYM observables in terms of the dual gravitational theory.
In the opposite limit when $N$ is large, we have $L\gg \ell_p$, so
typical curvatures are much smaller than the Planck scale and quantum gravity effects are suppressed. In the gauge theory it is convenient to consider the
't Hooft limit: $N\rightarrow \infty$, $g_\text{YM} \rightarrow 0$ with $\lambda \equiv g_\text{YM}^2 N$ held fixed.
The 't Hooft coupling
$\lambda$ then acts as the natural coupling constant in this limit and only Feynman diagrams that can be drawn on a plane contribute.
On the string theory side,
when $\lambda \gg 1$
we have
$L \gg \ell_s$, so stringy excitations in the bulk are suppressed and one can work with just supergravity modes. Note that in this limit where the gravity side is simple, the gauge theory is strongly coupled and poorly understood. Conversely, when $\lambda \ll 1$, the gauge theory is weakly coupled and well understood, but the gravity side is very stringy. It is this strong/weak coupling aspect of the duality which allows two very different sounding theories to be equivalent.
Since $G_{10} \sim g_s^2 \ell_s^8\sim L^8/N^2$, and $L$ is held fixed in the 't Hooft limit, it follows that
the gravitational backreaction of all states becomes negligible unless the energy of the state grows at least as fast as $N^2$. So all states with $E< O(N^2)$ can be described by fields propagating on AdS. Since there are $O(N^2)$ degrees of freedom in the gauge theory, states with energy $E \sim O(N^2)$ are natural to consider since they correspond to exciting each degree of freedom by an amount independent of $N$.
Note that a four-dimensional gauge theory is describing a ten-dimensional theory of gravity. So it is an extreme type of hologram which encodes six extra spatial dimensions. For perturbations of $AdS_5\times S^5$ one can show (by comparing representations of $SO(6)$) that information about position on $S^5$ is encoded in products of the six scalar operators $\phi^i$ in $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SYM. The radial dimension in $AdS_5$ is related to an energy scale in the dual gauge theory. This is suggested by the fact that in Poincare coordinates (\ref{Poincare}) the metric is invariant under $r \rightarrow ar, \ (t,x_i) \rightarrow (t,x_i)/a$. So small radius corresponds to large distance or low energy in the gauge theory.
The claim that a four-dimensional gauge theory could describe all of
ten-dimensional string theory sounds so crazy that one might think that one could disprove it quite easily. Let us try. Having extra spatial dimensions usually leads to more quantum states (since, e.g., one can have momentum modes in more directions). So we will compare the entropy in the two theories at a high temperature $T$. In the gauge theory, the entropy is given by the usual formula for a thermal gas with $N^2$ degrees of freedom
\begin{equation}
S_\text{SYM} \sim N^2 T^3 V_3\,,
\end{equation}
where $V_3$ is the volume of the three-dimensional space.
On the gravity side, it would seem that one could exceed this including only the massless modes of the string. A thermal gas of massless particles
in ten dimensions has energy density proportional to $T^{10}$, so from the first law, its entropy density is proportional to $T^9$. It would appear that at sufficiently high temperature, the entropy in the bulk vastly exceeds that on the boundary.
Of course this estimate is incorrect since it ignores the fact that the gas will collapse to form a black hole. In addition to the usual spherical black holes, AdS has black holes in which the horizon geometry is flat. Since we have estimated the entropy of SYM on flat space, these ``planar black holes" are the appropriate comparison. They take the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = {r^2\over L^2}\left [ \left(1-{r_0^4\over r^4}\right ) dt^2 + dx_i dx^i \right] + \left(1-{r_0^4\over r^4}\right )^{-1} {L^2 dr^2\over r^2} + L^2 d\Omega_5^2\,,
\end{equation}
and have a temperature $T = 3r_0/4\pi L^2$. Their entropy is
\begin{equation}
S_\text{BH} = {A\over 4G_{10}} \sim {L^8 T^3V_3\over G_{10}} \sim N^2 T^3 V_3\,,
\end{equation}
which agrees with the estimate from the gauge theory. In fact, this shows that the gauge theory has enough microstates to reproduce the black hole entropy. Gauge/gravity duality relates the black hole to a thermal state in the dual field theory.
It is difficult to compare the numerical coefficient in the above comparison of the entropy.
This would require an exact calculation of the number of states in the gauge theory at strong coupling. If one instead does the calculation at weak coupling, one gets an answer which differs from the black hole entropy by a factor of $3/4$: $S_\text{BH} = 3/4 S_\text{SYM}$ \cite{Gubser:1996de}.
It should be emphasized that this difference is not a problem for gauge/gravity duality: $e^{S_\text{SYM}}$ is the number of SYM states at weak coupling,
and the number of states of a given energy is expected to decrease with coupling. This is because the form of the Yang-Mills Hamiltonian implies that increasing the coupling will increase the potential energy of each SYM state, and hence lower the total number of states at fixed energy. The duality predicts that at strong coupling, the entropy will agree with the black hole.
It is surprising that what appears to be a complicated QFT calculation only changes the answer by a factor of $3/4$. This prediction is waiting to be verified by a direct calculation.
This situation should be contrasted with that at the end of the previous subsection. In that case, we again compared a black hole entropy with a calculation at weak coupling and found precise agreement. The key difference is that that black hole was supersymmetric (or nearly supersymmetric),
so the mass of each state is fixed by the charge. The entropy is then independent of the coupling constant, and a precise comparison is possible.
Only gauge invariant observables can be compared on both sides of the duality. A large class of such observables can be compared as follows
\cite{Gubser:1998bc,Witten:1998qj}. For every field $\Phi$ in the bulk there is a corresponding operator
$\mathcal{O}$
in the dual gauge theory.
Supergravity fields correspond to simple gauge invariant operators constructed as a single trace of a local product of the super Yang-Mills fields. (An early check of the duality was that there was indeed a one-to-one correspondence between supergravity fields and suitable SYM operators.)
Asymptotic values of the bulk fields act as sources for the dual operator in the following sense: the string theory partition function with boundary condition\footnote{More precisely, $\Phi$ typically vanishes asymptotically, and $\Phi\rightarrow \Phi_0/ r^{\Delta}$ where $\Delta$ is related to the mass of the bulk field.} $\Phi\rightarrow \Phi_0$ should equal the field theory partition function with action
\begin{equation}
S[\Phi_0] = S_\text{SYM} + \int \Phi_0
\,\mathcal{O}\,.
\end{equation}
In other words
\begin{equation}
Z_\text{string\ theory}(\Phi \rightarrow \Phi_0) = \int DA \ D\phi \ e^{iS[\Phi_0]} \equiv Z_\text{SYM}[\Phi_0].
\end{equation}
In the 't Hooft limit with large $\lambda$, the left hand side can be approximated by just the supergravity fields, and further approximated by the exponential of the action of the classical solution with the boundary condition $\Phi \rightarrow \Phi_0$. By taking a derivative with respect to the source $\Phi_0$, one can show that the expectation value of $\mathcal{O}$ is related to a subleading term in the asymptotic behavior of the classical solution.
Gauge/gravity duality is a conjecture. It has not yet been proven. Since SYM is a complete nonperturbative quantum theory and we do not have an independent complete nonperturbative description of string theory, one might wonder what a proof would consist of. In fact, one might be tempted to define nonperturbative string theory in terms of the dual SYM and claim the duality is true by definition. But this is much too quick. A proof is necessary and would consist of showing that everything we know about string theory, including the space of classical solutions (with AdS boundary conditions) and perturbation theory about them, is reproduced in the SYM theory.
Although there is no proof, there is by now overwhelming evidence that gauge/gravity duality is correct. The early evidence included the fact that the symmetries on the two sides agree: ${\cal N} =4 $ supersymmetric gauge theory in $D=4$ is conformally invariant, so it is invariant under $SO(4,2)$.
As described in Section \ref{s:susy}, the theory includes 6 scalars that transform
in the fundamental representation of the R-symmetry $SO(6)$.
$AdS_5\times S^5$ has an isometry group which is precisely $SO(4,2) \times SO(6)$. The supergroups also agree. More nontrivial checks came later and include a vast number of calculations in which a physical quantity is computed on the two sides of the duality. Although the two calculations often look very different,
the final answers agree. We mention a few examples below:
\begin{itemize}
\item Wilson loops in the gauge theory are natural (nonlocal) gauge invariant operators. Given a curve ${\cal C}$ one considers\footnote{The objects that can be computed holographically are actually slight generalizations of the usual Wilson loop which include the six scalars in the gauge theory.}
$W = {\rm Tr}\ P \exp[\int_{\cal C} A]$,
where $P$ denotes path ordering and Tr denotes trace in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. The expectation value
$\langle W\rangle $
of these Wilson loops can be calculated on the gravity side by considering string worldsheets in spacetime that end on the loop ${\cal C}$ at infinity. The area of the string worldsheet is then related to $\langle W\rangle $. In certain cases, one can compute $\langle W\rangle $ exactly in the gauge theory and find complete agreement with the gravity calculation \cite{Drukker:2000rr}.
\item Renormalization group (RG) flow is the quantum field theory process of integrating out the high energy modes to obtain a new effective theory at lower energy. $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SYM is conformally invariant, so there is no scale, and the RG flow is trivial. However,
one can add relevant operators, for example mass-terms,
to
this theory and find that RG flow leads to a different conformal field theory at low energy with fewer degrees of freedom. On the gravity side, this corresponds to modifying the boundary conditions at infinity and finding a new static solution to Einstein's equation. One finds that at small radius, this new solution approaches \eqref{Poincare} but now with $L$ replaced by a new AdS radius $\tilde L$. There is detailed agreement between the CFT one gets at low energy and the new AdS \cite{Freedman:1999gp}. In particular the new AdS length scale $\tilde L$, is related to the number of degrees of freedom in the new low-energy dual theory in just the same way as in the asymptotic region.
\item All the states of supergravity in the bulk have precise descriptions in the dual gauge theory. What about the excited string states? In general, it is hard to identify the dual of these states, but this has been done in a certain limit \cite{Berenstein:2002jq}. If one starts with a null geodesic wrapping the $S^5$, one can take a Penrose limit
and
obtain a 10D plane wave. In the gauge theory, this corresponds to considering states of the form
$\text{Tr}\,[Z^J]|0\rangle$,
where $J$ is a large angular momentum and $Z = \phi_5 +i\phi_6$ ($\phi_i$ are the six scalars of $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SYM). The complete spectrum of the string in the bulk plane wave
background
is exactly reproduced in the gauge theory by replacing some of the
$Z$'s
with $\phi_i$, $i = 1,2,3,4$, or
$D_\mu Z = \partial_\mu Z + [A_\mu,Z]$.
It is as if the
$Z$'s
in the gauge theory create a string with transverse oscillations generated by $\phi_i$ and $D_\mu Z$.
\item If one restricts to a class of states preserving 1/2 of the supersymmetry, one can make the correspondence between the gravity and gauge theory much more explicit \cite{Lin:2004nb}. Let us work with global AdS so the field theory lives on $S^3 \times R$. We will actually restrict to fields that are independent of $S^3$ and hence
reduce to $N\times N$ matrices. In fact, we only consider states created by a
single complex matrix, so they can be described by a one-matrix model. (In terms of the six scalars in the gauge theory, this is again $Z =\phi_5 +i\phi_6$.) This
theory can be quantized exactly in terms of free fermions, and the states can be labeled by arbitrary closed curves on a plane. (The plane represents phase space and the closed curves denote the boundary of regions that are occupied.) The states are all invariant under $SO(4)\times SO(4)$ where the first factor corresponds to rotations on the $S^3$ and the second factor corresponds to rotations of the remaining four scalars $\phi_1, \cdots \phi_4$ in the gauge theory.
On the gravity side, one
considers solutions to ten-dimensional supergravity involving just the metric
and self-dual five-form $F_5$. The field equations are simply $dF_5=0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{fieldeq}
R_{\mu\nu} = F_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{F_\nu}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
There exists a large class
of stationary solutions to (\ref{fieldeq}), which have an
$SO(4)\times SO(4)$ symmetry and can be obtained by solving a linear equation \cite{Lin:2004nb}.
These solutions are nonsingular, have no event horizons, but can have
complicated topology. They are also labeled by arbitrary closed curves
on a plane. This provides a precise way to map states in the field
theory into bulk geometries. Only for some ``semi-classical" states
is the curvature below the Planck scale everywhere, but the
matrix/free-fermion
description readily describes all the states in this class, of all topologies, within a single Hilbert space.
\item
The above examples check gauge/gravity duality in the large $N$ limit where the bulk is described by supergravity. There is also evidence that the duality remains true at finite values of $N$. A striking example is the `string exclusion principle' \cite{Maldacena:1998bw}. Graviton states on $S^5$ arise in the gauge theory from acting on the vacuum with an operator involving traces of products of the $\phi^i$. However, these fields are $N \times N$ matrices, so the traces cease to be independent for products of more than $N$ fields. This leads to
an
upper bound on the angular momentum $J$ on $S^5$:
\begin{equation}
J / N \leq 1.
\end{equation}
From the point of view of supergravity this is mysterious, because the graviton states exist for arbitrary $J$. However, there is an elegant resolution in string theory \cite{McGreevy:2000cw} using something called the ``Myers effect" \cite{Myers:1999ps}. This is the fact that a stack of D-branes in an external field can become polarized and take the shape of a sphere. In a certain limit, the graviton can be viewed as a stack of D0-branes, and one can show that when
it moves sufficiently rapidly on the sphere, it will blow up into a spherical D3-brane, and $J = N$ turns out to be the largest D3-brane that will fit in the spacetime. Thus the same bound is found on both sides of the duality, and this is a nonperturbative statement in $N$: it would be trivial in a power series expansion in $1/N$.
\end{itemize}
So far we have
discussed gauge/gravity duality with asymptotic $AdS_5\times S^5$ boundary conditions. This is the most well studied example of gauge/gravity duality, but many other examples exist. Applying a similar argument to a stack of M2-branes shows that
M-theory
on asymptotically $AdS_4\times S^7$ is equivalent to a $2+1$ dimensional field theory of gauge fields and matter with a Chern-Simons action for the gauge fields, called ABJM theory
\cite{Aharony:2008ug}. Applying the argument to a stack of M5-branes shows that
M-theory
on asymptotically $AdS_7\times S^4$
spacetimes
is equivalent to a
still-mysterious
$5+1$ dimensional field theory describing low-energy
excitations of the M5-branes.
These dualities can also be extended in other ways, such as replacing the $S^n$ with other Einstein spaces. The corresponding change in the gauge theory is known in many cases \cite{Klebanov:1998hh}. One can also put the gauge theory on any spacetime, not just Minkowski space and the Einstein static universe. In these cases, the boundary condition in the bulk is a space-time which is only locally asymptotically AdS.
Let us mention an example
of a nontrivial check of the $AdS_4$ duality. For certain $2+1$ supersymmetric gauge theories, one can calculate exactly the Euclidean partition function of the theory on a squashed $S^3$ \cite{Martelli:2011fw}. This is possible using a technique known as localization. One can then find the dual euclidean gravitational solution which asymptotically approaches the squashed $S^3$. If one computes the gravitational action and compares with the gauge theory partition function one finds
$Z_\text{gauge} = e^{-S_\text{grav}}$.
Each side is a function of the squashing parameter, and the two functions agree exactly. Once again, the calculations on each side look completely different, but the final answers agree.
Similarly, the maximization of the free energy (`$f$-maximization') of the 3D ABJM field theory \cite{Aharony:2008ug} on $S^3$ has a matching gravitational dual description \cite{Freedman:2013oja}.
\subsection{Applications}
\label{s:applications}
Given the overwhelming evidence for gauge/gravity duality, we now assume its validity and ask what it can teach us. The duality can be used in both directions to learn about quantum gravity and also
about aspects of nongravitational
strongly coupled
physics. The following applications all represent fields of active research.
{\bf Quantum black holes:} An immediate consequence of gauge/gravity duality is that the process of forming and evaporating a small black hole must be unitary. This is because it can be mapped to a process in the dual gauge theory in which states evolve by a standard Hamiltonian. However, the details of this map are not yet clear. In particular, it is still unknown how the information gets out of the black hole, and what is wrong with Hawking's original semiclassical argument \cite{Hawking:1976ra} that black hole evaporation would lead pure states to evolve to mixed states.
For over a decade after the discovery of gauge/gravity duality, many people believed that the information could be restored by keeping
track
of subtle correlations in the Hawking radiation that were missed in a semi-classical treatment. However, it was shown in \cite{Mathur:2009hf} that this can never work: small corrections to Hawking's calculations are not sufficient to get the information out. One alternative that has been suggested is ``fuzzballs" \cite{Mathur:2008nj}. This is the idea that the standard black hole solutions describe ensemble averages, and individual pure states do not have horizons. They are instead described by classical solutions (or more generally quantum states) that extend out to the
would-be
horizon. In support of this idea, a large class of supergravity solutions have been constructed which are stationary, nonsingular, and have the same mass and charge as an extremal black hole. It remains to be seen whether all black hole microstates can be realized in this way.
Another alternative has been proposed recently.
A key assumption in Hawking's argument that black hole evaporation would not be unitary was that the horizon locally looks like flat space to an in-falling observer.
Since we now believe that the evolution is unitary, people have started to question this assumption.
It has been suggested \cite{Almheiri:2012rt} that someone falling into an evaporating black hole would
hit a ``firewall" at the horizon and burn up. It was argued that this would be true even
for a large black hole as long as it has evaporated to at least half its original mass.
This has caused considerable controversy.
The only thing that is clear is that the following three plausible sounding statements are inconsistent: (1) Information is not lost in black hole evaporation, i.e., pure states evolve to pure states. (2) Observers falling into a large black hole pass through the horizon unaffected. (3) Quantum field theory in curved spacetime is a good approximation outside a large black hole.
At the moment there is no resolution in sight. The fundamental questions raised by Hawking 40 years ago are still unanswered.
{\bf Quark confinement:} String theory began in the late 1960's as a model of hadrons. As a result of quark confinement, quarks often act like they live at the ends of a string. (It was only in the 1970's that string theory was reinterpreted as a theory of quantum gravity.) It light of this, it is interesting that gauge/gravity duality provides a simple geometric picture of quark confinement. The idea is that the potential between two quarks on the boundary can be computed in terms of a string in the bulk which ends on the quarks. Since strings have a tension, they want to minimize their length. Given the geometry of $AdS$, such strings do not stay in the asymptotic region, but extend into the bulk. Suppose the bulk geometry smoothly caps off at some radius, e.g., because a circle pinches off there\footnote{It is easy to construct bulk solutions with this property, see e.g. \cite{Horowitz:1998ha}.}.
Then the string connecting two quarks separated by a large distance ${\cal L}$ on the boundary drops quickly to this minimum radius, moves a distance ${\cal L}$ at that radius, and then returns to the boundary. This means the length of the string increases linearly with ${\cal L}$ resulting in a linearly growing potential between the quarks, i.e., the quarks are confined. It is remarkable that a complicated strongly coupled quantum field theory effect such as quark confinement can be given such a simple geometric description. Since we do not currently have a gravitational dual of pure QCD, one cannot yet use holography to argue for quark confinement in the standard model.
{\bf Hydrodynamics:} The long wavelength limit of any strongly coupled field theory is expected to be described by hydrodynamics. It has been shown that general relativity indeed reproduces standard (relativistic) hydrodynamics in the boundary theory. To see this, one uses the boundary stress tensor which can be defined for any asymptotically
AdS
spacetime \cite{Balasubramanian:1999re,de Haro:2000xn}. Under gauge/gravity duality, this is equal to the expectation value of the stress tensor in the dual field theory.
One then starts with the planar black hole representing a system in equilibrium at temperature $T$, and adds long wavelength perturbations. The boundary stress tensor is conserved and takes the form of a perfect fluid plus corrections involving derivatives of the four-velocity. The first derivative term represents viscosity. Dissipation in the dual theory simply corresponds to energy flowing into the black hole.
One can show that the ratio of the shear viscosity $\eta$ to entropy density $s$ is a universal constant for any theory with a gravity dual \cite{Kovtun:2004de}:
\begin{equation}
{\eta\over s} = {1\over 4\pi}.
\end{equation}
This number is very low compared to ordinary fluids. Remarkably, when experiments at RHIC and LHC collide heavy ions together, they produce a quark/gluon plasma which has very low viscosity. The measured viscosity is in fact close to the value predicted from the gravity dual. This is difficult to explain using traditional methods.
The connection between gravity and fluid dynamics raises an interesting question. Turbulence is a common feature of fluids, but perturbations of black holes are expected to decay and not show turbulent behavior. In recent work \cite{Adams:2013vsa} it has been shown that under certain conditions, black holes in AdS do show turbulent behavior.
{\bf Condensed matter:} Given the success with heavy ion collisions, people became more ambitious and started to apply gauge/gravity duality to study properties of finite density quantum matter, i.e., the subject of condensed matter. Despite the fact that there is no obvious analog of the large $N$ limit in this case, classical gravity analogs of several condensed matter phenomena have been found. The advantage of this duality is that it allows one to calculate transport properties of strongly correlated systems at finite temperature. This is difficult to do using standard condensed matter techniques, but is easy to do holographically. One starts with a black hole in $AdS$ which represents the equilibrium system at temperature $T$. To compute transport using linear response, one simply perturbs the black hole.
We focus on one example: superconductivity.
In standard superconductors, pairs of electrons with opposite spin can combine to form a charged boson called a Cooper pair. Below a critical temperature, these bosons condense and the DC conductivity becomes infinite. To construct a ``holographic superconductor", i.e., the gravitational dual to a superconductor, we need just gravity coupled to a Maxwell field and
a
charged scalar field. A charged black hole corresponds to a system at temperature equal to the Hawking temperature, $T$, and nonzero charge density (or chemical potential). To represent a nonzero condensate, one needs
a static charged scalar field outside the black hole. This is like black hole ``hair". So to describe a superconductor, we need to find a black hole that has hair at low temperatures, but no hair at high temperatures. More precisely, we need the usual Reissner-Nordstrom AdS black hole (which exists for all temperatures) to be unstable to forming hair at low temperature. At first sight, this is not an easy task, since it contradicts our usual intuition that black holes have no hair.
A surprisingly simple solution to this problem was found by Gubser \cite{Gubser:2008px}. He argued that a charged scalar field around a charged black hole in AdS would have the desired property. Consider
\begin{equation}\label{action}
S=\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g}\left(R + {6\over L^2} -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu} - |\nabla\Psi-i qA\Psi|^2 - m^2|\Psi|^2\right).
\end{equation}
This is just general relativity with a negative cosmological constant $\Lambda = -3/L^2$, coupled to a Maxwell field and charged scalar with mass $m$ and charge $q$. It is easy to see why black holes in this theory might be unstable to forming scalar hair:
for
an electrically charged black hole, the effective mass of $\Psi$ is
$m^2_\text{eff} = m^2 + q^2 g^{tt} A_t^2$.
But the last term is negative, so there is a chance that
$m^2_\text{eff}$
becomes sufficiently negative near the horizon to destabilize the scalar field. Detailed calculations confirm that scalar hair does indeed form at low temperature \cite{Hartnoll:2008vx}. Why wasn't such a simple type of hair noticed earlier? One reason is that this does not work for asymptotically flat black holes. In that case,
the scalar field simply radiates away some of the mass and charge of the black hole in a form of superradiance.
The conductivity can be calculated by perturbing this black hole with boundary conditions on the Maxwell field at infinity that correspond to adding a uniform electric field. The induced current is read off from a subleading term in the perturbation. One finds that at low temperature when the scalar hair is present, the DC conductivity is infinite, showing one really does have a superconductor \cite{Hartnoll:2008vx}.
A similar calculation can be done in five dimensions, corresponding to a $3+1$-dimensional superconductor. However the four-dimensional bulk calculation is appropriate for some ``high temperature" superconductors such as the cuprates, in which the superconductivity is associated with two-dimensional CuO planes.
To make the model more realistic, we can add the effects of a lattice by requiring the chemical potential be a periodic function. This corresponds to a periodic asymptotic boundary condition on $A_t$. One then numerically finds the rippled charged black holes with this boundary condition. One can then perturb this solution and compute the conductivity as a function of frequency. At high temperature (when the scalar field is zero), the result shows a finite DC conductivity followed by a power law fall-off $|\sigma(\omega)| = B/\omega^{2/3} +C$ \cite{Horowitz:2012ky}. Exactly this same type of power law fall-off (but without the constant off-set $C$) is seen in certain cuprates in their normal phase before they become superconducting.
This behavior is not understood from standard condensed matter arguments. It is believed to be a result of strong correlations. Experiments show that the coefficient B and the exponent 2/3 are temperature independent and do not change even when T drops below the superconducting transition temperature. Similarly, one finds no change in the power law fall-off on the gravity side, when one lowers the temperature of the black hole into the superconducting regime \cite{Horowitz:2013jaa}.
{\bf Entanglement entropy:} An important quantity in condensed matter is the entanglement entropy. Given a quantum state of a system and a subregion $A$, one can construct the density matrix $\rho_A$ by tracing over all degrees of freedom outside $A$. The entanglement entropy is then defined to be
\begin{equation}
S_\text{EE} = - Tr \rho_A \ln \rho_A
\,.
\end{equation}
This is a measure of long range correlations and has proven useful in a variety of applications including
identification of
exotic ground states. Unfortunately, it is difficult to calculate in general interacting theories. A simple formula has been given for $S_\text{EE}$ using gauge/gravity duality \cite{Ryu:2006bv}. For a static spacetime, consider the minimal surface $\Sigma$ which ends on the boundary of $A$ at infinity. The conjecture is that
$S_\text{EE} = A_\Sigma/4G$, where $A_\Sigma$ is the area of $\Sigma$. In other words, the entanglement entropy is given by a formula which is very similar to the Hawking-Bekenstein entropy of a black hole. Since $\Sigma$ extends out to infinity, its area is infinite. But $S_\text{EE}$ is also infinite if one includes arbitrarily short wavelength modes which cross the boundary of $A$. There is a prescription to regulate this divergence both in the gravity side and dual field theory. Using this prescription, this conjecture has passed a large number of nontrivial tests \cite{Nishioka:2009un}. A derivation using Euclidean gravity has recently been provided \cite{Lewkowycz:2013nqa}. It has even been suggested that quantum entanglement might be a key to reconstructing the bulk spacetime \cite{VanRaamsdonk:2010pw}.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{s:conclusion}
We have seen that combining supersymmetry with general relativity to form supergravity improves the behavior of perturbative graviton scattering amplitudes, but is not expected to provide a UV complete quantum theory. The situation is much improved in string theory, which not only has perturbatively finite scattering amplitudes, but also provides a complete description of the microstates of certain black holes,
and gives a precise form of holography for certain boundary conditions.
In a review of such a large subject, several topics are inevitably
left out. One is string phenomenology
---
the attempt to find a choice of compactification and fluxes so that the low energy theory looks like some extension of the standard model of particle physics (coupled to gravity).
Another area that we have not had space to describe are attempts to model de Sitter spacetime in string theory. This is useful for stringy models of both inflation and the current acceleration of the universe due to dark energy.
There remain many directions for future research. One concerns spacetime
singularities in string theory. It has been shown that string theory can resolve certain types of singularities, but these tend to be static timelike singularities. It is not known in detail how string theory resolves the naked singularities arising from the instability of black strings and black branes. More importantly, very little is known about the most significant singularities of general relativity, such as the big bang and the singularity inside black holes. It is not clear that string theory ``resolves" such singularities
in the sense that there is another semiclassical spacetime on the other side. For example, in the case of the big bang, it is possible that time emerges from a more fundamental description in much the same way that space emerges in our current theories of holography.
In addition, we need to better understand the dictionary relating quantum gravity with anti-de Sitter boundary conditions to the dual gauge theory. Some elements of this dictionary are known, but many more remain to be understood. A key test will be to understand how the information comes out of an evaporating black hole. Another area where progress is needed is to extend holography to asymptotically flat or de Sitter spacetimes.
String theory has had an amazing history. It began as a theory of hadrons and was reinvented as a theory of quantum gravity based on 10D strings.
It can be understood as a weak-coupling limit of an 11D theory, M-theory, which includes membranes and five-branes. And with anti-de Sitter boundary conditions, superstring theory is believed to be equivalent to a supersymmetric gauge theory.
Since string theory has both the ingredients of the standard model of particle physics and of quantum gravity, it unifies the fundamental forces and is therefore a candidate for a `theory of everything'. Thus, it was long hoped that string theory would produce a single unique `vacuum' that would unify our understanding of particle physics, gravity, and cosmology, i.e.~that it would explain all parameters in particle physics and beyond in a unified framework. It was later realized that string theory does not produce such unique predictions, and we will have to make choices among the various vacua.
However, string theory has recently surprised us again. Rather than ``just" being a unified framework for particle physics and quantum gravity, investigations of gauge/gravity duality have revealed totally unexpected connections with other areas of physics. String theory is now expanding into the realm of nuclear physics, hydrodynamics and condensed matter. We are clearly only beginning to explore the depth and potential applications of this remarkable subject.
\vskip 1cm
\centerline{\bf Acknowledgements}
\vskip 3mm
It is a pleasure to thank N.~Engelhardt, G.~Hartnett, and T.~Olson for comments on the draft of this chapter.
G.H.~is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY12-05500.
H.E.~is supported by NSF CAREER Grant PHY-0953232.
|
\section{Introduction}
The \emph{lateral line} is a sensory system, which is present in fish and amphibians, that is used to detect movement and vibration in the surrounding water and is involved in a large variety of behaviors, from prey detection to predator avoidance, school swimming and sexual courtship. It extends from the head to the tail along each flank of the fish, and it is formed by a set of sensory organs, the \emph{neuromasts}, arranged on the body surface in specific patterns. The neuromasts, located between the ear and the eye, form the so-called anterior lateral line system (ALL), while neuromasts on the body and tail form the \emph{posterior lateral line} system (PLL) \cite{ghysen, coombs}.
\par In this paper we propose and analyze a mathematical model for the morphogenesis of the \emph{zebrafish} (\emph{Danio rerio}) PLL primordium. The development of this sensory organ represents a subject of general importance, as a paradigm to understand the growth, regeneration, and self-organization of other organ systems during development and disease \cite{chitnis}. Recent studies \cite{gilmour1, nechiporuk, gilmour} (see also \cite{haddon, itoh, draper, ghysen, li, matsuda, sarrazin, mizoguchi, sweet}) have investigated migration and self-organization in the zebrafish lateral line system, where a complex system of receptor activation drives embryonic cells, rather than a guidance determined by birth. However, the complete mechanism for cells arranging and organization is still relatively poorly understood \cite{gilmour}.
\par Loosely speaking, lateral line formation consists in a group of mesenchymal cells that migrate driven by a haptotactic signal. In a second phase, a process of differentiation in the rear of the migrating group induces a mesenchymal-epithelial transition that is at the origin of the detachment of rosette-shaped structures. This corresponds to the growth and location of the neuromasts along the two flanks of the primordium (see Figure \ref{fig:gilmourZF} (a) below, from \cite{gilmour}).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{gilmourZF.eps}}\\
\vspace{0cm}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{din_t2.eps}}
\caption{(a) Images from a time-lapse movie about the migration in the zebrafish PLL primordium. Leading zone is on the right of the primordium, trailing zone is on the left. Cell migration is to the right while neuromasts deposition occurs in the trailing region (source reproduced with permission from \cite{gilmour}). (b) An example of dynamical simulation of the our mathematical model (see Section \ref{sec:dynamic} for further details).}
\label{fig:gilmourZF}
\end{figure}
\par Our aim is to obtain a minimal mathematical model which is able to:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item describe the collective cell migration, the formation and the detachment of the neuromasts, in the spatial and temporal scale of the experimental observations;
\item ensure the existence and stability of the rosette structures of the emerging neuromasts, as stationary solutions of the system.
\end{enumerate}
Request b), among other, allow us to obtain some important restrictions on the range of the values of some parameters of the model, which will be used in the numerical simulations of the dynamical case, other parameters being obtained from biological literature or by a numerical fitting.
\par The model proposed here is a hybrid model: it describes cells as discrete entities and chemotactic molecules as continuous concentrations. This is a reasonable choice if we think that the total number of cells involved in the morphogenesis process is in the range 80--100 \cite{gilmour1, sarrazin}. For analytical and computational simplicity in our analysis, here we consider only the 2D case, although we do not expect great changes passing to 3D, since experimental observations suggest that these phenomena involve only a thin cell layer. As we will see in more detail through numerical simulations given in Section \ref{sec:dynamic}, we can state that our mathematical model shows a substantial agreement with the biological observations and with the experimental data proposed in literature (Figure \ref{fig:gilmourZF} (b), to be compared with (a)).
\par From a mathematical point of view, our model is based on a second order equation of the form
\begin{align*}
\ddot{\mathbf{X}}_i=\mathbf{F}(t,\mathbf{X},\dot{\mathbf{X}},u,\nabla u)-\mu\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i,
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{X}_i$, $i=1,\dots,N_{\text{tot}}$, is the position vector of the $i$-th cell, $N_{\text{tot}}$ is the total number of cells, $\mathbf{X}:=(\mathbf{X}_1,\dots,\mathbf{X}_{N_{\text{tot}}})$, and $\dot{\mathbf{X}}:=(\dot{\mathbf{X}}_1,\dots,\dot{\mathbf{X}}_{N_{\text{tot}}})$. The function $\mathbf{F}$ includes several effects: from the detection of chemical signals $u$ (chemotaxis, lateral inhibition) to mutual interactions between cells (alignment, adhesion, repulsion). All these effects take into account a non local sensing radius. In particular, we included an alignment term inspired by the Cucker-Smale mechanism \cite{cucker}, though in our case it is coupled with other effects. The term $-\mu\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i$ represents damping due to cell adhesion to the substrate. Chemical signals are described using a reaction-diffusion equation
\begin{align*}
\partial_t u=D\Delta u+S(t,\mathbf{X},u),
\end{align*}
with a possible source or degradation term given in $S$. Finally the cell mesenchymal-epithelial differentiation in the primordium is performed by a switch variable, whose evolution in time is given by a suitable threshold function.
\par We will show that our model admits particular stationary solutions, biologically relevant and consistent with experimental observations. They correspond to the so called rosettes, that will form the future neuromasts. We investigate numerically their stability, finding in turn a nice agreement with biological evidences both in the stationary and in the dynamical setting.
\par The paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec:bio} we recall some biological backgrounds and the phenomenology, based on the existing experimental observations. In Section \ref{sec:math:model} the mathematical model is introduced and its main features are discussed. In Section \ref{sec:steady} we study the stationary configuration of the rosettes, and their stability. Section \ref{sec:dynamic} deals with the dynamic model. We explain the methods used in the numerical simulations and some 2D numerical tests are presented, with the aim of illustrating the power and the limits of our approach. Section \ref{sec:conclusion} is devoted to the conclusions. Finally, Appendix \ref{ap:parameter} contains the lists of main dimensional and nondimensional parameters used in the model.
\section{Biological backgrounds}\label{sec:bio}
About zebrafish PLL, recent studies and experimental observations \cite{gilmour1, gilmour, nechiporuk} show an initial elongated single group of cells in the otic vesicle, in which we can distinguish a \emph{trailing region} near the head and a \emph{leading region} oriented towards the future tail of the embryo. In the following few hours after the fertilization, a total cell migration begins posteriorly, from head to tail. Then the cells in the trailing region assemble into rosette structures (proto-neuromast), that are progressively deposed during the migration to form \emph{neuromasts} \cite{nechiporuk} (see again Figure \ref{fig:gilmourZF} (a)).
\par In general we can state two primary mechanisms that concur to this morphogenesis process: a collective migration, and the neuromasts assembly.
About cell migration a very important role is played by chemokines as the \emph{stromal cell-derived factor-1a} (\emph{SDF-1a}) and its \emph{CXCR4b} receptor \cite{ghysen, gilmour1}. The former is expressed by the horizontal myoseptum, that separates the dorsal and ventral axial muscles, and acts as a haptotactic stripe for the migrating cells; the latter is expressed by the primordium itself \cite{li}. Chemokine signaling is necessary to drive migration. In fact, it has been proved that, in absence of CXCR4b, cell movements are strongly uncoordinated, with a ``zig zag'' pattern, as can be seen performing kymograph analysis (see \cite{gilmour1}). Moreover, next to the chemoattractant chemokine, migration within the primordium is guaranteed by a \emph{cell-cell interaction}, exerted by an adhesion force via filopodia. This is confirmed by two observations in \cite{gilmour1}: first, cells lacking CXCR4b receptor, transplanted into wild-type primordium, preserve their migration through the contact with neighboring cells; secondly, even a small number of wild-type cells, transplanted in a mutant primordium (lacking the SDF-1a receptor), after moving themselves toward the leading edge can restore the collective migration. In this contest other studies \cite{liu2, kerstetter, papusheva, liu, mertz} have shown that intercellular adhesion, typically through molecules as the cadherins, and \emph{cell-substratum adhesion}, through integrins, have a crucial role in the spatial organization of tissues and in embryonic development. Integrin- and cadherin-mediated adhesion allows cells and tissues to respond to mechanical stimuli from their environment and to change shape without loosing integrity (\cite{papusheva} and references therein).
\par To understand the mechanism which drives the rosettes organization and neuromast deposition (a mechanism however not yet completely described \cite{gilmour}), we have to make some considerations. Neuromast formation is strongly influences by the concentration of \emph{fibroblast growth factors} (\emph{FGFs}) and their receptors \emph{FGFRs} \cite{nechiporuk, gilmour}. In zebrafishes, FGF signaling drives cells to assemble rosettes and gives rise to the subdivision of the lateral line. Among the 22 members of the FGF family, only FGF3 and FGF10 are expressed by the primordium \cite{bottcher}, and they are substantially equivalent. In fact, inactivation of FGF3 or FGF10 alone does not alter significantly the development of the primordium, demonstrating a robustness of the system \cite{gilmour}. On the other hand, using a FGFR inhibitor SU5402, strongly affects the primordium: cells became disorganized and neuromast deposition stops. In this case also the collective migration is compromised, probably due to an alteration also in CXCR4b receptors \cite{nechiporuk}. Therefore, the rosette formation depends mainly on the total level of FGF and, as we will see below, on its location. We observe also that FGF and FGFR expressions are mutually exclusive, as confirmed by the location of their molecules: the former, broadly expressed in the leading region, and focused in one or two cells at the center of the rosettes in the trailing region, the latter, at the same time, expressed in the trailing region except the FGF foci \cite{nechiporuk, gilmour}. In the aim of designing a mathematical model, this suggests to divide the cell population into two groups: the \emph{leader} mesenchymal cells (expressing FGF), and the \emph{follower} epithelial cells (expressing FGFR). At the beginning, all the cells belong to the leading group. Afterwards, few minutes after fertilization, some leaders in the trailing zone start to become followers, except one or two leader cells located in the center, that maintain their mesenchymal state. Loss of FGF activity, on the contrary, implies that no transition can occurs \cite{gilmour}. Then, the follower cells are driven towards the FGF source to form a rosette. As a proto-neuromast becomes fully mature, it is deposited from the trailing edge, and a new rosette is formed again in a cyclic mechanism.
\par Let us now propose some rules that model the transition from a leader cell into a follower, corresponding to the activation of the FGFR receptor. We assume in the following that the transition occurs under three concomitant conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a low level of SDF-1a \cite{ghysen};
\item a high level of FGF \cite{gilmour};
\item a low number of followers in the neighborhood.
\end{enumerate}
\par The first condition implies that rosette formation begins in the trailing region, where SDF-1a signal is already degraded by cells in the leading edge. The third condition translates a common phenomenon in embryology, the so called \emph{lateral inhibition}: a cell that adopts a particular feature inhibits its immediate neighbours from doing likewise. This condition, together with the second, implies that followers, activating FGFR receptor, inhibit the same activation in a more surrounded central leader, so that it will express a significantly higher level of FGF signal \cite{haddon, itoh, hart, matsuda, mizoguchi, sweet}. Finally we remark that the leader-follower transition can be reversible, possibly with a time delay. In fact, blocking FGF activity makes all cells equally leader and causes the consequent melting of formed rosettes \cite{gilmour}.
\par In the following we will see that our mathematical model will be consistent with the biological observations if we consider chemical effects concomitant with other cell mechanisms, as lateral inhibition, alignment, and adhesion-repulsion effects.
\section{The mathematical model}\label{sec:math:model}
According to the above observations we propose a hybrid model which takes into account the difference between the cellular and the chemical scale. At the cellular level the model is discrete and includes the equation of the motion and the equation of state leader-follower for each single cell, while at the molecular level the model is continuous and is based on the equations for the various chemical signals involved. Let us summarize the main ingredients which compose our model.
\par For the cell motion we use a second order dynamic equation, which takes into account the forces acting on the cells. These forces are given by chemical signals and mechanical interaction between cells. Because of the equivalence between FGF3 and FGF10, we consider a single concentration and a single receptor, that we will denote respectively as FGF and FGFR. The SDF-1a effect is described by a haptotactic term produced by the gradient of the concentration of this chemokine, see \cite{eisenbach} for some biological backgrounds, while mathematical references can be found in \cite{murrayII, perthame}. In the same way, the action of FGFR on a follower cell is described by a chemotactic effect due to the gradient of the FGF produced by a leader cell.
\par Next we describe the cell-cell mechanical interactions due to filopodia, which consist in an alignment effect and both a radial attraction and repulsion depending on the relative position of the cells, see \cite{mertz} for experimental results in this direction. About alignment effects, we base our description on the seminal paper by F. Cucker and S. Smale \cite{cucker}, while for the attraction-repulsion effects we refer to the mechanism introduced by D'Orsogna et al. \cite{dorsogna}; both effects are considered by \cite{albi}. Finally, we introduce a damping term, proportional to the velocities, which models cell adhesion to the substrate \cite{rubinstein, fournier, bayly}.
\par The follower-leader differentiation is represented mathematically by a switch state variable, which change its value according to the level of some related functions, which take into account the concentration of SDF-1a and of FGF and also the number of cells in a given neighborhood of the given cell.
\par About the concentration of the FGF signal we associate a diffusion equation including a source term, given by the FGF production of the leader cells, and a natural molecular degradation term. The concentration of SDF-1a is described by an equation involving its degradation during the haptotactic process.
\subsection{The basic mathematical model}
Starting from the above considerations, we start to work in the following framework:
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.9 \textwidth}
\begin{align*}
\begin{array}{l}
\text{acceleration of}\\
\text{$i$-th cell}
\end{array}
&=\text{haptotactic effect of SDF-1a}\\
&+\text{chemotactic effect of FGF source on the followers}\\
&+\text{cells alignment}+\text{cell adhesion and repulsion}+\text{damping effect}\\
\text{$i$-th cell kind}&=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\text{follower}&\text{if}& \text{low level of SDF-1a}+\text{hight level of FGF}\\
&&+\text{absence of lateral inhibition}\\
\text{leader}&&\text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.\\
\begin{array}{l}
\text{rate of change of}\\
\text{FGF signal}
\end{array}
&=\text{diffusion}+\text{production}+\text{molecular degradation}\\
\begin{array}{l}
\text{rate of change of}\\
\text{SDF-1a signal}
\end{array}
&=\text{degradation}
\end{align*}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\medskip
Let $\mathbf{X}_i(t)$ be the position of a single $i$-th cell, $s(\mathbf{x},t)$ the SDF-1a concentration, $f(\mathbf{x},t)$ the total FGF concentration (including both FGF3 and FGF10), $\varphi_i(t)$ a variable that distinguishes a $i$-th cell to be, at time $t$, a leader ($\varphi_i(t)=1$) or a follower ($\varphi_i(t)=0$). We introduce the following equations:
\begin{equation}\label{sysF}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\ddot{\mathbf{X}}_i&=\alpha \mathbf{F}_1\left(\nabla s\right)+\gamma(1-\varphi_i)\mathbf{F}_1\left(\nabla f\right)+\mathbf{F}_2(\dot{\mathbf{X}})+\mathbf{F}_3(\mathbf{X})-\left[\mu_\text{F}+(\mu_\text{L}-\mu_\text{F})\varphi_i\right]\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i,\\\\
\varphi_i&=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0,&\text{if}& \delta F_1(s)-\left[k_\text{F}+(k_\text{L}-k_\text{F})\varphi_i\right]F_1(h(f))+\lambda\Gamma(n_i)\leq0,\\
1,&&\text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.\\\\
\partial_t f&=D\Delta f+\xi F_4(\mathbf{X})-\eta f,\\\\
\partial_t s&=-\sigma s F_5(\mathbf{X}),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $\mu_\text{L}$, $\mu_\text{F}$, $\delta$, $k_\text{L}$, $k_\text{F}$, $\lambda$, $D$, $\xi$, $\eta$, $\sigma$ are given positive constants, and $F_n(\cdot)$, $n=1,\dots,5$, are suitable functions.
\par The term $F_1$, which is related to the detection of a chemical signal by $i$-th cell in its neighborhood, is taken to be a weighted average over a ball of radius $\bar{R}$ and centered in $\mathbf{X}_i$:
\begin{align}\label{F_chemicals}
F_1(g(\mathbf{x},t)):=\frac{1}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R})}g(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}):=\left\{\mathbf{x}:\left|\left|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{X}_i\right|\right|\leq \bar{R}\right\},
\end{align}
$\left|\left|\cdot\right|\right|$ being the Euclidean norm,
\begin{align}
w_i(\mathbf{x}):=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
2\exp\left(-||\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{X}_i||^2\displaystyle\frac{\log 2}{\bar{R}^2}\right)-1,&\text{if}&||\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{X}_i||\leq\bar{R};\\
0,&&\text{otherwise};
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
is a truncated Gaussian weight function, and
\begin{align}
W:=\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R})}w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x},
\end{align}
independently of $i$. A similar definition holds for the vector quantity $\mathbf{F}_1$. Reasonably we will choose $\bar{R}$ larger than the cell radius $R$ (see Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}), so (\ref{F_chemicals}) describes a chemical signal that is sensed more in the center of the cell and less at the edge of the cell extensions. The second addend in (\ref{sysF})$_1$ refers to the attraction of a follower cell toward a source of FGF ligand. The switch variable $\varphi_i$ makes this term zero for a leader cell that, expressing FGF, does not activate FGFR receptor (see Section \ref{sec:bio}).
\par The effect included in the third addend of (\ref{sysF})$_1$ represents a possible cell alignment. For it we assume a Cucker-Smale \emph{flocking term}:
\begin{align}\label{alignment-new}
\mathbf{F}_2(\dot{\mathbf{X}}):=\frac{1}{\bar{N}_i}\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R_1)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{H}(\dot{\mathbf{X}}_j-\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i).
\end{align}
Here $R_1$ is a suitable radius of influence,
\begin{align}\label{alignment-new2}
\bar{N}_i:=\text{card}\left\{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R_1)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}\right\},
\end{align}
and the function $\mathbf{H}$ depends on the relative velocities $\dot{\mathbf{X}}_j-\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i$, i.e.:
\begin{align}\label{alignment2}
\mathbf{H}(\dot{\mathbf{X}}_j-\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i):=\left[\beta_\text{F}+(\beta_\text{L}-\beta_\text{F})\varphi_i\varphi_j\right]\frac{R_1^2}{R_1^2+||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||^2}(\dot{\mathbf{X}}_j-\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i),
\end{align}
$\beta_\text{F}$, $\beta_\text{L}$ being constants. In particular we can have different coefficient of alignment for a leader or follower cell: the product $\varphi_i\varphi_j$ makes the coefficient equal to $\beta_\text{F}$ if at least one of the two cell is follower ($\varphi_i\varphi_j=0$) and equal to $\beta_\text{L}$ in the case of two leaders ($\varphi_i\varphi_j=1$). We remark that the flocking term given by (\ref{alignment2}), which is studied in \cite{cucker, ha}, in our model is coupled with other effects, as chemotaxis and attraction-repulsion effects (see below), and it is also computed on a truncated domain. In the following we will assume $R_1=\bar{R}$ (see Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}), but in principle they can be different.
\par Function $\mathbf{F}_3$ includes adhesion-repulsion effects. In particular repulsion occurs at a distance between the centers of two cells less than $R_4$ and takes into account the effects of a possible cell deformation. Conversely, adhesion occurs at a distance greater than $R_4$ and less than $R_5>R_4$, and it is due to a mechanical interaction between cells via filopodia. We assume
\begin{align}
\mathbf{F}_3(\mathbf{X}):=\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R_5)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i),
\end{align}
where the function $\mathbf{K}$ depends on the relative positions $\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i$, i.e.:
\footnotesize
\begin{align}\label{kappa}
\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i):=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
-\omega_{\text{rep}}\left(\displaystyle\frac{1}{||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||}-\frac{1}{R_4}\right)\displaystyle\frac{\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i}{||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||},&\text{if}& ||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||\leq R_4;\\\\
\left[\omega_{\text{adh,F}}+(\omega_{\text{adh,L}}-\omega_{\text{adh,F}})\varphi_i\varphi_j\right]\left(||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||-R_4\right)\displaystyle\frac{\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i}{||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||},&\text{if}& R_4<||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||\leq R_5;
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\normalsize
$\omega_{\text{rep}}$, $\omega_{\text{adh,L}}$, $\omega_{\text{adh,F}}$ being constants. In practice we will choose $R_4=2R$ (see Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}), so that repulsion occurs when two cells start to be effectively overlapped. We note that function (\ref{kappa})$_1$ gives a repulsion which goes as $1/r$, $r$ being the distance between the centers of two cells, as we can find in \cite{cristiani-piccoli-tosin, scianna}. The function (\ref{kappa})$_2$ represents Hooke's law of elasticity, with different elastic coefficients for a leader cell and for a follower. In particular we have $\omega_{\text{adh,F}}$ if at least one of the two cells is a follower ($\varphi_i\varphi_j=0$) and $\omega_{\text{adh,L}}>\omega_{\text{adh,F}}$ if two cells are both leader ($\varphi_i\varphi_j=1$). Similar terms can be found in \cite{albi} and references therein. We remark that adhesion (\ref{kappa})$_2$ and alignment (\ref{alignment2}) produce different effects, though they both refer to a cell-cell interaction: the former a radial effect, the latter a tangential effect.
\par The last term in the first equation is due to the cell adhesion to the substrate (see for example \cite{rubinstein, fournier, bayly}), possibly with a different damping coefficient for a leader ($\mu_\text{L}$, given by $\varphi_i=1$) or a follower cell ($\mu_\text{F}$, given by $\varphi_i=0$).
\par The second equation in (\ref{sysF}) defines the switch variable $\varphi_i$ for the $i$-th cell. The leader-to-follower transition is performed requiring that the threshold function at the right hand side of (\ref{sysF})$_2$ is less than zero, according with the three conditions described in Section \ref{sec:bio}. For the FGF detection in $F_1(h(f))$ we choose the following form for the function $h(f)$:
\begin{align}\label{fun-fgf-fgfmax}
h(f):=\frac{f}{f_{\max}+f},
\end{align}
where $f_{\max}$ is constant. The function (\ref{fun-fgf-fgfmax}) includes a possible saturation effect when FGF molecules tend to occupy all receptors of a cell. The coefficients $k_\text{L}$ and $k_\text{F}$, related respectively to a leader and a follower cell, provides a delay in the inverse follower-to-leader transition setting suitably $k_\text{L}<k_\text{F}$, this in accordance to observations in Section \ref{sec:bio}. About the lateral inhibition mechanism, we introduce a function $\Gamma(n_i)$ that counts the number $n_i$ of cells in a suitable neighborhood of the $i$-th cell, with radius of influence $R_2$, namely
\begin{align}\label{gamma-n-i}
\Gamma(n_i):=\frac{e^{n_i}}{e^{n_i}+\Gamma_0}-\frac{1}{1+\Gamma_0},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{n-i}
n_i:=\text{card}\left\{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathring{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{X}_i,R_2)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}\right\},
\end{align}
$\Gamma_0$ is a constant, and $\mathring{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{X}_i,R_2)$ is the interior of $\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R_2)$. Function (\ref{gamma-n-i}) is justified if we think of a neuromast as made by a single central leader and some followers around. In this contest it makes an appropriate difference between the number of cells counted by the central cell and those counted by a lateral cell. Moreover, it provides a fast saturation effect when $n$ increases, so that a central leader counts about the same number of cells from a certain value of $n$. This is useful to describe the possibility to obtain neuromasts with a variable number of cells, according to experimental observations (generally 8-20 cells) \cite{gilmour}. A suitable value for the constant $\Gamma_0$ is given in Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}.
\par In the diffusion equation (\ref{sysF})$_3$, only leader cells are responsible of the production of FGF, so that
\begin{align}\label{F7-eq}
F_4(\mathbf{X}):=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{tot}}}\varphi_j\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3)},
\end{align}
where $N_{\text{tot}}$ is the total number of cells, and
\begin{align}
\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3)}:=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
1,&\text{if}&\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3);\\
0,&&\text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\par Similarly, in equation (\ref{sysF})$_4$ we take
\begin{align*}
F_5(\mathbf{X}):=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{tot}}}\displaystyle\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3)},
\end{align*}
in which the variable $\varphi$ does not appear now, because both leaders and followers are involved in the haptotactic process. Typically, we will choose $R_3=R$ considering that the source of FGF and the degradation of SDF-1a signal is substantially defined by the dimension of a single cell (see Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}).
\par The above observations let us to summarize the following model:
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}\label{sys-dim}
\begin{split}
&\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\ddot{\mathbf{X}}_i&=\displaystyle\frac{\alpha}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R})}\nabla s(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}+\displaystyle \frac{\gamma(1-\varphi_i)}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R})}\nabla f(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}\\\\
&+\displaystyle\frac{1}{\bar{N}_i}\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R_1)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{H}(\dot{\mathbf{X}}_j-\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i)+\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R_5)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i)-\left[\mu_\text{F}+(\mu_\text{L}-\mu_\text{F})\varphi_i\right]\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i,\\\\
\displaystyle\varphi_i&\displaystyle=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0&\text{if}&
\displaystyle\frac{\delta}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R})}s(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}-\frac{k_\text{F}+(k_\text{L}-k_\text{F})\varphi_i}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R})}\frac{f(\mathbf{x},t)}{f_{\text{max}}+f(\mathbf{x},t)}w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}\\\\
&&+\displaystyle\lambda \Gamma(n_i)\leq0,\\\\
1&&\text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.
\\\\\displaystyle \partial_t f&\displaystyle=D\Delta f+\xi\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{tot}}}\displaystyle\varphi_j\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3)}-\eta f,\\\\
\displaystyle \partial_t s&\displaystyle=-\sigma s\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{tot}}}\displaystyle\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3)},
\end{array}
\right.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
where the functions $\mathbf{H}(\dot{\mathbf{X}}_j-\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i)$ and $\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i)$ are given by (\ref{alignment2}) and (\ref{kappa}). Initial and boundary conditions have to be specified. For the $i$-th cell we set
\begin{align}\label{pos-vel-iniz}
\mathbf{X}_i(0)=\mathbf{X}_{i0};\quad\mbox{and}\quad\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i(0)=\mathbf{0},\quad i=1,\dots,N_{\text{tot}},
\end{align}
together with the equally initial cell state of leader:
\begin{align}\label{phi-iniz}
&\varphi_i(0)=1,\quad i=1,\dots,N_{\text{tot}}.
\end{align}
Now, let $\Omega=[a,b]\times[c,d]$ our domain, for FGF signal we require zero initial concentration and homogeneous Neumann boundary condition:
\begin{align}\label{f-iniz-bound}
f(\mathbf{x},0)=0;\quad \frac{\partial f}{\partial\mathbf{n}}=0,\quad\mbox{on $\partial\Omega$}.
\end{align}
No-flow boundary condition (\ref{f-iniz-bound})$_2$ is justified if we think of an experiment in which our domain is isolated from the surrounding environment. Then, since initially SDF-1a is only located in a given region
\begin{align}\label{s-iniz1}
s(\mathbf{x},0)=s_0(\mathbf{x}),
\end{align}
where $s_0(\mathbf{x})$ has compact support in $\Omega$. In particular we consider a rectangular stripe of width $2l$, $[\bar{a},\bar{b}]\times [m-l,m+l]$, with $[\bar{a},\bar{b}]\subset [a,b]$, $m=(c+d)/2$, and \begin{align}\label{s-iniz2}
s_0(x,y):=\Phi(x)\Psi(y),
\end{align}
where, for instance, we choose
\begin{align}\label{s0-tanh}
\Phi(x):=\frac{s_{\max}}{2}\left[\tanh\left( \frac{x-c_1}{c_2}\right)+1\right]\chi_{[\bar{a},\bar{b}]},
\end{align}
$s_{\max}$ is the initial maximum SDF-1a concentration, $c_1$, $c_2$ are constants. Function (\ref{s0-tanh}) yields a non uniform haptotactic gradient, that is stronger at the beginning and then tends to saturate when cells acquire enough velocity. Values for $c_1$, $c_2$ will be given in Section \ref{sec:dynamic}. Then we set
\begin{align}\label{s0-psi}
\Psi(y):=u_{\varepsilon}(y)\ast \chi_{[m-l,m+l]}(y)=\int^d_c u_{\varepsilon}(y-\tau)\chi_{[m-l,m+l]}(y)\,d\tau,
\end{align}
the convolution of $\chi_{[m-l,m+l]}(y)$ with a positive and symmetric mollifier
\begin{align}\label{eq:mollifier}
u_{\varepsilon}(y)&:=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{J}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\;e^{-\displaystyle\frac{1}{1-\left(y/\varepsilon\right)^2}},&\text{if}&-\varepsilon<y<\varepsilon;\\\\
0,&&\text{otherwise};
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{eq:mollifier2}
J&:=\int_{-\varepsilon}^{\varepsilon}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\;e^{-\displaystyle\frac{1}{1-\left(y/\varepsilon\right)^2}}\,dy,
\end{align}
is the normalization factor. Mollifier (\ref{eq:mollifier}) is introduced to have sufficient smoothness for $s_0(\mathbf{x})$. A suitable value for the positive constant $\varepsilon$ will be given in Section \ref{sec:dynamic}.
\subsection{The nondimensional model}
Though we tend to use dimensional times and distances in the plots for easier comparison with experiments, the qualitative behaviour of the model (\ref{sys-dim}) is more clearly described using a nondimensional based on the following dimensionless quantities:
\footnotesize
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
t^*:=\frac{t}{T},\quad \mathbf{x}^*:=\frac{\mathbf{x}}{R},\quad \mathbf{X}^*:=&\frac{\mathbf{X}}{R},\quad f^*:=\frac{f}{f_{\max}},\quad s^*:=\frac{s}{s_{\max}},\\
W^*:=\frac{W}{R^2},\quad R_i^*:=\frac{R_i}{R}\quad& i=1,\dots,5, \quad \bar{R}^*:=\frac{\bar{R}}{R},\\
\alpha^*:=\frac{\alpha s_{\max}T^2}{R^2},\quad \beta^*_\text{L}:=\beta_\text{L} T,\quad \beta^*_\text{F}:=&\beta_\text{F} T,\quad\gamma^*:=\frac{\gamma f_{\max} T^2}{R^2},\quad \omega^*_{\text{rep}}:=\frac{\omega_{\text{rep}} T^2}{R^2},\\
\omega^*_{\text{adh,L}}:=\omega_{\text{adh,L}}T^2,\quad\omega^*_{\text{adh},F}:=\omega_{\text{adh,F}}T^2,\quad\mu^*_L&:=\mu_\text{L} T,\quad \mu^*_\text{F}:=\mu_\text{F} T,\quad \delta^*:=\frac{\delta s_{\max}}{\lambda},\quad k^*_\text{L}:=\frac{k_\text{L}}{\lambda},\\
k^*_\text{F}:=\frac{k_\text{F}}{\lambda},\quad D^*:=\frac{D T}{R^2},\quad \xi^*:=\frac{\xi T}{f_{\max}},\quad \eta^*:=&\eta T,\quad \sigma^*:=\sigma T,\quad c^*_1:=\frac{c_1}{R},\quad c^*_2:=\frac{c_2}{R},\quad \varepsilon^*:=\frac{\varepsilon}{R},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\normalsize
where $T$ a characteristic time (see Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}). With these definitions, and maintaining for simplicity the asterisks only for the nondimensional constants, we have
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}\label{sys-adim}
\begin{split}
&\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\ddot{\mathbf{X}}_i&=\displaystyle\frac{\alpha^*}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}^*)}\nabla s(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}+\displaystyle \frac{\gamma^*(1-\varphi_i)}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}^*)}\nabla f(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}\\\\
&+\displaystyle\frac{1}{\bar{N}_i}\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R^*_1)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{H}(\dot{\mathbf{X}}_j-\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i)+\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R^*_5)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i)-\left[\mu^*_\text{F}+(\mu^*_\text{L}-\mu^*_\text{F})\varphi_i\right]\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i,\\\\
\displaystyle\varphi_i&\displaystyle=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0&\text{if}&
\displaystyle\frac{\delta^*}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}^*)}s(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}-\frac{k^*_\text{F}+(k^*_\text{L}-k^*_\text{F})\varphi_i}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}^*)}\frac{f(\mathbf{x},t)}{1+f(\mathbf{x},t)}w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}\\\\
&&+\displaystyle\Gamma(n_i)\leq0,\\\\
1&&\text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.
\\\\\displaystyle \partial_t f&\displaystyle=D^*\Delta f+\xi^*\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{tot}}}\displaystyle\varphi_j\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3^*)}-\eta^* f,\\\\
\displaystyle \partial_t s&\displaystyle=-\sigma^* s\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{tot}}}\displaystyle\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3^*)},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
where
\begin{align}\label{funz-gamma-adim}
\Gamma(n_i):=\frac{e^{n_i}}{e^{n_i}+\Gamma_0}-\frac{1}{1+\Gamma_0},
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{n-i-adim}
n_i:=\text{card}\left\{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathring{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{X}_i,R^*_2)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}\right\},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\mathbf{H}:=\left[\beta^*_\text{F}+(\beta^*_\text{L}-\beta^*_\text{F})\varphi_i\varphi_j\right]\frac{R^{*2}_1}{R^{*2}_1+||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||^2}(\dot{\mathbf{X}}_j-\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i),
\end{align}
and
\footnotesize
\begin{align}
\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i):=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
-\omega^*_{\text{rep}}\left(\displaystyle\frac{1}{||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||}-\frac{1}{R^*_4}\right)\displaystyle\frac{\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i}{||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||},&\text{if}& ||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||\leq R^*_4,\\\\
\left[\omega^*_{\text{adh,F}}+(\omega^*_{\text{adh,L}}-\omega^*_{\text{adh,F}})\varphi_i\varphi_j\right]\left(||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||-R^*_4\right)\displaystyle\frac{\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i}{||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||},&\text{if}& R^*_4<||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||\leq R^*_5.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align
\normalsize
Initial and boundary conditions are still given by (\ref{pos-vel-iniz})--(\ref{s0-psi}). In particular in (\ref{s0-tanh}), (\ref{eq:mollifier}), and (\ref{eq:mollifier2}) we have to replace $s_{\max}$, $c_1$, $c_2$ and $\varepsilon$, with $s^*_{\max}=1$, $c^*_1$, $c^*_2$ and $\varepsilon^*$.
\section{Steady states and stability}\label{sec:steady}
Now we will investigate particular steady states for our model. They are biologically relevant, because they correspond to the neuromasts basic structure (see Section \ref{sec:bio}). This will be useful also to provide us with a range of variability for some parameters or to specify some of their ratios. First we consider the stationary form of system (\ref{sys-adim})
\begin{equation}\label{sys-adim-staz}
\begin{split}
&\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\frac{\gamma^*(1-\varphi_i)}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}^*)}\nabla f(\mathbf{x})w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}+\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R^*_5)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i)=\mathbf{0},\\\\
\displaystyle\varphi_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0&\text{if}&
-\displaystyle\frac{k^*_\text{F}+(k^*_\text{L}-k^*_\text{F})\varphi_i}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}^*)}\frac{f(\mathbf{x})}{1+f(\mathbf{x})}w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}+\Gamma(n_i)\leq0,\\\\
1&&\text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.\\\\
D^*\Delta f=\eta^* f-\xi^*\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{tot}}}\displaystyle\varphi_j\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_j,R_3^*)},\\\\
s=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial\mathbf{n}}=0,\quad\mbox{on $\partial\Omega$}.
\end{align*}
\begin{Definition}
We will call \emph{$N$-rosette} ($N\geq 2$) a configuration formed by a leader cell surrounded by $N$ follower cells with their centers located on the vertices of a regular polygon of $N$ sides (or a segment if $N=2$) centered in the leader cell (Figure \ref{fig-8rosette} (a)).
\end{Definition}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]
{
\begin{pspicture}(-3,-3)(3,3)
\uput[90](0,-0.3){$\mathbf{X}_\text{L}$}
\pscircle(0,0){1}
\pscircle(1.5,0){1}
\pscircle(-1.5,0){1}
\pscircle(0,1.5){1}
\uput[90](0.05,-1.95){$\mathbf{X}_i$}
\pscircle(0,-1.5){1}
\pscircle(1.05,1.05){1}
\pscircle(-1.05,-1.05){1}
\pscircle(1.05,-1.05){1}
\pscircle(-1.05,1.05){1}
\end{pspicture}
}
\hspace{0 mm}
\subfigure[]
{
\begin{pspicture}(-3,-4)(3,1)
\psline{->}(0,0)(1.5,0)
\uput[270](1.3,0){$x$}
\psline{->}(0,0)(0,1.5)
\uput[180](0,1.3){$y$}
\psarc(0,0){.4}{225}{270}
\psline(0,0)(0,-3)
\psarc(0,-3){.3}{90}{157.5}
\psline(0,0)(2.121,-2.121)
\psline(0,0)(-2.121,-2.121)
\psarc(-2.121,-2.121){.6}{337.5}{360}
\psline(0,-3)(2.121,-2.121)
\psline(0,-3)(-2.121,-2.121)
\psline[linestyle=dashed](-2.121,-2.121)(2.121,-2.121)
\uput[248](-0.1,-0.3){$\alpha_1$}
\uput[351](-1.5,-2.3){$\alpha_3$}
\uput[100](-0.2,-2.8){$\alpha_2$}
\uput[145](0.1,0){$\mathbf{X}_\text{L}$}
\uput[180](-2.121,-2.121){$\mathbf{X}_{i-1}$}
\uput[360](2.121,-2.121){$\mathbf{X}_{i+1}$}
\uput[270](0,-3){$\mathbf{X}_i$}
\uput[135](-0.9,-1.06){$d_1$}
\uput[180](0.1,-1.5){$d_1$}
\uput[270](-1.06,-2.5){$d_3$}
\uput[90](0.5,-2.18){$d_2$}
\end{pspicture}
}
\caption{(a) Example of 8-rosette with a leader centered in $\mathbf{X}_\text{L}$ and 8 followers centered in $\mathbf{X}_i$, $i=1,\dots,8$. (b) Geometrical configuration of a $N$-rosette with a leader cell centered in $\mathbf{X}_\text{L}$ and some followers centered in $\mathbf{X}_{i-1}$, $\mathbf{X}_{i}$, $\mathbf{X}_{i+1}$.}
\label{fig-8rosette}
\end{figure}
\par With reference to Figure \ref{fig-8rosette} (b), we call $\mathbf{X}_\text{L}$ the center of the leader cell, $\mathbf{X}_i$ the center of a follower, $d_1$ the distance between the followers and the leader, $d_2$ the distance between two followers in alternating position (e.g. $\mathbf{X}_{i-1}$ and $\mathbf{X}_{i+1}$), $d_3$ the distance between two adjoining followers (e.g. $\mathbf{X}_{i}$ and $\mathbf{X}_{i+1}$), and $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$ the angles in the figure.
\par By symmetry considerations we set:
\begin{align}
\alpha_1=\frac{2\pi}{N},\quad\alpha_2&=\frac{\pi-\alpha_1}{2},\quad\alpha_3=\frac{\pi}{2}-\alpha_2=\frac{\pi}{N},\\
d_2&=2d_1\sin \frac{2\pi}{N},\label{dist-d2}\\
d_3&=2d_1\sin \frac{\pi}{N}.\label{dist-d3}
\end{align}
Now we assume the following physically reasonable hypothesis for a $N$-rosette:
\begin{itemize}
\item the range of lateral inhibition equal to the range of repulsion between cells:
\begin{align}\label{hp1}
R_2=R_4;
\end{align}
\item the followers are located in the range of the lateral inhibition of the leader:
\begin{align}\label{hp2}
d_1\leq R_2;
\end{align}
\item there is no repulsion between adjoining followers if $2\leq N\leq 4$:
\begin{align}\label{hp3A}
d_3\geq R_4;
\end{align}
there is no repulsion between followers in alternating position if $N\geq 5$:
\begin{align}\label{hp3B}
d_2\geq R_4.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
We point out that hypothesis \eqref{hp2} is a direct consequence of the definition of a $N$-rosette.
\par Taking system (\ref{sys-adim-staz}) and hypothesis \eqref{hp1}--\eqref{hp3B} into account, we can state the following results.
\begin{Proposition}\label{prop-nrosette}
There exist $N$-rosettes if and only if $N\leq 12$. Moreover the distance $d_1$, depending on $N$, can vary in the following ranges:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2\sin \frac{\pi}{N}}\leq &\frac{d_1}{R_4}\leq 1,\quad\text{if}\quad 2\leq N\leq 4,\label{prop-distA}\\
\frac{1}{2\sin \frac{2\pi}{N}}\leq &\frac{d_1}{R_4}\leq 1,\quad\text{if}\quad 5\leq N\leq 12.\label{prop-distB}
\end{align}
\end{Proposition}
\emph{Proof.}
Condition (\ref{prop-distA}) is a consequence of (\ref{hp2}), (\ref{hp1}), (\ref{hp3A}), and (\ref{dist-d3}). While (\ref{prop-distB}) is a consequence of (\ref{hp2}), (\ref{hp1}), (\ref{hp3B}), and (\ref{dist-d2}). In particular (\ref{prop-distB}) is not empty if and only if $N\leq 12$.
\bigskip
\par The maximum number of cells, which is provided by the previous proposition, is consistent with the experimental observations as shown in \cite{gilmour}.
\begin{Proposition}\label{prop-repulsion}
In a $N$-rosette there are repulsion and lateral inhibition effects between adjoining followers if and only if $N\geq 5$. In particular if $N\geq 6$ these effects do not depend on $d_1$, and if $N=5$ this holds if and only if
\begin{align}\label{rep-n5}
\frac{1}{2\sin \frac{2\pi}{5}}\leq &\frac{d_1}{R_4}<\frac{1}{2\sin \frac{\pi}{5}}.
\end{align}
\end{Proposition}
\emph{Proof.}
Hypothesis (1) ensures that this proof holds both for repulsion and lateral inhibition effects. If $N\leq 4$ the statement is true thanks to hypothesis (2).
\\ If $N\geq 6$ from (\ref{dist-d3}), (\ref{hp1}), and (\ref{hp2}) we have
\begin{align*}
d_3\leq d_1\leq R_2=R_4,
\end{align*}
independently from $d_1$.
\\If $N=5$, using (\ref{dist-d3}) we have repulsion if and only if
\begin{align}\label{rep-n5-cond}
d_3=2 d_1\sin\frac{\pi}{5}<R_4.
\end{align}
From (\ref{rep-n5-cond}) and (\ref{prop-distB}) equation (\ref{rep-n5}) follows .
\bigskip
\par Now, in order to fix the range of variability for some parameters we solve the nondimensional system (\ref{sys-adim-staz}) for a $N$-rosette with a leader in $\mathbf{X}_\text{L}$, setting a frame centered $\mathbf{X}_\text{L}$ with axes passing through the center of a follower (Figure \ref{fig-8rosette} (b)). For simplicity we introduce the following symbols:
\begin{align*}
\overline{\nabla f(\mathbf{X}_i)}&:=\frac{1}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\bar{R}^*,\mathbf{X}_i)}\nabla f(\mathbf{x})w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x},\\
\overline{\overline{f(\mathbf{X}_i)}}&:=\frac{1}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\bar{R}^*,\mathbf{X}_i)}\frac{ f(\mathbf{x})}{1+f(\mathbf{x})}w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x},
\end{align*}
to denote the weighted average of the functions $\nabla f$ and $\frac{f}{1+f}$.
\par Firstly, equation (\ref{sys-adim-staz})$_2$ for each followers and for the leader becomes respectively:
\begin{align}
\varphi_i&=0 \Leftrightarrow -k^*_\text{F} \overline{\overline{f(\mathbf{X}_i)}} +\Gamma(n)\leq 0,\quad i=1,\dots,N, \label{phi-i-staz}\\
\varphi_0&=1 \Leftrightarrow -k^*_\text{L} \overline{\overline{f(\mathbf{X}_\text{L})}} +\Gamma(N)>0,\label{phi-0-staz}
\end{align}
where the function $\Gamma$ is given by (\ref{funz-gamma-adim}). Here the number $n$, which is related to the lateral inhibition, is given by (\ref{n-i-adim}) and, by symmetry considerations, it does not depend on $i$. Moreover, according to hypothesis (2) and Proposition \ref{prop-repulsion}, it takes only the values 1 or 3: if $N\geq 6$, or $N=5$ and holds condition (\ref{rep-n5}), we have to take $n=3$, otherwise $n=1$. The case $n=3$ means that on the $i$-th cell we have the lateral inhibition of the leader cell and of the two adjoining followers, while in the case $n=1$ we have only the lateral inhibition of the leader cell. The other cases for $n$ are not possible due to conditions \eqref{hp1}--\eqref{hp3B} assumed on the distances.
\par Now, the function $f(\mathbf{x})$, which is needed in (\ref{phi-i-staz}) and (\ref{phi-0-staz}), is the solution in the domain $\Omega$ of equation (\ref{sys-adim-staz})$_3$, with Neumann boundary conditions, that in this case it takes the form
\begin{align}
D^*\Delta f-\eta^* f&=-\xi^*\chi_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_\text{L},R_3^*)},\label{eq:f:adim:staz}\\
\frac{\partial f}{\partial\mathbf{n}}&=0,\quad \text{on $\partial\Omega$},\label{eq:f:adim:staz2}
\end{align}
$\mathbf{X}_\text{L}$ being the center of the leader cell, the only one that produces FGF signal. If $\Omega$ is a circular domain centered in the leader cell, radial symmetry of the solution of (\ref{eq:f:adim:staz}) and (\ref{eq:f:adim:staz2}) implies the quantities $\overline{\overline{f(\mathbf{X}_i)}}$ to be the same for all $i$, so that (\ref{phi-i-staz}) and (\ref{phi-0-staz}) become
\begin{align}
k^*_\text{F}&\geq \bar{k}^*_\text{F}:=\Gamma(n)/\overline{\overline{f(\mathbf{X}_i)}},\label{kf-cond}\\
k^*_\text{L}&<\bar{k}^*_\text{L}:=\Gamma(N)/\overline{\overline{f(\mathbf{X}_\text{L})}}.\label{kl-cond}
\end{align}
\par Now we try to obtain a numerical estimate for the bound functions $\bar{k}^*_\text{F}$ and $\bar{k}^*_\text{L}$, as $N$ changes. We set a domain $\Omega=[0,200]\times[0,200]\;(\mu\text{m}^2)$ with a single leader cell located in $\mathbf{X}_\text{L}=(100,100)\;(\mu\text{m})$. We choose the square domain size sufficiently large, so that its influence on the solution can be neglected in the time period of interest. Then equations (\ref{eq:f:adim:staz}) and (\ref{eq:f:adim:staz2}) are numerically solved in such a domain, as described in Section \ref{ap:scheme} to follow, using a spatial discretization corresponding to $\Delta x=\Delta y=0.2\;\mu\text{m}$. Parameters $D^*$, $\eta^*$, $\xi^*$, $R^*_2$, $R^*_3$, $R^*_4$, $\bar{R}^*$ used here are listed in Table \ref{tab-par-adim}, Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}.
\par Figure \ref{fig:K} shows a numerical estimate for the lower bound $\bar{k}^*_\text{F}$ in (\ref{kf-cond}). For each fixed value of $N$, $N=2,\dots,12$, the curve indicates the value of $\bar{k}^*_\text{F}$ as a functions of $d_1$, which is the distance between leader and follower. Since the scale of the curves is essentially different as $N$ changes, we present our results in two different pictures in Figures \ref{fig:K}. Notice that the range of the distance $d_1$ to be considered depends on $N$ according to (\ref{prop-distA}) and (\ref{prop-distB}) in Proposition \ref{prop-nrosette}: the starting point on the curve is marked by a ``$\bullet$'', while the ending point is represented by $d_1=R_4$ for all $N$. We have already observed that $\Gamma(n)$ can only obtain the values $\Gamma(1)$ or $\Gamma(3)$ according to Proposition \ref{prop-repulsion}. So, clearly, the curves for $N=2,3,4$ are overlapped (Figure \ref{fig:K} (a)), the same for $N=6,\dots,12$ (Figure \ref{fig:K} (b)). For $N=5$ the curve starts in Figure \ref{fig:K} (b), with $\Gamma(n)=\Gamma(3)$, until $d_1\approx 17\;\mu\text{m}$ (marker ``$\times$''), then $\Gamma(n)$ becomes $\Gamma(1)$ and, for larger values of $d_1$, the curve continues in Figure \ref{fig:K} (a). For $N=12$ the right hand side of (\ref{kf-cond}) assumes a single value in $d_1=R_4$ in Figure \ref{fig:K} (b).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{curveKPrimoTratto.eps}}
\hspace{-9 mm}
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{curveKSecondoTratto.eps}}
\caption{Numerical plot of the lower bound $\bar{k}^*_\text{F}$ in (\ref{kf-cond}) as a function of $d_1$. The curve gives the lower bound for ${k}^*_\text{F}$ for a fixed $N$ and $d_1$. Since the scale of the curves is essentially different, we present in (a) the case $N=2,3,4$, in which the curves are overlapped, and similarly in (b) the case $N=6,\dots,12$. The starting point on the curves is marked by ``$\bullet$'', while the ending point is represented by $d_1=R_4$ for all $N$. For $N=5$ the curve starts in (b) until $d_1\approx 17\;\mu\text{m}$ (marker ``$\times$''), then for larger values of $d_1$ continues in (a). For $N=12$ the curve is reduced to a single value in $d_1=R_4$ in (b).}
\label{fig:K}
\end{figure}
\par On the other hand, using again the numerical solution of $f(\mathbf{x})$, the right hand side of (\ref{kl-cond}) can be tabulated as $N$ changes. Its values are given in Table \ref{tab:K}.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{Numerical values of the upper bound $\bar{k}^*_\text{L}$ in (\ref{kl-cond}) for $N=2,\dots,12$. In practice fixing $N$ we have the upper bound of $k^*_\text{L}$ for the existence of a steady $N$-rosette.}
\label{tab:K}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c|c||c|c||}
\hline
\rule[-3 mm]{0 mm}{0.9 cm}
$N$&$ \bar{k}^*_\text{L}$ (nondim.)&$N$&$ \bar{k}^*_\text{L}$ (nondim.)\\
\hline
\hline
$2$&0.6707&8&1.8187\\
\hline
$3$&1.1580&9&1.8230\\
\hline
$4$&1.5146&10&1.8245\\
\hline
$5$&1.6987&11&1.8251\\
\hline
$6$&1.7769&12&1.8253\\
\cline{1-2}
$7$&1.8073&&\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\par Now, equation (\ref{sys-adim-staz})$_1$ becomes
\begin{align}
&\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_\text{L},R^*_5)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_\text{L}\right\}}\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_\text{L})=\mathbf{0},\label{Ieq-staz-leader}\\
&\gamma^*\overline{\nabla f(\mathbf{X}_i)}+\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R^*_4)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i)=\mathbf{0},\quad i=1,\dots,N,\label{Ieq-staz-foll}
\end{align}
respectively for the leader and for each follower. Here $\mathbf{K}$ contains only repulsion term:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i):=-\omega^*_{\text{rep}}\left(\frac{1}{||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||}-\frac{1}{R^*_4}\right)\frac{\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i}{||\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i||}.
\end{align*}
For symmetry (\ref{Ieq-staz-leader}) is identically satisfied. Then in (\ref{Ieq-staz-foll}) $f(\mathbf{x},t)$ is given by (\ref{eq:f:adim:staz}) and (\ref{eq:f:adim:staz2}), so in a circular domain $\Omega$ we can write the same relation for all $i$. For example, in relation to Figure \ref{fig-8rosette} (b), we have
\begin{align}\label{dist-equil}
\gamma^*\overline{\partial_y f(\mathbf{X}_i)}-\omega^*_{\text{rep}}h_1(d^*_1)-\omega^*_{\text{rep}}h_2(N,d^*_1)=0,
\end{align}
in which $\omega^*_{\text{rep}}h_1(d^*_1)$ represents the repulsion of the leader:
\begin{align*}
h_1(d^*_1):=\frac{1}{d^*_1}-\frac{1}{R^*_4},
\end{align*}
$d^*_1=d_1/R$ is the nondimensional value of $d_1$, and $\omega^*_{\text{rep}}h_2(N,d^*_1)$ is the possible repulsion of two adjoining followers according to (\ref{dist-d3}) and Propositions \ref{prop-nrosette}, \ref{prop-repulsion}, namely:
\begin{align}\label{h-dist-d1}
h_2(N,d^*_1):=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0,&\text{if}& N\leq4;\\
2\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2d^*_1\sin\frac{\pi}{5}}-\frac{1}{R^*_4}\right)\displaystyle\sin \frac{\pi}{5},&\text{if}& N=5 \wedge \frac{d^*_1}{R^*_4}< \frac{1}{2\sin \frac{\pi}{5}};\\
0,&\text{if}& N=5 \wedge \frac{1}{2\sin \frac{\pi}{5}}\leq \frac{d^*_1}{R^*_4}\leq 1;\\
2\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2d^*_1\sin\frac{\pi}{N}}-\frac{1}{R^*_4}\right)\displaystyle\sin \frac{\pi}{N},
&\text{if}& 6\leq N\leq 12.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
We remark that equation (\ref{dist-equil}) is useful for two reasons. First, if we know an experimental value for the distance $d^*_1$ we can obtain, fixing $N$, the ratio $\omega^*_{\text{rep}}/\gamma^*$ as a function of $d^*_1$:
\begin{align}\label{omega-gamma-d}
\frac{\omega^*_{\text{rep}}}{\gamma^*}=\Theta_N(d^*_1):=\frac{\overline{\partial_y f(\mathbf{X}_i)}}{h_1(d^*_1)+h_2(N,d^*_1)}.
\end{align}
On the other hand, if $\Theta_N$ is invertible, we can express $d^*_1$ as a function of $\omega^*_{\text{rep}}$ and $\gamma^*$ that is the equilibrium distance for a $N$-rosette fixed the physical parameters. Figure \ref{fig:curve-monotonia} represents a dimensional numerical plot of $\Theta_N$ for $N=2,\dots,12$. It shows that $\Theta_N$ is monotone with respect to $d_1$ for all $N$, so that relation (\ref{omega-gamma-d}) is invertible. To obtain this plot the value of $f(\mathbf{x})$ has been obtained numerically from (\ref{eq:f:adim:staz}) and (\ref{eq:f:adim:staz2}) as previously described, fixing the same domain and the same parameters.
\par The domain of the curves, as in Figure \ref{fig:K}, is given by (\ref{prop-distA}) and (\ref{prop-distB}); now it represents the admissible distances $d_1$ for a $N$-rosette, as $N$ changes. Symbol ``$\bullet$'' marks the origin of the curves. For $N=2,3,4$ the curves are overlapped (first line in the top) because for them $h_2=0$ (see (\ref{omega-gamma-d}) and (\ref{h-dist-d1})). For $N=5$ the curve coincide with the curve $N=2,3,4$ when $h_2$ becomes zero. This happens about for $d_1>17\;\mu\text{m}$, as we can see in (\ref{h-dist-d1})$_{1,2,3}$. The curves corresponding to $N=2,\dots,6$ have a vertical asymptote in $d_1=R_4$ where the functions $h_1$ and $h_2$ in (\ref{omega-gamma-d}) become zero. Conversely, for $N=7,\dots,12$, $\Theta_N$ is defined in $d_1=R_4$. In particular for $N=12$, due to (\ref{prop-distB}), the curve is reduced to a single value in $d_1=R_4$ given by $\Theta_{12}(R_4)$ (marker point on the right).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{curve_monotoniaN.eps}
\caption{Dimensional numerical plot of $\Theta_N$ for $N=2,\dots,12$, that demonstrates that this function is monotone with respect to $d_1$ and then invertible. The first three curves, for $N=2,\dots,4$, coincide (first line in the top). Then, from the top to the bottom, we have the curves related to $N=5,\dots,11$. For $N=5$ the curve goes to coincide with the first curve on the top about from $d_1>17\;\mu\text{m}$. For $N=12$ the curve is reduced to a single value in $d_1=R_4$. In practice fixing $N$ and $d_1$ we have the value of $\Theta_N$ that provides in (\ref{omega-gamma-d}) the ratio of the parameters $\omega^*_{\text{rep}}$ and $\gamma^*$.}
\label{fig:curve-monotonia}
\end{figure}
\par Typical values for $N$ and $d_1$ (or $d^*_1$) to be used in (\ref{kf-cond}), (\ref{kl-cond}), and (\ref{omega-gamma-d}) will be given in Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}.
\par Now, in order to test numerically a steady $N$-rosette, we perform a dynamic simulation of the model (\ref{sys-adim}), as described in Section \ref{ap:scheme}, with initial data given by a solution of the stationary system (\ref{sys-adim-staz}). In particular, we consider the spatial domain $\Omega=[0,200]\times[0,200]\;(\mu\text{m}^2)$ and the time interval $[0,50]\;(\text{h})$, that is a typical time range used in the experimental observations \cite{nechiporuk}. Spatial and temporal discretizations are respectively $\Delta x=\Delta y=0.2\,\mu\text{m}$ and $\Delta t=0.01\,\text{h}$. Initial data are set as follows:
\begin{align}\label{X0staz}
\mathbf{X}_i(0)=\mathbf{X}_{i0},
\end{align}
$\mathbf{X}_{i0}$ being a $8$-rosette centered in $\mathbf{X}_\text{L}(0)=(100,100)\;(\mu\text{m})$, with follower-leader distance fixed at $d_1=\frac{3}{2}R$ (see Appendix \ref{ap:parameter} and Figure \ref{fig:staz} (a)),
\begin{align}\label{Xdot0staz}
\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i(0)=\mathbf{0},
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{f0staz}
f(\mathbf{x},0)=f_0(\mathbf{x}),
\end{align}
with $f_0(\mathbf{x})$ solution of equation (\ref{sys-adim-staz})$_3$ with homogeneous Neumann boundary condition in the same domain;
\begin{align}\label{s0staz}
s(\mathbf{x},0)=0,
\end{align}
according to (\ref{sys-adim-staz})$_4$. The parameters used here are listed in Appendix \ref{ap:parameter} (see Tables \ref{tab-param-dim}, \ref{tab-par-adim}).
\par We see that our numerical results demonstrate that, with good approximation, the initial configuration stays constant in time. Figure \ref{fig:staz} shows evolution in space of the dimensional solution at two different time steps: $t=0\;\text{h}$ and $t=50\;\text{h}$. Green colour marks the leader cell ($\varphi_i=1$), and red colour marks a follower cell ($\varphi_i=0$). Contour plot in the background is related to the FGF signal concentration, while variable $s(\mathbf{x},t)$ is not shown. Figure \ref{fig:staz_err} shows the evolution in time of the maximum relative error on the position, $E_{\text{max,rel}}(t):=\frac{\max_{1\leq i\leq N_{\text{tot}}}\left\|\mathbf{X}_i(t)-\mathbf{X}_{i0}\right\|}{R}$, and the maximum velocity $V_{\text{max}}(t):=\max_{1\leq i\leq N_{\text{tot}}}\left\|\dot{\mathbf{X}}_i(t)\right\|$. $E_{\text{max,rel}}$ suggests a deviation from the initial position in the order of $10^{-3}$ times cell radius, while $V_{\text{max}}$ is in the order of $10^{-4}$ $\mu\text{m}\,\text{h}^{-1}$, which is very small with respect to the cell velocity during migration that is around $69\;\mu\text{m}/\text{h}$ \cite{gilmour}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{staz_t0.eps}}
\hspace{0 mm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{staz_t50.eps}}
\caption{Numerical simulation of a steady solution given by a $8$-rosette. (a)-(b) are related respectively to the dimensional plot at two different time steps: $t=0\;\text{h}$ and $t=50\;\text{h}$. System (\ref{sys-adim}) is solved as described in Section \ref{ap:scheme} in $\Omega=[0,200]\times[0,200]\;(\mu\text{m}^2)$ (plot refers only to a part of the domain) and in $[0,50]\;(\text{h})$. Spatial and temporal discretization is set to $\Delta x=\Delta y=0.2\;\mu\text{m}$ and $\Delta t=0.01\;\text{h}$. Initial data are given by (\ref{X0staz})--(\ref{s0staz}). The parameters used here are listed in Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}. Green colour ({\large{\color{green}$\bullet$}}) marks the leader cell, red colour ({\large{\color{red}$\bullet$}}) a follower cell, contour plot in the background is the FGF signal concentration. Variable $s(\mathbf{x},t)$ is not shown.}
\label{fig:staz}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{staz_Emax.eps}}
\hspace{1 mm}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{staz_Vmax.eps}}
\hspace{1 mm}
\caption{Numerical assessment of a steady $8$-rosette.(a) Plot in time of the maximum relative error $E_{\text{max,rel}}(t)$. (b) Plot of the maximum velocity $V_{\text{max}}(t)$.}
\label{fig:staz_err}
\end{figure}
\par Now the stability of a $N$-rosette will be numerically investigated. Starting from the previous numerical test we perform a dynamic simulation perturbing the initial equilibrium configuration of the $8$-rosette. Namely, each center of a follower cell is translated of a ray vector whose magnitude and direction are random number in the interval $[0,5]\;(\mu\text{m})$ and $[0,2\pi]$. Spatial domain and parameters are the same as in the previous simulation, while the time range is set to $[0,60]\;(\text{h})$.
\par Figure \ref{fig:stab} shows the evolution in space of the dimensional solution at two time steps: $t=0\,\text{h}$ and $t=60\,\text{h}$. Colour convention is the same as Figure \ref{fig:stab}. Figure \ref{fig:stab_err} shows the evolution in time of the maximum relative error on the position $E_{\text{max,rel}}(t)$ and the maximum velocity $V_{\text{max}}(t)$. $E_{\text{max,rel}}$ indicates a deviation from the initial position in the order of $10^{-1}$ times cell radius, and also $V_{\text{max}}$ is small, being in the order of $10^{-2}$ $\mu\text{m}\,\text{h}^{-1}$. Our data demonstrate as the equilibrium configuration of our $8$-rosette is stable. Furthermore, numerical simulations show that similar results can hold also if $N\neq 8$, for instance for $N=5$ or $10$. We note that in a physically reasonable time range we do not observe the asymptotic stability of the rosette structures, which is actually not expected, but just the simple stability.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{stab_t0.eps}}
\hspace{0 mm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{stab_t60.eps}}
\caption{Numerical assessment of stability of a $8$-rosette. (a)-(b) are related respectively to the dimensional plot at $t=0\,\text{h}$ and $t=60\,\text{h}$. System (\ref{sys-adim}) is solved as described in Section \ref{ap:scheme} in $\Omega=[0,200]\times[0,200]\;(\mu\text{m}^2)$ (plot refers only to a part of the domain) and in $[0,50]\;(\text{h})$. Spatial and temporal discretization is the same as in Figure (\ref{fig:staz}). Initial data are given by a perturbation of positions (\ref{X0staz}), and by (\ref{Xdot0staz})--(\ref{s0staz}). The parameters used here are listed in Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}. Green colour ({\large{\color{green}$\bullet$}}) marks the leader cell, red colour ({\large{\color{red}$\bullet$}}) a follower cell, contour plot in the background is the FGF signal concentration. Variable $s(\mathbf{x},t)$ is not shown.}
\label{fig:stab}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{stab_Emax.eps}}
\hspace{1 mm}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{stab_Vmax.eps}}
\hspace{1 mm}
\caption{Numerical assessment of stability of a $8$-rosette. (a) Plot in time of the maximum relative error $E_{\text{max,rel}}(t)$. (b) Plot of the maximum velocity $V_{\text{max}}(t)$.}
\label{fig:stab_err}
\end{figure}
\section{Dynamic simulations}\label{sec:dynamic}
\subsection{Numerical methods}\label{ap:scheme}
All the numerical tests in the paper employ a 2D finite difference scheme with a uniform spatial and temporal grid.
\par About system (\ref{sys-adim}), the equation for $\ddot{\mathbf{X}}$ is reduced to the first order system
\small
\begin{equation}\label{first-order-system}
\begin{split}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\dot{\mathbf{Y}_i}&=\displaystyle\frac{\alpha^*}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}^*)}\nabla s(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}+\displaystyle \frac{\gamma^*(1-\varphi_i)}{W}\int_{\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,\bar{R}^*)}\nabla f(\mathbf{x},t)w_i(\mathbf{x})\,d\mathbf{x}\\\\
&+\displaystyle\frac{1}{\bar{N}_i}\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R^*_1)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{H}(\mathbf{Y}_j-\mathbf{Y}_i)+\sum_{j:\mathbf{X}_j\in \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{X}_i,R^*_5)\backslash\left\{\mathbf{X}_i\right\}}\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}_j-\mathbf{X}_i)-\left[\mu^*_\text{F}+(\mu^*_\text{L}-\mu^*_\text{F})\varphi_i\right]\mathbf{Y}_i,\\\\
\dot{\mathbf{X}_i}&=\mathbf{Y}_i.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
Then equation (\ref{first-order-system})$_1$ is discretized with the backward Euler method, putting totally implicit the terms in $\mathbf{Y}_i$ and $\mathbf{Y}_j$ at the right hand side, while totally explicit the other addends. Equation (\ref{first-order-system})$_2$ is solved with the forward Euler method.
\par About equation (\ref{sys-adim})$_3$ we use a classical exponential transformation in order to eliminate the stiff term $-\eta^* f$, and then we apply a central difference scheme in space and the parabolic Crank-Nicolson scheme in time, subject to zero flux boundary conditions. In practice, in the numerical simulations we choose the domain size sufficiently large that over the time period of interest have a negligible impact on the solution.
\par Finally in equation (\ref{sys-adim})$_4$ the explicit Euler method is employed.
\subsection{Numerical tests}
Now we simulate the zebrafish lateral line growth in a two-dimensional space, during about $20\;\text{h}$. Using the numerical method proposed in Section \ref{ap:scheme} we solve system (\ref{sys-adim}) in a domain $\Omega=[0,5000]\times[0,1240]\;(\mu\text{m}^2)$, with a spatial and temporal discretization given respectively by $\Delta x=\Delta y=5\,\mu\text{m}$ and $\Delta t=0.001\,\text{h}$. Parameters values used here are listed in Appendix \ref{ap:parameter} (Tables \ref{tab-param-dim}, \ref{tab-par-adim}). Initial and boundary conditions are given by (\ref{pos-vel-iniz})--(\ref{s0-psi}). In particular, as initial datum $\mathbf{X}_i(0)$, we set 90 cells equally distributed in the stripe $[600,1180]\times[600,640]\;(\mu\text{m}^2)$ at a distance between their centers of $17\;\mu\text{m}$, and then randomized around their position with radius in the range $[0,3]\;(\mu\text{m})$ and angles in $[0,2\pi]$ (Figure \ref{fig:dinamico1} (a)). As initial condition $s(\mathbf{x},0)$ in equation (\ref{s0-tanh}) we fix $c_1=838\;\mu\text{m}$ (the inflection point of the $\tanh$ is about at the middle of the primordium), $c_2=200\;\mu\text{m}$, and $[\bar{a},\bar{b}]=[600,5000]\;(\mu\text{m})$. Then in (\ref{s0-psi}) and (\ref{eq:mollifier2}) we choose $l=20\;\mu\text{m}$ and $\varepsilon=10\;\mu\text{m}$.
\par Figures \ref{fig:dinamico1}, \ref{fig:dinamico2} show the numerical simulations of the lateral line evolution as described above at different time steps. As usual, green colour marks leader cells ($\varphi_i=1$), and red colour the followers ($\varphi_i=0$). Contour plot in the background to FGF signal, while variable $s(\mathbf{x},t)$ is not shown. In our simulation we can observe, in the first few hours after migration starts, the leader-to-follower transition of some cells in the trailing region of the primordium, up to about $t=6.5\;\text{h}$ when a first rosette starts detaching (Figures \ref{fig:dinamico1} (b)). This is consistent with the experimental results presented in the supplementary material in \cite{nechiporuk, gilmour}, that shows a time of about $3\text{--}6$ h for the first rosette separation. Figures \ref{fig:dinamico1} (c) shows the formation of a second rosette in the new trailing region, meanwhile in the first rosette the lateral inhibition process is completed leaving two leader cells. Then in the next time steps, until about $t=20\;\text{h}$, we observe the detachment of the other two rosettes (Figure \ref{fig:dinamico2}).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{din_t0.eps}}\\
\vspace{0cm}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{din_t1.eps}}\\
\vspace{0cm}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{din_t2.eps}}\\
\vspace{0cm}
\caption{Numerical simulation of the lateral line growth at five different time steps: $t=0,6.47,10.15\;\text{h}$, next two time steps $t=15.64,19\;\text{h}$ are plotted in Figure \ref{fig:dinamico2}). System (\ref{sys-adim}) is solved in the domain $\Omega=[0,5000]\times[0,1240]\;(\mu\text{m}^2)$ (plot shows only a part of the domain), with a spatial and temporal discretization given respectively by $\Delta x=\Delta y=5\,\mu\text{m}$ and $\Delta t=0.001\,\text{h}$. Parameters values used here are listed in Appendix \ref{ap:parameter}. Initial and boundary conditions are given by (\ref{pos-vel-iniz}), (\ref{phi-iniz}), (\ref{f-iniz-bound}), and (\ref{s-iniz2}). In particular, about initial condition $s(\mathbf{x},0)$, in equation (\ref{s0-tanh}) we have fixed $c_1=838\;\mu\text{m}$, $c_2=200\;\mu\text{m}$, and $[\bar{a},\bar{b}]=[600,5000]\;(\mu\text{m})$. Then in (\ref{s0-psi}) and (\ref{eq:mollifier2}) we have chosen $l=20\;\mu\text{m}$ and $\varepsilon=10\;\mu\text{m}$. Green colour ({\large{\color{green}$\bullet$}}) is for leader cells, red colour ({\large{\color{red}$\bullet$}}) for the followers. Contour plot in the background indicates the FGF concentration, while variable $s(\mathbf{x},t)$ is not shown.}
\label{fig:dinamico1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{din_t3.eps}}\\
\vspace{0cm}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{din_t4.eps}}\\
\caption[]{Continuation of Figure \ref{fig:dinamico1}. Numerical simulation of the lateral line growth at time steps: $t=15.64,19\;\text{h}$.}
\label{fig:dinamico2}
\end{figure}
\par In Figure \ref{fig:tip_velocity} we have plotted migration velocity of the tip of the primordium versus time for 6 hours. Taking into account the velocity of $69\;\mu\text{m}/\text{h}$ given in \cite{gilmour}, we can state a good concordance of our data. Moreover we observe a decrease in velocity in correspondence with the formation of the first rosette. This is substantially comparable with the velocity plot shown in \cite{gilmour} in Figure 4 (c).
\par Finally, from the numerical simulations, we observe a flocking behavior in cell migration, according to the results shown in \cite{cucker, ha} for Cucker-Smale term (\ref{alignment-new}), although in our model other effects are involved, as chemotaxis and adhesion-repulsion terms. We recall that in \cite{cucker} flocking behaviour occurs unconditionally when the power of the denominator in (\ref{alignment2}) is less than 1/2, and conditionally if this power is equal or greater than 1/2. If we consider only the equations (\ref{alignment-new})--(\ref{alignment2}) we are in the case of conditional flocking, and the flocking behaviour is ensured by the initial data (\ref{pos-vel-iniz}).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{tip_velocity.eps}
\caption{Numerical dimensional plot of the velocity of tip of the primordium during migration versus time.}
\label{fig:tip_velocity}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
We have proposed in this paper a \emph{discrete in continuous} mathematical model describing the formation of the lateral line in the zebrafish primordium. Under suitable hypothesis, we have shown that our model admits particular biologically relevant steady solutions. They corresponds to the formation of neuromasts along the two flanks of the embryo. Then their stability has been tested numerically. Finally, the dynamical model has been tested by 2D numerical simulations and the results have been compared with some experimental observations.
\par Clearly we remark that the model proposed here presents some limits. Firstly, cells are supposed to be all equally circular, so that deformation effects are neglected. On the other hand they can be partially recovered introducing influence radii. Secondly, only a limited number of biological interactions have been modeled, and this in a time range starting with the beginning of the migration of the primordium. For example, biological phenomena occurring in the next few hours post-fertilization, or in the time after the rosettes deposition have not been taken into account. However we have followed the framework of the studies \cite{nechiporuk, gilmour}, and a good concordance with the experimental data can be inferred.
\par Finally, we remark that with respect to \cite{nechiporuk, gilmour} we have introduced other mechanisms to obtain the global migration and the neuromast formation, as lateral inhibition, alignment, and adhesion-repulsion effects. It would be interesting to have experimental evidence in this regard.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{section:introduction}
The present paper is a continuation of \cite{ADLO} which is devoted to maximal regularity
for first order non-autonomous evolution equations governed by forms. Here we address the problem of maximal regularity
for non-autonomous second order problems. \\
We consider Hilbert spaces $H$ and $V$ such that $V$ is continuously embedded into $H$ and two families of sesquilinear forms
\[
\mathfrak{a}\colon [0,T]\times V\times V \to \mathds{C}, \quad \mathfrak{b}\colon [0,T]\times V\times V \to \mathds{C}
\]
such that
$\mathfrak{a}(.,u,v)\colon [0,T]\to\mathds{C}$, $\mathfrak{b}(.,u,v)\colon [0,T]\to\mathds{C}$ are measurable for all $u,v \in V$,
\[
\abs{ \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v) } \le M \norm{u}_V \norm{v}_V \quad (t\in[0,T]),
\]
and
\[
\Re \mathfrak{a} (t,u,u) + w \norm{u}_H^2 \ge \alpha \|u\|^2_V \quad (u\in V, t\in [0,T])
\]
where $M \ge 0$, $w \in \mathds{R}$, and $\alpha > 0$ are constants. We assume also that $\mathfrak{b}$ satisfies the same properties.
For fixed $t\in [0,T]$, we denote by $\mathcal{A}(t), \mathcal{B}(t) \in \L(V,V^\prime)$ the operators associated with the forms
$\mathfrak{a}(t, .,.)$ and $\mathfrak{b}(t,.,.)$, respectively. Given a function $f$ defined on $ [0,T]$ with values either in $H$ or in $V'$ and consider
the second order evolution equation
\begin{equation}\label{prob1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\ddot u(t) + \mathcal{B}(t)\dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}\\
&u(0)=u_0,\, \dot u(0) = u_1.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
with initial values $u_0 \in V$ and $u_1 \in H$. This is a damped non-autonomous wave equation. The equation without the factor $\dot u$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{prob2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\ddot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}\\
&u(0)=u_0,\, \dot u(0) = u_1.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
is a non-autonomous wave equation.
Our aim is to prove well-posedness and maximal regularity for \eqref{prob1} and \eqref{prob2}. We shall prove three main results. The first one concerns maximal regularity in $V'$ for the damped wave equation \eqref{prob1}. We prove that for $u_0 \in V, u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T, V')$ there exists a unique solution
$u \in H^1(0,T, V) \cap H^2(0,T, V')$. This result was first proved by Lions \cite[p.\ 151]{Lio61} by assuming regularity of $t \mapsto \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v)$ and $t \mapsto \mathfrak{b}(t,u,v)$ for every fixed $u, v \in V$. This regularity assumption was removed in Dautray-Lions \cite[p.\ 667]{DL88}, but taking $f \in L^2(0, T, H)$ and considering mainly symmetric forms. The general case was given recently by Batty, Chill and Srivastava \cite{BCS} by reducing the problem to a first order non-autonomous equation. The result in \cite{BCS} is stated in the case $u_0 = u_1 = 0$, only.
Our proof is different from \cite{BCS} and is inspired by that of
Lions \cite{Lio61}. Next we consider maximal regularity in $H$. This is more delicate and needs extra properties on the forms $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$. We prove that if the forms are symmetric and $t \mapsto \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v)$ and $t \mapsto \mathfrak{b}(t,u,v)$ are piecewise Lipschitz on $[0,T]$ then for $u_0 \in V$, $u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T,H)$ there exists a unique solution $u \in H^1(0,T,V) \cap H^2(0,T,H)$ to the equation \eqref{prob1}. We also allow some non-symmetric perturbations
of $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$. The third result (Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_V'}) concerns the wave equation \eqref{prob2}. We prove that if $\mathfrak{a}$ is symmetric
and $t \mapsto \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v)$ is Lipschitz on $[0,T]$,
then for every $u_0 \in V$, $u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T,H)$ there exists a unique solution $u \in L^2(0,T,V) \cap H^1(0,T,H) \cap H^2(0,T,V')$ to the equation \eqref{prob2}. This result is not new and was already proved by Lions \cite[p.\ 150]{Lio61} for the case $u_0 = 0$ and later in
\cite[p.\ 666]{DL88} for $u_0 \in V$ and $u_1 \in H$. Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_V'} is stated in order to have a complete picture of maximal regularity for wave equations with or without damping. The proof in \cite{DL88} uses a Galerkin method and sectorial approximation. The proofs of the three main theorems use a representation result of Lions (see Theorem \ref{thlions} below) for a given sesquilinear form $E$ acting on a product of a Hilbert and pre-Hilbert spaces $\mathcal H \times \mathcal{V}$. In each case we have to define the appropriate spaces $\mathcal H$, $\mathcal{V}$ and the form $E$ to which we apply Theorem
\ref{thlions}. This idea was already used in \cite{Lio61}. Our choice of the spaces $\mathcal H$, $\mathcal{V}$ and the form $E$ allow us to sharpen and extend some results from \cite{Lio61} and assume less regularity on $t \mapsto \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v)$ and $t \mapsto \mathfrak{b}(t,u,v)$.
We illustrate our abstract results by two examples. The first one is a linear damped wave equation with time dependent Robin boundary conditions.
The second is a quasi-linear second order non-autonomous problem.
The latter is treated by a fixed point argument but the implementation of this classical idea
uses heavily a priori estimates that follow from our maximal regularity results for linear equations.
\subsection*{Acknowledgment}
Some ideas in this work germinated during a visit of the second named author at the University of Ulm in the framework of the Graduate School:
Mathematical Analysis of Evolution, Information and Complexity financed by the Land Baden-Württemberg
and during the visit of the first named author at the University of Bordeaux. Both authors thank Wolfgang Arendt for fruitful discussions on the non-autonomous maximal regularity. \\
D.\ Dier is a member of the DFG Graduate School 1100: Modeling, Analysis and Simulation in Economics.\\
The research of E.\ M.\ Ouhabaz is partly supported by the ANR project ``Harmonic Analysis at its Boundaries'', ANR-12-BS01-0013-02.
\section{Preliminaries}
Throughout this paper, $V$ and $H$ are separable Hilbert spaces over the field $\mathds{K} = \mathds{C}$ or $\mathds{R}$.
The scalar products of $H$ and $V$ and the corresponding norms will be denoted by $(. \mid .)_H$, $(. \mid .)_V$, $\norm{.}_H$ and $\norm{.}_V$, respectively. We denote by $V'$ the antidual of $V$ when $\mathds{K} =\mathds{C}$ and the dual when $\mathds{K} =\mathds{R}$.
The duality between $V'$ and $V$ is denoted by $\langle ., . \rangle$. Then $\langle u, v \rangle = (u \mid v)_H$ for $u \in H$ and $v \in V$.\\
We assume that
\[
V \underset d \hookrightarrow H;
\]
i.e., $V$ is a dense subspace of $H$ such that for some constant
$c_H >0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:V_dense_in_H}
\norm{u}_H \le c_H \norm u _V \quad (u \in V).
\end{equation}
By duality and density of $V$ in $H$ one has
\[
H \underset d \hookrightarrow V'.
\]
The space $H$ is then identified with a dense subspace of $V'$ (associating to $u \in H$ the antilinear map $v \mapsto (u \mid v)_H = \langle u, v \rangle$
for $v \in V$).
Let
\[
\mathfrak{a} \colon [0, T] \times V \times V \to \mathds{K}
\]
be a family of sesquilinear and $V$-bounded forms; i.e.\
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a_continuous}
\abs{\mathfrak{a}(t, u,v)} \le M \norm u _V \norm v _V \quad (u,v \in V, t \in [0,T])
\end{equation}
for some constant $M$, such that $\mathfrak{a}(.,u,v)$ is measurable for all $u,v \in V$.
We shall call $\mathfrak{a}$ satisfying the above properties
a \emph{$V$-bounded non-autonomous sesquilinear form}.
Moreover we say that $\mathfrak{a}$ is \emph{quasi-coercive} if
there exist constants $\alpha >0$, $\omega \in \mathds{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:H-elliptic}
\Re \mathfrak{a}(t, u,u) + \omega \norm u_H^2 \ge \alpha \norm u _V^2 \quad (u \in V, t \in [0,T]).
\end{equation}
If $\omega=0$, we say that the form $\mathfrak{a}$ is \emph{coercive}.
For $t \in [0,T]$, a $V$-bounded and quasi-coercive sesquilinear form $\mathfrak{a}(t,.,.)$ is closed.
The operator $\mathcal{A}(t) \in \L(V,V')$ associated with $\mathfrak{a}(t, .,.)$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{op1}
\langle \mathcal{A}(t) u, v \rangle = \mathfrak{a}(t, u,v) \quad {\rm for} \ u,v \in V.
\end{equation}
We may also associate with $\mathfrak{a}(t,.,.)$ an operator on $H$ by taking the part $A(t)$
of $\mathcal{A}(t)$ on $H$; i.e.,\
\begin{align*}
D(A(t)) := {}& \{ u\in V : \mathcal{A}(t) u \in H \}\\
A(t) u := {}& \mathcal{A}(t) u.
\end{align*}
Note that if $\mathfrak{a}(t,.,.)$ is \emph{symmetric}, i.e.,
\[
\mathfrak{a}(t, u,v)=\overline{\mathfrak{a}(t, v,u)}
\]
for all $u,v \in V$, then the operator $A(t)$ is self-adjoint.
For a Hilbert space $E$ we denote by $L^2(0,T,E)$ the $L^2$-space on $(0,T)$ of functions with values in $E$ and by $H^k(0,T,E)$ we denote the usual Sobolev space of order $k$ of functions on $(0,T)$ with values in $E$. For $u \in H^1(0,T;E)$ we denote the first derivative by $\dot u$ and for $u \in H^2(0,T;E)$ the second derivative by $\ddot u$.
We start with the following differentiation result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:differentiation}
Let
\[
\mathfrak{a} \colon [0, T] \times V \times V \to \mathds{K}
\]
be a $V$-bounded, quasi-coercive non-autonomous form. Suppose that it is Lipschitz with Lipschitz constant $\dot M$, that is
$$| \mathfrak{a}(t, \phi, \psi) - \mathfrak{a}(s, \phi, \psi) | \le \dot M | t - s |\norm{\phi}_{V} \norm{\psi}_{V}, \ t, s \in [0,T] \ {\rm and } \ \phi, \psi \in V.$$
Let $u,v \in H^1(0,T;V)$.
Then $\mathfrak{a}(.,u,v) \in W^{1,1}(0,T)$ and there exists a non-autonomous form $\dot\mathfrak{a}$ which is $V$-bounded with constant $\dot M$ such that
\[
\mathfrak{a}(.,u,v)\dot{} = \mathfrak{a}(.,u,\dot v) + \mathfrak{a}(.,\dot u,v)+ \dot\mathfrak{a}(.,u,v)
\]
If additionally $\mathfrak{a}$ is symmetric then
\[
\mathfrak{a}(.,u,u)\dot{} = 2 \Re\mathfrak{a}(.,u,\dot u) + \dot\mathfrak{a}(.,u,u).
\]
\end{lemma}
Note that for $u,v \in V$ we have $\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v) = \dot \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v)$ for a.e.\ $t \in [0,T]$.
This lemma is a consequence of the next two results.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:int_by_part0}
Let $u \in H^1(0,T;V)$ and $v \in H^1(0,T;V')$.
Then $\langle v(.), u(.) \rangle \in W^{1,1}(0,T)$ and
\[
\langle v(.), u(.) \rangle \dot{} = \langle \dot v(.), u(.) \rangle + \langle v(.), \dot u(.) \rangle.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Fubini's Theorem we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^t \langle \dot v(s), u(s)\rangle \ \d s
&= \int_0^t \Big\langle \dot v(s), u(0) + \int_0^s \dot u(r) \ \d r \Big\rangle \ \d s\\
&= \langle v(t), u(0) \rangle - \langle v(0), u(0) \rangle + \int_0^t \int_0^s \langle \dot v(s), \dot u(r) \rangle \ \d r \ \d s\\
&= \langle v(t), u(0) \rangle - \langle v(0), u(0) \rangle + \int_0^t \int_r^t \langle \dot v(s), \dot u(r) \rangle \ \d s \ \d r\\
&= \langle v(t), u(0) \rangle - \langle v(0), u(0) \rangle +
\int_0^t \langle v(t), \dot u(r) \rangle - \langle v(r), \dot u(r) \rangle \ \d r\\
&= \langle v(t), u(t) \rangle - \langle v(0), u(0) \rangle -
\int_0^t \langle v(r), \dot u(r) \rangle \ \d r.
\end{align*}
Thus
\[
\langle v(t), u(t) \rangle = \langle v(0), u(0) \rangle + \int_0^t \langle \dot v(s), u(s)\rangle \ \d s+ \int_0^t \langle v(s), \dot u(s)\rangle \ \d s
\]
which proves the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:lipschitz_continuous_operators}
Let $S\colon [0,T]\to \L(V,V')$ be Lipschitz continuous.
Then the following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[label={\rm \alph*)}]
\item There exists a bounded, strongly measurable function
$\dot S \colon [0,T] \to \L(V,V')$ such that
\[
\frac \d {\d t} S(t)u = \dot S(t)u \quad (u \in V)
\]
for a.e.\ $t\in [0,T]$ and
\[
\norm{\dot S(t)}_{\L(V,V')} \le L \quad (t \in [0,T])
\]
where $L$ is the Lipschitz constant of $S$.
\item If $ u\in H^1(0,T;V)$, then
$Su := S(.)u(.) \in H^1(0,T;V')$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chain_rule}
(Su)\dot{} = \dot S(.)u(.)+ S(.) \dot u(.).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop:lipschitz_continuous_operators} is proved in \cite{ADLO}. Lemma \ref{lem:differentiation} follows from \eqref{op1}, Lemma \ref{lemma:int_by_part0}
and Proposition \ref{prop:lipschitz_continuous_operators}.
We shall need the following representation result due to Lions. See {\cite[p.\ 156]{Lio59}, \cite[p.\ 61]{Lio61}} or \cite{ADLO}.
\begin{theorem}[Lions' Representation Theorem]\label{thlions}
Let $\mathcal H$ be a Hilbert space, $\mathcal{V}$ a pre-Hilbert space
such that $\mathcal{V} \hookrightarrow \mathcal H$.
Let $E\colon \mathcal H \times \mathcal{V} \to \mathds{K}$
be sesquilinear such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm 1)}] for all $w\in \mathcal{V}$, $E(., w)$ is a continuous linear functional on $\mathcal H$;
\item[{\rm 2)}] $\abs{E(w,w)} \ge \alpha \norm{w}_{\mathcal{V}}^2$ for all $w \in \mathcal{V}$
\end{enumerate}
for some $\alpha > 0$. Let $L \in \mathcal{V}'$.
Then there exists $u\in \mathcal H$ such that
\[
L w = E(u,w)
\]
for all $w \in \mathcal{V}$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Maximal Regularity for the Damped Wave Equation in $V'$}
Let $H, V$ be Hilbert spaces such that $V \stackrel d \hookrightarrow H$.
We define the following maximal regularity space
\begin{align*}
\textit{MR}(V,V,V') :={}& L^2(0,T,V) \cap H^1(0,T;V) \cap H^2(0,T;V')\\
={}& H^1(0,T;V) \cap H^2(0,T;V').
\end{align*}
Let $\mathfrak{a} \colon [0,T] \times V \times V \to \mathds{C}$ and $\mathfrak{b} \colon [0,T] \times V \times V \to \mathds{C}$ be non-autonomous $V$-bounded and quasi-coercive sesquilinear forms. We denote by $\mathcal{A}(t)$ and $\mathcal{B}(t)$ their associated operators in the sense of \eqref{op1}.
The following is our first result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:MR_in_V'_damped}
For every $u_0 \in V$, $u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T;V')$,
there exists a unique solution
$u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ of the
non-autonomous second order Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SO_CP_damped}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\ddot u(t) + \mathcal{B}(t)\dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}\\
&u(0)=u_0,\, \dot u(0) = u_1.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Moreover there exists a constant $C >0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MR_estimate_damped}
\norm{u}_{\textit{MR}(V,V,V')} \le C \Big[ \norm{u_0}_V + \norm{u_1}_H + \norm{f}_{L^2(0,T;V')} \Big].
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
As mentioned in the introduction, this theorem was first proved by Lions \cite[p.\ 151]{Lio61} under an additional regularity assumption on $t \mapsto \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v)$ and $t \mapsto \mathfrak{b}(t,u,v)$. This regularity assumption was removed in Dautray-Lions \cite[p.\ 667]{DL88}, but taking $f \in L^2(0, T, H)$ and considering mainly symmetric forms (they allow some non-symmetric perturbations). Their proof is based on a Galerkin method. Another proof of
Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_V'_damped} was given recently by Batty, Chill and Srivastava \cite{BCS} but they consider only the case $u_0 = u_1 = 0$.
Our proof is based on Theorem \ref{thlions} and is in the spirit of
Lions \cite{Lio61}. It is different from the proofs in \cite{DL88} and \cite{BCS}.
A classical result of Lions says that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:embedding_in_continuous_functions}
\textit{MR}(V,V') := L^2(0,T,V) \cap H^1(0,T;V') \hookrightarrow C([0,T];H),
\end{equation}
and also that for $u\in \textit{MR}(V,V')$ the function $\norm{u(.)}^2_H$ is in $W^{1,1}(0,T)$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:derivative_of_norm_in_H}
(\norm{u}^2_H)\dot{} = 2 \Re \langle\dot u, u \rangle,
\end{equation}
see \cite[p.\ 106]{Sho97} and \cite[p.570]{DL88}.
This implies that $\textit{MR}(V,V,V') \hookrightarrow C([0,T];V)\cap C^1([0,T];H)$.
Thus for $u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$, both $u(0)$ and $\dot u (0)$ make sense.
We start with the following basic lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:estimates_damped}
For $v \in H^1(0,T;V)$ we have
\begin{align*}
\Big( \int_0^T \norm{v(t)}_V^2 \ \d t\Big)^{1/2}
\le T \Big(\int_0^T \norm{\dot v(s)}^2_V \ \d s\Big)^{1/2}
+ \sqrt T \norm{ v(0)}_V.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $v(t)= v(0)+\int_0^t \dot v(s) \ \d s$, thus
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T \norm{v(t)}_V^2 \ \d t
&= \int_0^T \Big( v(0) + \int_0^t \dot v(s) \ \d s \,\Big\vert\, v(t) \Big)_V \ \d t\\
&= \int_0^T \int_s^T (\dot v(s) \mid v(t))_V \ \d t\ \d s
+\int_0^T (v(0) \mid v(t))_V \ \d t\\
&\le \int_0^T \int_0^T \norm{\dot v(s)}_V \norm{v(t)}_V \ \d t\ \d s
+ \int_0^T \norm{ v(0)}_V\norm{v(t)}_V \ \d t\\
&\le \int_0^T \norm{v(t)}_V \ \d t \ \Big(\int_0^T \norm{\dot v(s)}_V \ \d s
+ \norm{ v(0)}_V \Big)\\
&\le \Big(T \int_0^T \norm{v(t)}_V^2 \ \d t\Big)^{1/2}
\Big( \Big(T \int_0^T \norm{\dot v(s)}^2_V \ \d s\Big)^{1/2}
+ \norm{ v(0)}_V \Big). \tag*{\qedhere}
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_V'_damped}]
It suffices to show that there exists a unique solution in the case where $T<T_0$
and $T_0>0$ is a constant that depends only on the constants $M, \omega$ and $\alpha$ of \eqref{eq:a_continuous} and \eqref{eq:H-elliptic}.
Indeed we can extend this solution to $[0,T]$ for any fixed $T$ as follows. We write the interval $[0,T]$ as a finite union of sub-intervals $[\tau_i, \tau_{i+1}]$, each has length
less than $T_0$. On each interval $[\tau_i, \tau_{i+1}]$ we have a unique solution $u^{i}$ with $u^{i}(\tau_i) \in V$, $\dot u^{i}(\tau_i) \in H$
and $u^{i} \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V') \hookrightarrow C^1([\tau_i,\tau_{i+1}];H) \cap C([\tau_i,\tau_{i+1}];V)$. On $[\tau_{i+1}, \tau_{i+2}]$ we solve the equation with
$u^{i+1}(\tau_{i+1}) = u^{i}(\tau_{i+1})$ and $\dot u^{i+1}(\tau_{i+1}) = \dot u^{i}(\tau_{i+1})$. We define $u$ on $[0,T]$ by $u = u^{i}$ on $[\tau_i, \tau_{i+1}]$ and check easily that
$u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ (on $[0,T]$) is the unique solution to \eqref{eq:SO_CP_damped}.
We prove existence of a solution in the case where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:T}
T< T_0 = \min \left\{\frac{\alpha^2}{M^2}, \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{2} M }\right\}.
\end{equation}
Note that we may assume throughout this proof that the forms $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$ are both coercive. Indeed, set
$v(t) = e^{wt} u(t)$ then we have
\begin{multline}\label{coercive}
\ddot v(t) + \mathcal{B}(t)\dot v(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)v(t)\\
= e^{wt} \left[ \ddot u(t) + (\mathcal{B}(t) + 2w) \dot u(t) + (\mathcal{A}(t) + w \mathcal{B}(t) + w^2)u(t) \right].
\end{multline}
Since $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$ are quasi-coercive, we may choose $w$ large enough such that $\mathfrak{b} + 2w$ and $\mathfrak{a} + w \mathfrak{b} + w^2$ are coercive. Note also that $v \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ {\it if and only if}
$u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$.
We define the Hilbert space
$\mathcal H := H^1(0,T;V)$ endowed with its usual norm
$\norm u_{\mathcal H} := \norm u_{H^1(0,T;V)}$
and the pre-Hilbert space
$$\mathcal V := \{ v \in H^2(0,T;V): \dot v(T) = 0\}$$
with norm $\norm{.}_{\mathcal V} := \norm{.}_{\mathcal H}$.
Further we define the sesquilinear form $E\colon \mathcal H \times \mathcal{V} \to \mathds{C}$ by
\begin{align*}
E(u,v) := &-\int_0^T (\dot u \mid \ddot v )_H \ \d t
+ \int_0^T \mathfrak{b}(t, \dot u,\dot v) \ \d t\\
&{}+ \int_0^T \mathfrak{a}(t,u,\dot v) \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0, u(0),v(0))
\end{align*}
and for $u_0 \in V$, $u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T;V')$ we define $F\colon \mathcal{V} \to \mathds{C}$ by
\[
F(v):= \int_0^T \langle f, \dot v \rangle \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0,u_0,v(0)) + (u_1\mid \dot v(0))_H.
\]
We claim that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] $E(.,v) \in \mathcal H'$ and $F \in \mathcal{V}'$;
\item[2)] $E$ is coercive; i.e., there exists a $C>0$ such that
\(
\abs{E(v,v)} \ge C \norm{v}_{\mathcal H}^2
\)
for all $v \in \mathcal{V}$.
\end{enumerate}
Suppose for a moment that 1) and 2) are satisfied. Then we can apply Lions's representation theorem (see Theorem \ref{thlions}) and obtain $u \in \mathcal H$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:riesz_solution_damped}
E(u,v) = F(v) \quad \forall\ v \in \mathcal{V}.
\end{equation}
We show that $u$ is a solution of \eqref{eq:SO_CP_damped}.
Let $\psi(t) \in \mathcal{D}(0,T)$ and $w \in V$ and choose $v(t) := \int_0^t \psi(s) \, \d s\, w$. It follows from \eqref{eq:riesz_solution_damped} that
\begin{align*}
&- \int_0^T \langle \dot u(t), w \rangle \dot \psi(t) dt
= \int_0^T \langle f(t) - \mathcal{B}(t) \dot u- \mathcal{A}(t) u(t), w \rangle \psi(t) \ \d t.
\end{align*}
This means that $\dot u \in H^1(0,T;V')$, hence $u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CP_satisfied_damped}
\ddot u(t) + \mathcal{B}(t) \dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}
\end{equation}
in $V'$.
For general $v \in \mathcal{V}$, we use again \eqref{eq:riesz_solution_damped} and integration by parts to obtain
\begin{align*}
&(\dot u(0) \mid \dot v(0))_H + \int_0^T \langle \ddot u, \dot v \rangle \ \d t
+ \int_0^T \mathfrak{b}(t,\dot u,\dot v) \ \d t
+ \int_0^T \mathfrak{a}(t,u,\dot v) \ \d t \\
&\qquad+ \mathfrak{a}(0, u(0),v(0))
= \int_0^T \langle f, \dot v \rangle \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0,u_0,v(0)) + (u_1 \mid \dot v(0))_H.
\end{align*}
This equality together with \eqref{eq:CP_satisfied_damped} imply that
\begin{align*}
(\dot u(0) \mid \dot v(0))_H + \mathfrak{a}(0, u(0),v(0)) = \mathfrak{a}(0,u_0,v(0)) + (u_1\mid \dot v(0))_H.
\end{align*}
Since $v \in \mathcal{V}$ is arbitrary we obtain that $u(0) =u_0$ and $\dot u(0) = u_1$. Therefore, $u$ is a solution of \eqref{eq:SO_CP_damped} on $[0,T]$
for $T \le T_0$ and $T_0$ is such that the above properties 1) and 2) are satisfied.
Now we return to 1) and 2). Property 1) is obvious. We show the coercivity property 2).
Let $v \in \mathcal{V}$.
The equality $\frac \d{\d t} \norm{\dot v(t) }_H^2
= 2 \Re (\ddot v(t) \mid \dot v(t))_H$ implies
\[\int_0^T \Re ( \ddot v \mid \dot v )_H\ \d t = -\frac 1 2 \norm{\dot v(0)}^2_H.
\]
It follows that
\begin{align*}
\abs{E(v,v)} &\ge \Re E(v,v)\\
&= \frac 1 2 \norm{\dot v(0)}_H^2 + \int_0^T \Re\mathfrak{b}(t,\dot v,\dot v) \ \d t\\
&\quad + \int_0^T \Re \mathfrak{a}(t,v,\dot v) \ \d t + \Re\mathfrak{a}(0, v(0),v(0)).
\end{align*}
We use coercivity of $\mathfrak{b}, \mathfrak{a}$ and $V$-boundedness of $\mathfrak{a}$ to obtain
\begin{align*}
\abs{E(v,v)} &\ge \frac 1 2 \norm{\dot v(0)}_H^2
+ \alpha \int_0^T \norm{\dot v}_V^2 \ \d t\\
&\quad- M \int_0^T \norm{v}_V \norm{\dot v}_V\ \d t + \alpha \norm{v(0)}_V^2.
\end{align*}
Therefore, by Young's inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
\abs{E(v,v)} &\ge \frac 1 2 \norm{\dot v(0)}_H^2
+ \frac \alpha 2 \int_0^T \norm{\dot v}_V^2 \ \d t
- \frac {M^2}{2 \alpha} \int_0^T \norm{v}_V^2\ \d t + \alpha \norm{v(0)}_V^2.
\end{align*}
Next we apply Lemma~\ref{lem:estimates_damped} to obtain
$$\abs{E(v,v)} \ge \left(\frac \alpha 2 - \frac{M^2 T^2}{\alpha}\right) \int_0^T \norm{\dot v}_V^2 \ \d t + \left(\alpha - \frac{M^2 T}{\alpha}\right) \norm{v(0)}_V^2.$$
Now we use \eqref{eq:T} and the fact that by Lemma~\ref{lem:estimates_damped},
$\int_0^T \norm{v}_V^2 \, \d t$ is dominated (up to a constant) by $ \int_0^T \norm{\dot v}_V^2 \, \d t + \norm{v(0)}_V^2$. We obtain 2).
Next we prove uniqueness. Suppose that $u$ and $v$ are two solutions of \eqref{eq:SO_CP_damped} which are in $\textit{MR}(V,V,V')$. Set $w = u -v$. Clearly
$w \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ and satisfies (in $V'$)
$$ \ddot w(t) + \mathcal{B}(t)\dot w(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)w(t) = 0, \quad w(0) = 0, \, \dot w (0) = 0.$$
We show that $w=0$.
For fixed $t \in (0,T]$ we have
$$\int_0^t \Re \langle \ddot w, \dot w \rangle \ \d s + \int_0^t \Re \mathfrak{b}(s, \dot w, \dot w) \ \d s + \int_0^t \Re \mathfrak{a}(s, w, \dot w) \ \d s = 0.$$
Using \eqref{eq:derivative_of_norm_in_H} we have
$$\int_0^t \Re \langle \ddot w, \dot w \rangle \ \d s = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \big(\norm{\dot w}_H^2\big)\dot{} \ \d s = \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot w(t)}_H^2 - \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot w(0)}_H^2
= \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot w(t)}_H^2,$$
and hence
\begin{align*}
0 & = \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot w(t)}_H^2 + \int_0^t \Re \mathfrak{b}(s, \dot w, \dot w) \ \d s + \int_0^t \Re \mathfrak{a}(s, w, \dot w) \ \d s\\
&\ge \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot w(t)}_H^2 + \alpha \int_0^t \norm{ \dot w}_V^2 \ \d s - M \int_0^t \norm{w}_V \norm{ \dot w}_V \ \d s.
\end{align*}
Here we used coercivity of $\mathfrak{b}$ and $V$-boundedness of $\mathfrak{a}$. Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem:estimates_damped}, we have
\begin{align*}
0 &\ge \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot w(t)}_H^2 + \alpha \int_0^t \norm{ \dot w}_V^2 \ \d s - M \Big(\int_0^t \norm{ w}_V^2 \ \d s\Big)^{1/2}\Big(\int_0^t \norm{ \dot w}_V^2 \ \d s\Big)^{1/2}\\
& \ge \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot w(t)}_H^2 + (\alpha - M T) \int_0^t \norm{ \dot w}_V^2 \ \d s.
\end{align*}
By \eqref{eq:T} we obtain that $w = 0$.
This shows uniqueness.
Finally, in order to prove the apriori estimate \eqref{eq:MR_estimate_damped}, we consider the operator
$$ S \colon V \times H \times L^2(0,T, V') \mapsto \textit{MR}(V,V,V'), \quad (u_0, u_1, f) \mapsto u.$$
This is a linear operator which is well defined thanks to the uniqueness of the solution $u$ of \eqref{eq:SO_CP_damped}. It is easy to see that
$S$ is a closed operator. Therefore it is continuous by the closed graph theorem. This gives \eqref{eq:MR_estimate_damped}.
\end{proof}
The previous proof does not give any information on the constant $C$ in \eqref{eq:MR_estimate_damped}. For small
time $T$ one can prove that $C$ depends only on the constants of the forms. This observation will be needed in our application to a quasi-linear problem.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro-est}
If $T > 0$ is small enough, then the constant $C$ in \eqref{eq:MR_estimate_damped} depends only on the constants $w$, $\alpha$, $M$ and $T$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ be the solution of \eqref{eq:SO_CP_damped}.
For fixed $t \in (0,T]$ we have
\[
\int_0^t \Re \langle f, \dot u \rangle \ \d s=\int_0^t \Re \langle \ddot u, \dot u \rangle \ \d s + \int_0^t \Re \mathfrak{b}(s, \dot u, \dot u) \ \d s + \int_0^t \Re \mathfrak{a}(s, u, \dot u) \ \d s.
\]
Since by \eqref{eq:derivative_of_norm_in_H}
\[
\int_0^t \Re \langle \ddot u, \dot u \rangle \ \d s = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \big(\norm{\dot u}_H^2\big)\dot{} \ \d s = \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot u(t)}_H^2 - \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot u(0)}_H^2,
\]
it follows by Young's inequality that
\begin{align*}
&\frac 1 \alpha \int_0^t \norm f_{V'}^2 \ \d s + \frac \alpha 4 \int_0^t \norm{\dot u}_V^2 \ \d s
\ge\int_0^t \norm f_{V'} \norm{\dot u}_V \ \d s \ge \int_0^t \Re \langle f, \dot u \rangle \ \d s \\
&\quad=\frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot u(t)}_H^2 - \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot u(0)}_H^2
+ \int_0^t \Re \mathfrak{b}(s, \dot u, \dot u) \ \d s + \int_0^t \Re \mathfrak{a}(s, u, \dot u) \ \d s\\
&\quad\ge - \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot u(0)}_H^2
+ \alpha \int_0^t \norm{ \dot u}_V^2 \ \d s - M \int_0^t \norm{u}_V \norm{ \dot u}_V \ \d s\\
&\quad\ge - \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot u(0)}_H^2
+ \frac {3\alpha} 4 \int_0^t \norm{ \dot u}_V^2 \ \d s - \frac{M^2}{ \alpha} \int_0^t \norm{u}_V^2 \ \d s.
\end{align*}
Here we used coercivity of $\mathfrak{b}$ and $V$-boundedness of $\mathfrak{a}$. Therefore, by Lemma \ref{lem:estimates_damped}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MR_d_est}
\begin{split}
\frac 1 \alpha \int_0^t \norm f_{V'}^2 \ \d s + \frac{1}{2} \norm{\dot u(0)}_H^2
&\ge \frac \alpha 2 \int_0^t \norm{ \dot u}_V^2 \ \d s
- \frac{M^2}{ \alpha} \int_0^t \norm{ u}_V^2 \ \d s\\
& \ge \left(\frac\alpha 2 - \frac{ t^2(2M^2+\alpha)} \alpha \right) \int_0^t \norm{ \dot u}_V^2\ \d s\\
&\quad -t\left(\frac{2M^2 + \alpha}{\alpha}\right) \norm{u(0)}_V^2 + \frac 1 2\int_0^t \norm{u}_V^2 \ \d s.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we choose $t$ such that $\frac\alpha 2 > \frac{ t^2(2M^2+\alpha)} \alpha$.
Finally, since
\[
\ddot u(s) = f(s) - \mathcal{A} \dot u(s) - \mathcal{B} u(s) \quad s\text{-a.e.}
\]
we obtain that
\[
\norm{\ddot u(s)}^2_{V'} \le 3\norm{f(s)}_{V'}^2 + 3M \norm{\dot u(s)}_V^2 + 3M \norm {u(s)}_V^2 \quad s\text{-a.e.}
\]
This together with \eqref{eq:MR_d_est} ends the proof of the proposition when $T$ is such that \[\frac\alpha 2 > \frac{ T^2(2M^2+\alpha)} \alpha.\tag*{}\]
\end{proof}
\section{Maximal Regularity for the Damped Wave Equation in $H$}
Let $V, H$ be separable Hilbert spaces such that $V \underset d
\hookrightarrow H$ and let
\[
\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b}\colon [0,T] \times V \times V \to \mathds{K}
\]
be closed non-autonomous sesquilinear forms on which we impose the following conditions.
Each can be written as the sum of two non-autonomous forms
\[
\mathfrak{a}(t,u,v)= \mathfrak{a}_1(t,u,v)+ \mathfrak{a}_2(t,u,v), \quad \mathfrak{b}(t,u,v)= \mathfrak{b}_1(t,u,v)+ \mathfrak{b}_2(t,u,v) \quad u,v \in V
\]
where
\[
\mathfrak{a}_1, \mathfrak{b}_1 \colon [0,T] \times V \times V \to \mathds{K}
\]
satisfy the following assumptions
\begin{enumerate}[label={\alph{*})}]
\item $\abs{\mathfrak{a}_1(t,u,v)} \le M \norm u_V \norm v_V$ for all $u,v \in V$, $t \in [0,T]$;
\item $ \mathfrak{a}_1(t,u,u) \ge \alpha \norm u _V^2$ for all $u \in V$, $t \in [0,T]$ with $\alpha > 0$;
\item $\mathfrak{a}_1(t,u,v) = \overline{\mathfrak{a}_1(t,v,u)}$ for all $u,v \in V$, $t \in [0,T]$;
\item$\mathfrak{a}_1$ is piecewise Lipschitz-continuous; i.e., there exist $0= \tau_0 < \tau_1 < \dots < \tau_n =T$ such that
\[
\abs{\mathfrak{a}_1(t,u,v) - \mathfrak{a}_1(s,u,v)} \le \dot M \abs{t-s} \norm u_V \norm v_V
\]
for all $u,v \in V,$ $s,t \in [\tau_{i-1},\tau_i]$, $i \in \{1,\dots,n\}$,
\end{enumerate}
and similarly for $\mathfrak{b}_1$. Of course we may choose the same constants $M, \dot M$ and $\alpha$ for both forms $\mathfrak{a}_1$ and $\mathfrak{b}_1$.
We may also choose that same sub-intervals $0= \tau_0 < \tau_1 < \dots < \tau_n =T$ for both forms.
The non-autonomous forms
\[
\mathfrak{a}_2, \mathfrak{b}_2 \colon [0,T] \times V \times V\to \mathds{K}
\]
are measurable and satisfy
\begin{enumerate}[label={(\alph*)}]
\item[e)] $\abs{\mathfrak{a}_2(t,u,v)} \le M \norm u_V \norm v_H$ for all $u, v \in V$, $t \in [0,T]$,
\end{enumerate}
and similarly for $\mathfrak{b}_2$.
Note that by Lemma \ref{lem:differentiation}, if $\mathfrak{c}$ is a Lipschitz form on $[0,T]$, we may define its derivative $\dot \mathfrak{c}(t,.,.)$ and we have
\begin{equation}\label{deriv}
\abs{\dot \mathfrak{c}(t,u,v)} \le \dot M \norm u_V \norm v_V, \ u, v \in V
\end{equation}
for some constant $\dot M$. We shall use this estimate for $\mathfrak{c} = \mathfrak{a}_1$ and for $\mathfrak{c} = \mathfrak{b}_1$ on sub-intervals of $[0,T]$ where these forms are supposed to be Lipschitz.
Let us denote by $\mathcal{A}(t)$ and $\mathcal{B}(t)$ the operators given by $\langle \mathcal{A}(t) u, v \rangle = \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v)$ and
$\langle \mathcal{B}(t) u, v \rangle = \mathfrak{b}(t,u,v)$ for all $u, v \in V$.
As in the previous section we consider the damped wave equation. Here we study the maximal regularity property in $H$ rather than in $V'$.
We introduce the maximal regularity space
$$\textit{MR}(V,V,H) := H^1(0,T;V) \cap H^2(0,T;H).$
We have
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:MR_in_H}
Let $\mathfrak{a} = \mathfrak{a}_1+\mathfrak{a}_2$ and $\mathfrak{b} = \mathfrak{b}_1+\mathfrak{b}_2$ be non-autonomous $V$-bounded and quasi-coercive
forms satisfying the above properties $a)-e)$.
Then for every $u_0, u_1 \in V$ and $f \in L^2(0,T;H)$,
there exists a unique solution
$u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,H)$ of the
non-autonomous second order Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SO_CP_H}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\ddot u(t) +\mathcal{B}(t)\dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}\\
&u(0)=u_0, \dot u(0) = u_1
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Moreover $\dot u(t) \in V$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
\end{theorem}
For a related result see Lions \cite[p.\ 155]{Lio61}. However the result proved there is restricted to $u_1 = 0$ and assumes $f, f' \in L^2(0,T, H)$. Our proof resembles that of
Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_V'_damped} and uses similar ideas as in Lions \cite{Lio61}.
We use the following lemma for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:MR_in_H}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:estimates_H} Suppose that the forms $\mathfrak{a}_1$ and $\mathfrak{b}_1$ are Lipschitz continuous on $[0,T]$.
Let $v \in H^2(0,T;V)$ and $ \epsilon >0$. Then
\begin{align*}
\text{\rm{(i)} } &\int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v,\ddot v) \ \d t
= \tfrac \lambda 2 \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v, \dot v) \ \d t
- \tfrac 1 2 \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \dot\mathfrak{b}_1(t, \dot v, \dot v) \ \d t\\
&\hspace{2cm} +\tfrac 1 2 e^{- \lambda T} \mathfrak{b}_1(T,\dot v(T),\dot v(T))-\tfrac 1 2 \mathfrak{b}_1(0,\dot v(0),\dot v(0)).\\
\text{\rm{(ii)} } &\int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{a}_1(t,v,\ddot v) \ \d t =
\tfrac \lambda 2 e^{-\lambda T} \mathfrak{a}_1(T,v(T),v(T)) -\tfrac \lambda 2 \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),v(0))\\
&\hspace{2cm}+ e^{-\lambda T} \Re\mathfrak{a}_1(T,v(T),\dot v(T)) - \Re\mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),\dot v(0))\\
&\hspace{2cm}+ \tfrac {\lambda^2} 2 \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, v) \ \d t
- \tfrac \lambda 2 \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \dot\mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, v) \ \d t\\
&\hspace{2cm}- \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re\dot\mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, \dot v) \ \d t
- \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}_1(t, \dot v,\dot v) \ \d t.\\
\text{\rm{(iii)} } &\int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v,\ddot v) \ \d t + \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{a}_1(t,v,\ddot v) \ \d t\\
&\hspace{1.6cm}\ge \tfrac 1 2 (\alpha \lambda - 2\dot M - 2M) \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{\dot v}_V^2 \ \d t\\
&\hspace{2cm}+(\tfrac \lambda 2 (\alpha \lambda - \dot M) - \tfrac{\dot M^2}{2}) \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{v}_V^2 \ \d t\\
&\hspace{2cm}+\tfrac 1 2 e^{-\lambda T} \left[ (\alpha-\epsilon) \norm{\dot v(T)}^2_V + (\lambda \alpha- \tfrac{\dot M^2}{\epsilon}) \norm{v(T)}^2_V \right]\\
&\hspace{2cm}-\tfrac 1 2 \mathfrak{b}_1(0,\dot v(0),\dot v(0)) -\tfrac \lambda 2 \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),v(0)) - \Re \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),\dot v(0)).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof of (i) and (ii) is based on Lemma~\ref{lem:differentiation} and the product rule.
Part (i) is a direct consequence of the formulae
\begin{align*}
\big(e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v,\dot v)\big)\dot{}
&= - \lambda e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v,\dot v)
+ e^{-\lambda t} \dot\mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v,\dot v)
+ 2 e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v,\ddot v).
\end{align*}
For (ii) we first calculate the following derivatives
\begin{align*}
\Re \big(e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, v)\big)\dot{}
&= - \lambda e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, v) + e^{-\lambda t} \Re \dot\mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, v)\\
&\quad+ 2 e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{a}_1(t, v,\dot v)\\
\Re \big(e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, \dot v)\big)\dot{}
&= - \lambda e^{-\lambda t} \Re\mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, \dot v)
+ e^{-\lambda t} \Re\dot\mathfrak{a}_1(t, v, \dot v)\\
&\quad+ e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}_1(t, \dot v,\dot v)
+ e^{-\lambda t} \Re\mathfrak{a}_1(t, v,\ddot v)
\end{align*}
then we multiply the first equation by $\frac \lambda 2$ and add the second equation.
Now (ii) follows by integration over $t$ from $0$ to $T$.
For (iii) we add (i) and (ii) and use coercivity of $\mathfrak{a}_1, \mathfrak{b}_1$ and $V$-boundedness of $\mathfrak{a}_1, \dot \mathfrak{a}_1, \mathfrak{b}_1, \dot \mathfrak{b}_1$.
Thus
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T e^{-\lambda t}& \Re \mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v,\ddot v) \ \d t + \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{a}_1(t,v,\ddot v) \ \d t\\
&\ge \tfrac 1 2 (\alpha \lambda - \dot M - 2M) \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{\dot v}_V^2 \ \d t\\
&\quad +\tfrac \lambda 2 (\alpha \lambda - \dot M) \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{v}_V^2 \ \d t
- \dot M \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{v}_V \norm{\dot v}_V \ \d t\\
&\quad+\tfrac 1 2 e^{-\lambda T} \left[ \alpha \norm{\dot v(T)}^2_V + \lambda \alpha \norm{v(T)}^2_V - 2 M \norm{v(T)}_V \norm{\dot v(T)}_V \right]\\
&\quad -\tfrac 1 2 \mathfrak{b}_1(0,\dot v(0),\dot v(0)) -\tfrac \lambda 2 \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),v(0)) - \Re \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),\dot v(0)).
\end{align*}
We apply Young's inequality and see that the last term is bounded from below by
\begin{align*}
& \tfrac 1 2 (\alpha \lambda - 2\dot M - 2M) \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{\dot v}_V^2 \ \d t
+( \tfrac \lambda 2 (\alpha \lambda - \dot M) - \tfrac{\dot M^2}{2}) \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{v}_V^2 \ \d t\\
&\quad+\tfrac 1 2 e^{-\lambda T} \left[ (\alpha-\epsilon) \norm{\dot v(T)}^2_V +
(\lambda \alpha- \tfrac{\dot M^2}{\epsilon}) \norm{v(T)}^2_V \right]\\
&\quad -\tfrac 1 2 \mathfrak{b}_1(0,\dot v(0),\dot v(0)) -\tfrac \lambda 2 \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),v(0)) - \Re \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),\dot v(0))
\end{align*}
for $\epsilon >0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_H}]
Uniqueness follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:MR_in_V'_damped} and we only need to prove existence of a solution. As in the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:MR_in_V'_damped} we may assume that the forms $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$ are both coercive (see \eqref{coercive}). \\
\noindent {\it 1- Lipschitz-continuous forms}. Suppose first that the forms $\mathfrak{a}_1$ and $\mathfrak{b}_1$ are Lipschitz-continuous on $[0,T]$.
We define the Hilbert space
\[
\mathcal H := \{ u \in H^2(0,T;H) \cap H^1(0,T;V) : u(0), \dot u(0), \dot u(T) \in V \}
\]
with norm $\norm u_{\mathcal H}$ given by
\[
\norm u_{\mathcal H}^2 := \norm {\ddot u}^2_{L^2(0,T;H)}
+ \norm{u}^2_{H^1(0,T;V)} + \norm{u(0)}^2_V + \norm{\dot u(0)}_V^2 + \norm{\dot u(T)}_V^2
\]
and the pre-Hilbert space $\mathcal V := H^2(0,T;V)$ with norm $\norm{.}_{\mathcal V} := \norm{.}_{\mathcal H}$.
Next we define the sesquilinear form $E\colon \mathcal H \times \mathcal{V} \to \mathds{C}$ by
\begin{align*}
E(u,v) := &\int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} (\ddot u \mid \ddot v)_H \ \d t
+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{b}(t,\dot u,\ddot v) \ \d t
+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}(t,u,\ddot v) \ \d t\\
&{} + \eta (\dot u(0) \mid \dot v(0))_V + \eta (u(0) \mid v(0))_V,
\end{align*}
where $\lambda $ and $\eta$ are positive parameters. Later on, we will choose them to be large enough.
For $u_0, u_1 \in V$ and $f \in L^2(0,T;H)$, we define $F\colon \mathcal{V} \to \mathds{C}$ by
\[
F(v):= \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} ( f \mid \ddot v )_H \ \d t
+\eta (u_1 \mid \dot v(0))_V + \eta (u_0 \mid v(0))_V
\]
We proceed as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:MR_in_V'_damped}. Suppose for a moment that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] $E(.,v) \in \mathcal H'$ and $F \in \mathcal{V}'$;
\item[2)] $E$ is coercive; i.e., there exists a $C>0$ such that
\(
\abs{E(v,v)} \ge C \norm{v}_{\mathcal H}^2
\)
for all $v \in \mathcal{V}$.
\end{enumerate}
Then by Lions's representation theorem there exists $u \in \mathcal H$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:riesz_solution_H}
E(u,v) = F(v)
\end{equation}
for all $v \in \mathcal{V}$. For arbitrary $w \in V$ and $\psi \in \mathcal D (0,T)$ we take $v(t) = \int_0^t \int_0^s \psi(r) \,\d r\, \d s\, w$. It follows from
\eqref{eq:riesz_solution_H} that
\[
\ddot u(t) +\mathcal{B}(t)\dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t)
\]
in $L^2(0,T;V')$.
This identity applied to \eqref{eq:riesz_solution_H} implies that
\begin{align*}
\eta (\dot u(0) \mid \dot v(0))_V + \eta (u(0) \mid v(0))_V = \eta (u_1 \mid \dot v(0))_V + \eta (u_0 \mid v(0))_V
\end{align*}
for all $v \in \mathcal{V}$. Hence $u(0) =u_0$ and $\dot u(0) = u_1$. This means that $ u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,H)$ is a solution of
\eqref{eq:SO_CP_H}.
It remain to prove properties 1) and 2). Again, 1) is obvious and we focus on 2). Let $v \in \mathcal{V}$.
For $\epsilon \in (0,\alpha)$ set
\begin{align*}
R &:= \eta\norm{\dot v(0)}_V^2 + \eta \norm{ v(0)}_V^2
+ \tfrac 1 2 e^{-\lambda T} \left[ (\alpha-\epsilon) \norm{\dot v(T)}^2_V + (\lambda \alpha- \tfrac{\dot M^2}{\epsilon}) \norm{v(T)}^2_V \right]\\
&\quad -\tfrac 1 2 \mathfrak{b}_1(0,\dot v(0),\dot v(0))
-\tfrac \lambda 2 \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),v(0)) - \Re \mathfrak{a}_1(0,v(0),\dot v(0)).
\intertext{By the $V$-boundedness of $\mathfrak{a}_1$ and $\mathfrak{b}_1$ we have}
R&\ge \tfrac 1 2 e^{-\lambda T} \left[ (\alpha-\epsilon) \norm{\dot v(T)}^2_V + (\lambda \alpha- \tfrac{\dot M^2}{\epsilon}) \norm{v(T)}^2_V \right] + (\eta - \frac{M}{2}) \norm{\dot v(0)}_V^2\\
&\quad + (\eta- \frac{\lambda M}{2}) \norm{ v(0)}_V^2 - M \norm{\dot v(0)}_V
\norm{ v(0)}_V.\\
\intertext{Young's inequality yields}
R&\ge C_1 \left[ \norm{\dot v(T)}^2_V + \norm{ v(T)}^2_V + \norm{\dot v(0)}^2_V + \norm{ v(0)}^2_V\right]
\end{align*}
for some $C_1 >0$ provided $\lambda$ and $\eta$ are sufficiently large.
Now
\begin{align*}
\Re E(v,v)&
=\int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{\ddot v}^2_H \ \d t
+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{b}_1(t,\dot v,\ddot v) \ \d t\\
&\quad + \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{b}_2(t,\dot v,\ddot v) \ \d t
+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re\mathfrak{a}_1(t, v,\ddot v) \ \d t\\
& \quad + \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re\mathfrak{a}_2(t, v,\ddot v) \ \d t
+\eta (\dot v(0) \mid \dot v(0))_V + \eta (v(0) \mid v(0))_V.
\intertext{We apply assertion (iii) of Lemma~\ref{lem:estimates_H}, it follows that}
\Re E(v,v)
&\ge \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{\ddot v}^2_H \ \d t + \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{b}_2(t,\dot v,\ddot v) \ \d t\\
& \quad + \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re\mathfrak{a}_2(t, v,\ddot v) \ \d t\\
& \quad+\frac{1}{2}(\alpha \lambda - 2 \dot M - 2 M) \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{\dot v}_V^2\ \d t\\
& \quad + \frac 1 2 (\lambda(\alpha \lambda - \dot M) - {\dot M}) \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \norm{v}_V^2\ \d t+ R.
\end{align*}
Thus $V$-boundedness of $\mathfrak{a}_2$ and $\mathfrak{b}_2$ and Young's inequality yield
$$\Re E(v,v)
\ge C \norm{v}_{\mathcal H}^2,$$
for some $C >0$ provided that $\lambda$ and $\eta$ are sufficiently large. This proves 2).
Finally, we have seen that the unique solution $u$ satisfies $\dot u (T) \in V$ but we may replace in the previous arguments $[0,T]$ by
$[0,t]$ for any fixed $t \in (0,T)$ and obtain $\dot u(t) \in V$. \\
\noindent{\it 2- Piecewise Lipschitz-continuous forms}. Suppose now that the forms $\mathfrak{a}_1$ and $\mathfrak{b}_1$ satisfy assumption d). We may replace in the first step the interval $[0,T]$ by $[\tau_{i-1}, \tau_i]$. There exists a solution $u^i \in H^1(\tau_{i-1}, \tau_i;V)\cap H^2(\tau_{i-1}, \tau_i;H)$
of the equation
$$\ddot v (t) + \mathcal{B}(t) \dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \ \text{a.e.\ } t \in [\tau_{i-1}, \tau_i],$$
with prescribed $u^i (\tau_{i-1}), \dot u^{i}(\tau_{i-1})$ in $V$. We also know from the previous step that
$u^i (\tau_{i}), \dot u^{i}(\tau_{i}) \in V$. Now we can solve the previous equation on $[\tau_{i}, \tau_{i+1}]$ and obtain a solution $u^{i+1}$ such that
$u^{i+1}(\tau_i) = u^i (\tau_{i})$ and $\dot u^{i+1}(\tau_i) = \dot u^i (\tau_{i})$. We define $u$ on $[0,T]$ by $u = u^{i}$ on $[\tau_{i-1}, \tau_i]$. It is easy to check that
$u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,H)$ and $u $ is a solution to \eqref{eq:SO_CP_H}.
This finishes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{The Wave Equation}
Let $H, V$ be Hilbert spaces such that $V \stackrel d \hookrightarrow H$.
Suppose $\mathfrak{a} \colon [0,T] \times V \times V \to \mathds{C}$ is a Lipschitz-continuous, symmetric, V-bounded and quasi-coercive non-autonomous form.
We denote again by $\mathcal{A}(t)$ the operator associated with $\mathfrak{a}(t)$ on $V'$ and by $A(t)$ the part of $\mathcal{A}(t)$ in $H$.
We introduce the maximal regularity space
\[
\textit{MR}(V,H,V') := L^2(0,T;V) \cap H^1(0,T;H) \cap H^2(0,T;V')
\]
for the second order Cauchy problem. We have the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:MR_in_V'}
There exists a unique solution
$u \in \textit{MR}(V,H,V')$ of the
non-autonomous second order Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SO_CP}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\ddot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}\\
&u(0)=u_0, \dot u(0) = u_1
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
for every $u_0 \in V$, $u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T;H)$.
Moreover $u(t) \in V$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
\end{theorem}
Note that by \cite[p.\ 579]{DL88}, for every $u \in \textit{MR}(V,H,V')$, $\dot u $ can be viewed as a continuous function
from $[0,T]$ into the interpolation space $(H,V')_{\frac{1}{2}}$. In particular, $\dot u(0)$ is well defined and $\dot u (0) \in V'$.
We start with the following lemma. Here $ \dot\mathfrak{a}(t,.,.)$ denotes the derivative of $t \mapsto \mathfrak{a}(t,.,.)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:estimates}
Let $v \in H^2(0,T;V)$ with $\dot v(T)=0$. Then
\begin{align*}
&\text{\rm{(i)} } \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \Re ( \ddot v \mid \dot v )_H\ \d t
= \frac \lambda 2 \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \norm{\dot v }_H^2\ \d t
-\frac 1 2 \norm{\dot v(0)}^2_H\\
&\text{\rm{(ii)} } \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{a}(t,v,\dot v) \ \d t = \frac \lambda 2 \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \mathfrak{a}(t,v,v) \ \d t
- \frac 1 2 \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \dot\mathfrak{a}(t,v,v) \ \d t\\
&\hspace{4.5cm}+\frac 1 2 \mathfrak{a}(T,v(T),v(T))-\frac 1 2 \mathfrak{a}(0,v(0),v(0))
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For the first part we calculate the formula
\begin{align*}
\big(e^{-\lambda t} \norm{\dot v}_H^2\big)\dot{}
&= -\lambda e^{-\lambda t} \norm{\dot v}_H^2
+ 2 e^{-\lambda t} \Re (\ddot v, \dot v)_H.\\
\intertext{For (ii) we use Lemma~\ref{lem:differentiation} and the product rule to obtain}
\big(e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}(t,v,v)\big)\dot{}
&= - \lambda e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}(t,v,v)
+ 2 e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{a}(t,v,\dot v) + e^{-\lambda t} \dot\mathfrak{a}(t,v,v)
\end{align*}
Now the Lemma follows by integrating over $t$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_V'}]
First we prove existence of a solution. We define the Hilbert space
$\mathcal H := \{ u \in L^2(0,T;V) \cap H^1(0,T;H) : u(0), u(T) \in V \}$ with norm $\norm u_{\mathcal H}$ such that
$\norm u_{\mathcal H}^2 := \norm u^2_{L^2(0,T;V)} + \norm{\dot u}^2_{L^2(0,T;H)} + \norm{u(0)}^2_V+\norm{u(T)}^2_V$ and the pre-Hilbert space
$\mathcal V := \{ v \in H^2(0,T;V): \dot v(T) = 0\}$ with norm $\norm{.}_{\mathcal V} := \norm{.}_{\mathcal H}$.
Further we define $E\colon \mathcal H \times \mathcal{V} \to \mathds{C}$ by
\begin{align*}
E(u,v) := &-\int_0^T \big(\dot u \,\big\vert\, (e^{-\lambda t} \dot v)\dot{}\, \big)_H \ \d t\\
&{}+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}(t,u,\dot v) \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0, u(0),v(0))
\end{align*}
and for $u_0 \in V$, $u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T;V')$ we define $F\colon \mathcal{V} \to \mathds{C}$ by
\[
F(v):= \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \langle f, \dot v \rangle \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0,u_0,v(0)) + (u_1\mid \dot v(0))_H.
\]
As in the previous sections, we use Lions's representation Theorem.
Suppose that the assumptions of Lions's Theorem are satisfied. Then there exists a $u \in \mathcal H$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:riesz_solution}
E(u,v) = F(v)
\end{equation}
for all $v \in \mathcal{V}$. For the particular choice of $v(t) := \psi(t) w$ where $\psi \in \mathcal{D}(0,T)$ and $w \in V$ we obtain from \eqref{eq:riesz_solution} that
\begin{align*}
&\int_0^T \langle \dot u, w \rangle (e^{-\lambda t} \dot \psi(t))\dot{} \ \d t
= \int_0^T \langle f - \mathcal{A} u, w \rangle e^{-\lambda t} \dot \psi(t) \ \d t.
\end{align*}
This implies that $\dot u \in H^1(0,T;V')$, hence $u \in \textit{MR}(V,H,V')$ and that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CP_satisfied}
\ddot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}
\end{equation}
Following the proof of Lemma 1 and Theorem 2 in \cite[p.\ 571 and 575]{DL88} we can integrate by
parts in the first term of $E(u,v)$ to obtain
\begin{align*}
E(u,v) &= \langle \dot u(0), \dot v(0) \rangle+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \langle \ddot u, \dot v \rangle \ \d t\\
&\quad+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}(t,u,\dot v) \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0, u(0),v(0))\\
&{}= \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \langle f, \dot v \rangle \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0,u_0,v(0)) + (u_1\mid \dot v(0))_H
\end{align*}
where we used the identity \eqref{eq:riesz_solution}. This together with \eqref{eq:CP_satisfied} implies that
\begin{align*}
\langle \dot u(0), \dot v(0) \rangle + \mathfrak{a}(0, u(0),v(0)) = \mathfrak{a}(0,u_0,v(0)) + (u_1\mid \dot v(0))_H.
\end{align*}
Since $v \in \mathcal{V}$ was arbitrary this shows that $u(0) =u_0$ and $\dot u(0) = u_1$.
Next we check the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thlions}. Assumption 1) is again easy to verify. Let $v \in \mathcal{V}$, then integration by parts yields to
\begin{align*}
\abs{E(v,v)} \ge \Re E(v,v)
&= \norm{\dot v(0)}_H^2 + \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \Re ( \ddot v \mid \dot v )_H\ \d t\\
&\quad+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \Re \mathfrak{a}(t,v,\dot v) \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0, v(0),v(0)).
\end{align*}
Thus Lemma~\ref{lem:estimates} applied to the first and second integral and Young's inequality shows that
\begin{align*}
\Re{E(v,v)} &\ge \frac 1 2 \norm{\dot v(0)}_H^2
+ \frac \lambda 2 \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \norm{\dot v }_H^2\ \d t
+ \frac \lambda 2 \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \mathfrak{a}(t,v,v) \ \d t\\
&\quad - \frac 1 2 \int_0^T e^{- \lambda t} \dot\mathfrak{a}(t,v,v) \ \d t
+ \frac 1 2 \mathfrak{a}(T, v(T),v(T))+ \frac 1 2 \mathfrak{a}(0, v(0),v(0))\\
&\ge C \norm{v}_{\mathcal H}^2
\end{align*}
for some $C>0$ if $\lambda$ is large enough.
Note that we can choose $C$ depending only on the coercivity, $V$-boundedness, Lipschitz constant of the form and on $T$.
Uniqueness:
Let $u \in \textit{MR}(V,H,V')$ be a solution of \eqref{eq:SO_CP} where $f=0$ and $u_0=u_1=0$.
We have to show that $u=0$.
Fix $r \in [0,T]$ and define $v_r(t) := \int_t^T \mathds{1}_{[0,r]} u(s) \ \d s$. Then $v_r \in H^1(0,T;V)$ with $v_r(r)=0$ and $\dot v_r = -\mathds{1}_{[0,r]} u$.
We obtain
\begin{align*}
0
&= 2 \int_0^T \Re \langle \ddot u, v_r \rangle \ \d t + 2 \int_0^T \Re \mathfrak{a}(t,u,v_r) \ \d t\\
&= 2 \int_0^r \int_t^r \Re\langle \ddot u(t), u(s) \rangle \ \d s \ \d t - 2 \int_0^r \Re\mathfrak{a}(t,\dot v_r, v_r) \ \d t\\
&= 2 \int_0^r \int_0^s \Re\langle \ddot u(t), u(s) \rangle \ \d t \ \d s - 2 \int_0^r \Re\mathfrak{a}(t,\dot v_r, v_r) \ \d t\\
&= 2 \int_0^r \Re\langle \int_0^s \ddot u(t) \ \d t , u(s) \rangle \ \d s - \int_0^r (\mathfrak{a}(t, v_r, v_r))\dot{} - \dot \mathfrak{a}(t,v_r,v_r) \ \d t\\
&= 2 \int_0^r \Re\langle \dot u , u \rangle \ \d s + \mathfrak{a}(0, v_r(0), v_r(0)) - \int_0^r \dot \mathfrak{a}(t,v_r,v_r) \ \d t\\
&\ge \norm{u(r)}_H^2 + \alpha \norm{v_r(0)}_V^2 - \dot M \int_0^r \norm{v_r}_V^2 \ \d t.
\end{align*}
We set $w(r):= v_r(0) = \int_{0}^r u(s) \ \d s \in L^2(0,T;V)$. Then $w(r)-w(t) = v_r(t)$ and
$$ \alpha \norm{w(r)}_V^2 \le \dot M \int_0^r \norm{w(r)-w(t)}_V^2 \ \d t
\le 2r\dot M \norm{w(r)}_V^2 + 2\dot M \int_0^r \norm{w(t)}_V^2 \ \d t.$$
Let $0<r_0 < \tfrac{ \alpha}{2 \dot M}$ and set $C_{r_0} := \alpha-2r_0\dot M>0$, then for every $r \in [0,r_0]$ we have
$$ \norm{w(r)}_V^2 \le 2 \dot M C_{r_0}^{-1} \int_0^r \norm{w(t)}_V^2 \ \d t.$$
We conclude by Gronwall's lemma that $w(r) = 0$ for all $r \in [0,r_0]$, hence
$u=0$ on $[0,r_0]$. Now we may proceed inductively to obtain $u = 0$ on $[0,T]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If we add a $V\times H$-bounded perturbation to $\mathfrak{a}$ as in Section 4, we can still prove existence in Theorem~\ref{thm:MR_in_V'}.
But for the uniqueness we have to assume additionally that this perturbation is also $H\times V$-bounded.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Let $B(t)$ be bounded operators on $H$ with $\| B(t) \|_{{\mathcal L}(H)} \le M_B $ for a.e.\ $t \in [0,T]$. We consider the wave equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SO_CP00}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\ddot u(t) + B(t) \dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}\\
&u(0)=u_0, \dot u(0) = u_1&
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Then for $u_0 \in V$, $u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T, V')$ there exists a solution $u \in \textit{MR}(V,H,V')$ to \eqref{eq:SO_CP00}. The proof is the same as above, one has only to change $E(u,v)$ into
\begin{align*}
E(u,v) := &-\int_0^T \big(\dot u \,\big\vert\, (e^{-\lambda t} \dot v)\dot{}\, \big)_H \ \d t\\
&{}+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} (B(t) \dot u \mid \dot v)_H \ \d t\\
&{}+ \int_0^T e^{-\lambda t} \mathfrak{a}(t,u,\dot v) \ \d t + \mathfrak{a}(0, u(0),v(0)).
\end{align*}
The uniqueness of $u$ is however not clear except if the map $t \mapsto B(t)$ is Lipschitz. If this later condition is satisfied one can use similar ideas as in \cite[p.\ 686]{DL88} to prove uniqueness. The proof for uniqueness in Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_V'} is similar to that of \cite[p.\ 673]{DL88}.
\end{remark}
\section{Applications}\label{section:applications}
In this section we give applications of our results. We consider two problems, one is linear and the second one is
quasi-linear.\\
{\it I) Laplacian with time dependent Robin boundary conditions.}\\
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain of $\mathds{R}^d$ with Lipschitz boundary $\Gamma$.
Denote by $\sigma$ be the $(d-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure on $\Gamma$.
Let
\[
\beta_1, \beta_2\colon [0,T] \times \Gamma \to \mathds{R}
\]
be bounded measurable functions which are Lipschitz continuous w.r.t.\ the first variable, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{lipbeta}
\lvert \beta_i(t,x) - \beta_i(s, x) \rvert \le M \lvert t-s\rvert \quad (i=1,2)
\end{equation}
for some constant $M$ and all $t, s \in [0,T], \ x \in \Gamma$. We consider the symmetric forms
\[
\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{b}\colon [0,T] \times H^1(\Omega) \times H^1(\Omega) \to \mathds{R}
\]
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{formbeta}
\mathfrak{a}(t, u, v) = \int_\Omega \nabla u \nabla v\ \d x + \int_\Gamma \beta_1(t, .) u v\ \d\sigma.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{formbeta2}
\mathfrak{b}(t, u, v) = \int_\Omega \nabla u \nabla v\ \d x + \int_\Gamma \beta_2(t, .) u v\ \d\sigma.
\end{equation} respectively.
The forms $\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b}$ are $H^1(\Omega)$-bounded and quasi-coercive.
The first statement follows readily from the continuity
of the trace operator and the boundedness of $\beta$.
The second one is a consequence of the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{trace-comp}
\int_\Gamma \lvert u \rvert^2 \ \d\sigma \le \epsilon \norm u_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 + c_\epsilon \norm u_{L^2(\Omega)}^2,
\end{equation}
which is valid for all $\epsilon > 0$ ($c_\epsilon$ is a constant depending on $\epsilon$).
Note that $\eqref{trace-comp}$ is a consequence of compactness of the trace as an operator from $H^1(\Omega)$ into $L^2(\Gamma, \d \sigma)$, see \cite[Chap.\ 2 § 6, Theorem 6.2]{Nec67}.
Let $\mathcal{A}(t)$ be the operator associated with $\mathfrak{a}(t,.,.)$ and $\mathcal{B}(t)$ the operator associated with $\mathfrak{b}(t,.,.)$.
Note that the part $A(t)$ in $H:= L^2(\Omega)$ of $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is interpreted as
(minus) the Laplacian with time dependent Robin boundary conditions
\[
\partial_\nu v + \beta_1(t,.) v = 0 \text{ on } \Gamma.
\]
Here we use the following weak definition of the normal derivative.
Let $v \in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $\Delta v \in L^2(\Omega)$.
Let $h \in L^2(\Gamma, \d \sigma)$. Then $\partial_\nu v = h$
by definition if
$\int_\Omega \nabla v \nabla w + \int_\Omega \Delta v w = \int_\Gamma h w \, \d \sigma$ for all $w \in H^1(\Omega)$.
Based on this definition, the domain of $A(t)$ is the set
\[
D(A(t)) = \{ v \in H^1(\Omega) : \Delta v \in L^2(\Omega), \partial_\nu v + \beta_1(t) v\vert_\Gamma = 0 \},
\]
and for $v\in D(A(t))$ the operator is given by $A(t)v = - \Delta v$.
Maximal regularity on $H$ for the first order Cauchy problem associated with $A(t)$ was proved in \cite{ADLO}. Here we study the second order problem.
By Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_H}, the damped wave equation
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \ddot u(t) - \Delta \dot u(t) - \Delta u(t) = f(t)\\
& u(0) =u_0, \quad \dot u (0) = u_1 \in H^1(\Omega)\\
& \partial_\nu (\dot u (t) + u(t)) + \beta_2(t,.) \dot u(t) + \beta_1(t,.) u(t) = 0 \text{ on } \Gamma
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
has a unique solution $u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,H) = H^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap H^1(0,T;H^1(\Omega))$ whenever $f \in L^2(0,T, L^2(\Omega))$.
Indeed, Theorem \ref{thm:MR_in_H} implies that there exists $u \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ with $u(0)=u_0$, $\dot u (0) = u_1$ and
\begin{align}\label{eq:Robin_Laplace}
( \ddot u, v )_H + \mathfrak{b}(t,\dot u, v) + \mathfrak{a}(t, u, v) = ( f, v )_H
\end{align}
for all $v \in V$ and all $t\in[0,T] \setminus N$, where $N$ is a Lebesgue null set.
Let $t\in[0,T] \setminus N$, then for the special choice $v \in \mathcal{D}(\Omega)$ we obtain that \eqref{eq:Robin_Laplace} implies
$\ddot u(t) - \Delta \dot u(t) - \Delta u(t) = f(t)$.
This together with \eqref{eq:Robin_Laplace} and the above definition of the normal derivative shows
\[
\partial_\nu (\dot u (t) + u(t)) + \beta_2(t,.) \dot u(t) + \beta_1(t,.) u(t) = 0 \text{ on } \Gamma.
\]
{\it II) A quasi-linear problem.}\\
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open set of $\mathds{R}^d$ and let $H$ be the real-valued Hilbert space $L^2(\Omega, \d x)$ and $V$ be a closed subspace of $H^1(\Omega)$ which contains $H_0^1(\Omega)$. If $V \not= H^1_0(\Omega)$ we assume that $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain to ensure that the embedding
of $V$ in $H$ is compact. This latter property is always true for $V=H^1_0(\Omega)$ for any bounded domain $\Omega$.
For $g,h \in L^2(0,T;H)$ we define the forms $\mathfrak{a}_{g,h}, \mathfrak{b}_{g,h}\colon [0,T]\times V\times V \to \mathds{R}$ by
\[
\mathfrak{a}_{g,h}(t,u,v) = \sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_\Omega a_{jk}(t,x,g,h) \partial_k u \partial_j v \ \d x
\]
and
\[
\mathfrak{b}_{g,h}(t,u,v) = \sum_{k,j=1}^d \int_\Omega b_{jk}(t,x,g,h) \partial_k u \partial_j v \ \d x.
\]
We assume that the coefficients $a_{jk}, b_{jk} \colon [0,T] \times \Omega \times \mathds{R} \times \mathds{R} \to \mathds{R}$ are uniformly bounded on $[0,T] \times \Omega \times\mathds{R}\times\mathds{R}$ by a constant $M>0$
and satisfy the usual ellipticity condition
\[
\sum_{k,j=1}^d a_{jk}(t,x,y,z) \xi_k \xi_j \ge \eta |\xi |^2,\quad \sum_{k,j=1}^d b_{jk}(t,x,y,z) \xi_k \xi_j \ge \eta |\xi |^2
\]
for a.e.\ $(t,x) \in [0, T] \times \Omega$ and all $y,z \in \mathds{R}$, $\xi \in \mathds{R}^d$.
Here $\eta > 0$ is a constant.
Moreover we assume that $a_{jk}(t,x,.,.), b_{jk}(t,x,.,.)$ are continuous for a.e.\ $(t,x)$.
We denote by $\mathcal{A}_{g,h}(t)$ and $\mathcal{B}_{g,h}(t)$ the associated operators.
Given $u_0 \in V$, $u_1 \in H$ and $f \in L^2(0,T; V')$ the second order Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}\label{gh}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\ddot u(t) +\mathcal{B}_{g, h}(t)\dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}_{g,h}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.} \\
& u(0)=u_0, \dot u(0) = u_1
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
has a unique solution $u_{g,h} \in \textit{MR}(V,V,V')$
by Theorem~\ref{thm:MR_in_V'_damped}.
Moreover, by Proposition \ref{pro-est} there exists $C >0$ and $0 < T_0 \le T$ depending only on $M$ and $\eta$ such that the solution
of \eqref{gh} on $[0,T_0]$ satisfies the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MR_estimate_quasi_linear}
\norm{u_{g,h}}_{\textit{MR}_{T_0}(V,V,V')} \le C \Big[ \norm{u_0}_V + \norm{u_1}_H + \norm{f}_{L^2(0,T_0;V')} \Big].
\end{equation}
Note that $C$ and $T_0$ are independent of $g$ and $h$.
We want to show that the quasi-linear problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:quasi_linear_damped}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \ddot u(t) +\mathcal{B}_{u, \dot u}(t)\dot u(t) + \mathcal{A}_{u,\dot u}(t)u(t) = f(t) \quad t\text{-a.e.}\\
& u(0)=u_0, \dot u(0) = u_1
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
has a solution $u$ in $\textit{MR}(V,V,V')$.
We define the mapping $S\colon H^1(0,T;H) \to H^1(0,T;H)$ by $Sg:=u_{g, \dot g}$.
Note that by \eqref{eq:MR_estimate_quasi_linear} and the fact that $C$ is independent of $g$ and $h$,
$\Im(S)$ is a bounded subset of $\textit{MR}(V,V,V')$.
Moreover by Aubin-Lions lemma, $\textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ is compactly embedded into $H^1(0,T;H)$.
Therefore, if $S$ is continuous then we can apply Schauder's fixed point theorem to obtain
$u \in H^1(0,T;H)$ such that $Su=u$. Thus $u$ is also in $\textit{MR}(V,V,V')$
and $u \in \Im(S)$. Hence $u$ is a solution of \eqref{eq:quasi_linear_damped}.
It remains to prove that $S$ is continuous.
Let $g_n \to g$ in $H^1(0,T;H)$ and set $u_n := Sg_n$.
Since a sequence converges to a fixed element $u$ if and only if each subsequence has a subsequence converging to $u$ we may deliberately take subsequences.
Since $L^2(0,T;H)$ is isomorphic to $L^2((0,T)\times \Omega)$ we may assume (after taking a sub-sequence) that $g_n \to g$ and $\dot g_n \to \dot g$ for a.e.\ $(t,x)$. Furthermore since the sequence $u_n$ is bounded in $\textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ we may assume (after taking a sub-sequence) that
$u_n \to u$ in $H^1(0,T;H)$ and $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $\textit{MR}(V,V,V')$.
Hence $a_{jk}(t,x,g_n,\dot g_n) \to a_{jk}(t,x,g,\dot g)$ and
$b_{jk}(t,x,g_n,\dot g_n) \to b_{jk}(t,x,g,\dot g)$ for a.e.\ $(t,x)$.
Now the equality $u_n = Sg_n$ means that
\begin{align*}
\langle \ddot u_n,& v \rangle_{L^2(0,T;V'),L^2(0,T;V)}
+ \sum_{j,k=1}^d ( \partial_j \dot u_n \mid b_{jk}(t,x,g_n,\dot g_n) \partial_k v )_{L^2(0,T;H)} \\
&+ \sum_{j,k=1}^d ( \partial_j u_n \mid a_{jk}(t,x,g_n, \dot g_n) \partial_k v )_{L^2(0,T;H)} = \langle f, v \rangle_{L^2(0,T;V'),L^2(0,T;V)}
\end{align*}
for all $v \in L^2(0,T;V)$ and $u_n(0) = u_0$, $\dot u_n(0) = u_1$.
By the dominated convergence theorem
$a_{jk}(t,x,g_n, \dot g_n) \partial_k v \to a_{jk}(t,x,g, \dot g) \partial_k v$ in $L^2(0,T;H)$.
Moreover $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $\textit{MR}(V,V,V')$ implies that
$\partial_j u_n \rightharpoonup \partial_j u$ and
$\partial_j \dot u_n \rightharpoonup \partial_j \dot u$ in $L^2(0,T;H)$.
Thus taking the limit for $n \to \infty$ yields
\begin{align*}
\langle \ddot u,& v \rangle_{L^2(0,T;V'),L^2(0,T;V)}
+ \sum_{j,k=1}^d ( \partial_j \dot u \mid b_{jk}(t,x,g,\dot g) \partial_k v )_{L^2(0,T;H)} \\
&+ \sum_{j,k=1}^d ( \partial_j u \mid a_{jk}(t,x,g, \dot g) \partial_k v )_{L^2(0,T;H)} = \langle f, v \rangle_{L^2(0,T;V'),L^2(0,T;V)}
\end{align*}
for all $v \in L^2(0,T;V)$ and $u(0) = u_0$, $\dot u(0) = u_1$.
Note that for the initial condition we have used that $\textit{MR}(V,V,V') \hookrightarrow C^1([0,T];H) \cap C([0,T];V)$, see \eqref{eq:embedding_in_continuous_functions}.
This is equivalent to $Sg=u$. Hence $S$ is continuous.
|
\section{Introduction}
Stellar surface brightness is directly related to stellar broad-band color, and it is also a function of stellar apparent magnitude and angular size (\cite{wes69,bar76}). These dependencies can be combined to show that the stellar angular size can be predicted from stellar photometry, even in the presence of interstellar extinction:
\begin{equation}
\log \theta_{LD} = -0.2 m_{\lambda}+ \displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^n a_i X^i,
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\theta_{LD}$ is the limb-darkening corrected angular stellar diameter in milliarcseconds, $m_{\lambda}$ is the apparent stellar magnitude in the $\lambda$-band, and $X$ is the broad-band stellar color $\lambda_1 - \lambda_2$. The family of functions expressed by Eq. \ref{eq1} for different photometric bands is referred to as ``surface brightness relations" in the literature (see for instance \cite{ker04,bon06,ker08}).
\section{Methods}
In \cite{boy13b}, we fit polynomials of the form of Eq. \ref{eq1} for 48 commonly used color indices in the astronomical literature (e.g., $B-V, V-I$, etc), based on literature broad-band photometry of 124 main sequence stars with interferometrically determined stellar radii with precision of better than 5\%, which were obtained with the CHARA Array\footnote{http://www.chara.gsu.edu/CHARA/} (see \cite{boy12a,boy12b,boy13a}). We provide updates to and refinements of previously published surface brightness relations based on a larger sample of directly measured angular diameters. Typical random errors in the predictions of stellar radii are 4-10\%. We find a metallicity dependence for the $B-V$ colors, but not for the other ones.
\section{Application}
As photometric broad-band magnitudes and colors are (relatively) straightforward to obtain for stars at distances or brightness levels at which interferometric radius measurements are not currently possible, the applications of the surface brightness relations in stellar astronomy are nearly ubiquitous. We use our relations to calculate the stellar diameter of GJ~667C, a late-type dwarf in a triple system, which is known to host between two and seven exoplanets (\cite{ang13}). Application of our surface brightness relations to literature $VJHK_s$ data for GJ~667C, coupled with distance estimates by \cite{del13}, produces a stellar radius estimate of $(0.30 \pm 0.02) R_{\odot}$.
|
\section{Science drivers}
Research on stellar magnetism has been progressing very fast from the ground in
the last decade, but we are missing information on stellar wind and
magnetospheres because there is no UV spectrograph currently available for long
fractions of time. To reconstruct the magnetospheres, we need to obtain
simultaneous UV and optical spectropolarimetry, continuously over several
stellar rotation periods. Of course, the UV domain requires a space mission.
Therefore the UVMag consortium proposes to build a dedicated M-size space
mission with a telescope of 1.3 m and UV and optical spectropolarimetric
capabilities (see http://lesia.obspm.fr/UVMag).
The UV and visible spectropolarimeter will provide a very powerful and unique
tool to study most aspects of stellar physics in general and in particular for
stellar formation, structure and evolution as well as for stellar environment.
For example we plan to study how fossil magnetic fields confines the wind of
massive stars and influences wind clumping, how magnetic interactions impact
binary stars, how a solar dynamo impacts its planets and how it evolves, how
magnetic field, wind and mass-loss influence the late stages of stellar
evolution, in which conditions a magnetic dynamo develops, how the angular
momentum of stars evolves, how small-scale and large-scale stellar dynamos work
and how their cycles influence their environment, what explains the diversity of
magnetic properties in M dwarfs, what causes the segregation of tepid stars in
two categories: those with sub-Gauss magnetic fields and those with fields above
a few hundreds Gauss, what are the timescales over which magnetospheric
accretion stops in PMS stars, etc. These questions will be answered by observing
all types of stars: massive stars, giants and supergiants, chemically peculiar
stars, pre-main sequence stars, cool stars, solar twins, M dwarfs, AGB and
post-AGB stars, binaries, etc. Additional possible science includes the study of
the ISM, white dwarfs, novae, exoplanets, atomic physics,...
\section{UV and optical spectropolarimeter}
The spectropolarimeter should ideally cover the full wavelength range from 90 to
1000 nm and at least the most important lines in the domains 117-320 nm and
390-870 nm. Polarisation should be measured at least in Stokes V (circular
polarisation) in spectral lines, but the aim is to measure all Stokes QUV
parameters (circular and linear polarisation) in the lines and continuum. A high
spectral resolution is required, at least 25000 in the UV domain and at least
35000 in the optical, with a goal of 80000 to 100000. The signal-to-noise should
be above 100.
Spectroscopy with these specifications in the UV and optical domains is
relatively easy to achieve with today's technology and detectors. However, (1)
high-resolution spectropolarimetry of stars has never been obtained from space;
(2) optical spectropolarimeters available on the ground are large; and (3) it is
very important to keep the instrumental polarisation at a low level. Therefore
we have started a R\&D program to study a space UV+optical spectropolarimeter.
Our study is based on existing ground-based spectropolarimeters, such as
ESPaDOnS or Narval, and new spectropolarimetric techniques proposed in the
literature (e.g. \cite[Sparks et al. 2012]{sparks2012}).
\section{Observing program}
UVMag will observe all types of stars in the magnitude range at least V=3-10.
The observing program includes two parts: (1) $\sim$50 stars will be observed
over 2 full rotational cycles with high cadence in order to study them in great
details and reconstruct 3D maps of their surface and environment. In addition,
the solar-like stars among those will be re-observed every year to study their
activity cycle; and (2) two spectropolarimetric measurements of $\sim$4000 stars
will be obtained to provide information on their magnetic field, wind and
environment. This will form a statistical survey and provide input for stellar
modelling. The acquisition of the data for these two programs will take 4
years.
\section{Conclusions}
The UVMag consortium has set the basic requirements for a M-size (1.3 m) space
mission to study the magnetospheres and winds of all types of stars. This is the
next step to progress on the characterisation and modelling of stellar
environments, as well as on important questions regarding stellar formation,
structure and evolution. Simultaneous UV and optical spectropolarimetry over
long periods of time is indeed the only way to comprehend the full interaction
between various physical processes such as the stellar magnetic field and
stellar wind. A R\&D study is ongoing for the instrument. The M-size mission
will be proposed at ESA. A L-size mission (4-8 meter telescope) is also
considered with the UVMag UV and optical spectropolarimeter as part of a series
of instrument, e.g. on EUVO \cite[(G\'omez de Castro et al., 2013)]{euvo2013}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The UVMag R\&D program is funded by the French space agency CNES.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Suppose a set of $k$ centers $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^k$
is selected by approximate minimization of $k$-means
cost; how does the fit
over the sample compare with the fit over the distribution?
Concretely: given $m$ points sampled from a source distribution $\rho$,
what can be said about the quantities
\begin{align}
\Bigg|
\frac 1 m \sum_{j=1}^m \min_{i} \|x_j-p_i\|_2^2
&-
\int \min_{i} \|x-p_i\|_2^2 d\rho(x)
\Bigg|
&&\textup{($k$-means),}
\label{eq:intro:km}
\\
\Bigg|
\frac 1 m \sum_{j=1}^m \ln\left(\sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i p_{\theta_i}(x_j)\right)
&-
\int
\ln\left(\sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i p_{\theta_i}(x)\right)
d\rho(x)
\Bigg|
&&\textup{(soft $k$-means),}
\label{eq:intro:mog}
\end{align}
where
each $p_{\theta_i}$ denotes the density of a Gaussian with a covariance
matrix whose eigenvalues lie in some closed positive interval.
The
literature offers a wealth of information related to this question. For $k$-means, there
is firstly a consistency result:
under some identifiability conditions, the global minimizer over the sample will
converge to the global minimizer over the distribution as the sample size $m$ increases
\citep{pollard_km_cons}. Furthermore, if the distribution is bounded, standard
tools can provide deviation inequalities \citep{Lugosi94ratesof,
Ben-david04aframework,
DBLP:conf/nips/RakhlinC06}.
For the second problem, which is maximum likelihood of a Gaussian mixture
(thus amenable to EM \citep{duda_hart_stork}),
classical results
regarding the consistency of maximum likelihood again provide that, under some
identifiability conditions, the optimal solutions over the sample converge to
the optimum over the distribution \citep{ferguson_large_sample_theory}.
The task here is thus: to provide finite sample guarantees for these problems,
but eschewing boundedness, subgaussianity, and similar assumptions in favor
of moment assumptions.
\subsection{Contribution}
The results here are of the following form:
given $m$ examples from a distribution with a few bounded moments,
and any set of parameters beating some fixed cost $c$,
the corresponding deviations in cost (as in \cref{eq:intro:km} and \cref{eq:intro:mog})
approach $\mathcal O(m^{-1/2})$ with the availability of higher moments.
\begin{itemize}
\item
In the case of $k$-means (cf. \Cref{fact:km:basic:kmeans_cost}),
$p\geq 4$ moments suffice, and the rate is $\mathcal O(m^{\min\{-1/4, -1/2 + 2/p\}})$.
For Gaussian mixtures (cf. \Cref{fact:mog:basic}),
$p\geq 8$ moments suffice, and the rate is $\mathcal O(m^{-1/2 + 3/p})$.
\item
The parameter $c$ allows these guarantees to hold for heuristics. For instance,
suppose $k$ centers are output by Lloyd's method. While Lloyd's method
carries no optimality guarantees, the results here hold for the output of Lloyd's
method simply by setting $c$ to be the variance of the data, equivalently
the $k$-means cost with a single center placed at the mean.
\item
The $k$-means and Gaussian mixture costs are only well-defined when the
source distribution has $p\geq 2$ moments. The condition of $p\geq 4$
moments, meaning the variance has a variance, allows consideration
of many heavy-tailed
distributions, which are ruled out by boundedness and subgaussianity assumptions.
\end{itemize}
The main technical byproduct of the proof
is a mechanism to deal with the unboundedness of the
cost function; this technique will be detailed in \Cref{sec:km}, but the difficulty
and its resolution can be easily sketched here.
For a single set of centers $P$, the deviations in \cref{eq:intro:km} may be controlled
with an application of Chebyshev's inequality. But this does not immediately grant
deviation bounds on another set of centers $P'$, even if $P$ and $P'$ are very close:
for instance, the difference between the two costs will grow as successively farther
and farther away points are considered.
The resolution is to simply note that there is so little probability mass in those far
reaches that the cost there is irrelevant.
Consider a single center $p$ (and assume $x\mapsto \|x-p\|_2^2$ is integrable);
the dominated convergence theorem grants
\[
\int_{B_i} \|x-p\|_2^2 d\rho(x)
\quad \to \quad
\int \|x-p\|_2^2 d\rho(x),
\qquad\qquad
\textup{where $B_i := \{x \in \mathbb R^d : \|x-p\|_2 \leq i\}$.}
\]
In other words, a ball $B_i$ may be chosen so that
$\int_{B_i^c}\|x-p\|_2^2d\rho(x)\leq 1/1024$.
Now consider some $p'$ with $\|p-p'\|_2\leq i$.
Then
\[
\int_{B_i^c} \|x-p'\|_2^2d\rho(x)
\leq \int_{B_i^c} (\|x-p\|_2 + \|p-p'\|_2)^2d\rho(x)
\leq 4\int_{B_i^c} \|x-p\|_2^2d\rho(x)
\leq \frac 1 {256}.
\]
In this way, a single center may control the outer deviations
of whole swaths of other centers.
Indeed, those choices outperforming the reference score $c$ will provide
a suitable swath. Of course, it would be nice to get a sense of the size
of $B_i$; this however is provided by the moment assumptions.
The general strategy is thus to split consideration
into
outer deviations, and local deviations. The local deviations may be controlled by
standard techniques. To control outer deviations, a single pair of dominating costs
--- a lower bound and an upper bound --- is controlled.
This technique can be found in the proof of the consistency of $k$-means due
to \citet{pollard_km_cons}. The present work shows it can
also provide
finite sample guarantees, and moreover be applied outside hard clustering.
The content here is organized as follows. The remainder of the
introduction surveys related
work, and subsequently \Cref{sec:setup} establishes some basic notation. The core
deviation technique, termed \emph{outer bracketing} (to connect it to the bracketing
technique from empirical process theory), is presented along with the deviations
of $k$-means in \Cref{sec:km}.
The technique is then applied in \Cref{sec:mog} to a soft clustering variant, namely
log likelihood of Gaussian mixtures having bounded spectra.
As a reprieve between these two heavier bracketing sections,
\Cref{sec:km:clamp} provides a simple refinement for $k$-means
which can adapt to cluster structure.
All proofs are deferred to the appendices, however the construction and application
of outer brackets is sketched in the text.
\subsection{Related Work}
As referenced earlier, \citeauthor{pollard_km_cons}'s work deserves special mention,
both since it can be seen as the origin of the outer bracketing technique, and since it
handled $k$-means under similarly slight assumptions (just two moments, rather than the
four here) \citep{pollard_km_cons,pollard_km_clt}. The present work hopes
to be a
spiritual successor, providing finite sample guarantees, and adapting
technique to a soft clustering problem.
In the machine learning community, statistical guarantees for clustering have been
extensively studied under the topic of \emph{clustering stability}
\citep{ DBLP:conf/nips/RakhlinC06, Ben-david06asober, Shamir82clusterstability,
Shamir_modelselection}. One formulation of stability is: if parameters are learned
over two samples, how close are they? The technical component of these works frequently
involves finite sample guarantees, which in the works listed here make a boundedness
assumption, or something similar (for instance, the work of
\citet{Shamir82clusterstability} requires the cost function to satisfy
a bounded differences condition). Amongst these finite sample guarantees,
the finite sample guarantees due to \citet{DBLP:conf/nips/RakhlinC06} are similar
to the development here \emph{after} the invocation of the outer bracket: namely,
a covering argument controls deviations over a bounded set.
The results of \citet{Shamir_modelselection} do not make a boundedness assumption,
but the main results are not finite sample guarantees; in particular, they rely on
asymptotic results due to~\citet{pollard_km_clt}.
There are many standard tools which may be applied to the problems here,
particularly if a boundedness assumption is made \citep{bbl_esaim,blm_conc};
for instance, \citet{Lugosi94ratesof} use tools from VC theory to handle
$k$-means in the bounded case.
Another interesting work, by \citet{Ben-david04aframework}, develops specialized
tools to measure the complexity of certain clustering problems; when applied
to the problems of the type considered here, a boundedness assumption is made.
A few of the above works provide some negative results and related commentary on
the topic of uniform deviations for distributions with unbounded support
\citep[Theorem 3 and subsequent discussion]{Shamir_modelselection}
\citep[Page 5 above Definition 2]{Ben-david04aframework}.
The primary ``loophole'' here is to constrain consideration to those solutions beating
some reference score $c$.
It is reasonable to guess that such a condition entails that
a few centers must lie near the bulk of the distribution's mass;
making this guess rigorous is the first step here
both for $k$-means and for Gaussian mixtures, and moreover the same consequence was
used by \citeauthor{pollard_km_cons} for the consistency of $k$-means
\citep{pollard_km_cons}. In \citeauthor{pollard_km_cons}'s work, only optimal choices
were considered, but the same argument relaxes to arbitrary $c$, which can thus encapsulate
heuristic schemes, and not just nearly optimal ones. (The secondary loophole is
to make moment assumptions; these sufficiently constrain the structure of the distribution
to provide rates.)
In recent years, the empirical process theory community has produced a large
body of work on the topic of maximum likelihood
(see for instance the excellent overviews and recent work of
\citet{wellner_uw_overview,vdw_wellner,wellner_kmonotone_mle}).
As stated previously, the choice of the term ``bracket'' is to connect to empirical
process theory. Loosely stated, a bracket is simply a pair of functions which sandwich
some set of functions; the \emph{bracketing entropy} is then (the logarithm of)
the number of brackets
needed to control a particular set of functions.
In the present work, brackets are paired with sets
which identify the far away regions they are meant to control; furthermore, while
there is potential for the use of many outer brackets, the approach here is able to
make use of just a single outer bracket.
The name bracket is suitable, as opposed to cover, since the bracketing elements need
not be members of the function class being dominated. (By contrast,
\citeauthor{pollard_km_cons}'s use in the
proof of the consistency of $k$-means was more akin to covering,
in that remote fluctuations were compared to that of a
a single center placed at the origin
\citep{pollard_km_cons}.)
\section{Notation}
\label{sec:setup}
The ambient space will always be the Euclidean space $\mathbb R^d$, though a few
results will be stated for a general domain $\mathcal X$. The source probability
measure will be $\rho$, and when a finite sample of size $m$ is available,
$\hat\rho$ is the corresponding empirical measure. Occasionally, the variable
$\nu$ will refer to an arbitrary probability measure (where $\rho$ and $\hat\rho$ will serve
as relevant instantiations). Both integral and expectation notation will be used;
for example, $\mathbb E(f(X)) = \mathbb E_\rho(f(X) = \int f(x)d\rho(x)$;
for integrals, $\int_B f(x)d\rho(x) = \int f(x) \mathds 1[x\in B] d\rho(x)$, where $\mathds 1$ is
the indicator function.
The moments of $\rho$ are defined as follows.
\begin{definition}
Probability measure $\rho$ has
\emph{order-$p$ moment bound $M$ with respect to norm $\|\cdot\|$}
when $\mathbb E_\rho\|X-\mathbb E_\rho(X)\|^l\leq M$ for $1\leq l\leq p$.
\end{definition}
For example, the typical setting of $k$-means uses norm $\|\cdot\|_2$,
and at least two moments are needed for the cost over $\rho$ to be finite; the condition
here of needing 4 moments can be seen as naturally arising via Chebyshev's inequality.
Of course, the availability of higher moments is beneficial,
dropping the rates here from $m^{-1/4}$ down to $m^{-1/2}$.
Note that the basic controls derived from moments, which are primarily elaborations
of Chebyshev's inequality, can be found in \Cref{sec:moments}.
The $k$-means analysis will generalize slightly beyond the single-center
cost $x\mapsto\|x-p\|_2^2$ via \emph{Bregman divergences}
\citep{censor_zenios,bregman_clustering}.
\begin{definition}
Given a convex differentiable function $f :\mathcal X\to \mathbb R$,
the corresponding \emph{Bregman divergence}
is $\mathsf B_f(x,y) := f(x) - f(y) - \ip{\nabla f(y)}{x-y}$.
\end{definition}
Not all Bregman divergences are handled; rather, the following regularity conditions
will be placed on the convex function.
\begin{definition}
A convex differentiable function $f$ is \emph{strongly convex} with modulus $r_1$
and has \emph{Lipschitz gradients} with constant $r_2$, both respect to some
norm $\|\cdot\|$, when $f$ (respectively) satisfies
\begin{align*}
f(\alpha x + (1-\alpha) y)
& \leq
\alpha f(x)
+ (1-\alpha) f(y)
- \frac{r_1\alpha(1-\alpha)}{2} \|x-y\|^2,
\\
\|\nabla f(x) - \nabla f(y)\|_* &\leq r_2\|x-y\|,
\end{align*}
where $x,y \in \mathcal X$, $\alpha\in[0,1]$, and $\|\cdot\|_*$ is the dual of
$\|\cdot\|$. (The Lipschitz gradient condition is sometimes
called \emph{strong smoothness}.)
\end{definition}
These conditions are a fancy way of saying the corresponding Bregman divergence is
sandwiched between two quadratics (cf. \Cref{fact:bregman:easy_norms}).
\begin{definition}
Given a convex differentiable function $f:\mathbb R^d\to R$ which is strongly convex and
has Lipschitz gradients with respective constants $r_1,r_2$ with respect
to norm $\|\cdot\|$,
the \emph{hard $k$-means cost} of a single point $x$
according to a set of centers $P$ is
\[
\phi_f(x;P) := \min_{p\in P} \mathsf B_f(x, p).
\]
The corresponding $k$-means cost of a set of points (or distribution)
is thus computed as $\mathbb E_\nu(\phi_f(X;P))$,
and let $\cH_f(\nu;c,k)$ denote all sets of at most $k$ centers beating cost $c$,
meaning
\[
\cH_f(\nu;c,k) := \{ P :
|P| \leq k,
\mathbb E_\nu(\phi_f(X;P)) \leq c
\}.
\]
\end{definition}
For example, choosing norm $\|\cdot\|_2$ and convex function $f(x)=\|x\|_2^2$ (which
has $r_1=r_2=2$), the corresponding Bregman divergence
is $\mathsf B_f(x,y) = \|x-y\|_2^2$,
and $\mathbb E_{\hat\rho}(\phi_f(X;P))$
denotes the vanilla $k$-means cost of some finite point set encoded in the
empirical measure $\hat\rho$.
The hard clustering guarantees will work with $\cH_f(\nu;c,k)$,
where $\nu$ can be either the source distribution $\rho$, or its empirical
counterpart $\hat\rho$. As discussed previously, it is reasonable to set $c$ to
simply the sample variance of the data, or a related estimate of the
true variance (cf. \Cref{sec:moments}).
Lastly, the class of Gaussian mixture penalties is as follows.
\begin{definition}
Given Gaussian parameters $\theta := (\mu, \varSigma)$,
let $p_\theta$ denote Gaussian density
\[
p_{\theta}(x) =
\frac 1 {\sqrt{(2\pi)^d |\varSigma_i|}}
\exp\left(-\frac 1 2 (x-\mu_i)^T \varSigma_i^{-1} (x-\mu_i)\right).
\]
Given Gaussian mixture parameters $(\alpha, \Theta) = (\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^k,
\{\theta_i\}_{i=1}^k)$ with $\alpha \geq 0$ and $\sum_i \alpha_i = 1$
(written $\alpha \in \Delta$),
the Gaussian mixture cost at a point $x$ is
\[
\phi_{\textup{g}}(x; (\alpha, \Theta))
:= \phi_{\textup{g}}(x; \{(\alpha_i,\theta_i) = (\alpha_i, \mu_i, \varSigma_i)\}_{i=1}^k)
:= \ln\left(
\sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i p_{\theta_i}(x)
\right),
\]
Lastly, given a measure $\nu$, bound $k$ on the number of mixture parameters,
and spectrum bounds $0 < \sigma_1\leq\sigma_2$,
let ${\cS_{\textup{mog}}}(\nu; c,k, \sigma_1, \sigma_2)$ denote those mixture parameters beating
cost $c$, meaning
\begin{align*}
{\cS_{\textup{mog}}}(\nu; c,k, \sigma_1, \sigma_2)
&:=
\left\{
(\alpha, \Theta)
:
\sigma_1 I \preceq \varSigma_i \preceq \sigma_2 I,
|\alpha| \leq k,
\alpha\in\Delta,
\mathbb E_\nu\left(\phi_{\textup{g}}(X; (\alpha, \Theta))\right) \leq c
\right\}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
While a condition of the form $\varSigma \succeq \sigma_1 I$ is typically enforced in
practice (say, with a Bayesian prior, or by ignoring updates which shrink the covariance
beyond this point),
the condition $\varSigma \preceq \sigma_2 I$ is potentially violated.
These conditions will be discussed further in \Cref{sec:mog}.
\section{Controlling $k$-means with an Outer Bracket}
\label{sec:km}
First consider the special case of $k$-means cost.
\begin{corollary}
\label{fact:km:basic:kmeans_cost}
Set $f(x) := \|x\|_2^2$,
whereby $\phi_f$ is the $k$-means cost.
Let real $c\geq 0$
and probability measure $\rho$ be given with order-$p$ moment bound
$M$ with respect to $\|\cdot\|_2$,
where $p\geq 4$ is a positive multiple of 4.
Define the quantities
\begin{align*}
c_1 := (2M)^{1/p} + \sqrt{2c},
\quad
M_1 := M^{1/(p-2)} + M^{2/p},
\quad
N_1 := 2 + 576d(c_1 + c_1^2 + M_1 + M_1^2).
\end{align*}
Then with probability at least $1-3\delta$ over the draw of a sample
of size $m \geq \max\{(p / (2^{p/4+2}e))^2,9\ln(1/\delta)\}$, every set of centers
$P \in \cH_f(\hat\rho;c,k)\cup \cH_f(\rho;c,k)$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
&\left|
\int \phi_f(x;P)d\rho(x)
- \int \phi_f(x;P)d\hat\rho(x)
\right|
\\
&\qquad\leq m^{-1/2 + \min\{1/4,2/p\}}
\left(
4 +
(72c_1^2 + 32M_1^2)
\sqrt{
\frac 1 2
\ln
\left(
\frac{ (mN_1)^{dk} }{\delta}
\right)
}
+ \sqrt{\frac{2^{p/4}ep}{8m^{1/2}}} \left(\frac 2 \delta\right)^{4/p}
\right).
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
One artifact of the moment approach (cf. \Cref{sec:moments}),
heretofore ignored,
is the term $(2/\delta)^{4/p}$.
While this may seem inferior to $\ln(2/\delta)$, note that the choice
$p = 4\ln(2/\delta)/ \ln(\ln(2/\delta))$ suffices to make the two equal.
Next consider a general bound for Bregman divergences.
This bound has a few
more parameters than \Cref{fact:km:basic:kmeans_cost}. In particular,
the term $\epsilon$, which is instantiated to $m^{-1/2+1/p}$ in the proof of
\Cref{fact:km:basic:kmeans_cost}, catches the mass of points discarded due to the outer
bracket, as well as the resolution of the (inner) cover.
The parameter $p'$, which controls the tradeoff between $m$ and $1/\delta$, is set
to $p/4$ in the proof of \Cref{fact:km:basic:kmeans_cost}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{fact:km:basic}
Fix a reference norm $\|\cdot\|$ throughout the following.
Let probability measure $\rho$ be given with order-$p$ moment bound
$M$ where $p\geq 4$,
a convex function $f$ with corresponding constants $r_1$ and $r_2$,
reals $c$ and $\epsilon>0$,
and integer $1\leq p' \leq p/2-1$ be given.
Define the quantities
\begin{align*}
R_B &:=
\max\left\{
(2M)^{1/p}
+ \sqrt{4c/r_1}
,
\max_{i\in [p']}
(M/\epsilon)^{1/(p-2i)}
\right\},
\\
R_C &:=
\sqrt{r_2/r_1}\left(
(2M)^{1/p} + \sqrt{4c/r_1}
+
R_B\right)
+ R_B,
\\
B&:= \left\{ x \in \mathbb R^d : \|x-\mathbb E(X)\| \leq R_B\right\},
\\
C&:= \left\{ x \in \mathbb R^d : \|x-\mathbb E(X)\| \leq R_C\right\},
\\
\tau
&:= \min\left\{
\sqrt{\frac {\epsilon}{2r_2}}
,
\frac {\epsilon}{2(R_B+R_C)r_2}
\right\},
\end{align*}
and let $\mathcal N$ be a cover of $C$ by $\|\cdot\|$-balls
with radius $\tau$; in the case that $\|\cdot\|$ is an $l_p$ norm,
the size of this cover has bound
\[
|\mathcal N|
\leq
\left(1 + \frac {2R_Cd}{\tau}\right)^d.
\]
Then
with probability at least $1-3\delta$ over the draw of a sample of size
$m \geq \max\{p'/(e2^{p'}\epsilon), 9\ln(1/\delta)\}$,
every set of centers
$P \in \cH_f(\rho;c,k) \cup \cH_f(\hat\rho;c,k)$
satisfies
\[
\left|
\int \phi_f(x;P)d\rho(x)
- \int \phi_f(x;P)d\hat\rho(x)
\right|
\leq 4\epsilon
+
4r_2R_C^2
\sqrt{
\frac {1}{2m}
\ln
\left(
\frac {2|\mathcal N|^k}{\delta}
\right)
}
+ \sqrt{\frac{e2^{p'}\epsilon p'}{2m}} \left(\frac 2 \delta\right)^{1/p'}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Compactification via Outer Brackets}
The outer bracket is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}
An outer bracket for probability measure $\nu$ at scale $\epsilon$
consists of two triples, one each for lower and upper bounds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The function $\ell$, function class $Z_\ell$, and set $B_\ell$ satisfy
two conditions: if $x \in B_\ell^c$ and $\phi\in Z_\ell$, then $\ell(x) \leq
\phi(x)$,
and secondly $|\int_{B_\ell^c} \ell(x)d\nu(x)| \leq \epsilon$.
\item Similarly, function $u$, function class $Z_u$, and set $B_u$ satisfy:
if $x\in B_u^c$ and $\phi\in Z_u$, then $u(x) \geq \phi(x)$,
and secondly $|\int_{B_u^c} u(x)d\nu(x)| \leq \epsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Direct from the definition, given bracketing functions $(\ell,u)$, a bracketed function
$\phi_f(\cdot;P)$, and the bracketing set $B:= B_u \cup B_\ell$,
\begin{equation}
-\epsilon
\leq \int_{B^c} \ell(x)d\nu(x)
\leq \int_{B^c} \phi_f(x;P)d\nu(x)
\leq \int_{B^c} u(x)d\nu(x)
\leq \epsilon;
\label{eq:outer_bracket}
\end{equation}
in other words, as intended, this mechanism allows deviations on $B^c$ to be discarded.
Thus to uniformly control the deviations of the dominated functions
$Z := Z_u \cup Z_\ell$ over the set $B^c$,
it suffices to simply control the deviations of the pair
$(\ell,u)$.
The following \namecref{fact:km:outer_bracket:2}
shows that a bracket exists for $\{\phi_f(\cdot; P) : P \in \cH_f(\nu;c,k)\}$
and compact $B$, and moreover that this allows sampled points and candidate centers
in far reaches to be deleted.
\begin{lemma}
\label{fact:km:outer_bracket:2}
Consider the setting and definitions in
\Cref{fact:km:basic},
but additionally define
\begin{align*}
M' := 2^{p'}\epsilon,
\qquad
\ell(x)
:= 0,\qquad
u(x)
:= 4r_2\|x - \mathbb E(X)\|^2,
\qquad
\epsilon_{\hat\rho}
&:=
\epsilon
+ \sqrt{\frac{M'ep'}{2m}} \left(\frac 2 \delta\right)^{1/p'}.
\end{align*}
The following statements hold with probability at least $1-2\delta$
over a draw of size
$m \geq \max\{p'/(M'e), 9\ln(1/\delta)\}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$(u,\ell)$ is an outer bracket for $\rho$ at scale $\epsilon_\rho := \epsilon$
with sets $B_\ell = B_u=B$
and $Z_\ell = Z_u = \{\phi_f(\cdot; P) : P \in \cH_f(\hat\rho;c,k) \cup
\cH_f(\rho;c,k)\}$,
and furthermore
the pair
$(u,\ell)$
is also an outer bracket for $\hat\rho$ at scale $\epsilon_{\hat\rho}$
with the same sets.
\item
For every $P \in \cH_f(\hat\rho;c,k) \cup \cH_f(\rho;c,k)$,
\[
\left|
\int \phi_f(x;P) d\rho(x)
-
\int_B \phi_f(x;P\cap C) d\rho(x)
\right|
\leq \epsilon_\rho = \epsilon.
\]
and
\[
\left|
\int \phi_f(x;P) d\hat\rho(x)
-
\int_B \phi_f(x;P\cap C) d\hat\rho(x)
\right|
\leq \epsilon_{\hat\rho}
.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The proof of \Cref{fact:km:outer_bracket:2} has roughly the following outline.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Pick some ball $B_0$ which has probability mass at least $1/4$.
It is not possible for
an element of $\cH_f(\hat\rho;c,k)\cup \cH_f(\rho;c,k)$ to have all centers
far from $B_0$, since otherwise
the cost is larger than $c$. (Concretely, ``far from'' means
at least $\sqrt{4c/r_1}$ away; note that this term appears in the
definitions of $B$ and $C$ in
\Cref{fact:km:basic}.)
Consequently, at least one center lies near to $B_0$;
this reasoning was also the first step in the $k$-means consistency proof due to
$k$-means \citet{pollard_km_cons}.
\item
It is now easy to dominate
$P \in \cH_f(\hat\rho;c,k)\cup \cH_f(\rho;c,k)$
far away from $B_0$.
In particular, choose any $p_0 \in B_0 \cap P$, which was
guaranteed to exist in the preceding point; since
$\min_{p\in P} \mathsf B_f(x,p) \leq \mathsf B_f(x,p_0)$ holds for all $x$, it suffices
to dominate $p_0$. This domination proceeds exactly as discussed in the
introduction; in fact, the factor 4 appeared there, and again appears in
the $u$ here, for exactly the same reason.
Once again, similar reasoning can be found in the proof by
\citet{pollard_km_cons}.
\item
Satisfying the integral conditions over $\rho$ is easy:
it suffices to make $B$ huge.
To control the size of $B_0$, as well as the size of $B$, and moreover
the deviations of the bracket over $B$, the moment tools
from \Cref{sec:moments} are used.
\end{enumerate}
Now turning consideration back to the proof of \Cref{fact:km:basic}, the above
bracketing allows the removal of points and centers outside of a compact set (in
particular, the pair of compact sets $B$ and $C$, respectively).
On the remaining truncated data and set of centers,
any standard tool suffices; for mathematical convenience, and also
to fit well with the use of norms in the definition of moments as well as the
conditions on the convex function $f$ providing the divergence $\mathsf B_f$,
norm structure used throughout the other properties,
covering arguments are used here. (For details, please see \Cref{sec:km:deferred}.)
\section{Interlude: Refined Estimates via Clamping}
\label{sec:km:clamp}
So far, rates have been given that guarantee uniform convergence when the distribution
has a few moments, and these rates improve with the availability of higher moments.
These moment conditions, however, do not necessarily reflect any natural cluster
structure in the source distribution. The purpose of this section is to propose
and analyze another distributional property which is intended to capture
cluster structure.
To this end, consider the following definition.
\begin{definition}
Real number $R$ and compact set $C$ are a \emph{clamp} for
probability measure $\nu$ and family of centers $Z$ and cost $\phi_f$
at scale $\epsilon>0$ if every $P \in Z$
satisfies
\[
\left|
\mathbb E_\nu(\phi_f(X;P))
-
\mathbb E_\nu\left(\min\left\{\phi_f(X;P\cap C)\ , \ R\right\}\right)
\right|
\leq \epsilon.
\]
\end{definition}
Note that this definition is similar to the second part of the outer bracket
guarantee in \Cref{fact:km:outer_bracket:2}, and, predictably enough, will soon
lead to another deviation bound.
\begin{example}
If the distribution has bounded support, then choosing a clamping value $R$ and
clamping set $C$ respectively slightly larger than the support size and set is
sufficient: as was reasoned in the construction of outer brackets,
if no centers are close to the support, then the cost is bad. Correspondingly,
the clamped set of functions $Z$ should again be choices of centers
whose cost is not too high.
For a more interesting example, suppose $\rho$ is supported on $k$
small balls of radius $R_1$, where the distance between their respective centers
is some $R_2\gg R_1$. Then by reasoning similar to the bounded case,
all choices of
centers achieving a good cost will place centers near to each ball, and thus
the clamping value can be taken closer to $R_1$.
\end{example}
Of course, the above gave the existence of clamps under favorable conditions.
The following shows that outer brackets can be used to show the existence of clamps
in general. In fact, the proof is very short, and follows the scheme laid out in the
bounded example above: outer bracketing allows the restriction of consideration to a
bounded set, and some algebra from there gives a conservative upper bound for the clamping
value.
\begin{proposition}
\label{fact:bracket_gives_clamp}
Suppose the setting and definitions of \Cref{fact:km:outer_bracket:2},
and additionally define
\[
R := 2((2M)^{2/p} + R_B^2).
\]
Then $(C,R)$ is a clamp for measure $\rho$ and center $\cH_f(\rho;c,k)$
at scale $\epsilon$, and with probability at least $1-3\delta$ over a draw
of size $m\geq \max\{p'/(M'e),9\ln(1/\delta)\}$, it is also a clamp for $\hat\rho$
and centers $\cH_f(\hat\rho;c,k)$ at scale $\epsilon_{\hat\rho}$.
\end{proposition}
The general guarantee using clamps is as follows. The proof is almost the same
as for \Cref{fact:km:basic}, but note that this statement is not used quite as
readily,
since it first requires the construction of clamps.
\begin{theorem}
\label{fact:km:clamp:basic}
Fix a norm $\|\cdot\|$.
Let $(R,C)$ be a clamp for probability measure $\rho$ and empirical
counterpart $\hat\rho$ over some center class $Z$ and cost $\phi_f$
at respective scales $\epsilon_\rho$ and $\epsilon_{\hat\rho}$,
where $f$ has corresponding convexity constants $r_1$ and $r_2$.
Suppose $C$ is contained within a ball of radius $R_C$,
let $\epsilon>0$ be given, define scale parameter
\[
\tau := \min\left\{
\sqrt{\frac {\epsilon}{2r_2}}
,
\frac {r_1\epsilon}{2r_2R_3}
\right\},
\]
and let $\mathcal N$ be a cover of $C$ by $\|\cdot\|$-balls of radius $\tau$
(as per \cref{fact:cover:lp_balls}, if $\|\cdot\|$ is
an $l_p$ norm, then $|\mathcal N|\leq (1 + (2R_Cd)/ \tau)^d$ suffices).
Then
with probability at least $1-\delta$ over the draw of a sample of size
$m \geq p'/(M'e)$,
every set of centers $P\in Z$ satisfies
\[
\left|
\int \phi_f(x;P)d\rho(x)
- \int \phi_f(x;P)d\hat\rho(x)
\right|
\leq 2\epsilon + \epsilon_\rho + \epsilon_{\hat\rho}
+
R^2
\sqrt{
\frac {1}{2m}
\ln
\left(
\frac {2|\mathcal N|^k}{\delta}
\right)
}.
\]
\end{theorem}
Before adjourning this section, note that clamps and outer brackets disagree
on the treatment of the outer regions:
the former replaces the cost there with the fixed value $R$,
whereas the latter uses the value 0.
On the technical side, this
is necessitated by the covering argument used to produce the final theorem: if the clamping
operation instead truncated beyond a ball of radius $R$ centered at each $p\in P$, then
the deviations would be wild as these balls moved and suddenly switched the value at a
point from 0 to something large. This is not a problem with
outer bracketing,
since the same points (namely $B^c$) are ignored by every set of centers.
\section{Mixtures of Gaussians}
\label{sec:mog}
Before turning to the deviation bound,
it is a good place to discuss the condition
$\sigma_1 I \preceq \varSigma \preceq \sigma_2 I$, which must be met by every covariance
matrix of every constituent Gaussian in a mixture.
The lower bound $\sigma_1 I \preceq \varSigma$, as discussed previously, is fairly common
in practice, arising either via a Bayesian prior, or by implementing
EM with an explicit condition that covariance updates are discarded when the eigenvalues
fall below some threshold.
In the analysis here, this lower bound is used to rule out two kinds of bad behavior.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Given a budget of at least 2 Gaussians, and a sample of at least 2 distinct points,
arbitrarily large likelihood may be achieved by devoting one Gaussian to one point,
and shrinking its covariance. This issue destroys convergence properties of
maximum likelihood, since the likelihood score
may be arbitrarily large over every sample,
but is finite for well-behaved distributions.
The condition $\sigma_1 I \preceq \varSigma$ rules this out.
\item
Another phenomenon is a ``flat'' Gaussian, meaning a Gaussian whose density
is high along a lower dimensional manifold, but small elsewhere.
Concretely,
consider a Gaussian over $\mathbb R^2$ with covariance
$\varSigma = \textup{diag}(\sigma, \sigma^{-1})$;
as $\sigma$ decreases,
the Gaussian has large density on a line, but low density elsewhere.
This phenomenon is distinct from the preceding in that it does not
produce arbitrarily large likelihood scores over finite samples.
The condition $\sigma_1 I \preceq \varSigma$ rules this situation out as well.
\end{enumerate}
In both the hard and soft clustering analyses here, a crucial early step
allows the assertion that good scores in some region mean the relevant parameter
is nearby. For the case of Gaussians, the condition $\sigma_1 I \preceq \varSigma$
makes this problem manageable, but there is still the possibility that some far away,
fairly uniform Gaussian has reasonable density. This case is ruled out
here via $\sigma_2 I \succeq \varSigma$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{fact:mog:basic}
Let probability measure $\rho$ be given with order-$p$ moment bound
$M$ according to norm $\|\cdot\|_2$ where $p\geq 8$ is
a positive multiple of 4,
covariance bounds $0 < \sigma_1 \leq \sigma_2$ with $\sigma_1 \leq 1$ for simplicity,
and real $c\leq 1/2$ be given.
Then with probability at least $1-5\delta$
over the draw of a sample of size
$
m \geq \max\left\{
(p / (2^{p/4+2}e))^2,
8\ln(1/\delta),
d^2\ln(\pi\sigma_2)^2\ln(1/\delta)
\right\},
$
every set of Gaussian mixture
parameters $(\alpha,\Theta) \in
{\cS_{\textup{mog}}}(\hat \rho ; c,k, \sigma_1,\sigma_2)
\cup {\cS_{\textup{mog}}}(\rho ; c,k, \sigma_1,\sigma_2)$
satisfies
\begin{align*}
&\left|
\int \phi_{\textup{g}}(x;(\alpha,\Theta))d\rho(x)
- \int \phi_{\textup{g}}(x;(\alpha,\Theta))d\hat\rho(x)
\right|
\\
&\qquad\qquad=
\mathcal O\left(m^{-1/2+3/p}
\left(
1+ \sqrt{\ln(m) + \ln(1/\delta)}
+ (1/\delta)^{4/p}
\right)\right),
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal O(\cdot)$ drops numerical constants, polynomial terms depending
on $c$, $M$, $d$, and $k$, $\sigma_2/\sigma_1$, and $\ln(\sigma_2/\sigma_1)$,
but in particular has no sample-dependent quantities.
\end{theorem}
The proof follows the scheme of the hard clustering analysis.
One distinction is that the outer bracket now uses both components; the upper component
is the log of the largest possible density --- indeed, it is $\ln((2\pi\sigma_1)^{-d/2})$
--- whereas the lower component is a function mimicking the log density
of the steepest possible Gaussian --- concretely, the lower bracket's definition
contains the expression
$\ln((2\pi\sigma_2)^{-d/2}) - 2\|x-\mathbb E_\rho(X)\|_2^2/\sigma_1$, which lacks the
normalization of a proper Gaussian, highlighting the fact that bracketing elements
need not be elements of the class.
Superficially, a second distinction with the hard clustering
case is that far away Gaussians
can not be entirely ignored on local regions; the influence is limited, however,
and the analysis proceeds similarly in each case.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank the NSF for supporting this work under grant IIS-1162581.
\clearpage
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{s1}
Let $A$ be an $n$-by-$n$ complex matrix. The \emph{power partial isometry index} $p(A)$ of $A$ is, by definition, the supremum of the nonnegative integers $j$ for which $I, A, A^2, \ldots, A^j$ are all partial isometries. Recall that $A$ is a \emph{partial isometry} if $\|Ax\|=\|x\|$ for all vectors $x$ of $\complex^n$ which are in the orthogonal complement $(\ker A)^{\perp}$ of $\ker A$. The \emph{ascent} $a(A)$ of $A$ is the smallest nonnegative integer $k$ for which $\ker A^k=\ker A^{k+1}$. The relation between these two parameters of $A$ was first explored in \cite{1}. In particular, it was shown in \cite[Corollary 2.5]{1} that $0\le p(A)\le\min\{a(A), n-1\}$ or $p(A)=\infty$. We asked in \cite[Question 3.7]{1} that whether such conditions on $p(A)$ and $a(A)$ guarantee their attainment by some $n$-by-$n$ matrix $A$. In this paper, we show that this is not always the case. It turns out that the situation is more delicate than what we have expected. More precisely, we prove that, for nonnegative integers $j$ and $k$ and a positive integer $n$, there is an $n$-by-$n$ matrix $A$ with $p(A)=j$ and $a(A)=k$ if and only if one of the following three conditions holds: (a) $j=k\le n-1$, (b) $j\le k-1$ and $j+k\le n-1$, and (c) $j\le k-2$ and $j+k=n$. This settles \cite[Question 3.7]{1} completely. The proof of it depends on the special matrix representation, under unitary similarity, of a matrix $A$ for which $A, A^2, \ldots, A^j$ are all partial isometries for a certain $j$, $1\le j\le\infty$ (cf. \cite[Theorems 2.2 and 2.4]{1}). We will review the necessary ingredients from \cite{1} in Section \ref{s2} below. Section \ref{s3} then gives the proof of our main result.
Partial isometries were first studied in \cite{3} and their properties have since been summaried in \cite[Chapter 15]{2}. Power partial isometries were considered first in \cite{4}.
\vspace{5mm}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{s2}
We start with the following result from \cite[Theorem 2.2]{1}
\begin{theorem} \label{t21}
Let $A$ be an $n$-by-$n$ matrix and $1\le j\le a(A)$. Then $A, A^2, \ldots, A^j$ are partial isometries if and only if $A$ is unitarily similar to a matrix of the form
\begin{equation}\label{e1}
A'=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & A_1 & & & \\ & 0 & \ddots & & \\ & & \ddots & A_{j-1} & \\ & & & 0 & B\\ & & & & C\end{array}\right] \ on \ \complex^n=\complex^{n_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus\complex^{n_j}\oplus\complex^{m},
\end{equation}
where the $A_{\ell}$'s satisfy $A_{\ell}^*A_{\ell}=I_{n_{\ell+1}}$ for $1\le \ell\le j-1$, and $B$ and $C$ satisfy $B^*B+C^*C=I_m$. In this case, $n_{\ell}=\nul A$ if $\ell=1$, and $\nul A^{\ell}-\nul A^{\ell-1}$ if $2\le \ell\le j$, and $m=\rank A^j$.
\end{theorem}
Here, for any $p\ge 1$, $I_p$ denotes the $p$-by-$p$ identity matrix, and, for any matrix $B$, $\nul B$ means $\dim\ker B$.
A consequence of Theorem \ref{t21} is the next result from \cite[Theorem 2.4]{1}.
\begin{theorem} \label{t22}
Let $A$ be an $n$-by-$n$ matrix and $j>a(A)$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (a)] $A, A^2, \ldots, A^j$ are partial isometries,
\item[\rm (b)] $A$ is unitarily similar to a matrix of the form $U\oplus J_{k_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus J_{k_m}$, where $U$ is unitary and $a(A)=k_1\ge\cdots\ge k_m\ge 1$, and
\item[\rm (c)] $A^{\ell}$ is a partial isometry for all $\ell\ge 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Here $J_q$ denotes the $q$-by-$q$ \emph{Jordan block}
$$\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & & \\
& 0 & \ddots & \\
& & \ddots & 1 \\
& & & 0
\end{array}
\right].$$
An easy corollary of the preceding theorem is the following estimate for $p(A)$ from \cite[Corollary 2.5]{1}.
\begin{corollary}\label{c23}
If $A$ is an $n$-by-$n$ matrix, then $0\le p(A)\le\min\{a(A), n-1\}$ or $p(A)=\infty$.
\end{corollary}
In constructing the examples for our main result, we need the class of $S_n$-matrices. Recall that an $n$-by-$n$ matrix $A$ is said to be of {\em class} $S_n$ if $A$ is a contraction ($\|A\|\equiv\max\{\|Ax\|: x\in\mathbb{C}^n, \|x\|=1\}\le 1$), its eigenvalues all have moduli strictly less than 1, and $\rank(I_n-A^*A)=1$. Such matrices are finite-dimensional versions of the \emph{compressions of the shift} $S(\phi)$ studied first by Sarason \cite{5}, which later featured prominently in the Sz.-Nagy--Foia\c{s} contraction theory \cite{6}. A special example of $S_n$-matrices is the Jordan block $J_n$. In fact, many properties of $J_n$ can be extended to those for the more general $S_n$-matrices. Part (a) of the following theorem from \cite[Proposition 3.1]{1} is one such instance.
\begin{theorem} \label{t24}
Let $A$ be a noninvertible $S_n$-matrix. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (a)] $a(A)$ equals the algebraic multiplicity of the eigenvalue $0$ of $A$,
\item[\rm (b)] $p(A)=a(A)$ or $\infty$, and
\item[\rm (c)] $p(A)=\infty$ if and only if $A$ is unitarily similar to $J_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\vspace{5mm}
\section{Main Result}\label{s3}
The following is the main theorem of this paper.
\begin{theorem} \label{t31}
Let $j$ and $k$ be nonnegative integers and $n$ be a positive integer. Then there is an $n$-by-$n$ matrix $A$ such that $p(A)=j$ and $a(A)=k$ if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (a)] $j=k\le n-1$,
\item[\rm (b)] $j\le k-1$ and $j+k\le n-1$, and
\item[\rm (c)] $j\le k-2$ and $j+k=n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
To prove this, we need the next two lemmas.
\begin{lemma}\label{l32}
If $A$ is an $n$-by-$n$ matrix, which is unitarily similar to a matrix $A'$ as in $(\ref{e1})$ with $1\le j\le a(A)$, then $(\mbox{\rm a})$ $p(A)=j+p(C)$, and $(\mbox{\rm b})$ $a(A)=j+a(C)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $\ell\ge 0$, multiplying $A'$ with itself $j+\ell$ times results in
\begin{equation}\label{e2}
A'^{j+\ell}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & \cdots & 0 & (\prod_{p=1}^{j-1}A_p)BC^{\ell}\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & (\prod_{p=2}^{j-1}A_p)BC^{\ell+1}\\
\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & BC^{j+\ell-1}\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & C^{j+\ell}
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
(a) Note that $A'^{j+\ell}$ is a partial isometry if and only if ${A'^{j+\ell}}^*A'^{j+\ell}$ is an (orthogonal) projection (cf. \cite[Problem 127]{2}), and the latter is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{e3}
(\sum_{q=\ell}^{j+\ell-1}{C^q}^*B^*(\prod_{p=q-\ell+1}^{j-1}A_p)^*(\prod_{p=q-\ell+1}^{j-1}A_p)BC^q)+{C^{j+\ell}}^*C^{j+\ell}
\end{equation}
being a projection. Making use of $A_p^*A_p=I_{n_{p+1}}$, $1\le p\le j-1$, and $B^*B+C^*C=I_m$, we can simplify (\ref{e3}) to
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& (\sum_{q=\ell}^{j+\ell-1}{C^q}^*B^*BC^q)+{C^{j+\ell}}^*C^{j+\ell}\\
&=& (\sum_{q=\ell}^{j+\ell-2}{C^q}^*B^*BC^q)+{C^{j+\ell-1}}^*(B^*B+C^*C)C^{j+\ell-1}\\
&=& (\sum_{q=\ell}^{j+\ell-2}{C^q}^*B^*BC^q)+{C^{j+\ell-1}}^*C^{j+\ell-1}\\
&=& (\sum_{q=\ell}^{j+\ell-3}{C^q}^*B^*BC^q)+{C^{j+\ell-2}}^*(B^*B+C^*C)C^{j+\ell-2}\\
&=& \cdots\\
&=& {C^{\ell}}^*C^{\ell}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus ${C^{\ell}}^*C^{\ell}$ is a projection, which is equivalent to $C^{\ell}$ being a partial isometry. From these, we conclude that $p(A)=p(A')=j+p(C)$.
(b) For any $\ell\ge 0$, let $s_{\ell}$ (resp., $t_{\ell}$) denote the geometric (resp., algebraic) multiplicity of the eigenvalue 0 of $A^{j+\ell}$, and let $u_{\ell}$ (resp., $v_{\ell}$) be the corresponding multiplicities of 0 of $C^{\ell}$. Obviously, we have $t_{\ell}=t_0$ for all $\ell\ge 0$ and $v_{\ell}=v_1$ for $\ell\ge 1$. We claim that $s_{\ell}=(\sum_{i=1}^j n_i)+u_{\ell}$ for $\ell\ge 0$. Indeed, let $x_1\oplus\cdots\oplus x_j\oplus y$ in $\complex^{n_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus\complex^{n_j}\oplus\complex^m$ be any vector in $\ker A'^{j+\ell}$. From (\ref{e2}), we have $(\prod_{p=q-\ell+1}^{j-1}A_p)BC^qy=0$, $\ell\le q\le j+\ell-1$, and $C^{j+\ell}y=0$. Since $A_p^*A_p=I_{n_{p+1}}$ for $1\le p\le j-1$, we obtain $BC^qy=0$ for $\ell\le q\le j+\ell-1$. Applying $B^*B+C^*C=I_m$ to the vector $C^{j+\ell-1}y$ yields that
$$C^{j+\ell-1}y=B^*(BC^{j+\ell-1}y)+C^*(CC^{j+\ell-1}y)=0+0=0.$$
We may then apply $B^*B+C^*C=I_m$ again to $C^{j+\ell-2}y$ as above to obtain $C^{j+\ell-2}y=0$. Repeating this process inductively, we finally reach $C^{\ell}y=0$, that is, $y$ is in $\ker C^{\ell}$. This shows that $\ker A'^{j+\ell}$ is contained in the subspace $\complex^{n_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus\complex^{n_j}\oplus\ker C^{\ell}$. Since the reversed containment is easily seen to be true, it follows that
$$s_{\ell}=\nul A^{j+\ell}=\nul A'^{j+\ell}=(\sum_{i=1}^j n_i)+u_{\ell}$$
for any $\ell\ge 0$ as claimed. Note that, for any matrix $T$, its ascent is equal to the smallest nonnegative integer $k$ for which the geometric and algebraic multiplicities of the eigenvalue 0 of $T^k$ coincide. Thus
$$u_{a(C)}=v_{a(C)}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} v_1 \ & \mbox{if } \, a(C)\ge 1,\\ 0 & \mbox{if } \, a(C)=0,\end{array}\right. \ \mbox{ and } \ u_{a(C)-1}<u_{a(C)}=v_1 \ \mbox{ if } \, a(C)\ge 1.$$
Therefore,
$$s_{a(C)}=\Big(\sum_{i=1}^j n_i\Big)+u_{a(C)}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \big(\sum\limits_{i=1}^j n_i\big)+v_1=t_0=t_{a(C)} \ & \mbox{if } \, a(C)\ge 1,\\ \sum\limits_{i=1}^j n_i & \mbox{if } \, a(C)=0,\end{array}\right.$$
where the third equality follows from the upper-triangular block structure of $A'$, and
$$s_{a(C)-1}=\Big(\sum_{i=1}^j n_i\Big)+u_{a(C)-1}<\Big(\sum\limits_{i=1}^j n_i\Big)+v_1=t_0=t_{a(C)-1} \ \ \mbox{ if } \, a(C)\ge 1.$$
This shows that $j+a(C)$ is the smallest integer $k$ for which the geometric and algebraic multiplicities of the eigenvalue 0 of $A^k$ are equal to each other. Thus $a(A)=j+a(C)$ follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l33}
Let $A$ be an $n$-by-$n$ matrix with $p(A)<\infty$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (a)] If $p(A)+a(A)>n$, then $p(A)=a(A)$.
\item[\rm (b)] If $p(A)+a(A)=n$, then $p(A)=a(A)$ or $p(A)\le a(A)-2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{t21}, $A$ is unitarily similar to a matrix $A'$ in (\ref{e1}) with $j=p(A)$. In particular, this implies that $n_1\ge n_2\ge\cdots\ge n_j\ge 1$ for if $n_j=\nul A^j-\nul A^{j-1}=0$, then we would have $\ker A^j=\ker A^{j-1}$, which yields the contradictory $p(A)\le a(A)\le j-1$ by Corollary \ref{c23}.
(a) Assuming $p(A)+a(A)>n$, we first check that $n_j=1$. Indeed, if otherwise $n_j\ge 2$, then $n_i\ge 2$ for all $i$, $1\le i\le j$. Making use of Lemma \ref{l32}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& n=\Big(\sum_{i=1}^j n_i\Big)+m\ge 2j+(a(C)-p(C))\\
&=& 2p(A)+(a(A)-p(A))=p(A)+a(A)>n,
\end{eqnarray*}
which is a contradiction. Thus $n_j=1$. This means that $B$ is a $1$-by-$m$ matrix. If $p(A)<a(A)$, then $p(C)<a(C)$ by Lemma \ref{l32} again. In particular, this says that $a(C)>0$ or 0 is an eigenvalue of $C$. After a unitary similarity, we may assume that $C$ is upper triangular with a zero first column. Let $C$ be partitioned as
$$\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 & C_1\\ 0 & C_2\end{array}\right],$$
where $C_1$ (resp., $C_2$) is a $1$-by-$(m-1)$ (resp., $(m-1)$-by-$(m-1)$) matrix. We deduce from $B^*B+C^*C=I_m$ that $B=[e^{i\theta} \ 0 \ \ldots \ 0]$ for some real $\theta$ and $C_1^*C_1+C_2^*C_2=I_{m-1}$. Thus $A'$ is of the form
$$
\left[\begin{array}{cccccc} 0 & A_1 & & & & \\ & 0 & \ddots & & & \\ & & \ddots & A_{j-1} & & \\ & & & 0 & e^{i\theta} & 0 \ \ldots \ 0\\ & & & & 0 & C_1\\ & & & & & C_2\end{array}\right] \ \mbox{ on } \ \complex^n=\complex^{n_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus\complex^{n_j}\oplus\complex\oplus\complex^{m-1}.$$
Theorem \ref{t21} then leads to the contradictory $p(A)=p(A')>j=p(A)$. We conclude from Corollary \ref{c23} that $p(A)=a(A)$.
(b) Assume that $p(A)+a(A)=n$ and $p(A)=a(A)-1$. We consider two separate cases, both of which will lead to contradictions:
(i) $a(C)-p(C)\le m-1$. In this case, we proceed as in (a) to first prove that $n_j=1$. Indeed, if $n_j\ge 2$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& n-1=\Big(\sum_{i=1}^j n_i\Big)+m-1\ge 2j+(a(C)-p(C))\\
&=& 2p(A)+(a(A)-p(A))=a(A)+p(A)=n,
\end{eqnarray*}
which is a contradiction. Hence $n_j=1$ and $B$ is a $1$-by-$m$ matrix. Then, since $p(A)<a(A)$, the second-half arguments in proving (a) yield that $p(A)=a(A)$, which contradicts our assumption of $p(A)=a(A)-1$.
(ii) $a(C)-p(C)=m$. Note that this can happen only when $a(C)=m$ and $p(C)=0$. Thus $m=a(C)-p(C)=a(A)-p(A)=1$ by Lemma \ref{l32} and our assumption. This shows that $C$ is a 1-by-1 matrix, say, $C=[c]$ with $a(C)=1$ and $p(C)=0$. The former condition $a(C)=1$ yields that $c=0$, which results in $p(C)=\infty$, contradicting the latter $p(C)=0$.
We conclude that $p(A)+a(A)=n$ implies $p(A)\neq a(A)-1$.
\end{proof}
Finally, we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{t31}.
{\em Proof of Theorem $\ref{t31}$}.
The existence of an $n$-by-$n$ matrix $A$ with $p(A)=j$ and $a(A)=k$ implies, by Corollary \ref{c23}, that $j\le\min\{k, n-1\}$. Lemma \ref{l33} then yields that one of (a), (b) and (c) must hold.
For the converse, assume that (a) holds. If $j=k=0$, then $A=(1/2)I_n$ will do. Otherwise, we have $1\le j=k\le n-1$. Let $A$ be a noninvertible $S_n$-matrix whose eigenvalue 0 has algebraic multiplicity $k$. Then Theorem \ref{t24} gives $p(A)=j=k=a(A)$.
Next assume that (b) holds. We consider three cases separately:
(i) If $j=0$ and $k=n-1$, then let $A=[1/2]\oplus J_{n-1}$. In this case, we have $p(A)=0=j$ and $a(A)=n-1=k$.
(ii) If $1\le j\le k=n-1-j$, then let $A=A_1\oplus J_k$, where $A_1$ is an $S_{n-k}$-matrix with the algebraic multiplicity of its eigenvalue 0 equal to $j$. Since $j=n-k-1$, we have, by Theorem \ref{t24},
$$p(A)=\min\{p(A_1), p(J_k)\}=\min\{j, \infty\}=j$$
and
$$a(A)=\max\{a(A_1), a(J_k)\}=\max\{j, k\}=k.$$
(iii) If $j+k\le n-2$, then let $A=A_1\oplus A_2$, where $A_1$ (resp., $A_2$) is an $S_{j+1}$-matrix (resp., $S_{n-j-1}$-matrix) with the algebraic multiplicity of its eigenvalue 0 equal to $j$ (resp., $k$). Since $j<j+1$ (resp., $k<n-j-1$), we have, by Theorem \ref{t24}, $p(A_1)=a(A_1)=j$ (resp., $p(A_2)=a(A_2)=k$). Thus
$$p(A)=\min\{p(A_1), p(A_2)\}=\min\{j, k\}=j$$
and
$$a(A)=\max\{a(A_1), a(A_2)\}=\max\{j, k\}=k.$$
Finally, if (c) holds, then two cases are to be considered:
(i) $j=k-2$. In this case, let
$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & I_2 & & & \\ & 0 & \ddots & & \\ & & \ddots & I_2 & \\ & & & 0 & B\\ & & & & C\end{array}\right] \ \ \mbox{on} \ \ \complex^n=\underbrace{\complex^{2}\oplus\cdots\oplus\complex^{2}}_j\oplus\complex^{2},$$
where $B={\scriptsize\left[\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right]}$ and $C={\scriptsize\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right]}$. Since $n=j+k=j+(j+2)=2j+2$, $A$ is indeed an $n$-by-$n$ matrix with $B^*B+C^*C=I_2$. We infer from Lemma \ref{l32} (a) (resp., (b)) that
$$p(A)=j+p(C)=j+0=j \ \ \ (\mbox{resp.}, \ a(A)=j+a(C)=j+2=k).$$
(ii) $j\le k-3$. Let $m=k-j\ge 3$, and let
$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & I_2 & & & \\ & 0 & \ddots & & \\ & & \ddots & I_2 & \\ & & & 0 & B\\ & & & & C\end{array}\right] \ \ \mbox{on} \ \ \complex^n=\underbrace{\complex^{2}\oplus\cdots\oplus\complex^{2}}_j\oplus\complex^{m},$$
where
$$\begin{array}{l}\vspace*{-1.5mm}\ \ \ \ \hspace{21mm} \ \ \ \ \overbrace{\ \hspace{13mm} \ }^{\displaystyle m-3}\\
B=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1/\sqrt{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1/2\end{array}\right]\end{array}$$
and
$$C=\begin{array}{l}\vspace*{-1.5mm}\ \ \ \ \hspace{16mm} \ \ \ \ \overbrace{\ \hspace{21mm} \ }^{\displaystyle m-3} \\
\left[
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
0 & -1/\sqrt{2} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1/2 \\
& 0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
& & 0 & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
& & & \ddots & \ddots & 0 & 0 \\
& & & & \ddots & 1 & 0 \\
& & & & & 0 & 1/\sqrt{2} \\
& & & & & & 0
\end{array}
\right]. \end{array}$$
Since $n=j+k=2j+m$, $A$ is an $n$-by-$n$ matrix with $B^*B+C^*C=I_m$. Again, we infer from Lemma \ref{l32} (a) that
$$p(A)=j+p(C)=j+0=j,$$
where the second equality follows from the fact that $C^*C$ is not a projection and hence $C$ is not a partial isometry. On the other hand, Lemma \ref{l32} (b) implies that
$$a(A)=j+a(C)=j+m=j+(k-j)=k,$$
where the second equality holds because $C$ is similar to $J_m$. \hfill\qed
\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledgements.} The two authors acknowledge the supports from the National Science Council of the Republic of China under NSC-102-2115-M-008-007 and NSC-102-2115-M-009-007, respectively. The second author was also supported by the MOE-ATU project.
|
\section{Introduction}
In standard numeral systems different digits as treated as containing the same amount of information: 1 bit in the binary system, or generally $\lg(b)$ bits ($\lg\equiv \log_2$) in base $b$ numeral system. However, event of probability $p$ contains $\lg(1/p)$ bits of information. So while standard numeral systems are optimal for uniform digit probability distributions, to optimally encode general distributions, what is the heart of data compression, we should try to somehow asymmetrize this concept. We can obtain arithmetic/range coding(AC) (\cite{ari}, \cite{ran}) or recent asymmetric numeral system(ANS) (\cite{me}, \cite{ans}) this way, depending on position we add succeeding digits.
Specifically, in standard binary numeral system, having information stored in a natural number $x$ (having $m$ digits), we can add information from a digit $s\in\{0,1\}$ in basically two different ways: in the most significant position ($x \rightarrow x+ 2^m s$) or in the least significant position ($x \rightarrow 2x+s$). The former means that the new digit chooses between large ranges - we can asymmetrize it by changing proportions of these ranges, getting arithmetic/range coding. However, while in standard numeral systems we would need to remember position of this most significant digit ($m$), AC requires to specify the range in given moment - its current state are two numbers representing the range.
In contrast, while adding information in the least significant position, the current state is just a single natural number. This advantage remains for the asymmetrization: ANS. While in standard binary system $x$ becomes $x$-th appearance of corresponding even ($s=0$) or odd ($s=1$) number, this time we would like to redefine this splitting of $\mathbb{N}$ into even and odd numbers. Such that they are still "uniformly distributed", but with different densities - corresponding to symbol probability distribution we would like to encode, like in Fig. \ref{intr}.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics{ans.png}\
\caption{Two ways to asymmetrize binary numeral system. Having some information stored in a natural number $x$, to attach information from 0/1 symbol $s$, we can add it in the most significant position ($x'=x+s 2^m$), where $s$ chooses between ranges, or in the least significant ($x'=2x+s$) position, where $s$ chooses between even and odd numbers. The former asymmetrizes to AC by changing range proportions. The latter asymmetrizes to ABS by redefining even/odd numbers, such that they are still uniformly distributed, but with different density. Now $x'$ is $x$-th element of the $s$-th subset. }
\label{intr}
\end{figure}
Let us look at both approaches from information theory point of view. For AC, knowing that we are currently in given half of the range is worth 1 bit of information, so the current content is lg(size of range/size of subrange) bits of information. While encoding symbol of probability $p$, the size of subrange is multiplied by $p$, increasing informational content by $\lg(1/p)$ bits as expected. From ANS point of view, seeing $x$ as containing $\lg(x)$ bits of information, informational content should increase to $\lg(x)+\lg(1/p)=\lg(x/p)$ bits while adding symbol of probability $p$. So we need to ensure $x\rightarrow \approx x/p$ transition relation. Intuitively, rule: $x$ becomes $x$-th appearance of $s$-th subset fulfills this relation if this subset is uniformly distributed with $\Pr(s)$ density.\\
Huffman coding \cite{huf} can be seen as a memoryless coder: type "symbol$\rightarrow$ bit sequence" set of rules. It transforms every symbol into a natural number of bits, approximating their probabilities with powers of 1/2. Theoretically it allows to approach the capacity (Shannon entropy) as close as we want by grouping multiple symbols. However, we can see in Fig. \ref{huffman} that this convergence is relatively slow: getting $\Delta H\approx$0.001 bits/symbol would be completely impractical here. Precise analysis can be found in \cite{huff}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics{huffman.jpg}\
\caption{Left: construction of Huffman coding while grouping two symbols from $(1,1,1)/3$ probability distribution: we have 9 equiprobable possibilities. This grouping reduces distance from the Shannon entropy: $\Delta H$. Standard base 3 numeral system would give $\Delta H=0$ here. Right: $\Delta H$ for grouping $m$ symbols. For example operating on $3^{10}=59049$ possibilities allows to get loss $\Delta H\approx 0.003$ bits/symbol. In comparison, $\Delta H$ for ANS using just 16 or 17 states for the last four cases is correspondingly: $\approx$ 0.00065, 0.00122, 0.00147, 0.00121 bits/symbol.}
\label{huffman}
\end{figure}
Let us generally look at the cost of approximating probabilities. If the we are using a coder which encodes perfectly $(q_s)$ symbol distribution to encode $(p_s)$ symbol sequence, we would use on average $\sum_s
p_s \lg(1/q_s)$ bits per symbol, while there is only Shannon entropy needed: $\sum_s p_s \lg(1/p_s)$. The difference between them is called Kullback - Leiber distance:
\begin{equation} \Delta H=\sum_s p_s \lg\left(\frac{p_s}{q_s}\right)\approx \sum_s\frac{-p_s}{\ln(2)}\left(\left(1-\frac{q_s}{p_s}\right)-
\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{q_s}{p_s}\right)^2\right)\approx 0.72\sum_s \frac{(\epsilon_s)^2}{p_s} \label{KL}\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_s=q_s-p_s$ will be referred as \emph{inaccuracy}.
So for better than Huffman convergence, we need more accurate coders - we need to handle fractional numbers of bits. It can be done by adding a memory/buffer to the coder, containing noninteger number of bits. The coder becomes a finite state automaton, with
$$\textrm{type \qquad\quad(symbol, state)}\rightarrow \textrm{(bit sequence, new state)}\qquad\quad \textrm{coding rules.}$$
As it was discussed, the current state contains lg(size of range/size of subrange) bits in the case of AC, or $\lg(x)$ bits in the case of ANS. Allowing such state to contain large number of bits would require to operate with large precision in AC, or large arithmetic in ANS - is impractical. To prevent that, in AC we regularly perform renormalization: if the subrange is in one half of the range, we can send single bit to the stream (pointing this half), and rescale this half up to the whole range. Analogously we need to gather accumulated bits in ANS: transfer to the stream some least significant bits of the state, such that we will return to a fixed range ($I=\{l,..,2l-1\}$) after encoding given symbol. In contrast to AC, the number of such bits can be easily determined here. Example of such 4 state ANS based automaton for $I=\{4,5,6,7\}$ can be see in Fig. \ref{auto}: while symbol $b$ of 1/4 probability always produces 2 bits of information, symbol "a" of 3/4 probability usually accumulates information by increasing the state, finally producing complete bit of information. While decoding, every state know the number of bits to use.\\
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics{automate.jpg}\
\caption{Some 4 state encoding and decoding automaton for ANS with $\Pr(a)=3/4,\ \Pr(b)=1/4$ probability distribution. Upper edges of encoding picture are transitions for symbol "$a$", lower for symbol "$b$". Some edges contain digits produced while corresponding transition. Intuitively, $x$ is a buffer containing $\lg(x)\in[2,3)$ bits of information - symbol "$b$" always produces 2 bits, while "$a$" accumulates in the buffer. Decoding is unique because each state corresponds to a fixed symbol and number of digits to process: 1 for state 4, 2 for state 5, none for 6, 7. There is written stationary probability distribution for i.i.d. source, which allows to find average number of used bits per symbol: $\approx 2\cdot 1/4 + 1\cdot 3/4\cdot(0.241+0.188)\approx 0.82$, what is larger than Shannon entropy by $\Delta H\approx 0.01$ bits/symbol. Increasing the number of states to 8 allows to reduce it to $\Delta H\approx 0.0018$ bits/symbol. }
\label{auto}
\end{figure}
This article introduces and discusses many variants of applying the ANS approach or its binary case: asymmetric binary system (ABS). Most of them have nearly a direct alternative in arithmetic coding family:\\
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|}
& AC & ANS \\ \hline
very accurate, formula for binary alphabet & AC & uABS, rABS \\
fast, tabled for binary alphabet & M coder & tABS \\
covering all probabilities with small automata & quasi AC & qABS \\
very accurate, formula for large alphabet & Range Coding & rANS \\
tabled for large alphabet & - & tANS \\
\end{tabular} \\
There will be now briefly described these variants. The initial advantage of ANS approach is much simpler renormalization. In AC it is usually required to use slow branches to extract single bits and additionally there is an issue when range contains the middle point. These computationally costly problems disappear in ANS: we can quickly deduce the number of bits to use in given step from $x$, or store them in the table - we just directly transfer the whole block of bits once per step, making it faster.
uABS stands for direct arithmetic formula for \textbf{u}niformly distributing symbols. rABS stands for distributing symbols in \textbf{r}anges - leading to still direct formula, a bit less accurate but simpler to calculate. Its main advantage is allowing for large alphabet version: rANS, which can be seen as direct alternative for Range Coding, but with a small advantage: instead of 2 multiplications per step, it requires only a single one. We can also put e.g. uABS behavior into tables, getting tABS. It can be applied similarly like one of many AC approximations, for example M coder used in CABAC \cite{CABAC} in modern video compression. Matt Mahoney implementations of tABS (fpaqb) and uABS (fpaqc) are available in \cite{mah}.
While those very accurate versions can easily work loss many orders of magnitude below $\Delta H\approx$0.001 bits/symbol, qABS resembles \textbf{q}uasi arithmetic coding \cite{quasi} approximation: we would like to construct a family of small entropy coding automata, such we can cover the whole space of (binary) probability distributions by switching between them. For qABS it is 5 automata with 5 states for $\Delta H\approx$0.01 bits/symbol loss, or about 20 automata with 16 states for $\Delta H\approx$0.001 bits/symbol.
While above possibilities might not bring a really essential advantage, due to much smaller state space, \textbf{t}abled ANS puts the whole behavior for large alphabet into a relatively small coding table, what would be rather too demanding for AC approach. There is available interactive demonstration of this tANS: \cite{dem}. The number of states of such automaton should be about 2-4 times larger than the size of alphabet for $\Delta H\approx$0.01 bits/symbol loss, or about 8-16 times for $\Delta H\approx$0.001 bits/symbol. For 256 size alphabet it means 1-16kB memory cost per such coding table. Generally $\Delta H$ drops with the square of the number of states: doubling the number of states means about 4 times smaller $\Delta H$. As in the title, in this way we obtain extremely fast entropy coding: recent Yann Collet implementation \cite{fse} has 50\% faster decoding than fast implementation of Huffman coding, with nearly optimal compression rate - combining advantages of Huffman and arithmetic coding.
There is a large freedom while choosing the coding table for given parameters: every symbol distribution defines an essentially different coding. We will also discuss three reasons of chaotic behavior of this entropy coder: asymmetry, ergodicity and diffusion, making extremely difficult any trial of tracing the state without complete knowledge. These two reasons suggest to use it also for cryptographic applications: use pseudorandom number generator initialized with a cryptographic key to choose the exact simbol distribution/coding. This way we simultaneously get a decent encryption of encoded data.
\section{Basic concepts and versions} \label{abs}
We will now introduce basic concepts for encoding information in natural numbers and find analytic formulas for uABS, rABS and rANS cases.
\subsection{Basic concepts}
There is given an alphabet $\mathcal{A}=\{0,..,n-1\}$ and assumed probability distribution $\{p_s\}_{s\in \mathcal{A}}$, $\sum_s p_s=1$. The \emph{state} $x\in \mathbb{N}$ in this section will contain the entire already processed symbol sequence.
We need to find \emph{encoding} ($C$) and \emph{decoding} ($D$) \emph{functions}. The former takes a state $x\in\mathbb{N}$ and symbol $s\in \mathcal{A}$, and transforms them into $x'\in \mathbb{N}$ storing information from both of them. Seeing $x$ as a possibility of choosing a number from $\{0,1,..,x-1\}$ interval, it contains $\lg(x)$ bits of information. Symbol $s$ of probability $p_s$ contains $\lg(1/p_s)$ bits of information, so $x'$ should contain approximately $\lg(x)+\lg(1/p_s)=\lg(x/p_s)$ bits of information: $x'$ should be approximately $x/p_s$, allowing to choose a value from a larger interval $\{0,1,..,x'-1\}$. Finally we will have functions defining single steps:
$$ C(s,x)=x',\quad D(x')=(s,x)\quad:\quad D(C(s,x))=(s,x),\quad C(D(x'))=x',\quad x'\approx x/p_s$$
For standard binary system we have $C(s,x)=2x+s$, $D(x')=(\textrm{mod}(x,2), \lfloor x/2\rfloor)$ and we can see $s$ as choosing between even and odd numbers. If we imagine that $x$ chooses between even (or odd) numbers in some interval, $x'=2x+s$ chooses between all numbers in this interval.
For the general case, we will have to redefine the subsets corresponding to different $s$: like even/odd numbers they should still uniformly cover $\mathbb{N}$, but this time with different densities: $\{p_s\}_{s\in \mathcal{A}}$. We can define this split of $\mathbb{N}$ by a \emph{symbol distribution} $\overline{s}: \mathbb{N}\to \mathcal{A}$
$$\{0,1,..,x'-1\}=\bigcup_s \left\{x\in\{0,1,..,x'-1\}:\overline{s}(x)=s\right\}$$
While in standard binary system $x'$ is $x$-th appearance of even/odd number, this time it will be $x$-th appearance of $s$-th subset. So the decoding function will be
\begin{equation} D(x)=(\overline{s}(x),x_{\overline{s}(x)})\qquad \textrm{where}\qquad x_s:=\left|\{y\in\{0,1,..,x-1\}:\overline{s}(y)=s\}\right| \end{equation}
and $C(s,x_s)=x$ is its inversion. Obviously we have $x=\sum_s x_s$.
As $x/x_s$ is the number of bits we currently use to encode symbol $s$, to reduce inaccuracy and so $\Delta H$, we would like that $x_s\approx xp_s$ approximation is as close as possible - what intuitively means that symbols are nearly uniformly distributed with $\{p_s\}$ density. We will now find formulas for the binary case by just taking $x_1:=\lceil xp \rceil$ and in Section \ref{ans} we will focus on finding such nearly uniform distributions on a fixed interval for larger alphabets.\\
Finally we can imagine that $x$ is a stack of symbols, $C$ is push operation, $D$ is pop operation. The current encoding algorithm would be: start e.g. with $x=1$ and then use $C$ with succeeding symbols. It would lead to a large natural number, from which we can extract all the symbols in reversed order using $D$. To prevent inconvenient operations on large numbers, in the next section we will discuss stream version, in which cumulated complete bits will be extracted to make that $x$ remains in a fixed interval $I$.
\subsection{Uniform asymmetric binary systems (uABS)}\label{abss}
We will now find some explicit formulas for the binary case and nearly uniform distribution of symbols: $\mathcal{A}=\{0,1\}$.
Denote $p:=p_1$, $\tilde p:=1-p=p_0$. To obtain $x_s\approx x\cdot p_s$ we can for example choose
\begin{equation} x_1:=\lceil xp \rceil\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left(\textrm{or alternatively}\ x_1:=\lfloor xp \rfloor\right) \end{equation}
\begin{equation} x_0=x-x_1=x-\lceil xp \rceil \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left(\textrm{or}\ \ x_0=x-\lfloor xp \rfloor \right)\end{equation}
Now $\overline{s}(x)=1$ if there is a jump of $\lceil xq \rceil$ in the succeeding position:
\begin{equation} s:=\lceil (x+1)p \rceil-\lceil xp \rceil \qquad\qquad\qquad\left(\textrm{or}\ s:=\lfloor (x+1)p \rfloor-\lfloor xq \rfloor\right) \label{abs1} \end{equation}
This way we have found some \textbf{decoding} function: $D(x)=(s,x_s)$.
We will now find the corresponding encoding function: for given $s$ and $x_s$ we want to find $x$. Denote $r:=\lceil xq \rceil-xq\in[0,1)$\\
\begin{equation} \overline{s}(x)=s=\lceil (x+1)p \rceil-\lceil xp \rceil=\lceil (x+1)q -\lceil xq \rceil\rceil=\lceil (x+1)p-r-xq\rceil=\lceil p-r \rceil\end{equation}
$$s=1\Leftrightarrow r<p$$
\begin{itemize}
\item $s=1$: $\quad x_1=\lceil xp \rceil=xp+r$\\
$x=\frac{x_1-r}{p}=\Big\lfloor\frac{x_1}{p}\Big\rfloor\quad$
as it is a natural number and $0\leq r<p$.
\item $s=0$: $p\leq r<1$ so $\tilde{p}\geq 1-r>0$\\
$x_0=x-\lceil xp \rceil=x-xp-r=x\tilde{p}-r$
$$x=\frac{x_0+r}{\tilde{p}}=\frac{x_0+1}{\tilde{p}}-\frac{1-r}{\tilde{p}}=
\Big\lceil\frac{x_0+1}{\tilde{p}}\Big\rceil-1$$
\end{itemize}
Finally \textbf{encoding} is:
\begin{equation} \label{coding} C(s,x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Big\lceil\frac{x+1}{1-p}\Big\rceil-1 &\ \textrm{if}\ s=0\\
\ \Big\lfloor\frac{x}{p}\Big\rfloor &\ \textrm{if}\ s=1\end{array}
\right. \quad\quad\quad\left(\textrm{or}\ = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ \ \ \Big\lfloor\frac{x}{1-p}\Big\rfloor &\ \textrm{if}\ s=0\\
\Big\lceil\frac{x+1}{p}\Big\rceil-1 &\ \textrm{if}\ s=1\end{array}
\right.\right)\end{equation}
For $p=1/2$ it is the standard binary numeral system with switched digits.\\
The starting values for this formula and $p=0.3$ are presented in bottom-right of Fig. \ref{intr}. Here is an example of encoding process by inserting succeeding symbols:
\begin{equation} 1\xrightarrow{1}3\xrightarrow{0} 5\xrightarrow {0} 8\xrightarrow{1} 26\xrightarrow{0} 38\xrightarrow{1} 128 \xrightarrow{0} 184\xrightarrow{0}264 ...\label{ex1}\end{equation}
We could directly encode the final $x$ using $\lfloor \lg(x) \rfloor +1$ bits. Let us look at the growth of $\lg(x)$ while encoding: symbol $s$ transforms state from $x_s$ to $x$:
$$-\lg\left(\frac{x_s}{x}\right)=-\lg\left(p_s+\epsilon_s(x)\right)=-\lg(p_{s}) -\frac{\epsilon_s(x)}{p_s\ln(2)}+O((\epsilon_s(x))^2)$$
where $$\epsilon_s(x)=x_s/x-p_s \qquad\qquad \textrm{describes inaccuracy}.$$
In the found coding we have $|x_s-xp_s|<1$ and so $|\epsilon_s(x)|<1/x$. While encoding symbol sequence of $\{p_s\}_{s\in\mathcal{A}}$ probability distribution, the sum of above expansion says that we need on average $H=-\sum_s p_s \lg(p_s)$ bits/symbol plus higher order terms. As $x$ grows exponentially while encoding, $|\epsilon_s(x)|<1/x$, so these corrections are $O(1)$ for the whole sequence.
\subsection{Range variants (rABS, rANS)}
We will now introduce alternative approach, in which we place symbol appearances in ranges. It is less accurate, but can be less expensive to perform. Most importantly, it allows for large alphabets, getting direct alternative for Range Coding - this time using single multiplication per symbol instead of two required in Range Coding. This approach can be seen as taking a standard numeral system and merging some of its succeeding digits.\\
We will start with binary example (rABS), and then define general formulas.\\
\textbf{Example:} Looking at (1,3)/4 probability distribution, we would like to take a standard base 4 numeral system: using digits 0, 1, 2, 3 and just merge 3 of its digits - let say 1, 2 and 3. So while the symbol distribution for standard ternary system would be $\overline{s}(x)=\textrm{mod}(x,4)$: cyclic (0123), we will asymmetrize it to (0111) cyclic distribution:
$$\overline{s}(x)=0 \quad\textrm{if}\quad\textrm{mod}(x,4)=0 \quad \textrm{else}\quad \overline{s}(x)=1$$
Behavior for $s=0$ is exactly like in ternary system. In contrast, for $s=1$ we will go to $\lfloor x/3\rfloor$-th of (0111) quadruples:
$$C(0,x)=4x\qquad\qquad C(1,x)=4 \lfloor x/3\rfloor + \textrm{mod}(x,3)+1$$
where the "+1" is to shift over the single "0" appearance. Decoding:
$$\textrm{if}(\textrm{mod}(x,4)=0)\quad \{s=0;\ x=\lfloor x/4\rfloor\} \quad\textrm{else}\quad \{s=1;\ x=3\lfloor x/4\rfloor + \textrm{mod}(x,4)-1\}$$
Analogously we can define coding/decoding functions for different fractions, what is a special case of large alphabet formulas we will find now: rANS. Assume that the probability distribution is a fraction of form: $(l_0,l_1,...,l_{n-1})/m$ where $l_s\in \mathbb{N},\ m=\sum_s l_s$.
Now let us analogously imagine that we start with base $m$ numeral system and merge corresponding numbers of succeeding digits together: the symbol distribution is cyclic (00..011..1..."n-1") with $l_s$ appearances of symbol $s$. Let us define $s(x)$ as symbol in $x\in [0,..,m-1]$ position in this cycle:
$$\overline{s}(x)=s(\textrm{mod}(x,m))\qquad \textrm{where}\quad s(x) = \min \left\{s: x < \sum_{i=0}^s l_i\right\}$$
and $b_s:=\sum_{i=0}^{s-1} l_i$ is the starting position of $s$ symbol in this cycle. These $l_s$, $b_s$ and $s(x)$ should be tabled in coder. Putting $l(x)=l_{s(x)}$ and $b(x)=b_{s(x)}$ into tables would reduce the number of use per step to one.
Now encoding and decoding steps are:
$$C(s,x)=m\lfloor x/l_s \rfloor + b_s +\textrm{mod}(x,l_s)$$
$$D(x)= (s,\ l_s \lfloor x/m\rfloor + \textrm{mod}(x,m) -b_s)\qquad\textrm{where}\qquad s=s(\textrm{mod}(x,m))$$
If we choose $m$ as a power of 2, multiplying and dividing by it can be made by bit shifts, $\textrm{mod}(x,m)$ by bitand with mask - decoding requires only single multiplication per step. In contrast, in Range Coding there are needed two - this approach should be faster.\\
Let us find some boundary of its inaccuracy $\epsilon_s(x)=x_s/x-p_s$ :
$$|x_s/x-p_s|=\left|\frac{l_s \lfloor x/m\rfloor + \textrm{mod}(x,m) -b_s}{x}-\frac{l_s}{m}\right|=\left|\frac{(1-l_s/m)\textrm{mod}(x,m) -b_s}{x}\right|<m/x$$
as $\lfloor x/m\rfloor =(x-\textrm{mod}(x,m))/m$ and $b_s<m$.
This inaccuracy boundary is $m$ times larger than for uABS. However, as this approach is intended to directly apply above arithmetic formulas, we can use relatively large $x$, making this inaccuracy negligible.
\section{Stream version - encoding finite-state automaton} \label{str}
Arithmetic coding requires renormalization to work with finite precision. Analogously to prevent ANS state from growing to infinity, we will enforce $x$ to remain in some chosen range $I=\{l,..,2l-1\}$. This way $x$ can be seen as a buffer containing between $l$ and $l+1$ bits of information. So while we operate on symbols containing non-integer number of bits, as they accumulate inside the buffer, we can extract complete bits of information to remain in its operating region. These extracted bits are transferred to the bitstream and used while decoding. Finally the situation will intuitively look like in Fig. \ref{stream}.
\subsection{Algorithm} \label{alg}
To make these considerations more general, we will extract digits in base $2\leq b\in \mathbb{N}$ numeral system. Usually we will use bits: $b=2$, but sometimes using a larger $b$ could be more convenient, for example $b=2^k$ allows to extract $k$ bits at once. Extracting the least significant base $b$ digit means: $x\rightarrow \lfloor x/b \rfloor$ and $\textrm{mod}(x,b)$ goes to the bitstream.
Observe that taking interval in form ($l\in\mathbb{N}$):
\begin{equation} I:=\{l,l+1,..,lb-1\}\end{equation}
for any $x\in\mathbb{N}$ we have exactly one of three cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $x\in I$ or
\item $x>lb-1$, then $\exists!_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\ \lfloor x/b^k\rfloor\in I$ or
\item $x<l$, then $\forall_{(d_i)_i\in \{0,..,b-1\}^\mathbb{N}}\
\exists!_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\ xb^k+d_1 b^{k-1}+..+d_k\in I$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics{stream.jpg}\
\caption{Schematic picture of stream encoding/decoding: encoder travels right, transforming symbols containing $\lg(1/p_s)$ bits of information, into digits containing $\lg(d)$ bits each. When information accumulates in buffer $x$, digits are produced such that $x$ remains in $I={l,..,bl-1}$. Decoder analogously travels left.}
\label{stream}
\end{figure}
We will refer to this kind of interval as $b$-\emph{unique} as eventually inserting ($x\to bx+d$) or removing ($x\to \lfloor x/b \rfloor$) some of the least significant digits of $x$, we will always finally get to $I$ in a unique way. Let us also define
\begin{equation} I_s=\{x:C(s,x)\in I\}\qquad \textrm{so}\qquad I=\bigcup_s C(s,I_s) \end{equation}
We can now define single steps for stream decoding: use $D$ function and then get the least significant digits from the steam until we get back to $I$, and encoding: send the least significant digits to the stream, until we can use the $C$ function:\\
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
\textbf{Stream decoding}: & \textbf{Stream encoding}($s$):\\
\verb"{"$(s,x)=D(x)$\verb";"
& \verb"{while("$x\notin I_s$\verb")"\\
\verb" use "$s$\verb"; "(e.g. to generate symbol)
& \verb" {put mod("$x,b$\verb") to output; "$x=\lfloor x/b\rfloor$\verb"}"\\
\verb" while("$x\notin I$\verb")"
& \verb" "$x=C(s,x)$\\
\verb" "$x=xb+$\verb"'digit from input'" & \verb"}"\\
\verb"}"
\end{tabular}\\
Above functions are inverse of each other if only $I_s$ are also $b$-unique: there exists $\{l_s\}_{s\in\mathcal A}$ such that
\begin{equation} I_s=\{l_s,...,l_s b-1\} \label{nec1} \end{equation}
We need to ensure that this necessary condition is fulfilled, what is not automatically true as we will see in the example. More compact form of this condition will be found in Section \ref{necabs} and for larger alphabets we will directly enforce its fulfillment in Section \ref{ans}.\\
In practice we do not need to transfer these digits one by one like in the pseudocode above, what needs multiple steps of slow branching and is usually required in arithmetic coding. While using coding tables we can directly store also the number of bits to transfer and perform the whole transfer in a single unconditional operation, what is used in fast implementation of Yann Collet \cite{fse}. For $b=2$ and $l$ being a power of 2, the number of bits to transfer while decoding step is the number of bits in the buffer minus the current length of $x$ (implemented in modern processors). For encoding given symbol, the corresponding number of bits to transfer can take only one of two succeeding values.
\subsection{Example} \label{exs}
Taking uABS for $p=0.3$ as in Fig. \ref{intr}, let us transform it to stream version for $b=2$ (we transfer single least significant bits). Choosing $l=8$, we have $x\in I=\{8,..,15\}$. We can see from this figure that $I_0=\{5,..,10\}$, $I_1=\{3,4\}$ are the ranges from which we get to $I$ after encoding correspondingly 0 or 1. These ranges are not $b$-unique, so for example if we would like to encode $s=1$ from $x=10$, while transferring the least significant bits we would first reduce it to $x=5$ and then to $x=2$, not getting into the $I_1$ range.
However, if we choose $l=9$, $I=\{9,..,17\}$, we get $I_0=\{6,..,11\}$ and $I_1=\{3,4,5\}$ which are $b$-unique. Here is the encoding process for $s=0,1$: first we transfer some of the least significant bits to the stream, until we reduce $x$ to $I_s$ range. Then we use ABS formula (like in Fig. \ref{intr}):
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
$x\in I$ & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 14 & 15 & 16 & 17 \\\hline
bit transfer for $s=0$ & - & - & - & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
reduced $x'\in I_0$ & 9&10&11&6&6&7&7&8&8 \\
$\overline{C}(0,x)=C(0,x')$ & 14 & 15 & 17 & 9 & 9 & 11 & 11 & 12 & 12 \\ \hline
bit transfer for $s=1$ & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0, 0 & 1, 0 & 0, 1 & 1, 1 & 0, 0 & 1, 0 \\
reduced $x'\in I_1$ & 4 & 5 & 5 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 4 & 4 \\
$\overline{C}(1,x)=C(1,x')$ & 13& 16&16 & 10 &10&10& 10 & 13 &13 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
Here is an example of evolution of (state, bit sequence) while using this table:
$$ (9,-)\xrightarrow{1} (13,1)\xrightarrow{0} (9,11) \xrightarrow {0} (14,11) \xrightarrow{1} (10,1101)\xrightarrow{0} (15,1101)\xrightarrow{1} (10,110111) ... \label{ex2}$$
The decoder will first use $D(x)$ to get symbol and reduced $x'$, then add the least significant bits from stream (in reversed order).\\
To find the expected number of bits/symbol used by such process, let us first find its stationary probability distribution assuming i.i.d. input source. Denoting by $\overline{C}(s,x)$ the state to which we go from state $x$ due to symbol $s$ (like in the table above), this stationary probability distribution have to fulfill:
\begin{equation} \Pr(x)=\sum_{s,y:\ \overline{C}(s,y)=x} \Pr(y)\cdot p_s \label{station} \end{equation}
equation, being the dominant eigenvector of corresponding stochastic matrix. Such numerically found distribution is written in Fig. \ref{auto}. Here is approximated distribution for the currently considered automaton and comparison with close $\Pr(x)\propto 1/x$ distribution, what will be motivated in Section \ref{statio}:\\
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
$x$ & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 14 & 15 & 16 & 17 \\ \hline
$\Pr(x)$ & 0.1534 & 0.1240 & 0.1360 & 0.1212 & 0.0980 & 0.1074 & 0.0868 & 0.0780 & 0.0952 \\
$1.3856/x$ & 0.1540 & 0.1386 & 0.1260 & 0.1155 & 0.1066 & 0.0990 & 0.0924 & 0.0866 & 0.0815\\
\end{tabular}\\
We can now find the expected number of bits/symbol used by this automaton by summing the number of bits used in encoding table:
$$\left(\sum_{x=12}^{17} \Pr(x)\right)p_0+\left(\Pr(9)+\Pr(10)+\Pr(11)+2\sum_{x=12}^{17} \Pr(x)\right)p_1 \approx 0.88658 \textrm{ bits/symbol}$$
For comparison, Shannon entropy is $-p\lg(p)-(1-p)\lg(1-p)\approx 0.88129$ bits/symbol, so this automaton uses about $\Delta H\approx 0.00529$ bits/symbol more than required.\\
The found encoding table fully determines the encoding process and analogously we can generate the table for decoding process, defining automaton like in Fig. \ref{auto}.
Observe that having a few such encoders operating on the same range $I$, we can use them consecutively in some order - if decoder will use them in reversed order, it will still retrieve the encoded message. Such combination of multiple different encoders can be useful for example when probability distribution (or variant or even alphabet size) varies depending on context, or for cryptographic purposes.
\subsection{Necessary condition and remarks for stream formulas} \label{necabs}
For unique decoding we need that all $I_s$ are $b$-unique, what is not always true as we have seen in the example above. In the next section we will enforce it by construction for larger alphabet. We will now check when the uABS, rABS and rANS formulas fulfill this condition.
In the uABS case we need to ensure that both $I_0$ and $I_1$ are $b$-absorbing: denoting $I_s=\{l_s,..,u_s\}$, we need to check that
$$u_s=bl_s-1 \quad\qquad \textrm{for }s=0,1$$
We have $l_s=|\{x<l:\overline{s}(x)=s\}|$, $u_s=|\{x<bl:\overline{s}(x)=s\}|-1$, so $\sum_s l_s=l$, $\sum_s u_s=bl-2$. It means that fulfilling one of these condition implies the second one.
Let us check when $u_1=bl_1-1$. We have $l_1=\lceil lp\rceil$, $u_1=\lceil blp\rceil -1$, so the condition is:\\
\textbf{Condition:} Stream uABS can be used when
\begin{equation} b \lceil lp\rceil=\lceil blp\rceil.\end{equation}
The basic situation this condition is fulfilled is when $lp\in\mathbb{N}$, what means that $p$ is defined with $1/l$ precision.\\
For rABS and rANS, for simplicity let us assume that $m$ divides $l$: $l=km$ (there can be also other possibilities). In this case, $kl_s$ is the first appearance of symbol $s$ in $I$, $bkl_s-1$ is the last one as required.\\
\textbf{Condition:} If $m$ divides $l$, rABS and rANS can be used in stream version.\\
There are two basic possibilities for using coding formulas (\cite{mah} implementations):
\begin{itemize}
\item{use them directly for example in 32 bit arithmetics (fpaqc). As $l>2^{20}$, inaccuracy becomes negligible, we can use large $b$ to extract multiple bits at once. However, the multiplication can make it a bit slower,}
\item{store behavior on some chosen range (fpaqb) - it is less accurate, but can be a bit faster and leaves freedom to choose exact encoding - we will explore this possibility with tANS.}
\end{itemize}
If the probability varies, in the former case we just use the formula for current $p$, while in the latter case we should have prepared tables for different probability distributions (e.g. quantized) we could use for approximation. Such varying of probability distribution is allowed as long $I$ remains fixed.
\subsection{Analysis of a single step} \label{stepan}
Let us now take a closer look at a single step of stream encoding and decoding. Observe that the number of digits to transfer to get from $x$ to $I_s=\{l_s,..,bl_s-1\}$ is $k=\lfloor \log_b(x/l_s)\rfloor$, so the (new symbol, digit sequence) while stream coding is:
\begin{equation} x \xrightarrow{s} \left(C(s, \lfloor x/b^k \rfloor),\ \textrm{mod}(x,b^k)\right) \qquad\qquad \textrm{where}\quad k=\lfloor \log_b(x/l_s)\rfloor \end{equation}
this $\textrm{mod}(x,b^k)=x-b^k\lfloor x/b^k \rfloor $ is the information lost from $x$ while digit transfer - this value is being sent to the stream in base $b$ numeral system. The original algorithm produces these digits in reversed order: from less to more significant.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics{step.jpg}
\caption{Example of stream coding/decoding step for $b=2,\ k_s=3,\ l_s=13,\quad$ $l=9\cdot 4+3\cdot 8+6=66,\ p_s=13/66,\ x=19,\ b^{k_s-1}x+3=79=66+2+2\cdot 4+3$.} \label{step}
\end{figure}
Observe that for given symbol $s$, the number of digits to transfer can obtain one of two values: $k_s-1$ or $k_s$ for $k_s:=\lfloor \log_b(x/l_s)\rfloor+1$. The smallest $x$ requiring to transfer $k_s$ digits is $X_s:=lb^{k_s}$. So finally the number of bits to transfer while encoding is $k_s-1$ for $x\in\{l,..,X_s-1\}$ and $k_s$ for $x\in \{X_s,..,lb-1\}$, like in Fig. \ref{step}.\\
While stream decoding, the current state $x$ defines currently produced symbol $s$. In example in Fig. \ref{auto}, the state also defined the number of digits to take: 1 for $x=4$, 2 for $x=5$ and 0 for $x=6,7$.
However, in example from Section \ref{exs}, state $x=13$ is an exception: it is decoded to $s=1$ and $x'=4$. Now if the first digit is $1$, the state became $x=2\cdot4+1=9\in I$. But if the first digit is $0$, it became $2\cdot 4=8\notin I$ and so we need to take another digit, finally getting to $x=16$ or $17$. We can also see such situation in Fig. \ref{step}.
This issue - that decoding from a given state may require $k_s-1$ or $k_s$ digits to transfer, means that for some $x\in \mathbb{N}$ we have: $bx<l$, while $bx+b-1\geq l$. It is possible only if $b$ does not divide $l$.
To summarize: if $b$ divides $l$, decoding requires to transfer a number of digits which is fixed for every state $x$. So we can treat these digits $(\textrm{mod}(x,b^k))$ as blocks and store them in forward or in backward order. However, if $b$ does not divide $l$, the state itself sometimes does not determine the number of digits: we should first take $k_s-1$ first digits, and if we are still not in $I$, add one more. We see that in this case, it is essential that digits are in the proper order (reversed): from the least to the most significant.
\subsection{Stationary probability distribution of states}\label{statio}
In Section \ref{exs} there was mentioned finding the stationary probability distribution of states used while encoding (and so also while decoding) - fulfilling (\ref{station}) condition. We will now motivate that this distribution is approximately $\Pr(x)\propto 1/x$.\\
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics{chaos.jpg}\
\caption{Three sources of chaotic behavior of $y=\log_b (x/l)$, leading to nearly uniform distribution on the $[0,1]$ range.}
\label{chaos}
\end{figure}
Let us transform $I$ into $[0,1)$ range (informational content):
\begin{equation} y=\log_b \left(x/l\right) \in [0,1)\end{equation}
Encoding symbol of probability $p_s$ increases $y$ by approximately $\log_b(1/p_s)$. However, to remain in the range, sometimes we need to transfer some number of digits before. Each digit transfer reduces $x$ to $\lfloor x/d\rfloor$ and so $y$ by approximately 1. Finally a single step is:
$$y \xrightarrow{s}\ \approx \{ y+\log_b(1/p_s)\}$$
where $\{a\}=a-\lfloor a \rfloor$ denotes the fractional part.
While neighboring values in arithmetic coding remain close to each other during addition of succeeding symbols (ranges are further compressed), here we have much more chaotic behavior, making it more appropriate for cryptographic applications. There are three sources of its chaosity, visualized in Fig. \ref{chaos}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{asymmetry}: different symbols can have different probability and so different shift,
\item \emph{ergodicity}: $\log_b(1/p_s)$ is usually irrational, so even a single symbol should lead to uniform covering of the range,
\item \emph{diffusion}: $\log_b(1/p_s)$ only approximates the exact shift and this approximation varies with position - leading to pseudorandom diffusion around the expected position.
\end{itemize}
These reasons suggest that probability distribution while encoding is nearly uniform for $y$ variable: $\Pr(y\leq a)\approx a\in [0,1]$ , what is confirmed by numerical simulations. Transforming it back to $x$ variable, probability of using $x\in I$ state is approximately proportional to $1/x$
\begin{equation} \Pr(x)\propto^\sim 1/x\end{equation}
It means that the informational content of being in state $x$ is $\lg(1/ \Pr(x))\approx \lg(x) +\textrm{const}$, what was the initial concept behind ANS.
\subsection{Bound for $\Delta H$}
We will now find some upper bound for the distance from Shannon entropy $\Delta H$. As finding the exact stationary probability is a complex task and this distribution can be disturbed by eventual correlations, we will use the absolute bound for inaccuracy: $|\epsilon_s(x)|=|x_s/x-p_s|\leq 1/x$ for uABS ($m/x$ for rANS) to find an independent bound.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics{abssim.jpg}\
\caption{Left: $\Delta H$ for $p=0.3$ uABS and different $l$ being multiplicities of 10. The red line is formula (\ref{bound}). Additionally, the irregular yellow line is situation in these $l$ when we approximate some irrational number using fractions with denominator $l$. Right: situation for fixed $l=100$ and $p=i/100$ for $i=1,2,..,99$. Discontinuity for $i=50$ is because $\Delta H=0$ there.}
\label{abssim}
\end{figure}
Generally, assuming that the probability distribution is indeed $\{p_s\}$, but we pay $\lg(1/q_s)$ bits per symbol $s$, the cost of inaccuracy is the Kullback-Leiber distance:
$$\Delta H=\sum_s p_s \lg(1/q_s)- \sum_s p_s \lg(1/p_s)=-\sum_s p_s\lg\left(1-\left(1-\frac{q_s}{p_s}\right)\right)=$$
$$ =\sum_s \frac{p_s}{\ln(2)}\left(\left(1-\frac{q_s}{p_s}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{q_s}{p_s}\right)^2+O\left(\left(1-\frac{q_s}{p_s}\right)^3\right)\right)
\approx \sum_s \frac{(p_s-q_s)^2}{p_s\ln(4)} $$
In our case we use $\lg(x/x_s)$ bits to encode symbol $s$ from state $x_s$, so $(p_s-q_s)^2$ corresponds to $|\epsilon_s(x)|^2<1/l^2$ for $x\in I=\{l,..,lb-1\}$. The above sum should also average over the encoder state, but as we are using a general upper bound for $\epsilon$, we can bound the expected capacity loss of uABS on $I=\{l,..,bl-1\}$ range to at most:
\begin{equation} \Delta H \leq \frac{1}{l^2\ln(4)}\sum_{s=0,1} \frac{1}{p_s}+O(l^{-3}) \ \textrm{bits/symbol} \label{bound} \end{equation}
From Fig. \ref{abssim} we see that it is a rough bound, but it reflects well the general behavior. For rANS this bound should be multiplied by $m$.
\subsection{Initial state and direction of encoding/decoding} \label{direction}
Encoding and decoding in discussed methods are in reversed direction - what is perfect if we need a stack for symbols, but often may be an inconvenience. One issue is the need for storing the final state of encoding, which will be required to start decoding - the cost is usually negligible: a few bits of information for every data block.
However, if this cost is essential, we can avoid it be encoding information also in this initial state. For this purpose, instead of starting for example with $x=l$, we can:
\begin{itemize}
\item start with $x$ having a single or more symbols directly stored in its least significant bits, like $x=l+s$,
\item while using formulas, start with $x=1$ and encode succeeding symbols until getting close to $I$, then use the obtained $x$ as the initial state (can be a bit smaller than $l$),
\item we can do analogously while using tables, but it requires more memory to define them also for $\{2,..,l-1\}$ range.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics{reverse.jpg}\
\caption{Example of encoding (left) and decoding (right) in reversed direction for encoder from Section \ref{exs} - it is much more costly, but still possible. We find some output sequence, such that later correspondingly decoding or encoding in the same direction will produce the input sequence. While reversed encoding we can start with all possible states, then in every step remove those not corresponding to given symbol and make a step for every possible digits. While reversed decoding, here from a single state, we try to encode all possible symbols from given state (arrow up: $a$, arrow down: $b$) and check if the input bits agree with the least significant bits. The written small numbers are after removing this least significant bit. Finally, in both cases we choose a single path. There is always such a path as we could perform this encoding/decoding in standard direction starting with any state.}
\label{reversed}
\end{figure}
Another issue is when probabilities depend on already processed data - in this case we can encode the data in backward direction, using information available while later decoding in forward direction. For example for Markov source of $s_1..s_m$ symbols, we would encode them in backward direction: from $m$-th to the 1-st, but the probability used for $s_k$ would depend on $s_{k-1}$. For adaptive encoding, we would need to process the whole data block in forward direction, assigning to each position probability used while decoding, then encode in backward direction using theses probabilities. Thanks of that, we can later use standard Markov or adaptive forward decoding.\\
However, if it is really necessary to encode and decode in the same direction, it is possible to change direction of encoding or decoding, but it is much more costly. We can see example of a few steps of such process in Fig. \ref{reversed}.
\section{Tabled asymmetric numeral systems (tANS)} \label{ans}
We will now focus on probably the most significant advantage of ANS approach over AC - thanks to smaller states, storing the entire behavior for large alphabet in relatively small coding table, getting usually faster coding than for Huffman, with accuracy/compression rate like in arithmetic coding. Instead of splitting a large symbol into binary choices, we can process it in a simple unconditional loop with a single table use and a few binary operations. Also instead of slow bit by bit AC renormalization, all bits can now be transferred at once. The cost is storing the tables: let say 1-16kB for 256 size alphabet. We can store many of them for various contexts/probability distributions, alphabet sizes and, as long as they use the same state space $I$, just switch between them.\\
Instead of trying to find large alphabet analogues of uABS formulas, we will directly generate tables used for encoding/decoding, like in example from Section \ref{exs}. There is a large freedom of choice for such a table, as every symbol distribution corresponds to a different coding. The distance from the Shannon limit depends on how well we approximate the $x_s/x\approx p_s$ relation. We will now focus on doing it in a very accurate way to get very close to capacity limit. However, this process can be for example disturbed in pseudorandom way using a cryptographic key to additionally encrypt the message.
\subsection{Precise initialization algorithm}
Assume we have given $l$, $b$ and probability distribution of $n$ symbols: $0 < p_1,..,p_n <1$, $\sum_s p_s=1$. For simplicity, let us assume for now that probabilities are defined with $1/l$ accuracy:
\begin{equation} l_s:=lp_s \in \mathbb{N} \label{approx}\end{equation}
For general probabilities, in Section \ref{qabs} we will see that we can "tune" the coder by shifting symbol appearances to make it optimal for slightly different probability distributions. Shifting symbol appearances right (to larger $x$) generally corresponds to increasing its informational content and so decreasing probability ($\approx x_s/s$).
The encoding is defined by distributing symbols in nearly uniform way on the $I=\{l,..,bl-1\}$ range: $(b-1)l_s$ appearances of symbol $s$. Then for every symbol $s$ we enumerate its appearances by succeeding numbers from $I_s=\{l_s,..,bl_s-1\}$ range, like in Fig. \ref{algor}. \\
Unfortunately, finding the optimal symbol distribution is not an easy task. We can do it by checking all symbol distributions and finding $\Delta H$ for each of them - for example for $l_1=10$, $l_2=5$, $l_3=2$ there are ${17 \choose 2,5}=408408$ ways to distribute the symbols and each of them corresponds to a differed coding. While testing all these possibilities it turns out that the minimal value of $\Delta H$ among them: $\Delta H\approx 0.00121$ bits/symbol, is obtained by 32 different distributions - they are presented in the right hand side part of Fig. \ref{algor}. They can be obtained by switching pairs of neighboring nodes on some 5 positions (marked with thick lines) - bit sequences produced by them differ by corresponding bit flips.
We will now introduce and analyze a heuristic algorithm which directly chooses a symbol distribution in nearly uniform way. Example of its application is presented in Fig. \ref{algor}. In this case it finds one of the optimal distributions, but it is not always true - sometimes there are a bit better distributions than the generated one. So if the capacity is a top priority while designing a coder, it can be reasonable to check all symbol distributions and generally we should search for better distributing algorithms.\\
To formulate the heuristic algorithm, let us first define:
\begin{equation} N_s:=\left\{\frac{1}{2p_s}+\frac{i}{p_s}:\ i\in \mathbb{N}\right\} \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics{algor.png}\
\caption{Left from top: precise algorithm initialization for $(10,5,2)/17$ probability distribution, corresponding encoding table and stationary probability distributions. Right: among ${17 \choose 2,5}$ possibilities to choose symbol distribution here, the minimal $\Delta H$ turns out to be obtained by 32 of them - presented in graphical form. The sixth from the top is the one generated by our algorithm. These 32 possibilities turn out to differ by switching two neighboring positions in 5 locations ($2^5=32$) - these pairs are marked by thick lines. We can see that these 5 positions correspond to the largest deviations from $\propto 1/x$ expected behavior of stationary probability distribution.}
\label{algor}
\end{figure}
These $n$ sets are uniformly distributed with required densities, but they get out of $\mathbb{N}$ set - to define ANS we need to shift them there, like in Fig. \ref{algor}. Specifically, to choose a symbol for the succeeding position, we can take the smallest not used element from $N_1,..,N_n$ sets. This simple algorithm requires a priority queue to retrieve the smallest one among currently considered $n$ values - if using a heap for this purpose, the computational cost grows like $\lg(n)$ (instead of linearly for greedy search). Beside initialization, this queue needs two instructions: let \verb"put("$(v,s)$\verb")" insert pair $(v,s)$ with value $v\in N_s$ pointing the expected succeeding position for symbol $s$. The second instruction: \verb"getmin" removes and returns pair which is the smallest for $(v,s)\leq(v',s')\Leftrightarrow v\leq v'$ relation.\\
Finally the algorithm is:\\
\textbf{Precise initialization} of decoding or encoding function/table
\noindent \verb"For "$s=0$\verb" to " $n-1$ \verb" do {put("
$(0.5/p_s,s)$ \verb"); "$x_s=l_s$\verb"};"\\
\verb"For "$x=l$\verb" to "$bl-1$\verb" do"\\
\verb" {"$(v,s)$\verb"=getmin; put("$(v+1/p_s,s)$\verb");"\\
\verb" "$D[x]=(s,x_s)$ or $C[s,x_s]=x$ \\
\verb" "$x_s$\verb"++}"\\
There has remained a question which symbol should be chosen if two of them have the same position. Experiments suggest to choose the least probable symbol among them first, like in example in Fig. \ref{algor} (it can be realized for example by adding some small values to $N_s$). However, there can be found examples when opposite approach: the most probable first, brings a bit smaller $\Delta H$.
\subsection{Inaccuracy bound}
Let us now find some bound for inaccuracy $\epsilon_s(x)=x_s/x-p_s$ for this algorithm to get an upper bound for $\Delta H$. Observe that the symbol sequence it produces has period $l$, so for simplicity we can imagine that it starts with $x=0$ instead of $x=l$.
From definition, $\# (N_s \cap [0,x-1/(2p_s)])=\lfloor x p_s \rfloor$. As $\lfloor x p_s\rfloor \leq x p_s\leq \lfloor x p_s+1\rfloor$ and $\sum_s p_s=1$, we have also $\sum_s \lfloor xp_s \rfloor \leq x\leq \sum_s \lfloor xp_s+1 \rfloor$. Defining $\overline{p}=\min_s p_s$, we can check that in $[0,x-1/(2\overline{p})]$ range there is at most $x$ symbols in all $N_s$ and in $[0,x+1/(2\overline{p})]$ range there is at least $x$ symbols:
$$ \sum_s \# \left(N_s \cap \left[0,x-\frac{1}{2\overline{p}}\right]\right)\leq \sum_s \# \left(N_s \cap \left[0,x-\frac{1}{2p_s}\right]\right)= \sum_s \lfloor xp_s \rfloor \leq x $$
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics{anssim.jpg}\
\caption{Left: numerical values and comparison with the (\ref{bound1}) formula for $(0.1,0.4,0.5)$ probability distribution and $l$ being a multiplicity of 10. Right: comparison for larger alphabet: of size $m$. The probability distribution is $(1,2,..,m)/l$, where $l=\sum_{i=1}^m i=m(m+1)/2$.}
\label{anssim}
\end{figure}
$$x\leq \sum_s \lfloor xp_s+1 \rfloor = \sum_s \# \left(N_s \cap \left[0,x+\frac{1}{2p_s}\right]\right) \leq \sum_s \# \left(N_s \cap \left[0,x+\frac{1}{2\overline{p}}\right]\right) $$
So $x$-th symbol found by the algorithm had to be chosen from $\left[x-1/(2\overline{p}),x+1/(2\overline{p})\right]\cap\bigcup_s N_s$. From definition, the $x_s$-th value of $N_s$ is $1/(2p_s)+x_s/p_s$. If this value corresponds to $x$, it had to be in the $\left[x-1/(2\overline{p}),x+1/(2\overline{p})\right]$ range:
$$\left| \frac{1}{2p_s}+\frac{x_s}{p_s} -x \right|\leq \frac{1}{2\overline{p}}\qquad\qquad \Rightarrow\qquad\qquad \left|\frac{1}{2x} + \frac{x_s}{x} - p_s\right|\leq \frac{p_s}{2x\overline{p}}$$
\begin{equation} \left|\epsilon_s(x)\right|=\left|\frac{x_s}{x}-p_s\right| \leq \left(\frac{p_s}{2\overline{p}}+\frac{1}{2}\right)/x\end{equation}
Finally in analogy to (\ref{bound}) we get:
\begin{equation} \Delta H \leq \frac{1}{l^2\ln(4)}\sum_s\frac{1}{p_s} \left(\frac{p_s}{2\min_{s'} p_{s'}}+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2+O(l^{-3}) \ \textrm{bits/symbol} \label{bound1} \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics{tans.png}\
\caption{$\Delta H$ for different alphabet size. The three graphs correspond to using the number of states ($l$, $b=2$) being 2, 4 and 8 times larger than alphabet size ($n=2,..,256$). For every $3\cdot 255$ case there was taken 100 random distributions generated by procedure: start with $l_s=1$ for all symbols, then repeat $l-n$ times: increase $l_s$ for a random $s$ by 1. The yellow lines mark powers of 2 - there is some self-similarity relation there, probably caused by using $b=2$.}
\label{tans}
\end{figure}
From Fig. \ref{anssim} we can see that it is a very rough bound. Figure \ref{tans} shows results of simulations for practical application - tANS behavior for random probability distributions while using the number of states being a small multiplicity of alphabet size. While the behavior is quite complex, general suggestion is that using $k$ more states than alphabet size, $\Delta H\approx 0.5/k^2$. So if we want to work in $\Delta H\approx 0.01$ bits/symbol regime, we should use $k=2$ or 4, for $\Delta H\approx 0.001$ bits/symbol it should be rather 8 or 16.
These graphs do not take into consideration the fact that $l p_s$ usually are not natural numbers - that there is some additional approximation needed here. However, from Fig. \ref{abssim} we can see that such approximation can work both ways. We will now see that additionally we can tune symbol distribution to design coders with properly shifted optimal probability distribution.
\subsection{Quasi ABS (qABS) and tuning} \label{qabs}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics{qans.png}\
\caption{Left: symbol distributions and $\Delta H$ for different symbol probabilities and all 4 state automata with more "0" symbol appearances than "1". Right: analogously for 16 states, but this time presenting only a single representant for each curve which is the lowest one for some $p$ - there are 43 of them.}
\label{qans}
\end{figure}
Let us now change the way of thinking for a moment: instead of focusing on symbol distribution for probabilities approximated as $l_s/l$, let us test $\Delta H$ for all probability distributions and different fixed coders (symbol distributions) - some result can be seen in Figure \ref{qans}. Surprisingly, for 5 state automata, all symbol distributions turn out to be useful in some narrow range of probabilities - choosing between such 5 automata, we can work in $\Delta H\approx 0.01$ bits/symbol regime. For $\Delta H\approx 0.001$ bits/symbol, we should choose approximately 20 of shown 43 automata for 16 states - they have deeper single $\Delta H$ minimum, but also narrower.
This kind of approach is very similar to Howard-Vitter quasi arithmetic coding - Example 10 from \cite{quasi} presents analogous switching for 6 state automata. Calculating $\Delta H$ for i.i.d. static sources of different probabilities, it turns out that we obtain exactly the same graph as the 5 state case from Fig. \ref{qans} - this time ANS requires 1 state less. This agreement and further comparison of both approaches requires further investigation. However, the fact that ANS uses a single number state, while AC needs 2 number state for similar precision, suggests that the advantage of using ANS will grow.
Symbol distributions in Fig. \ref{qans} suggest that shifting symbol appearances toward lower $x$ generally shifts the optimal probability right. It can be understood that lowering $x$ here means increase of $x_s/x$, which is the probability we approximate. We could try to correspondingly modify the precise initialization this way: tune it when $p_s\neq l_s/l$, for example modifying the initial values of $N_s$, like using real $1/(2p_s)$ there instead of approximated by $l_s/l$. However, the general behavior is very complex and understanding it requires further work. For specific purposes we can find optimized symbol distributions, for example by exhaustive search like in Fig. \ref{algor}, and store them inside the compressor.\\
The fact that (000..01) symbol distribution corresponds to coder with the lowest optimal probability (left-most curves in Fig. \ref{qans}), suggests how to build cheap and simple coders for difficult to optimally handle situation: when $p\approx 0$. Automaton for this kind of distribution is: the more probable symbol ($1-p$) increases state by one ($X++$), until getting to the $2l-2$ state, from which (and state $2l-1$) it goes to the first state ($l$), producing a single bit. The less probable symbol ($p$) always gets to the last state ($2l-1$), producing all but the most significant bit of the current state. It produces approximately $\lg(l)$ bits, plus 1 for the succeeding step. Comparing this number to $\lg(1/p)$, we obtain that we should use $l\approx 0.5/p$.
\subsection{Combining tANS with encryption}
We will now briefly discuss using tANS to simultaneously encrypt the data or as a part of a cryptosystem. While standard cryptography usually operates on constant length bit blocks, encryption based on entropy coder has advantage of using blocks which lengths vary in a pseudorandom way. The inability to directly divide the bit sequence into blocks used in single steps makes cryptoanalysis much more difficult.
As it was mentioned in Section \ref{statio}, the behavior of the ANS state is chaotic - if someone does not know the exact decoding tables, he would quickly loose the information about the current state. While decoding from some two neighboring states, they often correspond to a different symbol and so their further behavior will be very different (asymmetry). In comparison, in arithmetic coding nearby values are compressed further - remain nearby.
The crucial property making ANS perfect for cryptographic applications is that, in contrast to arithmetic coding, it has huge freedom of choice for the exact coding - every symbol distribution defines a different encoding. We can use a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) initialized with a cryptographic key to choose the exact distribution, for example by disturbing the precise initialization algorithm. One way could be instead of choosing the pair with the smallest $v$ by \verb"getmin" operation, use the PRNG to choose between $s$ which would be originally chosen and the second one in this order. This way we would get a bit worse accuracy and so $\Delta H$, but we have $2^{l(b-1)}$ different possibilities among which we choose the coding accordingly to the cryptographic key.
This philosophy of encryption uses the cryptographic key to generate a table which will be later used for coding. Observe that if we would make the generation of this table more computationally demanding, such approach would be more resistant to brute force attacks. Specifically, in standard cryptography the attacker can just start decryption with succeeding key to test if given key is the correct one. If we enforce some computationally demanding task to generate decoding tables (requiring for example 1ms of calculations), while decoding itself can be faster as we just use the table, testing large number of cryptographic keys becomes much more computationally demanding - this encryption philosophy can be made more resistant to unavoidable: brute force attacks.\\
The safeness of using ANS based cryptography depends on the way we would use it and the concrete scenario. Having access to both input and output of discussed automata, one usually could deduce the used coding tables - there would be needed some additional protection to prevent that. However, if there was a secure PRNG used to generate them, obtaining the tables does not compromise the key. So initializing PRNG with the cryptographic key and additionally some number (e.g. of data block), would allow to choose many independent encodings for this key.
Beside combining entropy coding with encryption, ANS can be also seen as a cheap and simple building block for stronger cryptographic systems, like a replacement for the memoryless S-box. Example of such cryptography can be: use the PRNG to choose an intermediate symbol probability distribution and two ANS coders for this distribution. Encoding of a bit sequence would be using the first encoder to produce a symbol in this distribution, and immediately apply the second decoder to get a new bit sequence.
\section{Conclusions}
There was presented simpler alternative to arithmetic coding: using a single natural number as the state, instead of two to represent a range. Its multiple ways of use give alternatives for different variants of AC. However, there are some advantages thanks to this simplicity:
\begin{itemize}
\item instead of complex AC renormalization procedure, we can just transfer bit blocks of known size (once per symbol),
\item there appears additional variant (tANS): putting coder for large alphabet into a table, combining speed of Huffman coding with compression rate of AC,
\item the huge freedom while choosing the exact encoder and chaotic state behavior makes it also perfect to simultaneously encrypt the data or as an inexpensive nonlinear building block of cryptosytems.
\end{itemize}
The disadvantages are:
\begin{itemize}
\item tANS requires building and storing coding tables: about 1-16kB for 256 size alphabet,
\item the decoding is in opposite direction to encoding, what requires storing the final state and may be an inconvenience, especially while adaptive applications.
\end{itemize}
While maintaining the state space ($I$), we can freely change between different probability distributions, alphabets or even ABS/ANS variants. For example for complex tasks like video compression, let say the used first 32 coding tables can be for quantized different probabilities for binary alphabet, while succeeding tables would be for static probability distributions on larger alphabets for various specific contexts, like for quantized DCT coefficients. The final memory cost would be a few kilobytes times the number of tables/contexts.\\
There has remained many research question regarding this novel approach. Especially how to effectively generate good tANS coding tables for given probability distribution (including tuning). We should also add correlated sources to considerations and generally improve theoretical analysis, understanding of behavior. Another research topic regards cryptographic capabilities of this new approach - to understand how to use it, combine with other methods to obtain required level of cryptographic security.
Finally we should understand fundamental questions regarding low state entropy coding automata - is this method optimal, are there maybe more convenient families?
|
\subsection{Mass spectrum}
Consider the Lagrangian of Eqs.~\eqref{PCLag},\eqref{eq:pcL1},\eqref{eq:pcL2} in the $y_L=0$ limit.
Expanding the Higgs field $\bar h$ around its VEV $v$ yields the following mass term for the charge-$2/3$ states
\beq
\mathcal{L}_{\rm mass}=-\bar{\psi}^u_L \mathcal{\hat M}_u\psi^u_R+ \mbox{h.c.}\,,\quad \psi^u=(u,U_p,U_m,\tilde{U})^T\,,
\eeq
where
\beq
\mathcal{\hat M}_u=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0& 0 \\
0 & M_4 & 0 & 0 \\
y_R f \sin\epsilon & 0 & M_4 & 0 \\
y_R f \cos\epsilon & 0 & 0 & M_1
\end{array}\right)\,,\quad \epsilon=\frac{v}{f}\,.
\label{uMassmat2}
\eeq
$\mathcal{\hat M}_u$ is obtained from the mass matrix in Eq.~\eqref{uMassmat} by applying the $U_{p,m}=(U\pm X_{2/3})/\sqrt{2}$ rotation.
Note that $U_p$ does not mix the other states in $\psi^u$ as it belongs to a triplet of the custodial symmetry preserved in the $y_L=0$ limit, while $u$, $U_m$ and $\tilde U$ are singlets. Note also that $\mathcal{\hat M}_u$ has a zero eigenvalue corresponding to the SM up quark which remains massless in the $y_L=0$ limit. $\mathcal{\hat M}_u$ is further diagonalized by a bi-unitary transformation
\beq
\psi^{u\,\prime}_{L,R}=\mathcal{U}^\dagger_{L,R}\psi^u_{L,R}\,,
\label{mebdef}
\eeq
which yields a mass for $U_p$ of $M_4$, and the expressions for the masses of the $U_{l,h}$ eigenstates are given in Eq.~\eqref{U12mass}.
The $\mathcal{U}_{R}$ elements characterizing the mixing between the massless SM up quark
and its heavy partners have the simple form
\bea
\mathcal{U}_R^{11} = \cos \varphi_4 \cos \tilde \varphi_1\,,\quad
\mathcal{U}_R^{31} = -\sin \varphi_4 \cos \tilde \varphi_1\,,\quad
\mathcal{U}_R^{41} =- \sin \tilde \varphi_1\,, \label{ARapprox}
\eea
where the mixing angles $\varphi_4$ and $\tilde \varphi_1$ are related to the fundamental
parameters as
\beq
\tan\varphi_4= \frac{y_Rf}{M_4}\sin\epsilon\,,\quad {\rm and} \quad \tan \tilde \varphi_1 = \frac{y_R f }{M_1}\cos \epsilon \cos\varphi_4\,,
\eeq
respectively.
The $\mathcal{U}_{L}$ components can be derived analytically as well, and we used the exact
form in our simulations, but the full expressions are rather lengthy for generic values of
the parameters. Yet, simple expressions are obtained in the limits in which one SO(4)
multiplet is much lighter than the other. For instance if the fourplet is
lighter than the singlet one just finds $\mathcal{U}_L\simeq \bf{1}$.
\subsection{Higgs and EW gauge boson couplings}
In the following, we derive the EW gauge boson and Higgs interactions with one SM quark and one heavy partner quark which are relevant for the production and the decay of the partner quarks. We refer to these interactions as ``mixing" interactions. Note, that for partially composite quarks, there are no mixing interactions present in the gauge basis. These interactions are solely induced through the rotation into the mass basis as discussed above.
The couplings of the light and heavy quarks to photons and to the gluons do not induce mixing interactions thanks to the U(1)$_{\rm em}$ and to the SU(3)$_{\rm color}$ gauge invariance. Furthermore, the U(1)$_X$ charges of $u_L$, $u_R$ and $\psi$ are identical. Hence, the covariant derivative terms with respect to the U(1)$_X$ does not induce mixing interactions when rotating into the mass basis, but only ``diagonal" couplings of the quark mass eigenstates to the $Z$ boson and the photon. Therefore, the only mixing interactions with gauge bosons arise from the $e_\mu$ and $d_\mu$ terms in the Lagrangian of Eq.~\eqref{eq:pcL1}, while the mixing interactions with the Higgs arise from the $d_\mu$ term and the Yukawa terms in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pcL2}.
The terms relevant for mixing from the $e_\mu$-symbol interaction read
\bea
-\bar{Q}\Sla{\,e}\,Q =
\frac{g}{2}\left(\bar D\, \Sla{W}^- + \bar X_{5/3}\, \Sla{W}^+\right) U_p
+\,\frac{g}{2}\cos\epsilon\left(\bar D\, \Sla{W}^-
-\bar X_{5/3}\, \Sla{W}^+
+ \frac{1}{c_w} \bar{U}_p\,\Sla{Z}\right)U_m + \mbox{h.c.}.
\eea
Further mixing interactions are induced by the $d$-term:
\bea
i c \bar{Q}^i\Sla{\,d}^{\,i} \tilde{U} + \mbox{h.c.}&=&\left[-\frac{i\sqrt{2} c}{f}\bar{U}_{m} \gamma^\mu\left(\partial_\mu h \right)\tilde{U}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. \,\,\,-\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}c \sin\frac{\bar{h}}{f}\left(\frac{1}{c_w}\bar{U}_{p}\,\Sla{Z} \tilde{U}+\bar{D}\,\Sla{W}^- \tilde{U}-\bar{X}_{5/3}\,\Sla{W}^+ \tilde{U}\right) \right]+\mbox{h.c.}.
\eea
The leading couplings to gauge bosons directly follow by setting the Higgs field $\bar{h}$
to its VEV $v$. The derivative coupling to the Higgs can be rewritten by performing a
partial integration on the action and using the equations of motion:
\bea
i\Sla{\,\partial} U_{m,L}&=& y_R f \sin\epsilon u_R+M_4 U_{m,R}\, , \\
i\Sla{\,\partial} \tilde{U}_L&=& y_R f \cos\epsilon u_R+M_1 \tilde{U}_{R} \, ,
\label{pcdterm1}
\eea
which yields
\bea
-\frac{i \sqrt{2} c \bar{U}_{m} \gamma^\mu\left(\partial_\mu h \right)\tilde{U} }{f} &=&
\sqrt{2}c h\left[y_R\left( \cos\epsilon\, \bar{U}_{m,L} - \sin \epsilon\, \bar{\tilde{U}}_L\right) u_R \right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\frac{M_1-M_4}{f}\left(\bar{U}_{m,L}\tilde{U}_R+\bar{\tilde{U}}_L U_{m,R}\right) +\mbox{h.c.}\right].
\label{pcdterm2}
\eea
The elementary-composite mixing terms also give rise to mixing interactions involving the Higgs boson
\bea
\mathcal{L}\supset - y_R h \cos\epsilon\, \bar{U}_{m,L} u_R + y_R h \sin\epsilon\, \bar{\tilde{U}}_{L} u_R +\mbox{h.c.}.
\label{pcyuk}
\eea
Collecting all mixing interactions from the $e$-term, $d$-term, and $y_R$ interactions,
the mixing Lagrangian in the gauge basis reads
\bea
\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}= \sum_{\alpha=L,R}\bar{\psi}^{d}_\alpha\,\Sla{W}^-G^{D}_\alpha\psi^{u}_\alpha+\bar{X}_{5/3\,\alpha}\,\Sla{W}^+G^{X}_\alpha\psi^{u}_\alpha+\bar{\psi}^{u}_\alpha\,\Sla{Z}G^{Z}_\alpha\psi^{u}_\alpha
+\left(\bar{\psi}^{u}_{L} h G^{h}\psi^{u}_{R} +\mbox{h.c.}\right)\,,
\label{eq:Lgeb}
\eea
with $\psi^{d}_{L,R}= (d,D)^T_{L,R}$,
\bea
G^{D}_\alpha & = &
\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\delta_\alpha^L&0&0&0\\
0&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{\cos\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}&- c \sin\epsilon
\end{array}
\right) \, , \\
G^{X}_\alpha & = &\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}&- \frac{\cos\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}&c \sin\epsilon
\end{array}
\right) \,,\\
G^{Z}_\alpha & =& \frac{g}{2c_w}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\delta_\alpha^L&0&0&0\\
0&0&\cos\epsilon&-\sqrt{2}\,c\sin\epsilon\\
0&\cos\epsilon&0&0\\
0&-\sqrt{2}\,c\sin\epsilon&0&0
\end{array}
\right) -\frac{2g}{3}\frac{s_w^2}{c_w}\, \cdot \,\, {\bf 1}\, ,\label{GZmat}
\eea
and
\beq
G^{h} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
\left(\sqrt{2} c -y_R\right)\cos\epsilon&0&0&\sqrt{2} c \,\frac{M_1-M_4}{f}\\
\left(y_R-\sqrt{2} c \right)\sin\epsilon&0&\sqrt{2} c \,\frac{M_1-M_4}{f}&0
\end{array}
\right) \, .\label{Ghmat}
\eeq
The universal part of Eq.~\eqref{GZmat} arises from the coupling to the U(1)$_X$ gauge boson and does not contribute to mixing interactions.
The mixing couplings in the mass eigenbasis are obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lgeb} through the rotation in Eq.~\eqref{mebdef}.
The couplings of the mixing gauge interaction involving the right-handed SM up quark are given by
\begin{equation}
g_{WuX} = - g_{WuD} = - c_w g_{ZuU_p}
= \frac{g}{2} \cos \epsilon \sin \varphi_4 \cos \tilde \varphi_1 - \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}
\sin \epsilon \sin \tilde \varphi_1\,.
\end{equation}
The mixing interactions mediated by the Higgs take a simple form if one mupliplet
is much lighter than the other one. In the limit $\sqrt{M_4^2 + y_R^2 f^2 \sin^2 \epsilon}
\ll \sqrt{M_1^2 + y_R^2 f^2 \cos^2 \epsilon}$, one finds
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{huU_l} \approx (y_R - \sqrt{2} c) \cos\epsilon \cos \varphi_4 \cos \tilde \varphi_1
- \sqrt{2} c \frac{M_1 - M_4}{f} \cos \tilde \varphi_1 \sin \varphi_4\,,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{huU_h} \approx -(y_R - \sqrt{2} c) \sin\epsilon \cos \varphi_4 \cos \tilde \varphi_1
- \sqrt{2} c \frac{M_1 - M_4}{f} \sin \tilde \varphi_1\,.
\end{equation}
The expressions for $\lambda_{huU_l}$ and $\lambda_{huU_h}$ in the limit of a singlet
lighter than the fourplet are obtained from the above ones through a $l\leftrightarrow h$ exchange.
\subsection{Tevatron exclusion bounds}
We first consider Tevatron searches~\cite{Abazov:2010ku,CDF:wj,Abazov:2011vy,Aaltonen:2011tq} described in Section~\ref{directsearches}. Tevatron experiments suffer less important QCD backgrounds than ATLAS and CMS, and thus yield interesting bounds on composite partners of the first two generations, despite a significantly smaller center of mass energy relative to the LHC.
Figure~\ref{fig:tev} shows the cross sections from right-handed up quark partners for the various final states analysed at the Tevatron.
The cross section predicted by second generation partners are not shown as all of them, but QCD pair production, are well below Tevatron limits
for both partially and fully composite charm scenarios.
Consider first singlet production channels.
For first generation partners in the partially composite case,
D0 analysis of $Zjj$ final states~\cite{Abazov:2010ku} excludes a $U_p$ partner lighter than $M_4^u\simeq 460\,$GeV at 95$\%$ CL for $y_R^u=1$.
Singly produced $D$ and $X^u_{5/3}$ contribute to the $Wjj$ cross section. Since there are two degenerate states contributing to the cross section, the D0 bound is stronger in the $Wjj$ channel. We find in this case $M_4^u\gtrsim 680\,$GeV at 95$\%$ CL.
Assuming $c_1^u=1$, corresponding 95$\%$ CL bounds in the fully composite case are $M_4^u\gtrsim 600\,$GeV from the $Zjj$ channel and $M_4^u\gtrsim 700\,$GeV from the $Wjj$ channel, which is the high edge of the mass range covered by the experiment.
Up and charm partners can also be produced in pairs through QCD interactions with the same cross section. However, since there is no search in $ZZjj$ final states, a light $C_p$ state is not directly constrained at the Tevatron. The existence of a light fourplet partner of the second generation can nevertheless be probed through strong pair production of $S$ and $X_{5/3}^c$ states, since they contribute to the $WWjj$ cross section measured by Tevatron experiments. We find in this case $M_4^{c}\gtrsim 390\,$GeV at 95$\%$ CL from the CDF $WWjj$ analysis~\cite{Aaltonen:2011tq}. Thanks to the universality of QCD interactions, the same bound also applies to first generation partners, $M^{u}_4\gtrsim 390\,$GeV. In contrast with single production channels, these bounds are model-independent. They are the same in both partially and fully composite models and in particular they do not depend on the values of $f$, $y_R^x$ and $c_1^x$.\\
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{tevatron_WWjj.eps}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{tevatron_Vjj.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross sections for pair (left) and single (right) production of the fourplet partners of $u_R^{\rm SM}$ leading to $WWjj$ and $Wjj$, $Zjj$ final states, respectively. We assumed $f=600\,$GeV and $y_R^u=1$ ($c_1^u=1$) for partially (fully) composite $u_R$. BR$(U_p\to uZ)=\,$BR$(D\to uW)=\,$BR$(X_{5/3}^u\to u W)=1$.
95$\%$ CL exclusion limits from the Tevatron
analyses of Refs.~\cite{Abazov:2010ku,CDF:wj,Abazov:2011vy,Aaltonen:2011tq} are shown in black. Left panel:
QCD pair production cross section (green) includes both $D\bar D$ and $X_{5/3}^u\bar{X}_{5/3}^u$ contributions, while $D\bar D$, $X_{5/3}^u\bar{X}_{5/3}^u$ and $X_{5/3}^u \bar D+D \bar{X}_{5/3}^u$ states contribute to EW pair production in the partially (red) and fully (blue) composite cases. Right panel: Solid (dashed) lines denote $Wjj$ ($Zjj$) cross sections from $D$ and $X_{5/3}^u$ ($U_p$) production in partially (red) and fully (blue) composite cases.}
\label{fig:tev}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ATLAS exclusion bounds from $7\,$TeV data}
We detail now the bounds obtained from the
ATLAS analyses~\cite{ATLAS:pp,Aad:2012bt} searching for single and pair production of first two generation partners which are described in
Sec.~\ref{sec:searches}.
Exclusion limits at 95$\%$ C.L. from these two analyses are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lhc7}, together with cross section predictions for
partially and fully composite up and charm quarks.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LHC7_WWjj_PC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LHC7_WWjj_FC.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LHC7_Vjj_PC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LHC7_Vjj_FC.eps}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross sections for pair (top) and single (bottom) production of the fourplet partners of partially (left) and fully (right) $u_R^{\rm SM}$ and $c_R^{\rm SM}$, leading to $WWjj$, $Wjj$ and $Zjj$ final states. We assumed $f=600\,$GeV and $y_R^u=1$ ($c_1^u=1$) for partially (fully) composite $u_R$. The $Wjj$ channel includes both $W^+$ and $W^-$ in the final state, while the $W^-jj$ channel only includes a negatively charged $W$ boson. BR$(U_p\to uZ)=\,$BR$(D\to uW)=\,$BR$(X_{5/3}^u\to u W)=1$ and BR$(C_p\to cZ)=\,$BR$(S\to cW)=\,$BR$(X_{5/3}^c\to c W)=1$.
95$\%$ CL exclusion limits from the ATLAS
analyses of Refs.~\cite{ATLAS:pp,Aad:2012bt} are shown in black. Top panels: QCD pair production cross section (green) includes both $D\bar D$ and $X_{5/3}^u\bar{X}_{5/3}^u$ ($S\bar S$ and $X_{5/3}^c\bar{X}^c_{5/3}$) contributions for up (charm) quark partners. $D\bar D$, $X_{5/3}^u\bar{X}_{5/3}^u$, $X_{5/3}^u \bar D+D \bar{X}_{5/3}^u$ and $S\bar S$, $X_{5/3}^c\bar{X}_{5/3}^c$, $X_{5/3}^c\bar S+S \bar{X}_{5/3}^c$ states contribute to the EW pair production cross section of up (red) and charm (blue) partners, respectively. Bottom panels: Solid (dashed) lines correspond to $Wjj$ ($Zjj$) cross sections from single production of $D$ and $X_{5/3}^u$ ($U_p$) for first generation partners, and from single production of $S$ and $X_{5/3}^c$ ($C_p$) for second generation partners. Dotted lines denote analogous cross sections in the $W^-jj$ channel.}
\label{fig:lhc7}
\end{figure}
The strongest single production constraint arises from the $Wjj$ channel, which receives contributions from production and decay of $D$ and $X_{5/3}^{u}$ states in the first generation case, and $S$ and $X_{5/3}^c$ states in the second generation case. More specifically we find at 95$\%$ CL $M^u_4\gtrsim 1.4\,$TeV and $M^c_4\gtrsim 420\,$GeV for partially composite models with $y_R^x=1$, while fully composite models with $c_1^x=1$ yields $M^u\gtrsim2.0\,$TeV, $M^c\gtrsim 950\,$GeV. Note that, in fully composite models with $c_1^x=1$ and masses larger than $2.3\,$TeV, the partner width exceeds $30\%$ of its mass,
thus breaking the narrow width approximation which the ATLAS analyses rely on.
Single production mechanisms strongly depend on the mixing parameters $y_R$ or $c_1$, but have a weak dependence on $f$. A $y_R$ and $c_1$ independent bound can be obtained from the $WWjj$ channel assuming QCD pair production of the partners. This implies a lower bound of $M_4^{u,c}\gtrsim 390$~GeV for partially and fully composite partners of up and charm quarks. $WWjj$ final states receives an additional contribution from pair produced $X_{5/3}^{u(c)}$ and $D$ $(S)$ through $t$-channel exchange of a W or Z boson (see Fig.\ref{fig:prodch}b). However, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lhc7} the $M_4^{u,c}$ bounds from EW pair production
are much weaker than that of the $Wjj$ channel. More generally, for a fixed partner mass, the $Wjj$ channel excludes mixing parameters above a certain value. Under this constraint EW pair production is found to be subdominant to QCD production. Thus, here we only use the $WWjj$ channel in order to determine a model independent bound on the fourplet masses $M_4^{u,c}$ through QCD pair production of the partners. Both EW and QCD pair production mechanisms leading to $WWjj$ final states are consistently added when we derive combined bounds in Section~\ref{sec:rescom}.
\subsection{CMS exclusion bounds from $8\,$TeV data}
We end with a presentation of exclusion limits and predicted cross sections from partially and fully composite models for the $8\,$TeV analyses described
in Section~\ref{sec:searches}: the CMS W/Z-tagged dijet analysis~\cite{CMS:wzdijet} and the recast of
the CMS leptoquark search~\cite{cms8lepto}.
The resulting 95$\%$ CL limits obtained from these analysis are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmslepto}
for partially and fully composite scenarios. The constraints from the $qW$ and $qZ$ searches are taken from Ref.~\cite{CMS:wzdijet}, while the CMS leptoquark search recast is detailed in Appendix~\ref{sec:app2}.
As for the ATLAS searches, the dominant single production constraints arise from the $Wjj$ channel which yields, in partially composite models with $y_R^x=1$, $M^u_4\gtrsim 1.5\,$TeV, while the second generation partners are not bounded. For fully composite models with $c_1=1$, up-quark partners are excluded up to $M_4^u\gtrsim3.9\,$TeV, while the charm-quark partner mass is $M^c_4\gtrsim 1.3\,$TeV. The model independent bound obtained assuming QCD pair production is $M^{u/c}_4\gtrsim 530\,$GeV.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LHC8_WWjj_PC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LHC8_WWjj_FC.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LHC8_Vjj_PC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LHC8_Vjj_FC.eps}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross sections for pair (top) and single (bottom) production of the fourplet partners of partially (left) and fully (right) $u_R^{\rm SM}$ and $c_R^{\rm SM}$, leading to $WWjj$, $Wjj$ and $Zjj$ final states. We assumed $f=600\,$GeV and $y_R^u=1$ ($c_1^u=1$) for partially (fully) composite $u_R$. The $Wjj$ channel includes both $W^+$ and $W^-$ in the final state, while the $W^-jj$ channel only includes a negatively charged $W$ boson. BR$(U_p\to uZ)=\,$BR$(D\to uW)=\,$BR$(X_{5/3}^u\to u W)=1$ and BR$(C_p\to cZ)=\,$BR$(S\to cW)=\,$BR$(X_{5/3}^c\to c W)=1$.
95$\%$ CL exclusion limits from the CMS
analyses of Refs.~\cite{CMS:wzdijet,cms8lepto} are shown in black. Top panels: QCD pair production cross section (green) includes both $D\bar D$ and $X_{5/3}^u\bar{X}_{5/3}^u$ ($S\bar S$ and $X_{5/3}^c\bar{X}^c_{5/3}$) contributions for up (charm) quark partners. $D\bar D$, $X_{5/3}^u\bar{X}_{5/3}^u$, $X_{5/3}^u \bar D+D \bar{X}_{5/3}^u$ and $S\bar S$, $X_{5/3}^c\bar{X}_{5/3}^c$, $X_{5/3}^c\bar S+S \bar{X}_{5/3}^c$ states contribute to the EW pair production cross section of up (red) and charm (blue) partners, respectively. Bottom panels: Solid (dashed) lines correspond to $Wjj$ ($Zjj$) cross sections from single production of $D$ and $X_{5/3}^u$ ($U_p$) for first generation partners, and from single production of $S$ and $X_{5/3}^c$ ($C_p$) for second generation partners.}
\label{fig:cmslepto}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Models with partially composite right-handed up-type quarks}\label{sec:pcmodel}
We consider here a class of models based on the standard
partial compositeness construction~\cite{Kaplan:1991dc} in which both the SM doublets and singlets
have an elementary counterpart.
In CCWZ the Lagrangian for the composite fermionic sector reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm comp}=i\ \bar{Q}(D_\mu +i e_\mu) \gamma^\mu Q + i \bar{\tilde U}\Sla{D}\tilde U
-M_4\bar{Q}Q
-M_1\bar{\tilde{U}}\tilde{U}+\left(i c\, \bar{Q}^i \gamma^\mu d^i_\mu \tilde{U}+\mbox{h.c.}\right),
\label{eq:pcL1}
\end{eqnarray}
where here and below $D_\mu$ contains the QCD gauge interaction and the $B_\mu$ coupling coming from the ${\rm U}(1)_X$ symmetry,
the $e_\mu$ and $d_\mu$ symbols are needed to reconstruct the
CCWZ ``covariant derivative'' and to restore the full non-linearly realized ${\rm SO}(5)$ invariance
({\it c.f.}~Appendix~\ref{sec:app1}).
The Lagrangian for the elementary fermions contains the usual kinetic terms,
including interactions with the SM gauge fields, and a set of linear mass mixings with the composite fermions
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm elem}=i\ \bar{q}_L\,\Sla{D}q_L+i\ \bar{u}_R\,\Sla{D}u_R-y_L f\bar{q}^5_L U_{gs}\psi_R
-y_R f\bar{u}^5_R U_{gs}\psi_L+\mbox{h.c.},
\label{eq:pcL2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $q_L^5$ and $u_R^5$ are incomplete embeddings of the elementary fermions in the fundamental representation of ${\rm SO}(5)$ as given in Eqs.~\eqref{elfermL},\eqref{elfermR}. $U_{gs}$ is the Goldstone matrix containing the Higgs doublet components, which reads in unitary gauge
\beq
U_{gs}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cos{\bar{h}/f} & \sin{\bar{h}/f} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -\sin{\bar{h}/f} & \cos{\bar{h}/f}
\end{array}\right)\,.
\label{gmatrU}
\eeq
$\bar{h}\equiv v+h$ denotes the Higgs field
with the EWSB vacuum expectation value (VEV) $v$, which is related to the Fermi constant $G_F$ through
\beq
v=f\sin^{-1}\left(\frac{(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{-1/2}}{f}\right)\,,
\eeq
and the physical Higgs boson $h$.
Notice that we work in an ${\rm SO}(5)$ basis where the elementary fermions $q_L$ and $u_R$ couple to the composite states $\psi$
only through the Goldstone matrix $U_{gs}$~\cite{DeSimone:2012fs,Grojean:2013qca}.
For simplicity, we assumed that the mixings in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pcL2} respect an ${\rm SO}(5)$
structure, {i.e.} the mixing parameters of the elementary quarks with the fourplet
and the singlet are the same. In more general parametrizations two independent mixings
can be introduced, one for each ${\rm SO}(4)$ multiplet in $\psi$~\cite{Grojean:2013qca}.
The ${\rm SO}(5)$ mixing structure we consider is actually naturally predicted in explicit models with
a calculable Higgs potential, as the $2$-site model of Refs.~\cite{Panico:2011pw,Matsedonskyi:2012ym} whose effective description coincides with Eqs.~\eqref{eq:pcL1},\eqref{eq:pcL2} for $c=0$.
Moreover, the partial compositeness construction implies that the two mixing
parameters should be of comparable size as each elementary state mixes with only one operator from the strong dynamics~\cite{DeSimone:2012fs}.
The effect of this assumption on our analysis is marginal.
In particular our results are not modified in the limiting cases where only one ${\rm SO}(4)$ multiplet is light and present in the effective description.\\
We now discuss the mass spectrum of the model outlined above.
First of all, the exotic state $X_{5/3}$ does not mix with any other
states since electric charge is conserved, so its mass is simply $M_4$.
Conversely, the other composite fermions mix with the elementary states. The complete
mass Lagrangian for the up- and down-type fermions is
\beq
\mathcal{L}_{\rm mass}=-\left(\bar{u}\ \bar{U}\ \bar{X}_{2/3}\ \bar{\tilde{U}}\ \right)_L \mathcal{M}_u
\left(\begin{array}{c}
u\\
U\\
X_{2/3}\\
\tilde{U}
\end{array}\right)_R
-\left(\bar{d}\ \bar{D}\right)_L \mathcal{M}_d
\left(\begin{array}{c}
d\\
D
\end{array}\right)_R
+\mbox{h.c.}\,,
\eeq
where
\beq
\mathcal{M}_u=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & y_L f\cos^2\frac{\epsilon}{2} & y_L f\sin^2\frac{\epsilon}{2} & -\frac{y_L f}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\epsilon \\
\frac{y_R f}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\epsilon & M_4 & 0 & 0 \\
-\frac{y_R f}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\epsilon & 0 & M_4 & 0 \\
y_R f\cos\epsilon & 0 & 0 & M_1
\end{array}\right)\,,\quad\quad \epsilon \equiv \frac{v}{f}\,,
\label{uMassmat}
\eeq
with $\mathcal{M}_u$ being mass matrix of the charge $2/3$ states, and
\beq
\mathcal{M}_d=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & y_L f\\
0 & M_4
\end{array}\right),
\label{dMassmat}
\eeq
the mass matrix for the charge $-1/3$ states.
The mass of the lightest charge $2/3$ quarks, which are
identified with the SM up-type quarks, is
\beq\label{eq:mass_up}
m_u\simeq \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}f}\times \big|M_1-M_4\big |\times \frac{y_Lf}{\sqrt{(M_4^2+y_L^2f^2)}} \times \frac{y_Rf}{\sqrt{(M_1^2+y_R^2f^2)}}\,,
\eeq
to leading order in the $\epsilon$.
We focus here on significantly composite right-handed up-type quarks. These states are associated with order one eigenvalues of $y_R$.
Then, the small mass of the light generation SM quarks implies very small values for the mixing parameters of the left-handed
elementary states, $y_L \ll 1$ (suppressing the flavor indices), unless the composite multiplets are nearly degenerate, $|M_1-M_4|\ll M_{1,4}$. However, the fourplet/singlet splitting is dominantly induced by the ${\rm SO}(5)$ breaking of the strong dynamics and is therefore expected to be large.
We thus assume $|M_1-M_4|\sim \mathcal{O}(M_{1,4})$, so that setting $y_L\ll 1$ is always a good approximation. We work in the $y_L=0$ limit in the remainder of the analysis.
To understand why $m_u\to 0$ in the limit $M_1 =M_4$ notice that in this case the free Lagrangian (setting the Higgs to its VEV) is having an enhanced {\rm SO}(5) symmetry. It can be used to bring $U_{gs}$ to trivial form by redefining the field $\psi$.
This implies that electroweak symmetry is not ``felt" by the elementary fermions. Thus, one expects to have two chiral massless states. Another more explicit way to see it is to notice that in this limit we can define two new linear combinations of $u_R$ and $\tilde U_R$ and similar for the left-handed fields that do not appear in any of the mass terms. These would correspond to the two zero modes. This enhanced chiral symmetry is broken at the quantum level due to the interaction terms.
Notice that in the $y_L=0$ limit the Lagrangian
for the composite states and the elementary right-handed up quarks is exactly invariant
under the custodial ${\rm SO}(3)_c$ subgroup of ${\rm SO}(4)$. In fact, the $y_L$ mixing in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pcL2} is the only term which breaks the custodial
invariance, besides the usual ${\rm U}(1)_Y$ gauging of the SM. The $y_R$ mixing
preserves the custodial symmetry since the elementary $u_R$ is embedded as an ${\rm SO}(4)$ singlet.
We will show that this custodial invariance determines the structure of mixings and
couplings of the model. It is thus convenient to classify the
states in terms of ${\rm SO}(3)_c$ representations. $u_R$ and $\tilde U$
are ${\rm SO}(3)_c$ singlets, while the fourplet $Q$ splits into a singlet with charge $2/3$, which we denote
by $U_m$, and a triplet made of $D$, $X_{5/3}$ and a charge $2/3$ state, $U_p$.
In terms of the original fields the $U_{p,m}$ states are given by the combinations
\beq
U_{p,m}\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(U\pm X_{2/3}\right).
\label{defUpm}
\eeq
The Higgs field $\bar h$ is a singlet of custodial symmetry, while the
EW Goldstones form a triplet. Therefore the triplet states $D, U_p, X_{5/3}$
are mass eigenstates with mass $M_4$, and $u_R$ quarks can only mix
with $\tilde U$ and $U_m$.
The mass Lagrangian for the custodial singlets is
\beq
\mathcal{L}_{\rm mass}^{\rm singlet} = -\left(\bar{U}_m\,, \bar{\tilde U}\right)_L \mathcal{M}_u^{\rm singlet}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
u\\
U_m\\
\tilde U
\end{array}\right)_R+\mbox{h.c.}\,,
\eeq
\beq
\mathcal{M}_u^{\rm singlet}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
y_R f \sin\epsilon & M_4 & 0 \\
y_R f \cos\epsilon & 0 & M_1
\end{array}\right)\,,
\label{uMassmatapp}
\eeq
which yields the following masses for the heavy eigenstates $U_{l,h}$
\bea\label{U12mass}
m^2_{U_{l,h}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[M_1^2+M_4^2+y_R^2f^2 \mp \sqrt{\left(M_1^2-M_4^2+y_R^2f^2\right)^2-4 \sin^2 \epsilon\left(M_1^2-M_4^2\right)y_R^2f^2}\right]\,.
\eea
For $\sqrt{M_4^2+(y_R f \sin\epsilon)^2} \ll \sqrt{M_1^2+(y_R f \cos\epsilon)^2}$, the lighter eigenstate $U_l$ is dominantly the fourplet state $U_m$ mixed with the elementary quark, while $U_h$ is dominantly $\tilde U$ mixed with the elementary fermion, while in the opposite limit, the r\^ole of $U_l$ and $U_h$ is exchanged.\\
We summarize below the structure of the couplings between the
elementary $u_R$ and the composite resonances which are relevant for both production
and decay of the composite resonances at the LHC. The relevant couplings are defined through the interaction Lagrangian
\bea
\mathcal{L}_{\rm int} &=& -\lambda_{huU_l} h\bar u^{\rm SM}_R U_{l L}-\lambda_{huU_h} h\bar u^{\rm SM}_R U_{h L}+{\rm h.c.}\nonumber\\
&&+g_{WuD}\bar D\, \Sla{W^-}u^{\rm SM}+g_{WuX}\bar X_{5/3}\,\Sla{W^+}u^{\rm SM}+g_{ZuU_p}\bar U_p\, \Sla{Z} u^{\rm SM}+{\rm h.c.}\,.\label{Lint}
\eea
We first consider two simplified limits where only one of the composite multiplets, either $Q$ or $\tilde U$,
is present in the low energy effective description, and then move to the generic case where both multiplets
are light.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{int_0.eps}\\
(a)\\
\ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.83\textwidth]{int_2.eps}\\
(b)\\
\ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{int_3.eps}\\
(c)
\end{center}
\caption{Interaction vertices between the partially composite SM right-handed up-type quarks and their fermionic partners from the strong dynamics. All vertices are drawn to leading order in both $\epsilon\simeq v/f$ and $y_R$, the elementary-composite mixing in the right-handed up sector. (a) Linear interaction between $u_R$, the custodial singlet resonances and the Higgs boson. (b), (c) Linear interaction between $u_R$, the custodial triplet resonances and the W and Z bosons. For the $Z$ vertex, the second diagram on the right hand side is absent when the singlet $\tilde U$ is decoupled.}
\label{vertices}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Light singlet partner interactions}\label{sec:PCsing}
We consider the case where the fourplet $Q$ is decoupled from the the low-energy theory, $M_4\to\infty$, and only a light singlet $\tilde U$
is present. In this limit the only light partner state is $U_l=U_{lL}+U_{lR}$, with $U_{lL}=\tilde U_L$ and
$U_{lR}=\sin\varphi_1 u_R+\cos\varphi_1 \tilde U_R$,
where $\varphi_1\equiv \tan^{-1}(y_Rf\cos\epsilon/M_1)$ is the elementary/composite mixing angle of the right-handed quarks.
The finite mass from Eq.~\eqref{U12mass} reduces to
\beq
m_{U_l}=\sqrt{ M_1^2+\left(y_R f \cos \epsilon\right)^2} =\frac{M_1}{\cos\varphi_1}\,,
\eeq
while the SM up quark $u^{\rm SM}=u^{\rm SM}_L+u^{\rm SM}_R$, with $u^{\rm SM}_L=u_L$ and $u^{\rm SM}_R=\cos\varphi_1 u_R-\sin\varphi_1\tilde U_R$, remains massless in the $y_L=0$ limit.
Custodial invariance implies that the only interaction of $\tilde U$ with the elementary quarks arises through the Higgs boson $h$.
Expanding the Goldstone matrix in Eq.~(\ref{gmatrU}) yield the following linear interaction with the Higgs
\beq\label{eq:HuUtilde}
\mathcal{L} \supset y_R \sin \epsilon\, \bar{u}_R\, h\, \tilde{U}_L + \mbox{h.c.}\,.
\eeq
Notice the interaction in Eq.~\eqref{eq:HuUtilde} originates solely from the non-linear
Higgs dynamics, since $u$ and $\tilde{U}$, being both ${\rm SO}(4)$ singlets, can only couple
to an even number of Higgs doublets.
Diagrammatically the coupling can be understood as shown in Fig.~\ref{vertices}(a).
In the mass eigenstate basis, the $u^{\rm SM}_{R}-h-U_{lL}$ coupling becomes
\beq
\lambda_{huU_l}= -y_R\sin\epsilon\cos\varphi_1\,.
\label{couplingsinglet}
\eeq
\subsubsection{Light fourplet partners interactions}\label{sec:pc4}
We now consider the case where only a light fourplet $Q$ is present in the low-energy theory while the singlet $\tilde U$ is decoupled, $M_1\to\infty$. The custodial triplet, made of $D$, $U_p$ and $X_{5/3}$, have mass $M_4$, while the custodial singlet $U_m$ state mixes with the elementary $u_R$ through EWSB. The other mass eigenstate is $U_l=U_{lL}+U_{lR}$, with $U_{lL}=U_{mL}$ and $U_{lR}=\sin\varphi_4 u_R+\cos\varphi_4 U_{mR}$, where $\varphi_4\equiv \tan^{-1}(y_Rf\sin\epsilon/M_4)$ is the elementary/composite mixing angle of the right-handed quarks. The finite mass from Eq.~\eqref{U12mass} reduces to
\beq
m_{U_l}=\sqrt{M_4^2+(y_R f \sin \epsilon)^2}=\frac{M_4}{\cos\varphi_4}\,,
\label{mtres}
\eeq
while the SM quark $u^{\rm SM}=u_L^{\rm SM}+u_R^{\rm SM}$, with $u_L^{\rm SM}=u_L$ and $u_R^{\rm SM}=\cos\varphi_4 u_R-\sin\varphi_4 U_{mR}$, remains massless in the $y_L=0$ limit. Notice that the $y_R$ contribution to the heavy
resonance mass is suppressed by a $v/f$ factor and thus it is only relevant
for large $y_R$ values. For $y_R \lesssim 1$, this EWSB contribution turns out to be typically negligible numerically, in which case
all the fourplet states become nearly degenerate.
Custodial symmetry implies that $U_m$ only
interacts with $u_R$ through a vertex containing the Higgs boson. The linear interaction of $U_m$ with the Higgs is
\beq
\mathcal{L} \supset - y_R \cos \epsilon\, \bar{u}_R\, h\, U_{m,L}+\mbox{h.c.},
\eeq
This interaction
is understood diagrammatically the same way as in the previous case with a light $\tilde U$, up to the fact that here
the vertex is between an ${\rm SO}(4)$ singlet, $u_R$, and a fourplet component, $U_m$, which requires
an odd number of Higgs insertions.
In the mass eigenbasis the $u_R^{\rm SM}-h-U_{lL}$ coupling becomes
\beq
\lambda_{huU_l}=y_R\cos \epsilon\cos \varphi_4\,.
\label{tres}
\eeq
The custodial triplet states interactions with the SM up quarks are also determined by custodial symmetry. The triplet states $D$, $U_p$ and $X_{5/3}$ only interact with the singlet $U_m$ through the triplet of EW gauge bosons (or equivalently through EW Goldstone bosons within the Higgs doublet). The interactions of the triplet states with $u^{\rm SM}$ then arise from their interactions with
$U_m$ through $y_R$ mixing. In unitary gauge the relevant couplings in the original basis come from the fourplet kinetic term
in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pcL1}
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} \supset \frac{g}{2} \cos \epsilon \left(\bar D\, \Sla{W^-}
- \bar X_{5/3}\, \Sla{W^+} + \frac{1}{c_w} \bar U_p\, \Sla{Z}\right) U_m + {\rm h.c.}\,,
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the ${\rm SU}(2)_L$ gauge coupling and $c_w$ is the cosine of the weak mixing angle. The origin of these interactions is understood diagrammatically as shown in Fig.~\ref{vertices}(b)
and Fig.~\ref{vertices}(c)
for the $W$ and $Z$ vertices, respectively. In the mass eigenbasis, the $u_R^{\rm SM}-Z-U_{pR}$, $u_R^{\rm SM}-W^+-D_R$ and $u_R^{\rm SM}-W^--X_{5/3R}$ couplings are then
\beq
g_{WuX} = - g_{WuD} = -c_w\, g_{ZuU_p} = \frac{g}{2} \cos \epsilon \sin\varphi_4.
\label{uno}
\eeq
\subsubsection{Generic partially composite case}\label{sec:pc5plet}
Finally, we consider here the more general situation where both the fourplet $Q$ and the
singlet $\tilde U$ composite states are light and below cut-off of the effective theory.
The structure of the SM up quark interactions with the custodial singlet and the triplet composite states is similar to the previous cases with only one multiplet in the effective theory. However, additional interactions between the singlet and the
fourplet arise from the $d_\mu$ term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pcL1}. In particular the singlet $\tilde U$ interacts with the
custodial triplet via the $W$ and $Z$ bosons and with the custodial singlet $U_m$ via the physical Higgs boson.
These additional interactions are relevant
for cascade decays like $U_h \rightarrow U_l h$ whenever $m_{U_h} > m_{U_l} + m_h$.
As in cases where only one multiplet is light, the $u_R$ quark interacts with the triplet states $D$, $U_p$ and $X_{5/3}$ only through EW gauge bosons, as dictated by custodial symmetry. In the original basis the couplings are diagrammatically understood from the same diagrams as in the light fourplet case, except for the $Z$ coupling which receives an additional contribution from the $d_\mu$ term, leading to the second diagram on the right-hand side of Fig.~\ref{vertices}(c).
The couplings take the form
\begin{equation}\label{gcpl_pc_generic}
g_{WuX} = - g_{WuD} = - c_w\, g_{ZuU_p} = \frac{g}{2}\cos \epsilon
\sin \varphi_4 \cos \tilde{\varphi}_1\,,
\end{equation}
with the effective mixing angle
\begin{equation}
\tan \tilde \varphi_1 \equiv \frac{y_R f \cos \epsilon}{M_1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + \left(y_R f \sin \epsilon\right)^2/M_4^2}}=\tan\varphi_1\cos\varphi_4\,.
\end{equation}
The right handed component of the up quark interacts with $U_m$ and $\tilde{U}$ only through the Higgs boson, thanks to custodial symmetry. The corresponding couplings in the mass eigenbasis can be calculated analytically, but the expressions are lengthy as they involve the diagonalization of the mass matrix in Eq.~\eqref{uMassmatapp}. The details on the calculation can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:app3}. For $c=0$, approximate expressions can however be derived in the limit in which the fourplet is much lighter than the singlet;
one finds
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{huU_l} \approx y_R \cos \epsilon \cos \varphi_4 \cos \tilde\varphi_1,
\qquad {\rm and} \qquad
\lambda_{huU_h} \approx - y_R \sin \epsilon \cos \varphi_4 \cos \tilde\varphi_1,
\end{equation}
where $U_{l,h}$ are the mass eigenstates with masses given by Eq.~\eqref{U12mass}.
Similar expressions are obtained in the opposite limit with a lighter singlet
through the replacement $U_l \leftrightarrow U_h$.
\subsection{Models with fully composite right-handed up-type quarks}\label{sec:fcmodel}
We follow here an alternative approach and identify directly the right-handed SM up quarks with chiral composite states of the strong dynamics. The right-handed up quarks are thus fully composite fermions in this scenario, without any elementary counterpart.
Moreover, the composite chiral fermions must be ${\rm SO}(5)$ singlets in order to avoid exotic massless quarks and reproduce the quantum numbers of the
right-handed SM up quarks.
The left-handed SM quark doublets are still realized as partially composite fermions whose mixing with the strong dynamics is small enough to account for the SM up and charm quark masses.
In CCWZ the composite Lagrangian becomes~\cite{DeSimone:2012fs,Grojean:2013qca}
\bea
\mathcal{L}_{\rm comp}&=&i\ \bar{\psi}(D_\mu+i e_\mu)\gamma^\mu\psi+i\
\bar{u}_R\, \Sla{D} u_R - M_4\bar{Q}Q -M_1\bar{\tilde{U}}\tilde{U}\nonumber\\
&&
+\left(ic_L\, \bar{Q}_L^i d^i_\mu \gamma^\mu \tilde{U}_L+ i c_R\, \bar{Q}_R^i
d^i_\mu \gamma^\mu \tilde{U}_R+\mbox{h.c.}\right)
+\left(i c_1\, \bar{Q}_R^i d^i_\mu \gamma^\mu u_R+\mbox{h.c.}\right)\,,
\label{fcLag}
\eea
where $Q$ and $\tilde U$ are an ${\rm SO}(4)$ fourplet and singlet, respectively, embedded in a fundamental representation $\psi=(Q,\tilde U)^T$ of ${\rm SO}(5)$, as in Eq.~\eqref{defpsi} for the partially composite model. The chiral ${\rm SO}(5)$ singlet $u_R$ denotes the fully composite up quark. The Lagrangian describing the elementary fields $q_L$ and their mixings with the
composite states becomes
\bea
\mathcal{L}_{\rm elem}&=&
i\ \bar{q}_L\,\Sla{D}q_L -\left[y_L\, f\left(\bar{q}^5_L U_{gs}\right)_{i} {Q}_R^i + \mbox{h.c.}\right]\nonumber\\
&& - y_L\, c_2\, f\left(\bar{q}_L^5 U_{gs}\right)_5 u_R - y_L\, c_3\, f\left(\bar{q}_L^5 U_{gs}\right)_5 \tilde{U}_R + \mbox{h.c.}\,.
\label{eq:lagr_elem_compuR}
\eea
The partial compositeness assumption implies that $q_L$ only mixes
with a single composite operator of the strong dynamics. Thus, we expect
all its mixings with the resonances to have comparable strengths.
We weighted the mass mixings in Eq.~\eqref{eq:lagr_elem_compuR} with an overall factor $y_L$ in order to account for this expectation. Possible deviations are parameterized by the $\mathcal{O}(1)$
parameters $c_2$ and $c_3$.
The spectrum of the model goes as follows. $X_{5/3}$ does not mix and has mass $M_4$. The mass matrix of the up-type sector in Eq.~\eqref{uMassmat} now reads
\beq\label{upmatrixfc}
\mathcal{M}_u=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
-\frac{y_L c_2 f}{\sqrt{2}} \sin \epsilon &y_L f \cos^2 \frac{\epsilon}{2} & y_L f \sin^2 \frac{\epsilon}{2} &-\frac{y_L c_3 f}{\sqrt{2}} \sin \epsilon\\
0 & M_4 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & M_4 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & M_1
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\eeq
while the mass matrix in the down-type sector is the same as in Eq.~\eqref{dMassmat}.
The lightest up-type eigenvalue, which we identify with the mass of the SM up quark, is
\beq
m_u \simeq c_2 y_L v \cos\varphi
\approx c_2 y v \cos \varphi,
\label{eq:mass_compuR}
\eeq
to leading order in $v/f$, where $\varphi \equiv \tan^{-1}(y_L f/M_4)$.
Therefore $y_L$ has to be small $\sim \mathcal{O}(m_u/v)$ in order to reproduce the light SM quark masses, and we set $y_L=0$ in the following.
In this limit $\mathcal{M}_u$ in Eq.~\eqref{upmatrixfc} is diagonal and the masses
of the up-type quark partners are simply
\beq
m_U=m_{X_{2/3}}=m_D=m_{X_{5/3}}= M_4\,,
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad m_{\tilde{U}}=M_1\,,
\eeq
while $u_R^{\rm SM}=u_R$ remains massless.
As for the partially composite case with an elementary $u_R$, the only
terms which break the custodial ${\rm SO}(3)_c$ symmetry in the Lagrangian is the mixing of the
elementary doublet $q_L$. In the $y_L=0$ limit, the custodial invariance
is thus exact and dictates the structure of mixings and interactions among fermions.
It thus proves useful to classify the latter in terms of ${\rm SO}(3)_c$ representations. $u_R$, $\tilde U$ and $U_m$ fields are custodial singlets, while $X_{5/3}$,
$D$ and $U_p$ form a triplet, where $U_{p,m}$ are defined in terms of the original fields $U$ and $X_{2/3}$ as in Eq.~\eqref{defUpm}.
The other $d_\mu$ terms in Eq.~\eqref{fcLag} with coefficients
$c_L$ and $c_R$ also induce interactions between the fourplet $Q$ and the singlet $\tilde U$.\\
We now discuss the interactions of the fully composite $u_R$ with the composite resonances which are relevant for production and decay of the partners at the LHC. These interactions are characterized by the Lagrangian in Eq.~\eqref{Lint}.
We first consider the limiting cases with only one multiplet, either the singlet $\tilde U$ or the fourplet $Q$, present in the low-energy spectrum. We close with the more general case where both multiplets are below the cut-off of the effective theory.\\
\subsubsection{Light singlet partner interactions}
When the fourplet is decoupled, $M_4\to \infty$, and only $\tilde U$ is light, the effective Lagrangian significantly simplifies.
In particular the SM up-type quark interactions with the heavy partners are
necessarily mediated by the $y_L c_2$ mixing and are thus extremely small. Heavy partners production at the LHC is therefore very suppressed which does not yield any interesting signal.
\subsubsection{Light fourplet partner interactions}
Although the mixing between the elementary states and the composite fermions disappears
completely in the $y_L=0$ limit, sizable interactions between the composite
states and $u_R$, coming from the $d_\mu$ term
controlled by $c_1\sim \mathcal{O}(1)$ in Eq.~\eqref{fcLag}, are still present.
In the limit where only the fourplet is light and the singlet is decoupled ($M_1\to \infty$), $u_R$ interactions with the fourplet
states from the $d_\mu$ term in Eq.~\eqref{fcLag} are
\beq
{\cal L} \supset -i \sqrt{2}\,\frac{c_1}{f}\bar{U}_{m,R} \gamma^\mu\left(\partial_\mu h \right)u_R - c_1 \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \sin \epsilon
\left(\frac{1}{c_w}\bar{U}_{p,R}\,\Sla{Z} + \bar{D}\,\Sla{W}^-
-\bar{X}_{5/3}\,\Sla{W}^+\right)u_R +\mbox{h.c.}. \label{c1term}
\eeq
The EW gauge bosons mediate the interactions between the custodial triplet and $u_R$ with the following
couplings
\bea
g_{WuD}=-g_{WuX}=c_w\, g_{ZuU_p} = - c_1 \sin\epsilon \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}.
\label{funo}
\eea
The linear Higgs term is a derivative interaction as expected from
the NGB nature of the Higgs.
Since we will only work at tree-level, we simply integrate the first term by part in Eq.~\eqref{c1term}
and use the quark equations of motion in order to obtain the $u_R^{\rm SM}-h-U_{lL}$ coupling
\beq
\lambda_{huU_l}= - \sqrt{2} c_1 \frac{M_4}{f}\,,
\label{ftres}
\eeq
where $U_l=U_m$.
Note that the coupling structure of a fully composite $u_R$ is qualitatively similar to that of the partially composite case. In particular $U_p$ only couples to $u_R^{\rm SM}$ through the $Z$ boson, while $U_m$ does so only through the Higgs boson.
\subsubsection{Generic fully composite case}
In the generic case where both the fourplet $Q$ and the singlet $\tilde U$ are present in the
effective theory, the $d_\mu$ terms of coefficients $c_{L,R}$ yield
additional couplings between the fourplet states and $\tilde{U}$, which are defined through the interaction Lagrangian
\beq
\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}^{\rm heavy} = -\lambda_{h\tilde U U_l} h\bar{\tilde U}_L U_{l R}+g_{W\tilde U D} \bar D\,\Sla{W^-}\tilde U+g_{W\tilde U X}\bar X_{5/3}\,\Sla{W^+}\tilde U+g_{Z\tilde U U_p} \bar U_p\,\Sla{Z}\tilde U+{\rm h.c.}\,.
\eeq
$\tilde U$ interacts either through the EW gauge bosons with couplings
\bea\label{funocp}
g_{W\tilde{U}D} &=& -g_{W\tilde{U}X}=c_w\, g^{L,R}_{Z\tilde{U}U_p}=- c_{L,R} \sin\epsilon\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}
\eea
or through the Higgs boson with coupling
\bea
\lambda_{h\tilde{U}U_l} &=& \sqrt{2} c_{L,R} \frac{M_1-M_4}{f}\,,
\eea
with $U_l=U_m$.
While partner production proceeds as in the limiting cases where only $Q$ or $\tilde U$ is light, the decays are modified. For instance, if $M_4 > M_1+m_{W,Z,h}$,
the fourplet states can cascade decay through $\tilde U$, in addition to the direct decay into light quarks and $W^\pm,Z$ and $h$.
\section*{Still to do}\label{sec:todo}
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\input{intro.tex}
\section{Modeling the composite light quark flavors}\label{sec:mod}
\input{model.tex
\section{Hadron collider signatures of light composite partners}\label{sec:signal}
\input{signatures.tex}
\section{Existing direct searches and indirect constraints}\label{sec:searches}
\input{searches.tex}
\section{Bounds on non-degenerate composite light partners}\label{sec:results}
\input{results.tex}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
\input{conclusions.tex}
\bigskip
\emph{Acknowledgements:} \\
The work of CD is supported by the ANR project ENIGMASS.
TF and SL are supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) N01120547.
J. G--F is supported by MICINN FPA2010-20807, CSD-2008-0037, EU grant FP7 ITN INVISIBLES (Marie Curie Actions
PITN-GA-29011-2989442) and by Spanish ME FPU grant AP2009-2546.
The work of GP is supported by grants from GIF, IRG, ISF, Minerva and the Gruber award.
TF and SL would like to thank the CERN theory group and the Weizmann Institute of Science for their
hospitality when part of this work was done.\\
J. G--F would also like to thank CERN theory group and ITP Heidelberg for their
hospitality during part of this work.
\bigskip
\subsection{Exclusion limits from QCD pair production}\label{sec:pairprod}
The ATLAS $WWjj$ analysis search of Ref.~\cite{Aad:2012bt} based on 7 TeV data excludes up and charm fourplet partner masses up to $M_4^{u,c}\gtrsim390\,$GeV at 95$\%$ CL. These bounds are similar to those obtained from the Tevatron data (see Appendix~\ref{sec:app4}).
Recasting the leptoquark CMS search or Ref.~\cite{cms8lepto} based on 8 TeV data exclude fourplet partner up to
\begin{equation}
M_4^{u,c}\gtrsim 530\,\rm GeV\,,
\end{equation}
at 95$\%$ CL.
Note that, despite smaller efficiencies, the limit from this recast is stronger than those derived from more dedicated searches at ATLAS, as the former are based on much less luminosity. We also stress that adjusting the cuts on the $\mu^+\mu^-jj$ channel in order to optimize the sensitivity to first and second generation quark partners should result in stronger bounds.
The model-independent bounds are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pairres}, assuming the resonances are only produced in pairs through QCD interactions.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{QCD_bounds.eps}
\caption{Model Independent predictions for $WWjj$ cross sections through QCD pair production of $-1/3$ and $5/3$ charge partners of the composite right-handed up and charm quarks. The solid black (red) line stands for
the $7\,$TeV ($8\,$TeV) cross section. They are the same for the first two generations and in both partially and fully quark scenarios.
The dashed black line represents the strongest 95$\%$ CL exclusion limit available on this channel coming from recasting the leptoquark
CMS search or Ref.~\cite{cms8lepto} based on 8 TeV data, while the dashed red line corresponds to the 95$\%$ CL exclusion limit from
the ATLAS search of Ref.~\cite{Aad:2012bt} based on 7 TeV data.}
\label{fig:pairres}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Exclusion limits from single production}\label{sec:singleprod}
We now move to describe the exclusion limits on the fourplet partners from single production in the partially and fully composite quark cases. We assume here also that the singlet partners are decoupled.
The relevant parameters in this case are the fourplet masses and the corresponding level of right-handed quark compositeness $y_R^{u,c}$ in the partially composite case, or the coefficient of the flavor dependent $d_\mu$-term $c_1^{u,c}$ which specifies the coupling of the SM composite light quarks to the fourplet partners in the fully composite case.
In order to illustrate the relative impact of the searches we focus here on a benchmark point with $y_R^x=1$ and $c_1^x=1$. We discuss the implications of varying these parameters in the following subsection, in which we combine all existing bounds in order to derive the strongest available direct constraints as functions of the fundamental parameters $M_4^x$ and $y_R^x$ or $c_1^x$.
We only show in this part the strongest exclusion limits on the model parameters obtained by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations. We refer the dedicated reader to Appendix~\ref{sec:app4} for a detailed presentation of all exclusion limits obtained from the direct searches considered in Section~\ref{sec:searches}.
As the relevant analyses from ATLAS and CMS are quite different and subject to different type of systematics we summarize them separately.
\subsubsection{ATLAS bounds from $7\,$TeV data}
We first consider bounds from ATLAS analyses at the $7\,$TeV LHC~\cite{ATLAS:pp,Aad:2012bt}. The strongest bound arises from $Wjj$ final states analysed in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:pp}. Figure~\ref{fig:atlassing}
shows that fourplet up partners are excluded up to
\begin{equation}
M_4^u\gtrsim 1.4\,\rm TeV\,
\end{equation}
at 95 $\%$ CL in partially composite models with $y_R^u=1$. The $Zjj$ cross section measurement also constrains the existence of up partners. However, since $Wjj$ final states receive contributions from both
$X_{5/3}^u$ and $D$ partners, larger cross sections are expected relative to the $Zjj$ channel which receives contributions from $U_p$ production only.
Moreover, as the current experimental limits
on $Wjj$ and $Zjj$ final states are comparable, the bound on the fourplet mass is dominated by the $Wjj$ channel.
The $Wjj$ channel is also the most sensitive probe of second generation partners through single production of $S$ and $X_{5/3}^c$. The resulting bound on the fourplet mass is
\begin{equation}
M_4^c\gtrsim 420\,\rm GeV\,
\end{equation}
at 95$\%$ CL.
The cross section for single $C_p$ production are just below present limits in the $Zjj$ channel for $y_R^c=1$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lhc7} in the Appendix). Besides, there is no limit from the $ZZjj$ channel sensitive to double production of $C_p$. Hence, ATLAS is most likely not directly probing the existence of this state.
For a fully composite right-handed up and charm quarks the strongest bounds on the partners also come from the $Wjj$ channel. For $c_1^u=1$, the ATLAS limit on the $Wjj$ cross section excludes at 95$\%$ CL the presence of light first generation fourplet partners up to
\begin{equation}
M_4^u\gtrsim 2\,\rm TeV\,,
\end{equation}
while second generation partners as light as
\begin{equation}
M_4^c\gtrsim 950\,\rm GeV\,,
\end{equation}
are allowed at 95$\%$ CL.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{pc_bounds_atlas7.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fc_bounds_atlas7.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Predictions for $Wjj$ cross sections as a function of the fourplet partner mass $M_4^x$, $x=u,c$, in the partially (left) and fully (right) composite right-handed for two generation quarks. The solid black (red) lines denote the cross section from $D$ and $X_{5/3}^u$ ($S$ and $X_{5/3}^c$) single production, while the dashed curve is the 95$\%$ CL exclusion limit from the ATLAS search of Ref.~\cite{ATLAS:pp} at the $7\,$TeV LHC run.}
\label{fig:atlassing}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{CMS bounds from $8\,$TeV data}
The CMS $W/Z$-tagged and dijet measurement of Ref.~\cite{CMS:wzdijet} yield the
most stringent constraint on our scenario.
Single production of both $-1/3$ and $5/3$ charge partners modifies the $Wjj$ cross section, whereas $Zjj$ final states are produced only through single production of $2/3$ states, leading to weaker constraints.
In the partially composite case, the measured $Wjj$ cross section constrains the mass of the first generation fourplet partner to
\begin{equation}
M_4^u\gtrsim 1.7\,\rm TeV\,,
\end{equation}
at 95$\%$ CL for $y_R^u=1$, which is the strongest
bound obtained from current existing searches in this scenario.
The corresponding bound from the $Zjj$ cross section is $M_4^u\gtrsim 1.4\,$TeV at 95$\%$ CL, which is stronger than the ATLAS bound from $7\,$TeV data in the $Zjj$ channel. For $y_R^c=1$, the existence of a light fourplet partner of a partially composite right-handed charm quark is not probed by the $W/Z$-tagged dijet analysis, due to cross sections significantly smaller than the present experimental sensitivity.
The $Wjj$ cross section and the corresponding experimental limits are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:cmssing}.
In fully composite scenarios with $c_1^u=c_1^c=1$, the corresponding 95$\%$ CL bounds are
\begin{equation}
M_4^u\gtrsim 3.9\,\rm TeV\,,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
M_4^c\gtrsim 1.3\,\rm TeV\,,
\end{equation}
for first and second generation partners, respectively.
Note that resonances are no longer narrow for $c_1^x=1$, with width over mass ratios exceeding $30\%$ for resonances above $2.3\,$TeV. Hence,
these bounds are to be taken with a grain of salt as the search efficiency may be significantly reduced in this case.
They are nonetheless informative and illustrate the constraining power of the $W/Z$-tagged dijet search relative to the other final states.\\
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{pc_bounds_cms8.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fc_bounds_cms8.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Predictions for $Wjj$ cross sections as a function of the fourplet partner mass $M_4^x$, $x=u,c$, in the partially (left) and fully (right) composite right-handed for two generation quarks. The solid black (red) denote the cross section from $D$ and $X_{5/3}^u$ ($S$ and $X_{5/3}^c$) single production, while the dashed curve is the 95$\%$ CL exclusion limit from the CMS $W/Z$-tagged dijet search of Ref.~\cite{CMS:wzdijet} at the $8\,$TeV LHC run.}
\label{fig:cmssing}
\end{figure}
In conclusions of this part, we find that current constraints on the fourplet partners of the first two generation quarks are
dominated by $Wjj$ searches for single production signals (though $Zjj$ searches are not far behind) and the leptoquark search in $WWjj$ final state
for pair production signals.
Note that, despite the larger cross sections, bounds from $8\,$TeV data are only slightly more stringent than those from $7\,$TeV data. Besides the larger integrated luminosity at the $8\,$TeV LHC run, this results from the absence of forward jet requirement in the CMS $W/Z$-tagged dijet analysis. Indeed, as a forward jet is almost always radiated in single production of heavy-quark partners
the sensitivity of the $W/Z$-tagged dijet search is significantly reduced relative to $7\,$TeV searches. Note also that the presence of a light charge $2/3$ charm partner $C_p$ is not directly constrained by any existing searches for $y_R^c=1$ or $c_1^c=1$, because the experimental sensitivity to singly produced $C_p$ is currently too small and there is no available
pair production analysis of $ZZjj$ final state.
\subsection{Summary: combined limits on non-degenerate light partners}\label{sec:rescom}
In this part we combine the bounds from all existing searches in order to derive the strongest
limits on light fermionic partners of partially and fully composite right-handed up and charm quarks.
In the analysis presented below we also show the impact on varying the model parameters $y_R^x$ and $c_1^x$, which were kept fixed in Section~\ref{sec:singleprod}.
We first derive the combined 95$\%$ CL exclusion limit for each generation separately. In order to perform this combination
we build a simple $\chi^2$ function as
\beq\label{chi2_indiv}
\chi^2=\sum_i \frac{\sigma(M_4^x)_i^2}{\Delta(M_4^x)_i^2}\,,
\eeq
for $x=u$ or $c$, where the $i$ index runs over the Tevatron and LHC searches listed in Section~\ref{directsearches}. $\sigma(M_4^x)_i$ is the cross section in the channel $i$ predicted from the existence of a light fourplet partner of mass $M_4^x$, while the standard deviation $\Delta(M_4^x)_i$ is obtained from
the observed 95$\%$ CL exclusion limit $\sigma(M_4)_i^{95\%{\rm CL}}$ assuming a Gaussian error with zero mean, {\it i.e.}
$\Delta(M_4)_i\equiv\sigma(M_4)_i^{95\%{\rm CL}}/1.96$. Figure~\ref{fig:yrigc1} shows the combined 95$\%$ CL exclusion contours in the $y_R-M_4$ and $c_1-M_4$ planes for the partially and fully composite scenarios, respectively, resulting from a $\chi^2$ analysis based on Eq.~\eqref{chi2_indiv}.
In the partially composite case the combined 95$\%$ CL bounds for $y_R^x=1$ are
\begin{equation}
M_4^u\gtrsim 1.8\,\rm TeV\,,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
M_4^c\gtrsim 610\,\rm GeV\,,
\end{equation}
for up and charm partners, respectively. Corresponding bounds in the fully composite scenario are
\begin{equation}
M_4^u\gtrsim 3.9\,\rm TeV\,,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
M_4^c\gtrsim 1.3\,\rm TeV\,,
\end{equation}
for up and charm partners, respectively.\\
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{yR_M4.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{c1_M4.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Combined 95$\%$ CL exclusion limits in the parameter space of partially (left) and fully (right) composite up and charm quark singlets.
$M_4^x$, $x=u,c$, are the masses of the fourplet resonances mixing with the SM up and charm right-handed quarks. $y_R^x$ ($c_1^x$) are the mixing parameters in the partially (fully) composite case. Limits are derived using a $\chi^2$ analysis based on Eq.~\eqref{chi2_indiv}.
The solid black (red) line corresponds to the combined 95 $\%$ CL exclusion limit for the
up (charm) fourplet partner. The green line is the model-independent exclusion limit at 95$\%$ CL from QCD pair production. Shaded regions are excluded. The width to mass ratio of the resonances exceeds 30$\%$ above the dashed blue line.}
\label{fig:yrigc1}
\end{figure}
Reference~\cite{Redi:2013eaa} reported stringent bounds on the right-handed charm (and top) partners in cases where both strong dynamics mass parameters and right-handed mixings are flavor universal. These strong bounds are dominantly driven by the first generation partners whose production cross sections at hadron colliders are sustained by relatively large up-quark PDFs. We derive here the bound on right-handed up and charm fourplet partners in a more general setup where the flavor universality assumption is dropped. This can be done in splitting either the mixing parameters, the strong dynamics masses or both. For simplicity we only consider below the former two cases. A careful study of the most general case where both mixings and masses are flavor non-universal, albeit interesting on its own, would require a rather involved statistical analysis which is far beyond the scope of this work. Hence, we first assume the multiplets from the strong dynamics are not degenerate, $M_4^u\neq M_4^c$, but the mixing parameters are still universal, $y_R^u=y_R^c$ or $c_1^u=c_1^c$. We then focus on the other limit where the multiplet are degenerate but the mixing parameters can differ from each other.
In order to analyse the case where mixing parameters are degenerate, we build a $\chi^2$ function as
\beq\label{chi2_incoherent}
\chi^2= \sum_i \left[\frac{\sigma(M_4^u)_i^2}{\Delta(M_4^u)_i^2}+\frac{\sigma(M_4^c)_i^2}{\Delta(M_4^c)_i^2}\right]\,,
\eeq
where the sum goes over all experimental searches. We explicitly neglect in Eq.~\eqref{chi2_incoherent} possible correlations between the up and charm resonance contributions. We motivate this choice as follows.
Figure~\ref{fig:yrigc1} shows that, when taken individually, up partners are much more severely constrained than charm partners, assuming equal mixing parameters. Therefore, the $\chi^2$ of Eq.~\eqref{chi2_incoherent} is minimal generically when the up and charm partner resonances are well separated, $|M_4^u-M_4^c|\gg \Gamma$, so that their respective signals can be added incoherently. Figure~\ref{fig:uvscmass} shows the bounds resulting from a $\chi^2$ analysis based on Eq.~\eqref{chi2_incoherent} for the partially and fully composite quark scenarios. Note that, in particular, up partner masses as high as 1.3$\,$TeV, 1.8$\,$TeV and 3.0$\,$TeV are excluded at the $95\%$ CL for
$y_R=0.5$, $1$ and $2$, respectively, in the partially composite case, and so regardless of the charm partner mass.
Similarly, for fully composite quarks, up partner masses below 530$\,$GeV, 3.1$\,$TeV and 3.6$\,$TeV are excluded at the $95\%$ CL for $c_1=0.1$, $0.3$ and $0.6$, respectively, for any charm partner mass.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{Mu_Mc_yR.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{Mu_Mc_c1.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Combined bound on fourplet partners in the $M_4^u-M_4^c$ plane assuming universal mixing parameters for the first two generation quarks. The solid black lines denote the 95$\%$ CL combined bound for various values of $y_R^u=y_R^c=y_R$ in the partially composite scenario (left) and of $c_1^u=c_1^c=c_1$ in the fully composite scenatio (right). Shaded regions on the left and below the $y_R$ or $c_1$ contours are excluded.}
\label{fig:uvscmass}
\end{figure}
In a limit where the resonances are degenerate, $M_4^u=M_4^c\equiv M_4$ but the mixing parameters are different, we use in place of Eq.~\eqref{chi2_incoherent} the $\chi^2$ function
\beq\label{chi2_coherent}
\chi^2=\sum_i \frac{\left[\sigma(M_4^u)_i+
\sigma(M_4^c)_i\right]^2}{\Delta(M_4)^2_i}\,,
\eeq
in order to properly account for correlations among the up and charm partner signals. Figure~\ref{fig:uvsccoupl} shows the bounds in the $y_R^u-y_R^c$ and $c_1^u-c_1^c$ planes for various values of $M_4$ in partially and fully composite scenarios, respectively, resulting from a $\chi^2$ analysis based on Eq.~\eqref{chi2_coherent}.
In the partially composite case the combined 95$\%$ CL bounds for $M_4=600\,$GeV are
\begin{equation}
y_R^u\lesssim 0.3\,,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
y_R^c\lesssim 1\,,
\end{equation}
for up and charm partners, respectively. Corresponding bounds in the fully composite scenario are
\begin{equation}
c_1^u\lesssim 0.2\,,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
c_1^c\lesssim 0.6\,,
\end{equation}
for up and charm partners, respectively.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{yu_yc.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{c1u_c1c.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Combined bounds on fourplet partners in the $y_R^u-y_R^c$ (left) and $c_1^u-c_1^c$ (right) planes for the partially and fully composite quark scenarios, respectively. Lines denote the 95$\%$ CL bounds for universal mass parameters, $M_4^u=M_4^c=M_4$ in units of GeV. Regions above and on the right of the lines are excluded. We denote in dashed blue the region of parameters where at least one resonance width exceeds $30\%$ of its mass.}
\label{fig:uvsccoupl}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Implications of additional light SO(4) singlet partners}\label{sec:res5plet}
We presented above constraints on the fourplet partners in the limit where singlet states were decoupled from the low-energy theory, $M_1^x\to \infty$. We comment here on the implications of having a light singlet close in mass to the fourplet states, $M_1^x\sim M_4^x$. Although these states are not currently directly probed at the LHC, their existence may still affect
production and decay of fourplet states in adequate regions of parameter space.
For illustration we only focus on describing how the existence of an additional singlet partner of the right-handed up quark modifies the fourplet bounds derived previously. Similar considerations apply to charm partners as well. In order to allow transparent comparisons with above results we set $f=600\,$GeV. We also consider for simplicity $c=0$ in the partially composite case. (A detailed study of the impact of $c\neq0$ is beyond the scope of this analysis.)\\
Fourplet bounds are modified through two main effects, which tend to reduce the EW gauge bosons plus jets signals:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$X_{5/3}$, $D$, and $U_p$ states may have reduced branching ratios into $u_R$ and an EW gauge boson. Indeed,
for sufficiently small $M_1^x$, $X_{5/3}$, $D$, and
$U_p$ can now also decay into the singlet resonance and an EW gauge boson, with the singlet decaying further into a Higgs boson and a jet. This cascade decay leads to different final
states which escape searches used in order to bound the fourplet parameters, thus weakening the associated constraints. This effect is common to partially and fully composite scenarios.
\item In partially composite models, single production cross sections of $X_{5/3}$, $D$ and $U_p$ are also reduced in the presence of light singlets. In this case $u_R$ mixes with a linear combination of the fourplet state $U_m$ and the singlet $\tilde{U}$. Since only $U_m$ couples to the custodial triplet $X_{5/3}$, $D$ and $U_p$, the coupling of the SM up quark to fourplet states and EW gauge boson is reduced, relative to the limit where the singlet is decoupled. This effect is absent in fully composite models as there is no large mass mixing between $u_R$ and the singlet resonance.
\end{itemize}
Figure~\ref{fig:yrig_gen} shows the quantitative impact of the effects discussed above on $95\%$ CL exclusion limit in the $y^u_R-M_4^u$ and $c_1^u-M_4^u$ planes as a function of $M_1^u$, for partially and fully composite $u_R$.
In partially composite models the presence of a light singlet can significantly relax the bound on the fourplet state. For instance, for $y_R^u=1$, the
$95\%$ CL bound on the fourplet mass from single production channels goes from $M_4^u\gtrsim 1.8\,$TeV for $M_1^u\to \infty$ down to $M_4^u\gtrsim 600\,$GeV for $M_1^u= 200\,$GeV.
It also appears that the
dominant effect in this case comes from the reduced production cross sections.
In fully composite models the presence of the extra singlet only reduces EW gauge bosons plus jets signals through eventual cascade decays. The couplings relevant for these decays are found in Eq.~\eqref{funocp}. They depend on the parameters $c_{L,R}$, while
$X_{5/3}$, $D$, and $U_p$ decays are controlled by $c_1$ (see Eq.~\eqref{funo}). The ratio of branching ratios between these two channels scales like $c_{L,R}^2/c_1^2$, so that constraints on the fourplet partner in fully composite models are substantially relaxed
when $M_1^u \lesssim M_4^u+m_{W/Z}$
and $c_{L/R}\gg c_1$, as shown on the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:yrig_gen}.\\
Several comments are in order. First of all, effects from the cascade decays are only relevant in a small region of parameter space. For $m_{U_1}\gtrsim M_4^u+m_{W/Z}$, on-shell cascade decay is kinematically forbidden and phase-space suppressed off-shell. For $m_{U_1}\ll M_4^u$ the effects are also negligible. Indeed, in this
regime, although cascade decays would be kinematically allowed, the mass eigenstate $U_1$ almost coincide with the singlet and thus has a suppressed coupling to the custodial triplet states $X_{5/3}$, $D$ and $U_p$. Cascade decays therefore only play a role when
$m_{U_1}\lesssim M_4+m_{W/Z}$.
Note also that $c\neq0$ in partially composite models also affects production cross sections and decays of the fourplet states. In particular, $c<0$ ($c>0$) enhances (further reduces) single production of fourplet states.
Finally, modifications due to the extra light singlet significantly depend on the value of $f$ in partially composite models. Implications of a change of the latter are however straightforward to estimate as dominant effects are controlled by the $M_1/f$ ratio.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{yR_M4_singlet.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{c1_M4_singlet.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Bounds on right-handed up quark fourplet partners in the presence of an additional light singlet partner. We set $f=600\,$GeV. (Left) 95$\%$ CL bounds in the $y_R^u-M_4^u$ plane for different values of $M_1^u$ and $c=0$ in partially composite models. Solid lines include both the reduced production cross section of fourplet states and reduced branching due to cascade decays, while dashed lines assumes a $100\%$ branching ratio of $X_{5/3}$, $D$ and $U_p$ into $W/Z+$jet. (Right) 95$\%$ CL bounds in the $c_1^u-M_4^u$ plane for $M_1^u=M_4^u/2$ and different values of $c_L^u/c_1^u$ in fully composite models. ($c_R=c_L$ was assumed for simplicity.)}
\label{fig:yrig_gen}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Relevant direct searches}\label{directsearches}
\subsubsection{Heavy quark searches in EW gauge bosons plus jets channels}
We review here existing experimental analysis seeking heavy fermionic partners which decay into light jets
and EW gauge bosons.
These include:
\begin{itemize}
\item CDF and D0 analyses based on, respectively, $Wjj$~\cite{CDF:wj} and $Wjj$ and $Zjj$~\cite{Abazov:2010ku} final states, and both using 5.4 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.
These searches are sensitive to singly produced resonances within the custodial triplet. They assume a leptonically decaying $W$ or $Z$ boson and further take advantage of special kinematics of the final
states arising from up and charm partner decays in order to suppress SM backgrounds. In particular,
cuts designed to single out a high-$p_T$ jet, together with a forward jet and one or more hard leptons from a highly boosted EW boson are imposed.
Moreover, for $Wjj$ final states, a high transverse missing energy collinear to the lepton is required. The $Wjj$ searches also benefit from the invariant mass reconstructed by the lepton, the hardest jet and the missing transverse
momenta in searching for fermionic resonances.
\item CDF and D0 analyses based on $WWjj$ and using, respectively, 5.6 fb$^{-1}$~\cite{Aaltonen:2011tq}
and 5.3 fb$^{-1}$~\cite{Abazov:2011vy} of integrated luminosity.
This channel is sensitive to pair produced $D$ and $X_{5/3}$ resonances within the custodial triplet.
The analyses focus on semi-leptonically decaying $W$ pairs. Thus they only select events with one hard isolated lepton, large
missing transverse energy and four isolated jets, one of which having large transverse momentum. Both analyses
use the $H_T$ variable together with a fitted mass method in order to derive exclusion bounds on pair production cross sections
of fermionic partners.
\item ATLAS analysis based on $Zjj$ and $Wjj$ final states, using 4.64 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity at the $7\,$TeV LHC run~\cite{ATLAS:pp}. Here the experiment searched for singly produced heavy quarks with large couplings to the SM up quark and ÊW gauge bosons by looking for final states with a jet with high
transverse momentum, a sub-leading jet in the forward direction and one or two isolated hard leptons originating from $W$ or $Z$ decay, respectively.
As for similar searches at the Tevatron, a large transverse missing energy is also required in $Wjj$ final states.
Advantage of the collimated decay products of $W$ and $Z$ bosons is also taken
by imposing rapidity and azimuthal angle cuts between the different reconstructed objects in the event. Cuts are further
optimized using multivariate analysis techniques. Finally, a fitted mass method is used in seeking resonances and placing limits
on their existence.
\item ATLAS analysis based on $WWjj$ final state, using 1.04 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity of the $7\,$TeV LHC run~\cite{Aad:2012bt}.
Both $W$ bosons are required to decay into leptons. Thus characteristic features of this search are at least
two jets, two opposite-sign leptons (out of the Z mass window) and missing transverse energy in the final state.
$H_T$ cut is also imposed. Finally, the heavy partner mass reconstruction benefits from the
large boost each W boson receives from the heavy quark decay, since each missing neutrino is nearly collinear with
its associated charged lepton.
\item CMS search for heavy resonances in the $W/Z$-tagged dijet mass spectrum, using 19.8 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated
luminosity at the $8\,$TeV LHC run~\cite{CMS:wzdijet}. The analysis looks for massive resonances which decay
into a light SM quark and a hadronically decaying weak boson. It takes advantage of the fact that for sufficiently heavy resonances decay products
of the $W$ or $Z$ boson merge into a single jet. This leads to an effective dijet signature in the event, where one jet is tagged as weak boson jet. Extra jets are not vetoed.
The two hardest jets in each event are used to build a dijet spectrum. Narrow resonances would reveal themselves as sharp peaks in the spectrum, in the absence of which bounds on the resonance masses are extracted.
This channel is sensitive to single production of heavy quark partners through EW interactions. In this case,
we checked that the jet from the prompt decay of the partner and the merged jet from W or Z decay
are typically the hardest two in the events. More precisely we find that this is the case in more than 97$\%$ of the events in the mass range the analysis
is sensitive to. Therefore the presence of an extra forward jet coming from single production of the resonances does not significantly impact the efficiencies, so that
this analysis directly applies to composite up and charm SM quark partners.
\end{itemize}
We use direct searches reviewed above in order to bound the existence of the fermionic partners of up and charm SM quarks.
For all analyses we implemented the models of Section~\ref{sec:mod} in FeynRules~\cite{Christensen:2008py}, interfaced
with MadGraph 5~\cite{Alwall:2011uj}, we simulate our signals at the parton level. The exclusion limits from the above searches are then directly
applied to the models considered in this paper as they share the same kinematics than the theoretical setups assumed by the experimental collaborations.
We present our results for both partially and fully composite right-handed quark scenarios in Section~\ref{sec:results}.\\
\subsubsection{Recasting leptoquark searches}
Other experimental searches, designed to search for different types of new physics particles, could also be used {\it a priori} to probe the presence of first two generation quark partners. They include for instance three-jet resonance searches~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012uxa}, originally designed to look for gluinos in $R$-parity-violating supersymmetric models, pair-produced top-like heavy quark searches~\cite{ATLAS:2012qe,Aad:2012xc,CMS:2012ab,Chatrchyan:2012vu}, bottom-like heavy quark searches~\cite{CMS:2012jwa} and pair-produced leptoquark searches~\cite{cms8lepto}.
These searches are however much less efficient, relative to EW gauge bosons and jets channels, in looking for heavy quark partners of the first two generation SM quarks. The reduced efficiency mostly comes from specific requirements on the events, like the presence of $b$-tagged jets or different mass reconstruction assumptions, which are tailored to look for particles whose dynamics qualitatively differs from that of fermionic up and charm partners.
Yet, among the above list, leptoquark searches are based on final states which are close enough to our signal to still yield relevant bounds on partner masses. In particular the pair-produced leptoquark search~\cite{cms8lepto} performed by the CMS collaboration is looking for a $\mu^+\mu^-jj$ final state which can be obtained from pair-produced $D$ and $X_{5/3}$ up and charm partners, each decaying into $Wj$ with a subsequent leptonic $W$ decay. We describe in the following how we recast the CMS leptoquark search of Ref.~\cite{cms8lepto} in order to derive bounds on these partners.\\
We present the qualitative features of the CMS search in Ref.~\cite{cms8lepto} and its recast, while further details in regard to how we performed the latter are collected in Appendix~\ref{sec:app2}.
The CMS analysis is based on 19.6 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity at the $8\,$TeV LHC run with a mass reach extending to $1.2\,$TeV.
We focus on the $\mu^+\mu^-+2$\,jets channel.
Preselection cuts are applied to isolate two hard muons and two hard jets. Further
cuts on $S_T\equiv p_T^{\mu_1}+p_T^{\mu_2}+p_T^{j_1}+p_T^{j_2}$, the dimuon invariant mass $M_{\mu\mu}$, and $M_{\mu j}^{\rm min}$ are then optimized for the leptoquark signal. $M_{\mu j}^{\rm min}$ is defined as the smallest of the two muon-jet invariant masses obtained for the muon-jet pairing which minimizes the difference between the two muon-jet invariant masses~\cite{cms8lepto}.
For recasting the results based on the above analysis, we use background estimations and binned data reported by the CMS collaboration~\cite{cms8lepto}.
We implemented the model of Section~\ref{sec:mod} using FeynRules~\cite{Christensen:2008py} and the corresponding up and charm quark partner signals were simulated with MadGraph 5~\cite{Alwall:2011uj} for event generation, interfaced with PYTHIA~\cite{Sjostrand:2006za}
for parton shower and hadronization and with a PGS 4~\cite{pgs} detector simulation. We also simulate in the same way the leptoquark signal assumed in Ref.~\cite{cms8lepto}. This leptoquark simulation is then used
to further tune the heavy quark partner simulation in order to match CMS detection efficiencies quoted for leptoquark signals.
The CMS results are presented with
different invariant mass distributions and selection cut levels which we take advantage from in order to improve our recast
of the CMS analysis.
We then use the following statistical method in order to derive exclusion limits for the up and charm quark partners. First of all, we build a binned
log-likelihood function for each available distribution,
where the number of observed events are assumed to follow a Poisson distribution. Then, these log-likelihood
functions are individually maximized (or equivalently the corresponding $\chi^2$'s are minimized) in order to derive partner mass values excluded at 95$\%$ confidence level (CL) for each distribution.
Finally, for each partner mass value, we quote as exclusion limit the strongest limit of those obtained out all available kinematical distributions.
Bounds obtained from this leptoquark search recast should however be taken with a grain of salt, when compared with that of
EW gauge boson plus jets reviewed in the previous subsection, as
additional assumptions were made in the determination of the former. First of all, while tuning our simulated efficiencies to match those of CMS for total event rates, we neglected a possible dependence of the
efficiencies on the energy and momentum of the particles in the events. Moreover, theoretical uncertainties
were included in a simplified way in the statistical analysis. Nevertheless,
we observe that the bounds are still statistically dominated, so that the exclusion limits that we derive from this recast are relatively accurate.
Besides deriving exclusion limits, another motivation for recasting the CMS leptoquark analysis is to encourage experimental collaborations to perform searches similar to that in Ref.~\cite{cms8lepto}, but with slightly different cuts optimized for first two generation quark partners.
Indeed, we show in the next section that exclusion limits based on this recast are, as expected, significantly diluted relative to the limits on leptoquark masses found in Ref.~\cite{cms8lepto}. We also show bounds from this recast are not considerably weaker than those from more straightforward EW gauge bosons and jets channels. Hence, we argue that a search similar to the leptoquark one in Ref.~\cite{cms8lepto} but with optimized cuts would potentially have a higher reach than EW gauge bosons plus jets channels, given the much smaller luminosity of the latter.
\subsection{Indirect constraints from dijet production}\label{indirectsearches}
Strong dynamics near the TeV scale leads to significant new physics sources of dijet production at the LHC when the
light SM quarks have a large degree of compositeness~\cite{Eichten}. Sizable dijet contributions arise in the presence of a light color octet vector resonance in the effective theory~\cite{flavor-triviality1,Redi-Weiler,Da-Rold-Delaunay-Grojean-Perez,Redi:2013eaa}. Even if such a state is absent, as assumed here, new physics dijet sources are generically induced by unknown physics at the cut-off scale $\Lambda\sim 4\pi f$. These effects are characterized below $\Lambda$ by four-fermion operators in the composite Lagrangian like\footnote{Other combinations of composite resonances, which are not captured in Eq.~\eqref{4F}, are allowed by the global symmetries of the strong dynamics. We do not aim here at a complete study of all four-fermion interactions, but we view Eq.~\eqref{4F} as general enough to illustrate the typical level of dijet contributions induced by the strong dynamics.}
\beq
\frac{1}{2f^2}\left[(\bar Q \gamma_\mu Q)^2+(\bar{\tilde U} \gamma_\mu \tilde U)^2+(\bar u_R\gamma_\mu u_R)^2\right]\,,\label{4F}
\eeq
where $\mathcal{O}(1)$ differences in their coefficients have been neglected and the last term is only present in fully composite scenarios. Note that the operators in Eq.~\eqref{4F} are not suppressed by the cut-off scale $\Lambda$, but rather by the compositeness scale $f$~\cite{Grojean:2013qca}. This is due to the fact that the UV physics is strongly coupled at $\Lambda$, so that generically the above operators are induced at that scale with coefficients of $\mathcal{O}(16\pi^2/\Lambda^2)$, according to naive dimensional analysis~\cite{NDA}. In the presence of mixings between the chiral quarks and the vector-like heavy resonances, operators like Eq.~\eqref{4F} yield four-fermion interactions in terms of the SM quarks
\beq
{\cal L}_{\rm 4f}=\frac{c_{uu}}{2}\left(\bar u_R^{\rm SM} \gamma_\mu u_R^{\rm SM}\right)^2+\frac{c_{cc}}{2}\left(\bar c_R^{\rm SM} \gamma_\mu c_R^{\rm SM}\right)^2+c_{uc}\left(\bar u_R^{\rm SM} \gamma^\mu u_R^{\rm SM}\right)\left(\bar c_R^{\rm SM} \gamma_\mu c_R^{\rm SM}\right)\,,\label{4FSM}
\eeq
where $c_{uu},\, c_{cc}$ and $c_{uc}$ have mass dimension $-2$.\\
Contact interactions like Eq.~\eqref{4FSM} have peculiar signatures in the angular distribution of dijet events at colliders. Indeed, despite their massive number in hadronic collisions, background dijet events from QCD are primarily produced in the forward direction, near the beam axis, due to a Rutherford-like scattering mediated by massless quarks and gluons in the $t$-channel. On the other hand, dijet events resulting from the contact interactions in Eq.~\eqref{4FSM} tend to be more isotropically distributed in the detector. This qualitative difference appears rather clearly in the event distribution in terms of the kinematical variable $\chi_j\equiv e^{2y_j}$, $y_j$ being the jet rapidity in the partonic center-of-mass frame, where QCD dijets are evenly distributed in $\chi_j$, while those originated from contact interactions are peaking at low $\chi_j$ values. The ATLAS and CMS~\cite{CMSdijet} collaborations searched for the presence of a new physics source in dijet production in the form of a representative contact interaction $c_{qq}/2\times(\bar q_L^{\rm SM}\gamma_\mu q_L^{\rm SM})^2$, involving the first generation left-handed SM quark doublet $q_L^{\rm SM}$. The consistency of the angular distribution of dijet events with QCD expectations leads to the following 95$\%$CL limits on the contact interaction above
\beq
|c_{qq}|^{-1/2}\gtrsim 2.2\,{\rm TeV\ \ \ \ \ for\ \ \ \ }\quad c_{qq}>0\,,
\eeq
from ATLAS~\cite{ATLASdijet}, and
\beq
|c_{qq}|^{-1/2}\gtrsim 2.1\,(3.0)\,{\rm TeV\ \ \ \ \ \ for \ \ \ \ }\quad c_{qq}>0\,(c_{qq}<0)\,,
\eeq
from CMS~\cite{CMSdijet}. The bound is stronger for negative coefficient since the interference is constructive in this case. The sign of the Wilson coefficient in Eq.~\eqref{4F} is not resolved within the effective theory. Nonetheless, we assume constructive interference with QCD in order to remain on the conservative side when comparing with the data. Since neither collaboration analysed the set of operators in Eq.~\eqref{4FSM}, we follow the procedure of Ref.~\cite{Da-Rold-Delaunay-Grojean-Perez} and derive approximate lower bounds by demanding that the $\chi_j$ distributions for various dijet mass bins do not deviate from SM expectations more than in the presence of $c_{qq}/2\times(\bar q_L^{\rm SM}\gamma_\mu q_L^{\rm SM})^2$, with $|c_{qq}|^{-1/2}=3\,$TeV and $c_{qq}<0$. Assuming the presence of each operator in Eq.~\eqref{4FSM} at a time, we find\footnote{The bound on the first generation four-fermion operator is consistent with that obtained from the procedure used in Ref.~\cite{Pomarol-dijets}.}
\beq
|c_{uu}|^{-1/2}\gtrsim 2.8\,{\rm TeV}\,,\quad |c_{cc}|^{-1/2}\gtrsim 300\,{\rm GeV}\,,\quad |c_{uc}|^{-1/2}\gtrsim 800\,{\rm GeV}\,.\label{dijet_bounds}
\eeq
Notice that LHC experiments collected dijet events of invariant masses up to $\simeq4\,$TeV. The effective description breaks down at a scale of at most $\mathcal{O}(4\pi/\sqrt{c})$. We therefore expect $\mathcal{O}(1)$ modification in the $c_ {cc}$ bound due to the neglected radiative corrections.\\
In models where the right-handed up and charm quarks are fully composite fermions, the four-fermion interactions in Eq.~\eqref{4FSM} arise at a scale $|c_{uu}|\sim |c_{cc}|\sim|c_{uc}|\simeq 1/f^2$, where $f\gtrsim 600\,$GeV in order not to introduce overly large tensions with EW precision tests~\cite{Grojean:2013qca}. By comparing with Eq.~\eqref{dijet_bounds}, we conclude that a fully composite $u_R^{\rm SM}$ is in tension with dijet searches at the $7\,$TeV LHC, while the latter is not sensitive to a fully composite $c_R^{\rm SM}$. We nevertheless consider direct LHC signals of heavy partners of a fully composite right-handed up quark in order to illustrate the difference in sensitivity between the first two generation quarks.
For partially composite right-handed up and charm quarks, a smaller dijet contribution is expected, suppressed by the fourth power of the partial compositeness. Since a fully composite right-handed charm is not constrained by dijet data, no constraints are obtained on partially composite charms either.
We thus consider only the first generation. Under the assumption that only the fourplet $Q^i$ or the singlet $\tilde U$ is present in the effective theory, Eq.~\eqref{4F} yields
\beq
c^4_{uu}=\frac{\sin^4\varphi_4}{f^2}\,,\quad c^1_{uu}=\frac{\sin^4\varphi_1}{f^2}\,,
\eeq
respectively, where $\varphi_{1,4}$ are the mixing angles for the first generation. Hence Eq.~\eqref{dijet_bounds} translates into an upper bound on the elementary/composite mixing angle of
\beq
\sin\phi_{1,4}^u\lesssim 0.5\times \left(\frac{f}{600\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\,.
\eeq
We conclude that a partially composite $c_R$ is not constrained by current dijet data, while the latter allows for a large elementary/composite mixing for $u_R$.
\subsection{Production mechanisms}
Since all the partners are colored, all of them can be produced in pairs at hadron colliders through universal QCD interactions as in Fig.~\ref{fig:prodch}c. QCD pair production is the same for all generations. It is furthermore completely model-independent, and its cross-section only depends on the partner mass. In particular, it does not depend on the degrees of compositeness of the associated SM quarks. We now consider in turns all other specific production mechanism of the singlet and fourplet partners. Note that the qualitative features of partner production do not depend on whether both or only one multiplet is present in the effective theory.\\
We begin with production of the ${\rm SO}(4)$ singlet partners. Since the sole interaction of $\tilde U$ with the SM quark is through a Higgs boson, single production of the up and charm partner is suppressed by the square of the SM-like up and charm Yukawa coupling, respectively, and thus negligible\footnote{${\rm SO}(4)$ singlet partners can however be singly produced in the presence of color octet resonances from the strong dynamics~\cite{Carmona:2012jk,Redi:2013eaa}.}.
This contrasts with the top partner case for which the large top mass makes single production one of the dominant mechanism, especially at large top partner mass~\cite{ContinoServant,MrazekWulzer}.
However, as first pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Atre:2013ap}, single production in association with an EW gauge boson or a Higgs boson is possible and occurs through diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{otherprod}.
Finally, the first two generation $\tilde U$ partners can be produced in pairs, either through QCD interactions or through a $t$-channel Higgs exchange as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:prodch}c and Fig.~\ref{otherprod}, respectively. Besides the partner mass dependence, QCD pair production is completely model-independent, while amplitudes involving a Higgs boson are also controlled by $\lambda_{huU_1}\propto v/f$. As a result cross-sections for Higgs-associated single production and Higgs-mediated double production are suppressed by a factor of $(v/f)^2$ and $(v/f)^4$, respectively.\\
The partner states within the ${\rm SO}(4)$ fourplet are produced in different ways depending on their respective custodial representation. On the one hand, the custodial singlet $U_m$ only couples to the Higgs. Thus it is produced either in pair or in association with a Higgs or an EW gauge boson, as $\tilde U$, albeit with a coupling $\lambda_{huU_m}$ which is not suppressed by EWSB.
On the other hand, the custodial triplet states can be singly produced through EW gauge boson exchange, as depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:prodch}a.
Besides QCD pair production, the triplet states are also pair produced through EW interactions as exemplified in Fig.\ref{fig:prodch}b. Both single and double production mechanisms of the triplet states are controlled by the model-dependent couplings $g_{WuX},g_{WuD},g_{ZuU_p}$.\\
All single production through the $qg$ initial state collisions (bottom diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:prodch}a) occurs with the same luminosity for all generations. In contrast, single production through quark-quark initial states (top diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:prodch}a) and EW pair-production have flavor dependent initial states. This leads to significantly different production cross-sections at the LHC for up, charm and top partners due to the different PDFs of the initial quarks. For instance, we find that $uu$-mediated single and pair productions of up quark partners are completely dominated by the $t$-channel $W$ exchange.
The situation differs qualitatively from that of top partners, as the large top mass implies that pair production is QCD dominated (top PDF vanishes at leading QCD order), while single production only occurs through $qg$ collisions~\cite{ContinoServant,MrazekWulzer}. Charm partner production sort of interpolates between the last two cases. Single production is dominated by $uc$ collisions (top diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:prodch}a), while pair production is typically driven by QCD. EW pair production could however become more important than QCD production for large enough values of $y_R$ (in the partially composite $c_R$) or $c_1$ (in the fully composite $c_R$). Note that the two diagrams of Fig.~\ref{fig:prodch}a contribute to different processes only in the kinematical region where the jet resulting from the gluon splitting is requested to have a large $p_T$. If the latter is either soft or collinear, the bottom diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:prodch}a simply becomes part of the NLO correction to the process mediated at leading order by the top diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:prodch}a.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{EW_single_1.eps}\\
\vspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{EW_single_2.eps}\\
\end{tabular}&
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{EW_double.eps}&
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{QCD_pair_1.eps}\\
\vspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{QCD_pair_2.eps}
\end{tabular}\\
(a) EW single production&
(b) EW pair production&
(c) QCD pair production\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Dominant production channels of the up and charm quark composite partners. Similar diagrams with a neutral $Z$ exchange also exist. The $pp$ label in the top diagram in (c) collectively denotes the possible $q\bar q$ and $gg$ intial states.}
\label{fig:prodch}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Higgs_double.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Higgs_single_assoc.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Higgs_single_assoc_1.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Other relevant production channels which will be probed in a near future.}
\label{otherprod}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Decay channels and expected final states kinematics}
The decay of the partners typically goes through the vertex which dominate their production, with the exception of partners produced in pair by QCD interactions.
For instance, the custodial singlet partners, $\tilde U$ and $U_m$, decay into SM quarks and a Higgs boson. For the first two generations these partners are produced either in pairs or in association with a Higgs, a $W$ or a $Z$ boson. Hence, the best channel to look for them involve $hhj$, $hWjj$ or $hZjj$, and $hhjj$ final states.
Note that the $v/f$ suppression factor in the SO(4) singlet coupling to the Higgs boson (see Eq.\eqref{couplingsinglet}) can lead to a significant suppression of the singlet width in the limit of large compositeness scale $f$. In this case it is important to check whether decays through higher-order operators can become competitive. As pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Redi:2013eaa}, two higher-order effective operators can be relevant for the singlet decay. The first one is the loop-generated chromomagnetic operator, which leads to a decay into two jets ($\tilde U \rightarrow q g$). The second one is a four-fermion interaction mediated by an off-shell heavy gauge resonance, which leads to a decay into three jets ($\tilde U \rightarrow q q q$). The estimates for the partial widths of the singlet can be easily obtained from Ref.~\cite{Redi:2013eaa}. In the limit of a light singlet $m_{\tilde U} < m_\rho$, $m_\rho$ being the gauge resonance mass, and for couplings among the heavy states of order $m_\rho/f$, the decay channel $\tilde U \rightarrow hj$ is always dominant. Moreover, among the multi-jet channels, the $\tilde U \rightarrow q q q$ decay has typically a larger branching ratio than $\tilde U \rightarrow q g$.
The triplet states $D,X_{5/3}$ and $U_p$ decay into an EW gauge boson and a SM quark. For up and charm quark partners, the best search channels are thus
$Wjj$ and $Zjj$ for singly produced $D,X_{5/3}$ and $U_p$, respectively, and
$WWjj$ and $ZZjj$ for pair production.
When both $Q$ and $\tilde U$ are present, composite partners can preferentially cascade decay into SM states through lighter partners, provided there is enough phase-space.
For instance, in partially composite $u_R$ scenarios, $D,X_{5/3}$ $U_p$ can first decay into an EW gauge boson and $\tilde U$, provided the latter is sufficiently light, which subsequently decays into a Higgs boson and a jet.
In this case the signature is, respectively, one or two additional Higgs bosons in the final state, for singly or pair produced $D,X_{5/3}$ and $U_p$ partners.
The final states identified above have rather peculiar kinematics which could be profitably used in better extracting NP signals from the SM background.
The heaviness of the produced partners typically implies high-$p_T$ jets and leptons in the final state and highly collimated $W$ and $Z$ boson decay products. The latter expectation usually allows usage of the kinematic variable $H_T$, defined as the sum of transverse momenta of the particles and missing momenta in the event, together with a fitted invariant mass method, in order to
increase signal to background ratio. In addition, at least one leptonically decaying EW gauge boson should be required in order to further reduce background.
Moreover, for pair production channels, at least two high-$p_T$ jets are expected in the final state, whereas for single production channels, the final state typically contains one hard jet from the heavy partner decay and one forward jet produced in association with the heavy partner.\\
This contrast with top partners as they typically lead to taggable top or bottom quarks in the final states. Top partners are thus searched for in dedicated channels with much less background at ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS:topsearches} and CMS~\cite{CMS:topsearches}. One particular example is the $X_{5/3}$ top partner~\cite{ATLAS:53searches,CMS:53searches} which dominantly decays into $W^++t \rightarrow W^+ + W^+ b$. When both $W$ decay leptonically, the final state contains two same-sign charged leptons, a signature which was shown to have a significantly higher signal over background ratio~\cite{ContinoServant,MrazekWulzer}. This peculiar signal does not exist for the up and charm $X_{5/3}$ partners, since they promptly decay into a light quark jet instead of a heavy quark.
|
\section{Introduction}
In any harmonic analysis course it is proved that a Hilbert Transform $H$ satisfies the following weak $(1,1)$ inequality:
\begin{equation}\label{weakweak}
\left|\left\{x\colon |Hf(x)|\geqslant \lambda \right\}\right| \leqslant C\frac{\|f\|_1}{\lambda}, \;\;\; \forall \lambda>0, \;\;\; \forall f\in L^1.
\end{equation}
Here $|\cdot |$ denotes Lebesgue measure.
This inequality is proved by means of a famous Calder\'on-Zygmund decomposition of the function $f$.
In this paper we present an alternative proof of \eqref{weakweak} for operators
$$
T_\varepsilon f(x)=\sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} \varepsilon_I (\varphi, h_I)h_I(x), \;\;\; |\varepsilon_I|=1 \;\; \forall I\in D.
$$
instead of $H$. Here $I_0:=[0,1]$. $D$ denotes the dyadic lattice. $h\ci I$ are normalized in $L^2(\mathbb{R})$ Haar function of
the cube (interval) $I$
$$
h\ci I(t):=
\begin{cases}
\phantom{-}\frac1{\sqrt{|I|}}\,,\quad& t\in I_+
\\
-\frac1{\sqrt{|I|}}\,,& t\in I_-
\end{cases}.
$$
Here $I_\pm$ are two halves of the
interval $I$.
\section{Bellman function}
Introduce a function
$$
\mathcal{B}_0(\lambda, f, F) = \sup \left| \left\{x\colon \sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} \varepsilon_I (\varphi, h_I)h_I(x) \geqslant \lambda \right\}\right|,
$$
where the supremum is taken over all families $\{\varepsilon_I\}$ such that $|\varepsilon_I|=1$, and all functions $\varphi$ with $\av{|\varphi|}{I_0}=F$, $\av{\varphi}{I_0}=f$.
Let $\Omega_0 = \{(\lambda, f, F)\colon F\geqslant |f|\}$ be the domain of $\mathcal{B}_0$.
Denote
$$
B_0(\lambda, f, F)=\begin{cases} 1, &\lambda \leqslant F \\
1-\frac{(\lambda-F)^2}{\lambda^2-f^2}, &\lambda\geqslant F, \end{cases} \; \; \;\;\;\;\;\; (F,f,\lambda)\in \Omega_0.
$$
Our main theorem is the following.
\begin{theorem}
For any $(\lambda, f, F)\in \Omega_0$ it holds that $\mathcal{B}_0(F, f, \lambda)=B_0(F, f, \lambda)$.
\end{theorem}
Firstly, it will be more convenient to work with a slightly modified function. We need a definition.
\begin{defin}
A function $\psi$ is called a martingale transform of a function $\varphi$, if for some family $\{\varepsilon_I\}$, with $|\varepsilon_I|=1$,
$$
\psi(x)=\av{\psi}{I_0} + \sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} \varepsilon_I (\varphi, h_I)h_I(x), \;\;\; x\in I_0.
$$
\end{defin}
Denote
$$
\mathcal{B}(g, f, F) = \sup \left| \left\{x\colon \psi(x)\geqslant 0 \right\}\right|,
$$
where the supremum is taken over all functions $\varphi$ with $\av{|\varphi|}{I_0}=F$, $\av{\varphi}{I_0}=f$, and all martingale transforms $\psi$ of $\varphi$ with $\av{\psi}{I_0}=g$.
It is easy to see that
$$
\mathcal{B}_0(\lambda, f, F)=\mathcal{B}(-g, f, F).
$$
Denote $\Omega = \{(g, f, F)\colon F\geqslant |f|\}$ and
$$
B(g, f, F)=\begin{cases} 1, &-g \leqslant F \\
1-\frac{(g+F)^2}{g^2-f^2}, &-g\geqslant F, \end{cases} \; \; \;\;\;\;\;\; (g,f,F)\in \Omega.
$$
Then our main theorem is equivalent to the following one.
\begin{theorem}
For any $(g, f, F)\in \Omega$ it holds $\mathcal{B}(g, f, F)=B(g, f, F)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor1}
For any function $\varphi\in L^1$, any number $\lambda\geqslant 0$ and any family $\{\varepsilon_I\}$ with $|\varepsilon_I|=1$ it holds
$$
\left| \left\{x\colon \sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} \varepsilon_I (\varphi, h_I)h_I(x) \geqslant \lambda \right\}\right| \leqslant 2\frac{\|\varphi\|_1}{\lambda}
$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to verify that
$$
\sup \left( \mathcal{B}_0(\lambda, f, F) \cdot \frac{\lambda}{F} \right) = 2.
$$
Thus,
$$
\left| \left\{x\colon \sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} \varepsilon_I (\varphi, h_I)h_I(x) \geqslant \lambda \right\}\right| \leqslant 2 \frac{F}{\lambda} = 2\frac{\|\varphi\|_1}{\lambda}.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
For any function $\varphi\in L^1$, any number $\lambda\geqslant 0$ and any family $\{\varepsilon_I\}$ with $|\varepsilon_I|=1$ it holds
$$
\left| \left\{x\colon \sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} \varepsilon_I (\varphi, h_I)h_I(x) \geqslant \lambda \right\}\right| \leqslant 4\frac{\|\varphi\|_1}{\lambda}
$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\begin{multline}\label{multtt}
\left| \left\{x\colon \sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} |\varepsilon_I (\varphi, h_I)h_I(x)| \geqslant \lambda \right\}\right| =
\left| \left\{x\colon \sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} \varepsilon_I (\varphi, h_I)h_I(x) \geqslant \lambda \right\}\right| + \\
\left| \left\{x\colon \sum\limits_{I\subset I_0, \; I\in D} \varepsilon_I (-\varphi, h_I)h_I(x) \geqslant \lambda \right\}\right| \leqslant 4\frac{\|\varphi\|_1}{\lambda}
\end{multline}
$$
$$
\end{proof}
We start to prove our main theorem.
\section{$B\geqslant \mathcal{B}$}
We need a technical lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $x^\pm$ be two points in $\Omega$ such tat
$|f^+-f^-|=|g^+-g^-|$ and $x=\frac12(x^++x^-)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{mi} B(x)-\frac{B(x^+)+B(x^-)}2\ge 0\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Given the lemma, we prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
For any point $x\in \Omega$ it holds $B(x)\geqslant \mathcal{B}(x)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us fix a point $x\in\Omega$ and a pair of admissible functions $\varphi$, $\psi$
on $I_0$ corresponding to $x$. For any $I\in D$ by the symbol $x^{I}$ we denote
the point $(\av{\psi}I, \av{\varphi}I, \av{|\varphi|}I,)$.
We notice that since $\psi$ is a martingale transform of $\varphi$, we always have
$$
|f^{I^+}-f^{I^-}|=|g^{I^+}-g^{I^-}|,
$$
and
$$
x^{I}=\frac{x^{I^+}+x^{I^-}}2.
$$
Using consequently main
inequality for the function $B$ we can write down the following chain of
inequalities
$$
B(x)\ge\frac12\big(B(x^{I_0^+})+B(x^{I_0^-})\big)\ge\sum_{I\in
D,\,|I|=2^{-n}}\frac1{|I|}B(x^{I})=\int_0^1B(x^{(n)}(t))dt\,,
$$
where $x^{(n)}(t)=x^I$, if $t\in I$, $|I|=2^{-n}$.
Note that $x^{(n)}(t)\to(\psi(t), \varphi(t),|\varphi(t)|)$ almost everywhere (at any
Lebesgue point $t$), and therefore, since $B$ is continuous and bounded, we can
pass to the limit in the integral. So, we come to the inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{upest}
B(x)\ge\int_0^1B(\psi(t), \varphi(t),|\varphi(t)|)dt\ge\int_{\{t\colon\psi(t)\ge0\}}
=\big|\{t\in I_0\colon\psi(t)\ge0\}\big|\,
\end{equation}
where we have used the property $B(g,f,|f|)=1$ for $g\ge0$. Now, taking
supremum in~\eqref{upest} over all admissible pairs $\varphi$, $\psi$, we get the
required estimate $B(x)\ge\mathcal{B}(x)$.
\end{proof}
\section{$B(g, f, F)\leqslant \mathcal{B}(g, f, F)$}
This section is devoted to the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
For any point $x\in \Omega$ it holds $B(x)\leqslant \mathcal{B}(x)$.
\end{theorem}
To prove the theorem we need to present two sequences of functions $\{\varphi_n\}$, $\{\psi_n\}$, such that
\begin{itemize}
\item For every $n$ the function $\psi_n$ is a martingale transform of $\varphi_n$;
\item For every $n$: $\av{|\varphi_n|}{I_0}=F$, $\av{\varphi_n}{I_0}=f$, $\av{\psi_n}{I_0}=g$;
\item It holds that $B(g, f, F)=\lim\limits_{n\to \infty} |\{x\colon \psi_n(x)\geqslant 0\}|$ .
\end{itemize}
We need the following definition.
\begin{defin}
We call a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ admissible for the point $(g, f, F)$ if $\psi$ is a martingale transform of $\varphi$, and $\av{|\varphi|}{I_0}=F$, $\av{\varphi}{I_0}=f$, $\av{\psi}{I_0}=g$.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}
We call a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ an $\varepsilon$-extremizer for a point $(g, f, F)$, if this pair is admissible for this point and $|\{x\colon \psi(x)\geqslant 0\}| \geqslant B(g, f, F)-\varepsilon$.
\end{defin}
The following lemma is almost obvious.
\begin{lemma}\label{simple}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For a positive number $s$: $B(sg, sf, sF)=B(g,f,F)$. Moreover, if a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ is admissible for a point $(g,f,F)$ then $(s\varphi, s\psi)$ is admissible for $(sg, sf, sF)$. If a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ is an $\varepsilon$-extremizer for a point $(g,f,F)$ then $(s\varphi, s\psi)$ is an $\varepsilon$-extremizer for $(sg, sf, sF)$.
\item $B(g,f,F)=B(g, -f, F)$. Moreover, if a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ is admissible for a point $(g,f,F)$ then $(-\varphi, \psi)$ is admissible for $(g, -f, F)$. If a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ is an $\varepsilon$-extremizer for a point $(g,f,F)$ then $(-\varphi, \psi)$ is an $\varepsilon$-extremizer for $(g, -f, F)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The next lemma is a key to our ``splitting'' technique.
\begin{lemma}\label{gluezero}
Suppose two pairs $(\varphi_\pm, \psi_\pm)$ are admissible for points $(g^\pm, f^\pm, F^\pm)$ correspondingly. Suppose also that
$$
F=\frac{F^+ + F^-}2, \; \; \; f=\frac{f^+ + f^-}2,\;\;\;, g=\frac{g^+ + g^-}2,\;\;\;|f^+-f^-| = |g^+-g^-|.
$$
Then a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ is admissible for the point $(g,f,F)$, where
$$
\varphi(x) = \begin{cases} \varphi_-(2x), &x\in [0, \frac12) \\
\varphi_+(2x-1), &x\in [\frac12, 1], \end{cases}
\;\;\;\;
\psi(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_-(2x), &x\in [0, \frac12) \\
\psi_+(2x-1), &x\in [\frac12, 1].\end{cases}
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $\av{\varphi}{I_0} = f$, $\av{\psi}{I_0} = g$, and $\av{|\varphi|}{I_0} = F$. All we need to prove is that for any interval $I$ it is true that
$$
|(\psi, h_I)| = |(\varphi, h_I)|.
$$
For any interval $I\not= I_0$ it is obvious, since pairs $(\varphi^\pm, \psi_\pm)$ are admissible for corresponding points. Thus, we need to show that
$$
|(\varphi, h_{I_0})|=|(\psi, h_{I_0})|.
$$
But
$$
(\varphi, h_{I_0}) = \av{\varphi}{[\frac12,1]} - \av{\varphi}{[0, \frac12]} = \av{\varphi_+}{[0,1]}-\av{\varphi_-}{[0,1]} = f^+-f^-,
$$
$$
(\psi, h_{I_0}) = \av{\psi}{[\frac12,1]} - \av{\psi}{[0, \frac12]} = \av{\psi_+}{[0,1]}-\av{\psi_-}{[0,1]} = g^+-g^-,
$$
which finishes our proof.
\end{proof}
We generalize this lemma a little.
\begin{lemma}\label{glue}
Suppose two pairs $(\varphi_\pm, \psi_\pm)$ are admissible for points $(g^\pm, f^\pm, F^\pm)$ correspondingly. Suppose also that
$$
F=\frac{F^+ + F^-}2, \; \; \; f=\frac{f^+ + f^-}2,\;\;\;, g=\frac{g^+ + g^-}2,\;\;\;|f^+-f^-| = |g^+-g^-|.
$$
Suppose $I$ is a dyadic interval with ``sons'' $I_\pm$. Suppose that a pair $(\Phi, \Psi)$ is admissible for some point $(g^0, f^0, F^0)$. Suppose that
$$
\forall \; x\in I \; \; \Phi(x)=\varphi^I(x), \; \; \; \Psi(x)=\psi^I(x),
$$
where the pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ is admissible for the point $(g,f,F)$. Then the pair $(\Phi_1, \Psi_1)$, defined below, is admissible for the point $(g^0, f^0, F^0)$:
$$
\Phi_1(x) = \begin{cases} \Phi(x), &x\not\in I \\
\varphi_+^{I_+}(x), &x\in I_+\\
\varphi_-^{I_-}(x), &x\in I_-
\end{cases}, \;\;\;\;
\Psi_1(x) = \begin{cases} \Psi(x), &x\not\in I \\
\psi_+^{I_+}(x), &x\in I_+\\
\psi_-^{I_-}(x), &x\in I_-
\end{cases}
$$
\end{lemma}
Essentially this lemma says that if we have pairs $(\varphi_\pm, \psi_\pm)$, and and a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ defined in the Lemma \ref{gluezero}, then we can split this pair into $(\varphi^\pm, \psi^\pm)$, defined on $I^\pm$ correspondingly. The proof of the Lemma \ref{glue} is essentially the same as the proof of the Lemma \ref{gluezero}.
\subsection{Change of variables}
It will be more convenient for us to work in variables
$$
y_1 = \frac{f-g}2, \; \; \; y_2 = \frac{-f-g}2, \;\;\; F.
$$
We define $M(y_1, y_2, F)=B(g,f,F)$. Then all properties of $B$ are easily translated to properties of $M$. Moreover, the ``splitting'' lemmas \ref{gluezero}, \ref{glue} remain true for fixed $y_1$ or fixed $y_2$.
If we have a point $(y_1, y_2, F)$ then by $(\varphi_{(y_1, y_2, F)}, \psi_{(y_1, y_2, F)})$ we denote an admissible pair for this point. An individual function $\varphi_{(y_1, y_2, F)}$ is always such that there is a function $\psi_{(y_1, y_2, F)}$, such that the pair $(\varphi_{(y_1, y_2, F)}, \psi_{(y_1, y_2, F)})$ is admissible for $(y_1, y_2, F)$.
\subsection{The proof of $\mathcal{B} \geqslant B$}
We will work in the $y$-variables. In these variables it is true that the function $M$ is concave when $y_1$ or $y_2$ is fixed. This is proved in the Theorem \ref{tuda}.
Analogously to the previous definition, we define
$$
\mathcal{M}(y_1,y_2,F)=\mathcal{B}(g,f,F).
$$
We first prove that
$$
\mathcal{M}(1,1, F)\geqslant M(1,1,F).
$$
Fix a large integer $r$ and set $\delta=\frac1{2^r}$. We notice the following chain of inequalities:
\begin{multline}
\mathcal{M}(1,1,F)\geqslant \frac12 \left( \mathcal{M}(1,1-\d, F+\d(1-F)) + \mathcal{M}(1,1+\d, F-\d(1-F))\right) = \\=\frac12 \left( \mathcal{M}(1,1-\d, F+\d(1-F)) + \mathcal{M}(1+\d, 1, F-\d(1-F))\right).
\end{multline}
Applying the same concavity we see that
$$
\mathcal{M}(1,1-\d, F+\d(1-F)) \geqslant \delta \mathcal{M}(1,0,1) + (1-\delta)\mathcal{M}(1,1,F) = \delta + (1-\delta)\mathcal{M}(1,1,F).
$$
Moreover, by the concavity
\begin{multline}
\mathcal{M}(1+\d, 1, F-\d(1-F))\geqslant \\
(\d-\d^2)\mathcal{M}(1+\d, 0, 1+\d) + (1-\d) \mathcal{M}(1+\d, 1+\d, (1+\d)(F-\d(2-F))) + \d^2 \mathcal{M}(1+\d, 1, F-\d(1-F)) \geqslant \\ \d-\d^2 + (1-\d)\mathcal{M}(1,1,F-\d(2-F))
\end{multline}
Therefore, we get
$$
\mathcal{M}(1,1,F) \geqslant \frac12 \left( \delta + (1-\d)\mathcal{M}(1,1,F) + \d-\d^2 + (1-\d)\mathcal{M}(1,1,F-\d(2-F))\right),
$$
or
$$
\mathcal{M}(1,1,F)\geqslant \frac{2\d-\d^2}{1+\d} + \frac{1-\d}{1+\d}\mathcal{M}(1,1,F-\d(2-F)).
$$
Notice that it is true for any $F$.
We now denote
$$
F^k = 2-(2-F)(1+\d)^k.
$$
Then, clearly, $F^0=F$, and $F^{k+1} = F^k - \d(2-F^k)$.
With this notation we get
$$
\mathcal{M}(1,1,F)\geqslant \frac{2\d-\d^2}{1+\d}\sum\limits_{k=0}^K \left(\frac{1-\d}{1+\d} \right)^k + \left(\frac{1-\d}{1+\d}\right)^{K+1}\cdot \mathcal{M}(1,1,F^{K+1}).
$$
\subsubsection{The case $F\geqslant 2$}
In this case we have $F^{k+1}\geqslant F^k$, and therefore the point $(1, 1+\d, F^k-\d(1-F^k))$ always lies in $\Omega$. Thus, we can take $K$ as huge as we want. Therefore,
$$
\mathcal{M}(1,1,F)\geqslant \frac{2\d-\d^2}{1+\d}\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty \left(\frac{1-\d}{1+\d} \right)^k = \frac{2\d - \d^2}{2\d}.
$$
This is true for arbitrary small $\d$, and thus $\mathcal{M}(1,1,F)\geqslant 1$.
\subsubsection{The case $F\leqslant 2$}
In this case to assure that $(1,1+\d, F^k-\d(1-F^k))\in \Omega$ we need $F^k-\d(1-F^k)\geqslant \d$, which implies
$$
(1+\d)^{K+1}\leqslant \frac{2}{2-F}.
$$
Take $K\in [ \frac{\log \frac{2}{2-F}}{\log(1+\delta)}-10, \frac{\log \frac{2}{2-F}}{\log(1+\delta)}+10]$, such that this inequality holds. Then we get
$$
\mathcal{M}(1,1,F)\geqslant \frac{2\d-\d^2}{1+\d}\sum\limits_{k=0}^K \left(\frac{1-\d}{1+\d} \right)^k = \frac{2\d-\d^2}{2\d} \left(1-\left(\frac{1-\d}{1+\d}\right)^{K+1}\right).
$$
It is only left to notice that with our choise of $K$ we have
$$
\left(\frac{1-\d}{1+\d}\right)^{K+1} \to \frac{(2-F)^2}{4}, \;\;\; \d\to 0,
$$
and therefore
$$
\mathcal{M}(1,1,F)\geqslant 1-\frac{(2-F)^2}{4}=M(1,1,F).
$$
We leave the proof of the general inequality $\mathcal{M}(y_1, y_2,F)\geqslant M(y_1, y_2,F)$ to the reader. In fact, it is a simple use of the concavity of $\mathcal{M}$ along the line that connects $(y_1,0,y_1)$ with $(y_1, y_2, F)$.
\subsection{Building the extremal sequense for points $(1, 1, F)$}
The aim of this Section is to prove that $B(g, f, F)\leqslant \mathcal{B}(g, f, F)$ by a construction of an extremal sequense of pairs $(\varphi_n, \psi_n)$.
For the sake of simplicity, we do it only for the case $f-g=2$.
Due to the homogeneity and symmetry of the function $B$ it is enough to prove that
$$
B(g, f, F)\leqslant \mathcal{B}(g, f, F)
$$
for $f\geqslant 0$, $f-g=2$. In the new variables it means that we consider the case $y_1=1$, and $y_2\leqslant y_1=1$. As we have seen, for $f\geqslant -g$ we have $B(g, f, F)=\mathcal{B}(g, f, F)=1$, and so we need to consider the case $f\leqslant -g$, i.e. $y_2\geqslant 0$.
We first build the $\varepsilon$-extremizer for the point $(F, 1, 1)$.
Fix a large integer $r$ and let $\delta=2^{-r}$. As before, denote $I_0=[0,1]$. Also denote $J_i = [2^{-i}, 2^{-i+1})$,
Denote $m_i(x)=2^ix-1$ --- the linear function from $J_k$ onto $I_0$.
We need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{constrrr}
Suppose $\delta=2^{-r}$ is small enough. Also, fix a small number $\varepsilon>0$. Suppose $F^{1}=F-\delta(2-F)$, and the pair $(\varphi_{(1,1,F^1)}, \psi_{(1,1,F^1)})$ is admissible. Then there exists an admissible pair $(\varphi_{(1,1,F)}, \psi_{(1,1,F)})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqqqqq}
|\{x\colon \psi_{(1,1,F)}\geqslant 0\}| \geqslant \frac{2\delta -\delta^2}{1+\delta} + \frac{1-\delta}{1+\delta} |\{x\colon \psi_{(1,1,F^1)}\geqslant 0\}| - \varepsilon.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we explain our strategy. In what follows, we always assume that functions on the right-hand side are already defined. We specify their definition later; however, we clearly indicate points to which the functions are admissible.
We define
$$
\varphi_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \varphi_{(1, 1-\delta, F+\delta(1-F))}(m_1(x)), &x\in J_1\\
\varphi_{(1, 1+\delta, F-\delta(1-F))}(2x), &x\in [0, \frac12). \end{cases}
\;\;\;\;
\psi_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_{(1, 1-\delta, F+\delta(1-F))}(m_1(x)), &x\in J_1\\
\psi_{(1, 1+\delta, F-\delta(1-F))}(2x), &x\in [0, \frac12). \end{cases}
$$
This splitting is illustrated on the following picture.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{pic1.eps}
\end{center}
By the Lemma \ref{glue} we see that $\psi_{(1,1,F)}$ is a martingale transform of $\varphi_{(1,1,F)}$. We define next
\begin{multline}
\varphi_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \varphi_{(1, 0,1)}(\frac{m_1(x)}{\delta})), &x\in m_1^{-1}(\delta I_0)\\
\varphi_{(1,1,F)}(m_k(m_1(x))), &x\in m_1^{-1}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r \\
-\varphi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(2x), &x\in [0, \frac12)
. \end{cases}
\;\;\;\; \\
\varphi_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_{(1, 0,1)}(\frac{m_1(x)}{\delta})), &x\in m_1^{-1}(\delta I_0)\\
\psi_{(1,1,F)}(m_k(m_1(x))), &x\in m_1^{-1}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r \\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(2x), &x\in [0, \frac12)
. \end{cases}
\end{multline}
By the Lemma \ref{simple} and a multiple application of the Lemma \ref{glue}, we still get an admissible pair for the point $(1,1,F)$.
Finally, define
\begin{multline}
\varphi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(x) = \begin{cases}
\varphi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}(m_k(\frac x\delta)), &x\in \delta \cdot J_k, \; k=1\ldots r\\
\varphi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(\frac{x}{\delta^2}), &x\in [0, \delta^2)\\
(1+\delta)\varphi_{(1, 1, F-\delta(2-F))}(m_k(x)), &x\in J_k, \; k=1\ldots r\\
\end{cases}
\\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(x) = \begin{cases}
\psi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}(m_k(\frac x\delta)), &x\in \delta \cdot J_k, \; k=1\ldots r\\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(\frac{x}{\delta^2}), &x\in [0, \delta^2)\\
(1+\delta)\psi_{(1, 1, F-\delta(2-F))} (m_k(x)), &x\in J_k, \; k=1\ldots r\\
\end{cases}
\end{multline}
This splitting is illustrated below.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{pic2.eps}
\end{center}
Again, the Lemma \ref{simple} and the Lemma \ref{glue} assure that the defined pair is admissible.
Bringing everything together, we get
\begin{multline}\label{recccc}
\varphi_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \varphi_{(1, 0,1)}(\frac{m_1(x)}{\delta})), &x\in m_1^{-1}(\delta I_0)\\
\varphi_{(1,1,F)}(m_k(m_1(x))), &x\in m_1^{-1}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r \\
-\varphi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}(m_k(\frac{2x}{\delta})), &x\in \frac{\delta}{2}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r\\
-\varphi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(\frac{2x}{\delta^2}), &x\in [0, \frac{\delta^2}{2})\\
-(1+\delta)\varphi_{(1, 1, F-\delta(2-F))}(m_k(2x)), &x\in \frac12 m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r
. \end{cases}
\;\;\;\; \\
\psi_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_{(1, 0,1)}(\frac{m_1(x)}{\delta})), &x\in m_1^{-1}(\delta I_0)\\
\psi_{(1,1,F)}(m_k(m_1(x))), &x\in m_1^{-1}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r \\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}(m_k(\frac{2x}{\delta})), &x\in \frac{\delta}{2}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r\\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(\frac{2x}{\delta^2}), &x\in [0, \frac{\delta^2}{2})\\
(1+\delta)\psi_{(1, 1, F-\delta(2-F))}(m_k(2x)), &x\in \frac12 m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r
. \end{cases}
\end{multline}
We put two pictures together to show all five points involved in the splitting.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{pic3.eps}
\end{center}
We now specify the definition of functions on the right-hand side. The pair $(\varphi_{(1,0,1)}, \psi_{(1,0,1)})$ is a $\frac\varepsilon 2$-extremizer for the point $(1,0,1)$. The pair $(\varphi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}, \psi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)})$ is a $\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta-\delta^2}$-extremizer for the point $(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)$.
The pair $(\varphi_{(1,1,F-\delta(2-F))}, \psi_{(1,1,F-\delta(2-F))})$ is given in the lemma. As for the pair $(\varphi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}, \psi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))})$ --- we take any admissible pair for this point.
It is an easy calculation that the function $\psi_{(1,1,F)}$ satisfies the inequality \eqref{eqqqqq}. Moreover, it is easy to see that for {\bf any} pair, defined by \eqref{recccc} we have $\av{\varphi_{(1,1,F)}}{I_0} - \av{\psi_{(1,1,F)}}{I_0} = 2$. Thus, what we need to show is that there exists an admissible pair $(\varphi_{(1,1,F)}, \psi_{(1,1,F)})$ that satisfies the self-similarity condition \eqref{recccc}
To do that, we first take any admissible pair $(\tilde{\varphi}_{(1,1,F)}, \tilde{\psi}_{(1,1,F)})$ and define
\begin{multline
\varphi^0_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \varphi_{(1, 0,1)}(\frac{m_1(x)}{\delta})), &x\in m_1^{-1}(\delta I_0)\\
\tilde{\varphi}_{(1,1,F)}(m_k(m_1(x))), &x\in m_1^{-1}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r \\
-\varphi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}(m_k(\frac{2x}{\delta})), &x\in \frac{\delta}{2}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r\\
-\varphi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(\frac{2x}{\delta^2}), &x\in [0, \frac{\delta^2}{2})\\
-(1+\delta)\varphi_{(1, 1, F-\delta(2-F))}(m_k(2x)), &x\in \frac12 m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r
. \end{cases}
\;\;\;\; \\
\psi^0_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_{(1, 0,1)}(\frac{m_1(x)}{\delta})), &x\in m_1^{-1}(\delta I_0)\\
\tilde{\psi}_{(1,1,F)}(m_k(m_1(x))), &x\in m_1^{-1}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r \\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}(m_k(\frac{2x}{\delta})), &x\in \frac{\delta}{2}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r\\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(\frac{2x}{\delta^2}), &x\in [0, \frac{\delta^2}{2})\\
(1+\delta)\psi_{(1, 1, F-\delta(2-F))}(m_k(2x)), &x\in \frac12 m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r
. \end{cases}
\end{multline}
Then the pair $(\varphi^0_{(1,1,F)}, \psi^0_{(1,1,F)})$ is admissible to point $(1,1,F)$. It is true by the Lemma \ref{glue}, and by an easy calculation that shows that all averages are as we need.
We now define inductively
\begin{multline
\varphi^{n+1}_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \varphi_{(1, 0,1)}(\frac{m_1(x)}{\delta})), &x\in m_1^{-1}(\delta I_0)\\
\varphi^n_{(1,1,F)}(m_k(m_1(x))), &x\in m_1^{-1}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r \\
-\varphi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}(m_k(\frac{2x}{\delta})), &x\in \frac{\delta}{2}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r\\
-\varphi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(\frac{2x}{\delta^2}), &x\in [0, \frac{\delta^2}{2})\\
-(1+\delta)\varphi_{(1, 1, F-\delta(2-F))}(m_k(2x)), &x\in \frac12 m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r
. \end{cases}
\;\;\;\; \\
\psi^{n+1}_{(1,1,F)}(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_{(1, 0,1)}(\frac{m_1(x)}{\delta})), &x\in m_1^{-1}(\delta I_0)\\
\psi^n_{(1,1,F)}(m_k(m_1(x))), &x\in m_1^{-1}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r \\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 0, 1+\delta)}(m_k(\frac{2x}{\delta})), &x\in \frac{\delta}{2}m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r\\
\psi_{(1+\delta, 1, F-\delta(1-F))}(\frac{2x}{\delta^2}), &x\in [0, \frac{\delta^2}{2})\\
(1+\delta)\psi_{(1, 1, F-\delta(2-F))}(m_k(2x)), &x\in \frac12 m_k^{-1}(I_0), \; k=1\ldots r
. \end{cases}
\end{multline}
Then for any $n$ we get an admissible pair to the point $(1,1,F)$.
We need to notice that
\begin{multline}
\int\limits_{I_0}|\varphi^{n+1}_{(1,1,F)} - \varphi^n_{(1,1,F)}|^2dx = \sum\limits_k \frac{|J_k|}2 \int\limits_{I_0}|\varphi_{(1,1,F)}^{n}-\varphi_{(1,1,F)}^{n-1}|^2 dx = \frac{1-\delta}2 \int\limits_{I_0}|\varphi_{(1,1,F)}^{n}-\varphi_{(1,1,F)}^{n-1}|^2 dx = \\ = (\frac{1-\delta}2)^n \int\limits_{I_0}|\varphi_{(1,1,F)}^{1}-\varphi_{(1,1,F)}^{0}|^2 dx.
\end{multline}
Thus, we can take
$$
\varphi_{(1,1,F)} = \lim \varphi^{n+1}_{(1,1,F)} \;\;\; \mbox{in} \;\;\; L^2(I_0).
$$
Similarly
$$
\psi_{(1,1,F)} = \lim \psi^{n+1}_{(1,1,F)} \;\;\; \mbox{in} \;\;\; L^2(I_0).
$$
It is clear that the pair $(\varphi_{(1,1,F)}, \psi_{(1,1,F)})$ satisfies the self-similarity conditions \eqref{recccc}. Moreover, since the limit in $L^2$ implies the limin in $L^1$, we get that all the averages are as needed. Moreover, for every interval $I$:
$$
|(\varphi_{(1,1,F)}, h_I)| = \lim |(\varphi^n_{(1,1,F)}, h_I)| = |(\psi^n_{(1,1,F)}, h_I)| = |(\psi_{(1,1,F)}, h_I)|,
$$
and thus we get an admissible pair. The proof of the lemma is finished.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to finish the whole construction.
We consider a sequence
$$
F^k = 2-(2-F)(1+\delta)^k.
$$
Then it is clear the $F^0 = F$ and $F^{k+1} = F^k - \delta(2-F^k)$.
\subsubsection{The case $F\geqslant 2$}
We take a huge number $N$ and a small number $\varepsilon$. Take any admissible pair $(\varphi_{(1,1,F^N)}, \psi_{(1,1,F^N)})$. Using the Lemma \ref{constrrr} $N$ times we build an admissible pair $(\varphi_{(1,1,F)}, \psi_{(1,1,N)})$. Moreover, we get
$$
|\{x\colon \psi_{(1,1,F)}(x)\geqslant 0\}| \geqslant \frac{2\delta - \delta^2}{1+\delta}\sum\limits_{k=0}^N \left(\frac{1-\delta}{1+\delta}\right)^k - N\varepsilon.
$$
We now specify the choise of $\delta$, $N$ and $\varepsilon$. We first fix a small $\delta$, so that $\frac{2\delta - \delta^2}{2\delta}=1-\sigma$. Then fix a huge number $N$, such that $\sum\limits_{k=0}^N \left(\frac{1-\delta}{1+\delta}\right)^k > \frac{1+\delta}{2\delta}-\sigma\frac{1+\delta}{2\delta-\delta^2}$. Finally, fix a very small number $\varepsilon$, such that $N\varepsilon < \sigma$. Then we get
$$
|\{x\colon \psi_{(1,1,F)}(x)\geqslant 0\}| \geqslant \frac{2\delta - \delta^2}{1+\delta}\left(\frac{1+\delta}{2\delta}- \sigma\frac{1+\delta}{2\delta-\delta^2}\right) -\sigma= 1-3\sigma.
$$
where $\sigma$ is an arbitrary small number.
\subsubsection{The case $F<2$}
We remind that our very first step requires that the point $(1, 1+\delta, F-\delta(1-F))$ to be in our domain. Thus, the on the $N$-th iteration we need that the point $(1, 1+\delta, F^N-\delta(1-F^N))$ is in the domain $\Omega = \{(y_1, y_2, F)\colon F\geqslant |y_1-y_2| \}$. This yields to the inequality
$$
(1+\delta)^{N+1}<\frac{2}{2-F}.
$$
Thus, we should stop at the $K$-th step with
$$
(1+\delta)^{N+1}\approx\frac{2}{2-F}.
$$
Here the sign ``$\approx$'' means that
$$
N\in [ \frac{\log \frac{2}{2-F}}{\log(1+\delta)}-10, \frac{\log \frac{2}{2-F}}{\log(1+\delta)}+10].
$$
We again apply the Lemma \ref{constrrr} $N$ times and get
$$
|\{x\colon \psi_{(1,1,F)}(x)\geqslant 0\}| \geqslant \frac{2\delta - \delta^2}{1+\delta}\sum\limits_{k=0}^N \left(\frac{1-\delta}{1+\delta}\right)^k-N\varepsilon=\frac{2\delta-\delta^2}{2\delta} \left(1- \left(\frac{1-\delta}{1+\delta} \right)^{N+1} \right) -N\varepsilon
$$
Finally, since
$$
N\in [ \frac{\log \frac{2}{2-F}}{\log(1+\delta)}-10, \frac{\log \frac{2}{2-F}}{\log(1+\delta)}+10]
$$
we get that $\delta\to 0$ implies $1- \left(\frac{1-\delta}{1+\delta} \right)^{N+1} \to 1-\frac{(2-F)^2}4$, which finishes our proof.
\section{How to find the Bellman function $\mathcal{B}$}
In this section we explain how did we search for the function $\mathcal{B}$ and find it. We start with the following lemma.
\label{tuda} Let $x^\pm$ be two points in $\Omega$ such tat
$|f^+-f^-|=|g^+-g^-|$ and $x=\frac12(x^++x^-)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{mi} \mathcal{B}(x)-\frac{\mathcal{B}(x^+)+\mathcal{B}(x^-)}2\ge 0\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}
Fix $x^\pm\in\Omega$, and let $(\varphi^\pm, \psi^\pm)$ be two pairs of functions giving the supremum
for $\mathcal{B}(x^+)$, $\mathcal{B}(x^-)$ respectively up to a small number $\eta>0$. Write
$$
\varphi^\pm=f^\pm+\!\!\!\!\sum_{I\subseteq I_0,\;I\in D}\!\!\!\!(\varphi, h_I) h\ci
I\,, \qquad \psi^\pm=g^\pm+\!\!\!\!\sum_{I\subseteq I_0,\;I\in D}
\!\!\!\!\varepsilon\ci I (\varphi, h_I) h\ci I\,,
$$
Consider
$$
\varphi(t):=
\begin{cases}
\varphi^+(2t-1)\,,&\text{if }t\in [\frac12, 1]
\\
\varphi^-(2t)\,,&\text{if }t\in [0, \frac12).
\end{cases}
$$
and
$$
\psi(t):=
\begin{cases}
\psi^+(2t-1)\,,&\text{if }t\in [\frac12, 1]
\\
\psi^-(2t)\,,&\text{if }t\in [0, \frac12)
\end{cases}
$$
Since $|x^+_1-x^-_1|=|x^+_2-x^-_2|$, the function $\psi$ is a martingale
transform of $\varphi$, and the pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ is an admissible pair of the test
functions corresponding to the point $x$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{B}(x)&\ge\frac1{|I_0|}\big|\{t\in I_0\colon \psi(t)\ge0\}\big|
\\
&=\frac1{2|I^+_0|}\big|\{t\in [\frac12, 1]\colon \psi(t)\ge0\}\big|+
\frac1{2|I^-_0|}\big|\{t\in [0, \frac12)\colon \psi(t)\ge0\}\big|
\\
&\ge\frac12\mathcal{B}(x^+)+\frac12\mathcal{B}(x^-)-2\eta.
\end{align*}
Since this inequality holds for an arbitrary small $\eta$, we can pass to the
limit $\eta\to0$, what gives us the required assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The lemma means that if we change variables $f=y_1-y_2$,
$g =-y_1-y_2$, and introduce a function $M(y_1, y_2, F):= B(g,f,F)$ defined in the
domain $G:=\{y=(y_1, y_2, F)\in\mathbb{R}^3\colon |y_1-y_2|\le F\}$, then we get that for each
fixed $y_2$, $M(F, y_1,\,\cdot)$ is concave and for each fixed $y_1$,
$M(F,\,\cdot\,,y_2)$ is concave.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{The boundary $F=y_1-y_2$}
We start with considering a boundary case $F=f$ or, in the $y$ variables, $F=y_1-y_2$. It means that we consider only non-negative functions $\varphi$.
By the homogeneity of the function $M$ we need to find a function $S$ of variable $s=\frac{y_1}{y_2}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{ineq111}
\left(S(\frac{y_1}{y_2})\right)''_{y_1y_1} \leqslant 0, \; \mbox{and} \; \left(S(\frac{y_1}{y_2})\right)''_{y_2y_2}\leqslant 0.
\end{equation}
We notice that when $g\to 0$ we have $s\to -1$ and we must have $S\to 0$. Thus, we get a condition
\begin{equation}
S(s)\to 0, \;\;\; \mbox{as} \;\;\; s\to -1.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have seen that if $f\geqslant -g$ then $\mathcal{B}(g, f, F)=1$. In particular, it holds when $f=-g$. Therefore, we have $M(y_1, -y_1, 0)=1$. This implies that
$$
S(s)\to 1 , \;\;\; \mbox{as} \;\;\; s\to -\infty.
$$
From inequalities \eqref{ineq111} we get that
$$
S''(s)\leqslant 0, \;\;\;, s^2 S''(s) +2S'(s)\leqslant 0, \;\;\; s\in (-\infty, -1].
$$
Make the second inequality an equation (we are looking for the {\bf best} nontrivial $S$). We get
$$
S(s)=c_1 + \frac{c_2}s.
$$
The boundary conditions imply that
$$
S(s)=1-\frac1s,
$$
and therefore
$$
M(y_1, y_2, y_1-y_2)=1-\frac{y_2}{y_1} = \frac{y_1-y_2}{y_1},
$$
or
$$
B(g, f,f)=\frac{2f}{f-g}.
$$
Thus, we get an answer
\begin{equation}\label{BC1}
M(y_1, y_2, y_1-y_2)=\begin{cases} 1, & y_2\leqslant 0\\
\frac{y_1-y_2}{y_1}, &y_2\geqslant 0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
or
$$
B(g,f,f) = \begin{cases} 1, &f\geqslant -g\\
\frac{2f}{f-g}, &f\leqslant -g. \end{cases}
$$
\subsection{The domain $\Omega$}
We remind the reader that for a fixed $y_1$ the function $M$ is concave in variables $(F, y_2)$. We also remind the symmetry condition, i.e.
$$
M(y_1, y_2, F)=M(y_2, y_1, F).
$$
Let us differentiate this equation in $y_2$ and set $y_2=y_1$. Then we get an equation:
$$
M_{y_1}(y_1, y_1, F)=M_{y_2}(y_1, y_1, F).
$$
Moreover, due to the symmetry it is enough to find $M$ for $y_2 \leqslant y_1$. As before, we saw that for $f\geqslant -g$ we have $B(g, f, F)=1$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{BC2}
\mbox{for $y_2\leqslant 0$, we have $M(y_1, y_2, F)=1$.}
\end{equation}
Thus, it is enough to consider the case $0\leqslant y_2 \leqslant y_1$.
Denote $\Omega_{y_1} = \{(y_2, F)\colon F\geqslant |y_2-y_1|\}$ --- the section of $\Omega$ for fixed $y_1$.
We want to find $M$ satisfying concavity in this hyperplane--we are going to look for $M$ (and we will check later that it is concave) that solves Monge--Amp\`ere (MA) equation in $\Omega_{y_1}$ with boundary conditions \eqref{BC1} and \eqref{BC2}.
In $\Omega_{y_1}$, there is a point
$P:=(0,y_1, y_1)$. Let us make a guess that the characteristics (and we know by Pogorelov's theorem that they form the foliation of $\Omega_{y_1}$ by straight lines) of our MA equation in $\Omega_{y_1}$ form the fan of lines with common point $P=(y_1, y_1, 0)$. By Pogorelov's theorem we also know that there exists functions $t_1, t_2, t$ constant on characteristics such that
\begin{equation}
\label{M}
M=t_1 F+ t_2 y_2 +t\,,
\end{equation}
such that $t_1=t_1(t; y_1), t_2=t_2(t; y_1)$ (we think that $y_1$ is a parameter), that
\begin{equation}
\label{M1}
0=(t_1)'_t F+( t_2)'_t y_2 +1\,,
\end{equation}
that
\begin{equation}
\label{M2}
t_1=\frac{\partial M(\cdot, y_2, F)}{\partial F}\,,\, t_1=\frac{\partial M(\cdot, y_2, F)}{\partial y_2}\,.
\end{equation}
Let us call characteristics $L_t$. Extend one of them from $P$ till $y_2=y_1$. We recall another boundary condition:
\begin{equation}\label{Nor}
\text{If} \,\, y_2=y_1\Rightarrow \frac{\partial M}{\partial y_2}= \frac{\partial M}{\partial y_1}\,.
\end{equation}
Or if we denote the intersection of $L_t$ with $y_2=y_1$ by $(y_1, y_1, F(t))$ we get
\begin{equation}
\label{Nor1}
t_2(t;y_1)= \frac{\partial M}{\partial y_1}(y_1, y_1, F(t))\,.
\end{equation}
We want to prove now that
\begin{equation}
\label{Nor2}
\text{On the whole}\,\, L_t \,\,\text{we have}\,\,F(t) t_1 + 2y_1 t_2=0\,.
\end{equation}
In fact, our $M$ is $0$ homogeneous. So everywhere $FM'_F + y_1M'_{y_1} + y_2M'_{y_2}=0$. Apply this to point $(y_1, y_1, F(t))$, where we can use \eqref{Nor1} and get
$F(t)t_1+t_2 y_1 + t_2 y_1=0$, which is \eqref{Nor2} in one point. But then all entries are constants on $L_t$, therefore, \eqref{Nor2} follows.
Now use our guess that $L_t$ fan from $P=(y_1, y_1, 0)$. Plug this coordinates into $0=(t_1)'_t F+( t_2)'_t y_2 +1$, which is \eqref{M1}. Then we get the crucial (and trivial) ODE
\begin{equation}
\label{t1}
t_1'(t)=-\frac{1}{y_1}\Rightarrow t_1(t)=-\frac{1}{y_1}t +C_1(y_1) \,.
\end{equation}
Let boundary line $F= y_1-u$ corresponds to $t=t_0$. Then we use \eqref{M} and \eqref{BC1}:
$$
( - \frac{1}{y_1}t _0+C_1(y_1) )(y_1-u) + t_2 u+t_0 = 1-\frac{u}{y_1}\,.
$$
Using \eqref{Nor2} we can plug $t_2$ expressed via $F(t)$. But by definition $F(t_0)=0$. So we get
$$
( - \frac{1}{y_1}t _0+C_1(y_1) )(y_1-u) +t_0= 1-\frac{u}{y_1}\,.
$$
Or
$$
C_1(y_1)y_1 - (t_0 +C_1(y_1)y_1) \frac{u}{y_1} = 1 -\frac{u}{y_1}\,.
$$
Varying $u$ we get $C_1(y_1)=\frac1{y_1}$, $t_0=0$. Now from \eqref{t1} we get
\begin{equation}
\label{t11}
t_1(t)=\frac1{y_1}(1-t) \,.
\end{equation}
After that \eqref{M1} and \eqref{Nor2} become the system of two linear ``ODE"s on $F(t)$ and $t_2(t)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{Ft2}
\begin{cases}
-\frac1{y_1} F(t) +y_1 t_2'(t) +1 =0\\
2y_1t_2(t) + F(t)\frac1{y_1}(1-t) =0\,.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We find $t_2= -\frac1{y_1}(1-t)t$. We find the arbitrary constant for $t_2$ by noticing that the second equation of \eqref{Ft2} at $t_0=0$ implies that $t_2(0)=0$ as $F(t_0)=F(0)=0$ by definition.
Hence \eqref{M1} becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{M11}
-\frac1{y_1} F +\frac1{y_1} (2t-1) y_2 +1=0\,.
\end{equation}
Given $(y_1, y_2, F)\in \Omega_{y_1}\cap \{0\le y_2\le y_1\}$, we find $t$ from \eqref{M11} and plug it into \eqref{M}, in which we know already $t_(t)$ and $t_2(t)$. Namely, we know that
\begin{equation}
\label{M01}
M(y_1, y_2, F) =\frac1{y_1} F -\frac1{y_1} t(1-t)y_2 +t \,.
\end{equation}
Plugging $t=\frac12\frac{F-(y_1-y_2)}{y_2}$ from \eqref{M11} into this equation we finally obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{FBFeq0}
M(y_1, y_2, F)=1-\frac{(F-y_1-y_2)^2}{4y_1y_2}.
\end{equation}
We notice that on the line $F=y_2+y_1$ we get $M = 1$. Thus, we get the following answer for $M$:
\begin{equation}
\label{FBFeq}
M(y_1, y_2, F)=\begin{cases} 1-\frac{(F-y_1-y_2)^2}{4y_1y_2}, &F\leqslant y_1+y_2 \\
1, &F\geqslant y_1+y_2. \end{cases}
\end{equation}
In our initial coordinates we get
$$
B(g, f, F)=\begin{cases} 1-\frac{(F+g)^2}{g^2-f^2}, &F\leqslant -g \\
1, &F\geqslant -g. \end{cases}
$$
\end{document} |
\section{INTRODUCTION}
PSR J1723--2837 is a nearby ($D=750$ pc), binary, radio millisecond
pulsar (MSP) with a 1.86-ms spin period discovered by
\citet{Faulk04} in the Parkes Multibeam survey. Follow-up observations
with the Parkes, Green Bank, and Lovell telescopes have allowed
a positional localization to better than 1$''$ and detailed
parametrization of the binary orbit. Infrared, optical, and
ultraviolet spectrophotometric studies have yielded complementary
constraints on the properties of the companion star. The MSP follows
an almost circular 14.8 hour orbit, about a non-degenerate companion
star of spectra type G5 with mass $0.4-0.7$ M$_{\odot}$
\citep{Craw13}. The pulsar is rarely detected at low frequencies,
while it goes undetected at high radio frequencies for $\sim$15\% of
the orbit when the companion is generally closer to the Earth than the
pulsar, suggesting that eclipses are responsible for the
non-detections. This assertion is supported by the presence of
peculiar orbital period irregularities in the radio timing residuals,
which suggest strong tidal interactions between the neutron star and
an extended and likely mass-losing companion. Occasionally, the pulsar
goes undetected throughout the orbit (even when it is at the closest
position with respect to the observer), indicating that, at times, the
pulsar is completely enshrouded by matter released by its companion.
Its properties make PSR J1723--2837 a member of a growing class of
eclipsing MSPs termed ``redbacks'', with low-mass main-sequence-like
companions, found in both globular clusters and the field of the
Galaxy, \citep[e.g.,][]{DAm01,Arch09}. The nature of their companions
and the irregular eclipses and rapid dispersion measure fluctuations
make them distinct from the so-called ``black widow'' eclipsing
pulsars \citep{Fru88}, which are bound to very low mass companions
($\lesssim$0.05 M$_{\odot}$). In this sense, PSR J1723--2837 appears
similar to PSR J1023+0038, which is believed to still be transitioning
from a low-mass X-ray binary (LMXB) to a fully ``recycled'' millisecond radio
pulsar \citep{Arch09,Pat13}. The discovery of back-and-forth switching
between accretion- and rotation-powered states of PSR J1824--2452I in
the globular cluster M28 \citep{Pap13} strongly supports the claim
that redback systems are recently activated radio MSPs, but which
may still sporadically revert to an accreting X-ray binary state. At a
distance $\sim$750 pc, based on its dispersion measure and the NE2001
model \citep{Cord02}, and confirmed by optical spectroscopy
\citep{Craw13}, PSR J1723--2837 is the nearest such system known,
nearly a factor of two closer than PSR J1023+0038 \citep[$D=1.36$
kpc;][]{Del12}. As such, it is a well-suited target for studies of
various aspects of these peculiar systems.
In X-rays, redback systems typically exhibit predominantly non-thermal
emission that is strongly modulated at the binary period
\citep{Bog05,Bog10,Arch10,Bog11a,Bog11b,Gen13}. This radiation is
likely produced by interaction of the energetic wind from the pulsar
with material from the companion star. The large-amplitude flux
variability likely arises due to a geometric occultation of the
X-ray-emitting region by the secondary star \citep{Bog11b}. Studing
this radiation can provide a valuable diagnostic of the physics and
geometry of MSP winds, the interaction of the two stars, and
collisionless shocks, in general.
The \textit{Fermi} Large Area Telescope (LAT) has revealed that many
MSPs are bright $\gamma$-ray sources, disproportionately accounting
for 46 of the 132 pulsars detected in pulsed
$\gamma$-rays\footnote{See
\url{https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/GLAMCOG/\\Public+List+of+LAT-Detected+Gamma-Ray+Pulsars}
for an up-to-date list.} \citep{Abdo13}, including four of the six redbacks
currently known \citep{Hes11,Kap12,Ray12}. As reported in
\citet{Craw13}, PSR J1723--2837 is not positionally coincident with a
catalogued $\gamma$-ray source and no pulsations are detected with
simple photon folding. Nevertheless, as recent studies have shown
\citep{Ple12,Gui12}, in principle, it is still possible to detect
pulsars in $\gamma$-rays by exploiting more sophisticated analysis
techniques such as photon probability weighting.
Herein, we present \textit{XMM-Newton} European Photon Imaging Camera
(EPIC) and \textit{Chandra X-ray Observatory} Advanced CCD Imaging
Spectrometer (ACIS) observations of PSR J1723--2837. This study
provides additional insight into the physics of this peculiar variety
of binary MSPs and establishes the X-ray characteristics of this
population. We also investigate the $\gamma$-ray emission from this
pulsar based on the presently available \textit{Fermi} LAT data. The
work is outlined as follows. In \S 2, we detail the observations, data
reduction, and analysis procedures. In \S3, we investigate the
orbital-phase dependent variability of PSR J1723--2837 in X-rays. In
\S 4 we present phase-averaged and phase-resolved X-ray spectroscopy,
while in \S5 we describe the X-ray imaging analysis. In \S6 we attempt
to constrain the physical properties of the intrabinary shock based on
the X-ray data. In \S7 we summarize the results of a \textit{Fermi}
LAT analysis of the pulsar. We offer conclusions in \S8.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Background-subtracted \textit{XMM-Newton} EPIC lightcurve of
PSR J1723--2837 in the 0.3--10 keV band binned in 1 ks intervals.
The gaps in the data are intervals that have been removed due to
excessive background flaring. The dotted magenta band represents the
approximate portion of the orbit where the pulsar undergoes a radio
eclipse at 2 GHz. The orbital phase is defined such that the
companion star is between the pulsar and observer at $\phi_b=0.25$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\textit{Chandra} ACIS-S 0.3--8 keV (\textit{Top panel}) and
0.3--1.9 keV and 1.9--8 keV bands (\textit{Middle panel})
lightcurves of PSR J1723--2837 versus time and orbital phase. The
background contributes negligibly to the total count rate
($\sim$0.1\%). (\textit{Bottom panel}) The ratio obtained by
dividing the 1.9--8 keV by the 0.3--1.9 keV lightcurve. The radio
eclipse interval at 2 GHz is shown by the magenta dotted band.}
\end{figure}
\section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION}
\subsection{\textit{XMM-Newton}}
The \textit{XMM-Newton} observation of PSR J1723--2837 (ObsID
0653830101) was conducted on 2011 March 3 for 55 ks. In this work, we
concentrate on the data collected with the high-throughput EPIC
instrument, which covers the 0.1--12 keV band with one pn
\citep{struder01} and two MOS \citep{turner01} CCD cameras. All
detectors used the medium-thickness optical blocking filters and were
operated in Full Window mode.
The data were processed using version 11 of the \emph{XMM-Newton}
Science Analysis Software (SAS\footnote{The \textit{XMM-Newton} SAS is
developed and maintained by the Science Operations Centre at the
European Space Astronomy Centre and the Survey Science Centre at the
University of Leicester.}) and standard screening criteria were
applied (selecting only 1- and 2-pixel events using the defaut flag
masks). The observation was affected by multiple intense soft proton
flares. The corresponding periods of high particle background were
excluded using intensity filters, following the method by
\citet{deluca04}. This resulted in a net exposure time of 23.2 ks in
the pn, 31.7 ks in the MOS\,1, and 33.2 ks in the MOS\,2.
For the timing and spectral analysis, source events were extracted
from each detector within a circular region with 40$''$ radius, which
contains $\sim$90\% of the point source energy. The background counts
were extracted from source-free regions on the same chip as the
target. The ancillary response files and the spectral redistribution
matrices were generated with the SAS scripts {\tt arfgen} and {\tt
rmfgen}, respectively. The spectra were binned so as to have a
minimum of 30 counts per energy channel. For the variability analysis
the data were barycentred using the DE405 ephemeris.
\subsection{\textit{Chandra}}
The \textit{Chandra} dataset was acquired on 2012 July 11 (ObsID
13713) in a continuous 49-ks effective exposure, covering 1.03 orbits
of the pulsar. The radio pulsar position was at the aim point of the
ACIS-S3 CCD set up in VFAINT mode and in a $1/8$ sub-array
configurationto ensure that the effect of photon pileup
\citep{Davis01} is minimal. The re-processing, reduction, and
analysis of the \textit{Chandra} data were performed using
CIAO\footnote{Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations, available
at \url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/}} 4.4 \citep{Fruscione06} and
the corresponding calibration products (CALDB 4.4.10). To facilitate
the identification of nebular X-ray emission, we reprocessed the level
1 data products opting for no pixel randomization and used the
background cleaning procedure appropriate for the VFAINT
mode. However, since this algorithm can reject genuine source photons
for relatively bright sources, no background cleaning was applied to
the data used for the spectroscopy and varibility studies.
For the purposes of the investigations presented in \S3 and \S4, we
extracted photons within 2$\arcsec$ of the source. To permit spectral
fitting, the source counts in the 0.3--8 keV band were combined such
that at least 15 counts per energy bin were obtained. The background
spectrum was obtained from regions near the pulsar that are devoid of
point sources. For the purposes of the variability study, the event
times of arrival were shifted to the solar system barycenter assuming
DE405 JPL solar system ephemeris.
The spectroscopic analyses of both the \textit{XMM-Newton} and
\textit{Chandra} observations were carried out using
XSPEC\footnote{Available at
\url{http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/index.html}.}
12.7.1. The coarse time resolution of the observations (0.4 s for
\textit{Chandra} ACIS-S, 2.6 s and 0.73 s for \textit{XMM-Newton} EPIC
MOS and pn, respectively) does not permit a search for pulsations at
the pulsar spin period.
\subsection{{\it Fermi} LAT}
For the $\gamma$-ray analysis, we retrieved Pass7
\textit{Fermi} Large Area Telecope (LAT) event data from 2008 August 4
and 2013 June 11 within 20$^{\circ}$ of the pulsar position and
accompanying spacecraft data. The analysis was carried out using the
\textit{Fermi} Science
Tools\footnote{\url{http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/scitools/overview.html}}
v9r27p1. Following the recommended guidelines from the Fermi Science
Support Center, the data were filtered for ``source'' class events in
good time intervals with energies above 100 MeV, zenith angles smaller
than 100$^{\circ}$, and telescope rocking angles $\le$52$^{\circ}$
using the {\tt gtselect} and {\tt gtmktime} tools. The
spatial/spectral binned likelihood analysis was conducted using the
{\tt gtlike} tool based on the input counts, exposure, and source
maps, livetime cube and source model generated with the \textit{Fermi}
Science Tools.
Using the spectral parameters obtained from the likelihood analysis,
the tool {\tt gtsrcprob} was used to assign each event a probability
that it originated from PSR J1723--2837 based on the fluxes and
spectra obtained from the likelihood analysis. The {\tt gtdiffrsp} was
used to compute the integral over solid angle of a diffuse source
model convolved with the instrumental response function. Only photons
with probabilities $\ge$0.05 of being associated with the pulsar were
folded. To fold the data we used the {\tt fermi} plugin for {\tt
tempo2} and the radio ephemeris presented in \citet{Craw13}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f3a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f3b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) \textit{XMM-Newton} EPIC MOS1/2 (\textit{red} and
\textit{blue}) and pn (\textit{green}) orbital phase-averaged X-ray
spectra fitted with an absorbed power-law. (b) Orbital
phase-resolved \textit{Chandra} X-ray spectral continua of
PSR J1723--2837 for phases $\phi_b=0.0-0.5$ (\textit{blue})
and $\phi_b=0.5-1.0$ (\textit{red}), fitted with an absorbed
power-law. The lower panels shows the best-fit residuals in terms of
$\sigma$ with error bars of size one. See text and Table 1 for
best-fit parameters.}
\end{figure}
\section{X-ray Orbital Variability}
Using the radio timing ephemeris of PSR J1723--2837 (Crawford et
al.~2013) we have determined the orbital phases of the barycentered
\textit{XMM-Newton} and \textit{Chandra} source photons. Each
observation cover approximately a single orbit. Large-amplitude flux
variability as a function of time is clearly evident in both data sets
(Figures 1 and 2). Although substantial segments of the
\textit{XMM-Newton} data are removed due to strong flaring, the trend
in the flux modulation is still apparent. A substantial decrease (by a
factor of $\sim$2-3) in flux at superior conjunction
($\phi_b\approx0.25$) is apparent. This indicates that the X-ray flux
varies as a function of the binary period (Figures 1 and 2), a
behavior similar to what is observed analogous MSP systems, especially
PSRs J1023+0038 \citep{Arch10,Bog11b} in the field of the Galaxy and
J0024--7204W in the globular cluster 47 Tuc
\citep{Camilo00,Freire03,Bog05}.
A $\chi^2$ test on the data, binned as in Figures 1 and 2, indicates
negligible probabilities of $4\times10^{-94}$ (20.5$\sigma$) and
$2\times10^{-14}$ (7.6$\sigma$) that the observed flux variability
arises from a constant flux distribution for \textit{XMM-Newton} and
\textit{Chandra}, respectively. A more robust estimate is obtained
from the Kuiper test \citep{Pal04}, which considers the unbinned
lightcurves, weighted to account for the non-uniform exposure across
the orbit. This approach gives probabilities of $6\times10^{-101}$
(21.3$\sigma$) and $2.8\times10^{-21}$ (9.4$\sigma$), for the
\textit{XMM-Newton} and \textit{Chandra} data respectively, that
events being drawn from a constant distribution would exhibit this
level of non-uniformity. There is no appreciable spectral variability
as a function of orbital phase (bottom panel of Figure 2). There is
only marginally significant evidence for spectral hardening between
phases $\sim$0.7--0.9, although as discussed below, pile-up in the
\textit{Chandra} data may be partly responsible for this.
\begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccc}
\tablecolumns{9}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Summary of X-ray Spectroscopy for PSR J1723--2839.}
\tablehead{ \colhead{} & \colhead{\textbf{\textit{XMM}}} & \colhead{} & \colhead{\textbf{\textit{XMM+CXO}}} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{\textit{CXO}}} \\
\cline{2-2} \cline{4-4} \cline{6-9} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{Total} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Total} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Total} & \colhead{$\phi_{b,1}$} & \colhead{$\phi_{b,2}$} & \colhead{Joint} \\
Model\tablenotemark{a} & \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } & \colhead{$(0.0-0.5)$} & \colhead{$(0.5-1.0)$} & \colhead{$\phi_{b,1}+\phi_{b,2}$}}
\startdata
\textbf{Power-law} & & & & & & & & \\
\hline
$N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) & $2.0^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & & $1.9^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & & $1.6^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ & $1.8^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & $1.3^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ & $1.5^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ \\
$\Gamma$ & $1.15^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & & $1.13^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & & $1.00^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $1.10^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $0.88^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $1.13^{+0.05}_{-0.05}/0.85^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ \\
$F_X$ (0.3--8 keV)\tablenotemark{c} & $1.87^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & & $1.87^{+0.02}_{-0.02}/1.27^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & & $1.29^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $1.06^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $1.48^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $1.05^{+0.03}_{-0.03}/1.49^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ \\
$\chi^2_{\nu}$/dof & $1.04/321$ & & $1.02/519$ & & $0.97/199$ & $1.00/94$ & $0.95/129$ & $0.98/225$ \\
\hline
\textbf{Power-law + NSA}\tablenotemark{b} & & & & & & & & \\
\hline
$N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) & $3.4^{+0.7}_{-0.8}$ & & $2.1^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ & & $0.96^{+0.42}_{-0.93}$ & $5.0^{+1.1}_{-1.6}$ & $4.0^{+1.3}_{-2.2}$ & $0.80^{+0.58}_{-0.72}$ \\
$\Gamma$ & $1.15^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & & $1.12^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & & $0.77^{+0.26}_{-0.68}$ & $1.33^{+0.10}_{-0.12}$ & $0.97^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & $0.82^{+0.22}_{-0.54}$ \\
$T_{\rm eff}$ ($10^6$ K) & $0.82^{+0.30}_{-0.17}$ & & $1.10^{+0.75}_{-0.27}$ & & $<$$6.59$ & $0.32^{+0.27}_{-0.41}$ & $0.60^{+0.74}_{-0.13}$ & $0.50^{+0.22}_{-0.08}$ \\
$R_{\rm eff}$ (km) & $4.3^{+9.9}_{-4.1}$ & & $<$$0.32$ & & $<$$0.05$ & $115^{+201}_{-112}$ & $11.6^{+31.3}_{-11.5}$ & $14.5^{+30.3}_{-14.2}$ \\
Non-Thermal fraction\tablenotemark{d} & $0.99^{+0.01}_{-0.04}$ & & $0.98^{+0.02}_{-0.12}/0.97^{+0.3}_{-0.12}$ & & $0.93^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.41^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & $0.84^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $0.84^{+0.08}_{-0.07}/0.89^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ \\
$F_X$ (0.3--8 keV)\tablenotemark{c} & $2.23^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & & $1.91^{+0.04}_{-0.03}/1.29^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & & $1.41^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ & $2.90^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $1.82^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ & $1.06^{+0.06}_{-0.07}/1.49^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ \\
$\chi^2_{\nu}/$dof & $1.01/316$ & & $1.03/517$ & & $0.98/197$ & $0.98/92$ & $0.95/127$ & $0.98/222$ \\
\hline
\textbf{Power-law + MEKAL}\tablenotemark{e} & & & & & & & & \\
\hline
$N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) & $2.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ & & $2.0^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ & & $2.2^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ & $3.6^{+1.4}_{-1.2}$ & $1.3^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ & $0.19^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ \\
$\Gamma$ & $1.14^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & & $1.13^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & & $1.05^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $1.23^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ & $0.85^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $1.08^{+0.07}_{-0.07}/0.95^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ \\
$kT$ (keV) & $0.57^{+0.14}_{-0.27}$ & & $0.32^{+0.12}_{-0.06}$ & & $0.25^{+0.13}_{-0.05}$ & $0.24^{+0.06}_{-0.03}$ & $<1.41$ & $0.29^{+0.19}_{-0.08}$ \\
Non-thermal fraction\tablenotemark{d} & $0.99^{+0.01}_{-0.04}$ & & $0.99^{+0.01}_{-0.03}/0.98^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & & $0.97^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.88^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & $0.99^{+0.01}_{-0.06}$ & $0.98^{+0.02}_{-0.12}/0.98^{+0.02}_{-0.12}$ \\
$F_X$ (0.3--8 keV)\tablenotemark{c} & $1.89^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & & $1.91^{+0.04}_{-0.03}/1.29^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & & $1.34^{+0.11}_{-0.02}$ & $1.29^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $1.49^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $1.09^{+0.07}_{-0.07}/1.53^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ \\
$\chi^2_{\nu}/$dof & $1.03/316$ & & $1.02/517$ & & $0.97/197$ & $0.99/92$ & $0.95/127$ & $0.98/222$
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{All quoted uncertainties and limits are at a 1$\sigma$ confidence level.}
\tablenotetext{b}{For the {\tt nsa} model, a star with $R=10$ km, $M=1.4$ M$_{\odot}$ is assumed. The un-redshifted effective radius, $R_{\rm eff}$, was computed assuming $D=750$ pc.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Unabsorbed X-ray flux (0.3--8 keV) in units of
$10^{-12}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.}
\tablenotetext{d}{Fraction of unabsorbed flux from the nonthermal component in the 0.3--8 keV band.}
\tablenotetext{e}{For the MEKAL model, solar abundances are assumed.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\section{Phase-averaged X-ray Spectroscopy}
In similar MSP binary systems, the phase-integrated X-ray continuum is
well represented by a power-law, while a single thermal (either
blackbody or neutron star hydrogen atmosphere) model fails to
reproduce the spectral shape. In some instances, an acceptable fit is
obtained with a composite power-law plus thermal model. Like many
MSPs studied in X-rays \citep{Zavlin06,Bog06,Bog09}, PSR J1723--2837
is expected to have hot polar caps due to a return current of
particles from the pulsar magnetosphere. Based on this, in addition to
a single-component power-law we consider a composite model consisting
of an absorbed power-law and a NS atmosphere. We choose the NSA
atmosphere model \citep{Zavlin96} instead of a blackbody since it has
been shown that the thermal pulsations from the nearest MSPs favor an
atmosphere \citep{Zavlin98,Bog07,Bog09,Bog13}, as expected at the
surface of objects ``recycled'' via accretion of matter. A fraction of
the X-rays associated with J1723--2837 could arise from a thermal
plasma within or around the binary, possibly from the active corona of
the companion star or intra-binary plasma that causes the radio
eclipses. Hence, we also present fits using a a power-law plus MEKAL
hot diffuse plasma model, which includes line emissions from several
elements based on input metal abundances \citep{Mewe85,Mewe86,Lie95}.
Table 1 summarizes the results using the three different models.
A joint fit to the \textit{XMM-Newton} and \textit{Chandra}
phase-averaged spectra results in statistically unacceptable fits due
to a significant flux difference between the two data sets. This
discrepancy cannot be explained by the partial orbital coverage of the
\textit{XMM-Newton} data. Given the $1.3$ year separation of the two
observations, it is likely the result of long term flux variations
from the X-ray-emitting intrabinary shock, possibly due to changes in
the stellar activity of the secondary star or fluctuations in the
outflow of gas from the companion through the inner Lagrangian
point. Similar flux changes on timescales of years have also been
observed in the ``redback'' PSR J0024--7204W in the globular cluster
47 Tuc \citep{Bog05,Cam07}, suggesting this may be a common feature of
these systems. As a consequence of the appreciable flux difference,
we have fitted the two observations jointly but with independent flux
normalizations as well as separately. From a statistical standpoint,
the simple pure power-law and power-law plus thermal component both
produce satisfactory fits. The addition of a NSA or MEKAL component
results in a slight improvement in the quality of the fit compared to
a pure power-law but is not statistically significant. The parameters
of the NSA and MEKAL components are poorly constrained as their
contribution to the total flux is typically only a few percent. The
hydrogen column density through the Galaxy along the line of sight to
the pulsar is $\sim$$3.8\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ based on
\citet{Kalb05}. The best fit values of $N_{\rm H}$ \citep[assuming
abundances from][]{And89} in Table 1 are generally consistent with
this value.
\subsection{Orbital Phase-resolved Spectrum}
In the case of the \textit{XMM-Newton} data, the large gaps in orbital
phase coverage resulting from background flare removal are not
conducive to phase-resolved spectroscopy. Therefore, we only consider
the \textit{Chandra} observation for this analysis. We divide the
data over two orbital phase intervals: $\phi_b=0.0-0.5$ (around the
minimum in X-ray flux) and $\phi_b=0.5-1.0$. The two spectra were
fitted both separately and jointly. For the latter, for the thermal
component we tied both the temperature and effective radius in all
instances since the emission associated with the pulsar is not likely
to exhibit any variability as a function of orbital phase. The
best-fit parameters of the orbital phase-resolved spectral fits are
listed in of Table 1.
A simple power-law provides a very good fit to the total
phase-averaged X-ray spectrum, as well as each of the spectra at
phases $0-0.5$ and $0.5-1$. The same is true for the joint fit
of phase-resolved spectra. In all instances, the power-law around
flux maximum is significantly harder compared to flux minimum and
inferred from the phase-averaged \textit{XMM-Newton} data. Although
this could be indicative of intrinsic spectral hardening of the
source, it could also arise due to photon pile-up on the ACIS-S
detector. Pile-up occurs when two or more photons, arriving at the
detector during one frame time, are erroneously identifed as a single
photon with the sum of the photon energies or else discarded (Davis
2001). The result is a distortion of the intrinsic shape of the source
spectrum, causing an artificial hardening of the spectrum. Using
PIMMS\footnote{Available at
\url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp}.}, we find that the
predicted pile-up for this source in the $1/8$ sub-array mode of
ACIS-S is $\sim$2\% based on the phase-averaged count rate. Indeed,
fitting a power-law spectrum with the {\tt pileup} model in {\tt
XSPEC} yields a slightly steeper power-law with
$\Gamma=1.05^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ for the phase-avaraged ACIS-S spectrum
and $\Gamma=0.94^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ for the orbital phase interval
$\phi_b=0.5-1.0$, which is more consistent with the results from the
other fits.
\section{X-ray Imaging Analysis}
PSR J1723--2837 is by far the brightest source in the
\textit{XMM-Newton} EPIC and \textit{Chandra} ACIS-S images (Figure
4). This confirms that the \textit{ROSAT} X-ray point source 1RXS
J172323.7--283805, located 13$''$ from the position of the pulsar, is
in fact PSR J1723--2837, as suggested in \citet{Craw13}. The X-ray
position measured from the \textit{Chandra} image using {\tt
wavdetect} is $\alpha_X=17^{\rm h}23^{\rm m}23\fs19$,
$\delta_X=-28^{\circ}37\arcmin57\farcs49$, which differs from the
radio position $\alpha_r=17^{\rm h}23^{\rm m}23\fs1856$,
$\delta_r=+17^{\circ}37\arcmin57\farcs17$ \citep{Craw13} by just
$+0.06\arcsec$ and $-0.32\arcsec$ in right ascension and declination,
respectively, significantly smaller than the uncertainty in the
absolute astrometry of \textit{Chandra}\footnote{See
\url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/ASPECT/celmon/}}.
The sub-arcsecond angular resolution afforded by \textit{Chandra}
allows us to look for nebuar X-ray radiation surrounding the pulsar.
Redback systems are of particular interest in this regard since any
information about recent accretion could, in principle, be encoded in
any anomalies in the diffuse X-rays associated with the pulsar.
However, for $\gtrsim$2$\arcsec$ away from PSR J1723--2837, there is
no indication for excess emission in any direction away from the
pulsar due to a bow shock or wind nebula. To formally verify this, we
generated 20 simulated observations of PSR J1723--2837 with
ChaRT\footnote{The Chandra Ray Tracer, available at
\url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/soft/ChaRT/cgi-bin/www-saosac.cgi}} and
MARX 4.5\footnote{Available at
\url{http://space.mit.edu/cxc/marx/index.html}.}, using the
specifics of the \textit{Chandra} observation and the best-fit X-ray
spectrum as input. The average of the simulated point spread functions
was subtracted from the observed image to identify any residual
emission relative to the background level. For $\lesssim$1$\arcsec$
from the center, the difference image reveals appreciable residuals
(both positive and negative) that are azimuthally asymmetric . In
principle, a shift between the position reported by {\tt wavdetect}
and the true source position could produce such residuals. To
investigate this possibility, we have repreated the analysis using a
range of shifts along the azimuthal direction in which the residuals
are most significant in an attempt to minimize them. None yielded an
improvement in the difference image. Based on this, the most likely
explantion is that these residuals arise due to imperfections in the
model of the High-Resolution Mirror Assembly optics
\citep{Juda10}\footnote{See also
\url{http://hea-www.harvard.edu/\~juda/memos/\\HEAD2010/HEAD2010\_poster.html}
and
\url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Hrc/PSF/acis\_psf\_2010oct.html}}.
Beyond $\sim$1$\arcsec$ of the pulsar the difference image does not
show any deviations from what is expected from a point source (Figure
5), confirming the absence of any diffuse emission surrounding the
pulsar.
Based on the background count rate around the pulsar ($2\times10^{-6}$
counts s$^{-1}$ arcsec$^{-2}$ for $0.3-6$ keV) and taking a typical
power-law spectrum for X-ray PWNe \citep{Kar08} with $\Gamma=1.5$, the
limit on the pulsar wind nebula luminosity is
$\sim$$1\times10^{29}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ for a distance of $750$ pc.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\textit{Chandra} ACIS-S3 J2000 $1.2\arcmin\times1.2\arcmin$
image binned at the intrinsic resolution of the ACIS-S detector
($0.5\arcsec$) showing the X-ray counterpart to PSR J1723--2837 in
the 0.3--6 keV interval. The grey scale represents counts increasing
logarithmically from 0 (white) to 488 (black).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Radial profile of the observed ACIS-S point spread function
(PSF) of the X-ray counterpart of PSR J1723--2837 after background
subtraction (\textit{histogram}) and the mean of 20 synthetic PSFs
(\textit{red dashed line}).}
\end{figure}
\section{Probing the Physics of the Intrabinary Shock}
In \citet{Bog11b}, simple geometric modeling of PSR J1023+0038
revealed that an intrabinary shock localized primarily near the inner
Lagrangian point and/or at the face of the companion can naturally
account for the X-ray variability. In this interpretation, the
obstruction of the observer's view of the X-ray region by the
secondary causes the apparent decline in flux at $\phi\approx
0.25$. Given the qualitative similarities in observed X-ray
properties, it is highly probable that the location of the shock in
J1723--2837 is the same.
Using this information it is possible to gain quantitative insight
into the properties of the intrabinary shock. Due the compactness of
the binary ($a\approx 2\times10^{11}$ cm), it is likely that the shock
is formed in a relatively intense magnetic field, meaning that
synchrotron produced by accelerated particles is the most probable
X-ray emission mechanism. The resulting synchrotron luminosity is a
function of the strength of the post-shock field and the ratio between
the Poynting flux and particle flux $\sigma$ (the wind magnetization
factor). If the wind is dominated by kinetic energy, $\sigma \approx
0.003$ \citep[like in the Crab nebula][]{Ken84}, while for a
magnetically dominated wind, $\sigma \gg 1$. Based on the prescription
presented by \citet{Arons93}, the field strength immediately past the
shock is defined by
$B_1=[\sigma/(1+\sigma)]^{1/2}(\dot{E}/cf_{p}r^2)^{1/2}$, where $f_p$
defines the portion of the sky into which the pulsar wind is emitted,
while $r$ is the separation between the pulsar and the shock
front. For PSR J1723--2837, the approximate distance from the MSP to
L$_1$ assuming $M_{\rm MSP}=1.4$ M$_{\odot}$ and $i=37^{\circ}$ is
$r\approx2\times10^{11}$ cm. For a pulsar wind that is emitted
isotropically ($f_{p}=1$) with $\dot{E}=4.6\times10^{34}$ ergs
s$^{-1}$ this produces $B_1\approx0.68$ G ($\sigma=0.003$) and
$B_1\approx 12$ G ($\sigma\gg1$). The resulting magnetic field
strength past the shock is $B_2=3B_1\sim 2$ G or $B_2\sim37$ G,
respectively. In order to produce photons with energies
$\varepsilon_{\rm keV}=0.3-8\sim1$ keV by synchrotron radiation,
relativistic $e^{pm}$ with Lorentz factors
$\gamma=2.4\times10^5(\varepsilon/B_2)^{1/2}$ (with $\varepsilon$ in
units of keV and $B_2$ in G) are required, which yields
$\sim$$0.2\times 10^5$ ($\sigma\gg1$) and $\sim$$1\times10^5$
($\sigma=0.003$). The associated radiative loss time is then $t_{\rm
synch}=5.1\times10^8(\gamma B_2^2)^{-1}\sim 2-145$ s \citep{Ryb79}.
Assuming a shock region that is $\sim$1 R$_{\odot}$, the radius of the
companion's Roche lobe \citep[][]{Craw13}, the residence times of the
synchrotron-emitting e$^{\mp}$ in the shock are $t_{\rm
flow}=c/3R\approx13$ s (for $\sigma=0.003$) and $t_{\rm
flow}=c/R\approx 40$ s (for $\sigma\gg 1$).
The luminosity from the shock due to synchrotron radiation can be
computed approximately using the expression $f_{\rm shock}
f_{\varepsilon} L_{\varepsilon}=f_{\rm synch}f_{\gamma}f_{\rm
geom}\dot{E}$. Here $f_{\rm synch}$ represents the radiative
efficiency of the synchrotron mechanism, $f_{\gamma}$ corresponds to
the portion of the wind power that goes into accelerating e$^{\mp}$
with Lorentz factor $\gamma$, $f_{\rm geom}$ is the portion of the MSP
outflow that encounters material from the secondary star, $f_{\rm
shock}$ is the fraction of the total system luminosity that arises
due the shock, and $L_{\varepsilon}$ is the X-ray luminosity in the
energy interval under consideration, while $f\varepsilon$ is the
fraction of the total synchrotron spectrum falling in the observed
energy band. Using $f_{\rm synch}=(1+t_{\rm synch}/t_{\rm
flow})^{-1}$, we find values of $f_{\rm synch}\approx0.02$ and
$f_{\rm synch}\approx0.8$, corresponding to $\sigma=0.003$ and
$\sigma\gg 1$, respectively. For a radius of $\sim$1 R$_{\odot}$, the
secondary encounters $f_{\rm geom} \approx 0.01$ of the pulsar's
outflow if the MSP wind is uniformly emitted in all
direction. However, it is highly probable that the MSP wind is
significantly anisotropic, with most of it flowing out equatorially
since such a geometry is observed in the Crab pulsar
\citep{Hest95,Mich94}. Given that during the LMXB accretion phase the
pulsar spin axis vector has become parallel with the orbital
angular momentum vector, the wind
should be emitted predominantly in the orbital plane \citep{Bhatt91}.
For a wind emitted only in the orbital
plane, the companion star would intercept $f_{\rm geom}\approx0.08$ of
the total wind energy. Thus, we set $0.01<f_{\rm geom}<0.08$.
Based on the phase-resolved spectroscopic analysis, the intrinsic
shock luminosity (in the absence of eclipses) can be estimated to be
$L_{\varepsilon}\approx1\times10^{32}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ for particles
with $\gamma\approx10^5$. With $f_{\rm shock}\approx1$ as obtained from
the spectroscopic analysis, we find $27\lesssim f_{\gamma}\lesssim218$
($\sigma=0.003$) and $0.14\lesssim f_{\gamma}\lesssim1.1$
($\sigma\gg1$). In the case of $\sigma=0.003$, the implied range of $f_{\gamma}$
is clearly unphysical as it exceeds unity, even if the shock region
receives 100\% of the pulsar wind power. This problem is further
exacerbated if the cut off of the energy spectrum is significantly
above 10 keV, such that the observed flux isonly a fraction of the
emitted flux. This would increase the fraction of the wind power that
has to go in electron acceleration. This implies that for PSR
J1723--2837 the wind in the vicinity of the shock is probably magnetically
dominated.
In the case of $\sigma\gg1$, obtaining comparable values to that of the Crab
pulsar ($f_{\gamma}=0.04$) can be obtained by assuming that the bulk
of the X-ray-emitting region is confined to an equatorial strip (as
illustrated in Figure 6). It is interesting to note that a similar
feature is necessary to account for the peculiar He I lines seen in
the analogous MSP binary PSR J1740--5340 in NGC
6397 \citep{Ferr03}. This requires either a sheet-like pulsar wind
and/or a strong outflow from the companion that is preferentially
emitted along the stellar equator. Alternatively, a realistic value
of $f_{\gamma}$ can be achieved for both scenarios if the secondary
star has a relatively high surface magnetic field, $\sim$$10^{2-3}$ G
\citep[see][and references therein]{Donati09}, at the high end of
fields measured for main sequence stars. However, for values
$\lesssim$$10^2$ G, the emission region still needs to be a factor of
$\lesssim$$10$ smaller than the secondary star.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f6.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic illustration of the PSR J1723--2837 system. The
blue hatched and cross-hatched regions show the portion of the
companion that is illuminated by the pulsar wind for the case of a
Roche-lobe filling and 90\% filling star, respectively. The red
strip depicts an equatorial band that is 10\% of the stellar
radius. The dotted line shows the semi-major axis and the cross
marks the center of mass of the binary. The dashed lines delineate
the range of possible lines of sight to the observer for
$i=30-41^{\circ}$ at superior conjunction.}
\end{figure}
In \citet{Craw13}, it was suggested that the measured $\dot{P}$ and
hence all parameters derived from it are affected and possibly
dominated by the kinematic (Shklovskii) effect. This implies that the
pulsar's true spin-down luminosity is significantly smaller than the
derived value of $\dot{E}=4.6\times10^{34}$ erg s$^{-1}$. If we
consider a smaller intrinsic $\dot{E}$ in the calculations above, the
required X-ray conversion efficiency becomes unrealistically large,
unless we invoke a very compact X-ray-emitting shock region and/or a
companion star with a $\sim$$10^3$ G surface magnetic field.
Thus, in order to further constrain the physics and geometry of the
intrabinary shock it is important to determine the intrinsic $\dot{P}$
of the pulsar by way of continuing radio timing observations or
optical proper motion measurements.
\section{\textit{FERMI} LAT ANALYSIS}
\subsection{Binned Likelihood Analysis}
PSR J1723--2837 does not fall within the 95\% confidence region of any
source in the Fermi LAT 2-Year Point Source Catalog
\citep{Nolan12}. The two nearest published sources, 2FGL J1717.3--2809
and 2FGL J1728.0--2737c, both lie 1.4$^{\circ}$ away. A visual
inspection of the nearly five years of \textit{Fermi} LAT data we have
retrieved reveals no obvious $\gamma$-ray source at the pulsar
position. This is in large part due the pulsar being situated only
$4^{\circ}$ above the Galactic plane, where the diffuse Galactic
emission component is quite strong and source confusion can be
particularly problematic.
To formally establish whether PSR J1723--2837 is a $\gamma$-ray
source, we carried out a binned likelihood analysis by considering a
source at the position of the pulsar modeled by a power-law with an
exponential cutoff, with the form $dN/dt\propto E^{-\Gamma}
\exp(-E/E_c)$, where $\Gamma$ is the spectral photon index and $E_c$ is
the spectrum cutoff energy. The parameters of the putative
$\gamma$-ray pulsar, the 44 sources within $10^{\circ}$ of the pulsar,
and the normalization factors of diffuse components were left free in
the fit. We also consider emission from sources up to $15^{\circ}$
away but keep their parameters fixed. The source model also included
contributions from the extragalactic diffuse emission and the residual
instrumental background, jointly modeled using the {\tt
iso\_p7v6source} template, and from the Galactic diffuse emission,
modeled with the {\tt gal\_2yearp7v6\_v0} map cube.
The likelihood analysis yields a source test statistic \citep[$TS$,
see][ for a definition]{Nolan12} value of $57$, corresponding to a
$\sim$$7.6\sigma$ significance, for the putative pulsar $\gamma$-ray
counterpart. However, the best-fit pulsar spectrum tends towards very
steep photon indices ($\Gamma\sim3$) and low values of the cutoff
energy ($E_c\lesssim500$ MeV), likely owing to the paucity of photons
above $\sim$500 MeV. These values are substantially different from
those of the current sample of $\gamma$-ray detected MSPs \citep[see
Table 10 in][]{Abdo13}, which have average photon index and cutoff
energy of $\Gamma=1.3$ and $E_c=2.2$ GeV, with the lowest values being
$\Gamma=1.9$ and $E_c=1.1$ GeV. Fixing the pulsar parameters to the
latter set of values results in $TS=45$ ($\sim$6.7$\sigma$). To
mitigate the effect of the overwhelming Galactic diffuse background
at $\sim$100 MeV, we also carried out the likelihood analysis for
photon energies $>$300 MeV. The result is a substantially diminished
significance of the source (with $TS=22$, corresponding to
$\sim$4.7$\sigma$) and a best fit with a very steep power-law
$\Gamma\approx3$ and an abnormally low cutoff $E_c\approx200-500$
MeV. Using $\Gamma=1.9$ and $E_c=1.1$ GeV as fixed parameters results
in $TS=20$.
As the ``c'' suffix designates, the source 2FGL J1728.0--2737c is
confused, indicating that its reported source position and spectrum
are unreliable. Based on this, we consider the possibility that this
$\gamma$-ray source is perhaps the pulsar and remove it from the input
model. The result is $TS=74.4$ ($\sim$8.6$\sigma$) for the pulsar for
$>$100 MeV but again with a very steep spectrum and a low cutoff
energy for the best fit. In this case, fixing the parameters to
$\Gamma=1.9$ and $E_c=1.1$ GeV, results in $TS=65.3$, corresponding to
$\sim$8$\sigma$. However, the same fit for $>$300 MeV results only in
$TS=12.7$.
Although from a statistical standpoint the pulsar is consistent with
being a $\gamma$-ray source, the veracity of the $\gamma$-ray
detection appears to depend strongly on the accuracy of the Galactic
diffuse model. The tendency towards abnormal values of $\Gamma$ and
$E_c$, as well as the dramatic decline in the source significance for
$>$300 MeV, is an indication that the bulk of $\gamma$-ray emission at
the pulsar position may not actually be associated with PSR
J1723--2837 and is possibly due to excess diffuse emission that is not
properly accounted for in the current model. If the $\gamma$-ray
emission is in fact associated with the pulsar, the implied energy
flux from PSR J1723--2837 assuming $\Gamma=1.9$ and $E_c=1.1$ GeV is
$F_{\gamma}\approx2\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for energies
above 100 MeV. For $D=750$ pc, this corresponds to a $\gamma$-ray
luminosity of $L_{\gamma}\approx 2\times 10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Given
the ambiguity regarding the pulsar detection, this provides a
conservative upper limit on the $\gamma$-ray production efficiency of
$\sim$5\% of the pulsar spin-down luminosity, towards the low end of
values in the current sample of \textit{Fermi} LAT MSPs \citep[see
Table 10 in][]{Abdo13}. This could mean that PSR J1723--2837 is
either one of the least efficient $\gamma$-ray emitting MSPs or, if
the detection is spurious, the $\gamma$-ray emission pattern is not
directed towards us \citep{Rom11}.
\subsection{Photon-Weighted Pulsation Search}
As reported in \citep{Craw13}, the timing irregularities associated
with this PSR J1723--2837 requires the addition of multiple orbital
period derivatives in order to obtain a satisfactory radio timing
solution. As a result, the best radio timing ephemeris cannot be
reliably extrapolated to fold \textit{Fermi} LAT photons over the
entire $\sim$5 year span of the mission. As a result, we restrict our
analysis to events detected in the interval over which the
pulsar ephemeris is valid (MJDs 55101.8--55803.8).
Folding the \textit{Fermi} LAT photons extracted with various energy
cuts and acceptance cone radii does not yield statistically
significant $\gamma$-ray pulsations. However, as demonstrated in
recent studies \citep{Kerr11,Gui12} weighting the $\gamma$-ray photons
by the probability that they originate from a pulsar significantly
enhances the sensitivity to faint pulsations. This is especially
critical for PSR J1723--2837 owing to its proximity to the Galactic
plane ($b=4.2^{\circ}$), where the diffuse $\gamma$-ray background is
strong. The resulting best fit source model from the binned
likelihood analysis was used in conjunction with the {\tt gtsrcprob}
script to assign a probability to each photon of being associated with
PSR J1723--2837. Since there are two extended source within
10$^{\circ}$ of the pulsar (W28 and W30), the {\tt gtdiffrsp} was
first used to compute the diffuse response over this region.
Based on this, we folded only photons with probabilities greater than
0.05 using the Fermi plug-in\footnote{See {\tt
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/user\\/Fermi\_plug\_doc.pdf.}}
for the {\tt tempo2}\footnote{{\tt
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tempo2/}} pulsar timing package
and the best available radio ephemeris \citep{Craw13}. The photon
weights were calculated by using the best fit spectral model of the
region around the $\gamma$-ray source. Folding the extracted
probability-weighted \textit{Fermi} LAT photons with energies $>$100
MeV with the ephemeris of PSR J1723--2837 yields no statistically
significant pulsations. Due to the overwhealming background at low
energies a range of energy bands was also considered, but still no
pulsations were detected.
In principle, at least a portion of the $\gamma$-ray emission
associated with PSR J1723--2837 could arise from the same intra-binary
shock that produces the non-thermal X-ray emission. This scenario has
been proposed by \citet{Tam10} to explain the $\gamma$-ray emission
associated with PSR J1023+0038. In fact, a similarly steep photon
index to that found in \S7.1 is derived for PSR J1023+0038
($2.9\pm0.2$), suggesting that for PSR J1723--2837 the same
$\gamma$-ray production mechanism dominates. This would make these two
pulsars exceptional among the `redbacks'' in the field of the Galaxy,
which tend to exhibit strong pulsation at the spin period
\citep{Ray12}. To investigate this possibility, we folded the data at
the binary period but found no statistically significant variability.
\section{CONCLUSION}
We have presented an analysis of \textit{XMM-Newton} and
\textit{Chandra} observations of the nearby PSR J1723--2837
``redback'' MSP system. The X-ray spectrum show a strong non-thermal
component that accounts for most if not all of the emission in the
0.3--8 keV band, which exhibits large-amplitude variability as a
function of the binary orbital period. This pronounced flux
modulation, with a significant decline in flux at conjunction, appears
to be one of the defining characteristics of so-called ``redback''
systems. As such, it can serve as a convenient identifier of
additional members of this population, especially in instances where
radio detection is difficult due to prolonged eclipses. For instance,
strong outflows in similar systems may inhibit detection
of radio pulsations, rendering them perpetually eclipsed
\citep{Tav91}. Such an occurence is believed to be the cause of the recent disappearance of PSR J1023+0038 at radio frequencies \citep{Stap13}.
There is no indication of an X-ray wind nebula associated with the
pulsar. The lack of a discernable PWN down to a limit of
$\lesssim$$3.6\times10^{29}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, corresponding to
$\lesssim$$7\times10^{-6}$ of the pulsar's $\dot{E}$, indicates that
the combination of the low density of the surrounding interstellar
medium, unfavorable wind geometry, and/or possibly low space velocity
are likely not conducive to the production of an X-ray-bright bow
shock. Thus, X-ray bow shocks associated with nearby MSPs remain
quite rare, with only two objects, PSRs B1957+21 \citep{Stap03} and
J2124--3358 \citep{Hui06}, exhibiting prominent bow shock emission.
A likelihood analysis of the \textit{Fermi} LAT emission in the
vicinity of PSR J1723--2837 reveals that the pulsar is consistent with
being a $\gamma$-ray point source although owing to the strong diffuse
background a detection cannot be established conclusively. There are
no statistically significant $\gamma$-ray pulsations detected even
using photon probability weights. The absence of pulsed emission could
arise due to one or more of the following reasons: (1) the
$\gamma$-ray emission at the pulsar position is unrelated to the
pulsar indicating that PSR J1723--2837 is sub-luminous in
$\gamma$-rays or its $\gamma$-ray emission pattern is not favorably
oriented; (2) the pulse shape is not favorable (e.g.~due to a high
duty cycle), which combined with the high background and the paucity
of source photons above $300$ MeV results in a non-detection. There
is also no evidence for orbital-phase-dependent variability if the
$\gamma$-rays.
By analogy with PSR J1824--2452I, the redback and \textit{bona fide}
X-ray binary/radio MSP transition system \citep{Pap13}, PSR
J1723--2837 could also experience a switch to an accretion disk state.
Therefore, as the nearest such system, PSR J1723--2837 warrants close
scrutiny at all wavelengths as it provides the best-suited target for
studying the transition process of MSPs from accretion to rotation
power (and vice versa) and the circumstances surrounding it.
\acknowledgements This work was funded in part by NASA
\textit{Chandra} grants GO2-13049A/B awarded through Columbia University
and West Virginia University and issued by the \textit{Chandra} X-ray
Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-03060. A
portion of the results presented was based on observations obtained
with \textit{XMM-Newton}, an ESA science mission with instruments and
contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and NASA. This
research has made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) and
software provided by the Chandra X-ray Center (CXC) in the application
package CIAO. We acknowledge the use of data and software facilities
from the FSSC, managed by the HEASARC at the Goddard Space Flight
Center.
Facilities: \textit{XMM,CXO,Fermi}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Intro}
The Vlasov equation represents the cornerstone for the kinetic modeling
of collisionless plasmas. It describes the time evolution of the distribution function of a population of charged particles that respond self-consistently to the effect of self- and externally
induced electromagnetic fields.
The numerical solution of the Vlasov equation for collisionless plasmas represents a very active area of research.
The main challenge resides in the fact that the distribution function lives in a six dimensional phase space.
Unarguably, the most widely used technique to solve the Vlasov equation is the Particle-In-Cell (PIC) method \citep{birdsall_book,hockney_book}.
The main idea, originally developed in the 50's, is to sample the distribution function in velocity space by means of a discrete number of super-particles.
The electromagnetic field is represented on a grid in the computational domain, and the super-particles move through the grid according to the Lorentz force that is calculated by interpolation
from the grid to the particles position.
The particles interactions are therefore mediated by the grid, and in this way the number of operations per time step is reduced from $\sim N_p^2$ (if the total force on a particle is calculated
by summing the pair interaction with every other particle) to $\sim N_p$ (with $N_p$ the number of super-particles).
A comprehensive review of the PIC methodology can be found in \citep{verboncoeur05}.
The primary shortcoming of PIC simulations is related to the numerical noise: even starting from an equilibrium configuration, the discrete nature of the particles generates instantaneous
(i.e. within the first time step) unphysical perturbations that produce a 'noise ground' level in the fields, below which any physical signal is lost.
The most obvious way to reduce the noise in PIC is by increasing the number of super-particles, i.e. refining the discretization in velocity space.
The main problem is that while the simulation time scales roughly linearly with $N_p$, the noise ground level decreases only as $N_p^{-1/2}$, as typical of Monte Carlo methods, implying that problems
that require a high signal-to-noise ratio require significant computational resources.
Some examples that illustrate the impact of the particle noise on the efficiency of PIC codes are the recent studies in space plasmas
on the acceleration of particles in the solar wind and the coupling between large scale
turbulence and small scale (i.e. kinetic) dissipative effects \citep{valentini08,matteini12, haynes13}.
PIC codes have demonstrated very poor performances for these problems. In two-dimensional (2D)
simulations, \citet{camporeale11} have shown that at least $\sim 10,000$ particles per cell (equivalent
to $\sim10^6$ in 3D) are needed to achieve a sufficiently large signal-to-noise ratio. For comparison, one of the biggest and most advanced PIC simulations in the world (of a magnetic reconnection problem)
was done with ~250 particles per cell
and required the use of the highest performance, petascale computer available at that time \citep{daughton11,bowers09}.
We note that methods based on $\delta$f or re-mapping of the distribution function have been developed in the PIC community to reduce particle noise. This has led to some very interesting work (see for instance \citep{chehab05, wang11, deng14}), but has not yet resulted in a commonly accepted denoising technique adopted by the PIC community.
The non-optimal scaling of the noise level with the number of particles in the PIC method has long been recognized in the computational plasma physics community \citep{byers70, denavit81, sydora99, nevins05},
and it has perhaps been the main motivation for developing alternative ways of solving the Vlasov equation numerically.
Nevertheless, despite its intrinsic noise, the PIC method still represents the preferred approach in the community, probably due to its simplicity of coding, the relative ease to parallelize it,
and the recent impressive advances in available computing power. However, one should always keep in mind the resource-intensive nature of PIC and the related cost. As a figure of merit on the cost
of large scale PIC simulations, a single run using the global gyrokinetic PIC code developed within the SciDAC Gyrokinetic Particle Simulation Center (GPSC) \citep{batchelor07} for investigating
the long-time evolution of turbulent transport in nuclear fusion devices was estimated, in 2008, to take approximately 25 million CPU hours, on 100,000+ cores \citep{tang08}. The monetary cost of
such a simulation can be estimated at about \$1,000,000 \citep{walker09}.
In view of the upcoming exascale era and the complexity of multiscale plasma physics, it is therefore legitimate to question the computational efficiency of the PIC algorithm and wonder whether
it is possible to devise algorithms that use the available computational resources more efficiently.
An alternative to the PIC method is represented by solving the Vlasov equation directly in phase-space (namely with a sixth dimensional computational grid in space and velocity),
by means of a so-called Eulerian Vlasov code.
This has been done, usually for problems with reduced dimensionality, with a variety of techniques such as high-order finite differences \citep{whealton86, guo12}, finite elements \citep{besse03,heath12},
or finite volumes \citep{banks10,duclous12}.
The reader is referred to \citep{shoucri08} for a recent review of different methods.
Notably, successful algorithms include the semi-Lagrangian schemes \citep{shoucri74,cheng76,sonnendrucker99,besse03,umeda06,carrillo07,crouseilles07,imadera09,crouseilles10,qiu10,qiu11, rossmanith11}
and positive flux conservative methods \citep{filbet01}.\\
Yet another class of techniques is represented by spectral methods where the velocity space is projected onto a complete orthogonal basis,
and therefore the phase space is effectively not gridded in the velocity coordinates \citep{engelmann63, armstrong70, denavit71, klimas83, eliasson03, lebourdiec06}.\\
Clearly, all these methods have advantages and shortcomings. Historically, the PIC method has been favored for large-scale, multidimensional problems which are still
not doable with Vlasov solvers (mainly due to memory limitations) \citep{mangeney02}. On the other hand, Vlasov codes allow the study of fine scale details of the distribution functions that are typically inaccessible
in PIC codes, due to the above mentioned noise problem.
Vlasov codes, however, can suffer from serious numerical problems that can lead to a lack of discrete conservation properties, the occurrence of unphysical oscillations, and
the generation of non-positive values in the distribution functions \citep{banks10}.\\
In this paper, we focus on a spectral method where the distribution function is projected onto an Hermite basis in velocity space.
This gives rise to a set of nonlinear, time- and space-dependent PDEs for the coefficients of the expansion.
The use of Hermite functions to discretize the velocity space in the Vlasov equation dates back to the works of \citet{grad49, engelmann63, grant67a}, and \citet{armstrong70}.
More recently this approach has been investigated by \citet{holloway96,schumer98,lebourdiec06} and, in the context of linearized equations, by \citet{camporeale06} and \citet{siminos11}.
The expansion of the distribution function using an Hermite basis in velocity space can be appealing for several reasons.
First, the Hermite functions are a complete orthogonal basis with respect to a Gaussian
weight function. As such, they are the optimal basis to represent Maxwellian-like distributions. In fact, an exact Maxwellian in velocity can be represented by only one term of the Hermite basis.
Second, as already noted by \citet{grad49}, the low order expansion coefficients are directly related to the low order moments of the distribution functions
(i.e. density, mean velocity, energy, heat flux, etc.) that describe the plasma macroscopically and are usually the physical quantities of interest.
As a consequence, the use of the Hermite basis allows a smooth transition from a fluid to a kinetic description by simply increasing the number of coefficients retained.
This is an important and crucial feature of this method in approaching multi-scale problems and in assessing the importance of kinetic effects, which is not available in PIC or Vlasov methods that are
forced to treat the full distribution function.
This article describes a semi-implicit discretization in time of the truncated set of PDEs for the expansion coefficients.
A fully-implicit time discretization is discussed in the companion paper (Part 2) \citep{camporeale13b}.
The spatial dependence of the coefficients is represented by means of a discrete Fourier transform. \\
This paper builds largely upon the work of \citet{schumer98}.
In \citep{schumer98} two different Hermite bases (so called 'asymmetrically' and 'symmetrically' weighted) and their properties were discussed, and a qualitative comparison between the Fourier-Hermite (FH)
method and the PIC method was presented for simulations of Landau damping and bump-on-tail instability. Here we expand that work in three ways.
First, we propose a semi-implicit scheme that is numerically more stable than the explicit scheme presented in \citep{schumer98}.
Second, we study the effects of an artificial collision operator, with the intent of controlling the filamentation process and suppressing/mitigating numerical instabilities.
Third, we \textit{quantitatively} compare the FH method against a conventional explicit PIC code.
In order to assess which method must be preferred (and for which conditions), the key information is represented by the CPU time needed to obtain a solution with a certain accuracy
(this metric was not considered in \citet{schumer98}).
Hence, our comparisons are presented in terms of computational efficiency and efficacy. The former is essentially represented by the CPU time required to achieve a certain accuracy in the solution,
while the latter is a measure
of the cost-effectiveness of the algorithm, i.e. how much an increased resolution and consequently a longer CPU time is paid off in terms of better accuracy \citep{lapenta06}.\\
Although it is not surprising that a spectral method performs better than the super-particle discretization used in PIC, we are not aware of any other study that
presents such quantitative comparison in terms of computational efficiency and efficacy.
For the examples presented in this paper (involving mostly near-equilibrium Maxwellian plasmas in one dimension), the difference in performance between the FH method and the PIC is impressive, with the former
producing results that are several orders of magnitude more accurate for equal CPU time or, conversely, results with the same level of accuracy in a fraction of CPU time. Nevertheless, FH is still
in its 'infancy' and the development of optimization techniques that can accelerate the convergence of the Hermite basis will be critical for multidimensional applications, particularly for plasmas
away from equilibrium.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the mathematical foundation of the FH method, along with its conservation properties.
Section 3 discusses the time discretization of the equations. Section 4 is devoted to a brief discussion of the filamentation problem in Vlasov codes, and how that translates to PIC codes.
It also introduces the collisional term that we have implemented and used in some of the simulations. Section 5 presents the comparison between PIC and FH methods
for five classical test cases: Langmuir wave, Landau damping, ion-acoustic wave, two-stream instability, and plasma echo. Finally, our conclusions are presented in Section 6.
\section{Numerical Method: Fourier-Hermite basis}\label{hermite}
We study the Vlasov-Poisson system in the 2-dimensional phase space $(x,v)$, where $x$ denotes position and $v$ velocity.
The phase space is assumed to be periodic in $x$.
In order to describe the method we specialize to the case of a plasma consisting of an electron and a singly charged ion species.
The quantities are normalized as follows. Time is normalized on the electron plasma frequency $\omega_{pe}$, velocities on
the electron thermal velocity $v_{te}=\sqrt{kT_e/m_e}$, lengths on the electron Debye length $\lambda_D$, the electric field on $\frac{m_e}{e}v_{te}\omega_{pe}$ ($k$ is the Boltzmann's constant, $T_e$ is
the electron temperature,
$m_e$ is the electron mass and $e$
is the elementary charge), and densities on a reference density $n_0$.
The Vlasov equation for the species $s$ reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial f_s}{\partial t} + v\frac{\partial f_s}{\partial x} + \frac{q_sm_e}{em_s} E\frac{\partial f_s}{\partial v}=0.\label{vlasov}
\end{equation}
Here $f_s$ is the particle distribution function, $q_s$ and $m_s$ are the charge and mass of the particles of species $s$ ($s=e,i$ for electrons and ions, respectively) and $E$ is the electric field.
The electric field is self-consistently calculated through the Poisson equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial x}= \int^\infty_{-\infty} f_i dv-\int^\infty_{-\infty} f_e dv.\label{poisson}
\end{equation}
The discretization in velocity employs the asymmetrically-weighted Hermite basis:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi_n(\xi)&=&(\pi2^nn!)^{-1/2}H_n(\xi)e^{-\xi^2}\label{H_basis_1}\\
\Psi^n(\xi)&=&(2^nn!)^{-1/2}H_n(\xi)\label{H_basis_2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_n$ is the $n$-th Hermite polynomial.
The distribution function $f(x,v,t)$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
f_s(x,v,t)=\sum_{n=0}^{N_H-1} C^s_n(x,t) \Psi_n(\xi_s)\label{f},
\end{equation}
with $\xi_s=(v-u_s)/\alpha_s$, where $u_s$ and $\alpha_s$ are two constant parameters for each species, and $N_H$ is the number of Hermite modes (equal for both species).
The following closure is used for both species: $C_n^s=0$ for $n\geq N_H$.
The spatial dependence of the expansion coefficients $C^s_n$ will be treated later by means of a Fourier decomposition.
We note that the completeness of the Hermite basis does not depend on the choice of the free parameters $u_s$ and $\alpha_s$.
It is well known, however, that a proper choice of the rescaling coefficient $\alpha_s$ can substantially accelerate the convergence of the series \citep{schumer98,tang93, camporeale06}.
In this work, we allow even more
flexibility by introducing the free parameter $u_s$, which is a shift in the Hermite function argument. The usefulness of such a parameter will be discussed in Section \ref{twostream}.
Formulas for calculating the optimal values for $\alpha_s$ and $u_s$ were presented in \citet{camporeale06}.\\
The Hermite basis has the following properties ($\delta_{n,m}$ is the Kronecker delta):
\begin{eqnarray}
\int^\infty_{-\infty} \Psi_n(\xi)\Psi^m(\xi) d\xi = \delta_{n,m},\\
v\Psi_n(\xi) = \alpha\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{2}}\Psi_{n+1}(\xi)+\alpha\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}}\Psi_{n-1}+u\Psi_n,\\
\frac{d\Psi_n(\xi)}{dv} = -\frac{1}{\alpha}\sqrt{2(n+1)}\Psi_{n+1}(\xi).
\end{eqnarray}
One can multiply Eq. (\ref{vlasov}) by $\Psi^n(\xi)$, integrate in $d\xi$ and, by using such properties, obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{main_eq}
\frac{\partial C^s_n}{\partial t} + \alpha_s\left(\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{2}}\frac{\partial C^s_{n+1}}{\partial x} + \sqrt{\frac{n}{2}}\frac{\partial C^s_{n-1}}{\partial x}+\frac{u_s}{\alpha_s}\frac{\partial C^s_n}{\partial x}\right) -\frac{q_sm_e}{em_s}\frac{\sqrt{2n}}{\alpha_s}E C^s_{n-1}=0.
\end{equation}
Similarly, the Poisson equation (\ref{poisson}) becomes:
\begin{equation}\label{poisson_h}
\frac{\partial E(x)}{\partial x}=\alpha_i C^i_0(x)-\alpha_e C^e_0(x).
\end{equation}
One can notice the well-known property that the electric field is related uniquely to the 0-th order expansion coefficients $C^s_0$, i.e., the density.
By now treating $E(x)$ and $C_n(x,t)$ by means of a standard discrete Fourier decomposition (with $L$ the domain length, and $2N+1$ modes):
\begin{eqnarray}
C^s_n(x) &=& \sum_{k=-N}^N C^s_{n,k} e^{\frac{2\pi ikx}{L}}\\
E(x) &=& \sum_{k=-N}^N E_k e^{\frac{2\pi ikx}{L}},\\
\end{eqnarray}
and using the orthogonality of the Fourier basis, one can finally derive an infinite set of ordinary differential equations for the coefficients $C^s_{n,k}(t)$:
\begin{equation}\label{vlasov_hf}
\frac{dC^s_{n ,k}}{d t} + \alpha_s\frac{2\pi ik}{L}\left(\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{2}}C^s_{n+1,k} + \sqrt{\frac{n}{2}} C^s_{n-1,k}+\frac{u_s}{\alpha_s}C^s_{n,k}\right) -\frac{q_sm_e}{em_s}
\frac{\sqrt{2n}}{\alpha_s}\sum_{m=-N}^N E_{k-m} C_{n-1,m}^s=0,
\end{equation}
where $n$ $(k)$ is the index associated with the Hermite (Fourier) basis.
The expression for the electric field reads:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{poisson_hf}
E_k &=& \frac{iL}{2\pi k}\left(\alpha_eC_{0,k}^e-\alpha_i C_{0,k}^i\right) \mbox{ for $k\neq0$,} \\
E_0 &=& 0.
\end{eqnarray}
We note that the Fourier representation of Poisson equation (\ref{poisson_h}) leaves the constant $E_0$ undefined, while imposing the constraint $\alpha_iC^i_{0,0}=\alpha_eC^e_{0,0}$
(which physically means that the plasma is neutral).
However, the absence of an externally imposed electric field and the periodicity of the domain dictates that $E_0=0$.\\
The solution of Equation (\ref{vlasov_hf}) is the main objective of this paper.
An important point to realize is that the only non-linearity of this equation is in the last term, which couples the electric field with the distribution function via a convolution.
Also, in the Hermite (velocity) space, the $n$-th coefficient $C_n$ is coupled only to $C_{n-1}$, $C_{n+1}$, to itself (if $u_s\neq 0$), and to $C_0$.
\subsection{Conservation properties}
As noted in \citet{schumer98}, the decomposition in the asymmetric Fourier-Hermite basis allows conservation of particle number and momentum exactly, irrespective of the chosen
time discretization scheme. On the other hand, exact energy conservation is not possible with the operator splitting scheme investigated in this paper.
It is however possible to recover exact energy conservation by employing a fully-implicit time discretization, as discussed in the
companion paper (Part 2) \citep{camporeale13b}.\\
Following \citep{schumer98}, the total number of particles for each species is defined as
\begin{equation}
M_s=\int_0^L\int_{-\infty}^\infty f_s(x,v,t) dvdx = L\alpha_s C_{0,0}^s.
\end{equation}
By inspection of Eq. (\ref{vlasov_hf}) one can see that $\frac{dC_{0,0}^s}{d t}=0$, from which the conservation of mass follows.\\
The single species linear momentum is defined as:
\begin{equation}
P_s=\frac{m_s}{m_e}\int_0^L\int_{-\infty}^\infty vf_s(x,v,t) dvdx = \frac{m_s}{m_e}\left(\frac{L\alpha_s^2}{\sqrt{2}} C_{1,0}^s + u_s\alpha_s L C_{0,0}^s\right).
\end{equation}
In order to prove the conservation of momentum, one can calculate the time derivative of the coefficients $C_{1,0}^i$ and $C_{1,0}^e$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dP_i}{dt} &=& \frac{m_i}{m_e}\frac{L\alpha_i^2}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{dC_{1,0}^i}{dt} = L\alpha_i\sum_{m=-N}^NE_{-m}C_{0,m}^i\\
\frac{dP_e}{dt} &=& \frac{L\alpha_e^2}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{dC_{1,0}^e}{dt} = -L\alpha_e\sum_{m=-N}^NE_{-m}C_{0,m}^e.\label{Pe}
\end{eqnarray}
One can use Eq. (\ref{poisson_hf}) to substitute $C_{0,m}^e$ in Eq. (\ref{Pe}) and obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{P_cons}
\frac{dP_e}{dt} = -L\alpha_e\sum_{m=-N}^N E_{-m}\left(\frac{\alpha_i}{\alpha_e}C_{0,m}^i-\frac{2\pi mi}{L\alpha_e}E_m\right)=-L\sum_{m=-N}^N\left( \alpha_iE_{-m}C_{0,m}^i-\frac{2\pi mi}{L}|E_m|^2\right).
\end{equation}
By taking into account that $E_{-m}$ is the complex conjugate of $E_m$ (since the electric field in physical space is a real quantity),
it follows that $|E_{-m}|^2=|E_m|^2$ and therefore the last term in parenthesis in Eq.(\ref{P_cons}) is zero. Hence $\frac{dP_i}{dt} +\frac{dP_e}{dt}$=0.\\
\section {Time discretization}
In the literature it has been suggested that the Vlasov-Poisson system can be efficiently solved by means of an operator splitting procedure \citep{cheng76},
i.e., by decoupling the advection and the acceleration terms,
which are usually referred to as 'X-shift' and 'V-shift' operators, respectively.
Therefore, we define the $\mathbf{X}$ and the $\mathbf{V}$ operators acting on $C^s_{n,k}$ as:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbf{X}[C^s_{n,k}] &=& - \alpha_s\frac{2\pi ik}{L}\left(\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{2}}C^s_{n+1,k} + \sqrt{\frac{n}{2}} C^s_{n-1,k}+\frac{u_s}{\alpha_s}C^s_{n,k}\right)\\
\mathbf{V}[C^s_{n,k}] &=& \frac{q_sm_e}{em_s}
\frac{\sqrt{2n}}{\alpha_s}\sum_{m=-N}^N E_{k-m} C_{n-1,m}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By following the second-order splitting scheme introduced by \citet{strang68}, the Vlasov equation is solved by updating the distribution function from time $t_0$ to time $t_0+\Delta t$
in the following three steps (subscript $s$ is omitted):\\
\begin{enumerate}
\item Solve $\frac{dC_{n,k}(t)}{dt} = \mathbf{X}[C_{n,k}(t)]$, evolving $C_{n,k}(t_0)$ into $C^*_{n,k}$ by an half time step $\Delta t/2$. Calculate the electric field from $C^*_{n,k}$;\\
\item Solve $\frac{dC_{n,k}(t)}{dt} = \mathbf{V}[C_{n,k}(t)]$, evolving $C^*_{n,k}$ into $C^{**}_{n,k}$ by a full time step $\Delta t$, using the electric field calculated in 1);\\
\item Solve $\frac{dC_{n,k}(t)}{dt} = \mathbf{X}[C_{n,k}(t)]$, evolving $C^{**}_{n,k}$ into $C_{n,k}(t_0+\Delta t)$ by an half time step $\Delta t/2$.\\
\end{enumerate}
Reference \citep{schumer98} has employed this scheme by using an explicit fourth-order Runge-Kutta (RK4) integration for both the X- and V- shifts.
They justify this choice by arguing that it offers a reasonable trade between accuracy and stability. However, we have verified that such a scheme has a very limited stability region,
even with relatively small time step.
In this paper, we improve on the stability of the explicit scheme by introducing a semi-implicit scheme. The V shift is still treated with RK4, but the X-shift is treated implicitly.
We have tested both a first order implicit Euler scheme (BDF1) \citep{henrici62} and a second-order Cranck-Nicolson \citep{crank47}
scheme for the X-shift.
Note that the Strang splitting ensures the second order accuracy in time of the overall scheme.
In summary, the discretized form of the X-shift that advances the solution
for half time step is the following (where the superscript $t$ indicates the time step):\\
\subsection*{X-shift (BDF1)}
\begin{equation}
\left(1 + \Delta t u\frac{\pi ik}{L} \right)C_{n ,k}^{t*} + \Delta t\alpha\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi ik}{2L}\left(\sqrt{n+1}C_{n+1,k}^{t*} + \sqrt{n} C_{n-1,k}^{t*}\right) = C_{n,k}^{t_0}
\end{equation}
\subsection*{X-shift (CN)}
\begin{align}
\left(1 + \Delta t u\frac{\pi ik}{2L} \right)C_{n ,k}^{t*} + \Delta t\alpha\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi ik}{4L}\left(\sqrt{n+1}C_{n+1,k}^{t*} + \sqrt{n} C_{n-1,k}^{t*}\right) =\\
=\left(1 - \Delta t u\frac{\pi ik}{2L} \right)C_{n ,k}^{t_0} - \Delta t\alpha\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi ik}{4L}\left(\sqrt{n+1}C_{n+1,k}^{t_0} + \sqrt{n} C_{n-1,k}^{t_0}\right)
\end{align}
Of course, both the BDF1 and the CN schemes can be written in matrix form. For each Fourier component $k$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}_{\frac{\Delta t}{2}}^k C_{k}^{t*} = \mathbf{B}_{\frac{\Delta t}{2}}^k C_{k}^{t_0}
\end{equation}
where $C_{k}$ is the column-vector $(C_{0,k}, C_{1,k}, C_{2,k},\ldots)^T$.
The matrix $\mathbf{X}$ is defined as
\begin{align}
{X}_{\Delta t}^k (m,m) &= 1 + \theta\Delta t u\frac{\pi ik}{L}\\
{X}_{\Delta t}^k (m,m-1) &= \theta\Delta t\alpha\frac{\sqrt{2(m-1)}\pi ik}{2L}\\
{X}_{\Delta t}^k (m,m+1) &= \theta\Delta t\alpha\frac{\sqrt{2m}\pi ik}{2L}
\end{align}
with $\theta=1$ for CN and $\theta=2$ for BDF1.
For the BDF1 scheme the matrix $\mathbf{B}$ is the identity matrix, and for the CN scheme is defined as:
\begin{align}
{B}_{\Delta t}^k (m,m) &= 1 - \Delta t u\frac{2\pi ik}{L}\\
{B}_{\Delta t}^k (m,m-1) &= -\Delta t\alpha\frac{\sqrt{2(m-1)}\pi ik}{2L}\\
{B}_{\Delta t}^k (m,m+1) &= -\Delta t\alpha\frac{\sqrt{2m}\pi ik}{2L}.\\
\end{align}
Note that the matrices $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ commute in both cases (BDF1 and CN). Therefore the two consecutive X-shifts in
steps 3) and 1): $C^{**}\overset{\Delta t/2}{\rightarrow}C^{t+\Delta t}\overset{\Delta t/2}{\rightarrow}C^{*}$ can be computed exactly as a single step:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}_{\Delta t/2}\mathbf{X}_{\Delta t/2}C^*_{k} = \mathbf{X}_{\Delta t/2}\mathbf{B}_{\Delta t/2}C_{k}^{t+\Delta t} = \mathbf{B}_{\Delta t/2}\mathbf{X}_{\Delta t/2}C_{k}^{t+\Delta t}= \mathbf{B}_{\Delta t/2}\mathbf{B}_{\Delta t/2}C^{**}_{k}
\end{equation}
that is
\begin{equation}\label{Xshift}
\left(\mathbf{X}_{\Delta t/2}\right)^2C_{k}^* = \left( \mathbf{B}_{\Delta t/2}\right)^2C_{k}^{**}.
\end{equation}
We solve Eq. (\ref{Xshift}) by performing an LU decomposition of the matrix $\left(\mathbf{X}_{\Delta t/2}\right)^2$.\\
The V-shift is a standard fourth order Runge-Kutta integrator, reported here for completeness.
\subsection*{V-shift (RK4)}
\begin{eqnarray*}
h^1_{n,k} &=&-\Delta t\frac{q_sm_e}{em_s} \frac{\sqrt{2n}}{\alpha_s}\sum_{m=-N}^N E_{k-m} C_{n-1,m}^*\\
h^2_{n,k} &=&-\Delta t\frac{q_sm_e}{em_s} \frac{\sqrt{2n}}{\alpha_s}\sum_{m=-N}^N E_{k-m} \left(C_{n-1,m}^*+\frac{1}{2}h^1_{n,k}\right)\\
h^3_{n,k} &=&-\Delta t\frac{q_sm_e}{em_s} \frac{\sqrt{2n}}{\alpha_s}\sum_{m=-N}^N E_{k-m} \left(C_{n-1,m}^*+\frac{1}{2}h^2_{n,k}\right)\\
h^4_{n,k} &=&-\Delta t\frac{q_sm_e}{em_s} \frac{\sqrt{2n}}{\alpha_s}\sum_{m=-N}^N E_{k-m} \left(C_{n-1,m}^*+h^3_{n,k}\right)\\
C_{n,k}^{**} &=& C_{n,k}^* +\frac{1}{6}(h^1_{n,k}+h^4_{n,k}) + \frac{1}{3}(h^2_{n,k}+h^3_{n,k}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that the V-shift calculated via RK4 requires the evaluation of four convolutions for each Hermite mode $n=1,\ldots,N_H-1$.
Convolution is an expensive operation, which has a cost $\sim N^2$ if performed explicitly. A cheaper alternative is to
exploit the property that the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the convolution of two vectors is equal to the product of the FFT of the two vectors.
In this way, the cost is reduced to $\sim N\log N$ (see, e.g. \citep{bracewell_book}).
In practice, this consists in transforming the electric field and the coefficients $C_n$ from Fourier to physical space, and transforming their product back from physical to Fourier space at each time step.\\
In Figure \ref{fig:stability}, we present an empirical proof of the enhanced stability of the semi-implicit scheme (X-shift treated with BDF1 or CN) with respect to the fully explicit scheme
(X-shift treated with RK4). This example is for the study of Landau damping, discussed in more detail in the next Sections. The blue and red lines show the evolution of the electric field
using respectively a BDF1 and a CN scheme, with time step $\Delta t=0.2$. The BDF1 shows its mildly dissipative character by having a stronger damping than CN.
The black circles are the solution for $\Delta t=0.5$ with CN. The simulation is still stable, although not very accurate.
On the other hand, when using RK4 even with smaller time steps ($\Delta t=0.05$ for black line and $\Delta t=0.1$ for green line)
the simulation is unstable after only a few electron plasma periods (in all the Figures the time is in units of $f_{pe}^{-1}=2\pi/\omega_{pe}$).
For this particular case, the semi-implicit scheme presented here is at least a factor of 10 more stable.
\section{Filamentation and artificial collisionality}\label{hyper}
The development of increasingly smaller phase space structures in a collisionless plasma is very well known in plasma physics and
typically referred to as the filamentation process.
A classical and well-studied example where filamentation occurs is linear Landau damping, i.e., the damping in time of an initial electric field perturbation due
to wave-particle resonances \citep{landau46}.
In this case filamentation is due to the presence of the factor $\exp[-ikvt]$ ($k$ is the wavevector of the perturbation)
in the perturbed distribution function that creates oscillations with smaller
and smaller wavelengths in velocity space as time evolves.
Clearly, any discretization of the velocity space is associated with a minimum wavelength that can be resolved, and, therefore, any
numerical simulation of the filamentation process with fixed resolution is bound to fail after a certain time.\\
In the case of the FH expansion method, it is known that the time at which the simulation is unable to capture
filamentation due to lack of resolution in velocity space scales approximately as the square root of the number of Hermite modes, $N_H$ \citep{grant67a,canosa74,schumer98}. This time is known
as the recurrence time: the effect of the lack of resolution is to reconstruct a distribution function similar to the initial one, from which the Landau damping starts again in a recurrent way.
Figure \ref{fig:recurrence} shows the recurrence effect for the linear Landau damping studied with the FH code (this case will be studied in more detail in Section \ref{landau}).
Blue, black, and red lines show the amplitude of $E_1$ (the
Fourier component of the electric field perturbed at time $T=0$) for $N_H=10,40,160$, respectively. One can appreciate that the time at which the simulation manifests the
recurrence phenomenon approximately doubles when $N_H$ is multiplied by a factor of 4, as obtained in \citet{schumer98}.\\
Several fixes have been suggested in the literature in order to overcome the filamentation process in Vlasov codes. They involve
some form of filtering or smoothing of the high order moments of the distribution function (see, e.g. \citep{klimas87, klimas94}) or, equivalently, the introduction of a weakly-collisional operator \citep{grant67a}.\\
In this work, we have tested the effect of a collisional operator. This is a purely numerical artifact, that does not represent physical collisions,
and must be used in a convergence sense, namely by tuning it such that the physical results of interest are unaffected, while the small filamentation structures are damped.
We have opted for a collision operator $\mathcal{C}$ that acts
on the coefficient $C_{n,k}$ as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}[C_{n,k}] =-\nu \frac{n(n-1)(n-2)}{(N_H-1)(N_H-2)(N_H-3)} C_{n,k}\label{coll_operator},
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the collisional rate applied to the last Hermite coefficients $C_{N_H-1,k}$.
The collision operator of Eq. (\ref{coll_operator}) can be constructed as a nonlinear combination of terms involving the Lenard-Bernstein collision operator $\mathcal{C}_{LB}$ \citep{lenard58}:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}_{LB}[f] = -\nu \frac{\partial}{\partial v}\left( vf+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}\right),\label{lb}
\end{equation}
which, in the Fourier-Hermite space, reads:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}_{LB}[f] = -\nu n C_{n,k}.
\end{equation}
An important point is that the Lenard-Bernstein operator transformed in the
Fourier-Hermite space acts on all the coefficients $C_{n,k}$, including $n=0,1,2$, while our operator is defined in such a way that it does not change the first three Hermite modes.
The reason for choosing the form in Eq. (\ref{coll_operator}) is that it conserves charge and momentum (and energy if a fully-implicit time discretization is employed), by
leaving $C_{0,k},C_{1,k},C_{2,k}$ unchanged.
The fact that this operator does not have a physical interpretation is not important, since our goal is to study collisionless plasmas.
Also, the regime of validity
of the simulation will be reduced to times for which the collisional rate is not dominant.
Of course, other forms of the collision operator might be employed: for instance \citep{parker12} proposes an iterative
version of Eq. (\ref{lb}). The crucial feature, however, is that the damping rate applied to the coefficient $C_{n,k}$ must increase (in absolute value) with increasing Hermite index $n$.\\
The effect of the artificial collision operator is to damp the highest modes of the Hermite expansion. The convergence of the series implies that
$|C_{n+1}|/|C_n|\rightarrow 0$ for large enough $n$. However, high $n$ modes can grow due to the filamentation process or even just due to
numerical errors. As we will show in Section \ref{twostream}, this can lead to numerical instabilities if the growth of the large $n$ modes is not suppressed artificially.\\
The effect of collisionality on the Landau damping study is presented in Figure \ref{fig:collisions}. Here $N_H=40$ and three values of $\nu$ have been used: $\nu=0, \nu=0.1, \nu=1$.
One can notice that the correct value of Landau damping (i.e. the one obtained before recurrence when $\nu=0$)
is recovered for a long time, when $\nu=1$ and, therefore, in this case the use of collisionality is crucial to overcome
the recurrence due to filamentation. The small box shows a zoom-in for time $T<12$.
The plot in Figure \ref{fig:collisions} must be interpreted in light of the important result presented in \citet{ng99}, and rediscussed in \citep{hilscher13}.
It is well known that Landau damping in a collisionless plasma is due to the effect of the destructive interference of a continuous spectrum of singular eigenmodes (the Case-Van Kampen modes).
\citet{ng99} have shown that a Lenard-Bernstein collisional operator changes the spectrum of the linear Vlasov problem by replacing the singular continuous spectrum with
a set of proper discrete eigenmodes, and that the Landau damping is recovered as a discrete mode (along with other modes). In this context, Figure \ref{fig:collisions} clearly shows that the right
damping rate (consistent with Landau damping) can be recovered.
One has to keep in mind, however, that although the macroscopic nature of the plasma has been preserved, the
microscopic information associated with the high order moments of the distribution function is irreversibly modified by applying the collisional operator.
On the other hand, in most simulations of a kinetic collisionless plasma, the use of an artificial collisional operator is necessary because filamentation is an intrinsic feature.
Once again, the underlying assumption (to be verified through a convergence study) is that the use of artificial collisions will not affect the macroscopic evolution of the system.\\
Obviously, a PIC code is not immune to filamentation problems: the use of a discrete number of super-particles implies a finite
resolution in velocity space. However, the fact that any velocity value
can be assigned to a single particle and hence that the discretized phase-space is not gridded in any standard way makes it difficult to quantify
the relationship between the number of particles and the actual resolution in velocity space. On the other hand,
it is very well-known that PIC simulations have difficulties in reproducing the fine details of a distribution function, such as high tails.
It is therefore legitimate to ask how the recurrence phenomenon shown in Figure \ref{fig:recurrence} translates to PIC simulations.
In Figure \ref{fig:PIC_recurrence}, we show that although PIC simulations do not present recurrence similarly to Vlasov codes,
the lack of resolution in velocity space still manifests itself and produces inaccurate results.
Top, middle and bottom panels show PIC results (black line) for number of particles per cell $N_{pcel}=1600, 6400$, and $25600$, respectively. The red line
is a reference solution calculated with the FH code (with $N_H=100$).
For all three of these cases, the correct result is lost at some point, and the solution becomes essentially noise.
A useful way of understanding this deviation from the correct solution is to look at the signal-to-noise ratio.
In Figure \ref{fig:PIC_vary_a}, we show the time evolution of the Landau damping test
for different values of the initial perturbation $\varepsilon$ (see Section \ref{results} for the discussion of the
initialization) from PIC simulations with 2,000,000 particles per cell.
The black line indicates the noise level, which has been calculated as the maximum value of $|E_1|$ in a case without initial perturbation ($\varepsilon=0$).
Blue and red lines denote simulations with $\varepsilon=0.001$ and $\varepsilon=0.01$, respectively. Although the two simulations have the same number of particles per cell,
starting with a lower initial amplitude (blue line) (i.e. at a lower signal-to-noise level), clearly impacts the result: the Landau damping is almost immediately lost for $\varepsilon=0.001$.
In other words, the noise ground level sets the amplitude of a signal at which the simulation loses any physical interpretation.
Of course, in the Hermite method, there is no noise ground level and the equivalent simulation (shown in Figure \ref{fig:recurrence})
is independent of the value of the initial perturbation (given that the value is small enough to be in the linear regime).\\
A last remark is in order with regards to collisionality and PIC codes.
The discrete nature of the super-particles and the inevitable presence of numerical noise can in some sense be associated to the effect of a (weakly) collisional operator,
although its effect is not easily quantifiable.
The major disadvantage of PIC relative to the FH method is the bad scaling of the noise with respect to the number of particles, which, in certain applications,
might imply the need for significant computational resources to access a true collisionless regime.
Conversely, the collision operator does not affect the performance of the FH code and a convergence study on the collision rate can be conducted quickly.
\section{Results}\label{results}
In this section we compare the computational performance of the FH spectral method
with a standard explicit PIC code for the following four test cases: Langmuir wave, Landau damping, ion-acoustic wave and two-stream instability.
These are the same test cases discussed in Reference \citep{chen11} and routinely used to benchmark kinetic codes.
Additionally, we present a result for an example of plasma echo.
Each test tackles different aspects of kinetic plasma physics and the related difficulties encountered in the numerical simulations of collisionless kinetic plasmas.
In order to make the
comparison as fair as possible, the Poisson solver in the PIC code and the FH code are identical, i.e., the Poisson equation is solved by means of a Fourier decomposition in both cases.
The PIC code employs linear interpolation, usually referred to as 'Cloud-in-Cell' (CIC) \citep{birdsall_book}.
Note that higher order interpolation schemes have been proposed, for instance, in \citep{lewis70,evstatiev13}.
Since the focus of this work is on the discretization in velocity space, i.e., the comparison
between the spectral Hermite basis and the use of super-particles, all simulations are made for the same choice of time step and grid size.
The comparison is characterized by the following three metrics: for each method we calculate
1) the error with respect to a 'reference' highly accurate solution as a function of CPU time and velocity discretization (number of
Hermite modes $N_H$ for FH and number of particles per cell $N_{pcel}$ for PIC); 2) the error with respect to the 'previous' less accurate solution;
3) the efficacy defined as the inverse of the product of CPU time and error.
The error used for all the runs is calculated as the $L_1$ norm of the difference between two solutions, averaged in time.
The error in 2) is what is actually used by a user who is performing a convergence study to decide when the solution is accurate enough.
The efficacy is a useful indicator of the cost-effectiveness of an algorithm. It measures whether an additional cost in terms of CPU time is compensated by a gain in terms of accuracy.
Clearly an algorithm performs well if the efficacy increases notably with increasing CPU time. In this regard we can anticipate that the PIC algorithm, by construction, performs badly in terms of efficacy
since the error scales as $N_p^{-1/2}$, while the computing time scales roughly linearly with $N_p$.
Therefore, the efficacy scales as the inverse of the square root of the CPU time,
that is, it actually decreases with increasing
CPU time. Hence, from a pure cost-effectiveness point of view, it is \textit{never} advantageous to increase the number of particles in a PIC code to reduce the error.
On the other hand, one is often forced to have a large number of particles such that
the physical signal is above the noise level (see e.g. \citep{camporeale11}).\\
For all the cases discussed below, we initialize the electrons (ions) with a Maxwellian distribution function with thermal velocity $\alpha_{e}$ ($\alpha_{i}$).
For the Langmuir wave, the Landau damping and the two-stream instability tests
the ions constitute a fixed background, while for the study of the ion-acoustic wave they evolve.
The initial electric field is initialized as:
\begin{equation}
E(x,t=0) = \frac{L}{2\pi}\varepsilon\sin(2\pi x/L).
\end{equation}
$L$ is the box length ($L=4\pi$ for all runs), and $\varepsilon$ is the amplitude of the initial perturbation.
In Fourier space such initialization corresponds to:
\begin{equation}
E_{-1}=E_{1}=-\varepsilon\frac{L}{4\pi}
\end{equation}
and the density is initialized consistently.
For all runs the number of Fourier modes is equal to $2N+1=33$ and the time step is $\Delta t=0.05$.
In all runs presented here we have used the CN scheme for the X-shift of the FH code.
All the codes are written in MATLAB and run on an Intel Xeon 3.40 GHz Linux box.
\subsection{Langmuir wave}
The parameters are chosen as follows: $\alpha_e=0.1$, $\varepsilon=0.01$. In this case, the electrons are relatively cold and therefore are not subject to Landau damping.
The initial perturbation causes the electrons to oscillate collectively around the fixed ion background.
Figure \ref{fig:langmuir} shows the error achieved with respect to the reference solution (red circles) and the previous solution (black circles) for PIC (top-left panel) and FH codes (top-right panel),
as a function of the resolution in velocity space.
The theoretical scaling $N_{pcel}^{-1/2}$ (black line) is clearly recovered for PIC.
The difference in errors are huge, such that the most accurate solution obtained with PIC (102,400 particles per cell) is still less accurate than
the solution obtained with only 4 Hermite modes. One can also notice that for the FH code the error with respect to the reference solution flattens for $N_H>40$.
The way this result is reflected in terms of CPU time is shown in the bottom-left panel of Figure \ref{fig:langmuir}. Here the CPU time is reported on the horizontal axis in seconds,
and the error (with respect to the reference solution) is on the vertical axis.
The black circles are PIC results, while the red circles are FH results. Strikingly, the most accurate solution for the FH code and the least accurate solution for the PIC code
are obtained with roughly the same CPU time!
The accuracy of these solutions differs by about 10 orders of magnitude.
Finally, the efficacy is plotted on the bottom-right panel of Figure \ref{fig:langmuir} (black circles are PIC results, red circles are FH results).
As anticipated the PIC efficacy decreases by increasing CPU time, and is consistent with the theoretical prediction.
On the other hand, the FH efficacy increases by 7 orders of magnitude when the CPU time increases by less than a factor of 10.
\subsection{Landau damping}\label{landau}
Landau damping is a classical kinetic effect in warm plasmas. It is due to the effect of particles in resonance with an initial wave perturbation that results in the damping of the wave \citep{brambilla_book}.
The parameters are chosen as follows: $\alpha_e=1$, $\varepsilon=0.01$.
Landau damping, as discussed in Section \ref{hyper}, is a particularly challenging problem for kinetic codes, because of the continuous filamentation
in velocity space. For the FH code, this translates to the fact that more Hermite modes are needed as the simulation evolves, with respect to the Langmuir wave case.
Figure \ref{fig:landau} summarizes the results in the same format of Figure \ref{fig:langmuir}.
The top left and right panels show the convergence study of error as a function of $N_{pcel}$ and $N_H$ for the PIC and FH codes, respectively.
The bottom left panel shows the error as a function of CPU time, and the bottom right panel represents the efficacy as a function of CPU time.
Similarly to the Langmuir wave case, the FH code greatly outperforms the PIC code: the efficacy for the FH method increases by
about 6 orders of magnitude when the CPU time increases only by a factor of 6, in the interval from 10 to 60 seconds.
Conversely, the difference in error between the two methods is as large as 8 orders of magnitude, for equal CPU time.
\subsection{Ion-acoustic wave}\label{ionacoustic}
The ion-acoustic wave is a typical example of a multi-scale phenomenon in kinetic plasma physics, since it requires both electrons and ions dynamics.
Hence, the distribution function of both species is evolved. The ion acoustic wave is initialized by perturbing the ion population only.
The mass ratio between the two species is equal to 1836, and the ratio of electron and ion temperature is $10$.
This results in a ratio of electron to ion thermal velocities of
$\alpha_{e}/\alpha_{i} = 135$. The initial perturbation is $\varepsilon=0.2$. Hence, the simulation is performed in a nonlinear regime.
For this case, we have used a collisionality with $\nu=10$.\\
Figure \ref{fig:ion_acoustic_time} shows the time evolution of $|E_1|$ for PIC (black line, $N_{pcel}=102400$) and FH (red line, $N_H=300$, $\nu=10$). The results are in good agreement,
although PIC results are still very noisy even with such a large number of particles per cell.
Figure \ref{fig:ion_acoustic} shows the errors and the efficacy with the same format as before.
Once again, the scaling $N_{pcel}^{-1/2}$ is approximately recovered for PIC, and the performance of the two methods differ
by orders of magnitude. For instance, to obtain an error of the order of $10^{-3}$ the PIC code takes about 3 orders of magnitude
more CPU time than FH.
\subsection{Two-stream instability}\label{twostream}
The two stream instability is excited when the distribution function of a species is formed by two populations streaming in
opposite directions with a large enough relative drift velocity. We initialize the electron distribution function as
two counter-streaming Maxwellians with equal temperature:
\begin{equation}
f=0.5e^{\left(\frac{v-U}{\alpha_{e}}\right)}+0.5e^{\left(\frac{v+U}{\alpha_{e}}\right)}\label{drift-maxw}
\end{equation}
where $U$ is the drift velocity.\\
In principle, a distribution function of the form (\ref{drift-maxw}) would require a large number of Hermite polynomials in order to be described accurately
by the expansion in Eq. (\ref{f}). However, a way to overcome this difficulty is to split the distribution function in (\ref{drift-maxw})
into two distinct populations corresponding to each drifting Maxwellian,
and to solve Eq. (\ref{main_eq}) separately for each population. As already anticipated, including a free parameter $u$
in the definition of the argument $\xi$ allows the description of a drifting Maxwellian by means of only one FH coefficient in Eq.(\ref{f}) (by simply choosing $u_e=\pm U$).\\
For this test case, we have chosen the following parameters: $\alpha_e=0.5; U=1; \varepsilon=0.001$.\\
Figure \ref{fig:twostream_PIC} shows the evolution in time of $|E_1|$ obtained by PIC simulations with a different number of particles per cell (magenta=200; red=3,200; black=102,400; blue=409,600).
The black dashed line represents the theoretical growth rate of the instability, calculated by linear theory.
One can notice that the convergence of the PIC simulation is very slow, particularly due to the fact that the initial transient that gives rise to the instability
is very dependent on the number of particles, i.e. the noise level. Also, although each run saturates at approximately the same level, the saturation time is different, making the post-saturation
phase not comparable between different runs (the smaller box in Figure \ref{fig:twostream_PIC} shows a zoom-in of the post-saturation dynamics, in linear scale).
For this reason, the errors used in this section have been calculated only in the linear regime region, i.e. for times smaller than 5.\\
Interestingly, capturing fine structures in the distribution function (in velocity space) becomes important, in the two-stream instability, only in the post-saturation phase.
This can be clearly appreciated in Figure \ref{fig:twostream_hermite}. Here, we plot the time evolution of $E_1$, for FH simulations with different values of $N_H$.
Even with a low number of Hermite modes ($N_H=50$, red line), the linear stage of the instability is well captured. However, the simulation becomes numerically unstable
in the post-saturation phase. By increasing the number of Hermite modes ($N_H=100$, blue line; $N_H=200$, black line), the time at which the
simulation becomes unstable is postponed. This indicates that a large number of Hermite modes is needed because fine structures in the velocity space continue
to form after the instability has saturated, i.e. the plasma is developing filamentation. The solution indicated with circles is obtained with $N_H=200$ using a collisional operator with $\nu=2$.
The numerical collisions do not change the result macroscopically, but allow longer simulations without the need of a prohibitively large number of Hermite modes.
The fact that the FH simulation becomes numerically unstable if collisions are not applied may be viewed as a shortcoming of the method.
On the contrary, we regard this feature as beneficial, especially when compared with the PIC code. In fact, the appearance of the numerical instability is a clear signal
of the lack of resolution in velocity space. The straightforward approach to overcoming this problem is by increasing $N_H$ and/or introducing artificial collisions. On the other hand,
in the PIC simulation the only way to understand that the results are not converged is to perform an expensive convergence study. In other words,
the PIC simulation will keep running, potentially for a long time, wasting computational resources, and producing results that have no physical meaning.\\
Figure \ref{fig:twostream} presents the errors and efficacy for the two-stream instability case. The results are qualitatively similar to the previous cases, once again highlighting
the high performance of the FH method with respect to PIC.
\subsection{Plasma echo}
In contrast to the previous tests, the rationale for this case is not to compare results between PIC and FH methods but to provide an example
of a fundamental kinetic plasma phenomenon that is very hard to capture with PIC, but is still straightforward to simulate with the FH code.\\
The basic theory behind plasma echo has been studied in the seminal paper by \citet{gould67}, and investigated experimentally by \citet{malmberg68}.
Since then the theory has been revised and rediscussed by several authors \citep[e.g.][]{brackbill72,best74,porkolab78,hou11,mouhot11,pezzi13}.
Plasma echo has been suggested as the 'archetype' of numerical tests for one-dimensional Vlasov codes in \citep{galeotti06}.
The plasma echo mechanism is briefly explained in \citep{porkolab78} as the following.
An initial electric field perturbation with wavevector $k_1$ is initialized at time $t_1=0$ in a stable Maxwellian plasma.
This perturbation damps according to Landau damping and modulates the distribution function through a term of the form $\exp(-ik_1x+ik_1vt)$.
At time $t_2>t_1$ a second perturbation is initialized, with wavevector $k_2$, which also damps according to
its linear damping rate. This second perturbation will act on the distribution function via a first order term of the form $\exp[ik_2x-ik_2v(t-t_2)]$.
However, a second order contribution will arise from the interaction between the two perturbations, with the form $\exp[i(k_2-k_1)x+ik_2vt_2-i(k_2-k_1)vt]$.
While the first order terms will damp in time because of phase-mixing, the second order term loses its $v$ dependence at time $t_3=k_2t_2/(k_2-k_1)$, and therefore will not phase-mix around that time.
As a consequence, a new perturbation with wavevector $k_3=k_2-k_1$ will appear, peaking at time $t_3$, and successively causing Landau damping.
The plasma echo is a nonlinear effect due to the interaction of two small amplitude damping waves. Interestingly, the time $t_3$ can be made much larger than $t_1$ and $t_2$ such that
the reformation of the electric field after the two parent perturbations have long been damped can effectively appear as an 'echo'.\\
The simulation is initialized with a perturbation $\varepsilon=0.01$ in $E_2$. At time $T=1$, a second perturbation
is generated, again with amplitude $\varepsilon=0.01$ but in $E_3$.
The resulting echo appears at time $T=3$ for the Fourier mode $E_1$.
Figure \ref{fig:echo} shows the amplitudes of $E_2$, $E_3$, and $E_1$ respectively in the top, middle and bottom panels.
Black solid lines are for the FH code, and red lines are for PIC. The dashed black line indicates the theoretical
Landau damping of each mode.
Clearly, the FH results are in excellent agreement with the theoretical prediction discussed above, showing the peaking of
$E_1$ at time $T=3$.
We note that we have used $\nu=0$ and $N_H=400$ in this example and some recurrence can be seen in the FH code for $T>4$
The PIC simulations are run with $N_{pcel}=2,000,000$. This is of course an extremely large number of particles
per cell, larger than what is routinely used. However, the PIC simulation completely misses the echo phenomenon, simply because a noise ground level comparable
with the echo signal is generated for $E_1$ since the beginning of the simulation (bottom panel), and both $E_2$ and $E_3$ have reached the noise ground level, by the time the echo should be generated. \\
It is important to emphasize that the plasma echo is not merely an academic exercise.
The physics of wave-wave interactions for small amplitude perturbations constitutes the building block of the weak-turbulence theory, important, for instance, for magnetized plasmas in the solar wind.
\section{Conclusions}
The focus of this work was to compare the discretization of the velocity space in the Vlasov-Poisson system based on the Hermite expansion with the use of super-particles adopted in the standard PIC method.
We have described the spectral method based on the FH expansion previously discussed in \citet{schumer98}. We have introduced two important improvements with respect to the work in \citep{schumer98}. First, we have employed a semi-implicit time discretization. Our scheme is still second order accurate in time, but we have shown that it is numerically more stable than the explicit scheme previously used. Second, we have discussed the use of an artificial collisional term, whose scope is to damp high order Hermite modes. The collision term has a double effect: it prevents the recurrence effect in perturbations which are damping, and avoids the growth of higher order modes that can lead to numerical instabilities.
As such, it is an essential ingredient of the Hermite spectral method as it takes care of the unavoidable filamentation problem typical of collisionless plasmas.\\
The comparisons between the FH method and PIC have been carried out from the perspective of computational efficiency and efficacy. The efficiency is given by the error achieved for a given CPU time, while the efficacy is a measure of the cost-effectiveness of the algorithm and is defined as the inverse of the product of the error and the CPU time.
We have studied the following standard kinetic plasma test cases: Langmuir waves, Landau damping, ion-acoustic wave, two-stream instability. For each test case, we have evaluated the error of the solutions obtained with the two methods, and the CPU time for each run. In all these examples, the FH method obtains a much accurate solution than PIC, at a fraction of the computational cost.
For instance, for the two-stream instability case, the FH method produces a result that is about 10 order of magnitudes more accurate in about 1/50 of the CPU time taken by PIC. We have also studied an example of the plasma echo phenomenon. For this case, we have shown that the standard PIC method cannot capture the nonlinear wave-wave interactions underlying the echo physics, despite using an astonishing 2,000,000 particles per cell.\\
It has to be emphasized that whilst the PIC method has been investigated and developed for the last several decades, methods based on a spectral expansion of the distribution function (either Hermite or Fourier) are much less mature. For this reason, in our comparisons we have not taken into account any strategy that could reduce the PIC noise. Notably, methods based on $\delta$f or re-mapping of the distribution function have been successful to reduce particle noise, and hence enhance the accuracy of PIC simulations (see, e.g. \citep{chehab05, wang11, deng14}).
Of course, this aspect lies in the realm of algorithm optimization. For the sake of a fair comparison, however, we reckon that it is preferable to deal with the unoptimized method, as this exposes the real limitations of each algorithm. Furthermore, for what concerns PIC, there are many different ways to reduce the noise. This opens the possibility of trying and comparing several different algorithms, each with its own pros and cons, and it is likely that different test cases will be more or less favorable for a given optimization.
On the other hand, the optimization of the
Fourier-Hermite method has practically never been investigated, although one could envision a strategy where the Hermite basis changes in time in order to use the least number of modes.
Another consideration is that the PIC method has, by construction, an unoptimal scaling of the error with the CPU time: its efficacy decreases with increasing CPU time.
Denoising techniques can be thought as an attempt to counteract such bad scaling. Of course, this might be beneficial for practical applications, but should not change the overall scaling of
the method with the number of particles. It is also not obvious whether such techniques will actually increase the PIC performance from an efficacy perspective.\\
As a final comment, we want to remark some of the limitations and challenges of the FH method relative to PIC. In general, while the benchmark tests studied here are standard in the PIC community, near-equilibrium Maxwellian plasmas favor FH over PIC (since the Hermite basis naturally links to Maxwellians). On the other hand, FH is not well suited for cold plasmas/beams, which are instead treated very effectively by PIC. A different spectral basis could be sought for these cases. Similarly, if the plasma develops very complicated structures in the distribution function, many Hermite modes might be necessary to achieve convergence. This can become a serious a problem in multidimensional applications, unless some form of basis optimization is successfully developed. This is likely the most critical need of FH for application to collisionless plasmas. We have also observed that numerical instabilities can arise in the FH method for long wavelengths and large initial perturbations. We have verified that a
possible fix/mitigation of this problem is to introduce a k-dependent collision operator (a detailed analysis of this approach will be presented elsewhere).
On the contrary, the PIC algorithm is very robust.\\
In conclusion, considering the computational challenges associated with multi-scale plasma physics and the upcoming exascale computing era, it is obvious that numerical methods that can use efficiently the ever-increasing available computational power are critical. Despite the proof-of-principle nature of our study, our results indicate that a method based on a spectral expansion of the velocity part of the distribution function should be given serious consideration for this task. In addition to potential orders of magnitude higher efficacy (relative to PIC), we believe that another major strength of the Hermite spectral approach is its natural ability to bridge between regions where the plasma behaves like a
fluid (hence it is characterized by a low number of moments) and regions where the microscopic/kinetic physics is important (thus requiring a higher number of moments). Strategies that can accelerate the convergence of the Hermite basis will be critical for the success of the FH method in multidimensions, and we hope that this paper can stimulate some research in this area.
\section{Acknowledgement}
The authors would like to thank L. Chacon, W. Daughton, C. Huang, V. Roytershteyn, X. Tang for useful conversations.
This work was funded by the Laboratory Directed Research
and Development program (LDRD), U.S. Department of Energy Office of
Science, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, under the auspices of the
National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of
Energy by Los Alamos National Laboratory, operated by Los Alamos
National Security LLC under contract DE-AC52-06NA25396.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{section-Introduction}
Despite decades of research, our understanding of the quantum dynamics of
interacting many-particle systems is still far from complete.
One of the major unsolved questions (or rather a set of questions)
is the problem of thermalization of isolated quantum
systems~\cite{D91,S94,BBS03,BBW04,CC06,CC07,RDYO07,RDO08,EHKKMWW09,MK09,CR10,PSSV11,KWE11,GME11,KISD11,BCH11,RS12,R13}.
In one version, this question can be posed in the following way:
Given an interacting quantum many-body system on an infinite lattice in a
globally excited state, do all observables involving a finite number of
lattice sites settle down
to a value which is consistent with a thermal state described by a suitable
temperature?
Note that we do not consider thermalization induced by the coupling to some
large thermal reservoir, but the intrinsic mechanism occurring in closed
quantum systems during unitary evolution.
The global nature of the excitation is necessary because a local excitation
(with a finite total energy) would typically disperse to infinity and leave
the system locally at its ground state after some time.
One option to create such a global excitation is a quantum quench:
Starting in the ground state of a given Hamiltonian, one suddenly
(or at least non-adiabatically) changes some of the parameters,
e.g., the external magnetic field or a coupling strength, and thus induces
a global departure from the ground state (of the modified Hamiltonian).
This behavior crucially depends on the structure of the Hamiltonian.
Integrable models, for example, possess an infinite set of non-trivial
conserved quantities.
If these conserved quantities are measurable with local observables,
there is no real thermalization.
Instead, one should describe the state by a generalized Gibbs ensemble
which contains a Lagrange multiplier for each conserved quantity.
This motivates the study of non-integrable models, such as the Bose-Hubbard
model and Fermi-Hubbard model in more than one dimension considered here.
The models are prototypical examples for simple and yet non-trivial
lattice Hamiltonians and can also be realized experimentally, for example,
with ultra-cold atoms in optical lattices~\cite{JZ07,MO06,LSADSS07,BDZ08,Y09,LSA12}.
Even if the thermalization occurs, there is still the question of
the time scales involved, for example:
How fast does the system thermalize and do some observable thermalize faster
than others?
Are there intermediate stages and how fast do the quantum correlations spread?
The last question is related to the others since the unitary evolution of a
closed quantum system implies that an initially pure state will remain pure.
Hence the description of a local state by a thermal (i.e., mixed) density
matrix is only possible due to quantum correlations with some remote part
of the lattice which is averaged over.
Quantum quenches have been considered before, for bosons and for fermions.
For bosons, many studies have been devoted to one spatial dimension by
employing exact diagonalization~\cite{KLA07,BKLO08,GR09,GR10},
time-dependent density matrix renormalization group theory
(t-DMRG)~\cite{KLA07,CDEO08,CFMSE08,FCMSE08,LK08,BRK11,BPBRK12},
and Jordan-Wigner fermionization~\cite{BPCK12}.
For corresponding experiments, see Refs.~\cite{GMHB02,KWS06,ST12,CBPE12,GKLKRSMADS12}.
However, thermalization in one spatial dimension is quite different from
the behavior in higher dimensions because quasi-particles in one dimension
cannot thermalize via elastic two-body collisions due to energy-momentum
conversation.
For bosons in higher dimensions, many of the methods which work well in one
dimension cannot be applied.
Apart from some general statements concerning the relaxation of a quantum
system towards equilibrium~\cite{CDEO08,CFMSE08,FCMSE08},
quantum quenches have been
studied by using certain approximations, such as
Bogoliubov-type approximations or strong-coupling perturbation
theory~\cite{SUXF06,FSU08,NM13a,NM13b},
the Gutzwiller approximation~\cite{NHM11},
or related (semi) classical methods~\cite{SB08,SB10,SWD12},
as well as (truncated) exact diagonalization~\cite{KLA07}.
However, these approximations are only reliable in certain regions of
parameter space.
For an experimental realization of the quench from the Mott-insulator to the
superfluid regime, see Ref.~\cite{CWBD11}.
For fermions in one spatial dimension, the integrability of the Fermi-Hubbard
model facilitates the derivation of the exact evolution after a quench
including effects such as ``pre-thermalization''~\cite{KE08,KWE11,HU13}.
Again, in higher dimensions, appropriate approximations are necessary,
such as a time-dependent Monte-Carlo method~\cite{GA12},
time-dependent dynamical mean field theory~\cite{EKW09,EKW10,A10,A11,WTE12},
the Gutzwiller ansatz for fermions~\cite{SF10,SF11,SSF12},
the flow equation method~\cite{MK08,MK09,MK10,EHKKMWW09},
or effective quasi-particle methods~\cite{SGJ10}.
In the present work, we study the quantum evolution after a quench in the
Bose and Fermi Hubbard models.
We develop and employ an analytic approximation technique which is
controlled by an expansion into powers of the inverse coordination
number $1/Z$ (see also~\cite{HSH09}).
Note that the $1/Z$-expansion employed here is somewhat similar to
time-dependent dynamical mean field theory (t-DMFT), but the $1/\sqrt{Z}$
scaling of the hopping term in the Hamiltonian (used in t-DMFT) is replaced
by a $1/Z$ scaling in our approach -- which allows us to derive analytic
expressions for the time-dependent correlation functions after the quench.
\section{Bose-Hubbard Model}\label{section-Bose-Hubbard-Model}
The Bose-Hubbard model is one of the most simple and yet non-trivial models
in condensed matter theory~\cite{FWGF89,J98,Z03}.
It describes identical bosons hopping on a lattice with the tunneling
rate $J$.
In addition, two (or more) bosons at the same lattice site repel each other
with the interaction energy $U$.
The Hamiltonian reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Bose-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}
\hat H
=
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\mu\nu} T_{\mu\nu} \hat b^\dagger_\mu \hat b_\nu
+\frac{U}{2}\sum_{\mu}
\hat n_{\mu}(\hat n_{\mu}-1)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\hat b^\dagger_\mu$ and $\hat b_\nu$ are the creation and annihilation
operators at the lattice sites $\mu$ and $\nu$, respectively, which obey
the usual commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[\hat b_\nu,\hat b_\mu^\dagger\right]=\delta_{\mu\nu}
\;,\,
\left[\hat b_\nu^\dagger,\hat b_\mu^\dagger\right]=
\left[\hat b_\nu,\hat b_\mu\right]=0
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The lattice structure is encoded in the adjacency matrix $T_{\mu\nu}$
which equals unity if $\mu$ and $\nu$ are tunneling neighbors
(i.e., if a particle can hop from $\mu$ to $\nu$) and zero otherwise.
The number of tunneling neighbors at a given site $\mu$ yields the
coordination number $Z=\sum_\nu T_{\mu\nu}$
(we assume a translationally invariant lattice).
Finally, $\hat n_{\mu}=\hat b^\dagger_\mu \hat b_\mu$ is the number
operator and we assume unit filling $\langle\hat n_{\mu}\rangle=1$
in the following.
Note that the total particle number
$\hat N=\sum_\mu \hat n_\mu$ is conserved $[\hat H,\hat N]=0$.
The Bose-Hubbard model is considered as one of the prototypical examples for
a quantum phase transition~\cite{sachdev}.
If the interaction term dominates $U\gg J$, the bosons are pinned to
their lattice sites and we have the Mott insulator state
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Mott-state}
\ket{\Psi_{\rm Mott}^{J=0}}
=
\bigotimes\limits_\mu\ket{1}_\mu
=
\prod\limits_\mu\hat b_\mu^\dagger\ket{0}
\;\leadsto\;
\hat H\ket{\Psi_{\rm Mott}^{J=0}}=0
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which is fully localized.
If the hopping rate dominates $U\ll J$, on the other hand, the particles
can propagate freely across the lattice and become completely delocalized
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{superfluid-state}
\ket{\Psi_{\rm superfluid}^{U=0}}
&=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N! N^N}}
\left(\sum_{\mu}\hat b_\mu^\dagger\right)^N\ket{0}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}
\left(\hat b_{\fk{k}=0}^\dagger\right)^N\ket{0}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which is the superfluid phase.
Obviously, the Mott state~(\ref{Mott-state}) does not have any correlations
\cite{footnote-correlations} between lattice sites, for example
$\langle\hat b^\dagger_\mu \hat b_\nu\rangle_{\rm Mott}=\delta_{\mu\nu}$,
whereas the superfluid state in~(\ref{superfluid-state}) shows correlations
across the whole lattice
$\langle\hat b^\dagger_\mu \hat b_\nu\rangle_{\rm superfluid}=1$.
Furthermore, the Mott insulator state is separated by a finite energy gap
from the lowest excited state, while the superfluid state possesses
sound-like modes with arbitrarily low energies
(for an infinitely large lattice $N\to\infty$).
Finally, the Bose-Hubbard model can be realized experimentally
(to a very good approximation) with ultra-cold atoms in optical
lattices~\cite{B05,S07,RSN97}
and it was even possible to observe the aforementioned
phase transition in these systems~\cite{G02}.
In spite of its simplicity, the Bose-Hubbard
model~(\ref{Bose-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}) cannot be solved analytically.
Numerical simulations are limited to reduced sub-spaces or
small systems sizes, see Section~\ref{Numerical} below.
Analytical approaches are based on suitable approximations.
In order to control the error of these approximations, they should be
based on an expansion in term of some large or small control parameter.
For the Bose-Hubbard model~(\ref{Bose-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}), one could
consider the limit of large $\langle\hat n_{\mu}\rangle\gg1$
or small $\langle\hat n_{\mu}\rangle\ll1$ filling~\cite{SUXF06,FSU08},
for example, or the limit of weak coupling $U\ll J$ or strong coupling
$U\gg J$~\cite{FM94,FM96,DZ06,FKKKT2009}.
However, none of these limits is particularly well suited for studying
the Mott--superfluid phase transition.
To this end, we consider the limit $Z\gg1$ in the following and employ
an expansion into powers of $1/Z$ as small control parameter.
Note that an expansion in powers of $1/Z$ was also used to derive bosonic
dynamical mean-field equations (which were then solved numerically)
in~\cite{HSH09,LBHH11,LBHH12}.
\section{Hierarchy of Correlations}
\label{hierarchyofcorr}
Let us consider general Hamiltonians of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat H=\frac1Z\sum_{\mu\nu}\hat H_{\mu \nu}+\sum_\mu\hat H_\mu
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which includes the bosonic and fermionic
Hubbard models~(\ref{Bose-Hubbard-Hamiltonian})
and~(\ref{Fermi-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}) as special cases.
The quantum evolution of the density operator $\hat\rho$ describing the
state of the full lattice can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Liouville}
i\partial_t\hat\rho
= \left[\hat H,\hat\rho\right]
&=&
\frac1Z\sum_{\mu\nu}\left[\hat H_{\mu \nu},\hat\rho\right]
+\sum_\mu\left[\hat H_\mu,\hat\rho\right]
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac1Z\sum_{\mu\nu}\,\widehat{\cal L}_{\mu \nu}\hat\rho
+
\sum_\mu\,\widehat{\cal L}_\mu\hat\rho
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the Liouville super-operators $\,\widehat{\cal L}_{\mu \nu}$
and $\,\widehat{\cal L}_\mu$ as short-hand notation.
As the next step, we introduce the reduced density matrices for one
or more lattice sites via averaging (tracing) over all other sites
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{reduced-density-matrices}
\hat\rho_\mu
&=&
\,{\rm Tr}_{\not\mu}\{\hat\rho\}
\;,\quad
\hat\rho_{\mu\nu}
=
\,{\rm Tr}_{\not\mu\not\nu}\{\hat\rho\}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and so on.
Note that $\,{\rm Tr}\{\hat\rho\}=1$ implies $\,{\rm Tr}_\mu\{\hat\rho_\mu\}=1$
and $\,{\rm Tr}_{\mu\nu}\{\hat\rho_{\mu\nu}\}=1$ etc.
Next we define correlated parts of the reduced density matrices via
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{correlated-parts}
\hat\rho_{\mu\nu}
&=&
\hat\rho_{\mu\nu}^{\rm corr}+\hat\rho_{\mu}\hat\rho_{\nu}
\\
\hat\rho_{\mu\nu\lambda}
&=&
\hat\rho_{\mu\nu\lambda}^{\rm corr}+
\hat\rho_{\mu\nu}^{\rm corr}\hat\rho_{\lambda}+
\hat\rho_{\mu\lambda}^{\rm corr}\hat\rho_{\nu}+
\hat\rho_{\nu\lambda}^{\rm corr}\hat\rho_{\mu}+
\hat\rho_{\mu}\hat\rho_{\nu}\hat\rho_{\lambda}
\nonumber
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and analogously for more lattice sites.
As a consequence, we obtain from Eq.~(\ref{Liouville}) the evolution
equation for the one-point density matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{one-site}
i\partial_t\hat\rho_{\mu}
=
\frac{1}{Z}
\sum_{\kappa\neq\mu}\,{\rm Tr}_{\kappa}\left\{
\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\mu \kappa}
(\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \kappa}+\hat\rho_\mu \hat\rho_\kappa)\right\}
+
\,\widehat{\cal L}_\mu\hat\rho_{\mu}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\,\widehat{\cal L}_{\mu \nu}^S=\,\widehat{\cal L}_{\mu \nu}+\,\widehat{\cal L}_{\nu \mu}$ denotes the
symmetrized form.
Obviously, solving this equation exactly requires knowledge of the
two-point correlation $\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \kappa}$.
The time-evolution of this quantity can also be obtained from
Eq.~(\ref{Liouville}) and reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{two-sites}
i \partial_t \hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \nu}
&=&
\,\widehat{\cal L}_\mu\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}
+
\frac1Z\,\widehat{\cal L}_{\mu\nu}
(\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}+\hat\rho_\mu\hat\rho_\nu)
\nonumber\\
&&
-
\frac{\hat\rho_{\mu}}{Z}
\,{\rm Tr}_{\mu}
\left\{\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\mu\nu}
(\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}+\hat\rho_\mu\hat\rho_\nu)
\right\}
\nonumber\\
&&+
\frac1Z
\sum_{\kappa\not=\mu,\nu}
\,{\rm Tr}_{\kappa}
\left\{
\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\mu \kappa}
(\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu\kappa}+
\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}\hat\rho_{\kappa}+
\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\nu\kappa}\hat\rho_{\mu})
\right\}
\nonumber\\
&&
+(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
As one would expect, this equation contains the three-point
correlator $\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu\kappa}$, and similarly
the evolution equation for $\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu\kappa}$
contains the four-point correlator etc.
In general, one cannot exactly solve this infinite set of equations.
However, the limit $Z\gg1$ facilitates an approximate solution
that can be systematically improved.
Let us start from an initial state
$\hat\rho^{\rm in}=\bigotimes_\mu\hat\rho^{\rm in}_\mu$
that does not have any correlations
(i.e., $\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \nu}(0)=0$ and
$\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu\kappa}(0)=0$, etc.)
such as the Mott state~(\ref{Mott-state}).
In this case, the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{two-sites})
scales as $1/Z$ and thus the time evolution creates only small correlations
$\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \nu}(t)$.
If these correlations are small initially,
$\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \nu}(0)=\,{\cal O}(1/Z)$,
they remain small at least for a finite time.
The order of terms in the second line of Eq.~(\ref{two-sites}) is determined
by the correlated parts of the density matrices.
This is because the summation over $\kappa$ gives at most a factor of $Z$
which is compensated by the factor $1/Z$ in front of the sum.
In addition, we can neglect the term in Eq.~(\ref{one-site})
which contains $\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \nu}$ because it is of the
higher order than the others. Thus, we arrive at
an approximate equation containing one-point density matrices only
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{one-site-approx}
i\partial_t\hat\rho_{\mu}
=
\frac{1}{Z}
\sum_{\kappa\neq\mu}
\,{\rm Tr}_{\kappa}
\left\{
\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\mu \kappa}
\hat\rho_\mu \hat\rho_\kappa
\right\}
+
\,\widehat{\cal L}_\mu\hat\rho_{\mu}
+
\,{\cal O}(1/Z)
\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The approximate solution $\hat\rho_\mu^0$ of this self-consistent equation
is valid to lowest order in $1/Z$, i.e.,
$\hat\rho_\mu=\hat\rho_\mu^0+\,{\cal O}(1/Z)$
and reproduces the well-known Gutzwiller ansatz~\cite{G63,RK91,J98}.
If we now insert this approximate solution $\hat\rho_\mu^0$ into
Eq.~(\ref{two-sites}), we get an approximate evolution equation for
the two-point correlator
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{two-sites-approx}
i \partial_t \hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \nu}
&=&
\,\widehat{\cal L}_\mu\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}
+
\frac1Z\,\widehat{\cal L}_{\mu\nu}\hat\rho^0_\mu\hat\rho^0_\nu
-
\frac{\hat\rho^0_{\mu}}{Z}
\,{\rm Tr}_{\mu}
\left\{\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\mu\nu}\hat\rho^0_\mu\hat\rho^0_\nu\right\}
\nonumber\\
&&
+
\frac1Z
\sum_{\kappa\not=\mu,\nu}
\,{\rm Tr}_{\kappa}
\left\{
\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\mu \kappa}
(\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}\hat\rho^0_{\kappa}+
\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\nu\kappa}\hat\rho^0_{\mu})
\right\}
\nonumber\\
&&
+(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)
+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Since we assumed that the three-point correlations
$\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu\kappa}$ are suppressed by $\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)$,
they do not spoil this line of arguments.
In complete analogy, it is possible to derive the
evolution equations for any $\ell$-point function,
see Appendix~\ref{hierarchyApp}.
Thus, we find that $\ell$-point correlations are suppressed as
$\,{\cal O}(1/Z^{\ell-1})$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{hierarchy}
\hat\rho_{\mu}
&=&
\,{\cal O}\left(Z^0\right)
\;,
\quad
\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}
=
\,{\cal O}\left(1/Z\right)
\;,
\nonumber\\
\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu\kappa} &=& \,{\cal O}\left(1/Z^2\right)
\;,
\quad
\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu\kappa\lambda}
=
\,{\cal O}\left(1/Z^3\right)
\;,
\end{eqnarray}
and so on, see Appendix~\ref{hierarchyApp}.
The hierarchy~(\ref{hierarchy}) is related to
the quantum de~Finetti theorem~\cite{CKMR07},
the generalized cumulant expansion~\cite{K62},
and the Bogoliubov-Born-Green-Kirkwood-Yvon (BBGKY) hierarchy~\cite{B75},
but we are considering lattice sites instead of particles.
As an example for the four-point correlator, let us consider observables
$\hat A_\mu$, $\hat B_\nu$, $\hat C_\kappa$, and $\hat D_\lambda$ at
four different lattice sites, which have vanishing on-site expectation values
$\langle\hat A_\mu\rangle=
\langle\hat B_\nu\rangle=
\langle\hat C_\kappa\rangle=
\langle\hat D_\lambda\rangle=0$.
In this case, the hierarchy~(\ref{hierarchy}) implies
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\hat A_\mu\hat B_\nu\hat C_\kappa\hat D_\lambda\rangle
&=&
\langle\hat A_\mu\hat B_\nu\rangle
\langle\hat C_\kappa\hat D_\lambda\rangle
+
\langle\hat A_\mu\hat C_\kappa\rangle
\langle\hat B_\nu\hat D_\lambda\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
+
\langle\hat A_\mu\hat D_\lambda\rangle
\langle\hat B_\nu\hat C_\kappa\rangle
+
\,{\cal O}\left(1/Z^3\right)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which resembles the Wick theorem in free quantum field theory
(even though the quantum system considered here is strongly interacting).
\section{Mott Insulator State}\label{mottsection}
Now let us apply the hierarchy discussed above to the Bose-Hubbard
model~(\ref{Bose-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}).
To this end, we start with the factorizing Mott state~(\ref{Mott-state})
at zero hopping rate $J=0$ as our initial state
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{init-state}
\hat\rho^{\rm in}
=
\bigotimes\limits_\mu\hat\rho^{\rm in}_\mu
=
\bigotimes\limits_\mu\ket{1}_\mu\!\bra{1}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we slowly switch on the hopping rate $J(t)$ until we reach its
final value.
In view of the finite energy gap, the adiabatic theorem implies that
we stay very close to the real ground state of the system if we do
this slowly enough.
Of course, we cannot cross the phase transition in this way
(i.e., adiabatically) since the energy gap vanishes at the critical point,
see Section~\ref{Quench dynamics} below.
Since we have $\langle\hat b_\mu\rangle=0$ in the Mott state,
Eq.~(\ref{one-site-approx}) simplifies to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{one-site-Mott}
i\partial_t\hat\rho_{\mu}
&\approx&
\frac{1}{Z}
\sum_{\kappa\neq\mu}\,{\rm Tr}_{\kappa}\left\{
\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\mu \kappa}
\hat\rho_\mu \hat\rho_\kappa\right\}
+
\,\widehat{\cal L}_\mu\hat\rho_{\mu}
=0
\nonumber\\
&&
\leadsto\,
\hat\rho_{\mu}^0=\ket{1}_\mu\!\bra{1}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, to zeroth order in $1/Z$ (i.e., on the Gutzwiller mean-field level),
the Mott insulator state $\hat\rho_{\mu}^0$ for finite $J$ has the same
form as for $J=0$.
To obtain the first order in $1/Z$, we insert this result
into~(\ref{two-sites-approx}).
Again using $\langle\hat b_\mu\rangle=0$, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
i \partial_t \hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \nu}
&=&
\left(\,\widehat{\cal L}_\mu+\,\widehat{\cal L}_\nu\right)\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}
+
\frac1Z\,\widehat{\cal L}_{\mu\nu}^S\hat\rho_\mu^0\hat\rho_\nu^0
\nonumber\\
&&+
\frac1Z
\sum_{\kappa\not=\mu,\nu}
\,{\rm Tr}_{\kappa}
\left\{
\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\mu\kappa}\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\nu\kappa}\hat\rho_{\mu}^0
+\,\widehat{\cal L}^S_{\nu\kappa}\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\kappa}\hat\rho_{\nu}^0
\right\}
\nonumber\\
&&
+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Formally, this is an evolution equation for an infinite dimensional
matrix $\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu \nu}$.
Fortunately, however, it suffices to consider a few elements only.
If we introduce
$\hat p_\mu=\ket{1}_\mu\!\bra{2}$
and
$\hat h_\mu=\ket{0}_\mu\!\bra{1}$
as local particle and hole operators
(these excitations are sometimes~\cite{KJSW90,CBPE12,BPCK12}
called doublons and holons), all the interesting physics can
be captured by their correlation functions (for $\mu\neq\nu$)
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\mu\nu}^{11}
&=&
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle
=
\,{\rm Tr}\left\{\hat{\rho}\,\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{}\right\}
=
\,{\rm Tr}_{\mu\nu}\left\{
\hat{\rho}^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{}\right\}
\,,
\nonumber\\
f_{\mu\nu}^{12}
&=&
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle
=
\,{\rm Tr}\left\{\hat{\rho}\,\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{}\right\}
=
\,{\rm Tr}_{\mu\nu}\left\{
\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{}\right\}
\,,
\nonumber\\
f_{\mu\nu}^{21}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle
=
\,{\rm Tr}\left\{\hat{\rho}\,\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{}\right\}
=
\,{\rm Tr}_{\mu\nu}\left\{
\hat{\rho}^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{}\right\}
\,,
\nonumber\\
f_{\mu\nu}^{22}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle
=
\,{\rm Tr}\left\{\hat{\rho}\,\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{}\right\}
=
\,{\rm Tr}_{\mu\nu}\left\{
\hat{\rho}^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu}\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{}\right\}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
To first order in $1/Z$, these correlation functions form a closed set of
equations~\cite{QNS12}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{f12-Mott}
i\partial_t f^{12}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}
\left(T_{\mu\kappa}(f^{12}_{\kappa\nu}+\sqrt{2}f^{22}_{\kappa\nu})
\right.
\nonumber\\
&&
+
\left.
\sqrt{2}T_{\nu\kappa}(f^{11}_{\mu\kappa}+\sqrt{2}f_{\mu\kappa}^{12})\right)
\nonumber\\
&&
+
Uf^{12}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{J\sqrt{2}}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\;,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t f^{21}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
+\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}
\left(T_{\nu\kappa}(f^{21}_{\kappa\mu}+\sqrt{2}f^{11}_{\kappa\mu})
\right.
\nonumber\\
&&
+
\left.
\sqrt{2}T_{\mu\kappa}(f^{22}_{\kappa\nu}+\sqrt{2}f_{\kappa\nu}^{12})\right)
\nonumber\\
&&
-
Uf^{21}_{\mu\nu}+\frac{J\sqrt{2}}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\;,
\end{eqnarray}
as well as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{f11-Mott}
i\partial_t f^{11}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
i\partial_t f^{22}_{\mu\nu}
=
-\frac{\sqrt{2}J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq\mu,\nu}\left(T_{\mu\kappa}
f_{\kappa\nu}^{21}-T_{\nu\kappa}f_{\mu\kappa}^{12}\right)
\,.
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
This truncation is due to the fact that the correlation functions
$f^{mn}_{\mu\nu}$ involving higher occupation numbers $m\geq3$ or $n\geq3$
do not have any source terms of order $1/Z$ and hence do not contribute
at that level.
Exploiting translational symmetry, we may simplify these equations by a
spatial Fourier transformation with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{T_k}
T_{\mu\nu}
&=&
\frac{Z}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}T_{\mathbf{k}}
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\;,
\\
\label{f_k}
f^{ab}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}f^{ab}_{\mathbf{k}}
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $N$ denotes the number of lattice sites
(which equals the number of particles in our case).
Formally, in order to Fourier transform
equations~(\ref{f12-Mott})-(\ref{f11-Mott}), one should add the summands
corresponding to $\kappa=\mu$ and $\kappa=\nu$.
Since these terms are of order $1/Z^2$, they do not spoil our first-order
analysis.
However, when going to second order $1/Z^2$, (see Section~\ref{Z2} below),
they have to be taken into account.
After the Fourier transformation~(\ref{T_k}) and~(\ref{f_k}),
Eqs.~(\ref{f12-Mott})-(\ref{f11-Mott}) become
\begin{eqnarray}
(i\partial_t-U+3 J T_\mathbf{k})f_\mathbf{k}^{12}
&=&
-\sqrt{2}J T_\mathbf{k}(f_\mathbf{k}^{11}+f_\mathbf{k}^{22}+1)
\,,\label{diff0}
\\
(i\partial_t+U-3 J T_\mathbf{k})f_\mathbf{k}^{21}
&=&
+\sqrt{2}J T_\mathbf{k}(f_\mathbf{k}^{11}+f_\mathbf{k}^{22}+1)
\,,\label{diff1}
\\
i\partial_t f_\mathbf{k}^{11}=i\partial_t f_\mathbf{k}^{22}
&=&
\sqrt{2}JT_\mathbf{k}(f^{12}_\mathbf{k}-f^{21}_\mathbf{k})
\label{diff2}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The last equation implies an effective particle-hole symmetry
$f_\mathbf{k}^{11}=f_\mathbf{k}^{22}$ valid only in the first order of $1/Z$.
With this symmetry, any stationary state (including the ground state)
with $\partial_tf_\mathbf{k}^{ab}=0$ must obey the condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{stat}
f_\mathbf{k}^{12}=f_\mathbf{k}^{21}
=
\frac{\sqrt{2}JT_\mathbf{k}(2f_\mathbf{k}^{11}+1)}{U-3 JT_\mathbf{k}}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Equations (\ref{diff0})-(\ref{diff2}) allow several stationary solutions.
In order to find the ground state one supplementary condition has to be
imposed.
One way is to envisage an adiabatic switching procedure starting from the
exactly known ground state at $J=0$ and slowly increasing $J$ until its
desired final value $J$ is reached.
The evolution process has to be very slow in order to avoid the population
of excited states.
The remaining unknown quantity $f_\mathbf{k}^{11}$ is then obtained by
noticing that, for any time-dependent $J(t)$, the evolution
equations~(\ref{diff0})-(\ref{diff2})
leave the following bilinear quantity invariant:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{inv}
\partial_t
\left[
f_\mathbf{k}^{11}(f_\mathbf{k}^{11}+1)-f_\mathbf{k}^{12}f_\mathbf{k}^{21}
\right]
=0
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, starting in the Mott state~(\ref{Mott-state}) at zero hopping rate
$J=0$ with vanishing correlations $f_\mathbf{k}^{ab}(t=0)=0$, we get the
additional condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{inv0}
f_\mathbf{k}^{11}(f_\mathbf{k}^{11}+1)=f_\mathbf{k}^{12}f_\mathbf{k}^{21}
\end{eqnarray}
for all times $t>0$.
Ergo, Eqs.~(\ref{stat}) and (\ref{inv0}) yield
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{f-solution}
f_\mathbf{k}^{11}
=
\frac{U-3JT_\mathbf{k}-\omega_\mathbf{k}}{2\omega_\mathbf{k}}
\;,\quad
f_\mathbf{k}^{12}
=
\frac{\sqrt{2}JT_\mathbf{k}}{\omega_\mathbf{k}}
\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eigen-frequency}
\omega_\mathbf{k}
&=&
\sqrt{U^2-6 J UT_\mathbf{k}+J^2 T_\mathbf{k}^2}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
corresponds to the non-trivial eigenfrequency of the homogeneous part of
Eqs.~(\ref{diff0})-(\ref{diff2}).
This expression~(\ref{eigen-frequency})
has already been derived using different methods, such as
the time dependent Gutzwiller approach~\cite{KN2011},
the random phase approximation~\cite{SD2005}, or the
slave boson approach~\cite{HABB2007}, where
$\omega_\mathbf{k}=\omega_{\mathbf{k}}^{\rm d}-\omega_{\mathbf{k}}^{\rm h}$
is given by the difference between the doublon and holon frequencies.
Note that this expression~(\ref{eigen-frequency}) differs from the one
obtained in Ref.~\cite{BPCK12} for a one-dimensional lattice via a
fermionization approach.
Thus, the ground-state correlations read (for $\mu\neq\nu$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ground1}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\frac{U-3JT_\mathbf{k}-\omega_\mathbf{k}}{2\omega_\mathbf{k}}
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\;,
\nonumber
\\
\label{ground2}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}\frac{\sqrt{2}JT_\mathbf{k}}{\omega_\mathbf{k}}
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\,.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Consistent with the (discrete) translational invariance of the lattice,
these and other two-point correlation functions depend on the distance
${\bf x}_\mu-{\bf x}_\nu$.
Again, similar results, e.g., the correlator
$\langle\hat{b}^\dagger_\mu\hat{b}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground} $
can also be obtained employing other methods,
such as the the random phase approximation~\cite{SD2005}.
However, the justification of this approximation is another matter --
especially for time-dependent situations we are interested in,
such as a rapidly changing $J(t)$ and the subsequent dephasing of
quasi-particles etc.
The above Eqs.~(\ref{ground1}) and (\ref{ground2}) describe the
correlations and are valid for $\mu\neq\nu$ only.
The correct on-site density matrix $\rho_\mu$ can be obtained
from~(\ref{one-site})
which shows that non-vanishing correlations lead
to small deviations from the lowest-order result $\rho_\mu^0$.
As one would expect, the quantum ground-state fluctuations manifest
themselves in a small depletion of the unit-filling state
$\hat\rho_{\mu}^0=\ket{1}_\mu\!\bra{1}$ given by a small but finite
probability for a particle
$f_2=\,{\rm Tr}\{\hat{\rho}_\mu|2\rangle_\mu\langle 2|\}=
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\mu^{}\rangle$
or a hole
$f_0=\,{\rm Tr}\{\hat{\rho}_\mu|0\rangle_\mu\langle 0|\}=
\langle\hat{h}_\mu^{}\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\rangle$.
To first order in $1/Z$, we get from~(\ref{one-site})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{diff3}
i\partial_t f_0
&=&
i\partial_t f_2
=
\sum_\mathbf{k}\frac{\sqrt{2}J T_\mathbf{k}}{N}
(f_\mathbf{k}^{12}-f_\mathbf{k}^{21})
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{i}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k} \partial_tf_\mathbf{k}^{11}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where we used Eq.~(\ref{diff2}) in the last step.
This equation can be integrated easily and with the initial conditions
$f_0(t=0)=f_2(t=0)=0$ we find the $1/Z$-corrections to the on-site
density matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{depletion}
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\mu^{}\rangle
=
\langle\hat{h}_\mu^{}\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\rangle
=
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\frac{U-3JT_\mathbf{k}-\omega_\mathbf{k}}{2\omega_\mathbf{k}}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, even though the right-hand side of the above equation looks
like that of~(\ref{ground1}) for $\mu=\nu$, one should be careful as they
are derived from two different equations:~(\ref{one-site})
and~(\ref{two-sites}).
In an analogous way, we may derive the expression for the ground-state
energy $E_0$
to first order of $1/Z$, which can be obtained combining Eqs.~(\ref{ground1}),
(\ref{ground2}) and (\ref{depletion}), and gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{onsiteenergy}
\frac{E_0}{N}
=
\sum_\mathbf{k}
\frac{\omega_\mathbf{k}-U}{2N}
+
{\cal O}
\left(
\frac{1}{Z^2}
\right)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This result can also be obtained via the slave boson approach~\cite{HABB2007}
supplemented with the restriction of the Hilbert space to local occupation
numbers below three.
In our method, this restriction does not have to be put in by hand, but
follows effectively from the $1/Z$-expansion.
\section{Quench dynamics}
\label{Quench dynamics}
After having studied the ground-state properties of the Mott phase,
let us consider a quantum quench.
This requires a time-dependent solution of the evolution equations
(\ref{diff0})-(\ref{diff2}) which crucially depends on the eigenfrequency
(\ref{eigen-frequency}).
Thus, let us first discuss the general behavior of (\ref{eigen-frequency}).
In view of the definition (\ref{T_k}), $T_{\mathbf{k}}$ adopts its
maximum value $T_{\mathbf{k}=0}=1$ at $\mathbf{k}=0$.
Thus $\omega_{\mathbf{k}=0}=\Delta\mathcal E$ corresponds to the
energy gap of the Mott state mentioned in
Section~\ref{mottsection}.
For $J=0$, we have a flat dispersion relation $\omega_\mathbf{k}=U$.
If we increase $J$, the dispersion relation $\omega_\mathbf{k}$
bends down and the minimum at $\mathbf{k}=0$ approaches the axis.
Finally, at a critical value of the hopping rate given by
$J_{\rm c}/U=3-\sqrt{8}\approx 0.17$~\cite{sachdev}
the minimum $\omega_{\mathbf{k}=0}$ touches the axis and thus
the energy gap vanishes $\Delta\mathcal E=0$.
This marks the transition to the superfluid regime and we can
neither analytically nor adiabatically continue beyond this point.
However, nothing stops us from suddenly switching $J$ to a final
value $J_{\rm out}>J_{\rm c}$ beyond this point.
Of course, this would not be adiabatic anymore and we would
no longer be close to the ground state.
For hopping rates $J$ which are a bit larger than the critical value
$J>J_{\rm c}$,
the eigenfrequencies $\omega_\mathbf{k}$ become imaginary for small
$\mathbf{k}$
indicating an exponential growth of these modes, i.e., an instability.
This is because the Mott state is no longer the ground state.
If we consider even larger $J$, we find that the original minimum
of the dispersion relation $\omega_\mathbf{k}^2$ at $\mathbf{k}=0$
splits into degenerate minima at finite values of $\mathbf{k}$
when $J=3U$, while $\mathbf{k}=0$ becomes a local maximum.
This local maximum even emerges $\omega_{\mathbf{k}=0}^2>0$
on the positive side again for $J>U(3+\sqrt{8})$.
Nevertheless, there are always unstable modes for some values of
$\mathbf{k}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig-omega} and compare~\cite{S11}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{frequency.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{frequency2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Dispersion relation $\omega_k^2/U^2$ in one dimension for
different values of $J/U$.}
\label{fig-omega}
\end{figure}
After these preliminaries, let us study a quantum quench from $J=0$
to a finite value $J_{\rm out}<J_{\rm c}$ which is still in the Mott regime.
For simplicity, we consider a sudden change of $J(t)=J_{\rm out}\Theta(t)$,
but the calculation can easily be generalized to other scenarios.
Solving the evolution equations~(\ref{diff0})-(\ref{diff2}) for this case,
we find~\cite{NS10}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{quench-h+h}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm quench}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm quench}
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
4J^2 T_\mathbf{k}^2\,
\frac{1-\cos(\omega_\mathbf{k}t)}{\omega^2_\mathbf{k}}\,
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\;,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{quench-h+p}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm quench}
&=&
\frac{i}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\sqrt{2}JT_\mathbf{k}\,
\frac{\sin(\omega_\mathbf{k}t)}{\omega_\mathbf{k}}\,
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\nonumber\\
&&
+
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\sqrt{2}JT_\mathbf{k}(U-3JT_\mathbf{k})
\nonumber\\
&&
\times
\frac{1-\cos(\omega_\mathbf{k}t)}{\omega_\mathbf{k}^2}\,
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The remaining correlation can simply be obtained via
$
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\nu\hat{h}_\mu^{}\rangle
=
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{}\rangle^*
$.
The correlator in terms of the original creation and
annihilation operators $\hat b_\mu^\dagger$ and $\hat b_\nu$
is just a linear combination of these correlation functions
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{quench-b+b}
\langle\hat{b}^\dagger_\mu\hat{b}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm quench}
=
\frac{4JU}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}T_\mathbf{k}\,
\frac{1-\cos(\omega_\mathbf{k}t)}{\omega^2_\mathbf{k}}\,
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The quench $J(t)$ can be realized experimentally by decreasing the
intensity of the laser field generating the optical lattice
(which lowers the potential barrier for tunneling and thus
increases $J$).
Thus the above prediction should be testable in experiments.
Note that the same expression would apply to a quench from the
Mott to the superfluid regime, cf.~\cite{NS10}.
As explained above, in this case the frequencies $\omega_\mathbf{k}$
become imaginary for some $\mathbf{k}$ and thus these modes grow
exponentially.
As a result, the expectation value will quickly be dominated by these
fast growing modes and so most of the details of the initial state
will become unimportant.
Of course, this exponential growth cannot continue forever --
after some time, the $1/Z$-expansion breaks down since the quantum
fluctuation are too strong and the growth will saturate.
\section{Equilibration}
\label{Equilibration}
However, in the following, we shall study a quench within the Mott regime.
In this case, all frequencies are real $\omega_\mathbf{k}\in\mathbb R$
and thus there is no exponential growth -- all modes oscillate.
For an infinite (or at least extremely large) lattice, the oscillations
in (\ref{quench-h+h}-\ref{quench-b+b}) average out for sufficiently large
times $t$ and thus these observables approach a quasi-equilibrium value
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{equil-h+h}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\frac{4J^2 T_\mathbf{k}^2}{\omega^2_\mathbf{k}}\,
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\;,
\nonumber
\\
\label{equil-h+p}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\sqrt{2}JT_\mathbf{k}\,
\frac{U-3JT_\mathbf{k}}{\omega_\mathbf{k}^2}
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\,.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The quasi-equilibrium values for the local (on-site) particle and hole
probabilities can be derived in complete analogy to the previous case
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{parthole}
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\mu^{}\rangle_{\rm equil}
=
\langle\hat{h}_\mu^{}\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\rangle_{\rm equil}
=
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\frac{4J^2 T_\mathbf{k}^2}{\omega^2_\mathbf{k}}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Again, it turn out that the result coincides with Eq.~(\ref{equil-h+h})
after setting $\nu=\mu$.
For the explicit example of a Bose-Hubbard model on a three-dimensional
cubic lattice after a quench according to $J/U=0\to 0.14$, the time
dependences from Eqs.~(\ref{quench-h+h}) and (\ref{quench-h+p}) are plotted
in Fig.~\ref{equilbose}.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics{holepart.eps}
\includegraphics{correlationsf12.eps}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{correlationsf11.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Time-dependence of the depletion
$\langle\hat{p}_{\mu}^\dagger\hat{p}_{\mu}\rangle$
and the nearest-neighbor correlations functions
$\langle\hat{h}_{\mu}^\dagger\hat{p}_{\nu}\rangle$
and
$\langle\hat{p}_{\mu}^\dagger\hat{p}_{\nu}\rangle$
in three dimensions after the quench within the Mott phase
$J/U=0\to 0.14$ in comparison to their ground-state values.
After quasi-equilibration,
$\langle\hat{p}_{\mu}^\dagger\hat{p}_{\nu}\rangle_\mathrm{quench}$ and
$\langle\hat{p}_{\mu}^\dagger\hat{p}_{\nu}\rangle_\mathrm{ground}$
as well as
$\langle\hat{p}_{\mu}^\dagger\hat{p}_{\mu}\rangle_\mathrm{quench}$ and
$\langle\hat{p}_{\mu}^\dagger\hat{p}_{\mu}\rangle_\mathrm{ground}$
differ roughly by a factor of two.}
\label{equilbose}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
Having found that the observables considered above approach a
quasi-equilibrium state, it is natural to ask the question of
thermalization.
As explained in the Introduction, this is one of the major unsolved
questions (or rather a set of questions) in quantum many-body
theory~\cite{KWE11,GME11,EHKKMWW09,KISD11,BCH11}.
Even though we cannot settle this question here, we can compare the
quasi-equilibrium values obtained above with a thermal state.
To this end, we derive the thermal density matrix $\hat\rho_\beta$
corresponding to a given temperature $k_{\rm B}T=1/\beta$.
Using the grand canonical ensemble, the thermal density operator reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat\rho_\beta
=
\frac{e^{-\beta(\hat{H}-\mu \hat{N})}}
{\,{\rm Tr}\{e^{-\beta(\hat{H}-\mu \hat{N})}\}}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where chemical potential $\mu$ will be chosen such that the filling
is equal to unity.
For small values of $J/U$, we can employ
strong-coupling perturbation theory, i.e., an expansion in powers of $J/U$.
It is useful to introduce the operator~\cite{CFMSE08,FCMSE08}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat R(\beta)
=
e^{\beta\hat{H}_0}e^{-\beta(\hat{H}_0+\hat{H}_1)}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{H}_0$ is the diagonal on-site part of the grand canonical
Hamiltonian $\hat{H}-\mu \hat{N}$ and $\hat{H}_1$ is the hopping term.
This operator satisfies the differential equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_\beta\hat{R}(\beta)=-\hat{H}_1(\beta)\hat{R}(\beta)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{H}_1(\beta)=e^{\beta\hat{H}_0} \hat{H}_1 e^{-\beta\hat{H}_0}$.
In analogy to time-dependent perturbation theory, the operator $\hat{R}$
can be calculated perturbatively by integrating this equation with respect
to $\beta$.
In first-order perturbation expansion (in $J/U$), we have
(see also Ref.~\cite{CFMSE08})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{thermal-perturbation}
\hat{\rho}_\beta
=
\frac{e^{-\beta\hat{H}_0}}{{\mathfrak Z}_0}
\left(
1
+
\frac{J}{Z}
\sum_{\mu\nu}
T_{\mu\nu}
\,
\hat{b}^\dagger_\mu
\frac{e^{\beta U(\hat{n}_\mu-\hat{n}_\nu)}-1}
{U(\hat{n}_\mu-\hat{n}_\nu)}\,
\hat{b}^{}_\nu
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
with ${\mathfrak Z}_0={\,{\rm Tr}\{e^{-\beta \hat{H}_0}\}}$.
Obviously, the correction to first order in $J/U$ does not affect the
one-point density matrix $\hat\rho_\mu$ but the two-point correlations.
Thus, we find that the quasi-equilibrium state of the one-point density
matrix $\hat\rho_\mu$ can indeed be described by a thermal state
provided that we choose the chemical potential as $\mu=U/2$ which gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{thermdens}
\hat\rho_\mu(\beta)
&\approx&
\frac{e^{-\beta U/2}}{2}\,\ket{0}_\mu\!\bra{0}
+
\left(1-e^{-\beta U/2}\right)\ket{1}_\mu\!\bra{1}
\nonumber\\
&&
+
\frac{e^{-\beta U/2}}{2}\,\ket{2}_\mu\!\bra{2}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The particular value $\mu=U/2$ of the chemical potential ensures
that (in first order thermal perturbation theory) we have on average one
particle per lattice site and the particle-hole symmetry
$\langle \hat{p}_\mu^\dagger \hat{p}_\mu\rangle=
\langle \hat{h}_\mu^\dagger \hat{h}_\mu\rangle$.
To obtain the correct probabilities, we have to select the temperature
according to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{temperature}
e^{-\beta U/2}=2\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\mu^{}\rangle_{\rm equil}
=
\frac{8J^2}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\frac{T_\mathbf{k}^2}{\omega^2_\mathbf{k}}
=\,{\cal O}(1/Z)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which can be deduced from Eqs.~(\ref{parthole}) and (\ref{thermdens}).
Since the depletion is small
$\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\mu^{}\rangle=\,{\cal O}(1/Z)$,
we obtain a low effective temperature which scales as $T=\,{\cal O}(U/\ln Z)$.
Accordingly, consistent with our $1/Z$-expansion, we can neglect
higher Boltzmann factors such as $e^{-\beta U}$.
\section{Correlations}
\label{Correlations}
Of course, the fact that the one-point density matrix $\hat\rho_\mu$
can be described (within our limits of accuracy) by a thermal state
does not imply that the same is true for the correlations.
To study this point, let us calculate the thermal two-point correlator
from (\ref{thermal-perturbation}).
To first order in $J/U$ and $1/Z=\,{\cal O}(e^{-\beta U}/2)$, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{hp-temp-J^1}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_\beta
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_\beta
=
\frac{\sqrt{2}JT_{\mu\nu}}{ZU}
\nonumber\\
&&
+\,{\cal O}(J^2)+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
while $\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_\beta$
and $\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_\beta$
vanish (to first order in $J/U$).
If we compare this to the quasi-equilibrium value
$\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}$ in
(\ref{equil-h+p}), we find that they coincide to first order in $J/U$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{hp-equil-J^1}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}
=
\frac{\sqrt{2}JT_{\mu\nu}}{ZU}
\nonumber\\
&&
+\,{\cal O}(J^2)+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This is perhaps not too surprising since the same value can be obtained
from the ground-state fluctuations
$\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}=
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}$
in (\ref{ground2}) after expanding them to first order in $J/U$.
Due to the low effective temperature $T=\,{\cal O}(U/\ln Z)$, the lowest
Boltzmann factor is suppressed by $e^{-\beta U/2}=\,{\cal O}(1/Z)$.
As a consequence, because the correlations are small $\,{\cal O}(1/Z)$,
their finite-temperature corrections are even smaller $\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)$,
and thus can be neglected.
The same is true for the other correlations
$\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle=
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle$.
All of them: the ground-state correlators
$\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}=
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}$
in (\ref{ground1}), the quasi-equilibrium correlators
$\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}=
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}$
in (\ref{equil-h+h}), as well as the thermal correlators
$\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_\beta$
and $\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_\beta$
vanish to first order in $J/U$.
Therefore, to first order in $J/U$ and $1/Z$, the thermal state
can describe the observables under consideration.
However, going to the next order in $J$, this description breaks down.
This failure can even be shown without explicitly calculating
$\hat R(\beta)$ up to second order.
If we compare the quasi-equilibrium correlators~(\ref{equil-h+h})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{hp-equil-J^2}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm equil}
=
\frac{4J^2 }{U^2Z^2}\sum_\kappa T_{\mu\kappa}T_{\kappa\nu}
\nonumber\\
&&
+\,{\cal O}(J^3)+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the ground-state correlations in (\ref{ground1}),
expanded to the same order in $J$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{hp-temp-J^2}
\langle\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\hat{h}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}
&=&
\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\nu^{} \rangle_{\rm ground}
=
\frac{2J^2 }{U^2Z^2}\sum_\kappa T_{\mu\kappa}T_{\kappa\nu}
\nonumber\\
&&
+\,{\cal O}(J^3)+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
we find a discrepancy by a factor of two~\cite{footnote-lattice-structure}.
I.e., after the quench, these correlations settle down to a value
which is twice as large as in the ground state (see Fig.~\ref{equilbose}).
This factor of two has already been found elsewhere in the context
of standard time-dependent and time-independent perturbation theory,
see also~\cite{MK09}.
This is incompatible with the small Boltzmann factors
$e^{-\beta U/2}=\,{\cal O}(1/Z)$ and would require a comparably large
effective temperature $T=\,{\cal O}(U)$ instead of $T=\,{\cal O}(U/\ln Z)$.
However, such a large effective temperature $T=\,{\cal O}(U)$ is
inconsistent with the small on-site depletion~(\ref{temperature}).
This distinction between local observables
(which become approximately thermal) and non-local correlations
(which are incompatible with this thermal state) has already been observed
in other scenarios using different approaches.
For the Bose-Hubbard model, quenches from the superfluid phase to the
Mott state at finite values of $J$ and $U$ have been studied in Ref.~\cite{KLA07},
where a significant dependence on the final values of $J$ and $U$ has been
observed:
For large values of the final $U$, the (quasi) equilibrated correlations
deviate significantly from a thermal state, whereas this deviation is not
pronounced for smaller values.
In contrast, a quench between the two exactly solvable cases $J=0$ on the
one hand and $U=0$ on the other hand has been studied in Ref.~\cite{CDEO08}.
This case can be solved exactly and consistent with the existence of the
conservation laws (as mentioned in the Introduction), only partial
thermalization is observed.
Further studies have been devoted to bosonic superlattices
(see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{CFMSE08}) and fermionic systems
(see the discussion at the end of Section~\ref{fermi-noneq}), for example.
Unfortunately, a general and unifying understanding of all these
non-equilibrium phenomena is still missing.
\section{Second Order in $1/Z$}
\label{Z2}
So far, we have only considered the first order in $1/Z$.
Now let us discuss the effect of higher orders by means of a few examples.
Unfortunately, the complete derivation is rather lengthy and cannot be given
here, it will be presented elsewhere~\cite{elsewhere}.
Let us go back to the derivation from (\ref{two-sites}) to
(\ref{two-sites-approx}) and include $1/Z^2$ corrections.
To achieve this level of accuracy, we should not replace the exact
one-point density matrix $\hat\rho_\mu$ by it lowest-order approximation
$\hat\rho_\mu^0$ but include its first-order corrections in
(\ref{depletion}), i.e., the quantum depletion
$f_0=\,{\rm Tr}\{\hat{\rho}_\mu|0\rangle_\mu\langle 0|\}=
\langle\hat{h}_\mu^{}\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\rangle=\,{\cal O}(1/Z)$
of the unit filling (Mott) state in Eq.~(\ref{depletion}).
This results in a renormalization of the eigenfrequency
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{renomega}
\omega_\mathbf{k}^{\rm ren}
=
\sqrt{U^2-6JT_\mathbf{k}(1-3f_0)+J^2T_\mathbf{k}^2(1-3f_0)^2}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
Since the net effect can roughly be understood as a reduction of the
effective hopping rate $J^{\rm ren}=J(1-3f_0)$, it is easy to visualize
that this implies also a decrease of the effective propagation velocity.
There are also other $1/Z^2$ corrections in (\ref{two-sites-approx}) such as
the three-point correlator $\hat\rho^{\rm corr}_{\mu\nu\kappa}$ but they act
as source terms and do not affect the eigenfrequency (at second order).
However, there are other quantities where these source terms are crucial.
In particular, we consider two-point correlation functions which vanish to
first order in $1/Z$, in contrast to contributions such as
$\langle\hat{b}^\dagger_\mu\hat{b}_\nu^{} \rangle$ discussed above.
One important example is the particle-number correlation, i.e.,
$\langle\hat{n}_\mu\hat{n}_\nu\rangle-
\langle\hat{n}_\mu\rangle\langle\hat{n}_\nu\rangle$.
After a somewhat lengthy calculation, we find for the ground-state
correlations
\begin{eqnarray}\label{number}
\langle\hat{n}_\mu\hat{n}_\nu\rangle-
\langle\hat{n}_\mu\rangle\langle\hat{n}_\nu\rangle=
\nonumber\\
\frac{2}{N^2}\sum_{\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q}}
e^{i(\mathbf{p}+\mathbf{q})\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\left(f^{11}_\mathbf{p}f^{11}_\mathbf{q}-f^{12}_\mathbf{p}f^{21}_\mathbf{q}
\right)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f^{12}_\mathbf{p},f^{21}_\mathbf{p}$ and
$f^{11}_\mathbf{p}$ are given through the relations (\ref{f-solution}).
Note that the above result is non-perturbative in $J/U$, see, for example,
the non-polynomial dependence of $\omega_\mathbf{k}$ on $J$.
As a related example, the parity correlator reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{parity}
\langle(-1)^{\hat{n}_\mu}(-1)^{\hat{n}_\nu}\rangle-
\langle(-1)^{\hat{n}_\mu}\rangle\langle(-1)^{\hat{n}_\mu}\rangle
=
\nonumber\\
\frac{8}{N^2}\sum_{\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q}}
e^{i(\mathbf{p}+\mathbf{q})\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)}
\left(f^{11}_\mathbf{p}f^{11}_\mathbf{q}+f^{12}_\mathbf{p}f^{21}_\mathbf{q}
\right)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In analogy to the previous Section, we can also study the correlations
after a quantum quench with $J(t)=J\Theta(t)$.
Again, there are no contributions to the particle-number and parity
correlations in first order $1/Z$ -- but, to second order $1/Z$,
we find formally the same expressions as in the static case (\ref{number})
and (\ref{parity}) where $f^{12}_\mathbf{p}(t)$, $f^{21}_\mathbf{p}(t)$,
and $f^{11}_\mathbf{p}(t)$ are now given by equations (\ref{quench-h+h})
and (\ref{quench-h+p}).
The parity correlations after a quench have been experimentally observed
in a one-dimensional setup~\cite{CBPE12}.
Although the hierarchical expansion relies on a large coordination number,
we find qualitative agreement between the theoretical prediction
(\ref{parity}) for $Z=2$ and the results from~\cite{CBPE12}.
For large times $t$ and distances $\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu$,
we may estimate the integrals over $\mathbf{p}$ and $\mathbf{q}$ in
the expressions (\ref{number}) and (\ref{parity}) via the
stationary-phase or saddle-point approximation.
The dominant contributions stem from the momenta satisfying the
saddle-point condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{statphase}
\nabla_\mathbf{k}
\left[
\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)\pm\omega_\mathbf{k}t
\right]
=0
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus their structure is determined by the group velocity
$\mathbf{v}_\mathbf{k}=\nabla_\mathbf{k}\omega_\mathbf{k}$.
If the equation $\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu=\pm\mathbf{v}_\mathbf{k}t$
has a real solution $\mathbf{k}$, i.e., if the distance
$\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu$ can be covered in the time $t$ with the
group velocity $\mathbf{v}_\mathbf{k}$, then we get a stationary-phase
solution -- otherwise the integral will be exponentially suppressed
(i.e., the saddle point $\mathbf{k}$ becomes complex).
For a given direction in ${\bf k}$-space, the maximum group velocity determines the maximum propagation speed of correlations,
i.e., the effective light cone. In a hypercubic lattice in $D$ dimensions with small $J$, for example,
it is given by $v_{\rm max}\approx 3J/D$ along the lattice axes and by $v_{\rm max}\approx 3J/\sqrt{D}$
along the diagonal (where all the components of ${\bf v}_{\rm max}$ are equal to each other).
A similar result has been obtained in Ref.~\cite{BPCK12} for the one-dimensional
Bose-Hubbard model.
For an experimental realization, see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{CBPE12}.
\section{Exact numerical results}
\label{Numerical}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{pn-1D-t.eps}
\caption
{
(Color online)
Time evolution of the probabilities to have zero
(red) and two (black) particles after quench from $J/U=0$ to $J/U=0.1$
in a one-dimension lattice of $11$ sites with $n=1$ atom per site.
Straight horizontal lines show the values averaged over an infinite
evolution time.
Top {\bf (a)}: first order of $1/Z$ expansion, see Eqs.~(\ref{quench-h+h}),
~(\ref{equil-h+h}).
Bottom {\bf (b)}: exact diagonalization.
Dashed lines: Probabilities to have $n_\mu=0$ (red), $2$ (black) atoms in a
thermal state at $J/U=0.1$ as a function of temperature $T$.
Note the different scales for the time $t$ and temperature $T$ dependences.
}
\label{pn-1D-t}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{pn_2D-t.eps}
\caption
{
(Color online) Time evolution of the probabilities to have zero
(red) or two (black) particles after quench from $J/U=0$ to $J/U=0.1$
in a two-dimension lattice of $3\times 3$ sites with $n=1$ atom per site.
Straight horizontal lines show the values averaged over an infinite
evolution time.
Top {\bf (a)}: first order of $1/Z$ expansion, see Eqs.~(\ref{quench-h+h}),
~(\ref{equil-h+h}).
Bottom {\bf (b)}: exact diagonalization.
Dashed lines: Probabilities to have $n_\mu=0$ (red), $2$ (black) atoms in a
thermal state at $J/U=0.1$ as a function of temperature $T$.
Note the different scales for the time $t$ and temperature $T$ dependences.
}
\label{pn_2D-t}
\end{figure}
In order to test the quality of our $1/Z$ expansion, we compare the
predictions of our first-order calculations with exact numerical results
for the probabilities
$p(n_\mu)=\bra{n}\hat\rho_\mu\ket{n}$ and correlation functions
$\langle\hat{b}^\dagger_\mu\hat{b}_\nu^{} \rangle$ in one- and two-dimensional
finite lattices.
They are obtained by full diagonalization of the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian
with periodic boundary conditions without any truncation of the Hilbert space.
This allows us to calculate exactly the complete time evolution of any
quantity as well as their mean values averaged over an infinite time.
The initial state can be arbitrary and in the calculations presented below
it was chosen in the form described by Eq.~(\ref{init-state}).
The full diagonalization provides also a possibility of exact calculations
of the thermal averages.
The time evolution of the probabilities $p(n_\mu=0)$ and $p(n_\mu=2)$,
which are by definition equivalent to the quantities
$\langle\hat{h}_\mu^{}\hat{h}^\dagger_\mu\rangle$ and
$\langle\hat{p}^\dagger_\mu\hat{p}_\mu^{}\rangle$
considered in the previous sections, is shown in
Figs.~\ref{pn-1D-t} and~\ref{pn_2D-t} for one- and two-dimensional
lattices, respectively.
Due to finite-size effects (see also Ref.~\cite{GR10}),
these probabilities oscillate around their
averaged values shown by straight horizontal lines.
For the chosen value of $J/U=0.1$, the behavior of $p(0)$ is almost
indistinguishable from that of $p(2)$, consistent with the $1/Z$-expansion.
The probabilities for thermal equilibrium states corresponding to the
final value of $J/U$ (depending on their temperature $T$)
are also plotted for comparison.
We observe that the time-averaged values of the probabilities correspond to
an effective temperature of about $0.14~U$, which is consistent with the
results of Sec.~\ref{Equilibration}.
Furthermore, we find that, in a one-dimensional lattice, our $1/Z$-approach
underestimates the typical frequency scales and overestimates the
characteristic amplitudes of the probabilities by roughly the same factor
of $\approx1.4$.
This might be an indication of the effective renormalization of the hopping
rate $J^{\rm ren}=J(1-3f_0)$ by the quantum fluctuations discussed in the
previous section (which are neglected to first order in $1/Z$).
In two dimensions, this discrepancy is still present -- albeit noticeably
smaller.
In total, we see that the quantum fluctuations in two dimensions are
smaller than in one dimension -- and that our $1/Z$-expansion becomes
better (as one would expect).
The time dependence of the correlation functions
$\langle\hat{b}^\dagger_\mu\hat{b}_\nu^{} \rangle$
presented in Figs.~\ref{obdm-1D-t},~\ref{obdm-2D-t}
displays similar oscillating character and the comparison of the
$1/Z$-expansion with exact diagonalization reveals the same
characteristic features.
In the one-dimensional lattice, their time-averaged values can again be
approximately described by an effective temperature of about $0.2~U$,
but this temperature is already significantly larger than that for the
probabilities $p(n_\mu)$.
In contrast, in the two-dimensional case, the time-averaged correlation
functions cannot be described at all by a thermal state,
see Fig.~\ref{obdm-2D-t} since are larger than the thermal correlations
at any temperature.
This failure of an effective temperature in the two-dimensional system is
consistent with the result obtained within the $1/Z$-expansion in
Sec.~\ref{Equilibration}.
Note that the situation considered here is quite different from a quench
across the critical point (i.e., Mott-superfluid or superfluid-Mott)
for which qualitatively different results have been obtained in
\cite{KLA07,GR10}, for example.
In general, we come to the conclusion that our $1/Z$-expansion agrees
qualitatively surprisingly well with exact diagonalization even in one and
two dimensions, although the values of $1/Z=0.5$ and $0.25$ are not so small.
Furthermore, we observe that the quantitative agreement between our
$1/Z$-expansion and the numerical results becomes better when going from one
to two dimensions, as one would expect.
\begin{figure
\includegraphics[width=7.85cm]{obdm-1D-t.eps}
\caption
{
(Color online)
Correlation function
$F_b(s)=\langle\hat{b}^\dagger_\mu\hat{b}_\nu^{} \rangle$ for nearest
neighbors $s=1$~[the solid black (upper) curve] and next-to-nearest neighbors $s=2$~[the solid red (lower) curve]
after a quench from $J/U=0$ to $J/U=0.1$ in a one-dimension lattice of $11$ sites with $n=1$ atom per site.
Straight horizontal lines show the values averaged over an infinite evolution time.
Top {\bf (a)}: first order of $1/Z$ expansion, see Eqs.~(\ref{quench-b+b}),
~(\ref{equil-h+h}),~(\ref{equil-h+p}).
Bottom {\bf (b)} exact diagonalization.
Dashed lines in panel {\bf (b)}:
$F_b(1)$~[black (upper)] and $F_b(2)$~[red (lower)] in a thermal state at $J/U=0.1$ as functions of temperature $T$.
Note the different scales for the time $t$ and temperature $T$ dependences.
}
\label{obdm-1D-t}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure
\includegraphics[width=8.05cm]{obdm-2D-t.eps}
\caption{
(Color online)
Correlation function
$F_b(s)=\langle\hat{b}^\dagger_\mu\hat{b}_\nu^{} \rangle$
for nearest neighbors $s=1$~[the solid black (upper) curve] and next-to-nearest (diagonal)
neighbors $s=\sqrt{2}$~[the solid red (lower) curve] after a quench from $J/U=0$ to $J/U=0.1$
in a two-dimension lattice of $3\times 3$ sites with $n=1$ atom per site.
Straight horizontal lines show the values averaged over an infinite evolution time.
Top {\bf (a)}: first order of $1/Z$ expansion, see Eqs.~(\ref{quench-b+b}),
~(\ref{equil-h+h}),~(\ref{equil-h+p}).
Bottom {\bf (b)}: exact diagonalization.
Dashed lines in panel {\bf (b)}: $F_b(1)$~[black (upper)] and $F_b(\sqrt{2})$~[red (lower)]
in a thermal state at $J/U=0.1$ as functions of temperature $T$.
Note the different scales for the time $t$ and temperature $T$ dependences.
}
\label{obdm-2D-t}
\end{figure}
\section{Fermi-Hubbard model}
\label{Fermi-Hubbard Model}
Now, after having studied the bosonic case, let us investigate the
Fermi-Hubbard model~\cite{H63,EFGKK05,F91}.
We shall find many similarities to the Bose-Hubbard model -- but also crucial
differences.
The Hamiltonian reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Fermi-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}
\hat H
=
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\mu\nu,s}T_{\mu\nu}\hat{c}_{\mu,s}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu,s}
+U\sum_{\mu}\hat{n}_\mu^\uparrow\hat{n}_\mu^\downarrow
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The nomenclature is the same as in the bosonic case
(\ref{Bose-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}) but with an additional spin label $s$
which can assume two values $s=\uparrow$ or $s=\downarrow$.
In the following, we consider the case of half-filling
$\langle\hat{n}_\mu^\uparrow+\hat{n}_\mu^\downarrow\rangle=1$
where half the particles are in the $s=\uparrow$ state and the other
have $s=\downarrow$.
Note that the total particle numbers
$\hat N^\uparrow=\sum_\mu \hat n_\mu^\uparrow$
and
$\hat N^\downarrow=\sum_\mu \hat n_\mu^\downarrow$
for each spin species are conserved separately
$[\hat H,\hat N^\uparrow]=[\hat H,\hat N^\downarrow]=0$.
The creation and annihilation operators satisfy the fermionic
anti-commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{fermionic-commutation}
\left\{\hat c_{\nu,a},\hat c_{\mu,b}^\dagger\right\}
=\delta_{\mu\nu}\delta_{ab}
\;,\,
\left\{\hat c_{\nu,a},\hat c_{\mu,b}\right\}
=
\left\{\hat c_{\nu,a}^\dagger,\hat c_{\mu,b}^\dagger\right\}
=0
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The fermionic nature of the particles has important consequences.
For example, let us estimate the expectation value of the hopping
Hamiltonian $\hat H_J$.
Introducing the ``coarse-grained'' operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{c-sigma}
\hat c_{\mu,s}^\Sigma
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{Z}}\sum_{\nu}T_{\mu\nu}\hat{c}_{\nu,s}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
we may write the expectation value of the tunneling energy $\hat H_J$
per lattice site for one spin species $s$ as
$-J\langle\hat c_{\mu,s}^\dagger\hat c_{\mu,s}^\Sigma\rangle/\sqrt{Z}$.
This expectation value can be interpreted as a scalar product of the
two vectors $\hat c_{\mu,s}\ket{\Psi}$ and $\hat c_{\mu,s}^\Sigma\ket{\Psi}$
and hence it is bounded by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\bra{\Psi}\hat c_{\mu,s}^\dagger\hat c_{\mu,s}^\Sigma\ket{\Psi}\right|
\leq
||\hat c_{\mu,s}\ket{\Psi}||\cdot||\hat c_{\mu,s}^\Sigma\ket{\Psi}||
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting $||\hat c_{\mu,s}\ket{\Psi}||^2=
\bra{\Psi}\hat c_{\mu,s}^\dagger\hat c_{\mu,s}\ket{\Psi}=
\bra{\Psi}\hat n_{\mu,s}\ket{\Psi}$, we get the expectation value of the
number operator $\hat n_{\mu,s}$.
In contrast to the bosonic case, this operator is bounded and thus we find
$||\hat c_{\mu,s}\ket{\Psi}||\leq1$.
Furthermore, the operator $\hat c_{\mu,s}^\Sigma$ in (\ref{c-sigma}) obeys
the same anti-commutation relations (\ref{fermionic-commutation}) and thus
we find $||\hat c_{\mu,s}^\Sigma\ket{\Psi}||\leq1$ in complete analogy.
Consequently, the absolute value of the tunneling energy per lattice site
is below $2J/\sqrt{Z}$, i.e., decreases for large $Z$.
The above result implies that the interaction term $\propto U$ always
dominates (except in the trivial case $U=0$) in the limit $Z\to\infty$
under consideration.
Hence, we are in the strongly interacting Mott regime and do not find
anything analogous to the Mott--superfluid transition as in the bosonic
case.
Note that often~\cite{MV89,F99} a different $Z$-scaling is considered,
where the hopping term scales with $J/\sqrt{Z}$ instead of $J/Z$ as in
(\ref{Fermi-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}).
Using this $J/\sqrt{Z}$ scaling, one can study the transition from the
Mott state to a metallic state which is supposed to occur at a critical
value of $J$ where -- roughly speaking -- the hopping term starts to
dominate over the interaction term.
However, this transition is not as well understood as the Mott--superfluid
transition in the bosonic case.
With our $J/Z$-scaling in (\ref{Fermi-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}), we study a
different corner of the phase space where we can address question such
as tunneling in tilted lattices and equilibration vs thermalization etc.
\subsection{Symmetries and Degeneracy}
In addition to the usual invariances already known from the bosonic case,
the Fermi-Hubbard model has some more symmetries.
For example, the particle-hole symmetry
$\hat c_{\mu,s}^\dagger\leftrightarrow\hat c_{\mu,s}$ and thus
$\hat n_{\mu,s}=\hat c_{\mu,s}^\dagger\hat c_{\mu,s}
\leftrightarrow
\hat{\bar n}_{\mu,s}=\hat c_{\mu,s}\hat c_{\mu,s}^\dagger
=1-\hat n_{\mu,s}$
is no longer an effective approximate symmetry, but becomes exact
(for the case of half-filling considered here).
Furthermore, there is an effective $SU(2)$-symmetry corresponding to the
spin degrees of freedom.
To specify this, let us introduce the effective spin operators
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{spin-operators}
\hat S_\mu^z
=
\frac12
\sum\limits_{ab}
\hat c_{\mu,a}^\dagger\,
\sigma^z_{ab}\,
\hat c_{\mu,b}
=
\frac12
\left(\hat{n}_\mu^\uparrow-\hat{n}_\mu^\downarrow\right)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and analogously
$\hat S_\mu^x=\sum_{ab}\hat c_{\mu,a}^\dagger\sigma^x_{ab}\hat c_{\mu,b}/2$
as well as
$\hat S_\mu^y=\sum_{ab}\hat c_{\mu,a}^\dagger\sigma^y_{ab}\hat c_{\mu,b}/2$
where $\sigma^{x,y,z}_{ab}$ are the usual Pauli spin matrices.
These operators satisfy the usual spin, i.e., $SU(2)$, commutation relations
and the Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian (\ref{Fermi-Hubbard-Hamiltonian})
is invariant under global $SU(2)$ rotations generated by the total spin
operators $\hat{\mathbf S}_{\rm tot}=\sum_\mu\hat{\mathbf S}_\mu$.
In the case of zero hopping $J=0$, this global $SU(2)$ invariance even
becomes a local symmetry, i.e., we may perform a spin rotation at each
site without changing the energy.
As a result, the ground state (at half filling) is highly degenerate for
$J=0$ in contrast to the Bose-Hubbard model (at integer filling).
This degeneracy can be lifted by an additional staggered magnetic field
(see \ref{groundcorr}) and is related to the spin modes which become
arbitrarily soft for small $J$.
In this limit $J\ll U$, their dynamics can be described by an effective
Hamiltonian, which is basically the Heisenberg model
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Heisenberg-Hamiltonian}
\hat H
=
\frac{2J^2}{Z^2U}
\sum_{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}\,\hat{\mathbf S}_\mu\cdot\hat{\mathbf S}_\nu
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with an effective anti-ferromagnetic coupling constant
of order $1/Z^2$.
This effective Hamiltonian describes the Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian
(\ref{Fermi-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}) for half-filling in the low-energy
sub-space where we have one particle per site, but with a variable spin
$\hat{\mathbf S}_\mu$.
In order to avoid complications such as frustration for the
anti-ferromagnetic Heisenberg model (\ref{Heisenberg-Hamiltonian}),
we assume a bipartite lattice -- i.e., we can divide the total lattice
into two sub-lattices $\cal A$ and $\cal B$ such that, for each site in
$\mu\in\cal A$, all the neighboring sites $\nu$ belong to $\cal B$
and {\em vice versa}.
In this case, the ground state of the Heisenberg model
(\ref{Heisenberg-Hamiltonian}) approaches the N\'eel state for large $Z$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Neel}
\hat{\rho}_{\rm Neel}
=
\bigotimes_{\mu\in\cal A}
\bigotimes_{\nu\in\cal B}
\hat{n}_\mu^\downarrow\,
\hat{\bar{n}}_\mu^\uparrow\,
\hat{n}_\nu^\uparrow\,
\hat{\bar{n}}_\nu^\downarrow
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which is just the state with exactly one particle per site, but in
alternating spin states, i.e., $s=\downarrow$ for $\mu\in\cal A$ and
$s=\uparrow$ for $\nu\in\cal B$.
Note that $\hat{n}_\mu^\downarrow$ is the projector on the
$\ket{1}_\mu^\downarrow$ state
$\hat{n}_\mu^\downarrow=\ket{1^\downarrow}_\mu\bra{1^\downarrow}$
while $\hat{\bar{n}}_\mu^\uparrow$
projects on the $\ket{0}_\mu^\uparrow$ state etc.
As usual, this state (\ref{Neel}) breaks the original symmetry group of
the Hamiltonian (\ref{Fermi-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}) containing particle-hole
symmetry, $SU(2)$ invariance, and translational symmetry, down to a
sub-group, which includes invariance under a combined spin-flip and
particle-hole exchange etc.
Let us stress that the N\'eel state (\ref{Neel}) is only the lowest-order
approximation of the real ground state of the Heisenberg model
(\ref{Heisenberg-Hamiltonian}), there are quantum spin fluctuations
of order $\,{\cal O}(1/Z)$.
These quantum spin fluctuations do not vanish in the limit $J\to 0$ since
$J$ only appears in the overall pre-factor in front of the
Heisenberg Hamiltonian (\ref{Heisenberg-Hamiltonian}) while the internal
structure remains the same.
Only after adding a suitable staggered magnetic field
(see \ref{groundcorr}), the N\'eel state (\ref{Neel})
is the exact unique ground state (for $J\to 0$).
Either way, in analogy to the bosonic case, we can now use this fully
factorizing state (\ref{Neel}) as the starting point for our $1/Z$-expansion.
\section{Mott-N\'eel state}
\label{chargemodes}
Starting with the N\'eel state (\ref{Neel}) as the zeroth order in $1/Z$,
let us now derive the first-order corrections.
To this end, let us consider the Heisenberg equations of motion
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t \hat{c}_{\mu s}
&=&
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu} T_{\mu\kappa}\hat{c}_{\kappa s}
+U\hat{c}_{\mu s} \hat{n}_{\mu \bar{s}}
\label{annihilation-operator}\\
i\partial_t \hat{c}_{\mu s}^\dagger
&=&
+\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu} T_{\mu\kappa}\hat{c}^\dagger_{\kappa s}
-U\hat{c}^\dagger_{\mu s} \hat{n}_{\mu \bar{s}}
\label{creation-operator}\\
i\partial_t\hat{n}_{\mu s}
&=&
\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu}T_{\mu\kappa}
\left(
\hat{c}_{\kappa s}^\dagger \hat{c}_{\mu s}-
\hat{c}_{\mu s}^\dagger \hat{c}_{\kappa s}
\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
-i\partial_t\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu s}
\label{number-operator}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar s$ denotes the spin label opposite to $s$, i.e., either
$(s,\bar{s})=(\uparrow,\downarrow)$ or $(s,\bar{s})=(\downarrow,\uparrow)$.
If we now insert these evolution equations into the correlation functions
$\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle$,
$\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{\bar n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle$,
$\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{\bar n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle$,
and
$\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{\bar n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{\bar n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle$,
we find that they form a closed set of equations to first order in $1/Z$,
where we can neglect three-point correlations
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle
=
+\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\langle \hat{c}_{\nu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle_0
\nonumber\\
+\frac{J}{Z}\langle\hat{n}_{\mu \bar{a}}\rangle_0
\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}T_{\mu\kappa}
\langle\hat{c}_{\kappa a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
(\hat{n}_{\kappa\bar{a}}+\hat{\bar{n}}_{\kappa\bar{a}})
\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle
\nonumber\\
-\frac{J}{Z}\langle\hat{n}_{\nu \bar{b}}\rangle_0
\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}T_{\nu\kappa}
\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\kappa b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}(\hat{n}_{\kappa\bar{b}}+\hat{\bar{n}}_{\kappa\bar{b}})
\rangle
\nonumber\\
-\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\mu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle_0
+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\label{corr1}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the expectation values $\langle\hat{n}_{\mu \bar{a}}\rangle_0$ and
$\langle\hat{n}_{\nu \bar{b}}\rangle_0$ as well as those in the last line
are taken in the zeroth-order N\'eel state (\ref{Neel}).
In complete analogy, we obtain for the remaining three correlators
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle
=
+\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\langle \hat{c}_{\nu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle_0
\nonumber\\
+\frac{J}{Z}\langle\hat{n}_{\mu \bar{a}}\rangle_0
\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}T_{\mu\kappa}
\langle\hat{c}_{\kappa a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
(\hat{n}_{\kappa\bar{a}}+\hat{\bar{n}}_{\kappa\bar{a}})
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle
\nonumber\\
-\frac{J}{Z}\langle\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu \bar{b}}\rangle_0
\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}T_{\nu\kappa}
\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\kappa b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}(\hat{n}_{\kappa\bar{b}}+\hat{\bar{n}}_{\kappa\bar{b}})
\rangle
\nonumber\\
-\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\mu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle_0
\nonumber\\
-
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu \bar{a}}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu \bar{b}}\rangle
+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
as well as
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle
=
+\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\langle \hat{c}_{\nu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle_0
\nonumber\\
+\frac{J}{Z}\langle\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu \bar{a}}\rangle_0
\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}T_{\mu\kappa}
\langle\hat{c}_{\kappa a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
(\hat{n}_{\kappa\bar{a}}+\hat{\bar{n}}_{\kappa\bar{a}})
\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle
\nonumber\\
-\frac{J}{Z}\langle\hat{n}_{\nu \bar{b}}\rangle_0
\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}T_{\nu\kappa}
\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\kappa b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\bar{a}}
(\hat{n}_{\kappa\bar{b}}+\hat{\bar{n}}_{\kappa\bar{b}})\rangle
\nonumber\\
-\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\mu b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle_0
\nonumber\\
+
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu \bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu \bar{b}}\rangle
+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and finally
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle
=
+\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\langle \hat{c}_{\nu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle_0
\nonumber\\
+\frac{J}{Z}\langle\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu \bar{a}}\rangle_0
\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}T_{\mu\kappa}
\langle\hat{c}_{\kappa a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
(\hat{n}_{\kappa\bar{a}}+\hat{\bar{n}}_{\kappa\bar{a}})
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle
\nonumber\\
-\frac{J}{Z}\langle\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu \bar{b}}\rangle_0
\sum_{\kappa\neq \mu,\nu}T_{\nu\kappa}
\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\kappa b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\bar{a}}
(\hat{n}_{\kappa\bar{b}}+\hat{\bar{n}}_{\kappa\bar{b}})\rangle
\nonumber\\
-\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\langle \hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\mu b}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle_0
+\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\label{sectors}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We observe that the spin structure is conserved in these equations,
i.e., the four correlators containing
$\hat{c}_{\mu\uparrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu\uparrow}$ decouple from
those with
$\hat{c}_{\mu\uparrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu\downarrow}$ etc.
Thus we can treat the four sectors separately.
Let us focus on the correlators containing
$\hat{c}_{\mu\downarrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu\downarrow}$ and introduce
the following short-hand notation:
If ${\mu}\in\cal A$ and ${\nu}\in\cal B$, we denote the correlations by
$\langle \hat{c}_{\mu \downarrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu \downarrow}
\hat{n}_{\mu\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\nu\uparrow}\rangle=f_{\mu\nu}^{1_A1_B}$,
and
$\langle \hat{c}_{\mu \downarrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu \downarrow}
\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\nu\uparrow}\rangle=f_{\mu\nu}^{0_A1_B}$,
etc.
Inserting the zeroth-order N\'eel state (\ref{Neel}),
we find four trivial equations which fully decouple
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t f^{1_A0_B}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
-U f^{1_A0_B}_{\mu\nu}
\,,
\nonumber\\
i\partial_t f^{0_B1_A}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
+U f^{0_B1_A}_{\mu\nu}
\,,
\nonumber\\
i\partial_t f^{0_B0_B}_{\mu\nu}
&=&0
\,,
\nonumber\\
i\partial_t f^{1_A1_A}_{\mu\nu}
&=&0
\label{hom1}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, if these correlations vanish initially, they remain zero
(to first order in $1/Z$).
Setting these correlations (\ref{hom1}) to zero,
we get four pairs of coupled equations
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t f^{0_A0_B}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
+\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}T_{\mu\kappa}
f^{1_B0_B}_{\kappa\nu}
\,,
\nonumber\\
i\partial_t f^{1_B0_B}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
+\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}T_{\mu\kappa}
f^{0_A0_B}_{\kappa\nu}
-Uf^{1_B0_B}_{\mu\nu}
\,,
\label{hom2}\\
i\partial_t f^{0_B0_A}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}T_{\kappa\nu}
f^{0_B1_B}_{\mu\kappa}
\nonumber\\
i\partial_t f^{0_B1_B}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}T_{\kappa\nu}
f^{0_B0_A}_{\mu\kappa}
+Uf^{0_B1_B}_{\mu\nu}
\,,
\\
i\partial_t f^{1_B1_A}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
+\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}T_{\mu\kappa}
f^{0_A1_A}_{\kappa\nu}
\nonumber\\
i\partial_t f^{0_A1_A}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
+\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}T_{\mu\kappa}
f^{1_B1_A}_{\kappa\nu}
+Uf^{0_A1_A}_{\mu\nu}
\,,
\\
i\partial_t f^{1_A1_B}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}T_{\kappa\nu}
f^{1_A0_A}_{\mu\kappa}
\nonumber\\
i\partial_t f^{1_A0_A}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}T_{\kappa\nu}
f^{1_A1_B}_{\mu\kappa}
-Uf^{1_A0_A}_{\mu\nu}
\,.
\label{hom12}
\end{eqnarray}
Again, since these equations do not have any non-vanishing source terms
(to first order in $1/Z$), they can be set to zero if we start in an
initially uncorrelated state.
Note that they would acquire non-zero source terms if we go away from
half-filling.
The positive and negative eigenfrequencies of these modes behave as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eigenmodes}
\omega_\mathbf{k}^\pm=\frac{U\pm\sqrt{U^2+4 J^2T_\mathbf{k}^2}}{2}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we have soft modes which scale as
$\omega_\mathbf{k}^-\sim J^2/U$ for small $J$ and hard modes
$\omega_\mathbf{k}^+\approx U$.
These modes are important for making contact to the $t$-$J$
model~\cite{A94} which describes the low-energy excitations of the
Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian~(\ref{Fermi-Hubbard-Hamiltonian}) for small $J$
away from half-filling.
However, at half-filling, we can set them to zero.
After doing this, we are left with four coupled equations, which do have
non-vanishing source terms
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t f^{0_A0_A}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}
\left\{
T_{\mu\kappa}
f^{1_B0_A}_{\kappa\nu}
-T_{\kappa\nu}
f^{0_A1_B}_{\mu\kappa}
\right\}
\label{charge1}
\,,
\\
i\partial_t f^{0_A1_B}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}
\left\{
T_{\mu\kappa}
f^{1_B1_B}_{\kappa\nu}
-T_{\kappa\nu}
f^{0_A0_A}_{\mu\kappa}
\right\}
\nonumber\\
& &
+U f^{0_A1_B}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\,,
\\
i\partial_t f^{1_B0_A}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}
\left\{
T_{\mu\kappa}
f^{0_A0_A}_{\kappa\nu}
-T_{\kappa\nu}
f^{1_B1_B}_{\mu\kappa}
\right\}
\nonumber\\
& &
-U f^{1_B0_A}_{\mu\nu}+\frac{J}{Z}T_{\mu\nu}
\,,
\\
i\partial_t f^{1_B1_B}_{\mu\nu}
&=&
\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq{\mu,\nu}}
\left\{
T_{\mu\kappa}
f^{0_A1_B}_{\kappa\nu}
-T_{\kappa\nu}
f^{1_B0_A}_{\mu\kappa}
\right\}
\,.
\label{charge4}
\end{eqnarray}
Due to the source terms $JT_{\mu\nu}/Z$, these modes will develop
correlations if we slowly (or suddenly) switch on the hopping rate $J$,
even if there are no correlations initially.
The eigenfrequencies of these (charge) modes behave as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{omega-fermi}
\omega_\mathbf{k}=\sqrt{U^2+4 J^2T_\mathbf{k}^2}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
A similar dispersion relation can be derived from a mean-field approach~\cite{F91}.
In contrast to the bosonic case, the origin of the Brillouin zone at
$\mathbf{k}=0$ does not have minimum but actually maximum excitation
energy $\omega_\mathbf{k}$.
The minimum is not a point but a hyper-surface where $T_\mathbf{k}=0$
(or, more generally, $T_\mathbf{k}^2$ assumes its minimum).
After Fourier transformation of (\ref{charge1})-(\ref{charge4}) we find
that the equations of motion conserve a bilinear quantity, that is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{invfermi}
\partial_t\left[
\left(f^{1_B1_B}_\mathbf{k}-1\right)f^{1_B1_B}_\mathbf{k}+
f^{0_A1_B}_\mathbf{k}f^{1_B0_A}_\mathbf{k}
\right]=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This relation holds, as in the bosonic case, also for time-dependent $J(t)$.
\subsection{Ground-state correlations}
\label{groundcorr}
In complete analogy to the bosonic case, we now imagine switching $J$
adiabatically from zero (where all the charge fluctuations vanish) to
a finite value.
In order to operate this adiabatic switching, we must start in principle at
$J=0$ from a non degenerate ground state.
This is accomplished by adding a term into the fermion Hamiltonian:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat H
\rightarrow
\hat H -
\sum_{\mu}
(A_{\mu\downarrow}\hat{n}_\mu^\downarrow +
A_{\mu\uparrow} \hat{n}_\mu^\uparrow)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
If we choose the magnetic field as
$A_{\mu\downarrow}(x_\mu\in \mathcal{A})=a$,
$A_{\mu\downarrow}(x_\mu\in \mathcal{B})=
A_{\mu\uparrow}(x_\mu\in \mathcal{A})=0$,
and
$A_{\mu\uparrow}(x_\mu\in \mathcal{B})=a$,
the N\'eel state is the unique ground state for $J=0$ at half filling.
Repeating the steps in Eqs.~(\ref{charge1}-\ref{charge4}) and
(\ref{hom2}-\ref{hom12}) by including this term,
the eigenfrequencies (\ref{eigenmodes}) and (\ref{omega-fermi}) read now
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eigenmodesstaggerd}
\omega_\mathbf{k}^\pm=\frac{U+a\pm\sqrt{4J^2T_\mathbf{k}^2+(U-a)^2}}{2}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_\mathbf{k}=\sqrt{4J^2T_\mathbf{k}^2+(U-a)^2}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
After adiabatic switching, we find in the limit $a=0$
the following non-zero ground-state correlations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ground-11}
f^{1_B1_B}_{\mu\nu,\mathrm{ground}}
&=&
-f^{0_A0_A}_{\mu\nu,\mathrm{ground}}
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}
\left(1-\frac{U}{\omega_\mathbf{k}}\right)
e^{i(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)\cdot\mathbf{k}}
\,,
\nonumber
\\
f^{1_B0_A}_{\mu\nu,\mathrm{ground}}
&=&
{f}^{0_A1_B}_{\mu\nu,\mathrm{ground}}
=
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}
\frac{JT_\mathbf{k}}{\omega_\mathbf{k}}\,
e^{i(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)\cdot\mathbf{k}}
\,,
\label{ground-10}
\end{eqnarray}
which reproduce the expressions obtained in Ref.~\cite{LPM69}.
Somewhat similar to the Bose-Hubbard model, the symmetric combination
(\ref{ground-11}) scales with $J^2$ for small $J$ while the other
(\ref{ground-10}) starts linearly in $J$.
Other correlators such as
$\langle\hat{c}_{\mu\downarrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu\downarrow}\rangle$
can be obtained from these expressions.
For example, if $\mu$ and $\nu$ are in $\cal A$, we find,
using $\hat{n}_{\mu\uparrow}+\hat{\bar n}_{\mu\uparrow}=1$
and $\hat{n}_{\nu\uparrow}+\hat{\bar n}_{\nu\uparrow}=1$
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\hat{c}_{\mu\downarrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu\downarrow}\rangle
&=&
f_{\mu\nu}^{1_A1_A}
+f_{\mu\nu}^{0_A1_A}
+f_{\mu\nu}^{1_A0_A}
+f_{\mu\nu}^{0_A0_A}
\nonumber\\
&=&
f_{\mu\nu}^{0_A0_A}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Quantum depletion}
To zeroth order, i.e., in the N\'eel state (\ref{Neel}), we have
$\langle\hat{n}_{\mu\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\mu\downarrow}\rangle=0$.
Thus this quantity
$\langle\hat{n}_{\mu\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\mu\downarrow}\rangle$
measures the deviation from this zeroth-order N\'eel state (\ref{Neel})
due to quantum charge fluctuations.
In order to calculate
$\langle\hat{n}_{\mu\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\mu\downarrow}\rangle$,
we also need some of the other sectors discussed after (\ref{sectors}).
Obviously, the correlators containing
$\hat{c}_{\mu\uparrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu\uparrow}$
behave in the same way as those with
$\hat{c}_{\mu\downarrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu\downarrow}$
after interchanging the sub-lattices $\cal A$ and $\cal B$.
Thus a completely analogous system of differential equations exists for
the correlations of the form
$\langle \hat{c}_{\mu \uparrow}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\mu \uparrow}
\hat{n}_{\mu\downarrow}\hat{n}_{\nu\downarrow}\rangle
=g_{\mu\nu}^{1_A1_B}$ etc.
If we insert (\ref{number-operator}) in order to calculate
$i\partial_t\langle\hat{n}_{\mu\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\mu\downarrow}\rangle$,
we find that these two sectors are enough for deriving
$\langle\hat{n}_{\mu\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\mu\downarrow}\rangle$.
Assuming $\mu\in\cal B$ for simplicity, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t\langle \hat{n}_{\mu s}\hat{n}_{\mu \bar{s}}\rangle
=
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq\mu}T_{\kappa\mu}
\Big\{
g_{\mu\kappa}^{1_B1_A}+g_{\mu\kappa}^{1_B0_A}+f_{\mu\kappa}^{1_B1_A}
\nonumber\\
+f_{\mu\kappa}^{1_B0_A}-g_{\kappa\mu}^{1_A1_B}-g_{\kappa\mu}^{0_A1_B}
-f_{\kappa\mu}^{1_A1_B}-f_{\kappa\mu}^{0_A1_B}
\Big\}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Setting the correlations with vanishing source terms to zero, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
i\partial_t\langle \hat{n}_{\mu s}\hat{n}_{\mu \bar{s}}\rangle
&=&
-\frac{J}{Z}\sum_{\kappa\neq\mu}T_{\kappa\mu}
\Big\{
f_{\mu\kappa}^{1_B0_A}
-f_{\kappa\mu}^{0_A1_B}
\Big\}\nonumber\\
& =&-\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}JT_\mathbf{k}\Big\{
f_{\mathbf{k}}^{1_B0_A}
-f_{\mathbf{k}}^{0_A1_B}
\Big\}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{i}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}\partial_t f_{\mathbf{k}}^{1_B1_B}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, in the ground state, the quantum depletion reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{fermi-depletion}
\langle\hat{n}_{\mu s}\hat{n}_{\mu \bar{s}}\rangle
=
\langle\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu s}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu \bar{s}}\rangle
=
\frac{1}{2N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
\left(1-\frac{U}{\omega_\mathbf{k}}\right)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
As one would expect, this quantity scales with $J^2$ for small $J$.
The results (\ref{ground-11}), (\ref{ground-10}), and (\ref{fermi-depletion})
can also be obtained via other approaches, such as the spin density wave
ansatz \cite{BEM2009} (which is related to dynamical mean field theory
according to Ref.~\cite{GKKR96}).
\subsection{Spin modes}
So far, we have considered expectations values such as
$\langle\hat{c}_{\mu a}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu b}
\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}\rangle$,
where -- apart from the number operators $\hat{n}_{\mu\bar{a}}$ and
$\hat{n}_{\nu\bar{b}}$ -- one particle is annihilated at site $\nu$
and one is created at site $\mu$.
These operator combinations correspond to a change of the occupation
numbers and are thus called charge modes.
However, as already indicated in Section~\ref{Fermi-Hubbard Model},
there are also other modes which leave the total occupation number
of all lattice sites unchanged.
Examples are
$\langle\hat{c}_{\mu s}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\mu\bar{s}}
\hat{c}_{\nu\bar{s}}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\nu s}\rangle$
or
$\langle\hat{n}_{\mu a}\hat{n}_{\nu b}\rangle$
or combinations thereof.
Many of these combinations can be expressed in terms of the
effective spin operators in (\ref{spin-operators}) via
$\langle\hat{S}_{\mu}^i\hat{S}_{\nu}^j\rangle$.
As one would expect from our study of the Bose-Hubbard model,
the evolution of these spin modes vanishes to first order in $1/Z$
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t\langle\hat{S}_{\mu}^i\hat{S}_{\nu}^j\rangle=\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
consistent with the Heisenberg Hamiltonian (\ref{Heisenberg-Hamiltonian}).
In analogy to the $\langle\hat{n}_{\mu}\hat{n}_{\nu}\rangle$-correlator
in the bosonic case, one has to go to second order $\,{\cal O}(1/Z^2)$ in order
to calculate these quantities.
Fortunately, the charge modes discussed above do not couple to these spin
modes to first order in $1/Z$ and hence we can omit them to this level
of accuracy.
\section{Quench dynamics}
\label{fermi-noneq}
Now we consider a quantum quench, i.e., a sudden switch from $J=0$
to some finite value of $J$.
To this end, we start with the Mott-N\'eel state~(\ref{Neel}),
which is an exact eigenstate of the Hamiltonian for $J=0$,
and solve the first-order (in $1/Z$) equations for the correlations.
This provides a good approximation at least for short and intermediate
times, before $1/Z^2$-corrections (such as the soft spin modes)
start to play a role.
Following this strategy, we find the following non-vanishing correlations
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{1_B1_B}_{\mu\nu,\mathrm{quench}}
&=&
-f^{0_A0_A}_{\mu\nu,\mathrm{quench}}
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}
2 J^2 T_{\mathbf{k}}^2\,
\frac{1-\cos(\omega_\mathbf{k} t)}{\omega_\mathbf{k}^2}\,
e^{i(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)\cdot\mathbf{k}}
\,,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{1_B0_A}_{\mu\nu,\mathrm{quench}}
&=&
\left({f}^{0_A1_B}_{\mu\nu,\mathrm{quench}}\right)^*
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}
J T_\mathbf{k}U
\frac{1 - \cos(\omega_\mathbf{k} t)}{\omega_\mathbf{k}^{2}}
e^{i(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)\cdot\mathbf{k}}
\nonumber\\
& &
-\frac{i}{N}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}
J T_\mathbf{k}\,
\frac{\sin(\omega_\mathbf{k} t)}{\omega_\mathbf{k}}\,
e^{i(\mathbf{x}_\mu-\mathbf{x}_\nu)\cdot\mathbf{k}}
\nonumber
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Again, these correlations equilibrate to a quasi-stationary value,
which is, however, not thermal.
For some of these correlations, this quasi-stationary value lies
even {\em below} the ground-state correlation, see Fig.~\ref{quenchfermi}.
The probability to have two or zero particles at a site reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{docc}
\langle\hat{n}_{\mu s}\hat{n}_{\mu \bar{s}}\rangle_\mathrm{quench}
&=&
\langle\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu s}\hat{\bar{n}}_{\mu \bar{s}}\rangle_\mathrm{quench}
\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\sum_\mathbf{k}
2 J^2 T_{\mathbf{k}}^2\,
\frac{1-\cos(\omega_\mathbf{k} t)}{\omega_\mathbf{k}^2}
\,.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This quantity also equilibrates to a quasi-stationary value of order $1/Z$.
In analogy to the bosonic case, this quasi-stationary value could be explained
by a small effective temperature -- but this small effective temperature then
does not work for the other observables, e.g., the correlations.
The time-evolution of the quantum depletion in Fig.~\ref{quenchfermi}
can be compared with the results of Ref.~\cite{KE08} where the (integrable)
Fermi-Hubbard model in one dimension with long-range hopping
(i.e., $T_{\mu\nu}$ contributes not just for nearest neighbors)
is considered and we observe qualitative agreement
(see, e.g., Fig.~1d in Ref.~\cite{KE08}).
Unfortunately, a quantitative comparison of our results for the
higher-dimensional Fermi-Hubbard model is impeded by the lack of data for
the regime under consideration in our present work.
For instance, the Fermi-Hubbard model in one and two dimensions is studied
in Ref.~\cite{GA12}, but there a quench from $U>0$ to $U=0$ is considered.
As another example, the quench from $U=0$ to $U>0$
(but still in the metallic phase, i.e., for weak $U$)
is investigated in Ref.~\cite{MK08}, where three temporal regimes are identified:
short times (build-up and oscillation of correlations), intermediate times
(quasi-equilibration), and late times (thermalization).
The first two temporal regimes can be recovered in complete analogy within
our first-order $1/Z$-approach, but the late-time behavior (thermalization)
requires higher orders in $1/Z$.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics{onsiteg0J05.eps}
\includegraphics{correlationsg11J05.eps}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{correlationsg10J05.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Time-dependence of the quantum depletion, the nearest-neighbor
correlation function $f^{1_B0_A}_{\mu\nu}$, and the next-to-nearest-neighbor
correlation function $f^{1_B1_B}_{\mu\nu}$ in three dimensions
after a quench within the Mott phase according to $J/U=0\to 0.5$
in comparison to their ground-state values.}
\label{quenchfermi}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Conclusions}
In summary, we studied the quantum dynamics of the Bose and Fermi Hubbard
model after a quench within the Mott phase.
To this end, we employed a formal expansion into powers of $1/Z$ based on
the hierarchy of correlations.
In comparison to other approaches (as mentioned in the Introduction,
for example), this method facilitates an iterative approximate analytical
solution for the time dependence of the reduced density matrices and their
ground state values.
It is particularly suited for the strongly interacting regime in higher
dimensions and can be applied to a general lattice structure $T_{\mu\nu}$
of arbitrary size.
Since our method is based on an expansion into powers of the (small)
control parameter $1/Z$, it provides a unique classification which effect
occurs at which order in $1/Z$.
This fact is also related to the somewhat disadvantageous features of our
approach, for example the fact that the correct treatment of the soft spin
modes and the late-time dynamics requires higher orders in $1/Z$.
Furthermore, we cannot describe the transition between the Mott insulator
and the metallic state in the Fermi-Hubbard model within our first-order
approach.
As one application, we derive the spread of correlations and obtain
an effective light-cone structure (via the saddle-point approximation).
Furthermore, we found that the considered observables settle down to a
quasi-equilibrium state after some time -- but this state is not thermal.
More precisely, the on-site density matrix settles down to a state which
could be described by a thermal ensemble but the two-point correlations do
not fit this thermal state.
Thus, real thermalization -- if it occurs at all -- requires much longer
times scales.
This seems to be a generic feature and has been discussed for
bosonic~\cite{KLA07,CFMSE08,FCMSE08,CDEO08} and fermionic
systems~\cite{U09,MK08,EKW10,MK09,MK10,SGJ10,EKW09,luttinger}
and is sometimes called ``pre-thermalization''~\cite{BBS03,BBW04}.
This phenomenon can be visualized via the following intuitive picture:
The excited state generated by the quench can be viewed as a highly
coherent superposition of correlated quasi-particles.
During the subsequent quantum evolution, these quasi-particles
disperse and randomize their relative phases -- which results in
a quasi-stationary state.
However, the quasi-particles still retain their initial spectrum
(in energy and quasi-momentum), which could be approximately described
by a generalized Gibbs ensemble (i.e., a momentum-dependent temperature).
In this picture, thermalization requires the exchange of energy and
momentum between these quasi-particles due to multiple collisions,
which changes the one-particle spectrum and takes much longer.
Ergo, one would expect a separation of time scales -- i.e., first (quasi)
equilibration and only much later thermalization -- for many systems
in condensed matter, where the above quasi-particle picture applies.
Within our $1/Z$ approach, the interaction between the quasi-particles
(responsible for the exchange of energy and momentum by multiple collisions)
correspond to higher orders in $1/Z$.
Since they become relevant at time scales much longer than the initial
dephasing time considered here, one would expect that it is possible to
derive some sort of Boltzmann equation for these long time scales.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors acknowledge valuable discussions with W.~Hofstetter, S.~Kehrein,
C.~Kollath, A.~Rosch, M.~Vojta and many others.
F.Q.\ is supported by the Templeton foundation (grant number JTF 36838).
This work was supported by the DFG (SFB-TR12).
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, the Heegaard Floer theory has fascinated many
low-dimensional topologists. Developed by P. Ozsv\'ath and Z.
Sz\'abo, Heegaard Floer invariants of closed 3-manifolds led to a
breakthrough in low dimensional topology. These invariants were
recently shown to be equivalent to three-dimensional Seiberg-Witten
Floer homology, by Kutluhan, Lee and Taubes \cite{KLT}. It was also
proven to be equivalent to contact homology by Colin, Ghiggini and
Honda \cite{CGH}; this equivalence had initially motivated
Oszv\'ath--Szab\'o's constructions. Moreover, Heegaard Floer theory
turned out to be useful in defining knot and link invariants. See
Ozsv\'ath--Sz\'abo \cite{OZ04, OZ05}, and Rasmussen \cite{Ras02}.
These invariants are now known as \emph{knot Floer homology} and
\emph{link Floer homology}. In particular, knot Floer homology and
Heegaard Floer homology of the 3-manifold obtained by integral
surgery on knot turned out to be closely related by Rasmussen
\cite{Ras02} and Ozsv\'ath--Sz\'abo \cite{OZ08}. For the link
surgery case, the relation was discovered but appeared more
complicated than the knot case. See Manolescue--Ozsv\'ath
\cite{MO10}.
More recently, Lipshitz, Ozsv\'ath and Thurston extended the theory
to 3-manifolds with nonempty boundary. \emph{Bordered Floer
homology}, first introduced in ~\cite{LOT08}, consists consists of
two different modules: $\widehat{CFD}$ and $\widehat{CFA}$. The
homotopy type of each module is an topological invariant of
3-manifold with \emph{connected} boundary equipped with a framing (a
diffeomorphism to a model surface). The bordered theory is a
powerful tool thanks to a pairing theorem: one can recover the
Heegaard Floer homology of a closed 3-manifold decomposed into two
pieces by taking ``$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ tensor product'' of
$\widehat{CFA}$ of the the first piece and $\widehat{CFD}$ of the
second piece. \\
Bordered Floer homology of three manifold with genus one is related
to knot Floer homology. In \cite[Chapter 11]{LOT08}, they described
an algorithm to recover $\widehat{CFD}(S^3 \backslash \nu(K))$ (with
arbitrary framing) from knot Floer homology $CFK^-$. This makes it
possible to compute Heegaard Floer homology of the surgered manifold
by taking $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ tensor product with the solid
torus. \\
Moreover, Lipshitz, Ozsv\'ath and Thurston have generalized bordered
Floer homology to \emph{doubly bordered Floer homology}
\cite{LOT11}. As the name suggests, this is an invariant associated
to a 3-manifold with two boundary components; we get three different
types of bimodules, $\widehat{CFDA}$, $\widehat{CFDD}$, and
$\widehat{CFAA}$. An important example of a manifold with 2 boundary
components is $S^3 \backslash \nu(L)$, a complement of a
two-component link $L$. \\
In this paper, we give a calculation of $\widehat{CFDD}(S^3
\backslash \nu(L))$, where $L$ is $(2,2n)$-torus link.
In~\ref{sec:prelim}, we collect the necessary background and
notation. The actual calculation is in~\ref{sec:main}; the
answer is shown in~\ref{fig:26differential}, with the simplified
version in~\ref{fig:simplified01}. We work with a specific
Heegaard diagram and find the generators and the differentials
explicitly. However, only a few of the differentials can be obtained
by a direct examination of their domains; for the remaining
differentials, we have to exploit the $A_\infty$ structure of
$\widehat{CFAA}$. In Section 4, we give several applications of the
pairing formula, recovering some known Floer homologies from our
calculation, to illustrate and check the result. \\
Some other calculations of bordered invariants for manifolds with
disconnected boundary were recently obtained by Jonathan Hanselman
\cite{Ha}. Hanselman computes the $\widehat{CFD}$-type trimodule
associated to the trivial $S^1$-bundle over the pair of pants, and
uses this, together with certain features of the bordered theory, to
recover Heegaard Floer invariants for all graph manifolds. In
principle, our results can also be obtained via Hanselman's approach
(although he does not perform this calculation); however, our
calculations are based on a more direct examination of the $(2, 2n)$
link complement, and thus perhaps more useful for understanding the
bordered theory of more general link complements. \\
\textbf{Acknowledgement} The author would like to thank Robert
Lipshitz and Peter Ozsv\'ath for very helpful conversation and
advice, and Adam Levine for commenting on the final version of this
paper. Lastly, I give thanks to my advisor Olga Plamenevskaya for
her enormous patience and encouragement.
\section{Background on Doubly Bordered Floer Theory}
\label{sec:prelim}
We will assume that the reader is familiar with bordered Floer
homology of single boundary case. We briefly recall algebraic
preliminaries, focusing especially on the doubly bordered Floer
homology introduced by Lipshitz, Ozsv\'ath and Thurston
\cite{LOT11}. \\
In a handle decomposition of a genus $g$ surface $\Sigma^g$, the
zero handle $D$ of $\Sigma^g$ has $2g$ marked points $\mathbf{a}$ on
$\partial D = Z$ equipped with two-to-one matching $M$ between the
points, so that each 1-handle is attached to a pair of matched
points. We also fix a point $z$ on $Z$ away from $\mathbf{a}$. This
set of data is called a \emph{pointed matched circle} and denoted
$\mathcal{Z} = \{ Z, \mathbf{a}, M, z \}$, and surface realized by
this data $F( \mathcal{Z} )$. A $dg$ algebra associated to
$\mathcal{Z}$ is called \emph{strands algebra}, and denoted
$\mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z})$. If $g=1$, $\mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z})$
is $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space generated by nonconstant Reeb chords
$\rho_I$, $I \in \{ 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 123 \}$ and two idempotents
$\iota_1$ and $\iota_2$ such that $\iota_1 + \iota_2 =1$.
Multiplication rule between Reeb chords follows concatenation rule
of chords, and there is a subalgebra $\mathcal{I} \subset
\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{Z})$ generated by idempotents. In this case, we
will call it \emph{torus algebra}. Detailed description can be found
in Lipshitz, Ozsv\'ath and Thurston \cite{LOT08}. \\
If a 3-manifold $Y$ has connected boundary, the surface
$F(\mathcal{Z})$, preferred disk $D$ and a point on the $\partial D$
determine a parametrization of the boundary of $Y$. We write this
data a triple $(F(\mathcal{Z}), D, z)$. If $Y$ has two boundary
components, then we need to have two surfaces $(F_1(\mathcal{Z}_1),
D_1, z_1)$ and $(F_2(\mathcal{Z}_2), D_2, z_2)$. Fixing a framed arc
whose two endpoints point into $D_i$ at $z_i$, $i=1,2$, we drill a
tunnel along the framed arc so that we get a single boundary surface
whose genus is the sum of genuses of $F_1(\mathcal{Z}_1)$ and
$F_2(\mathcal{Z}_2)$. The bimodule of the doubly bordered 3-manifold
$Y$ can be defined via $\widehat{CFD}$ of the drilled manifold,
namely $Y_{dr}$, although the alternate definition (working with
disconnected boundary directly) is easier to use in our case.
\begin{defn}
An \emph{arced bordered Heegaard diagram} $\mathcal{H}$ with two boundary
component is a tuple $(\Sigma, \mathbf{\alpha}, \mathbf{\beta},
\mathbf{z})$ satisfying:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{\Sigma}$ is a compact, genus $g$ surface with 2 boundary
component $\partial_L \overline{\Sigma}$ and $\partial_R
\overline{\Sigma}$.
\item $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ is $g$-tuple of pairwise disjoint
curves in the interior of $\overline{\Sigma}$.
\item $\boldsymbol{\alpha} = \{ \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{a,L}=\{
\alpha_1^{a,L}, \cdots, \alpha_{2l}^{a,L} \}, \
\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{a,R}=\{\alpha_1^{a,R}, \cdots, \alpha_{2r}^{a,R} \}, \ \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{c}=\{\alpha_1^c, \cdots, \alpha_{g-l-r}^c \}
\}$, is a collection of pairwise disjoint embedded arcs with
boundary on $\partial_L \overline{\Sigma}$ (the
$\alpha_i^{a,L}$), arcs with boundary on $\partial_R \overline{\Sigma}$ (the
$\alpha_i^{a,R}$), and circles (the $\alpha_i^c$) in the
interior of $\overline{\Sigma}$.
\item $\mathbf{z}$ is a path in $\overline{\Sigma} \backslash
(\boldsymbol{\alpha} \cup \boldsymbol{\beta})$ between $\partial_L \overline{\Sigma}$ and $\partial_R
\overline{\Sigma}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{defn}
As usual, $\mathcal{Z}_L$ denotes (respectively, $\mathcal{Z}_R$) a
pointed matched circle on the left (respectively, on the
right).\\
Construction of doubly bordered three manifold from an arced
bordered Heegaard diagram is as follows. First cut open $\Sigma$
along the path $\mathbf{z}$. Since $\mathbf{z}$ is connecting two
boundaries $\partial_L \overline{\Sigma}$ and $\partial_R
\overline{\Sigma}$ of $\overline{\Sigma}$, the resulting diagram
$\mathcal{H}_{dr}$ is a Heegaard diagram of single boundary.
Thickening $\mathcal{H}_{dr}$ and attaching 3-dimensional 2-handles
on it, we get a bordered manifold $Y_{dr}$ with single boundary
component. The boundary can be decomposed into three pieces:
$F_1(\mathcal{Z}_L) \backslash D_1$, $F_2(\mathcal{Z}_R) \backslash
D_2$, and an annulus $A$. If we glue another 3-dimensional 2-handle
along the annulus, we obtain the required doubly bordered three
manifold. \\
There are three types of bimodules: $\widehat{CFAA}$,
$\widehat{CFDA}$, $\widehat{CFDD}$. We will focus on
$\widehat{CFDD}$ and $\widehat{CFAA}$ only. Before giving
definitions of these bimodules, we introduce algebraic preliminaries
of them.
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be
$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$-algebras over $\mathbb{F}$.
\emph{$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$-bimodule} ${}_{\mathcal{A}}
M_{\mathcal{B}}$ over $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ consist of
$(\mathbb{F}, \mathbb{F})$-bimodule $M$ and maps
\begin{displaymath}
m_{i,1,j} : A^{\otimes i} \otimes M \otimes B^{\otimes j}
\rightarrow M
\end{displaymath}
such that the following compatibility condition holds.
\begin{eqnarray*}
0=\sum_{\substack{ k+l = i+1 \\ \lambda + \eta = j+1}}
m_{k,1,\lambda} ( m_{l,1,\eta} ( \mathbf{x}, a_1^L \otimes
\cdots \otimes a_{l-1}^L, a_1^R \otimes \cdots \otimes
a_{\lambda -1}^R ), a_l^L \otimes \cdots \otimes a_{i-1}^L,
a_{\lambda}^R \otimes \cdots \otimes a_{j-1}^R ) \\
+ \sum_{k+l = i+1} \sum_{n=1}^{i-l} m_{k,1,j} ( \mathbf{x},
a_1^L \otimes \cdots \otimes a_{n-1}^L \otimes \mu_l ( a_n^L
\otimes \cdots \otimes a_{n+l-1}^L ) \otimes \cdots \otimes
a_{i-1}^L , a_1^R \otimes \cdots \otimes a_{j-1}^R ) \\
+ \sum_{\lambda+\eta = j+1} \sum_{n=1}^{j-\eta} m_{i,1,\lambda}
(\mathbf{x}, a_1^L \otimes \cdots \otimes a_{i-1}^L ,
a_1^R \otimes \cdots \otimes a_{n-1}^R \otimes \mu_l ( a_n^R
\otimes \cdots \otimes a_{n+l-1}^R ) \otimes \cdots \otimes
a_{j-1}^R ) \\
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $i$ and $j$. By denoting $m = \sum_{i,j} m_{i,1,j}$, the
compatibility condition can be drawn in the diagram below.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix @-1pc {
\ar@{=>}[d] & \ar@{-->}[dd] & \ar@{=>}[d] & & \ar@{=>}[d] & \ar@{-->}[ddd] & \ar@{=>}[dddl] & & \ar@{=>}[dddr] & \ar@{-->}[ddd] & \ar@{=>}[d] & \\
\Delta \ar@{=>}[dr] \ar@{=>}[ddr] & & \Delta \ar@{=>}[dl] \ar@{=>}[ddl] & & \overline{D}^{\mathcal{A}} \ar@{=>}[ddr] & & & & & & \overline{D}^{\mathcal{B}} \ar@{=>}[ddl] & \\
& m \ar@{-->}[d] & & + & & & & + & & & & = 0 \\
& m \ar@{-->}[d] & & & & m \ar@{-->}[d] & & & & m \ar@{-->}[d] & & \\
& & & & & & & & & & &
}
\end{displaymath}
\end{defn}
The dashed line above represents module element, and the double line
represents element from tensor algebra $\mathcal{T}^*(A)$. \\
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be
$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$-algebras over $\mathbb{F}$.
\emph{$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$-bimodule} ${}^{\mathcal{A}}
M^{\mathcal{B}}$ over $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ consists of
$(\mathbb{F}, \mathbb{F})$-bimodule $M$ and maps
\begin{displaymath}
\delta^1 : M \rightarrow A \otimes M \otimes B
\end{displaymath}
satisfying the following compatibility condition.
\begin{displaymath}
( ( \mu_2^L , \mu_2^R ) \otimes \mathbb{I}_M ) \circ ( (
\mathbb{I}_A , \mathbb{I}_B ) \otimes \delta^1 ) \circ \delta^1
+ ( (\mu_1^L , \mathbb{I}_B) \otimes \mathbb{I}_M ) \circ
\delta^1 + ( (\mathbb{I}_A, \mu_1^R) \otimes \mathbb{I}_M )
\circ \delta^1 = 0
\end{displaymath}
Again, the compatibility condition is drawn in the diagram below.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix @-1pc {
& \ar@{-->}[d] & & & & \ar@{-->}[d] & & & & \ar@{-->}[d] & & \\
& \delta^1 \ar@{-->}[d] \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & & & & \delta^1 \ar@{-->}[ddd] \ar[ddl] \ar[dddr] & & & & \delta^1 \ar@{-->}[ddd] \ar[ddr] \ar[dddl]
& & \\
& \delta^1 \ar@{-->}[dd] \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & & + & & & & + & & & &
= 0 \\
\mu_2 \ar[d] & & \mu_2 \ar[d] & & \mu_1 \ar[d] & & & & & &
\mu_1 \ar[d] & \\
& & & & & & & & & & &
}
\end{displaymath}
\end{defn}
A generating set of bimodules $\widehat{CFDD} (\mathcal{H})$ and
$\widehat{CFAA} (\mathcal{H})$ is the same as the set $\mathfrak{S}
(\mathcal{H}_{dr})$ of generators of drilled diagram, which will be
denoted $\mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H})$. For given two generators
$\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$, a homology class $\boldsymbol{\pi}_2
(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ connecting $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$
is defined in a similar manner. Likewise, a domain of homology class
$B \in \boldsymbol{\pi}_2 (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ is a linear
combination of the components of $\overline{\Sigma} \backslash
(\boldsymbol{\alpha} \cup \boldsymbol{\beta})$. By convention, we do
not count homology classes or domains that cross the region
containing the path $\mathbf{z}$. A doubly bordered Heegaard diagram
is \emph{provincially admissible} if the bordered diagram
$\mathcal{H}_{dr}$ is admissible. \\
We now turn to the moduli space of curves. Let $\mathbf{x}$ and
$\mathbf{y}$ be generators, and $B \in \boldsymbol{\pi}_2
(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ be homology class connecting them. Once
the homology class $B$ is fixed, there is a compatible pair $(B,
\boldsymbol{\rho})$. The ordered set of Reeb chords
$\boldsymbol{\rho}$ has both left and right Reeb chords. Consider a
union of two ordered sets of Reeb chords $\overrightarrow{\rho^L}
\coprod \overrightarrow{\rho^R}$, where $\overrightarrow{\rho^L}$
(respectively $\overrightarrow{\rho^R}$) consists of left Reeb
chords (respectively right Reeb chords). An ordered set of Reeb
chords $\boldsymbol{\rho}$ said to \emph{interleave}
$\overrightarrow{\rho^L} \coprod \overrightarrow{\rho^R}$, if
$\boldsymbol{\rho} = \overrightarrow{\rho^L} \coprod
\overrightarrow{\rho^R}$ as a set and the orderings of
$\overrightarrow{\rho^L}$ and $\overrightarrow{\rho^R}$ agree with
the orderings induced by $\boldsymbol{\rho}$. We will sometimes use
$(B, \overrightarrow{\rho^L}, \overrightarrow{\rho^R})$ and
$\mathcal{M}^B (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} ; \overrightarrow{\rho^L},
\overrightarrow{\rho^R})$ to denote the compatible pair and the
moduli space of holomorphic representatives of this domain. (We do
not describe the moduli space in detail, referring the reader to
\cite{LOT08, LOT11}.) The expected dimension of the moduli space of
$\mathcal{M}^B (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} ; \overrightarrow{\rho^L},
\overrightarrow{\rho^R})$, or $\textrm{ind}(B,
\overrightarrow{\rho^L}, \overrightarrow{\rho^R})$ is computed by
the formula below.
\begin{displaymath}
\textrm{ind}(B, \boldsymbol{\rho}) = e(B) + n_{\mathbf{x}}(B) +
n_{\mathbf{y}}(B) + |\overrightarrow{\rho^L}| +
|\overrightarrow{\rho^R}| + \iota({\overrightarrow{\rho^L}}) +
\iota({\overrightarrow{\rho^R}}),
\end{displaymath}
where $e(B)$ is \emph{Euler measure}, $n_{\mathbf{x}}(B)$ sum of
average of local multiplicities surrounding generator $\mathbf{x}$,
$|\overrightarrow{\rho^L}|$ number of Reeb chords in the sequence
$\overrightarrow{\rho^L}$, and $\iota( \overrightarrow{\rho^L} )$
\emph{linking number} of sequence $\overrightarrow{\rho^L}$. See
\cite[Definition 5.11]{LOT08}. \\
Now we are ready to associate two types of bimodules on doubly
bordered Heegaard diagram. First we define
$\widehat{CFDD}(\mathcal{H})$. \\
The left boundary $- \partial_L \overline{\Sigma}$ with a point $z_L
= \partial_L \overline{\Sigma} \cup \mathbf{z}$, whose orientation
is opposite from the induced orientation, can be considered as a
pointed matched circle; i.e, we let $- \mathcal{Z}_L = ( -
\partial_L \overline{\Sigma}, \mathbf{a}_L = \{ \partial
\alpha^{a,L}_1, \partial \alpha^{a,L}_2 \}, z_L )$ be the pointed
matched circle. Then we get the torus algebra $\mathcal{A}(T) =
\mathcal{A}( - \mathcal{Z}_L )$ on the left boundary. Construction
of the torus algebra on the right boundary is also similar. \\
There is an idempotent action on $\mathfrak{S} ( \mathcal{H} )$.
Recall that the torus algebra has a subset $\mathcal{I}$ of
idempotent elements, namely $\mathcal{I}_L := \{ \iota_1, \iota_2 \}
\subset \mathcal{A}( -\mathcal{Z}_L )$ and $\mathcal{I}_R := \{
\jmath_1, \jmath_2 \} \subset \mathcal{A}( -\mathcal{Z}_R )$. The
left and right idempotent action is defined to be,
\begin{displaymath}
\iota_i \jmath_j \mathbf{x} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{x} & \textrm{if $\alpha_i^{a,L}$ and $\alpha_j^{a,R}$ are not occupied by
$\mathbf{x}$} \\
0 &\textrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\end{displaymath}
Then the map $\delta^1 : \mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H}) \rightarrow
\mathcal{A}( - \mathcal{Z}_L ) \otimes_{\mathcal{I}_L} \mathcal{A}(
- \mathcal{Z}_R ) \otimes_{\mathcal{I}_R} \mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H})$
is similarly defined by taking summation on all possible holomorphic
representatives of the compatible pair $(B, \boldsymbol{\rho})$.
\begin{displaymath}
\delta^1 ( \mathbf{x} ) := \sum_{ \mathbf{y} \in \mathfrak{S}(
\mathcal{H} ) } \sum_{ \begin{subarray}{l}
B \in \boldsymbol{\pi}_2 (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) \\
\textrm{ind} (B; \overrightarrow{\rho^L},
\overrightarrow{\rho^R} ) = 1
\end{subarray} } \sharp( \mathcal{M}^B ( \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} ;
\overrightarrow{\rho^L}, \overrightarrow{\rho^R} ) ) (-\rho_{i_1}^L)
\cdots (-\rho_{i_l}^L) \otimes (-\rho_{j_1}^R) \cdots
(-\rho_{j_m}^R) \otimes \mathbf{y}
\end{displaymath}
where $\overrightarrow{\rho^L} = \{ \rho_{i_1}^L, \cdots,
\rho_{i_l}^L \}$ and $\overrightarrow{\rho^R} = \{ \rho_{j_1}^R
\cdots \rho_{j_l}^R \}$. Provincial admissibility ensures that this
sum is finite. \\
$\widehat{CFAA}(\mathcal{H})$ is an $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$-bimodule
over left and right $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ algebras $\mathcal{A}
(\mathcal{Z}_L)$ and $\mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z}_R)$ also generated by
$\mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H})$. The idempotent action is opposite from
$\widehat{CFDD}$ case.
\begin{displaymath}
\mathbf{x} \iota_i \jmath_j = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{x} & \textrm{if $\alpha_i^{a,L}$ and $\alpha_j^{a,R}$ are occupied by
$\mathbf{x}$} \\
0 &\textrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\end{displaymath}
Then the following $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ module map
\begin{displaymath}
m_{i,1,j} : \mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H}) \otimes_{\mathcal{I}_L}
\underbrace{ \mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z}_L) \otimes \cdots \otimes
\mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z}_L)}_{i \ \textrm{times}}
\otimes_{\mathcal{I}_R}
\underbrace{ \mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z}_R) \otimes \cdots \otimes
\mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z}_R) }_{j \ \textrm{times}}
\rightarrow \mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H})
\end{displaymath}
satisfies the compatibility condition(\cite{LOT11}).
\begin{displaymath}
m_{i,1,j} (\mathbf{x} ; \rho_{i_1}^L, \cdots \rho_{i_l}^L,
\rho_{j_1}^R, \cdots, \rho_{j_m}^R ) = \sum_{ \mathbf{y} \in
\mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H}) }
\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{l}
B \in \boldsymbol{\pi}_2 ( \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} )
\\
\textrm{ind} (B, \overrightarrow{\rho^L},
\overrightarrow{\rho^R} ) = 1
\end{subarray}
}
\sharp ( \mathcal{M}^B ( \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} ;
\overrightarrow{\rho^L}, \overrightarrow{\rho^R} ) ) \mathbf{y}.
\end{displaymath}
\section{Computation of $\widehat{CFDD}$ of $(2,2n)$ Torus link}
\label{sec:main}
\subsection{Schubert normal form and diagram of 2-bridge link
complement}
We will be mainly interested in 2-bridge link, so it is useful to
mention \emph{Schubert normal form} of 2-bridge link(or knot). Let
$p$ be an even positive integer and $q$ be an integer such that
$0<q<p$ and $\mathrm{gcd}(p,q)=1$. Let us consider a circle with
$2p$ marked point on its boundary. Choose a point and label it
$a_0$. Label other points $a_1, \cdots, a_{2p-1}$ in a clockwise
direction. Then connect $a_i$ and $a_{2p-i}$ with a straight line,
$i=1, \cdots, p-1$. Finally connect $a_0$ and $a_p$ with
underbridge, a straight line that crosses below other straight
lines.\\
Now consider two copies of such circle. Draw arcs between these two
circles, so that each arc is connecting $a_i$ from one circle and
$a_{q-i}$ on the other(the labeling is modulo $2p$). These arcs
should not intersect any other straight lines nor other arcs. The
resulting diagram gives a link that we denote $S(p,q)$. The diagram
is called \emph{Schubert normal form} of the link.
See~\ref{fig:83link}. More detailed description, especially
about the Schubert normal form of 2-bridge knot can be found
in~\cite[Chapter 2]{Ras02}. \
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure01}
\caption{Schubert normal form of $S(8,3)$-link. According to
Thistlethwaite's table, it is $L5a1$ link.}
\label{fig:83link}
\end{figure}
Recall that 2-bridge link $L$ is a link in $S^3$ that admits a link
diagram with two maxima and two minima. Given such a link diagram we
can also construct Schubert normal form. Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be
small neighborhoods of those two maxima. Consider $(S^3 \backslash
\nu L) \backslash (B_1 \cup B_2)$. Drilling a tunnel connecting
$B_1$ and $B_2$ gives a three-manifold $Y$ with single boundary and
the boundary is a genus 2 surface. Longitudes $\lambda_L$ and
$\lambda_R$ of left and right components of $L$ give Schubert normal
form of $L$, after applying isotopy on three manifold which
uncrosses all crossings of $L$. \\
The resulting three manifold will be a handlebody with one zero
handle and two one handles, with longitudes $\lambda_L$ and
$\lambda_R$ on it. Let $\mu_L$ and $\mu_R$ be meridians of left and
right component. Consider the boundary of the three manifold and
puncture at the two intersections of meridians and longitudes. Then
the resulting suface $\Sigma$ with two punctures becomes doubly
bordered Heegaard diagram, by relabeling $\lambda_L$ to
$\alpha_1^{a,L}$ and $\mu_L$ to $\alpha_2^{a,L}$ (respectively,
$\lambda_R$ to $\alpha_1^{a,R}$ and $\mu_R$ to $\alpha_2^{a,R}$). In
this section, we compute a bimodule of $(2,2n)$ torus link
complement from the diagram. Doubly bordered Heegaard diagram of
$(2,2n)$ torus link is given in \ref{fig:generaldiagram}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figure02}
\caption{Top figure is a diagram of (2,6) torus link, where the black
dots represent left and right punctures. Middle and bottom
figures show two linearly independent periodic domains of the
diagram.}
\label{fig:periodicdomain}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{figure03}
\caption{A general diagram of $(2,2n)$ torus link. Domain $Q_0$
has a framed arc. The orientation on the boundaries is opposite
from the usual ``right hand'' orientation.}
\label{fig:generaldiagram}
\end{figure}
\begin{rem}
Readers should be aware that connecting left and right punctures
with an (framed) arc is not always possible. In fact, a domain that
is adjacent to both punctures does not exist except for the $(2,2n)$
torus link case. To fix this, choose $\mu_L$ or $\mu_R$ and apply a
finger move on the chosen meridian along the longitude so that the
resulting puncture is on the domain that is adjacent to the other
puncture.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Computation of map $\delta^1$ of $\widehat{CFDD}$}
Now we will compute $\widehat{CFDD}(\mathcal{H})$, where
$\mathcal{H}$ is Heegaard diagram of $(2,2n)$-torus link complement.
The Heegaard diagram is given in \ref{fig:generaldiagram}. \\
\textbf{Periodic domain} First, we investigate periodic domains
$\pi_2 (\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})$. It is well known that $\pi_2
(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}) \cong H_2(Y(\mathcal{H}), \partial Y
(\mathcal{H})) \cong \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}$, by
Meyer-Vietoris sequence. Thus, there are two linearly independent
periodic domains in the diagram. Recall that homology group
$\boldsymbol{\pi}_2 (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}) \cong H_2 (Y, \partial
Y)$. The proof can be found in \cite[Lemma 2.6.1]{Lip06}, or
\cite[Lemma 4.18]{LOT08}. In their proof, they use the isomorphism
\begin{displaymath}
\boldsymbol{\pi}_2 (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}) \cong H_2 ( \Sigma'
\times [0,1] , (\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \times \{ 1 \})
\cup ( \boldsymbol{\beta} \times \{ 0 \} ) )
\end{displaymath}
where $\Sigma' = (\overline{\Sigma} / \partial \overline{\Sigma} )
\backslash \{ z \}$. The isomorphism given above is proved by
investigating the long exact sequence of pair $(\Sigma' \times [0,1]
, (\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \times \{ 1 \}) \cup (
\boldsymbol{ \beta } \times \{ 0 \} ) )$. That is,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\cdots & \rightarrow & \underbrace{H_2 (\Sigma' \times [0,1])}_{\cong
0} \rightarrow H_2 ( \Sigma' \times [0,1] ,
(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \times \{ 1 \})
\cup ( \boldsymbol{\beta} \times \{ 0 \} ) ) \\
& \rightarrow & H_1 ( ( \overline{ \boldsymbol{\alpha} } \times \{
1 \} ) \cup ( \boldsymbol{ \beta } \times \{ 0 \} ) ) \rightarrow
H_1 ( \Sigma' ).
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus periodic domain $\boldsymbol{\pi}_2 (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x})
\cong \textrm{ker}( H_1 ( \overline{ \boldsymbol{\alpha} } /
\partial \overline{ \boldsymbol{\alpha} } ) \oplus H_1 (
\boldsymbol{ \beta } ) \rightarrow H_1 ( \overline{\Sigma} /
\partial \overline{ \Sigma } ) )$. This isomorphism enables us to
find periodic domain from given diagram by choosing right
combinations of $\overline{ \boldsymbol{\alpha} }$ and $\boldsymbol{
\beta }$ curves such that sum of their image in $H_1 (
\overline{\Sigma} / \partial \overline{\Sigma} )$ equals zero. We
briefly describe how to find periodic domain from such combinations.
Explicitly, first choose any orientation on the longitude
$\alpha_1^{a,L}$ ($\alpha_1^{a,R}$, respectively). This induces the
orientation of $\beta_1$ ($\beta_2$, respectively) as follows. For
example, if the orientation of $\alpha_1^{a,L}$ is in
counterclockwise direction, then the orientation of $\beta_1$ is
from right to left in the diagram. Then we impose coefficient zero
to the outermost region that contains the framed arc. Starting from
the outermost region, we impose regions adjacent to it according to
the following rule. Suppose we have two adjacent regions $A$ and $B$
such that coefficient of $A$ equals $l$ and coefficient of $B$ is
not determined. If we can reach region $B$ from region $A$ by
crossing a curve of multiplicity $k$ from right to left(notion of
``left'' and ``right'' is justified since we have orientation of
curves), we give the region $B$ coefficient $k+l$; otherwise we give
coefficient $-k+l$. If we can give coefficients to all regions in
this way consistently, then the orientations given to curves
$\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ is
boundary in $H_1( \overline{\Sigma} /
\partial \overline{\Sigma} )$. \\
Since there are two possible choices of orientations of longitudes
up to sign, we found two generators of $\pi_2
(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})$. Then the periodic domains are,
\begin{displaymath}
Q_3 + Q_5 + \sum_{i=1}^{2n-3} (i+1)(P_i + R_i) + (n+2)(Q_1+Q_4) +
(n+3)Q_2
\end{displaymath}
and
\begin{displaymath}
Q_3 -Q_5 + \sum_{i=1}^{2n-3} \frac{(1+(-1)^i)}{2}(P_i - R_i) + Q_4 -
Q_1.
\end{displaymath}
See also \ref{fig:periodicdomain}. \\
Thus this diagram is provincially admissible; in fact, there is no
provincial periodic domain here. \\
\textbf{Generators} According to the labeling given in the diagram,
there are $2n^2+2n$ generators which are classified into 4 groups.
\begin{displaymath}
\left\{ \begin{array}{llll}
\mathbf{x_i y_j} & \textrm{where $i$ and $j$ have same parity} \\
\mathbf{a y_i} & \textrm{where $i$ is even} \\
\mathbf{x_i b} & \textrm{where $i$ is even} \\
\mathbf{a y_i}, \mathbf{x_j b} & \textrm{where $i$ and $j$ are odd}\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{displaymath}
From now on, we will disregard generators of the group because of
the following reason. The main purpose of the bordered Floer
homology is to compute Heegaard Floer homology of three manifold
obtained by taking boundary sum. In link complement case, we take
boundary sum with solid tori. Typically bordered Heegaard diagram of
solid tori is a genus one surface with a puncture, equipped with
$\boldsymbol{\beta} = \{ \beta_1 \}$ and $\overline{ \boldsymbol
{\alpha} } = \{ \alpha_1^a , \alpha_2^a \}$. In particular, these
$\alpha_i^a$ arcs are glued to $\alpha_j^{a,L}$ or $\alpha_i^{a,R}$
of doubly bordered diagram. Every generator of the diagram of solid
tori is occupying exactly one $\alpha$ arc, therefore after pairing
two diagrams the generators of the last kind cannot appear in the
generators of the resulting diagram. \\
\begin{rem}
In \cite[Chapter 3]{LOT08}, we have decomposed strands algebra
$\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{Z})$ into direct sum of
$\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{Z},i)$, $i \in \{ -1, 0, 1 \}$. We can
decompose $\widehat{CFDD}(\mathcal{H})$ as follows, so that
idempotent acts nontrivially on respective summands.
\begin{displaymath}
\widehat{CFDD} (\mathcal{H}) = \bigoplus_{i=-1}^{1} \widehat{CFDD}
(\mathcal{H}, i)
\end{displaymath}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\widehat{CFDD} (\mathcal{H}, -1)$ consists of generator
that occupies $\alpha_1^{a,R}$ and $\alpha_2^{a,R}$.
\item $\widehat{CFDD} (\mathcal{H}, +1)$ consists of generator
that occupies $\alpha_1^{a,L}$ and $\alpha_2^{a,L}$.
\item $\widehat{CFDD} (\mathcal{H}, 0)$ consists of all other
generators.
\end{itemize}
The first three groups of generators belong to $\widehat{CFDD} (
\mathcal{H}, 0 )$, but the last group of generators does not. \\
Clearly only the generators in summand $\widehat{CFDD} (\mathcal{H},
0)$ have a nontrivial contribution to tensor product with
$\widehat{CFA}$ or $\widehat{CFD}$, considering the only nontrivial
algebra of $\widehat{CFA}$ and $\widehat{CFD}$ is $\mathcal{A}
(\mathcal{Z}, 0)$. Moreover, since $\mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z}, -1)$
and $\mathcal{A} (\mathcal{Z}, +1)$ are quasi-isomorphic to
$\mathbb{F}_2$(see~\cite[Example 3.25]{LOT08}), any invertible
bimodule over either of these algebras is also quasi-isomorphic to
$\mathbb{F}_2$,~\cite[Chapter 10]{LOT11}.
\end{rem}
From now on, we will be only focusing on the generators belonging to
$\widehat{CFDD} (\mathcal{H}, 0)$. \\
\textbf{Domains} We will consider domains that contribute to the
differential $\delta^1$. The first obvious condition is that the
domain should have at most four corners, thus it can have two or
four corners. In [Figure 6] there is no bigon domain, so let us
consider a connected rectangular domain with four corners first. In
order to get such domains, typically we need to stack up regions as
follows. First begin with any provincial region (that is not
adjacent to boundaries). Then one can extend the region by choosing
a region adjacent to it. For example, if one begins with $R_i$, then
one may extend it by adding another provincial domain $R_{i \pm 1}$
or $P_{i \pm 1}$. The former way of extending a region or domain -
we will call the region or domain is \emph{horizontally extended}.
The latter will be called \emph{vertically extended}. It is worth
pointing out that a provincial region cannot be extended
horizontally and vertically at the same time, because in such cases
Maslov index cannot be one(see \ref{fig:extended}). Also we need
to consider non-rectangular domains, such as the annular domain or
genus 2 domain. The genus 2 domains have to contain $Q_1 + Q_2 +
Q_4$ and it can be interpreted as an annular domain or
rectangular domain. Explanation is given later in this section. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure04}
\caption{Top left: horizontally extended domain.
Top right: vertically extended.
Bottom: extended in both ways. Such domain has a Maslov index
different from one.}
\label{fig:extended}
\end{figure}
For the differential $\delta^1 : \mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H})
\rightarrow \mathcal{A}(- \partial_L \overline{\Sigma}) \otimes
\mathcal{A}(- \partial_R \overline{\Sigma}) \otimes
\mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H})$ on $\widehat{CFDD}(\mathcal{H})$, it acts
on a generator $\mathbf{x} \in \mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H})$ typically
as $\delta^1(\mathbf{x}) = \sum \rho_I \otimes \sigma_J \otimes
\mathbf{y}$, where $I,J \in \{ \phi, 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 123\}$. Here
$\rho_I$ means an algebra element comes from the left boundary
strands algebra and $\sigma_J$ right strands algebra. To investigate
$\delta^1$ actions on generators, it is convenient to
classify the resulting terms by its strands algebra elements. \\
\textbf{Algebra element 1} We should find all provincial domains. We
claim that only rectangular domains contribute to the differential
$\delta^1$.
\begin{lem}
Every non-rectangular domain with \emph{ind}$(B, \boldsymbol{\rho})=1$,
its sequence of Reeb chords $\boldsymbol{\rho}$ is nonempty.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there is a non-rectangular provincial domain(in this
case, an annulus) that has nontrivial contribution to differential
$\delta^1$. Then the number of corners of the domain must be two.
This claim is justified by considering the number of different types
of corners. Since the number of corners of any domain should not
exceed four, there are only 5 possibilities;
\begin{itemize}
\item four $270^{\circ}$ corners
\item four $90^{\circ}$ corners
\item three $270^{\circ}$ corners and one $90^{\circ}$ corner
\item one $270^{\circ}$ corner and three $90^{\circ}$ corners
\item two $270^{\circ}$ corners and two $90^{\circ}$ corners.
\end{itemize}
Since the domain was assumed to be provincial, it must be a
combination of the regions $P_1, \cdots, P_{2n-3}$ and $R_1, \cdots
R_{2n-3}$. Considering the index formula $e(A) + n_{\mathbf{x}}(A) +
n_{\mathbf{y}}(A)$, the indices of the first three cases cannot be
one. Likewise we can easily rule out the last case. The fourth case
does not exist due to the following reason; since the shape of the
domain is an annulus, the $270^{\circ}$ corner must be on the
boundary of the domain. Then the other boundary must have two
$90^{\circ}$ corners. If not, i.e, if one boundary component has all
three $90^{\circ}$ corners, then there cannot be a holomorphic
involution interchanging inner and outer boundaries. Thus, the one
boundary has two $90^{\circ}$ corners and the other boundary has one
$90^{\circ}$ corner and one $270^{\circ}$ corner. Especially the
boundary that has two $90^{\circ}$ corners should consist of one
$\overline{ \boldsymbol{ \alpha } }$ curve and one $\boldsymbol{
\beta }$ curve, and the intersections have to be $90^{\circ}$.
However such a boundary cannot be obtained by any combination of the
domains in \ref{fig:generaldiagram}.
\end{proof}
Therefore, $P_1, \cdots, P_{2n-3}$ and $R_1, \cdots R_{2n-3}$ are
the only domains not adjacent to the boundaries, so extending these
regions horizontally or vertically is the only possible way to get
provincial domains. Such combinations of extension can be written
explicitly as shown below.
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & P_i, \quad P_i + R_{i+1} + P_{i+2}, \cdots \\
& & P_i + P_{i+1} + P_{i+2}, \quad P_i + \cdots + P_{i+4},\cdots, \quad P_1 + \cdots P_{2n-3}, \\
& & R_i, \quad R_i + P_{i+1} + R_{i+2}, \cdots \\
& & R_i + R_{i+1}, R_{i+2}, \cdots, \quad R_1 + \cdots + R_{2n-3}\\
\end{eqnarray*}
All of these domains are rectangular so each of these domains
contribute to nontrivial differential with algebra element $1$. In
terms of generators,
\begin{displaymath}
\mathbf{x_i y_j} \mapsto
\left\{
\begin{array}{lllll}
\mathbf{x_{j-1} y_{i+1}} + \mathbf{x_{i+1} y_{j-1}} \quad \textrm{if $j - i > 2$}
\\[0.3pc]
\mathbf{x_{j+1} y_{i-1}} + \mathbf{x_{i-1} y_{j+1}} \quad \textrm{if $i - j > 2$} \\[0.3pc]
\mathbf{x_{i+1} y_{j-1}} \quad \textrm{if $j - i = 2$} \\[0.3pc]
\mathbf{x_{i-1} y_{j+1}} \quad \textrm{if $i - j = 2$} \\[0.3pc]
0 \quad \textrm{if $i=j$} \\[0.3pc]
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
\\
\textbf{Algebra element $\rho_1$ and $\sigma_1$.} Domain $Q_3$ is
adjacent to algebra element $\rho_1$. By the nature of type $D$
structure, any domain whose multiplicity of $Q_3$ is greater than 1
cannot contribute nontrivial differential. By similar argument as in
the previous case, we list the possible domains as written below.
\begin{displaymath}
Q_3, \quad Q_3 + P_1 + P_2, \quad Q_3 + P_1 + P_2 + P_3 + P_4,
\cdots
\end{displaymath}
All such domains are extended horizontally. On the other hand,
\begin{displaymath}
Q_3 + R_1 + P_2, \quad Q_3 + R_1 + P_2 + R_3 + P_4, \cdots
\end{displaymath}
are extended vertically. \\
These domains are all quadrilateral thus the dimension of the moduli
space and number of holomorphic curves (modulo 2) are obvious, as
written below.
\begin{displaymath}
\mathbf{a y_{2k}} \mapsto
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\rho_1 \otimes (\mathbf{x_1 y_{2k-1}} + \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_1}) \quad \textrm{if
$k \neq 1$} \\[0.3pc]
\rho_1 \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_1} \quad \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
Differentials involving $\sigma_1$ can be found in a parallel
manner, by using the symmetry of the diagram.
\begin{displaymath}
\mathbf{x_{2k} b} \mapsto
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\sigma_1 \otimes (\mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_1} + \mathbf{x_1 y_{2k-1}}) \quad \textrm{if
$k \neq 1$} \\[0.3pc]
\sigma_1 \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_1} \quad \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
\\
\textbf{Algebra element $\rho_3$ and $\sigma_3$.} Similarly, domains
adjacent to $\rho_3$ are all listed
\begin{displaymath}
Q_1, \quad Q_1 + R_{2n-3} + R_{2n-2}, \quad Q_1 + R_{2n-3} +
R_{2n-4} + R_{2n-5} + R_{2n-6}, \cdots
\end{displaymath}
and,
\begin{displaymath}
Q_1 + P_{2n-3} + R_{2n-4}, \quad Q_1 + P_{2n-3} + R_{2n-4} +
P_{2n-5} + R_{2n-6}, \cdots
\end{displaymath}
Domains adjacent to $\sigma_3$ are similar. We get differentials as
shown below.
\begin{displaymath}
\mathbf{a y_{2k}} \mapsto
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\rho_3 \otimes (\mathbf{x_{2k+1} y_{2n-1}} + \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2k+1}}) \quad \textrm{if
$k \neq n-1$} \\
\rho_3 \otimes \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}} \quad \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\mathbf{x_{2k} b} \mapsto
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\sigma_3 \otimes (\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2k+1}} + \mathbf{x_{2k+1} y_{2n-1}}) \quad \textrm{if
$k \neq n-1$} \\
\sigma_3 \otimes \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}} \quad \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
\\
\textbf{Algebra element $\rho_2 \otimes \sigma_2$.} A domain $Q_2$
adjacent to $\rho_2$ is adjacent to $\sigma_2$ as well. So this is
the one and only domain where an algebra element $\rho_2 \otimes
\sigma_2$ occurs. Thus we have $\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}} \mapsto
\rho_2 \otimes \sigma_2 \otimes \mathbf{ab}$. \\
\textbf{Algebra element $\rho_3 \otimes \sigma_1$ and $\rho_1
\otimes \sigma_3$.} There are two domains which contribute to
$\rho_3 \otimes \sigma_1$; those are $Q_1 + R_1 + R_2 + \cdots
R_{2n-3} + Q_5$ and $Q_1 + P_1 + R_2 + P_3 + R_4 + \cdots R_{2n-4} +
P_{2n-3} + Q_5$. This gives $\mathbf{ab} \mapsto \rho_3 \otimes
\sigma_1 \otimes (\mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}} + \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1})$.
Again, using the symmetry of the diagram, $\mathbf{ab} \mapsto
\rho_1 \otimes \sigma_3 \otimes (\mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}} +
\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1})$. \\
Now, we will be mostly working on differentials whose domain is
non-rectangular. To find holomorphic curves of such domains we will
dualize $\widehat{CFDD}$ to $\widehat{CFAA}$, so that we can use the
$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ structure of it and ensure the
existence of holomorphic curves and its count(modulo 2). \\
\textbf{Algebra element contains $\rho_{12}$.} To take advantage of
the $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ structure of $\widehat{CFAA}$, the
orientation of two boundaries of the Heegaard diagram has to be
reversed. We denote $\overline{\rho}_I$ (respectively,
$\overline{\sigma}_I$) the algebra element of strands algebra
$\mathcal{A}(-\mathcal{Z})$; that is, for an orientation reversing
diffeomorphism $R:S^1 \backslash \{z\} \rightarrow - S^1 \backslash
\{z\}$, it induces an algebra map $R_* : \mathcal{A} ( \mathcal{Z} )
\rightarrow \mathcal{A} ( - \mathcal{Z} )$ that maps $R_*(\rho_1) =
\overline{\rho}_3$, $R_*(\rho_2) = \overline{\rho}_2$,
$R_*(\rho_3) = \overline{\rho}_1$, and so on. Right boundary is similar.\\
Returning to $\widehat{CFDD}$, the domains contributing to
$\rho_{12}$ must contain $Q_2$ and $Q_3$. Clearly $Q_2 + Q_3$ has
more than four corners, so we consider $Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4$ instead to
get the domain of four corners. This domain possibly contributes to
differential from $\mathbf{x_{2n-2} y_2}$ to $\mathbf{x_1 y_1}$. The
only possible Maslov index one interpretation is $\mathcal{M} (
\mathbf{x_{2n-2} y_2}, \mathbf{x_1 y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_{23},
\overline{\sigma}_{12})$ (there can be cuts between
$\overline{\rho}_2$ and $\overline{\rho}_3$, and
$\overline{\sigma}_1$ and $\overline{\sigma}_2$, but these cuts will
increase the Maslov index by one). Under the interpretation, the
domain is an annulus with one boundary consisting of two segments
$\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curves and two segments of
$\boldsymbol{\beta}$ curves, and another boundary
$\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curve only. In the sense of~\cite[Lemma
9.4]{OZ02}, such an annulus cannot allow a holomorphic involution
that interchanges one boundary to another, carrying
$\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curves to $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curves and
$\boldsymbol{\beta}$ curves to $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ curves. Thus the
moduli space $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{x_{2n-2} y_2}, \mathbf{x_1 y_1}
; \overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_{12})$ cannot give
nontrivial differential. Domains such as $Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4 + P_1 +
P_2$ or $Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4 + R_1 + P_2$, obtained by extending $Q_2 +
Q_3 + Q_4$ horizontally or vertically can be considered similarly.
Thus they do not give nontrivial differential as long as the shape
of domain is topologically equivalent to $Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4$. \\
There are two domains possibly giving nontrivial differential; they
are $Q_2 + Q_3 + P_1 + \cdots + P_{2n-3} + Q_4$ and $Q_2 + Q_3 + R_1
+ P_2 + \cdots + R_{2n-3} + Q_4$. We will consider the domain $Q_2 +
Q_3 + P_1 + \cdots + P_{2n-3} + Q_4$ first. It has three
interpretations. Each of the interpretations comes from the choice
of cuts made on the boundary of the domain. Cuts are allowed where
domain has $270^{\circ}$ or $180^{\circ}$ corners, and point on
boundary where it intersects with $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curve. Thus
the domain $Q_2 + Q_3 + P_1 + \cdots + P_{2n-3} + Q_4$ has two
points possibly have cuts; a point between $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$,
and a point between $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$. Of course, it may not
have any cuts at all. We list moduli spaces of these interpretations
as below.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a y_{2n-1}}, \mathbf{
a y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_{12} )$
\item $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}},
\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 )$
\item $\mathcal{M}( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} }, \mathbf{x_{2k-1}
y_1 } ; \overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$
\end{itemize}
First we will consider $\mathcal{M}( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} },
\mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_1 } ; \overline{\rho}_{23},
\overline{\sigma}_{12} )$.
\begin{lem}
\label{thm:nonex1}
Modulo two count of the moduli space
$\mathcal{M}( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} }, \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_1 } ;
\overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$ equals zero.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will compute signed number of the moduli space by
considering the following $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ compatibility
condition.
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 & = & m ( m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} } ), \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ) + m ( m ( \mathbf{
x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} }, \overline{\rho}_2 ), \overline{\rho}_3,
\overline{\sigma}_{12} ) \\
& & + m ( m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} },
\overline{\sigma}_{12} ), \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_3 )
+ m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} } , \mu ( \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3 ) , \overline{\sigma}_{12} ) \\
& & + m ( m ( \mathbf{ x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} }, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ),
\overline{\rho}_3 ) + m ( m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} }, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ) ) \\
\end{eqnarray*}
The right hand side of the equation above consists of six terms. The
second term vanishes because $m(\mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1}},
\overline{\rho}_2)$ does not have algebra element
$\overline{\sigma}_2$ (note that domain $Q_2$ is adjacent to
$\overline{\rho}_2$ and $\overline{\sigma}_2$). Similarly, the third
term vanishes since $m(\mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1}},
\overline{\sigma}_{12})$ has $\overline{\sigma}_{12}$ as its input
but it lacks $\overline{\rho}_2$. The last term also vanishes
because the Maslov index is not one. Replacing $\mu
(\overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_3) = \overline{\rho}_{23}$ and
$m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} } ) = \mathbf{x_{2n-2} y_{2k}} +
\mathbf{x_{2k} y_{2n-2} }$, the above equation reduces as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 & = & m ( \mathbf{x_{2n-2} y_{2k}}, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ) + m ( \mathbf{x_{2k}
y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_3,
\overline{\sigma}_{12} ) \\
& & + m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1}} , \overline{\rho}_{23},
\overline{\sigma}_{12} ) + m ( m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1}} ,
\overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ), \overline{\rho}_3 ).
\end{eqnarray*}
The first term on the right hand side is corresponding to moduli
space
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{x_{2n-2} y_{2k}}, \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_1} ;
\overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ),
\end{displaymath}
whose Maslov index is not one. The second term also vanishes because
extending $Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4$ either horizontally or vertically can
never result in a domain with corners that contains
$\mathbf{x_{2k}}$ and $\mathbf{y_{2n-2}}$. The last term also
vanishes by following reason; moduli space $\mathcal{M} (
\mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} }, \mathbf{a y_{2k} }; \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_{12} )$ has no holomorphic representative, since
the domain is an annulus and does not allow holomorphic involution,
so $m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1}} , \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_{12} ) = 0$. Hence, $m ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1}
y_{2n-1}} , \overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ) = 0$ and
$\sharp \mathcal{M} (\mathbf{ x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1} }, \mathbf{x_{2k-1}
y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ) = 0$.
\end{proof}
The second interpretation is $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1}
y_{2n-1}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_{23},
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$. The domain is an
annulus; each boundary consists of one $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curve
segment and one $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ curve segment. Modulo two count
of the moduli space can be computed by similar computation above.
\begin{lem}
\label{thm:nonex2}
Modulo two count of moduli space $\mathcal{M} (
\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1} ;
\overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$ is
one.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Again, we consider $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ compatibility
relation as below.
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 & = & m^2 ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1} }, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) \\
& = & m ( m ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1} } ) , \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) + m (
\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1} }, \mu(\overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3), \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) \\
& + & m ( m ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_2 ) , \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) + m
( m (\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3 ), \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) \\
& + & m ( m (\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 ), \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_3 ) + m (
m (\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_3
, \overline{\sigma}_2 ), \overline{\sigma}_1 ) \\
& + & m ( m (\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_2 , \overline{\sigma}_1 ), \overline{\rho}_3 ) + m
( m ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1} }, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) )
\end{eqnarray*}
$m(\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}})=0$ since there is no provincial
domain connecting $\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}$, thus the first term
on the right hand side vanishes. The fourth term also vanishes
because $m( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_3 ) =0$ (domain $Q_2$ as adjacent both
$\overline{\rho}_2$ and $\overline{\sigma}_2$). By same reason, the
fifth term vanishes.
$m(\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_3,
\overline{\sigma}_2 )$ in the sixth term does not represent a domain
with four corners. Recall that a domain that involves
$\overline{\rho}_2$ and $\overline{\rho}_3$ must have
$\overline{\sigma}_1$. Thus the sixth term vanishes. Similarly the
seventh term also vanishes. $m ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1} },
\overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 ) = 0$ by considering the Maslov index.
Then the above compatibility relation reduces to,
\begin{displaymath}
m ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_{23},
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) + m ( m (
\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\sigma}_2
), \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) = 0
\end{displaymath}
Note that the second term on the left hand side equals
$\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1} + \mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}}$. This implies modulo
two counts of the moduli spaces $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1}
y_{2n-1}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_{23},
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$ and $\mathcal{M} (
\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}} ;
\overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$
equal one.
\end{proof}
However, idempotents of $\widehat{CFDD}$ complex prohibits
nontrivial differential from moduli spaces considered above.
Explicitly,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta^1 (\mathbf{ x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1} } ) & = & \rho_{12} \otimes
\sigma_{23} \otimes \mathbf{ x_{2n-1} y_1 } + \cdots \\
& = & \rho_{12} \iota_{1} \otimes \sigma_{23} \otimes \mathbf{ x_{2n-1} y_1 } + \cdots =
\rho_{12} \otimes \sigma_{23} \otimes \iota_{1} \mathbf{ x_{2n-1} y_1 } + \cdots
\end{eqnarray*}
Recall that $\iota_1 \mathbf{ x_{2n-1} y_1 } =0$ since $\mathbf{
x_{2n-1} y_1 }$ occupies $\alpha_1^{a,L}$ and idempotent $\iota_1$
also occupies same $\alpha$-arc. \\
The third interpretation is $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a y_{2n-1}},
\mathbf{ a y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_{12} )$. This is again an annulus and one of its
boundary has two $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curve segment and two
$\boldsymbol{\beta}$ curve segment, thus it cannot give nontrivial
differential, either. \\
Next, we consider domain $Q_2 + Q_3 + R_1 + P_2 + \cdots + R_{2n-3}
+ Q_4$. Possible cuts may arise a point between $\sigma_2$ and
$\sigma_3$. Thus possible interpretations are,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1} }, \mathbf{x_1
y_{2n-1} } ; \overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 )$
\item $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2k-1} }, \mathbf{x_1
y_{2k-1} } ; \overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$
\end{itemize}
Modulo two count of the first moduli space is one, but because of
idempotent it cannot give nontrivial contribution to differential.
The Second moduli space has modulo two count zero by similar
computation in~\ref{thm:nonex1} or~\ref{thm:nonex2}. \\
\textbf{Algebra element contains $\rho_{23}$.} Roughly speaking,
domains that possibly contribute algebra element $\rho_{23}$ is
obtained by vertically or horizontally extending domain $Q_2$ so
that resulting domains contain $Q_1$. We do not extend $Q_2$
horizontally and vertically at the same time to get a Maslov index
one domain with at most four corners.\\
\textbf{Case 1.} We will first consider the following annular
domains.
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & Q_1 + Q_2, \\
& & Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_4 + R_{2n-3} + P_{2n-3} + R_{2n-4}, \\
& & Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_4 + R_{2n-3} + P_{2n-3} + R_{2n-4} + \cdots + P_{2k-1} +
R_{2k}, \\
& & \vdots \\
\end{eqnarray*}
We will first consider domain $Q_1+Q_2$. The domain can be
interpreted as $\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{a b};
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2)$. Again modulo two count
of the moduli space can be computed by using $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$
relation of $m^2(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\rho}_1,
\overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\sigma}_2)$. Recall that $m (\mathbf{a
y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\rho}_1) = \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}$ and $m
(\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\sigma}_2)
= \mathbf{a b}$ since the associated domains are rectangles.
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 & = & m( m(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\rho}_1), \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_2) + m(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, (\overline{\rho}_1, \overline{\rho}_2),
\overline{\sigma}_2) + m( m(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\sigma}_2),
\overline{\rho}_1, \overline{\rho}_2)\\
& = & \mathbf{a b} + m(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\rho}_{12},
\overline{\sigma}_2) + m( m(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\sigma}_2),
\overline{\rho}_1, \overline{\rho}_2)
\end{eqnarray*}
The last term on the right hand side equals zero because $m(
\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\sigma}_2 ) =0$(domain $Q_2$ is
adjacent to Reeb chords $\overline{\rho}_2$ and
$\overline{\sigma}_2$). This implies $m(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}},
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2) = \mathbf{a b}$, hence
$\sharp \mathcal{M}(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{a b};
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2) = 1$.
\begin{rem}
An annulus domain of such kind (i.e, outside boundary consisting of
both $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ curves and
inside boundary $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curve only, and a cut on the
inside boundary) always admits a holomorphic representative, since
we are free to choose the length of the cut starting from the
point $a$, so that the annulus admits a biholomorphic involution
of it, again in the sense of \cite[Lemma 9.4]{OZ02}.
\end{rem}
The moduli space $\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{a b};
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2) = \mathcal{M}(\mathbf{a
y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{a b}; \rho_{23}, \sigma_2)$ corresponding to
$\rho_{23} \otimes \sigma_2 \otimes \mathbf{ab}$ term occurs in
$\delta^1(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}})$ in $\widehat{CFDD}$. However, the
right hand side is zero by idempotent reasons. \\
Likewise, domains $Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_4 + R_{2n-3} + P_{2n-3} +
R_{2n-2}$, $Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_4 + R_{2n-3} + P_{2n-3} + R_{2n-2} +
\cdots + P_{2k-1} + R_{2k}$, $\cdots$ allow following
interpretations.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{a y_{2j}},\mathbf{a y_{2j+2}};
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$
\item $\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{a y_{2j}},\mathbf{a y_{2j+2}};
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$
\end{itemize}
The first interpretation $\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{a y_{2j}},\mathbf{a
y_{2j+2}}; \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 )$ has modulo two equals one by similar reasons.
These contribute to differential between generators $\mathbf{a
y_{2j}}$ and $\mathbf{a y_{2j+2}}$ with algebra element contains
$\rho_{23}$ but all go to zero because of idempotents, as well as
$\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{a b},\mathbf{a y_2}; \overline{\rho}_{12},
\overline{\sigma}_ 3, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 )$. \\
The second interpretation $\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{a y_{2j}},\mathbf{a
y_{2j+2}}; \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$ has
Modulo 2 count equals zero. It can be proved by considering
following the $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ relation.
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 & =& m(m(\mathbf{a y_{2j}}, \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_2)) + m( m(\mathbf{a y_{2j}},
\overline{\sigma}_1 ), \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2 )
\\
& +& m( m (\mathbf{a y_{2j}},
\overline{\rho}_{12} ), \overline{\sigma}_1 , \overline{\sigma}_2 )
+ m( m (\mathbf{a y_{2j}},
\overline{\rho}_{12} , \overline{\sigma}_1) , \overline{\sigma}_2 )
+ m( \mathbf{a y_{2j}},
\overline{\rho}_{12} , (\overline{\sigma}_1 ,
\overline{\sigma}_2))
\end{eqnarray*}
$m(\mathbf{a y_{2j}}, \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_2) = 0$ since Maslov index is not one. $m
(\mathbf{a y_{2j}}, \overline{\rho}_{12} )$ and $m (\mathbf{a
y_{2j}}, \overline{\rho}_{12} , \overline{\sigma}_1)$ equal zero,
because $\overline{\sigma}_2$ was not involved and there is no such
domain corresponding to these interpretation. $m( \mathbf{a y_{2j}},
\overline{\sigma}_1 ) =0$ is clear from the diagram. Thus, the last term $m( \mathbf{a y_{2j}}, \overline{\rho}_{12} ,
(\overline{\sigma}_1 , \overline{\sigma}_2) ) = m( \mathbf{a
y_{2j}}, \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$ equals
zero, too. \\
\textbf{Case 2.} Next we will consider the following domains.
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & Q_1 + Q_2 + P_{2n-3} + R_{2n-4} + \cdots + R_{2k} + P_{2k-1}, \\
& & Q_1 + Q_2 + P_{2n-3} + R_{2n-4} + \cdots + R_{2k} + P_{2k-1}
\\
& & \quad + \ Q_4 + R_{2n-3} + P_{2n-4} + \cdots + P_{2l} + R_{2l-1}, \\
& & \vdots \\
\end{eqnarray*}
These domains are obtained by vertically extending domain $Q_2$; the
first domain can have cut at a point between $\rho_2$ and $\rho_3$.
The interpretation $\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1}} ,
\mathbf{x_{2k-2} b} ; \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_2 )$ is essentially a rectangle so modulo two
count of corresponding moduli space is one. The second domain can
have cuts at two different points; a point between $\rho_2$ and
$\rho_3$, and a point between $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$. Considering
an interpretation that has only one cut, the domain is an annulus
with one of its boundary consisting of two $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$
curve segments and two $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ curve segments. If an
interpretation has both of cuts, then it is also a rectangle with
moduli space $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2l-1}},
\mathbf{x_{2k-2} y_{2l}} ; \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$. Dualizing them, they
yield algebra elements $\rho_{23} \otimes \sigma_2$ and $\rho_{23}
\otimes \sigma_{23}$ for the type-$D$ structure map $\delta^1$ in
$\widehat{CFDD}$, respectively. \\
\begin{rem}
Both of the domains listed above have interpretation without any
cut. However those interpretations do not have holomorphic
representative. For example, modulo two count of moduli space
$\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2l-1}}, \mathbf{x_{2k-2} y_{2l}}
; \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$ equals zero by
considering similar $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ relation discussed in
~\ref{thm:nonex1} and \ref{thm:nonex2}.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure05}
\caption{A diagram of (2,6) torus link complement. The shaded region is a domain obtained by vertically extending domain $Q_2$. This domain
corresponds to a differential from $\mathbf{x_1 y_3}$ to
$\mathbf{x_2 y_2}$. Cutting along the bold curve on the boundary
of the domain, the domain turns out to be rectangular.}
\label{fig:26domain}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Case 3.} Domains that possibly contribute to differential
with algebra element that contains $\rho_{23}$ are obtained by
horizontally extending $Q_1 + Q_2$. That is, we add $2j-1$ domains,
$j=1, \cdots, n-1$ on the top and resulting domain is $R_{2n-2j-1} +
\cdots + R_{2n-3} + Q_1 + Q_2$. The only possible interpretation is
$\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-2j-1}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-2j} b} ;
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2 )$. It does not allow
holomorphic representative, because the domain does not allow
holomorphic involution interchanging two boundaries. \\
Likewise, we consider domains obtained by adding horizontally
extended domains to $Q_2$ on top and bottom. Consider a domain
\begin{displaymath}
Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_3 + (R_{2n-k}+ \cdots R_{2n-3}) + (P_{2n-l} + \cdots
+ P_{2n-3}).
\end{displaymath}
The domain is obtained by adding $k-2$ domains on top and $l-2$
domains on bottom. If $k=l$, then the domain obtained is the case
that we have considered in vertically extended case above. If $k
\neq l$, then two interpretations are possible. The first is
$\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{x_{2n-l} y_{2n-k}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-k+1}
y_{2n-l+1}} ; \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$. This
is a genus two domain, and modulo two count of this moduli space is
zero by similar reason given in~\ref{thm:nonex1}. The second one
is $\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{x_{2n-l} y_{2n-k}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-k+1}
y_{2n-l+1}} ; \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 )$(or $\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{x_{2n-l} y_{2n-k}},
\mathbf{x_{2n-k+1} y_{2n-l+1}} ; \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_1, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )$). This is an annular
interpretation, and it does not have holomorphic representative
because it does not allow holomorphic involution. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure06}
\caption{The above diagram shows examples of obtaining non-rectangular
domains of $(2,6)$-torus link. Top left can be interpreted as an annular domain, but it
cannot give nontrivial differential due to idempotents. Top right
is obtained by horizontally extending $Q_2$ on top, but its only
possible interpretation does not allow any holomorphic
representative. Bottom left and bottom right are obtained by
horizontally extending $Q_2$ on the top and bottom. If the number of
regions attached on the top is not equal to the number of regions
attached on the bottom, it has two interpretations; and it does not
allow holomorphic representative either(bottom left). If two numbers are equal,
then the domain can be also obtained by vertically extending
$Q_2$, which gives nontrivial differential. These four cases,
in addition to the case of vertical extension of $Q_2$, covers all
possible domains that could contribute to algebra element
$\rho_{23}$.}
\label{fig:cases}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Algebra element contains $\rho_{123}$.} Domains that
possibly contribute to algebra element $\rho_{123}$ are as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & (Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4 + R_{2n-3}) + R_1 + P_2 + R_3 + \cdots + P_{2n-4}, \\
& & (Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4) + P_1 + \cdots P_{2n-3}, \\[0.2cm]
& & (Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4 + R_{2n-3} + P_{2n-3} + R_{2n-4} + P_{2n-4} + R_{2n-5}) + R_1 + P_2 + R_3 + \cdots + P_{2n-6}, \\
& & (Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_3 + Q_4 + R_{2n-3} + P_{2n-4} + R_{2n-4} + P_{2n-4} + R_{2n-5}) + P_1 +
\cdots P_{2n-5}, \\[0.2cm]
& & \quad \vdots \\
& & Q_1 + \cdots + Q_5 + P_1 + \cdots + P_{2n-3} + R_1 + \cdots + R_{2n-3}. \\
\end{eqnarray*}
Each of these domains are obtained by adding horizontally extended
domain containing $\rho_1$ to the annular domain listed in algebra
element $\rho_{23}$. \\
We will investigate the first domain. As before, we list all
possible interpretations.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}} ; \overline{\rho}_{123}, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1)$
\item $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}} ;
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$
\item $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}} ;
\overline{\rho}_{23}, \overline{\rho}_1, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 )$
\item $\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}} ;
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 )$
\end{itemize}
The third interpretation is an annulus whose outer boundary has two
$\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curve segments and two $\boldsymbol{\beta}$
curve segments, thus it does not have a holomorphic representative.
The fourth interpretation cannot give nontrivial contribution either
because of the $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$-module compatibility relation.
On the other hand, the second interpretation is an rectangular one;
it allows a holomorphic representative and its modulo two count of
moduli space is one. The first interpretation also has moduli space
with modulo two count one by $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$-module
compatibility relation $m^2( \mathbf{a y_{2n-2}},
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 ) = 0$. Disregarding all terms that equal to
zero, the compatibility relation reduces to,
\begin{displaymath}
m ( \mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\rho}_{123},
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) + m ( m ( \mathbf{ a
y_{2n-2} }, \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2 ),
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) = 0
\end{displaymath}
Since $m( \mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\rho}_{12},
\overline{\sigma}_2 ) = \mathbf{a b}$, combined with the fact $m(
\mathbf{a b}, \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) = \mathbf{x_1
y_{2n-1}} + \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1}$,
\begin{displaymath}
m( \mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \overline{\rho}_{123}, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 ) = \mathbf{x_1 y_{2n-1}} + \mathbf{x_{2n-1}
y_1}.
\end{displaymath}
Above computation shows that moduli space $\mathcal{M}( \mathbf{a
y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_{123},
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$ has also modulo two
count equals one. \\
Note that the first and second interpretations will result in the
same term after dualizing to $\widehat{CFDD}$. The sum of these two
terms equals zero, so this domain actually has no contribution after
all. \\
The second domain has two interpretations; $\mathcal{M}( \mathbf{a
y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_{123},
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$ and $\mathcal{M}(
\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}, \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_3,
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$.
The first interpretation was considered in the above computation,
and the second interpretation is an annulus whose outer boundary
consists of two $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ curve segments and two
$\boldsymbol{\beta}$ curve segments, so there is no holomorphic
representative. \\
Similarly, the other domains (except for the last domain) give
Whitney disks, and the moduli spaces corresponding to the domains
are $\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{a y_{2j}}, \mathbf{x_1 y_{2j+1}} ;
\overline{\rho}_{123}, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$,
$\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{a y_{2j}}, \mathbf{x_1 y_{2j+1}} ;
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$ and $\mathcal{M}
(\mathbf{a y_{2j}}, \mathbf{x_{2j+1} y_1} ; \overline{\rho}_{123},
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$. Each of these moduli
space has count one modulo two. \\
The moduli space of the last domain $Q_1 + \cdots + Q_5 + P_1 +
\cdots + P_{2n-3} + Q_1 + \cdots + Q_{2n-3}$ can be interpreted in
three ways. First, $\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{a b, x_1 y_1};
\overline{\rho}_{123}, \overline{\sigma}_{123} )$ whose Maslov index
is different from one. Second possible interpretation is
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{ab}, \mathbf{x_1 y_1} ;
\overline{\rho}_{123}, \overline{\sigma}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 )
\end{displaymath}
$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ relation of $m^2(\mathbf{ab},
\overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\sigma}_3,
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )$ gives $m( \mathbf{ab},
\overline{\rho}_{123}, \overline{\sigma}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 ) = \mathbf{x_1 y_1}$, by considering
$m(\mathbf{ab}, \overline{\rho}_{12}, \overline{\sigma}_3,
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ) = \mathbf{a y_2}$ and $m(
\mathbf{a y_2}, \overline{\rho}_3 ) = \mathbf{x_1 y_1}$. Thus the
modulo 2 count of the moduli space is 1. The last interpretation is
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{M} (\mathbf{a b, x_1 y_1}; \overline{\rho}_3,
\overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_1, \overline{\sigma}_3,
\overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 )
\end{displaymath}
Existence of holomorphic curve and its modulo two count is quite
clear from the diagram; the domain is essentially rectangular in
this interpretation. \\
For the algebra elements of $\mathcal{A} ( {\mathcal{Z}_R} )$, we
take advantage of the symmetry of the diagram.
$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ relations are listed as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
m( \mathbf{x_{2n-2} b}, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\sigma}_{12} )
& = & \mathbf{a b} \\
m( \mathbf{x_{2j} b}, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_{12} ) & = & \mathbf{ x_{2j+2} b} \qquad \textrm{
for $j = 1, \cdots, n-2$} \\
m( \mathbf{ a b }, \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_1, \overline{\sigma}_{12} ) & = & \mathbf{x_2 b} \\
m( \mathbf{x_{2j} b}, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_{123} ) & = & \mathbf{ x_1 y_{2j+1} } + \mathbf{
x_{2j+1} y_1 } \qquad \textrm{for $j = 1, \cdots, n-1$ } \\
m( \mathbf{ a b }, \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_1, \overline{\sigma}_{123} ) & = & \mathbf{x_1 y_1} \\
\end{eqnarray*}
Dualizing the above result, one should reverse the orientations of
the left and right punctures and consider idempotent restrictions.
The dualized result can be summarized as,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta^1 (\mathbf{ab}) & = & \rho_{123} \sigma_{123} \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_1} + \cdots \\
\delta^1 (\mathbf{a y_{2j}}) & = & \rho_{123} \sigma_{23} \otimes
\mathbf{x_{2j+1} y_1} + \cdots \qquad \textrm{for $j=1, \cdots, n-1$} \\
\delta^1 (\mathbf{x_{2j} b}) & = & \rho_{23} \sigma_{123} \otimes
`\mathbf{x_1 y_{2j+1}} + \cdots \qquad \textrm{for $j=1, \cdots, n-1$} \\
\end{eqnarray*}
It is worth mentioning that there are three holomorphic disks
contributing to $\rho_{123} \sigma_{123} \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_1}$
term in $\delta^1(\mathbf{ab})$ from the following moduli spaces.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a b}, \mathbf{x_1 y_1} ;
\overline{\rho}_{123}, \overline{\sigma}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2,
\overline{\sigma}_1 ), \\
\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a b}, \mathbf{x_1 y_1} ;
\overline{\sigma}_{123}, \overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_2,
\overline{\rho}_1 ), \\
\mathcal{M} ( \mathbf{a b}, \mathbf{x_1 y_1} ;
\overline{\rho}_3, \overline{\rho}_2, \overline{\rho}_1,
\overline{\sigma}_3, \overline{\sigma}_2, \overline{\sigma}_1 ).
\end{eqnarray*}
Again, differentials that yield algebra elements $\sigma_{23}$ and
$\sigma_{123}$ can be obtained using the symmetry of the diagram
in the exactly parallel manner. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure07}
\caption{A diagram of $(2,6)$-torus link complement, with
all differentials are included.}
\label{fig:26differential}
\end{figure}
\section{Examples}
\label{sec:example}
In this section, we will relate our result to the known calculation
for knot complements and closed 3-manifolds. These examples show how
to use the algebraic structure of the pairing theorem given by
Lipshitz, Ozsv\'ath and Thurston in~\cite{LOT08}.
\subsection{$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$-tensor product of bimodule}
The pairing of modules associated to a single boundary case is well
studied by Lipshitz, Ozsv\'ath and Thurston in~\cite{LOT08}. The
pairing of doubly bordered case is also similar; the only difference
is the framed arc $\mathbf{z}$. If we glue a doubly bordered diagram
and a single boundary diagram, we match the marked point $z$ from
the single boundary diagram with the one end of the framed arc
$\mathbf{z}$. After pairing, the framed arc reduces to a marked
point on the other side of the boundary(if pairing two doubly
bordered diagrams, then we connect the two framed arcs). In our
example, we will be mainly interested in a type-$D$ structure
obtained by the box tensor product $\widehat{CFA}( \mathcal{H}_1 )
\boxtimes \widehat{CFDD} ( \mathcal{H}_2 )$, where a single boundary
diagram $\mathcal{H}_1$ is glued on the right side of a doubly
bordered diagram $\mathcal{H}_2$. The resulting type-$D$ structure
map $(\delta')^1$ is,
\begin{displaymath}
(\delta')^1 = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} ((m_R)_{k+1} \otimes \mu_L
\otimes \mathbb{I}_{\widehat{CFDD}} ) (\mathbf{x} \otimes \delta^k (\mathbf{y}) )
\end{displaymath}
where $\mathbf{x} \in \mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H}_1)$ and $\mathbf{y}
\in \mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H}_2)$. \\
\subsection{$\infty$-surgery on right component of link}
First, we will consider an $\infty$-surgery on the right component
of $(2,2n)$ torus link complement. Since the longitudes
$\alpha_1^{a,L}$ and $\alpha_1^{a,R}$ of left and right components
are passing through the $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ respectively, the
$\infty$-surgery on the right components gives a unknot complement
with framing $(n-1)$. We compute $\widehat{CFD}$ of the unknot
complement as follows. \\
Let $\mathcal{H}_{(2,2n)}$ be a doubly bordered diagram of $(2,2n)$
torus link complement, and $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ be a single
bordered diagram of solid torus. Then generators of
$\mathfrak{S}(\mathcal{H}_{\infty} \cup_{\partial}
\mathcal{H}_{(2,2n)} )$ consists of $\mathbf{w} \otimes \mathbf{a
b}$ and $\mathbf{w} \otimes \mathbf{x_{2k} b}$, $k=1, \cdots, n-1$.
\\
Computing $\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{\infty})$ is easy; that is,
\begin{displaymath}
m_{k+3} (\mathbf{w}, \sigma_3, \underbrace{\sigma_{23}, \cdots, \sigma_{23}}_{k \textrm{-times}},
\sigma_2 ) = \mathbf{w}
\end{displaymath}
Now we consider the type-$D$ structure of
$\widehat{CFDD}(\mathcal{H}_{(2,2n)})$. We omit terms which do not
appear after taking box tensor product with
$\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{\infty})$, thus they have no
contribution in computing $\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{\infty})
\boxtimes \widehat{CFDD}(\mathcal{H}_{(2,2n)})$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta^2 ( \mathbf{a b} ) & = & (\rho_1 \otimes \rho_{23}) \otimes (\sigma_3
\otimes \sigma_2) \otimes \mathbf{x_2 b} + \cdots \\
\delta^2 ( \mathbf{x_{2k} b} ) & = & (\rho_{23}) \otimes (\sigma_3
\otimes \sigma_2) \otimes \mathbf{x_{2k+2} b} + \cdots \quad
\textrm{for $k = 1, \cdots n-2$} \\
\delta^2 ( \mathbf{x_{2n-2} b} ) & = & (\rho_2) \otimes (\sigma_3
\otimes \sigma_2) \otimes \mathbf{a b} + \cdots
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus type-$D$ structure $(\delta')^1$ is,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\delta')^1 ( \mathbf{w} \otimes \mathbf{a b} ) & = & \mu(\rho_1 \otimes \rho_{23})
\otimes m_3(\mathbf{w},\sigma_3, \sigma_2) \otimes \mathbf{x_2 b} \\
& = & \rho_{123} \otimes \mathbf{w} \otimes \mathbf{x_2 b} \\
(\delta')^1 ( \mathbf{w} \otimes \mathbf{x_{2k} b} ) & = & \mu(\rho_{23}) \otimes m_3(\mathbf{w}, \sigma_3, \sigma_2)
\otimes \mathbf{x_{2k+2} b} \\
& = & \rho_{23} \otimes \mathbf{w} \otimes \mathbf{x_{2k+2} b} \quad \textrm{for $k = 1, \cdots n-2$} \\
(\delta')^1 ( \mathbf{w} \otimes \mathbf{x_{2n-2} b} ) & = & \mu(\rho_2) \otimes m_3(\mathbf{w}, \sigma_3, \sigma_2)
\otimes \mathbf{a b} \\
& = & \rho_2 \otimes \mathbf{w} \otimes \mathbf{a b}
\end{eqnarray*}
Compare this result with \cite[Example 2.2]{Hom}. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure08}
\caption{The diagram $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ on the left shows $\infty$-surgery on the right component of
the link. The diagram $\mathcal{H}_{+2}$ on the right is $+2$-surgery on the right
component. The $\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ relation of $\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{+2})$ is given as $m (q,
\sigma_2) = p_1$, $m (p_1, \sigma_3, \sigma_2) = p_2$, and $m (p_2, \sigma_3, \sigma_2, \sigma_1 ) =
q$. }
\label{fig:surgery}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Knot complement of trefoil}
Consider $(2,4)$ torus link. If we glue the right component by solid
torus of framing $+2$, then the resulting diagram will be
diffeomorphic to trefoil after handleslide and blow down the +1
unknot component. A type-$D$ structure
$(N_1,(\delta_1)^1):=\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{+2}) \boxtimes
\widehat{CFDD}(\mathcal{H}_{(2,4)})$ computes,
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix @-1pc {
\mathbf{p_1} \otimes \mathbf{a b} \ar@{-->}[rrrrdddd] & & \mathbf{q} \otimes
\mathbf{x_3 y_3} \ar[ll]_{\rho_2} & & \mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{a y_2} \ar[ll]_{\rho_3} \ar[dd]^{\rho_1} \\
& & & & \\
& & & & \mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_1} \\
& & & & \\
& & & & \mathbf{p_2} \otimes \mathbf{a b} \ar[uu]_{\rho_{123}}
}
\end{displaymath}
The dashed line is denoted \emph{unstable chain}, where
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix @-1pc {
\cdots \rightarrow \mathbf{p_1} \otimes \mathbf{a b} \ar[rr]_{\rho_{123}} & & \mathbf{p_2} \otimes
\mathbf{x_2 b} \ar[rr]_{\rho_{23}} \ar[dd]_{\rho_{23}} & & \mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_3} \ar[dd]_{1} \ar[rr]_{\rho_{23}} & & \mathbf{p_1}
\otimes \mathbf{x_2 b} \ar[rr]_{\rho_2} & & \mathbf{p_2} \otimes \mathbf{a b} \rightarrow \cdots \\
& & & & & & & & \\
& & \mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{x_3 y_1} \ar[rr]_{1} & & \mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{x_2 y_2} & & & &
}
\end{displaymath}
We claim that the chain complex described above is homotopy
equivalent to a complex $(N_2, (\delta_2)^1)$ which is identical to
the complex above except for the unstable complex which has been
replaced by
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix @-1pc {
\cdots \rightarrow \mathbf{p_1} \otimes \mathbf{a b} \ar[rr]_{\rho_{123}} & & \mathbf{p_2} \otimes
\mathbf{x_2 b} \ar[rr]_{\rho_{23}} & & \mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_3} \ar[rr]_{\rho_{23}} & & \mathbf{p_1}
\otimes \mathbf{x_2 b} \ar[rr]_{\rho_2} & & \mathbf{p_2} \otimes \mathbf{a b} \rightarrow \cdots \\
}
\end{displaymath}
Define a map $\pi : N_1 \rightarrow N_2$ such that $\pi ( \mathbf{q}
\otimes \mathbf{x_3 y_1} )$ and $\pi ( \mathbf{q} \otimes
\mathbf{x_2 y_2} )$ equal zero, and otherwise acts as an identity.
We also define a map $\iota : N_2 \rightarrow N_1$ as an inclusion.
Then $\pi \circ \iota = \mathbb{I}_{N_2}$ is obvious. In addition, a
homotopy equivalence $H : N_1 \rightarrow N_1$ is given as,
\begin{displaymath}
H(x) := \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{x_3 y_1} & \textrm{if $x = \mathbf{q}
\otimes \mathbf{x_2 y_2}$} \\
\mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_3} + \mathbf{q} \otimes
\mathbf{x_3 y_1} & \textrm{if $x= \mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{x_1
y_3}$ } \\
\mathbf{p_2} \otimes \mathbf{x_2 b} & \textrm{if $x= \mathbf{p_2} \otimes \mathbf{x_2
b}$ } \\
0 & \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
which extends as a $\mathcal{A}(T)$-equivariant map. Then it is
clear that $\iota \circ \pi = (\delta_1)^1 \circ H + H \circ
(\delta_1)^1$. \\
\begin{rem}
Compare the above result with \cite[Section 11.5]{LOT08}, from which they spelled out
an algorithm to recover $\widehat{CFD}(S^3 \backslash \nu K)$ from
$CFK^-$. According to their notation, the length of the unstable chain
is 3 (the number of generators between two outermost ones). This
length is closely related to the framing of the knot complement and concordance invariant $\tau(K)$(see \cite[Equation(11.18)]{LOT08}).
In our case, the framing of the left component of the link was originally -1,
but a handleslide procedure has added +4 and therefore the framing
is 3. Since $\tau(\textrm{Trefoil})=1$ is less than the framing,
the length of the unstable chain agrees with the framing.
\cite[Theorem A.11]{LOT08} has the precise description of the relation between
$\tau(K)$ and the unstable chain.
\end{rem}
\subsection{$(n_1,n_2)$-surgery on Hopf link}
Hopf link is $(2,2)$ torus link. If $n_1$ and $n_2$ are two positive
integers such that $n_1 n_2 \neq 1$, then $(n_1, n_2)$-surgery on
Hopf link produces the lens space $L(n_1 n_2 - 1, n_1)$. Heegaard
Floer homology of the lens space has $n_1 n_2 -1$ generators whose
differentials equal zero. \\
The diagram of Hopf link complement is easy. In addition,
$\alpha_1^{a,L}$(respectively, $\alpha_1^{a,R}$) does not intersect
$\beta_1$(respectively, $\beta_2$), therefore pairing the diagram
with $\mathcal{H}_{n_1}^L$ and $\mathcal{H}_{n_2}^R$ will give a
closed Heegaard diagram of lens space $L(n_1 n_2 - 1, n_1)$. The
$\mathcal{A}_{\infty}$ relation of $\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_m)$ is
as follows(see~\ref{fig:surgery}).
\begin{eqnarray*}
m(q, \rho_2) & = & p_1 \\
m(p_i, \rho_3, \underbrace{\rho_{23}, \cdots, \rho_{23}}_{j \textrm{ times}}, \rho_2 )
& = & p_{i+j+1} \\
m(p_m, \rho_3, \rho_2, \rho_1) & = & q
\end{eqnarray*}
$\widehat{CFDD}(S^3 \backslash \nu( \textrm{Hopf link} ))$ has two
generators $\mathbf{a b}$ and $\mathbf{x_1 y_1}$. Its type-$D$
structure is given below.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta^1 (\mathbf{a b}) & = & (\rho_1 \otimes \sigma_3 + \rho_3
\otimes \sigma_1 + \rho_{123} \otimes \sigma_{123}) \otimes
\mathbf{x_1 y_1} \\
\delta^1 (\mathbf{x_1 y_1}) & = & \rho_2 \otimes \sigma_2 \otimes
\mathbf{a b}
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{rem}
See \cite[Proposition 10.1]{LOT11}. Note that Hopf link complement
is $T^2 \times [0,1]$ and it is exactly an identity module
described there.
\end{rem}
Let $p_i^L$ and $q^L$($p_j^R$ and $q^R$, respectively) be points of
bordered Heegaard diagram $\mathcal{H}_{n_1}^L$ attached to the left
($\mathcal{H}_{n_2}^R$ attached to the right, respectively). Then we
have the following $n_1 n_2 + 1$ generators of
$\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{n_1}^L) \boxtimes
\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{n_2}^R) \boxtimes \widehat{CFDD}(S^3
\backslash \nu( \textrm{Hopf link} ))$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
p_i^L \otimes p_j^R \otimes \mathbf{a b} & \quad i = 1, \cdots,
n_1 \textrm{ and } j = 1, \cdots, n_2 \\
q^L \otimes q^R \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_1}. &
\end{eqnarray*}
The only nontrivial differential is,
\begin{displaymath}
\partial^{\boxtimes} (q^L \otimes q^R \otimes \mathbf{x_1 y_1}) =
m(q^L, \rho_2) \otimes m(q^R, \sigma_2) \otimes \mathbf{a b} =
p_1^L \otimes p_1^R \otimes \mathbf{a b}.
\end{displaymath}
Thus the homology of $\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{n_1}^L) \boxtimes
\widehat{CFA}(\mathcal{H}_{n_2}^R) \boxtimes \widehat{CFDD}(S^3
\backslash \nu( \textrm{Hopf link} ))$ has $n_1 n_2 -1$ generators
as expected.
\section{Homotopy Equivalence}
\label{sec:homequiv}
In this section, we streamline the type-$DD$ structure computed in
section 3 to a type-$DD$ structure that does not involve any
differential with algebra element 1.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure09}
\caption{Simplified diagram of $\widehat{CFDD}$ of $(2,2n)$ torus
link complement, $n \geq 3$. The generators are intentionally placed so
that they form squares from top right to bottom left. The number
of such squares is $n-1$.}
\label{fig:simplified01}
\end{figure}
\begin{prop}
Type-$DD$ structure of link complement of $(2,2n)$ torus
link complement, where $n \geq 3$, has the same homotopy type as the complex given in
\ref{fig:simplified01}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us denote $(M, \delta^1)$ the type-$DD$ structure computed in
section 3 and $(N, (\delta^1)')$ the type-$DD$ structure given as
~\ref{fig:simplified01}. More specifically, the map
$(\delta^1)'$ has the following differentials.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underline{\mathbf{ab}} & \mapsto & \rho_{123}\sigma_{123} \otimes \underline{\mathbf{x_1 y_1}}
+ (\rho_1 \sigma_3 + \rho_3 \sigma_1) \otimes \underline{\mathbf{x_n y_n}}, \\
\underline{\mathbf{a y_{2k}}} & \mapsto & \rho_1 \otimes \underline{\mathbf{x_k y_k}} +
\rho_3 \otimes \underline{\mathbf{x_{n+k} y_{n+k}}}, \ \textrm{where $k=1,\cdots,n-1$} \\
\underline{\mathbf{x_{2k} b}} & \mapsto & \sigma_1 \otimes
\underline{\mathbf{x_k y_k}} + \sigma_3 \otimes
\underline{\mathbf{x_{n+k} y_{n+k}}} + \rho_{23} \sigma_{123}
\otimes \underline{\mathbf{x_{k+1} y_{k+1}}}, \ \textrm{where $k=1,\cdots,n-1$} \\
\underline{\mathbf{x_k y_k}} & \mapsto & 0, \ \textrm{if $k=1, \cdots, n-1$} \\
\underline{\mathbf{x_k y_k}} & \mapsto & \rho_2 \sigma_{23} \otimes \underline{\mathbf{a y_{2(k-n+1)}}} +
\rho_{23} \sigma_2 \otimes \underline{\mathbf{x_{2(k-n+1)} b}}, \
\textrm{if $k=n, \cdots, 2n-2$} \\
\underline{\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}} & \mapsto & \rho_2 \sigma_2
\otimes \underline{\mathbf{ab}}
\end{eqnarray*}
We now define type-$DD$ structure maps $F:M \rightarrow \mathcal{A}
(- \mathcal{Z}_L) \otimes \mathcal{A} (- \mathcal{Z}_R) \otimes N$
and $G:N \rightarrow \mathcal{A} (- \mathcal{Z}_L) \otimes
\mathcal{A} (- \mathcal{Z}_R) \otimes M$. First the map $F$ is
defined as below.
\begin{eqnarray*}
F(\mathbf{ab}) & = & \underline{ \mathbf{ab} } \\
F(\mathbf{a y_{2k} }) & = & \underline{ \mathbf{a y_{2k}}} \\
F(\mathbf{x_{2k} b}) & = & \underline{ \mathbf{x_{2k} b}} \\
F(\mathbf{x_1 y_{2k-1}}) & = & \underline{ \mathbf{x_k y_k} }, \ \textrm{for $k=1, \cdots, n$} \\
F(\mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_{2n-1}}) & = & \underline{ \mathbf{x_{k+n-1}
y_{k+n-1} } }, \ \textrm{for $k=1, \cdots, n$} \\
F(\mathbf{x_{2k} y_{2n-2}}) & = & \rho_2 \sigma_{23} \otimes
\underline{\mathbf{a y_{2k}}}, \ \textrm{for $k=1, \cdots, n-1$},
\end{eqnarray*}
and zero otherwise. \\
The map $G$ is defined as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
G(\underline{\mathbf{ab}}) & = & \mathbf{ab} \\
G(\underline{\mathbf{a y_{2k}}}) & = & \mathbf{a y_{2k}} \\
G(\underline{\mathbf{x_{2k} b}}) & = & \mathbf{x_{2k} b} \\
G(\underline{\mathbf{x_1 y_1}}) & = & \mathbf{x_1 y_1} + \rho_{23}
\sigma_{23} \otimes \mathbf{x_3 y_1} \\
G(\underline{\mathbf{x_k y_k}}) & = & \mathbf{x_1 y_{2k-1}} +
\mathbf{x_{2k-1} y_1} + \rho_{23} \sigma_{23} \otimes
\mathbf{x_{2k+1} y_1}, \ \textrm{for $k=2, \cdots, n-1$} \\
G(\underline{\mathbf{x_k y_k}}) & = & \mathbf{x_{2k-2n+1}
y_{2n-1}} + \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2k-2n+1}}, \ \textrm{for $k=n, \cdots,
2n-2$} \\
G(\underline{\mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2n-1}}}) & = & \mathbf{x_{2n-1}
y_{2n-1}}
\end{eqnarray*}
These maps are easily checked satisfying the compatibility condition
spelled out in \cite[Definition 2.2.55]{LOT11}. Then, the
composition of two maps $F \circ G : N \rightarrow N$ is the
identity map. Another composition $G \circ F$ is homotopic to
identity, by introducing the seemingly complicated map $H : M
\rightarrow \mathcal{A} (- \mathcal{Z}_L) \otimes \mathcal{A} (-
\mathcal{Z}_R) \otimes M$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
H(\mathbf{ab}) & = & 0 \\
H(\mathbf{a y_{2k} }) & = & \rho_3 \otimes ( \mathbf{x_{2k+1}
y_{2n-1} } + \mathbf{x_{2n-1} y_{2k+1}} ), \ \textrm{for $k=1,
\cdots, n-2$} \\
H(\mathbf{a y_{2n-2}}) & = & \rho_3 \otimes \mathbf{x_{2n-1}
y_{2n- 1}} \\
H(\mathbf{x_{2k} b}) & = & \sigma_3 \otimes ( \mathbf{x_{2n-1}
y_{2k+1}} + \mathbf{x_{2k+1} y_{2n-1}} ), \ \textrm{for $k=1,
\cdots, n-2$} \\
H(\mathbf{x_{2n-2} b}) & = & \sigma_3 \otimes \mathbf{x_{2n-1}
y_{2n-1}}
\end{eqnarray*}
We need to consider various cases to define $H(\mathbf{x_i y_j})$.
Before giving the definition, we will introduce the new notation
$\mathbf{xy}(2k,l) \in M$ for notational simplicity.
\begin{displaymath}
\mathbf{xy}(i,j) := \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{x_i y_j} + \mathbf{x_j y_i} & \textrm{if
$i \neq j$} \\
\mathbf{x_i y_j} & \textrm{if $i=j$}.
\end{array} \right.
\end{displaymath}
\textbf{Case 1, if $i<j$}.
\begin{displaymath}
H(\mathbf{x_i y_j}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{xy}(i+1,j-1) & \textrm{if $i=1$ or $j=2n-1$} \\
\mathbf{xy}(i+1,j-1) + \mathbf{x_{j+1} y_{i-1}} &
\textrm{otherwise} \\
\end{array} \right.
\end{displaymath}
\textbf{Case 2, if $i>j$}.
\begin{displaymath}
H(\mathbf{x_i y_j}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{xy}(i-1,j+1) + \rho_{23} \sigma_{23} \otimes
\mathbf{xy}(i+1,j+1) & \textrm{if $j=1$ and $3 \leq i \leq
2n-3$} \\
\mathbf{xy}(i-1,j+1) & \textrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\end{displaymath}
\textbf{Case 3, if $i=j$}.
\begin{displaymath}
H(\mathbf{x_i y_j}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\rho_{23} \sigma_{23} \otimes \mathbf{x_2 y_2} & \textrm{if
$i=j=1$} \\
0 & \textrm{if $i=j=2n-1$} \\
\mathbf{x_{i+1} y_{j-1}} & \textrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\end{displaymath}
It is straightforward to verify that the above map satisfies $G
\circ F + \mathbb{I}_M = \delta^1 \circ H + H \circ \delta^1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The symmetry of the diagram seems to be lost after removing
the differentials of algebra element 1, since differentials of algebra
element $\rho_{23} \sigma_{123}$ are between $\underline{\mathbf{x_{2k} b}}$ and $\underline{\mathbf{x_{k+1} y_{k+1}}}$. This phenomenon is caused
because we set the map $F$ to ``collapse'' bottom right corner of
the original type-$DD$ structure. If we set $F$ to collapse top left
corner of the original diagram, then the resulting complex will look
like~\ref{fig:simplified02}.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure10}
\caption{Another type-$DD$ structure homotopic equivalent to the
original type-$DD$ structure. The differential represented by
dashed line can be changed to the differential in
\ref{fig:simplified01}. }
\label{fig:simplified02}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
Computing the dominant singular vectors of a matrix is one of the most
important algorithmic tasks underlying many applications including
low-rank approximation, PCA, spectral clustering, dimensionality
reduction, matrix completion and topic modeling. The classical problem
is well-understood, but many recent applications in machine learning
face the fundamental problem of approximately finding singular vectors
in the presence of noise. Noise can enter the computation through a
variety of sources including sampling error, missing entries,
adversarial corruptions and privacy constraints. It is desirable to
have one robust method for handling a variety of cases without the
need for ad-hoc analyses. In this paper we consider the \emph{noisy
power method}, a fast general purpose method for computing the
dominant singular vectors of a matrix when the target matrix can only
be accessed through inaccurate matrix-vector products.
\figureref{NPM} describes the method when the target matrix~$A$ is a
symmetric $d\times d$ matrix---a generalization to asymmetric matrices
is straightforward. The algorithm starts from an initial matrix
$X_0\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times p}$ and iteratively attempts to perform the update
rule $X_\ell \to AX_\ell.$ However, each such matrix product is
followed by a possibly adversarially and adaptively chosen
perturbation~$G_\ell$ leading to the update rule $X_\ell \to AX_\ell +
G_\ell.$ It will be convenient though not necessary to maintain that
$X_\ell$ has orthonormal columns which can be achieved through a
QR-factorization after each update.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{boxedminipage}{0.8\textwidth}
\noindent \textbf{Input:} Symmetric matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d},$ number of
iterations $L,$ dimension $p$
\begin{enum}
\item
Choose $X_0\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times p}.$
\item For $\ell = 1$ to $L$:
\begin{enum}
\item\itemlabel{mult} $Y_\ell \leftarrow AX_{\ell-1}+G_\ell$
where $G_\ell\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times p}$ is some perturbation
\item Let $Y_\ell = X_\ell R_\ell$ be a QR-factorization of $Y_\ell$
\end{enum}
\end{enum}
\noindent \textbf{Output:} Matrix $X_L$
\end{boxedminipage}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Noisy Power Method ({\sc NPM}\xspace)}
\figurelabel{NPM}
\end{figure}
The noisy power method is a meta algorithm that when instantiated with
different settings of $G_\ell$ and $X_0$ adapts to a variety of
applications. In fact, there have been a number of recent surprising
applications of the noisy power method:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Jain et al.~\cite{JainNS13,Hardt14} observe that the update rule of the
well-known alternating least squares heuristic for matrix completion
can be considered as an instance of {\sc NPM}\xspace. This lead to the first
provable convergence bounds for this important heuristic.
\item Mitgliakas et al.~\cite{MCJ13} observe that {\sc NPM}\xspace
applies to a streaming model of principal component analysis (PCA)
where it leads to a space-efficient and practical algorithm for PCA
in settings where the covariance matrix is too large to process
directly.
\item Hardt and Roth~\cite{HardtR13} consider the power method in the
context of privacy-preserving PCA where noise is added to achieve
differential privacy.
\end{enumerate}
In each setting there has so far only been an ad-hoc analysis of the
noisy power method. In the first setting, only local convergence is
argued, that is, $X_0$ has to be cleverly chosen. In the second
setting, the analysis only holds for the spiked covariance model of
PCA. In the third application, only the case $p=1$ was considered.
In this work we give a completely general analysis of the noisy power
method that overcomes limitations of previous analyses. Our result
characterizes the global convergence properties of the algorithm in
terms of the noise $G_\ell$ and the initial subspace $X_0$. We then
consider the important case where $X_0$ is a randomly chosen
orthonormal basis. This case is rather delicate since the initial
correlation between a random matrix $X_0$ and the target subspace is
vanishing in the dimension~$d$ for small $p.$ Another important
feature of the analysis is that it shows how $X_\ell$ converges
towards the first $k\le p$ singular vectors. Choosing~$p$ to be larger
than the target dimension leads to a quantitatively stronger
result. \theoremref{convergence} formally states our convergence
bound. Here we highlight one useful corollary to illustrate our more
general result.
\begin{corollary}
\corollarylabel{random} \theoremlabel{randomconvergence} Let $k \leq
p$. Let $U\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$ represent the top $k$ singular vectors
of~$A$ and let $\sigma_1\ge\cdots\ge\sigma_n\ge0$ denote its
singular values. Suppose $X_0$ is an orthonormal basis of a random
$p$-dimensional subspace. Further suppose that at every step of
{\sc NPM}\xspace we have
\[\textstyle
5\norm{G_\ell} \leq \epsilon (\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1})
\quad\text{and}\quad 5\norm{U^\top G_\ell} \leq (\sigma_k -
\sigma_{k+1}) \frac{\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1}}{\tau \sqrt{d}}
\]
for some fixed parameter $\tau$ and $\epsilon < 1/2$. Then with all but
$\tau^{-\Omega(p+1-k)} + e^{-\Omega(d)}$ probability, there exists an
$L = O( \frac{\sigma_k}{\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}}\log(d\tau/\epsilon))$ so that
after $L$ steps we have that $\Norm{(I-X_LX_L^\top)U}\leq \epsilon.$
\end{corollary}
The corollary shows that the algorithm converges in the strong sense
that the entire spectral norm of $U$ up to an $\epsilon$ error is
contained in the space spanned by~$X_L.$ To achieve this the result
places two assumptions on the magnitude of the noise. The total
spectral norm of $G_\ell$ must be bounded by $\epsilon$ times the
separation between $\sigma_k$ and $\sigma_{k+1}.$ This dependence on
the singular value separation arises even in the classical
perturbation theory of Davis-Kahan~\cite{DavisK70}. The second condition
is specific to the power method and requires that the noise term is
proportionally smaller when projected onto the space spanned by the
top $k$ singular vectors. This condition ensures that the correlation
between $X_\ell$ and $U$ that is initially very small is not destroyed
by the noise addition step. If the noise term has some spherical
properties (e.g. a Gaussian matrix), we expect the projection onto $U$
to be smaller by a factor of $\sqrt{k/d},$ since the space $U$ is
$k$-dimensional. In the case where $p=k+\Omega(k)$ this is precisely
what the condition requires. When $p=k$ the requirement is stronger by
a factor of~$k.$ This phenomenon stems from the fact that the smallest
singular value of a random $p\times k$ gaussian matrix behaves
differently in the square and the rectangular case.
We demonstrate the usefulness of our convergence bound with several
novel results in some of the aforementioned applications.
\subsection{Application to memory-efficient streaming PCA}
In the streaming PCA setting we receive a stream of samples
$z_1,z_2,\dots z_n\in\mathbb{R}^d$ drawn i.i.d.~from an unknown
distribution~${\cal D}$ over $\mathbb{R}^d.$ Our goal is to compute the dominant
$k$ eigenvectors of the covariance matrix $A=\E_{z\sim{\cal D}} zz^\top.$
The challenge is to do this in space linear in the output size, namely
$O(kd).$
Recently, Mitgliakas et al.~\cite{MCJ13} gave an algorithm for this
problem based on the noisy power method. We analyze the same
algorithm, which we restate here and call {\sc SPM}\xspace:
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{boxedminipage}{0.8\textwidth}
\noindent \textbf{Input:} Stream of samples
$z_1,z_2,\dots,z_n\in\mathbb{R}^d,$ iterations $L,$ dimension~$p$
\begin{enum}
\item Let $X_0\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times p}$ be a random orthonormal basis. Let $T=
\lfloor m/L\rfloor$
\item For $\ell = 1$ to $L$:
\begin{enum}
\item Compute $Y_\ell = A_\ell X_{\ell-1}$ where
$A_\ell=\sum_{i=(\ell-1)T+1}^{\ell T}z_iz_i^\top$
\item Let $Y_\ell = X_\ell R_\ell$ be a QR-factorization of $Y_\ell$
\end{enum}
\end{enum}
\noindent \textbf{Output:} Matrix $X_L$
\end{boxedminipage}
\caption{Streaming Power Method ({\sc SPM}\xspace)}
\figurelabel{SPM}
\end{figure}
The algorithm can be executed in space $O(pd)$ since the update step
can compute the $d\times p$ matrix $A_\ell X_{\ell-1}$ incrementally
without explicitly computing $A_\ell.$ The algorithm maps to our
setting by defining $G_\ell = (A_\ell-A)X_{\ell-1}.$ With this
notation $Y_\ell = AX_{\ell-1} + G_\ell.$ We can apply
\corollaryref{random} directly once we have suitable bounds on
$\|G_\ell\|$ and $\|U^\top G_\ell\|.$
The result of~\cite{MCJ13} is specific to the spiked covariance model.
The spiked covariance model is defined by an orthonormal basis
$U\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$ and a diagonal matrix $\Lambda\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times k}$
with diagonal entries $\lambda_1\ge\lambda_2\ge\cdots\ge\lambda_k>0.$
The distribution ${\cal D}(U,\Lambda)$ is defined as the normal
distribution $\mathrm{N}(0,(U\Lambda^2 U^\top +
\sigma^2\mathrm{Id}_{d\times d})).$ Without loss of generality we can
scale the examples such that $\lambda_1=1.$
One corollary of our result shows that the algorithm outputs $X_L$
such that $\Norm{(I-X_LX_L^\top)U}\le\epsilon$ with probability
$9/10$ provided $p=k+\Omega(k)$ and the number of samples satisfies
\[
n = \Theta\left(\frac{\sigma^6+1}{\epsilon^2 \lambda_k^6}kd\right).
\]
Previously, the same bound\footnote{That the bound stated
in~\cite{MCJ13} has a $\sigma^6$ dependence is not completely
obvious. There is a $O(\sigma^4)$ in the numerator and
$\log((\sigma^2+0.75\lambda_k^2)/(\sigma^2+0.5\lambda_k^2))$ in the
denominator which simplifies to $O(1/\sigma^2)$ for constant
$\lambda_k$ and $\sigma^2\geq 1.$} was known with a quadratic
dependence on $k$ in the case where $p=k.$ Here we can strengthen the
bound by increasing $p$ slightly.
While we can get some improvements even in the spiked covariance
model, our result is substantially more general and applies to any
distribution. The sample complexity bound we get varies according to a
technical parameter of the distribution. Roughly speaking, we get a
near linear sample complexity if the distribution is either ``round''
(as in the spiked covariance setting) or is very well approximated by
a $k$ dimensional subspace. To illustrate the latter condition, we
have the following result without making any assumptions other than
scaling the distribution:
\begin{corollary}
Let ${\cal D}$ be any distribution scaled so that
$\Pr\Set{\|z\|>t}\le\exp(-t)$ for every $t\ge 1.$ Let $U$ represent
the top $k$ eigenvectors of the covariance matrix $\E zz^\top$ and
$\sigma_1\ge\cdots\ge\sigma_d\ge0$ its eigenvalues. Then, {\sc SPM}\xspace
invoked with $p=k+\Omega(k)$ outputs a matrix $X_L$ such with
probability $9/10$ we have $\Norm{(I-X_LX_L^\top)U}\le\epsilon$
provided {\sc SPM}\xspace receives $n$ samples where $n$ satisfies $n = \tilde
O\left(\frac{\sigma_k}{\epsilon^2k(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})^3}\cdot
d\right)\,.$
\end{corollary}
The corollary establishes a sample complexity that's linear in~$d$
provided that the spectrum decays quickly, as is common in
applications. For example, if the spectrum follows a power law so that
$\sigma_j\approx j^{-c}$ for a constant $c>1/2,$ the bound becomes
$n=\tilde O(k^{2c+2}d/\epsilon^2).$
\subsection{Application to privacy-preserving spectral analysis}
Many applications of singular vector computation are plagued by the
fact that the underlying matrix contains sensitive information about
individuals. A successful paradigm in privacy-preserving data analysis rests
on the notion of \emph{differential privacy} which requires all access to the
data set to be randomized in such a way that the presence or absence of a
single data item is hidden. The notion of data item
varies and could either refer to a single entry, a single row, or a
rank-$1$ matrix of bounded norm. More formally, Differential Privacy
requires that the output distribution of the algorithm changes only
slightly with the addition or deletion of a single data item. This
requirement often necessitates the introduction of significant levels
of noise that make the computation of various objectives
challenging. Differentially private singular vector computation has
been studied actively in recent years~\cite{BlumDMN05,McSherryM09,BlockiBDS12,ChaudhuriSS12,KapralovT13,HardtR12,HardtR13,DworkTTZ14}.
There are two main objectives. The first is computational
efficiency. The second objective is to minimize the amount
of error that the algorithm introduces.
In this work, we give a fast algorithm for differentially private
singular vector computation based on the noisy power method that leads
to nearly optimal bounds in a number of settings that were considered in
previous work. The algorithm is described
in \figureref{PPM}. It's a simple instance of {\sc NPM}\xspace in which each noise
matrix $G_\ell$ is a gaussian random matrix scaled so that the
algorithm achieves $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy (as
formally defined in \definitionref{dp}). It is easy to see that the algorithm
can be implemented in time nearly linear in the number of nonzero entries of
the input matrix (input sparsity). This will later lead to strong improvements
in running time compared with several previous works.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{boxedminipage}{0.8\textwidth}
\noindent \textbf{Input:} Symmetric $A\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d},$ $L,$ $p,$ privacy
parameters $\epsilon,\delta>0$
\begin{enum}
\item Let $X_0$ be a random orthonormal basis and put
$\sigma=\epsilon^{-1}\sqrt{4pL\log(1/\delta)}$
\item For $\ell = 1$ to $L$:
\begin{enum}
\item\itemlabel{mult} $Y_\ell \leftarrow AX_{\ell-1}+G_\ell$
where $G_\ell \sim \mathrm{N}(0,\|X_{\ell-1}\|_\infty^2\sigma^2)^{d\times p}.$
\item Compute the QR-factorization $Y_\ell = X_\ell R_\ell$
\end{enum}
\end{enum}
\noindent \textbf{Output:} Matrix $X_L$
\end{boxedminipage}
\caption{Private Power Method ({\sc PPM}\xspace). Here $\|X\|_\infty=\max_{ij}|X_{ij}|.$}
\figurelabel{PPM}
\end{figure}
We first state a general purpose analysis of {\sc PPM}\xspace that follows from
\corollaryref{random}.
\begin{theorem}
\theoremlabel{privacy-main} Let $k \leq p$. Let $U\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times
k}$ represent the top $k$ singular vectors of~$A$ and let
$\sigma_1\ge\cdots\ge\sigma_d\ge0$ denote its singular values. Then,
{\sc PPM}\xspace satisfies $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy and after $L
= O( \frac{\sigma_k}{\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}}\log(d))$ iterations we have with
probability $9/10$ that
\[
\Norm{(I-X_LX_L^\top)U}\leq
O\left(
\frac{\sigma\max\|X_\ell\|_\infty\sqrt{d\log L}}{\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1}}
\cdot\frac{\sqrt{p}}{\sqrt{p}-\sqrt{k-1}}
\right)
\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
When $p=k+\Omega(k)$ the trailing factor becomes a constant. If $p=k$
it creates a factor $k$ overhead. In the worst-case we can always
bound $\|X_\ell\|_\infty$ by~$1$ since $X_\ell$ is an orthonormal
basis. However, in principle we could hope that a much better bound
holds provided that the target subspace $U$ has small coordinates.
Hardt and Roth~\cite{HardtR12,HardtR13} suggested a way to accomplish
a stronger bound by considering a notion of \emph{coherence} of $A,$
denoted as $\mu(A).$ Informally, the coherence is a well-studied
parameter that varies between $1$ and $n,$ but is often observed to be
small. Intuitively, the coherence measures the correlation between the
singular vectors of the matrix with the standard basis. Low coherence
means that the singular vectors have small coordinates in the standard
basis. Many results on matrix completion and robust PCA crucially rely
on the assumption that the underlying matrix has low
coherence~\cite{CandesR09,CandesT10,CandesLMW11} (though the notion of
coherence here will be somewhat different).
\begin{theorem}\theoremlabel{privacy-mu}
Under the assumptions of \theoremref{privacy-main}, we have the conclusion
\[
\Norm{(I-X_LX_L^\top)U}\leq
O\left( \frac{\sigma\sqrt{\mu(A)\log d\log L}}{\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1}}
\cdot\frac{\sqrt{p}}{\sqrt{p}-\sqrt{k-1}}
\right)
\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
Hardt and Roth proved this result for the case where $p=1.$ The
extension to $p>1$ lost a factor of $\sqrt{d}$ in general and
therefore gave no improvement over \theoremref{privacy-main}. Our
result resolves the main problem left open in their work. The strength
of \theoremref{privacy-mu} is that the bound is essentially
dimension-free under a natural assumption on the matrix and never
worse than our worst-case result. It is also known that in general
the dependence on $d$ achieved in \theoremref{privacy-main} is best
possible in the worst case (see discussion in~\cite{HardtR13}) so that
further progress requires making stronger assumptions. Coherence is a
natural such assumption. The proof of \theoremref{privacy-mu} proceeds
by showing that each iterate $X_\ell$ satisfies $\|X_\ell\|_\infty \le
O(\sqrt{\mu(A)\log(d)/d})$ and applying \theoremref{privacy-main}. To
do this we exploit a non-trivial symmetry of the algorithm that we
discuss in \sectionref{privacy-mu}.
\paragraph{Other objective functions and variants differential privacy.}
An important recent work by Dwork, Talwar, Thakurta and Zhang analyzes the
mechanism of adding Gaussian noise to the covariance matrix and computing a
truncated singular value decomposition of the noisy covariance
matrix~\cite{DworkTTZ14}. Their objective function is a natural measure of
how much variance of the data is captured by the resulting subspace. Our
results are formally incomparable due to a different choice of objective
function. We also do not know how to analyze the performance of the power
method under their objective function. Indeed, this is an interesting
question related to the content of Conjecture~\ref{conjecture:spectral} that
we will state shortly.
Our discussion above applied to $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential
privacy under changing a single entry of the matrix. Several works
consider other variants of differential privacy. It is generally easy
to adapt the power method to these settings by changing the noise
distribution or its scaling. To illustrate this aspect, we consider
the problem of privacy-preserving principal component analysis as
recently studied by~\cite{ChaudhuriSS12,KapralovT13}. Both works
consider an algorithm called \emph{exponential mechanism}. The first
work gives a heuristic implementation that may not converge, while the
second work gives a provably polynomial time algorithm though the
running time is more than cubic. Our algorithm gives strong
improvements in running time while giving nearly optimal accuracy
guarantees as it matches a lower bound of \cite{KapralovT13} up to a $\tilde
O(\sqrt{k})$ factor. We also improve the error dependence on~$k$ by
polynomial factors compared to previous work. Moreover, we get an
accuracy improvement of $O(\sqrt{d})$ for the case of $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential
privacy, while these previous works only apply to $(\epsilon,0)$-differential
privacy. \sectionref{PCA} provides formal statements.
\subsection{Related Work}
\paragraph{Numerical Analysis.}
One might expect that a suitable analysis of the noisy power method would have
appeared in the numerical analysis literature. However, we are not aware of a
reference and there are a number of points to consider. First, our noise model
is adaptive thus setting it apart from the classical perturbation theory of
the singular vector decomposition~\cite{DavisK70}. Second, we think of the
perturbation at each step as large making it conceptually different from
floating point errors. Third, research in numerical analysis over the past
decades has largely focused on faster Krylov subspace methods. There is some
theory of \emph{inexact Krylov methods}, e.g., \cite{SimonciniS07} that
captures the effect of noisy matrix-vector products in this context. Related
to our work are also results on the perturbation stability of the
QR-factorization since those could be used to obtain convergence bounds for
subspace iteration. Such bounds, however, must depend on the condition number
of the matrix that the QR-factorization is applied to. See Chapter~19.9
in~\cite{Higham} and the references therein for background. Our proof strategy
avoids this particular dependence on the condition number.
\paragraph{Streaming PCA.}
PCA in the streaming model is related to a host of well-studied
problems that we cannot survey completely here. We refer
to~\cite{ACLS12,MCJ13} for a thorough discussion of prior work. Not
mentioned therein is a recent work on incremental PCA~\cite{BDF13}
that leads to space efficient algorithms computing the top singular
vector; however, it's not clear how to extend their results to
computing multiple singular vectors.
\paragraph{Privacy.}
There has been much work on differentially private spectral analysis starting
with Blum et al.~\cite{BlumDMN05} who used an algorithm sometimes called
\emph{Randomized Response}, which adds a single noise matrix $N$ either to the
input matrix~$A$ or the covariance matrix $AA^\top.$ This approach was used
by McSherry and Mironov~\cite{McSherryM09} for the purpose of a differentially
private recommender system. Most recently, as discussed earlier, Dwork,
Talwar, Thakurta and Zhang~\cite{DworkTTZ14} revisit (a variant of) the this
algorithm and give matching upper and lower bounds under a natural objective function.
While often suitable when $AA^\top$ fits into memory,
the approach can be difficult to apply when the dimension of $AA^\top$
is huge as it requires computing a dense noise matrix~$N.$ The power method
can be applied more easily to large sparse matrices, as well as in a streaming
setting as shown by~\cite{MCJ13}.
Chaudhuri et al.~\cite{ChaudhuriSS12} and Kapralov-Talwar~\cite{KapralovT13}
use the so-called \emph{exponential mechanism} to sample approximate
eigenvectors of the matrix. The sampling is done using a heuristic approach
without convergence polynomial time convergence guarantees in the first case
and using a polynomial time algorithm in the second. Both papers achieve a
tight dependence on the matrix dimension~$d$ (though the dependence on~$k$ is
suboptimal in general). Most closely related to our work are the results of
Hardt and Roth~\cite{HardtR13,HardtR12} that introduced matrix coherence as a
way to circumvent existing worst-case lower bounds on the error. They also
analyzed a natural noisy variant of power iteration for the case of computing
the dominant eigenvector of $A.$ When multiple eigenvectors are needed, their
algorithm uses the well-known deflation technique. However, this step loses
control of the coherence of the original matrix and hence results in
suboptimal bounds. In fact, a $\sqrt{\mathrm{rank}(A)}$ factor is lost.
\subsection{Open Questions}
We believe \corollaryref{random} to be a fairly precise
characterization of the convergence of the noisy power method to the
top $k$ singular vectors when $p = k$. The main flaw is that the
noise tolerance depends on the eigengap $\sigma_{k} - \sigma_{k+1}$,
which could be very small. We have some conjectures for results that
do not depend on this eigengap.
First, when $p > k$, we think that \corollaryref{random} might hold
using the gap $\sigma_{k} - \sigma_{p+1}$ instead of $\sigma_{k} -
\sigma_{k+1}$. Unfortunately, our proof technique relies on the
principal angle decreasing at each step, which does not necessarily
hold with the larger level of noise. Nevertheless we expect the
principal angle to decrease fairly fast on average, so that $X_L$ will
contain a subspace very close to $U$. We are actually unaware of this
sort of result even in the noiseless setting.
\begin{conjecture}
Let $X_0$ be a random $p$-dimensional basis for $p > k$. Suppose at
every step we have
\[
100\norm{G_\ell} \leq \epsilon (\sigma_k - \sigma_{p+1}) \quad\text{and}\quad 100\norm{U^TG_\ell} \leq \frac{\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1}}{\sqrt{d}}
\]
Then with high probability, after $L = O(\frac{\sigma_k}{\sigma_k -
\sigma_{p+1}}\log (d/\epsilon))$ iterations we have
\[
\norm{(I - X_LX_L^\top)U} \leq \epsilon.
\]
\end{conjecture}
The second way of dealing with a small eigengap would be to relax our
goal. \corollaryref{random} is quite stringent in that it requires
$X_L$ to approximate the top $k$ singular vectors $U$, which gets
harder when the eigengap approaches zero and the $k$th through $p+1$st
singular vectors are nearly indistinguishable. A relaxed goal would
be for $X_L$ to spectrally approximate $A$, that is
\begin{align}\label{eq:Aapprox}
\norm{(I - X_LX_L^\top)A} \leq \sigma_{k+1} + \epsilon.
\end{align}
This weaker goal is known to be achievable in the noiseless setting
without any eigengap at all. In particular,~\cite{HalkoMT11} shows
that~\eqref{eq:Aapprox} happens after $L = O(\frac{\sigma_{k+1}}{\epsilon}\log
n)$ steps in the noiseless setting. A plausible extension to the
noisy setting would be:
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conjecture:spectral}
Let $X_0$ be a random $2k$-dimensional basis. Suppose at every step
we have
\[
\norm{G_\ell} \leq \epsilon \quad\text{and}\quad \norm{U^TG_\ell} \leq \epsilon \sqrt{k/d}
\]
Then with high probability, after $L = O(\frac{\sigma_{k+1}}{\epsilon}\log
d)$ iterations we have that
\[
\norm{(I - X_LX_L^\top)A} \leq \sigma_{k+1} + O(\epsilon).
\]
\end{conjecture}
\section{Convergence of the noisy power method}
\sectionlabel{robust}
\figureref{NPM} presents our basic algorithm that we analyze
in this section. An important tool in our analysis are principal
angles, which are useful in analyzing the convergence behavior of
numerical eigenvalue methods. Roughly speaking, we will show that the
tangent of the $k$-th principal angle between $X$ and the top $k$
eigenvectors of $A$ decreases as $\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_k$ in each
iteration of the noisy power method.
\begin{definition}[Principal angles]
Let $\cal X$ and $\cal Y$ be subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^d$ of dimension at
least $k$. The \emph{principal angles} $0 \leq \theta_1 \leq \dotsb
\leq \theta_k$ between $\cal X$ and $\cal Y$ and associated
\emph{principal vectors} $x_1, \dotsc, x_k$ and $y_1, \dotsc, y_k$
are defined recursively via
\[
\theta_i({\cal X}, {\cal Y}) = \min \left\{\arccos \left( \frac{\langle x, y\rangle}{\norm{x}_2\norm{y}_2} \right) \,:\,
x \in {\cal X}, y \in {\cal Y},
x \perp x_j, y \perp y_j \text{ for all } j < i \right\}
\]
and $x_i, y_i$ are the $x$ and $y$ that give this value.
For matrices $X$ and $Y$, we use $\theta_k(X, Y)$ to denote the
$k$th principal angle between their ranges.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Convergence argument}
We will make use of a non-recursive expression for the principal
angles, defined in terms of the set ${\cal P}_k$ of $p \times p$ projection
matrices $\Pi$ from $p$ dimensions to $k$ dimensional subspaces:
\begin{claim}
Let $U \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times k}$ have orthonormal columns and $X \in
\mathbb{R}^{d \times p}$ have independent columns, for $p \geq k$. Then
\[
\cos \theta_k(U, X)
= \max_{\Pi \in {\cal P}_k} \min_{\substack{x \in
\range(X\Pi)\\\norm{x}_2 = 1}} \norm{U^\top x}
= \max_{\Pi \in {\cal P}_k} \min_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi w = w}} \frac{\norm{U^\top X w}}{\norm{Xw}}.
\]
For $V = U^\perp$, we have
\[
\tan \theta_k(U, X) = \min_{\Pi \in {\cal P}_k} \max_{x \in
\range(X\Pi)} \frac{\norm{V^\top x}}{\norm{U^\top x}}
= \min_{\Pi \in {\cal P}_k} \max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi w = w}} \frac{\norm{V^\top X w}}{\norm{U^\top X w}}.
\]
\end{claim}
Fix parameters $1\le k\le p\le d.$ In this section we consider a
symmetric $d\times d$ matrix $A$ with singular values $\sigma_1 \geq
\sigma_2 \geq \dotsb \geq \sigma_d$. We let $U \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times k}$
contain the first $k$ eigenvectors of $A$. Our main lemma shows that
$\tan \theta_k(U, X)$ decreases multiplicatively in each step.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:decrease}
\lemmalabel{decrease}
Let $U$ contain the largest $k$ eigenvectors of a symmetric matrix
$A \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, and let $X \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times p}$ with $X^trans
X=\mathrm{Id}$ for some $p \geq k$. Let $G \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times p}$ satisfy
\begin{align*}
4 \norm{U^\top G} &\leq (\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}) \cos \theta_k(U, X)\\
4 \norm{G} &\leq (\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}) \epsilon.
\end{align*}
for some $\epsilon < 1$. Then
\[
\tan \theta_k(U, AX + G) \leq \max\left(\epsilon, \max\left(\epsilon, \left(\frac{\sigma_{k+1}}{\sigma_k}\right)^{1/4}\right)\tan \theta_k(U, X)\right).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Pi^*$ be the matrix projecting onto the smallest $k$
principal angles of $X$, so that
\[
\tan \theta_k(U, X) = \max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi^* w = w}} \frac{\norm{V^\top Xw}}{\norm{U^\top Xw}}.
\]
We have that
\begin{align}
\tan \theta_k(U, AX+G) &= \min_{\Pi \in {\cal P}_k} \max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi w = w}} \frac{\norm{V^\top (AX+G)w}}{\norm{U^\top (AX+G)w}}\notag\\
&\leq \max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi^* w = w}} \frac{\norm{V^\top AXw} + \norm{V^\top Gw}}{\norm{U^\top AXw} - \norm{U^\top Gw}}\notag\\
&\leq \max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi^* w = w}} \frac{1}{\norm{U^\top Xw}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{k+1}\norm{V^\top Xw} + \norm{V^\top Gw}}{\sigma_k - \norm{U^\top Gw}/\norm{U^\top Xw}}\label{eq:3}
\end{align}
Define $\Delta = (\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}) / 4$. By the assumption
on $G$,
\[
\max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi^* w = w}} \frac{\norm{U^\top Gw}}{\norm{U^\top Xw}} \leq \norm{U^\top G} / \cos \theta_k(U, X) \leq (\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}) / 4 = \Delta.
\]
Similarly, and using that $1/\cos \theta \leq 1 + \tan \theta$ for
any angle $\theta$,
\[
\max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi^* w = w}} \frac{\norm{V^\top Gw}}{\norm{U^\top Xw}} \leq \norm{G} / \cos \theta_k(U, X) \leq \epsilon \Delta (1 + \tan \theta_k(U, X)).
\]
Plugging back into~\eqref{eq:3} and using $\sigma_k = \sigma_{k+1} + 4\Delta$,
\begin{align*}
\tan \theta_k(U, AX+G) &\leq
\max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi^* w = w}} \frac{\norm{V^\top Xw}}{\norm{U^\top Xw}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{k+1} }{\sigma_{k+1} + 3 \Delta} + \frac{\epsilon \Delta (1 + \tan \theta_k(U, X))}{\sigma_{k+1}+3\Delta}.\\
& = \frac{\sigma_{k+1} + \epsilon \Delta}{\sigma_{k+1} + 3\Delta} \tan \theta_k(U, X) + \frac{\epsilon \Delta}{\sigma_{k+1} + 3 \Delta}\\
& = (1 - \frac{\Delta}{\sigma_{k+1} + 3\Delta}) \frac{\sigma_{k+1} + \epsilon \Delta}{\sigma_{k+1} + 2\Delta} \tan \theta_k(U, X) + \frac{\Delta}{\sigma_{k+1} + 3 \Delta} \epsilon\\
&\leq \max(\epsilon, \frac{\sigma_{k+1} + \epsilon \Delta}{\sigma_{k+1} + 2\Delta} \tan \theta_k(U, X))
\end{align*}
where the last inequality uses that the weighted mean of two terms
is less than their maximum. Finally, we have that
\[
\frac{\sigma_{k+1} + \epsilon \Delta}{\sigma_{k+1} + 2\Delta} \leq \max ( \frac{\sigma_{k+1}}{\sigma_{k+1} + \Delta}, \epsilon)
\]
because the left hand side is a weighted mean of the components on
the right. Since $\frac{\sigma_{k+1}}{\sigma_{k+1} + \Delta} \leq
(\frac{\sigma_{k+1}}{\sigma_{k+1} + 4\Delta} )^{1/4} =
(\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_k)^{1/4}$, this gives the result.
\end{proof}
We can inductively apply the previous lemma to get the following general
convergence result.
\begin{theorem}
\theoremlabel{convergence} Let $U$ represent the top $k$
eigenvectors of the matrix $A$ and $\gamma = 1 -
\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_k$. Suppose that the initial subspace $X_0$ and
noise $G_\ell$ is such that
\begin{align*}
5\norm{U^\top G_\ell} &\leq (\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}) \cos \theta_k(U, X_0)\\
5\norm{G_\ell} &\leq \epsilon (\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1})
\end{align*}
at every stage $\ell$, for some $\epsilon < 1/2$. Then there exists an
$L \lesssim \frac{1}{\gamma}\log\left(\frac{\tan \theta_k(U,
X_0)}{\epsilon}\right)$
such that for all $\ell \geq L$ we have $\tan \theta(U, X_L) \leq
\epsilon$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \theoremref{convergence}]
We will see that at every stage $\ell$ of the algorithm,
\[
\tan \theta_k(U, X_\ell) \leq \max(\epsilon, \tan \theta_k(U, X_0))
\]
which implies for $\epsilon \leq 1/2$ that
\[
\cos \theta_k(U, X_\ell) \geq \min(1 - \epsilon^2/2, \cos \theta_k(U, X_0)) \geq \frac{7}{8}\cos \theta_k(U, X_0)
\]
so Lemma~\ref{l:decrease} applies at every stage. This means that
\[
\tan \theta_k(U, X_{\ell+1}) = \tan \theta_k(U, AX_{\ell} + G) \leq \max(\epsilon,
\delta \tan \theta_k(U, X_{\ell}))
\]
for $\delta = \max(\epsilon, (\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_k)^{1/4})$. After
\[
L = \log_{1/\delta} \frac{\tan \theta_k(U, X_0)}{\epsilon}
\]
iterations the tangent will reach $\epsilon$ and remain there.
Observing that
\[
\log (1/\delta) \gtrsim \min(\log (1/\epsilon), \log
(\sigma_k/\sigma_{k+1})) \geq \min(1, \log \frac{1}{1 - \gamma}) \geq \min(1, \gamma) = \gamma
\]
gives the result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Random initialization}
The next lemma essentially follows from bounds on the smallest singular value
of gaussian random matrices~\cite{RV09}.
\begin{lemma}\label{c:randomsubspace}
\lemmalabel{randomsubspace}
For an arbitrary orthonormal $U$ and random subspace
$X$, we have
\[
\tan \theta_k(U, X) \leq \tau \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1}}
\]
with all but $\tau^{-\Omega(p + 1 - k)} + e^{-\Omega(d)}$ probability.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the singular value decomposition $U^\top X = A \Sigma B^\top $ of
$U^\top X$. Setting $\Pi$ to be matrix projecting onto the first $k$
columns of $B$, we have that
\[
\tan \theta_k(U, X) \leq \max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi w = w}} \frac{\norm{V^\top Xw}}{\norm{U^\top Xw}} \leq \norm{V^\top X} \max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\Pi w = w}} \frac{1}{\norm{\Sigma B^\top w}} = \norm{V^\top X} \max_{\substack{\norm{w}_2 = 1\\\mathrm{supp}(w) \in [k]}} \frac{1}{\norm{\Sigma w}} = \frac{\norm{V^\top X}}{\sigma_k(U^\top X)}.
\]
Let $X \sim N(0, I_{d \times p})$ represent the random subspace.
Then $Y := U^\top X \sim N(0, I_{k \times p})$. By~\cite{RV09},
for any $\epsilon$, the smallest singular value of $Y$ is at least
$(\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1})/\tau$ with all but $\tau^{-\Omega(p + 1 -
k)} + e^{-\Omega(p)}$ probability. On the other hand, $\norm{X}
\lesssim \sqrt{d}$ with all but $e^{-\Omega(d)}$ probability.
Hence
\[
\tan \theta_k(U, X) \lesssim \tau \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1}}
\]
with the desired probability. Rescaling $\tau$ gets the result.
\end{proof}
With this lemma we can prove the corollary that we stated in the introduction.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \corollaryref{random}]
By Claim~\ref{c:randomsubspace}, with the desired probability we
have $ \tan \theta_k(U, X_0) \leq \frac{\tau \sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{p} -
\sqrt{k-1}}. $ Hence $\cos \theta_k(U, X_0) \geq 1/(1 + \tan
\theta_k(U, X_0)) \geq \frac{\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1}}{2 \cdot \tau
\sqrt{d}}$. Rescale $\tau$ and apply
Theorem~\ref{thm:convergence} to get that $\tan \theta_k(U, X_L)
\leq \epsilon$. Then
$\norm{(I - X_L X_L^\top)U} = \sin \theta_k(U, X_L) \leq \tan \theta_k(U, X_L)
\leq \epsilon.$
\end{proof}
\section{Memory efficient streaming PCA}
\sectionlabel{streaming}
In the streaming PCA setting we receive a stream of samples
$z_1,z_2,\dots\in\mathbb{R}^d.$ Each sample is drawn i.i.d.~from an unknown
distribution~${\cal D}$ over $\mathbb{R}^d.$ Our goal is to compute the dominant
$k$ eigenvectors of the covariance matrix $A=\E_{z\sim{\cal D}} zz^\top.$
The challenge is to do this with small space, so we cannot store the
$d^2$ entries of the sample covariance matrix. We would like to use
$O(dk)$ space, which is necessary even to store the output.
The streaming power method~(Figure~\ref{fig:SPM}, introduced
by~\cite{MCJ13}) is a natural algorithm that performs streaming PCA
with $O(dk)$ space. The question that arises is how many samples it
requires to achieve a given level of accuracy, for various
distributions ${\cal D}$. Using our general analysis of the noisy power
method, we show that the streaming power method requires fewer samples
and applies to more distributions than was previously known.
We analyze a broad class of distributions:
\begin{definition}
A distribution ${\cal D}$ over $\mathbb{R}^d$ is \emph{$(B,p)$-round} if for every
$p$-dimensional projection $P$ and all $t\ge 1$ we have
$\Pr_{z\sim{\cal D}}\Set{\|z\|>t}\le\exp(-t)$ and $\Pr_{z\sim{\cal D}}\Set{\|Pz\| >
t\cdot \sqrt{Bp/d}}\le
\exp(-t)\,.$
\end{definition}
The first condition just corresponds to a normalization of the samples
drawn from~${\cal D}.$ Assuming the first condition holds, the second
condition always holds with $B=d/p.$ For this reason our analysis in
principle applies to any distribution, but the sample complexity will
depend quadratically on $B$.
Let us illustrate this definition through the example of the spiked
covariance model studied by~\cite{MCJ13}. The spiked covariance model
is defined by an orthonormal basis $U\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$ and a diagonal
matrix $\Lambda\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times k}$ with diagonal entries
$\lambda_1\ge\lambda_2\ge\cdots\ge\lambda_k>0.$ The distribution
${\cal D}(U,\Lambda)$ is defined as the normal distribution
$\mathrm{N}(0,(U\Lambda^2 U^\top + \sigma^2\mathrm{Id}_{d\times
d})/D)$ where $D=\Theta(d\sigma^2+\sum_i\lambda_i^2)$ is a
normalization factor chosen so that the distribution satisfies the
norm bound. Note that the the $i$-th eigenvalue of the covariance
matrix is $\sigma_i=(\lambda_i^2+\sigma^2)/D$ for $1\le i\le k$ and
$\sigma_i=\sigma^2/D$ for $i>k.$ We show in \lemmaref{spiked-round}
that the spiked covariance model ${\cal D}(U,\Lambda)$ is indeed
$(B,p)$-round for $B=O(\frac{\lambda_1^2+\sigma^2}{\mathrm{tr}(\Lambda)/d +
\sigma^2})$, which is constant for $\sigma \gtrsim \lambda_1$.
We have the following main theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:streamingpca}
Let ${\cal D}$ be a $(B,p)$-round distribution over~$\mathbb{R}^d$ with
covariance matrix~$A$ whose eigenvalues are
$\sigma_1\ge\sigma_2\ge\cdots\ge\sigma_d\ge0.$ Let $U\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times
k}$ be an orthonormal basis for the eigenvectors corresponding to
the first $k$ eigenvalues of $A.$ Then, the streaming power method
{\sc SPM}\xspace returns an orthonormal basis $X\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times p}$ such that
$\tan\theta(U,X)\le\epsilon$ with probability $9/10$ provided that
{\sc SPM}\xspace receives $n$ samples from~${\cal D}$ for some $n$ satisfying
\[
n \le \tilde O\left( \frac{B^2\sigma_k k\log^2 d}
{\epsilon^2(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})^3d}\right)
\]
if $p = k + \Theta(k)$. More generally, for all $p \geq k$ one can
get the slightly stronger result
\[
n \le \tilde O\left( \frac{Bp\sigma_k\max\{1/\epsilon^2,Bp/(\sqrt{p}-\sqrt{k-1})^2\}\log^2 d}
{(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})^3d}\right)\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
Instantiating with the spiked covariance model gives the following:
\begin{corollary}\corollarylabel{spiked}
In the spiked covariance model ${\cal D}(U,\Lambda)$
the conclusion of \theoremref{streamingpca} holds
for $p = 2k$ with
\[
n=\tilde O\left(
\frac{(\lambda_1^2+\sigma^2)^2(\lambda_k^2+\sigma^2)}
{\epsilon^2\lambda_k^6} dk
\right)\,.
\]
\end{corollary}
When $\lambda_1=O(1)$ and $\lambda_k=\Omega(1)$ this becomes
$n = \tilde O\left(\frac{\sigma^6 + 1}{\epsilon^2}\cdot dk\right)\,.$
We can apply \theoremref{streamingpca} to all distributions that have
exponentially concentrated norm by setting $B = d/p$. This gives the
following result.
\begin{corollary}\corollarylabel{spiked}
Let ${\cal D}$ be any distribution scaled such that $\Pr_{z \sim
{\cal D}}[\norm{z} > t] \leq \exp(-t)$ for all $t \geq 1$. Then the
conclusion of \theoremref{streamingpca} holds for $p=2k$ with
\[
n=\tilde O\left( \frac{\sigma_k}{\epsilon^2 k(\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1})^3} \cdot
d\right)\,.
\]
\end{corollary}
If the eigenvalues follow a power law, $\sigma_j \approx j^{-c}$ for a
constant $c > 1/2$, this gives an $n = \tilde O(k^{2c+2}d/\epsilon^2)$
bound on the sample complexity.
\subsection{Error term analysis}
Fix an orthonormal basis $X\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}.$ Let $z_1,\dots,z_n\sim{\cal D}$ be
samples from a distribution~${\cal D}$ with covariance matrix $A$ and consider the matrix
\[
G = \left(A - \hat A \right)X\,,
\]
where $\hat A = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n z_i z_i^\top$ is the empirical covariance
matrix on $n$ samples. Then, we have that
$\hat A X = AX + G.$
In other words, one update step of the power method executed on $\hat A$ can
be expressed as an update step on $A$ with noise matrix~$G.$ This simple
observation allows us to apply our analysis of the noisy power method to this
setting after obtaining suitable bounds on $\|G\|$ and $\|U^\top G\|.$
\begin{lemma}\lemmalabel{streaming-error}
Let ${\cal D}$ be a $(B,p)$-round distribution with covariance
matrix~$M$. Then with all but $O(1/n^2)$ probability,
\[
\norm{G} \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{Bp \log^4n \log d}{d n}} + \frac{1}{n^2}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\norm{U^\top G} \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{B^2p^2 \log^4n \log d}{d^2 n}} + \frac{1}{n^2}
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will use a matrix Chernoff bound to show that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Pr\Set{\|G\| > C t\log(n)^2\sqrt{Bp/d}+O(1/n^2)}\le d\exp(-t^2 n) + 1/n^2$
\item $\Pr\Set{\|U^\top G\| > C t\log(n)^2 Bp/d + O(1/n^2)}\le d\exp(-t^2 n) + 1/n^2$
\end{enumerate}
setting $t = \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}\log d}$ gives the result. However,
matrix Chernoff inequality requires the distribution to satisfy a norm
bound with probability~$1.$ We will therefore create a closely related
distribution~$\tilde{\cal D}$ that satisfies such a norm constraint and is
statistically indistinguishable up to small error on~$n$ samples. We
can then work with $\tilde{\cal D}$ instead of ${\cal D}.$ This truncation step
is standard and works because of the concentration properties
of~${\cal D}.$
Indeed, let $\tilde {\cal D}$ be the distribution obtained from ${\cal D}$ be replacing
a sample $z$ with $0$ if
\[
\|z\|> C\log(n)\quad\text{ or }\quad\|U^\top z\|
\ge C\log(n)\sqrt{Bp/d}\quad\text{ or }\quad\|z^\top X\|>
C\log(n)\sqrt{Bp/d}\,.
\]
For sufficiently large constant $C,$ it follows from the definition of $(B,p)$-round that
the probability that one or more of $n$ samples from ${\cal D}$ get zeroed out is
at most $1/n^2.$ In particular, the two product distributions ${\cal D}^{(n)}$ and
$\tilde {\cal D}^{(n)}$ have total variation distance at most $1/n^2.$
Furthermore, we claim that the covariance matrices of the two distributions
are at most $O(1/n^2)$ apart in spectral norm.
Formally,
\[
\Norm{\E_{z\sim{\cal D}}zz^\top -\E_{\tilde z\sim\tilde{\cal D}}\tilde z\tilde
z^\top} \le \frac1{n^2}\cdot O\left(\int_{t\ge1}
C^2t^2\log^2(n)\exp(-t)\mathrm{d}t \right)
\le O(1/n^2)
\,.
\]
In the first inequality we use the fact that $z$ only gets zeroed out
with probability $1/n^2.$ Conditional on this event, the norm of $z$
is larger than $tC\log(n)$ with probability at most
$n^2\exp(-\frac{1}{2}tC\log n) \leq \exp(-t).$ Assuming the norm is at
most $tC\log(n)$ we have $\Norm{zz^\top}\le t^2C^2\log^2(n)$ and
this bounds the contribution to the spectral norm of the difference.
Now let $\tilde G$ be the error matrix defined as $G$ except that we replace
the samples $z_1,\dots,z_n$ by $n$ samples~$\tilde z_1,\dots,\tilde z_n$ from
the truncated distribution~$\tilde{\cal D}.$
By our preceding discussion, it now suffices to show that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Pr\Set{\|\tilde G\| > C t\log^2(n)\sqrt{Bp/d}}\le d\exp(-t^2 n)$
\item $\Pr\Set{\|U^\top \tilde G\| > C t\log^2(n) Bp/d}\le d\exp(-t^2 n)$
\end{enumerate}
To see this, let $S_i = \tilde z_i\tilde z_i^\top X.$ We have
\[
\Norm{S_i} \le \|\tilde z_i\|\cdot\Norm{\tilde z_i^\top X} \le
C^2\log^2(n)\cdot\sqrt{Bp/d}
\]
Similarly,
\[
\Norm{U^\top S_i} \le \|U^\top \tilde z_i\|\cdot\Norm{\tilde z_i^\top X} \le
C^2\log^2(n)\cdot \frac{Bp}{d}\,.
\]
The claims now follow directly from the matrix Chernoff bound
stated in~\lemmaref{matrixb2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of \theoremref{streamingpca}}
Given \lemmaref{streaming-error} we will choose $n$ such that the
error term in each iteration satisfies the assumptions of
\theoremref{convergence}. Let $G_\ell$ denote the instance of the
error term~$G$ arising in the $\ell$-th iteration of the algorithm. We
can find an $n$ satisfying
\[
\frac{n}{\log(n)^4} =
O\left(\frac{Bp\max\Set{1/\epsilon^2,Bp/(\sqrt{p}-\sqrt{k-1})^2}\log d}{(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})^2d}\right)
\]
such that by \lemmaref{streaming-error} we have that with probability
$1-O(1/n^2),$
\[
\|G_\ell\|\le\frac{\epsilon(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})}{5}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\|U^\top G_\ell\|\le \frac{\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1}}{5} \frac{\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1}}{\sqrt{d}}\,.
\]
Here we used that by definition $1/n \ll \epsilon$ and $1/n \ll
\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1}$ and so the $1/n^2$ term in \lemmaref{streaming-error}
is of lower order.
With this bound, it follows from \theoremref{convergence} that after
$L=O(\log(d/\epsilon)/(1-\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_k))$ iterations we have
with probability $1-\max\{1,L/n^2\}$ that
$\tan\theta(U,X_L)\le\epsilon.$ The over all sample complexity is therefore
\[
Ln =
\tilde O\left(\frac{Bp\sigma_k\max\Set{1/\epsilon^2,Bp/(\sqrt{p}-\sqrt{k-1})^2}\log^2 d}{(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})^3d}\right)
\,.
\]
Here we used that $1-\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_k =
(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})/\sigma_k.$ This concludes the proof of
\theoremref{streamingpca}.
\subsection{Proof of \lemmaref{spiked-round} and \corollaryref{spiked}}
\begin{lemma}\lemmalabel{spiked-round}
The spiked covariance model ${\cal D}(U,\Lambda)$ is $(B,k)$-round for
$B=O(\frac{\lambda_1^2+\sigma^2}{\mathrm{tr}(\Lambda)/d + \sigma^2}).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that an example $z\sim{\cal D}(U,\Lambda)$ is distributed as $U\Lambda g + g'$
where $g\sim \mathrm{N}(0,1/D)^k$ is a standard gaussian and $g'\sim
\mathrm{N}(0,\sigma^2/D)^d.$ is a noise term. Recall, that $D$ is the
normalization term. Let $P$ be any projection operator onto a $k$-dimensional
space. Then,
\[
\|Pz\| = \|PU\Lambda g + Pg'\|
\le \|PU\Lambda g\| + \|Pg'\|
\le \|\Lambda g\| + \|Pg'\|
\le \lambda_1\|g\| + \|Pg'\|
\,.
\]
By rotational invariance of $g'$, we may assume that $P$ is the projection
onto the first $k$ coordinates. Hence, $\|Pg'\|$ is distributed like the norm
of $\mathrm{N}(0,\sigma^2/D)^k.$
Using standard tail bounds for the norm of a gaussian random variables, we can see that
$\|Pz\|^2= O(t(k\lambda_1^2 + k\sigma^2)/D)$ with
probability $1-\exp(-t).$ On the other hand,
$D = \Theta(\sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_i^2 + d\sigma^2).$ We can now solve for $B$
by setting
\[
\Theta(\frac{k\lambda_1^2 + k\sigma^2}{\sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_i^2+d\sigma^2})
= \frac{Bk}{d}
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
B = \Theta(\frac{\lambda_1^2 + \sigma^2}{\frac{1}{d}\sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_i^2+\sigma^2})
\,.
\]
\end{proof}
\corollaryref{spiked} follows by plugging in the bound on $B$ and the
eigenvalues of the covariance matrix into our main theorem.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \corollaryref{spiked}]
In the spiked covariance model ${\cal D}(U,\Lambda)$ we have
\[
B = \frac{\lambda_1^2 + \sigma^2}{D}\,,
\quad \sigma_k = \frac{\lambda_k^2 + \sigma^2}{D}\,,
\quad \sigma_{k+1} = \frac{\sigma^2}D\,,
\quad D = O(\mathrm{tr}(\Lambda^2)+d\sigma^2)\,.
\]
Hence,
\[
\frac{B^2\sigma_k}
{(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})^3 d}
= \frac{(\lambda_1^2+\sigma^2)^2(\lambda_k^2 + \sigma^2)}{\lambda_k^6d}
\le \frac{(\lambda_1^2+\sigma^2)^3}{\lambda_k^6d}
\]
Plugging this bound into \theoremref{streamingpca} gives
\corollaryref{spiked}.
\end{proof}
\section{Privacy-preserving singular vector computation}
\sectionlabel{privacy}
In this section we prove our results about privacy-preserving singular vector
computation. We begin with a standard definition of differential privacy,
sometimes referred to as \emph{entry-level differential privacy}, as it
hides the presence or absence of a single entry.
\begin{definition}[Differential Privacy]
\definitionlabel{dp}
A randomized algorithm $M\colon\mathbb{R}^{d\times d'}\rightarrow R$ (where $R$ is some
arbitrary abstract range) is \emph{$(\epsilon,\delta)$-differentially private}
if for all pairs of matrices $A, A' \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d'}$ differing in
only one entry by at most $1$ in absolute value, we have that for all subsets of
the range $S \subseteq R,$ the algorithm satisfies:
$\Pr\Set{M(A) \in S} \leq
\exp(\epsilon)\Pr\Set{M(A') \in S} + \delta\,.$
\end{definition}
The definition is most meaningful when $A$ has entries in $[0,1]$ so that the
above definition allows for a single entry to change arbitrarily within this
range. However, this is not a requirement for us.
The privacy guarantee can be strengthened by decreasing $\epsilon>0.$
For our choice of $\sigma$ in \figureref{PPM} the algorithm satisfies
$(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy as follows easily
from properties of the Gaussian distribution. See, for example,~\cite{HardtR13} for a proof.
\begin{claim}
{\sc PPM}\xspace satisfies $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy.
\end{claim}
It is straightforward to prove \theoremref{privacy-main} by invoking our
convergence analysis of the noisy power method together with suitable error
bounds. The error bounds are readily available as the noise term is just
gaussian.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \theoremref{privacy-main}]
Let $m = \max\|X_\ell\|_\infty.$ By~\lemmaref{gaussian-projection}
the following bounds hold with probability $99/100$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\max_{\ell=1}^L\|G_\ell\| \lesssim \sigma m \sqrt{d \log L}$
\item $\max_{\ell=1}^L\|U^\top G_\ell\| \lesssim \sigma m \sqrt{k\log L}$
\end{enumerate}
Let
\[
\epsilon' = \frac{\sigma m \sqrt{d \log L}}{\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}}\gtrsim \frac{5\max_{\ell=1}^L\|G_\ell\|}{\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}}.
\]
By \corollaryref{random}, if we also have that
$\max_{\ell=1}^L\|U^\top G_\ell\| \leq (\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1})
\frac{\sqrt{p}-\sqrt{k-1}}{\tau \sqrt{d}}$ for a sufficiently large
constant $\tau$, then we will have that
\[
\norm{(I-X_LX_L^\top)U} \leq \epsilon'
\leq \frac{\sigma m \sqrt{d \log L}}{\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}}
\]
after the desired number of iterations, giving the theorem.
Otherwise,
\[
(\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1})\frac{\sqrt{p}-\sqrt{k-1}}{\tau\sqrt{d}} \leq
\max_{\ell=1}^L\|U^\top G_\ell\| \lesssim \epsilon' (\sigma_k -
\sigma_{k+1})\sqrt{k/d},
\]
so it is trivially true that
\[
\frac{\sigma m \sqrt{d \log L}}{\sigma_k - \sigma_{k+1}} \frac{\sqrt{p}}{\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1}} \geq \epsilon' \frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{k-1}} \gtrsim 1 \geq \norm{(I-X_LX_L^\top)U}.
\]
\end{proof}
\subsection{Low-rank approximation}
Our results readily imply that we can compute accurate differentially private
low-rank approximations. The main observation is that, assuming $X_L$ and $U$
have the same dimension, $\tan\theta(U,X_L)\le\alpha$ implies that the matrix $X_L$
also leads to a good
low-rank approximation for $A$ in the spectral norm. In particular
\begin{equation}\equationlabel{low-rank}
\|(I-X_LX_L^\top)A\|\le \sigma_{k+1} + \alpha\sigma_1\,.
\end{equation}
Moreover the projection step of computing $X_LX_L^\top A$ can be carried out
easily in a privacy-preserving manner. It is again the $\ell_\infty$-norm of
the columns of $X_L$ that determine the magnitude of noise that is needed.
Since $A$ is symmetric, we have $X^\top A=(AX)^\top.$ Hence, to obtain a
good low-rank approximation it suffices to compute the product $AX_L$
privately as $AX_L + G_L.$ This leads to the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\corollarylabel{privacy-lowrank}
Let $A\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ be a symmetric matrix with singular values
$\sigma_1\ge\dots\ge\sigma_d$ and let $\gamma=1-\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_{k}.$
There is an $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differentially private
algorithm that given $A$ and $k,$ outputs a rank $2k$ matrix $B$ such that with
probability $9/10,$
\[
\|A-B\| \le \sigma_{k+1}
+
\tilde O\left(
\frac{\sigma_1\sqrt{(k/\gamma)d\log
d\log(1/\delta)}}{\epsilon(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})}
\right)\,.
\]
The $\tilde O$-notation hides the factor
$O\big(\sqrt{\log(\log(d)/\gamma)}\big).$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Apply \theoremref{privacy-main} with $p=2k$ and run the algorithm for $L+1$
steps with $L=O(\gamma^{-1}\log d).$ This gives the bound
\[
\alpha = \norm{(I - X_LX_L^\top)A} \le O\left(\frac{\sqrt{(k/\gamma)d\log
d\log(\log(d)/\gamma)\log(1/\delta)}}{\epsilon(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})}\right)\,.
\]
Moreover, the algorithm has computed $Y_{L+1} = AX_L+G_L$ and we have
$B = X_LY_{L+1}^\top = X_LX_L^\top A +X_LG_L^\top.$ Therefore
\[
\Norm{A-B} \le \sigma_{k+1} + \alpha\sigma_1 + \Norm{X_LG_L^\top}
\]
where $\Norm{X_LG_L^\top}\le\Norm{G_L}.$
By definition of the algorithm and \lemmaref{gaussian-projection}, we have
\[
\Norm{G_L}
\le O\left(\sqrt{\sigma^2d}\right)
= O\left(\frac1{\epsilon}\sqrt{(k/\gamma)d\log(d)\log(1/\delta)}\right)\,.
\]
Given that the $\alpha$-term gets multiplied by $\sigma_1,$ this bound on
$\Norm{G_L}$ is of lower order and the corollary follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Principal Component Analysis}
\sectionlabel{PCA}
Here we illustrate that our bounds directly imply results for the
privacy notion studied by Kapralov and Talwar~\cite{KapralovT13}. The
notion is particularly relevant in a setting where we think of $A$ as
a sum of rank~$1$ matrices each of bounded spectral norm.
\begin{definition}
\definitionlabel{dp-spectral}
A randomized algorithm $M\colon\mathbb{R}^{d\times d'}\rightarrow R$ (where $R$ is some
arbitrary abstract range) is \emph{$(\epsilon,\delta)$-differentially private
under unit spectral norm changes}
if for all pairs of matrices $A, A' \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d'}$
satisfying $\|A-A'\|_2\le1,$ we have that for all subsets of
the range $S \subseteq R,$ the algorithm satisfies:
$\Pr\Set{M(A) \in S} \leq
\exp(\epsilon)\Pr\Set{M(A') \in S} + \delta\,.$
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\lemmalabel{privacy-spectral}
If {\sc PPM}\xspace is executed with each $G_\ell$ sampled independently as $G_\ell \sim
N(0,\sigma^2)^{d\times p}$ with $\sigma
=\epsilon^{-1}\sqrt{4pL\log(1/\delta)},$ then {\sc PPM}\xspace satisfies
$(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy under unit spectral norm changes.
If $G_\ell$ is sampled with i.i.d. Laplacian entries
$G_\ell\sim \mathrm{Lap}(0,\lambda)^{n\times k}$ where $\lambda =
10\epsilon^{-1}pL\sqrt{d},$ then {\sc PPM}\xspace satisfies $(\epsilon,0)$-differential
privacy under unit spectral norm changes.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first claim follows from the privacy proof in~\cite{HardtR12}. We sketch
the argument here for completeness.
Let $D$ be any matrix with $\|D\|_2\le1$ (thought of as $A-A'$ in
\definitionref{dp-spectral}) and let $\|x\|=1$ be any unit vector which we
think of as one of the columns of $X=X_{\ell-1}.$ Then, we have $\|Dx\|\le
\|D\|\cdot\|x\|\le 1,$ by definition of the spectral norm. This shows that the
``$\ell_2$-sensitivity'' of one matrix-vector multiplication in our algorithm
is bounded by~$1.$ It is well-known that it suffices to add Gaussian noise
scaled to the $\ell_2$-sensitivity of the matrix-vector product in order to
achieve differential privacy. Since there are $kL$ matrix-vector
multiplications in total we need to scale the noise by a factor
of~$\sqrt{kL}.$
The second claim follows analogously. Here however we need to scale the noise
magnitude to the ``$\ell_1$-sensitivity'' of the matrix-vector product which
be bound by $\sqrt{n}$ using Cauchy-Schwarz. The claim then follows using
standard properties of the Laplacian mechanism.
\end{proof}
Given the previous lemma it is straightforward to derive the following
corollaries.
\begin{corollary}
Let $A\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ be a symmetric matrix with singular values
$\sigma_1\ge\dots\ge\sigma_d$ and let $\gamma=1-\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_{k}.$
There is an algorithm that given
a $A$ and parameter $k,$ preserves
$(\epsilon,\delta)$-differentially privacy under unit spectral norm changes
and outputs a rank $2k$ matrix $B$ such that with
probability $9/10,$
\[
\|A-B\| \le \sigma_{k+1}
+
\tilde O\left(
\frac{\sigma_1\sqrt{(k/\gamma)d\log
d\log(1/\delta)}}{\epsilon(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})}
\right)\,.
\]
The $\tilde O$-notation hides the factor
$O\big(\sqrt{\log(\log(d)/\gamma)}\big).$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The proof is analogous to the proof of \corollaryref{privacy-lowrank}.
\end{proof}
A similar corollary applies to $(\epsilon,0)$-differential privacy.
\begin{corollary}
Let $A\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ be a symmetric matrix with singular values
$\sigma_1\ge\dots\ge\sigma_d$ and let $\gamma=1-\sigma_{k+1}/\sigma_{k}.$
There is an algorithm that given
a $A$ and parameter $k,$ preserves
$(\epsilon,\delta)$-differentially privacy under unit spectral norm changes
and outputs a rank $2k$ matrix $B$ such that with
probability $9/10,$
\[
\|A-B\| \le \sigma_{k+1}
+
\tilde O\left(
\frac{\sigma_1 k^{1.5}d\log(d)\log(d/\gamma)}
{\epsilon\gamma(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})}
\right)\,.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We invoke {\sc PPM}\xspace with $p=2k$ and Laplacian noise with
the scaling given by \lemmaref{privacy-spectral} so that the algorithm
satisfies $(\epsilon,0)$-differential privacy.
Specifically,
$G_\ell\sim \mathrm{Lap}(0,\lambda)^{d\times p}$ where $\lambda =
10\epsilon^{-1}pL\sqrt{d}.$
\lemmaref{laplacian-projection}. Indeed, with probability $99/100,$ we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\max_{\ell=1}^L\|G_\ell\| \le O\left(\lambda\sqrt{kd}\log(kdL)\right)
= O\left((1/\epsilon\gamma)k^{1.5}d\log(d)\log(kdL)\right)$
\item $\max_{\ell=1}^L\|U^\top G_\ell\| \le O\left(\lambda k\log(kL)\right)
= O\left((1/\epsilon\gamma)k^2\sqrt{d}\log(d)\log(kL)\right)$
\end{enumerate}
We can now plug these error bounds into \corollaryref{random} to obtain the
bound
\[
\Norm{(I-X_LX_L^\top)U}
\le O\left(
\frac{k^{1.5}d\log(d)\log(d/\gamma)}
{\epsilon\gamma(\sigma_k-\sigma_{k+1})}
\right)
\]
Repeating the argument from the proof of \corollaryref{privacy-lowrank} gives
the stated guarantee for low-rank approximation.
\end{proof}
The bound above matches a lower bound shown by Kapralov and
Talwar~\cite{KapralovT13} up to a factor of~$\tilde O(\sqrt{k}).$ We believe
that this factor can be eliminated from our bounds by using a quantitatively
stronger version of~\lemmaref{laplacian-projection}. Compared to the upper
bound of~\cite{KapralovT13} our algorithm is faster by a more than a quadratic
factor in~$d.$ Moreover, previously only bounds for
$(\epsilon,0)$-differential privacy were known for the spectral norm privacy
notion, whereas our bounds strongly improve when going to
$(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy.
\subsection{Dimension-free bounds for incoherent matrices}
\sectionlabel{privacy-mu}
The guarantee in \theoremref{privacy-main} depends on the quantity
$\|X_{\ell}\|_\infty$ which could in principle be as small as $\sqrt{1/d}.$ Yet, in
the above theorems, we use the trivial upper bound~$1.$ This in turn resulted
in a dependence on the dimensions of $A$ in our theorems. Here, we show that
the dependence on the dimension can be replaced by an essentially tight
dependence on the \emph{coherence} of the input matrix. In doing so, we resolve
the main open problem left open by Hardt and Roth~\cite{HardtR13}.
The definition of coherence that we will use is formally defined as
follows.
\begin{definition}[Matrix Coherence]
We say that a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d'}$ with singular value
decomposition $A = U\Sigma V^\top$ has \emph{coherence}
\[
\mu(A) \stackrel{\small \mathrm{def}}{=}\left\{d\|U\|^2_\infty, d'\|V\|^2_\infty\right\}\,.
\]
Here $\|U\|_\infty=\max_{ij}|U_{ij}|$ denotes the largest entry of $U$ in absolute
value.
\end{definition}
Our goal is to show that the $\ell_\infty$-norm of the vectors
arising in {\sc PPM}\xspace is closely related to the coherence of the input matrix.
We obtain a nearly tight connection between the coherence of the matrix and the
$\ell_\infty$-norm of the vectors that {\sc PPM}\xspace computes.
\begin{theorem}\theoremlabel{gaussian-noise}
Let $A\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ be symmetric. Suppose {\sc NPM}\xspace is invoked on $A,$ and
$L\le n,$ with each $G_\ell$ sampled from $N(0,\sigma_\ell^2)^{d\times p}$ for
some $\sigma_\ell>0.$ Then, with probability $1-1/n,$
\[
\max_{\ell=1}^L \|X_\ell\|_\infty^2
\le O\left(\frac{\mu(A)\log(d)}d\right)\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\ell\in[L].$
Let $A=\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i u_i u_i^\top$ be
given in its eigendecomposition. Note that
\[
B=\max_{i=1}^d\|u_i\|_\infty\le\sqrt{\frac{\mu(A)}d}.
\]
We may write any column $x$ of $X_\ell$ as
$x=\sum_{i=1}^ds_i\alpha_iu_i$ where
$\alpha_i$ are non-negative scalars such that $\sum_{i=1}^d\alpha_i^2=1,$ and
$s_i\in\{-1,1\}$ where $s_i=\mathit{sign}(\langle x,u_i\rangle).$ Hence, by
\lemmaref{signs} (shown below), the signs $(s_1,\dots,s_d)$ are distributed uniformly at
random in $\{-1,1\}^d.$ Hence, by \lemmaref{sign-deviation}
(shown below), it follows that
$
\Pr\Set{ \left\|x\right\|_\infty > 4B\sqrt{\log d}} \le 1/n^3\,.
$
By a union bound over all $p\le d$ columns it follows that
$\Pr\Set{ \left\|X_\ell\right\|_\infty > 4B\sqrt{\log d}} \le 1/d^2\,.$
Another union bound over all $L\le d$ steps completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The previous theorem states that no matter what the scaling of the Gaussian
noise is in each step of the algorithm, so long as it is Gaussian the
algorithm will maintain that $X_\ell$ has small coordinates. We cannot hope to
have coordinates smaller than $\sqrt{\mu(A)/d},$ since eventually the
algorithm will ideally converge to $U.$
This result directly implies the theorem we stated in the
introduction.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \theoremref{privacy-mu}]
The claim follows directly from \theoremref{privacy-main} after applying
\theoremref{gaussian-noise} which shows that with probability~$1-1/n,$
\[
\max_{\ell=1}^L \|X_\ell\|_\infty^2
\le O\left(\frac{\mu(A)\log(d)}d\right)\,. \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proofs of supporting lemmas}
We will now establish \lemmaref{signs} and \lemmaref{sign-deviation} that were
needed in the proof of the previous theorem. For that purpose we need some
basic symmetry properties of the QR-factorization. To establish these
properties we recall the Gram-Schmidt algorithm for computing the
QR-factorization.
\begin{definition}[Gram-Schmidt]
\definitionlabel{GS}
The \emph{Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization} algorithm, denoted
$\mathrm{GS},$ is given
an input matrix $V\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times p}$ with columns $v_1,\dots,v_p$ and outputs
an orthonormal matrix $Q\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times p}$ with the same range as $V.$
The columns $q_1,\dots,q_p$ of $Q$ are computed as follows:
\noindent For $i=1$ to $p$ do:
\begin{itm}
\item $r_{ii} \leftarrow \|v_i\|$
\item $q_i \leftarrow v_i/r_{ii}$
\item For $j=i+1$ to $p$ do:
\begin{itm}
\item
$r_{ij} \leftarrow \langle q_i,v_j\rangle
\item $v_j \leftarrow v_j - r_{ij}q_i$
\end{itm}
\end{itm}
\end{definition}
The first states that the
Gram-Schmidt operation commutes with an orthonormal transformation of the
input.
\begin{lemma}
\lemmalabel{GSO}
Let $V\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times p}$ and let $O\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ be an orthonormal
matrix. Then, $\mathrm{GS}(OV) = O\times\mathrm{GS}(V).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{r_{ij}\}_{ij\in[p]}$
denote the scalars computed by the Gram-Schmidt algorithm as specified in
\definitionref{GS}.
Notice that each of the numbers $\{r_{ij}\}_{ij\in[p]}$ is invariant under an
orthonormal transformation of the vectors $v_1,\dots,v_p.$ This is because
$\|Ov_i\|=\|v_i\|$ and $\langle Ov_i,Ov_j\rangle = \langle v_i,v_j\rangle.$
Moreover, The output $Q$ of Gram-Schmidt on input of $V$ satisfies $Q = VR,$
where $R$ is an upper right triangular matrix which only depends on the
numbers $\{r_{ij}\}_{i,j\in[p]}.$ Hence, the matrix $R$ is identical when the
input is $OV.$ Thus, $\mathrm{GS}(OV)=OVR=O\times\mathrm{GS}(V).$
\end{proof}
Given i.i.d. Gaussian matrices $G_0,G_1,\dots,G_L\sim N(0,1)^{d\times p},$
we can describe the behavior of our algorithm by a deterministic function
$f(G_0,G_1,\dots,G_L)$ which executes subspace iteration starting with $G_0$
and then suitably scales $G_\ell$ in each step. The next lemma shows that this
function is distributive with respect to orthonormal transformations.
\begin{lemma}
\lemmalabel{distrib}
Let $f\colon(\mathbb{R}^{d\times p})^L\to\mathbb{R}^{n\times p}$ denote the output of {\sc PPM}\xspace on
input of a matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ as a function of the noise matrices
used by the algorithm as described above. Let $O$ be an orthonormal matrix
with the same eigenbasis as $A.$ Then,
\begin{equation}
f(OG_0,OG_1,\dots,OG_L)
= O\times f(G_0,\dots,G_L)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For ease of notation we will denote by $X_0,\dots,X_L$ the iterates of the
algorithm when the noise matrices are $G_0,\dots,G_L,$ and we denote by
$Y_0,\dots,Y_L$ the iterates of the algorithm when the noise matrices are
$OG_0,\dots,OG_L.$ In this notation, our goal is to show that $Y_L = O X_L.$
We will prove the claim by induction on~$L$.
For $L=0,$ the base case follows from \lemmaref{GSO}. Indeed,
\[
Y_0 = \mathrm{GS}(OG_0) = O \times \mathrm{GS}(G_0) = OX_0\,.
\]
Let $\ell\ge 1.$
We assume the claim holds for $\ell-1$ and show that it holds for
$\ell.$ We have,
\begin{align*}
Y_\ell & = \mathrm{GS}(AY_{\ell-1}+ OG_\ell) \\
&= \mathrm{GS}(AOX_{\ell-1} + OG_\ell) \tag{by induction hypothesis} \\
&= \mathrm{GS}(O(AX_{\ell-1} + G_\ell)) \tag{$A$ and $O$ commute} \\
&= O\times \mathrm{GS}(AX_{\ell-1} + G_\ell) \tag{\lemmaref{GSO}} \\
&= OX_\ell\,.
\end{align*}
Note that $A$ and $O$ commute, since they share the same eigenbasis by the
assumption of the lemma. This is what we needed to prove.
\end{proof}
The previous lemmas lead to the following result characterizing the
distribution of signs of inner products between the columns of $X_\ell$ and
the eigenvectors of~$A.$
\begin{lemma}[Sign Symmetry]
\lemmalabel{signs}
Let $A$ be a symmetric matrix given in its eigendecomposition as
$A=\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i u_i u_i^\top.$
Let $\ell\ge 0$ and let $x$ be any column of $X_\ell,$ where $X_\ell$ is the
iterate of {\sc PPM}\xspace on input of $A.$
Put $S_i = \mathit{sign}(\langle u_i,x\rangle)$ for $i\in[d].$
Then $(S_1,\dots,S_d)$ is uniformly distributed in $\{-1,1\}^d.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $(z_1,\dots,z_d)\in\{-1,1\}^d$ be a uniformly random sign vector. Let
$O=\sum_{i=1}^d z_i u_i u_i^\top.$ Note that $O$ is an orthonormal
transformation. Clearly, any column $Ox$ of $OX_\ell$ satisfies the conclusion of
the lemma, since $\langle u_i,Ox\rangle = z_i \langle u_i,x\rangle.$
Since the Gaussian distribution is rotationally invariant, we
have that $OG_\ell$ and $G_\ell$ follow the same distribution.
In particular, denoting by $Y_\ell$ the matrix computed by the algorithm if
$OG_0,\dots, OG_\ell$ were chosen, we have that $Y_\ell$ and $X_\ell$ are
identically distributed.
Finally, by \lemmaref{distrib}, we have that $Y_\ell = O X_\ell.$ By our
previous observation this means that $Y_\ell$ satisfies the conclusion of the
lemma. As $Y_\ell$ and $X_\ell$ are identically distributed, the claim also
holds for $X_\ell.$
\end{proof}
We will use the previous lemma to bound the $\ell_\infty$-norm of the
intermediate matrices $X_\ell$ arising in power iteration in terms of the
coherence of the input matrix. We need the following large deviation bound.
\begin{lemma}
\lemmalabel{sign-deviation}
Let $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_d$ be scalars such that $\sum_{i=1}^d\alpha_i^2=1$
and $u_1,\dots,u_d$ are unit vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n.$ Put
$B=\max_{i=1}^d\|u_i\|_\infty.$
Further let $(s_1,\dots,s_d)$ be chosen
uniformly at random in $\{-1,1\}^d.$
Then,
\[
\Pr\Set{ \left\|\sum_{i=1}^ds_i\alpha_iu_i\right\|_\infty >
4B\sqrt{\log d}} \le 1/d^3\,.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $X = \sum_{i=1}^d X_i$ where $X_i = s_i\alpha_iu_i.$ We will bound the
deviation of $X$ in each entry and then take a union bound over all entries.
Consider $Z=\sum_{i=1}^d Z_i$ where $Z_i$ is the first entry of $X_i$. The
argument is identical for all other entries of $X.$
We have $\E Z = 0$ and $\E Z^2 = \sum_{i=1}^d \E Z_i^2 \le
B^2\sum_{i=1}^d\alpha_i^2=B^2.$ Hence, by \theoremref{chernoff} (Chernoff
bound),
\[\textstyle
\Pr\Set{ \left|Z\right| > 4B\sqrt{\log(d)}} \le
\exp\left(-\frac{16B^2\log(d)}{4B^2}\right)
\le\exp(-4\log(d))=\frac1{d^4} \,.
\]
The claim follows by taking a union bound over all $d$ entries of $X.$
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we study nuclear medium effects on the electromagnetic $F^{EM}_2$($x$,$Q^2$)~\cite{Sajjad1} and weak $F_2$($x$,$Q^2$) and $F_3$($x$,$Q^2$)~\cite{prc84, prc85} structure functions, in some nuclear
targets. We use a relativistic nuclear spectral function~\cite{FernandezdeCordoba:1991wf} to describe the momentum distribution of nucleons in the nucleus and
define everything within a field theoretical approach where, nucleon propagators are written in terms of this spectral function. The spectral function has been calculated using the
Lehmann's representation for the relativistic nucleon propagator and nuclear many body theory is used for calculating it for an interacting Fermi sea in nuclear matter. Local density approximation is
then applied to translate these results to finite nuclei~\cite{Sajjad1, Marco}. We have assumed the Callan-Gross relationship for nuclear structure functions ${F_2}^A(x)$ and
${F_1}^A(x)$. The contributions of the pion and rho meson clouds are taken into account in a many body field theoretical approach which is
based on Refs.~\cite{Marco,GarciaRecio:1994cn}. We have taken into account target mass correction following Ref.~\cite{schienbein} which has significant effect at low $Q^2$,
moderate and high Bjorken $x$. For the shadowing effect which is important at low $Q^2$ and low x, and modulates the contribution of pion and rho cloud contributions,
we have followed the works of Kulagin and Petti~\cite{Petti}. We have compared the numerical results
for the case of electromagnetic structure function $R_{F_2}^{EM,~A}(x,Q^2)=\frac{2F_2^{EM,~A}(x,Q^2)}{AF_2^{EM,~D}(x,Q^2)}$,
with JLab~\cite{Seely} and SLAC~\cite{Gomez:SLAC} data. We have also presented these ratios for weak structure functions i.e.
$R_{F_i}^{A}(x,Q^2)=\frac{2F_i^{A}(x,Q^2)}{AF_i^{D}(x,Q^2)}$ (i=2,3).
The expression for the electromagnetic nuclear structure function $F_2^{EM,~A}$ for an isoscalar nuclear target is written as~\cite{Sajjad1}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{F2A_Kulagin}
F_2^{EM,~A}&=&4\int d^3r\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{M}{E(\mathbf{p})}\int_{-\infty}^\mu d\omega\;S_h(\omega,\mathbf{p},\rho(\mathbf{r}))\frac{\left(1-\gamma\frac{p_z}{M}\right)}{\gamma^2}\nonumber\\
&& \times \left(\gamma^2+\frac{6x^2(\mathbf{p}^2-p^2_z)}{Q^2}\right)F_2^{EM,~N}(x_N,Q^2)
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_2^{EM,~N}$ is the free nucleon structure function expressed in terms of nucleon Parton Distribution Functions(PDFs), $S_h$ is the hole spectral function taken from the works of
Ref.\cite{FernandezdeCordoba:1991wf},
\begin{equation} \label{gamma}
\gamma=\frac{q_z}{q^0}=
\left(1+\frac{4M^2x^2}{Q^2}\right)^{1/2}\,,~~ x_N=\frac{Q^2}{2(p^0q^0-p_zq_z)}.
\end{equation}
The expressions for weak nuclear structure functions $F^A_2(x)$ and $F^A_3(x)$ for nonisoscalar nuclear target are written as~\cite{prc85}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{f2Anuclei}
F^A_2(x_A,Q^2)&=& 2\int d^3r\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{M}{E(\mathbf{p})}\left[ \int^{\mu_p}_{-\infty}dp^0\; S^{p}_{h}(p^0,\mathbf{p},k_{F,p}) F_2^{p}(x_N,Q^2) \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left. \int^{\mu_n}_{-\infty}dp^0\; S^{n}_{h}(p^0,\mathbf{p},k_{F,n}) F_2^{n}(x_N,Q^2) \right] \frac{x}{x_N} \left(1+\frac{2x_N p_x^2}{M\nu_N}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{f3Anuclei}
F_3^A(x_A,Q^2)&=& 2\int d^3r\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{M}{E(\mathbf{p})}\left[\int^{\mu_p}_{-\infty}dp^0\; S^{p}_{h}(p^0,\mathbf{p},k_{F,p}) F_3^{p}(x_N,Q^2) \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left. \int^{\mu_n}_{-\infty}dp^0\; S^{n}_{h}(p^0,\mathbf{p},k_{F,n}) F_3^{n}(x_N,Q^2) \right] \frac{p^0\gamma-p_z}{(p^0-p_z\gamma)\gamma},
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{2,3}^{p}$ and $F_{2,3}^{n}$ are the proton and the neutron structure functions. We have considered separate distributions of Fermi sea for
protons and neutrons. $S^{p}_{h}$ and $S^{n}_{h}$ are the two different spectral functions, each one of them is normalized to the number of protons or
neutrons in the nuclear target. The deuteron structure functions have been calculated using the same formulae as in Eq.\ref{F2A_Kulagin}
but performing the convolution with the deuteron wave function~\cite{Lacombe:1981eg} squared instead of the spectral function.
\section{Results and Discussions}
Numerical results obtained by incorporating medium effects like Fermi motion, Pauli blocking, nuclear binding, and nucleon correlations, we call the results as base results.
Results obtained by also including meson cloud contributions and shadowing and antishadowing effects to the base calculation are named as results with the full model calculation.
In Fig.\ref{figEM}, we present the results for the ratio of the electromagnetic nuclear structure funtion to the deuteron structure function. We observe that the
results are in fair agreement with the JLab~\cite{Seely} and SLAC~\cite{Gomez:SLAC} data.
In Fig.\ref{f2f3carbon}, we have presented the numerical results for weak structure functions $F^A_2$ and $F^A_3$ in carbon nuclear target at different values of x and $Q^2$. We find that the base result decreases to 4-6$\%$ from the free case(no medium effects in it) at low-x.
At higher values of x difference between the base and free results vanishes. When the meson cloud contribution is included along with the nucleon spectral function, we see that results change by about
15-17$\%$ at x=0.08 and modified by 5-6$\%$ at x=0.35, and the difference becomes insignificant at high-x.
Moreover, we observe that the difference between the results with full model calculation and the results without shadowing and antishadowing effect is about 3-4$\%$ at low-x and low-$Q^2$ which vanishes at high-x.
Also, we find that the results obtained at NLO with full model calculation reduce by about 3-9$\%$ in studied region of $Q^2$ at x=0.08 from
the LO results, and with the increase in x this difference between LO and NLO results, becomes small, like 3-5$\%$ for mid values of x. While at higher values of x the
results at NLO with full calculation reduce by about 14-24$\%$ from the base results at NLO.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5.1cm, width=5cm]{Be_D_EM.eps}
\includegraphics[height=5.1cm, width=5cm]{C_D_EM.eps}
\includegraphics[height=5.1cm, width=5cm]{Fe_D_EM.eps}
\caption{$R_{F_2}^{EM,~A}$~vs~$x$~(A=Be, C, Fe). Results with full(base) calculation are shown by solid line(dotted line).}
\label{figEM}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5.1cm, width=7cm]{f2_carbon.eps}
\includegraphics[height=5.1cm, width=7cm]{f3_carbon.eps}
\caption{Dotted line is $F_i(x,Q^2)$ vs $Q^2$(i=2(Left Panel), i=3(Right Panel)) with no nuclear medium effect. Dashed line is $F_i(x,Q^2)$ vs $Q^2$ in $^{12}C$
obtained by using base results at LO.
Dotted-dashed line with star is results with no shadowing. Solid line is the full model at LO. Solid line with diamonds is full calculation at NLO.}
\label{f2f3carbon}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=4.8cm, width=5cm]{C_D_weak.eps}
\includegraphics[height=4.8cm, width=5cm]{Fe_D_weak.eps}
\includegraphics[height=4.8cm,width=5cm]{Pb_weak.eps}
\caption{Ratio =$\frac{2F_{i}^{A}}{AF_i^D}$(A=C, Fe, Pb and i=2,3).
Dashed line is the result obatined for $R_{F_2}^{EM,~A}$ in the electromagnetic case and solid line is the result
obtained for $R_{F_2}^A$ and dotted line for $R_{F_3}^A$ for the weak case.}
\label{figWeak}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5.1cm, width=7.8cm]{fig1.eps}
\includegraphics[height=5.1cm, width=7.8cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Ratio R(x,$Q^2$)=$\frac{12F_{2}^{Pb}}{208F_2^C}$ and R(x,$Q^2$)=$\frac{56F_{2}^{Pb}}{208F_2^{Fe}}$ using our base result(dashed line) and the results obtained
using full model(solid line) at LO for $Q^2=5$ GeV$^2$. The results from
Hirai et al.~\cite{Hirai} and Eskola et al.~\cite{Eskola} have also been shown.}
\label{figWeakratio}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\ref{figWeak}, the ratio of nuclear structure function obtained in carbon to the deuteron structure function is presented for the weak ($R_{F_i}^{Carbon}, i=2,3$)
as well as electromagnetic($R_{F_2}^{EM,Carbon}$) case. It may be observed that the nature of the ratio for $F_2$ is different from $F_3$, as well as they are different from the
electromagnetic case, which is in contrast to many phenomenological studies. MINER$\nu$A~\cite{minerva} is going to study nucleon dynamics in the nuclear medium and their aim is also to
study weak structure functions. They are taking various nuclear targets like carbon, iron, lead, etc. Therefore, we have studied the ratio of weak structure functions
$R_i(x,Q^2)$=$\frac{12F_{i}^{Pb}}{208F_i^C}$ and $\frac{56F_{i}^{Pb}}{208F_i^{Fe}}$ ($i=2,3$) at $Q^2=5$ GeV$^2$ and presented the results in Fig.\ref{figWeakratio}. Here
we have also plotted the results obtained using phenomenological prescription of Hirai et al.~\cite{Hirai} and Eskola et al.~\cite{Eskola}.
We find the present results to be different from these phenomenological studies. These results may be useful in the analysis of MINER$\nu$A experiment.
One of the authors(MSA) is thankful to PURSE program of D.S.T., Govt. of India and the Aligarh Muslim University for the financial support. This research was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and
European FEDER funds under Contracts FIS2011-28853-C02-01, by Generalitat Valenciana under Contract No.
PROMETEO/20090090 and by the EU HadronPhysics3 project, Grant Agreement No. 283286.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering (CARS) offers the ability to probe both the vibrational frequencies and coherences of materials, making it attractive for many applications. This includes monitoring the temperature and reaction dynamics in combustion engineering~\cite{hall1981}, remote sensing of explosives~\cite{Portnov2008}, stand-off infectious agent detection~\cite{Beadie2005}, as well as chemically selective imaging~\cite{evans2008}. The latter application is particularly challenging since full hyperspectral imaging requires rather specialized light sources. Indeed, the majority of CARS imaging systems aim for only one or two vibrational features, due to the limitations of the sources and signal-to-noise considerations.
The CARS process itself is based on a partially resonant four-wave mixing (FWM) process with at least two input frequencies, whose frequency difference encompasses one or more vibrational transitions.
Spectral resolution can then be achieved by a number of means, such as using a broadband excitation pulse and a narrow bandwidth probe pulse~\cite{Kee2004}, temporal delay between frequency chirped excitation and probe~\cite{Rocha2008}, and through the use of tunable, narrow bandwidth excitation pulses~\cite{jurna2006}. The first method relies on light pulses with a broad spectral bandwidth, and selectivity is provided mainly by the spectral bandwidth of the probe pulse. The second method also relies on femtosecond light pulses stretched to a few ps by applying a linear chirp to the spectrum, and the spectral resolution relies on giving the pump and probe equal chirp. The use of tunable narrow bandwidth excitation pulses, on the other hand, allows for better signal-to-noise ratios. This comes, however, at the expense of the complexity of the light sources used to provide excitation and probe pulses. In order to achieve spectral resolution at a relatively high peak power, at least two temporally synchronized pulses in the picosecond regime are preferred, because their spectral bandwidth is in the order of the bandwidth of typical vibrational transitions~\cite{evans2008}. Furthermore, the pulses have to be widely tunable, such that their difference frequency covers different vibrational transitions, which lie typically below 3200~cm$^{-1}$.
Often complex light sources are used, such as optical parametric oscillators~\cite{jurna2006} or electronically synchronized laser oscillators~\cite{potma2002}. Recently, all-fiber approaches have been introduced, which take advantage of the wide natural bandwidth of FWM in optical fibers---especially photonic crystal fibers, pumped near the zero dispersion wavelength. The optical pulse bandwidth can be reduced through filtering~\cite{lamb2013}, temporal focusing~\cite{Rocha2008}, and injection seeding~\cite{lefrancois2012, baumgartl2012, gottschall2012}.
A major advantage of all-fiber approaches, compared to lasers and optical parametric oscillators, is their potential compactness and relatively easy maintenance. Another advantage is that temporal synchronization can be achieved by carefully designing the fiber dispersions without the need of an external delay stage~\cite{baumgartl2012}. Injection seeding is an attractive option, because it allows control over the emitted signal and idler spectra and increases the spectral power densities needed for CARS applications. Nevertheless, fiber solutions lack compatibility with integrated photonics. This makes it difficult to couple CARS light sources with microfluidic devices for biological sensing applications~\cite{Ymeti2005}, and integrated light sources~\cite{Oldenbeuving2012,saha2013} for ease of tunability.
A source based on integrated photonics is of great interest for analyzing CARS spectra in a lab-on-a-chip setup, which may provide label-free analytical techniques~\cite{Camp2009}. It is known that efficient wavelength conversion in integrated devices is possible due to high index contrast and using materials with a higher nonlinear response compared to silica based fibers. Indeed, efficient FWM has been shown in highly nonlinear waveguide materials like silicon~\cite{foster2006}, chalcogenide glasses~\cite{luan2009} and doped silica~\cite{ferrera2008}. More recently silicon nitride (Si$_3$N$_4$), which is also widely used in lab-on-a-chip applications, has been applied for waveguide-based FWM. Silicon nitride waveguides with core thickness beyond 500~nm have become available~\cite{levy2010, agha2012, luke2013}. These increased core thicknesses are sufficient to place the zero dispersion wavelength (ZDW) in the near-infrared, allowing efficient phase-matched FWM. Silicon nitride has a relatively high Kerr nonlinearity~\cite{ikeda2008} and an appropriate transparency range for the near IR wavelengths typically used for CARS. Unlike semiconductor or chalcogenide waveguides, two-photon losses are reduced because the bandgap is relatively large (5~eV)~\cite{Sze}. Finally, linear power losses can be extremely low ($\sim$1~dB/cm)~\cite{bauters2011}, allowing for relatively long interaction lengths.
Here, we show, through a theoretical investigation, that a silicon nitride waveguide-based CARS light source has many attractive properties. In the normal dispersion region the signal and idler gain spectra become widely spaced, providing a frequency difference between pump and idler that is well-suited to probe the vibrational spectrum of condensed matter samples. By injecting an additional narrow-band, continuous wave seed, with a wavelength that overlaps the signal gain spectrum, a longer-wavelength idler pulse is generated with a narrow bandwidth, instead of the broad bandwidth usually obtained through spontaneous FWM. Furthermore, the required pump laser peak power is found to be one order of magnitude less than that required for fiber based approaches.
\section{Integrated CARS source}
We consider a stoichiometric silicon nitride ridge waveguide with a rectangular cross-section deposited on a silica substrate. In order to have maximum conversion efficiency for a frequency difference between pump (taken as 1064~nm) and idler in the range below 3200~cm$^-1$, we choose the zero dispersion wavelength to be at 1069 nm. The corresponding waveguide dimensions are then a width of 1630~nm and a height of 700~nm. Different pump wavelengths can also be accommodated by using different waveguide dimensions, however, all the following calculations are for the given pump wavelength of 1064~nm as it is readily available in practice. In order to numerically study the nonlinear dynamics of FWM in waveguiding structures, a time-dependent calculation of the light field in ideally three spatial dimensions would be required, however, this is computationally challenging. Instead, we use the one-dimensional generalized nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation~\cite{agrawal}. To reduce the problem to one spatial dimension, the nonlinear coefficient $\gamma = n_2 \omega /(cA_{eff})$~\cite{agrawal} and the dispersion of the waveguide is pre-calculated by solving for the transverse mode profiles of the fundamental modes for the pump, signal and idler fields with a finite-element mode solver. In the expression for the nonlinear coefficient $\gamma$, $n_2$ is the nonlinear refractive index , $\omega$ the pump frequency, A$_{eff}$ the effective area of the fundamental quasi-TE mode and $c$ the speed of light. From the mode profile, the nonlinear coefficient was calculated to be $1.93$~m$^{-1}$W$^{-1}$, where $n_2 = 2.4\times10^{-15}$~cm$^{2}$/W, is taken from \cite{ikeda2008}, Ikeda et al.
The spectrum of the FWM small-signal gain ~\cite{agrawal} for the fundamental quasi-TE mode was calculated using $\gamma$ and the waveguide dispersion relations obtained from the finite element calculations.
The results for waveguide widths from 1610~nm to 1650~nm are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a), where a pump wavelength, $\lambda_{p}$, of 1064~nm and a power, $P_0$, of 300~W have been assumed. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the FWM gain spectrum, as in Fig. \ref{fig:1}(a), is 1735~cm$^{-1}$ at a waveguide width of 1630~nm (red curve). This significant bandwidth is sufficient to scan over a large range of vibrational levels. Furthermore, Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a) shows that the peak in the parametric gain can be shifted to a different frequency by changing the waveguide width. This is due to the change in location of the zero dispersion wavelength, and the resulting change in waveguide dispersion determines the region where the FWM process is phase matched. The vibrational frequency spectrum of interest lies at frequencies below 3200~cm$^{-1}$. The spectral coverage of the FWM in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a) is mostly at a higher frequency difference. However, the full nonlinear calculations presented below show that the depletion of the pump results in smaller frequency shifts, which are in the desired range.
The seeded FWM pulse propagation is calculated by numerically integrating the generalized nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation using a split-step Fourier method as reported in \cite{kues2009}, Kues et al. The slowly varying envelope approximation has been applied to the light field, that includes shot noise~\cite{genty2007}.
To obtain a spectrally narrow CARS Stokes pulse, the idler spectrum is set by injecting a single-frequency, continuous wave at the signal frequency, $\omega_{s}$, with a power, $P_s$, of 100~mW.
The temporal shape of the pump pulse is Gaussian with a FWHM of 10~ps. The peak powers are varied between 150~W and 350~W, which is in the range of waveguide-based lasers \cite{xiao2008}. These parameters result in idler pulses with a bandwidth that is narrower than that typical for vibrational transitions, which are in the range from 10 to 20~cm$^{-1}$~\cite{evans2008}, but still offer the peak powers needed for CARS at feasible average powers.
The propagation of the pulses through the waveguide takes into account nine orders of dispersion from the material and waveguide. The linear power loss of the waveguide is taken as 1~dB/cm over the whole wavelength range, as was reported for a silicon nitride ridge waveguide with similar dimensions~\cite{agha2012}. The Raman effect is neglected compared to FWM. This is justified for amorphous glasses, as is considered here~\cite{agrawal}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\mbox{
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{FWM_300W.pdf}}
\quad
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{superimposed_spectra3.pdf}}
}
\caption{ \label{fig:1}(a) Analytically calculated FWM small-signal gain spectra of silicon nitride waveguides with a height of 700 nm and widths from 1610 nm to 1650 nm for a pump power of 300~W. (b) Superimposed spectra of cw seeded FWM after 2~cm of propagation for a pump pulse with 300~W peak power, which was numerically calculated using the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation. Shown in red is a single spectrum, obtained with a seed wavelength (s) of 828~nm, and resulting in an idler wavelength (i) of 1488~nm, and pumped (p) at 1064~nm. The spectra for a range of seed wavelengths from 714~nm to 1063~nm in 4~THz steps are shown in grey.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\mbox{
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{peak_intensities_2.pdf}}
\quad
\subfigure{
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{conversion_efficiency2.pdf}}
}
\caption{\label{fig:3} (a) Resulting peak powers of pump, signal and idler pulse against the frequency shift from the pump frequency. These results were calculated for a waveguide with a width of 1630~nm, a height of 700~nm, and length of 2~cm. The peak pump power was set to be 300~W. (b) Calculated conversion efficiencies against propagation for peak pump powers from 150~W to 350~W seeded at a wavelength of 828~nm. }
\end{figure}
In order to show that the injection seeding imposes narrowband signal and idler spectral output tunable over the gain bandwidth, rather than the spontaneous broadband FWM spectrum, the output spectrum was calculated for seed wavelengths in the range of 714--1063~nm in 4~THz steps, a peak pump power of 300~W and a waveguide width of 1630~nm as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(b). It can be seen that FWM occurs over the entire simulated range, however, we require that at least 20~W of peak power are available for CARS. Using this criteria, it can be seen that both the signal and idler are narrowband, and idler (signal) are generated with the required strength in the wavelength range from 1418 to 1518~nm (851 down to 819~nm). The difference frequency between the pump and idler corresponds to vibrational frequencies in the range of 2346~cm$^{-1}$ to 2810~cm$^{-1}$. Comparing these results with Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a), we observe that the tuning range of 464~cm$^{-1}$ is not only smaller than the one observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a) but the range has moved closer to the pump frequency as well. Clearly, the small-signal gain approach overestimates the tuning range and absolute shift of signal and idler frequency with respect to the pump, due to the fact that the calculation of the small-signal gain assumes an undepleted pump~\cite{agrawal}, while the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation includes the full nonlinear dynamics. The peak power of the pump, signal and idler is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(a) as a function of the frequency shift. This figure shows that maximum peak powers of 68.4~W and 40.0~W are obtained for the signal and idler, while the maximum pump depletion results in a minimum peak pump power of 49.4~W.
Moreover, over the tuning range of 2346~cm$^{-1}$ to 2810~cm$^{-1}$, the peak power of the idler pulses remains above 20~W, which is large enough to give a strong CARS signal. The calculated seeded idler intensities in this tuning range are at least 25 to 30~dB higher than the noise level of competing spontaneous FWM (which is broadband). This low background will not contribute significantly to the generated CARS signals.
We calculated the conversion efficiency, defined as $\eta = (E_s + E_i -E_{s,0})/(E_{p,0} + E_{s,0})$, where $E_{p,0}$ is the injected pump energy, and $E_{s,0}$=2~pJ is the energy injected by the signal seed over the time period of the simulation window (20~ps). $E_s$ and $E_i$ are the pulse energies of the generated signal and idler pulses. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:3}(b) for five different peak pump powers from 150~W to 350~W (with $\lambda_p$=1064 nm, $\tau_p$=10~ps and $P_s$ = 100~mW) as a function of waveguide length. The seed wavelength is held constant at 828~nm, which corresponds to an idler wavelength of 1488~nm and matches the peak of the FWM gain. For pump peak powers of 100~W or less, no significant FWM was observed.
For peak powers of 150~W and above the conversion efficiency at first shows strong exponential growth until a maximum is reached. The maximum is due to propagation losses and pump depletion, both of which lower the overall FWM output. After reaching a maximum back conversion starts to set in. For a peak power of 300~W, a maximum conversion efficiency of 19.1~\% is reached after 1.8~cm of propagation. The calculated pulse length of the generated idler pulses is 6.3~ps after a propagation of 1.8~cm with a spectral width (FWHM) of 1.2~nm, which is about two times more than the Fourier limit. The corresponding spectral bandwidth of 5~cm$^{-1}$ is still smaller than the bandwidths of typical vibrational transitions.
A maximum conversion of 23.2~\% was calculated after 1.5~cm for a peak power of 350~W and back conversion is observed for longer interaction lengths. This shows that, in order to achieve a maximum conversion efficiency, the length of the waveguide section where FWM takes place has to be carefully selected using calculations that include nonlinear dynamics. Note that the FWM process can easily be stopped by quickly changing the local dispersion of the waveguide, which destroys the phase matching between the waves, by tapering the waveguide, for example.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering\includegraphics[width=7cm]{width_tuning_2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:4}Peak power of the idler pulses against the frequency shift for various waveguide widths. The waveguide height is 700~nm, and the interaction length is 2~cm, while the pump peak power is 300~W.}
\end{figure}
The desired FWM gain spectrum can be controlled by carefully selecting the waveguide dispersion. In order to get to the appropriate dispersion the most obvious parameter to change is the waveguide width since it can be controlled precisely during fabrication of the integrated waveguides. In Fig. \ref{fig:4} the calculated peak powers of idler pulses is shown as a function of the frequency shift for waveguide widths ranging from 1610~nm to 1650~nm and a height of 700~nm, while pumped with the same parameters as in Fig. \ref{fig:3}(b). The maximum idler peak power range from 42.3~W at 2088~cm$^{-1}$ ($\lambda_{i}$ = 1368~nm) at a waveguide width of 1620~nm to 33.3~W at 3456~cm$^{-1}$ ($\lambda_{i}$ = 1683~nm) at a width of 1650~nm. The lower conversion efficiency for broader waveguides is explained by the larger effective mode area, $A_{eff}$, which results in a lower nonlinear coefficient $\gamma$. When comparing the idler peak power of Fig. \ref{fig:4} with the small-signal gain of Fig. \ref{fig:1}(a), it can be seen that the full nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation predicts the maximum in the idler peak power to occur at a smaller difference frequency than the location of the maximum in the small-signal FWM gain. This can be explained by the power dependence of the FWM gain, since the peak power changes during propagation, due to temporal broadening of the pump pulse, propagation losses, and the high nonlinear conversion efficiency in silicon nitride waveguides. This highlights the necessity for numerical studies to predict the exact FWM gain spectrum.
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we have shown, through numerical calculations, an efficient way to realise synchronized and tunable picosecond pulses with properties that are highly suitable for application in CARS microscopy and spectroscopy. A high conversion efficiency of 19.1~\% is calculated assuming a relatively high power loss of 1~dB/cm and a moderate pump peak power of 300~W, which is one order of magnitude lower than in previous reported fiber based approaches. The calculated peak powers as well as the wavelengths of the pump and idler pulse are in the range required for CARS experiments with picosecond pulses. The tuning range of our approach can easily be adjusted by changing the pump wavelength or the waveguide dimensions, because the bandwidth of the FWM gain strongly depends on the dispersion of the waveguides. Furthermore, the spectral coverage can even be doubled by using the signal in place of the pump in a CARS microscope or spectrometer (so the signal becomes the pump for the CARS process), because the signal and idler are of comparable peak power with the pump. These results show that an integrated CARS light source with dimensions on the length scale of 2~cm can be realized with silicon nitride waveguides at moderate laser powers that are available from waveguide based pulsed and continuous wave laser sources. This approach can easily be adapted for different wavelength ranges and pulse durations as well as for other waveguide platforms.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This research was funded by the Stichting Technische Wetenschappen under the Generic Technologies for Integrated Photonics perspectief program (grant number 11358).
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction}
Ubiquitous magnetic excitations in conventional magnets with the N\'eel state are generally well described by LSWT. In low-dimensional quantum magnets, however, dominant quantum effects significantly modify the magnetic excitations. In particular, for an $S\,{=}\,1/2$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg spin chain, the exact spinon excitation energies are larger than that calculated using LSWT by a factor of ${\pi}/2$\cite{dCP}, which was verified through an inelastic neutron scattering experiment on the spin-1/2 one-dimensional (1D) Heisenberg antiferromagnet CuCl$_2\,{\cdot}\,2$(C$_5$D$_5$)\cite{Endoh}. This quantum enhancement of excitation energies is known as the quantum renormalization.
The spin-1/2 2D kagome-lattice antiferromagnet (KLAF) is a research frontier with the potential to realize a disordered ground state arising from the synergistic effect of strong frustration and quantum fluctuations\cite{Sachdev,Waldtmann,Nakano,Wang,Hermele,Yan,Depenbrock,Nishinoto,Singh,Evenbly,Hwang1}. The theoretical consensus for the case of Heisenberg spins is that the classical N\'eel state, which is robust in conventional magnets, is supplanted by a disordered quantum state. However, the nature of the ground state, which is the basis for the discussion of excitations, has not been theoretically elucidated. Innovative theoretical studies have been conducted on the spin-1/2 nearest-neighbor Heisenberg KLAF using a variety of approaches. Most of the recent results suggest the existence of nonmagnetic ground states described by spin liquids\cite{Wang,Hermele,Yan,Depenbrock,Nishinoto} and valence-bond solids\cite{Singh,Evenbly,Hwang1}. Experimentally, the lack of an ideal model has hindered detailed studies of intrinsic excitations of kagome magnets. Nevertheless, great effort has been made to search for approximate realizations of the spin-1/2 KLAF, which exhibits a diversity of states\cite{Shores,Helton,Han,Mueller,Hiroi,Okamoto,Ono,Morita,Matan1}.
A$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ (A=Rb, Cs) is a promising family of spin-1/2 KLAFs\cite{Ono,Morita}. Rb$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ has a distorted kagome lattice and a gapped $S\,{=}\,0$ singlet ground state\cite{Ono,Morita,Matan1}. A study of singlet-to-triplet excitations in Rb$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ using inelastic neutron scattering revealed a pinwheel motif of strongly interacting dimers\cite{Morita,Matan1,Matan2}. All relevant spin Hamiltonian parameters were determined, which suggested the dominant effect of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction\cite{Morita,Matan1,Matan2,Hwang2}. On the other hand, Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ has a uniform kagome lattice at room temperature with the lattice parameters $a\,{=}\,7.142(4)$~\AA~and $c\,{=}\,20.381(14)$~\AA~\cite{Ono}, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(a). This compound undergoes a structural transition at $T_{\rm s}\,{=}\,185$ K and magnetic ordering at $T_{\rm N}\,{=}\,20.0$ K~\cite{Ono}. The magnetic susceptibility exhibits a small anomaly at $T_{\rm s}$ and a large increase at $T_{\rm N}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig2}(a)). The presence of superlattice reflections below $T_{\rm s}$ suggests the doubling of the in-plane lattice parameter, giving rise to a $2a\,{\times}\,2a$ enlarged unit cell. Above $T_{\rm N}$, the magnetic susceptibility is in good agreement with the theoretical susceptibility obtained from exact diagonalization for the 24-site kagome cluster\,\cite{Misguich} (Fig.~\ref{fig2}(a)). This suggests that the exchange network remains approximately uniform.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering \vspace{0in}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Crystal structure at room temperature viewed along the $c$ axis, where fluorine ions located outside the kagome layer are omitted. Thin lines denote the unit cell. (b) Diagram showing the connectivity of $S\,{=}\,1/2$ Cu$^{2+}$ spins via the nearest-neighbor exchange interactions $J_{11}$, $J_{12}$, $J_{13}$ and $J_{14}$. Configurations of the out-of-plane component $D^{\|}$ and in-plane component $D^{\bot}$ of the DM vectors, deduced from the highly symmetric room-temperature structure, are illustrated on the left and right, respectively. The large arrows on the left indicate the ${\bm q}=0$ structure assumed in the LSWT calculations.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Low-energy magnetic excitations in the spin-1/2 distorted KLAF Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ can be described by the collective disturbance of the ordered moments. Although these magnetic excitations in the classical spin-5/2 KLAF KFe$_3$(OH)$_6$(SO$_4$)$_2$ are well described by LSWT\cite{Matan3,Yildirim}, little is known about the quantum effect for the spin-1/2 case, where large quantum renormalization is expected to emerge. In this letter, we present the first evidence of the large negative renormalization of spin-wave energies with respect to the LSWT result in Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$. This observation provides a striking contrast to the well-known positive quantum renormalization of excitation energies in the $S\,{=}\,1/2$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg spin chain,\cite{dCP} for which the renormalization factor is exactly ${\pi}/{2}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering \vspace{0in}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Temperature dependence of magnetic susceptibility in Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$. Dashed line denotes the result obtained by exact diagonalization for a 24-site uniform kagome cluster with $J\,{=}\,20.7$ meV and $g\,{=}\,2.49$, while solid line is the result obtained for a 12-site distorted kagome cluster with $J_{\rm avg}\,{=}\,19.8$ meV and the same interaction coefficients $a_i$, $J_2/J_1$ and $d_z$ as those obtained from the analysis of spin-wave dispersions with $d_{\rm p}\,{=}\,0$ and $g\,{=}\,2.43$. (b) Temperature dependence of the magnetic Bragg reflection at ${\bm Q}\,{=}\,(2, 2, 0)$. The dashed line serves as a visual guide.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ crystals were synthesized in accordance with the chemical reaction 2CsF + 3CuF$_2$ + SnF$_4 \rightarrow$ Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$. CsF, CuF$_2$ and, SnF$_4$ were dehydrated by heating in vacuum at about 100$^\circ$C. First the materials were packed into a Pt tube of 9.6 mm inner diameter and 100 mm length in the ratio of $3\,{:}\,3\,{:}\,2$. One end of the Pt tube was welded and the other end was tightly folded with pliers and placed between Nichrome plates. Single crystals were grown from the melt. The temperature of the furnace was lowered from 850 to 750$^\circ$C over 100 hours. After collecting the well-formed pieces of crystal, we repeated the same procedure. Inelastic neutron scattering measurements were performed on two co-aligned single crystals of Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ (total mass of 3.3 g) with a sample mosaic of about $1^\circ$ at GPTAS and HER, which are triple-axis spectrometers run by the Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo. At GPTAS, the final energy of the thermal neutrons was fixed at 14.7 meV. The collimations were $40'\,{-}\,40'\,{-}\,\textrm{sample}\,{-}\,40'\,{-}\,80'$. A pyrolytic graphite (PG) filter was placed after the sample to remove contamination from higher-order neutrons. The vertically focused (horizontally flat) PG crystals were used to analyze the scattered neutrons. At HER, the final energy of the cold neutrons was fixed at 5 meV. The scattered neutrons were analyzed using the central three blades of a seven-blade doubly focused PG analyzer. A cool Be or oriented-PG-crystal filter was placed in the incident beam and a room-temperature Be filter was placed in the scattered beam. In the analysis of the HER data, effective collimations of $10'\,{-}\,40'\,{-}\,\textrm{sample}\,{-}\,160'\,{-}\,120'$ were used. For both experiments, the sample was aligned with the $(h, k, 0)$ plane horizontal to measure spin-wave excitations within the kagome plane. The sample was cooled to the base temperature of 3 K using a $^4$He closed cycle cryostat.
Using the $2a\,{\times}\,2a$ enlarged unit cell for the low-temperature crystal structure, we observed an increased scattering intensity due to magnetic Bragg reflections below $T_{\rm N}\,{=}\,20.0$ K at ${\bm Q}_{\rm m}\,{=}\,(2m, 2n, 0)$, where $m$ and $n$ are integers. The ordering wave vectors correspond to the reciprocal lattice points of the uniform kagome lattice above $T_{\rm s}\,{=}\,185$ K. Figure~\ref{fig2}(b) shows the temperature dependence of the magnetic Bragg reflection at ${\bm Q}\,{=}\,(2, 2, 0)$. The scattering intensity above $T_{\rm N}\,{=}\,20.0$~K arises from a nuclear reflection. This result indicates that the ordered state has a ${\bm q}\,{=}\,0$ structure. Hence the center of the 2D Brillouin zone located at ${\bm Q}_{\rm m}$ is expected to give rise to strong spin-wave scattering.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering \vspace{0in}
\includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(a) Constant-${\bm Q}$ scans measured at ${\bm Q}\,{=}\,(2, 2, 0)$, $(2.25, 2, 0)$, and $(2.267, 1.867, 0)$. (b) Constant-energy scans measured at ${\hbar}{\omega}\,{=}\,2$, $4$, and $6$ meV along two independent high-symmetry directions (see Fig.~\ref{fig4}(c)). (c) Temperature dependence of the spin gap at the $\Gamma$-point. The main panel shows constant-${\bm Q}$ scans measured at the $\Gamma$-point at different temperatures. Data sets for different temperature are shifted vertically by 100. The inset shows the temperature dependences of the spin-gap energy $\Delta$ and peak width $\Gamma$. The dotted line denotes the resolution of the instrument obtained by the convolution fitting, and the dashed lines serve as a visual guide. The error bar denotes the statistical error.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig3}(a) shows constant-${\bm Q}$ scans measured using the GPTAS spectrometer. The scans were performed at 3 K and at three different momentum transfers ${\bm Q}\,{=}\,(2, 2, 0)$, $(2.25, 2, 0)$, and $(2.267, 1.867, 0)$. At the zone center ($\Gamma$-point) ${\bm Q}\,{=}\,(2, 2, 0)$, we clearly observed two spin-wave excitations at 10.7(5) meV and 13.6(4) meV, and extra scattering above the background below 5 meV (top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig3}(a)). A high-resolution measurement using the cold-neutron spectrometer HER revealed a spin gap of 1.0(6) meV as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}(c). Away from the zone center along the $\Gamma\,{\rightarrow}\,{\rm M}$ and $\Gamma\,{\rightarrow}\,{\rm K}$ directions, we clearly observed three peaks representing three branches of spin-wave excitations, as shown in the middle and bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{fig3}(a), respectively. Figure~\ref{fig3}(b) shows constant-energy scans taken along two independent high-symmetry directions from the $\Gamma$-point to the M- and K-points (Fig.~\ref{fig4}(c)). For both constant-${\bm Q}$ and constant-energy scans, the peak width is resolution-limited and the line shape is well described by the convolution with the resolution function. As the temperature increases toward $T_{\rm N}$, the energy of the spin gap $\Delta$, which scales with the order parameter, decreases toward zero and the peak width $\Gamma$, which is resolution-limited below 7 K, becomes broader, indicative of the shorter lifetime of the excitations, as shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig3}(c). Figures~\ref{fig4}(a) and~\ref{fig4}(b) show the spin-wave dispersions obtained from several constant-energy and constant-${\bm Q}$ scans throughout the Brillouin zone along the two high-symmetry directions. The data points were obtained from resolution-convolution fits. Unfortunately, we were not able to determine the excitation energies of the high-energy modes owing to the high phonon background and low scattering intensity, which may be due to magnon instability.\cite{Chernyshev}
We analyze the low-energy spin-wave dispersion observed in Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ in the framework of LSWT. The underlying spin structure used to calculate the spin-wave dispersion is that of the ${\bm q}\,{=}\,0$ structure for the uniform kagome lattice, in which all spins are oriented either toward or away from the center of a triangle (see Fig.\ref{fig1}(b)). In our previous study on Rb$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ (ref.~\onlinecite{Matan1}), we found that the DM interactions play a dominant role in singlet-triplet excitations, \textit{i.e.}, a large out-of-plane component of the DM vectors gives rise to large splitting between the $S^z\,{=}\,{\pm}\,1$ and 0 modes and reduces the energy gap at the $\Gamma$-point. Therefore, as a first approximation, we consider the DM interactions as the dominant anisotropy energy (referred to as the DM model), and express the spin Hamiltonian as
\small
\begin{equation}
{\cal H} = \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} \left\{ J_{ij}\,({\bm S}_i \cdot {\bm S}_j) + {\bm D}_{ij}\cdot \left[{\bm S}_i \times {\bm S}_j \right]\right\}+J_2\sum_{\langle\langle k,l\rangle\rangle}({\bm S}_k \cdot {\bm S}_l),
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
where $J_{ij}$ and $J_2$ are the nearest-neighbor (NN) and next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) exchange interactions, respectively, and ${\bm D}_{ij}$ are DM vectors. $J_{ij}$ are nonuniform as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(b), and their magnitude is scaled by $J_{1}$, which can be written as $J_{1i}\,{=}\,a_iJ_{1}$ where $i\,{=}\,1, 2, 3$, and 4, while the strength of the DM vectors ${\bm D}_{ij}$ is scaled by the corresponding exchange interactions, $D^{\|}_{ij}\,{=}\,d_zJ_{ij}$ and $D^{\bot}_{ij} \,{=}\,d_{\rm p}J_{ij}$, where the configurations of the out-of-plane $(D^{\|}_{ij})$ and in-plane $(D^{\bot}_{ij})$ components of the DM vectors are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(b). We neglect the interlayer interaction, because the triplet excitations in Rb$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ are dispersionless perpendicular to the kagome layer.\cite{Matan1}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering \vspace{0in}
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) and (b) Experimental data and calculated spin-wave dispersions along the two high-symmetry directions denoted by thick red lines in (c). Open symbols indicate the data measured around $(2, 2, 0)$ while closed symbols indicate the data measured at the equivalent point around $(0, 2, 0)$. Solid lines denote the best fit obtained using the DM model in eq. (\ref{eq1}), and dotted lines denote dispersions with $J_{\tiny\textrm{avg}}^{\tiny\textrm{mag}}\,{=}\,19.8$ meV obtained from the magnetic susceptibility, $J_2\,{=}\,-1.07$ meV, $d_z\,{=}\,-0.18$, and $d_{\rm p}\,{=}\,0.033$. (c) Calculated energy-integrated scattering intensity of Cs$_2$Cu$_2$SnF$_{12}$.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
The LSWT calculations of the spin-wave dispersion as well as the scattering intensity for the DM model of eq.~(\ref{eq1}), which are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}(c) and Fig.~S2 in Supplemental Materials\cite{Supplement}, were performed using a symbolic algebra method written in \textit{Mathematica}. Details of the LSWT calculations are described in Supplemental Materials\cite{Supplement}. The results reveal 12 branches of spin-wave excitations, but only three dominant low-energy branches (Fig.~S2) are observed experimentally. The strong inelastic scattering intensity centered around ${\bm Q}_{\rm m}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig4}(c)) is consistent with the experimental data. The obtained fit parameters are $J_{1}\,{=}\,13.6(3)$ meV, $a_1\,{=}\,1$ (fixed), $a_2\,{=}\,1.0(1)$, $a_3\,{=}\,0.84(7)$, $a_4\,{=}\,0.70(5)$, $J_2\,{=}\,{-}\,1.07(2)$ meV, $d_z\,{=}\,{-}\,0.29(1)$ and $d_{\rm p}\,{=}\,0.057(4)$, giving $J^{\tiny \textrm{sw}}_{\tiny\textrm{avg}}\,{=}\,(J_{11}\,{+}\,J_{12}\,{+}\,J_{13}\,{+}\,J_{14})/4\,{=}\,12.1(7)$ meV. The solid lines in Figs.~\ref{fig4}(a) and~\ref{fig4}(b) represent the best fits with these parameters. The splitting of the two higher energy modes ($\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$, see Figs.~\ref{fig4}(a) and~\ref{fig4}(b)) at the $\Gamma$-point results from zone folding due to the structural transition. In the DM model, the energies of the $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ modes at the $\Gamma$-point are mainly determined by the out-of-plane component $D^{\|}$ of the DM vectors and the exchange interactions. The value of $D^{\|}$ is as large as $0.29J_{1i}$, which is the same order of magnitude as the value of $D^{\|}$ observed in Rb$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ (ref.~\onlinecite{Matan1}). This large out-of-plane component of the DM vectors stabilizes the ${\bm q}\,{=}\,0$ state, and thus is responsible for the magnetic ordering in Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ as discussed by C\'epas \textit{et al.}\cite{Cepas} For a uniform kagome lattice, the in-plane component $D^\bot$ gives rise to the splitting of the $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ modes and the spin gap $\Delta$, which are expressed as $\omega_2\,{-}\,\omega_1\,{=}\,(2D^\bot D^{\|})/(J_1\,{+}\,J_2 )$ and $\Delta\,{=}\sqrt{3}D^\bot$, respectively. The large splitting of the $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ modes and the small spin gap $\Delta$ cannot be consistently described by the DM model with uniform $J_1$, attesting to the necessity of a spin model with the enlarged unit cell and nonuniform $J_{1i}$. The $\omega_1$ branch, which corresponds to the zero-energy mode in the absence of the DM interactions, is lifted considerably owing to the large $D^{\|}$. Its weak dispersion and lowest spin gap at the K-point can be ascribed to a small ferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor interaction ($J_2\,{<}\,0$). Another possibility accounting for the dispersion of the $\omega_1$ mode is the quantum fluctuations, which are dominant for the spin-1/2 case and favor the $\sqrt{3}\,\,{\times}\sqrt{3}$ ordering at the K-point over the ${\bm q}\,{=}\,0$ ordering\cite{Sachdev,Matan1,Hwang2}.
Although the spin-wave dispersion observed in Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ is qualitatively understandable in terms of LSWT and the DM model, there is a large quantitative disagreement between the exchange constant $J_{\tiny\textrm{avg}}$ obtained from the spin-wave dispersion ($J_{\tiny \textrm{avg}}^{\tiny \textrm{sw}}\,{=}\,12.1$ meV) and that obtained from the magnetic susceptibility data $J_{\tiny \textrm{avg}}^{\tiny\textrm{mag}}$. As shown by the solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig2}(a), the magnetic susceptibility is best described using $J_{\tiny \textrm{avg}}^{\tiny\textrm{mag}}\,{=}\,19.8$ meV when the interaction coefficients $a_i$, $J_2/J_1$ and $d_z$ are fixed, as those obtained from the spin-wave data with $d_{\rm p}\,{=}\,0$. Here, we neglected the small in-plane component of the DM vector $d_{\rm p}$.
$J_{\tiny \textrm{avg}}^{\tiny\textrm{mag}}\,{=}\,19.8$ meV should be close to the true exchange constant. However, the dotted lines in Fig.~\ref{fig4}(a) and (b), which represent LSWT with $J_{\tiny\textrm{avg}}^{\tiny\textrm{mag}}$, show a large discrepancy between the LSWT result and the data especially for the $\omega_0$ mode. We note that the slope of this mode is predominantly determined by $J_{\tiny \textrm{avg}}$. Therefore, we deduce that the quantum fluctuations decrease excitation energies from those obtained by LSWT, \textit{i.e.}, negative quantum renormalization of the excitation energies occurs in Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$. For a spin-1/2 triangular-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet, a recent theory predicts that at high energies spin-waves are strongly renormalized, so that the dispersion becomes flat\cite{Chernyshev,Starykh,Zheng}. However, in contrast to the case of the triangular lattice, the renormalization factor $(R\,{=}\,J_{\tiny \textrm{avg}}^{\tiny \textrm{sw}} / J_{\tiny \textrm{avg}}^{\tiny\textrm{mag}}\,{=}\,0.61)$ in Cs$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$SnF$_{12}$ appears to be independent of the momentum transfer.
We note the renormalization factors in other low-dimensional antiferromagnets. For Cu(DCOO)$_2$\,$\cdot$\,4H$_2$O, which is described as an $S\,{=}\,1/2$ square-lattice antiferromagnet, the positive quantum renormalization with $R\,{=}\,1.21$ was reported\cite{Ronnow}. This renormalization factor coincides with theoretical result\cite{Igarashi,Singh2}. For Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$, in which antiferromagnetic chains are coupled to form a spatially anisotropic triangular-lattice antiferromagnet, a large renormalization factor of $R\,{=}\,1.63$ was reported\cite{Coldea}. This large positive quantum renormalization is attributed not to the triangular geometry of the lattice but to the spinon excitations characteristic of antiferromagnetic chain\cite{Kohno}. For KFe$_3$(OH)$_6$(SO$_4$)$_2$, which is described as an $S\,{=}\,5/2$ uniform KLAF, the renormalization factor is estimated as $R\,{=}\,0.90$ using the exchange constants determined from the dispersion relations\cite{Matan3} and magnetization and ESR measurements\cite{Fujita}. This fact together with the present result on Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ shows that the negative quantum renormalization of the excitation energies is universal for KLAFs with an ordered ground state and enhanced with decreasing spin quantum number $S$.\\
This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Global COE Program funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. H.T. was supported by a grant from the Mitsubishi Foundation. K.M. was supported by the Thailand Research Fund under grant no.\ MRG55800.\\[5mm]
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{S\arabic{figure}}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
{\centering \textbf{Supplemental Materials to ``Large Negative Quantum Renormalization of Excitation energies in the Spin-1/2 Kagome Lattice Antiferromagnet"}}
\section*{Spin-wave calculations}
At room temperature, Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$ crystallizes in the hexagonal structure (space group $R{\bar 3}m$) with the lattice parameters $a\,{=}\,7.142(4)$\,{\AA} and $c\,{=}\,20.381(14)$\,{\AA}\ \cite{Ono}. At $T_{\rm s}\,{=}\,185$ K, the system undergoes a structural transition. High-resolution time-of-flight powder neutron diffraction shows weak superlattice reflections, which indicate the enlarged $2a\,{\times}\,2a$ unit cell, and small splitting of the fundamental Bragg peaks, suggesting the change in crystal symmetry from hexagonal to monoclinic. However, as a good approximation, we retain the hexagonal system in the spin-wave analysis. In the enlarged unit cell, a two-dimensional unit cell comprises twelve Cu$^{2+}$ spins (Fig.\,\ref{figS1}(a)). Spin-wave excitations are calculated on the basis of the ${\bm q}\,{=}\,0$ spin structure on a perfect kagome lattice (Fig.\,\ref{figS1}(b)), where spins are oriented either toward the center of a triangle or away from it. The ${\bm q}\,{=}\,0$ structure is inferred from the magnetic Bragg reflections at $(2m, 2n, 0)$, where $m$ and $n$ are integers. We note that this spin structure is the same as that observed in the $S\,{=}\,5/2$ kagome lattice antiferromagnet KFe$_3$(OH)$_6$(SO$_4$)$_2$, and it is stabilized by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction \cite{Nishiyama,Elhajal}.
As a first approximation, the spin Hamiltonian including the next-nearest-neighbor interaction and the DM interactions has the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}\hspace{-1mm}&=&\hspace{-2mm}\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle, {\bm R}}\hspace{-1mm}\left\{J_{ij}\,({\bm S}_{i,{\bm R}}\,{\cdot}\,{\bm S}_{j,{\bm R}})+{\bm D}_{ij}\,{\cdot}\,[{\bm S}_{i,{\bm R}}\,{\times}\,{\bm S}_{j,{\bm R}}]\right\}\nonumber\\
&&+\ J_2\hspace{-2mm}\sum_{\langle\langle k,l\rangle\rangle, {\bm R}}\hspace{-2mm}({\bm S}_{k,{\bm R}}\cdot {\bm S}_{l,{\bm R}}),
\end{eqnarray}
where the first sum is between nearest neighbors, the second sum is between second-nearest neighbors with the next-nearest-neighbor interaction $J_2$, and ${\bm R}$ is a lattice translational vector. The nearest-neighbor exchange interactions are shown in different colors in Fig.\,\ref{figS1}(b); green for $J_{11}$, yellow for $J_{12}$, red for $J_{13}$, and blue for $J_{14}$, where $J_{1i}\,{=}\,a_iJ_1$ ($i\,{=}\,1, 2, 3$, and 4). The curved arrows show the order of the cross product. If taken in the direction of the arrows, the cross product is positive and negative otherwise. The strength of the DM interaction for each bond is scaled by the corresponding nearest-neighbor exchange interaction, that is, $D^{\|}_{ij}\,{=}\,d_zJ_{ij}$ and $D^{\bot}_{ij}\,{=}\,d_{\rm p}J_{ij}$, where $D^{\|}_{ij}$ and $D^{\bot}_{ij}$ are the out-of-plane and in-plane components of the DM vectors, respectively.
\begin{figure}[h]
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm, clip]{FigS1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) Twelve Cu$^{2+}$ $S\,{=}\,1/2$ spins form a distorted kagome plane. (b) Model of the ${\bm q}\,{=}\,0$ spin structure on a perfect kagome lattice used in the spin-wave calculations. Closed arrows denote spins while open arrows denote the DM vectors. The open and closed dots on the DM vectors denote the out-of-plane component; the open dots indicate the into-the-page direction and the closed dots indicate the out-of-page direction. Curved arrows denote the order of the cross product. }
\vspace{-6mm}
\label{figS1}
\end{figure}
The lattice translation vectors of the two-dimensional unit cell are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm a}_1=a^{\prime}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}, -\frac{1}{2}\right),\hspace{4mm} {\bm a}_2=a^{\prime}(0, 1)
\end{eqnarray}
where $a^{\prime}\,{=}\,2a$ is the in-plane lattice parameter of the enlarged unit cell. There are twelve spins in this enlarged unit cell located at
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
{\bm d}_1\,{=}\,a^{\prime}(0, 0)\hspace{0.5mm},\hspace{3mm}{\bm d}_2\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}, -\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\right)\hspace{0mm},\vspace{3mm}\\
{\bm d}_3\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(0, \displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\right)\hspace{0mm},
\hspace{3mm}{\bm d}_4\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{8}, \displaystyle\frac{1}{8}\right)\hspace{0mm},\vspace{3mm}\\
{\bm d}_5\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\hspace{-1mm}, 0\right)\hspace{0mm},\hspace{3mm}{\bm d}_6\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(\displaystyle\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8}, -\displaystyle\frac{1}{8}\right)\hspace{0mm},\vspace{3mm}\\
{\bm d}_7\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(0, \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\right)\hspace{0mm},\vspace{1mm}\hspace{3mm}{\bm d}_8\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}, \displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\right)\hspace{0mm},\vspace{3mm}\\
{\bm d}_9\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(0, \displaystyle\frac{3}{4}\right)\hspace{0mm},\hspace{3mm}{\bm d}_{10}\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{8}, \displaystyle\frac{5}{8}\right)\hspace{0mm},\vspace{3mm}\\
\hspace{0mm}{\bm d}_{11}\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}, \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\right)\hspace{0mm},\hspace{3mm}{\bm d}_{12}\,{=}\,a^{\prime}\hspace{0mm}\left(\displaystyle\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8}, \displaystyle\frac{3}{8}\right)\hspace{0mm}.
\end{array}
\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
$$\vspace{-2mm}\ $$
\begin{figure*}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15.5cm, clip]{FigS2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Spin-wave dispersions along two high-symmetry directions. (a) and (b) show the spin-wave dispersions. Open and closed symbols denote the experimental data measured around $(2,2)$ and $(0,2)$, respectively. (c) and (d) show the scattering intensity. Red and blue indicate high and low intensities, respectively.}
\label{figS2}
\end{figure*}
We note that the lattice distortion is ignored and the perfect kagome lattice shown in Fig.\,\ref{figS1}(b) is considered. We express the spin interactions in terms of local axes, which are defined so that the $z$ axis coincides with the spin direction. The transformation matrices used for the projection of the spins in the kagome plane are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
{\cal R}_1={\cal R}_2={\cal R}_7={\cal R}_8=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
0&\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}&\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\vspace{2mm}\\
0&-\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}&\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\vspace{2mm}\\
1&0&0
\end{array}
\right],\vspace{5mm}\\
{\cal R}_3={\cal R}_5={\cal R}_9={\cal R}_{11}=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
0&-\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}&\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\vspace{2mm}\\
0&-\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}&-\displaystyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\vspace{2mm}\\
1&0&0
\end{array}
\right],\vspace{5mm}\\
{\cal R}_4={\cal R}_6={\cal R}_{10}={\cal R}_{12}=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&-1\vspace{1mm}\\
0&1&0\vspace{1mm}\\
1&0&0
\end{array}
\right],
\end{array}
\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
where the rotation matrix ${\cal R}_i$ transforms the spin located at ${\bm d}_i$. However, the spins are canted owing to the DM interactions\,\cite{Yildirim}. The canting angle ${\eta}$ with respect to the kagome plane is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\eta}=\frac{1}{2}\cos^{-1}\left(1-\frac{2d_p^2}{3}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
The rotation matrix ${\cal R}_c$ used to transform the local axes in the kagome plane to those with canting can be defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal R}_c=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos{\eta}\ &\ 0&\ -\sin{\eta}\vspace{1mm}\\
0\ &\ 1&\ 0\vspace{1mm}\\
\sin{\eta}\ &\ 0&\ \cos{\eta}
\end{array}\right] .
\end{eqnarray}
The combined rotation matrix ${\cal R}_i^{\prime}$ can be described by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal R}_i^{\prime}={\cal R}_i{\cal R}_c.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the transformation from spins in the local axes $\tilde{\bm S}_{i, {\bm R}}$ to those in the global axes ${\bm S}_{i, {\bm R}}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm S}_{i, {\bm R}}={\cal R}_i^{\prime}{\tilde{\bm S}_{i, {\bm R}}}={\cal R}_i{\cal R}_c{\tilde{\bm S}_{i, {\bm R}}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The linearized Holstein-Primakoff transformations to the boson operators $c_i^{\dagger}$ (creation operator) and $c_i$ (annihilation operator) are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.
\begin{array}{r}
{\tilde{S}_{i, {\bm R}}^x}=\frac{1}{2}[c_i^{\dagger}({\bm R})+c_i({\bm R})],\hspace{2mm} {\tilde{S}_{i, {\bm R}}^y}=\frac{{\rm i}}{2}[c_i^{\dagger}({\bm R})-c_i({\bm R})],\\
\ \vspace{-1mm}\\
{\tilde{S}_{i, {\bm R}}^z}=\frac{1}{2}-c_i^{\dagger}({\bm R})c_i({\bm R}).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
The Fourier transforms of the boson operators are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.
\begin{array}{r}
c_i({\bm R})=\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{\bm k}c_i({\bm k}){\exp}\{{-{\rm i}{\bm k}\cdot({\bm R}+{\bm d}_i)}\},\\
\ \vspace{-1mm}\\
c_i^{\dagger}({\bm R})=\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{\bm k}c_i^{\dagger}({\bm k}){\exp}\{{{\rm i}{\bm k}\cdot({\bm R}+{\bm d}_i)}\}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
We have developed a symbolic algebra program in {\it Mathematica} to calculate the spin waves in Cs$_2$Cu$_3$SnF$_{12}$. The program performs the transformation to the local axes, the linearized Holstein-Primakoff transformations, and the Fourier transforms of the boson operators, and collects only the second-order terms, $c_i^{\dagger}({\bm k})c_i({\bm k})$, $c_i^{\dagger}({\bm k})c_i^{\dagger}(-{\bm k})$, $c_i(-{\bm k})c_i({\bm k})$, and $c_i(-{\bm k})c_i^{\dagger}(-{\bm k})$, to generate a $24\,{\times}\,24$ matrix, which is diagonalized to calculate the spin-wave dispersion.
Figure\,\ref{figS2} shows the spin-wave dispersions along two high-symmetry directions, which are described in Fig. 4(c), with the Hamiltonian parameters $J_1\,{=}\,13.6$ meV, $a_1\,{=}\,1.0,\ a_2\,{=}\,1.0,\ a_3\,{=}\,0.84,\ a_4\,{=}\,0.70,\ J_2\,{=}\,{-}\,1.07$ meV, $d_z\,{=}\,{-}\,0.29$, and $d_{\rm p}\,{=}\,0.057$. The resulting $J^{\tiny \textrm{sw}}_{\tiny\textrm{avg}}$ is equal to 12.1 meV. We found that $J^{\tiny \textrm{sw}}_{\tiny\textrm{avg}}$, which strongly depends on the slope of the spin-wave dispersion at small momentum transfer, is very robust while $J_1$, which is determined by the maximum excitation energy, can vary significantly. The large uncertainty of $J_1$ can be explained by the lack of experimental data at high energies.
The neutron scattering intensity $I({\bm Q}, {\omega})$ is calculated using the formula
\begin{eqnarray}
I({\bm Q}, {\omega})=I_0\sum_{{\alpha},{\beta}}\left({\delta}_{{\alpha}{\beta}}-{\hat Q_{\alpha}}{\hat Q_{\alpha}}\right)S^{{\alpha}{\beta}}({\bm Q}, {\omega}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $I_0$ is a constant and $S^{{\alpha}{\beta}}({\bm Q}, {\omega})$ is the dynamic structure factor, which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{{\alpha}{\beta}}({\bm Q}, {\omega})={\delta}(\,{\hbar}{\omega}({\bm Q})\,{+}\,E_k\,{-}\,E_{k^{\prime}})\sum_{i,j}\langle S_i^{\alpha}({\bm Q})S_j^{\beta}(-{\bm Q})\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\hbar}{\omega}({\bm Q})$ is the spin-wave energy. The correlation function $\langle S_i^{\alpha}({\bm Q})S^{\beta}_j(-{\bm Q})\rangle$ can be calculated from the eigenvectors of the $24\,{\times}\,24$ matrix obtained from the {\it Mathematica} program. The scattering intensity of the spin-wave excitations along the two high-symmetry directions (Figs.\,\ref{figS2}(c) and \ref{figS2}(d)) are calculated using Eqs. (11) and (12), where the $\delta$-function in Eq. 12 is replaced by a Lorentzian. The intensity is strong around $(2,2)$ and rapidly decreases toward $(3,2)$ and $(4,1)$, which is consistent with the experimental data (also see Fig. 4(c)). We note that the disagreement between the measured intensity of the ${\omega}_1$ and ${\omega}_2$ modes and the calculated scattering intensity (Figs.\,\ref{figS2}(c) and \ref{figS2}(d)) closed to the $\Gamma$-point could indicate the presence of other anisotropic terms such as the single-ion anisotropy\,\cite{Yildirim}, which can split the high-scattering-intensity modes.\vspace{2mm}\\
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
The vast majority of the more than 2000 known neutron stars are observed in
the radio as rotation-powered pulsars, which lose rotational energy and
spin down due to their electromagnetic radiation.
Measurement of the rate of energy loss, or spin-down rate, allows one to
infer the pulsar magnetic field $B$ \citep{gunnostriker69,spitkovsky06}.
However the spin-down torque due to electromagnetic radiation
($\sim -10^{30}\mbox{ erg }B_{12}^2P^{-3}$, where $B_{12}=B/10^{12}\mbox{ G}$
and $P$ is the spin period)
is relatively weak compared to torque due to matter accretion by the neutron
star from a close binary companion.
In this latter case,
interactions between the pulsar magnetic field and matter from the companion
star produces a torque
($\sim\pm 10^{34}\mbox{ erg }\dot{M}_{-9}^{6/7}B_{12}^{2/7}$, where
$\dot{M}_{-9}=\dot{M}/10^{-9}\mbox{ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$}$ and $\dot{M}$ is the
mass accretion rate) which can spin the pulsar up or down,
depending on whether matter is accreted or ejected.
By measuring the rate of change in spin period $\dot{P}$
(which is related to torque $N$ by $N=-2\pi I\dot{P}/P^2$, where $I$ is the
stellar moment of inertia),
one can obtain insights into the physics that governs the accretion process,
including important properties such as the role of the magnetic field.
However, observing the long-term $\dot{P}$ in accretion-powered pulsars
is very difficult due to short-term fluctuations, with approximately twenty
sources detected (see \citealt{klusetal13a}, and references therein).
Our study is based on the work of \citet{klusetal13}, who report a
detailed analysis of Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) observations of
high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) in the Small Magellanic Cloud,
specifically pulsar systems with an OBe main sequence companion;
these sources are designated Small Magellanic Cloud X-ray pulsars
(SXPs) \citep{coeetal05}.
The data set spans 13 years and contains 42
sources for which the spin period $P$ and count rate as a function of time
have been measured. Spin period time derivatives $\dot{P}$ are calculated
from the former, and X-ray luminosities $L$ are determined from the latter
and can be related to mass accretion rate by $\dot{M}=LR/GM$, where $M$ and
$R$ are the neutron star mass and radius, respectively.
From their binary parameters, \citet{klusetal13} find that matter accretes
onto the neutron star in each SXP system via an accretion disk (c.f. wind).
Different methods are then used to determine the magnetic field of each pulsar.
Here we extend the work of \citet{klusetal13}.
In Section~\ref{sec:gl}, we examine torque models, especially that of the
standard disk accretion model of \citet{ghoshlamb79} and
\citet{kluzniakrappaport07}, and
demonstrate a simple method for matching the detailed result of
\citet{ghoshlamb79}.
In Section~\ref{sec:results}, we show that the standard model can explain
fast-spinning, weak magnetic field pulsars in low-mass X-ray binaries
(LMXBs) and slow-spinning, strong field pulsars in HMXBs, and
we consider the broader context of neutron star magnetic fields
in light of our findings. We summarize in Section~\ref{sec:discuss}.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{Standard Disk Accretion Model and Equilibrium Spin Pulsars}
\label{sec:gl}
Figure~\ref{fig:ppdot} shows the spin period time derivative $\dot{P}$ as a
function of spin period $P$ for known pulsars.
For isolated sources, i.e., those not in a binary system, pulsars with
the highest $\dot{P}$ values are magnetars, i.e., neutron stars that
predominantly have magnetic fields $B\gtrsim 10^{14}\mbox{ G}$ and can
exhibit a variety of high-energy emission \citep{woodsthompson06,mereghetti08}.
The vast majority of sources are normal rotation-powered radio pulsars
whose spin-down rate (i.e., $\dot{P}>0$) is measured very accurately from
coherent timing analysis (\citealt{lynegrahamsmith98}).
The pulsar magnetic field is then estimated by assuming that the
electromagnetic energy radiated produces a torque (after using the conversion:
torque~$=-2\pi I\dot{P}/P^2$)
\begin{equation}
\dot{P}\approx 9.8\times 10^{-16}\mbox{ s s$^{-1}$ }R_6^{6}I_{45}^{-1}
B_{12}^2P^{-1}, \label{eq:torqueem}
\end{equation}
where $R_6=R/10\mbox{ km}$ and $I_{45}=I/10^{45}\mbox{ g cm$^2$}$.
While the exact nature of the mechanism that causes radio emission is not
known for certain, there is general agreement that there exists a
``death line'' below which observable emission
ceases \citep{rudermansutherland75,bhattacharyaetal92}.
An example death line is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ppdot}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f1.eps}
\caption{
Pulsar spin period $P$ versus spin period time derivative $\dot{P}$.
Open squares are pulsar values taken from the ATNF Pulsar Catalogue
\citep{manchesteretal05}, and solid squares denote magnetars.
Open and closed circles denote (accreting) sources that have $\dot{P}<0$
and $\dot{P}>0$, respectively (\citealt{klusetal13a}, and references therein;
\citealt{espositoetal13,klusetal13}).
Triangles denote (accreting) LMXBs
\citep{patruno10,haskellpatruno11,riggioetal11}.
The dashed lines indicate spin-down age ($=P/2\dot{P}$) and inferred
magnetic field [$=3.2\times10^{19}\mbox{ G }(P\dot{P})^{1/2}$].
The dotted line indicates the (theoretically uncertain) death line
for pulsar radio emission;
note that the death line shown here is calculated using eq.~(\ref{eq:torqueem})
and therefore does not apply to accreting pulsars (c.f. Fig.~\ref{fig:pb}).
The solid line indicates the minimum $P$ and maximum $\dot{P}$ that a pulsar
can possess as a result of matter accretion from a binary companion.
}
\label{fig:ppdot}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
In contrast to radio pulsars, the period derivative of accreting neutron
stars in an X-ray binary is determined by measuring and finding the
difference between the spin period at different epochs
(see, e.g., \citealt{townsendetal11}).
We see from Fig.~\ref{fig:ppdot} that $\dot{P}$ for accreting pulsars
with $P\gtrsim 1\mbox{ s}$, such as the SXPs, is much larger than that
of most radio pulsars and that $\dot{P}$ for SXPs is comparable to other
previously-known long spin period sources.
All these pulsars possess a binary companion (some companions are
low-mass stars and others are high-mass main sequence or supergiant stars)
from which the neutron stars are accreting.
Because accretion is thought to suppress radio emission
\citep{bhattacharyavandenheuvel91,archibaldetal09} and the torque from
accretion is much stronger than that of electromagnetic spin-down
(see Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}), the magnetic field of accreting pulsars
in a LMXB or HMXB cannot be estimated using eq.~(\ref{eq:torqueem}).
To determine their magnetic field, one can use the standard disk accretion
model of \citet{ghoshlamb79} (see also \citealt{ghoshlamb79a};
we also examine the model of \citealt{kluzniakrappaport07}, see below).
This model is based on detailed calculations of the interaction
between a rotating pulsar magnetosphere and an accretion disk surrounding
the pulsar. The predicted torque yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{P} &=& -4.3\times 10^{-5}\mbox{ s yr$^{-1}$ }
M_{1.4}^{-3/7}R_6^{6/7}I_{45}^{-1} \nonumber\\
&& \times\, n(\omega_{\mathrm{s}})\mu_{30}^{2/7}\left( PL_{37}^{3/7}\right)^2, \label{eq:gl}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{1.4}=M/1.4\,M_\odot$, $\mu_{30}=\mu/10^{30}\mbox{ G cm$^3$}$,
$\mu$ ($=BR^3$) is the magnetic moment of the neutron star,
and $L_{37}=L/10^{37}\mbox{ erg s$^{-1}$}$,
and is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gl} for three values of the magnetic field.
Hereafter we ignore mass and radius dependencies since they can only vary
by a factor of about two while the magnetic field can vary by several orders
of magnitude.
The dimensionless torque $n(\omega_{\mathrm{s}})$ accounts for coupling between the
magnetic field and the disk plasma \citep{ghoshlamb79}
(see also \citealt{wang95}) and depends on the fastness parameter $\omega_{\mathrm{s}}$
[$\equiv\Omega/\Omega_{\mathrm{K}}(r_{\mathrm{m}})$], which is given by
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\mathrm{s}} = 3.3\,\xi^{3/2}M_{1.4}^{-2/7}R_6^{-3/7}\mu_{30}^{6/7}
\left( PL_{37}^{3/7}\right)^{-1}. \label{eq:fastness}
\end{equation}
$\Omega=2\pi/P$ is the pulsar spin frequency,
$\Omega_{\mathrm{K}}(r_{\mathrm{m}})$ is the Kepler orbital frequency at radius $r_{\mathrm{m}}$
[$=\xir_{\mathrm{A}}=\xi(GM\mu^{4}/2R^2L^{2})^{1/7}$], where the energy density of
accreting matter transitions from being kinetically to magnetically
dominated, and $\xi\approx 1$ (see, e.g., \citealt{wang96}).
The sign of the dimensionless torque $n(\omega_{\mathrm{s}})$ is determined by whether
the centrifugal force due to stellar rotation ejects matter and spins down
the star (``fast rotator'' regime with $\omega_{\mathrm{s}}>1$) or accretes matter and
spins up the star (``slow rotator'' regime with $\omega_{\mathrm{s}}<1$)
(see, e.g., \citealt{wang95}).
It is important to note that a long spin period ($P\gg 1\mbox{ s}$) pulsar
can still be classified as a fast rotator since the fastness parameter
$\omega_{\mathrm{s}}$ depends on the strength of the pulsar magnetic field.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f2.eps}
\caption{
Rate of change of spin period $\dot{P}$ versus $PL^{3/7}$.
Open and closed circles denote sources that have $\dot{P}<0$ and $\dot{P}>0$,
respectively (\citealt{klusetal13a}, and references therein;
\citealt{espositoetal13,klusetal13}).
The lines indicate the theoretical prediction from the standard disk accretion
model of \citet{ghoshlamb79} with different values of magnetic field
[see eq.~(\ref{eq:gl})].
}
\label{fig:gl}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
A good approximation to eq.~(\ref{eq:gl}) can be derived very simply.
Matter accreting at the magnetosphere transition $r_{\mathrm{m}}$ has specific
angular momentum
\begin{equation}
l_{\mathrm{acc}}=\pmr_{\mathrm{m}}^2\Omega_{\mathrm{K}},
\end{equation}
while matter rotating with the magnetosphere at $r_{\mathrm{m}}$ has specific
angular momentum
\begin{equation}
l_{\mathrm{m}}=r_{\mathrm{m}}^2\Omega.
\end{equation}
Assuming prograde rotation between the accretion disk and neutron star
(i.e., $l_{\mathrm{acc}}>0$), the total torque on the neutron star is then
\begin{equation}
N_{\mathrm{tot}} = N_{\mathrm{acc}}+N_{\mathrm{m}} = \dot{M}\Delta l = \dot{M}r_{\mathrm{m}}^2\Omega_{\mathrm{K}}\left( 1-\omega_{\mathrm{s}}\right),
\label{eq:torquetot}
\end{equation}
which gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{P} &=& -7.1\times 10^{-5}\mbox{ s yr$^{-1}$ }
\xi^{1/2}M_{1.4}^{-3/7}R_6^{6/7}I_{45}^{-1} \nonumber\\
&& \times\, \left( 1-\omega_{\mathrm{s}}\right) \mu_{30}^{2/7}\left( PL_{37}^{3/7}\right)^2.
\label{eq:glapprox}
\end{eqnarray}
Figure~\ref{fig:glapprox} shows that eq.~(\ref{eq:glapprox}) agrees with
eq.~(\ref{eq:gl}) to within $\approx 15\%$ over a large range in $PL^{3/7}$,
except when $\omega_{\mathrm{s}}$ approaches and exceeds unity.
Similar accuracy is obtained as the magnetic field is varied over many
orders of magnitude.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{f3.eps}
\caption{
Top panel: Rate of change of spin period $\dot{P}$ versus $PL^{3/7}$
for $B=10^{12}\mbox{ G}$.
The solid line labeled $N_{\mathrm{GL}}$ indicates the theoretical prediction
of \citet{ghoshlamb79} [see eq.~(\ref{eq:gl})].
The short-long-dashed line labeled $N_{\mathrm{tot}}$ indicates the analytic approximation
given by eq.~(\ref{eq:glapprox}).
Bottom panel: Relative difference between the exact and approximate values
of $\dot{P}$ for different values of $\xi$ [see eq.~(\ref{eq:fastness})].
}
\label{fig:glapprox}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
The linear dependence of $\log\dot{P}$ at relatively high values of
$\log PL^{3/7}$
is simply the result of the standard {\it spin-up} torque
$\dot{M}(GMr_{\mathrm{m}})^{1/2}$ due to disk accretion
(for prograde rotation, or spin-down torque for retrograde rotation)
and is the first term $N_{\mathrm{acc}}$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:torquetot})
\citep{pringlerees72,rappaportjoss77}.
In the slow rotator regime [$\omega_{\mathrm{s}}\ll 1$; see eq.~(\ref{eq:fastness})],
the rate of change of spin period $\dot{P}$ is simply given by $N_{\mathrm{acc}}$, and
the magnetic field is $B\propto \dot{P}^{7/2}$.
The second term in eq.~(\ref{eq:torquetot}) is the {\it spin-down} torque
due to mass accretion onto a rotating object.
These two torques and their total (recall that $N=-2\pi I\dot{P}/P^2$)
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:glapprox}.
We note that an equation similar to eq.~(\ref{eq:torquetot}) is
given in \citet{shakuraetal12} but with different coefficients for $N_{\mathrm{acc}}$
and $N_{\mathrm{m}}$.
The sharp decrease and then increase in $\dot{P}$ for $B=10^{12}\mbox{ G}$
(and $2\times 10^{14}\mbox{ G}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:gl}) is due to the change of
sign from $\dot{P}<0$ (spin-up) to $\dot{P}>0$ (spin-down).
This marks the fast rotator regime near spin equilibrium ($\omega_{\mathrm{s}}\approx 1$)
\citep{davidsonostriker73,alparetal82,wang87,kluzniakrappaport07}:
After sustained epochs of spin-up and spin-down, a steady state will be
achieved where the net torque on the pulsar is negligible ($\dot{P}\sim 0$).
The resulting equilibrium spin pulsar (ESP) spins near the period
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{eq}} = 23\mbox{ s }\xi^{3/2}M_{1.4}^{-2/7}R_6^{15/7}L_{37}^{-3/7}
\left( B/10^{13}\mbox{ G}\right)^{6/7}, \label{eq:spineq}
\end{equation}
which is obtained by setting $\omega_{\mathrm{s}}=1$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:fastness}).
Note that for spin equilibrium at $\omega_{\mathrm{s}}\sim 0.35$ \citep{ghoshlamb79},
the coefficient in eq.~(\ref{eq:spineq}) becomes 67~s, and the inferred
magnetic field is lower by a factor of $(0.35)^{7/6}\sim 0.3$.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{Comparison to SXP observations} \label{sec:results}
Previously only $\sim 20$ X-ray pulsars have had large torques (i.e., $\dot{P}$)
measured (see, e.g., \citealt{klusetal13a}).
Figure~\ref{fig:gl} shows these, as well as the 42 SXPs from \citet{klusetal13}.
Using the observed values of $P$, $\dot{P}$, and $L$ for each SXP,
\citet{klusetal13} find that the standard disk accretion model prediction
for $\dot{P}$ with magnetic fields in the range $B\approx 10^6-10^{15}\mbox{ G}$
can fit all SXPs
(the model of {Klu\'{z}niak} \& Rappaport yields magnetic fields
$\sim 10-20\%$ weaker).
In particular, fits to each SXP can yield two possible solutions, either a
weak field ($<10^{10}\mbox{ G}$) or strong field ($>10^{12}\mbox{ G}$).
The weak field solution arises from the match between the observed $\dot{P}$
and the torque $N_{\mathrm{acc}}$ [c.f. $N_{\mathrm{tot}}$; see eq.~(\ref{eq:torquetot})] if the
pulsar is in the slow rotator regime (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:glapprox}).
On the other hand, if the SXP is in the fast rotator regime near spin
equilibrium, then the strong pulsar field is simply determined from
eq.~(\ref{eq:spineq}),
and the observed $\dot{P}$ is due to small fluctuations around torque balance
($N_{\mathrm{acc}}\approxN_{\mathrm{m}}$).
Both solutions are remarkable and unexpected, based on previous observations
of other types of pulsars (see Fig.~\ref{fig:pb}).
In the following, we argue for the strong magnetic field solution.
We note that, prior to the present work, only four pulsars have been found
to possibly be near spin equilibrium
\citep{patruno10,haskellpatruno11,riggioetal11},
although many pulsars in LMXBs are assumed to be in this regime
\citep{whitezhang97,patrunoetal12}.
The strong field solution we find (see also \citealt{klusetal13}) suggests
that a vast majority of the 42 SXPs are near spin equilibrium and thus are
ESPs.
\subsection{Magnetic Fields: Weak or Strong?} \label{sec:magb}
For many SXPs, we find that their observed $P$, $\dot{P}$, and $L$ can be fit
with the standard accretion model [eq.~(\ref{eq:gl})] and one of two possible
magnetic fields: a relatively weak field ($<10^{10}\mbox{ G}$) or strong
field ($>10^{12}\mbox{ G}$).
While either solution is valid, the strong field is more likely from
primarily age/timescale arguments.
Most neutron stars are born with $B>10^{12}\mbox{ G}$,
which can be inferred from the lines of magnetic field and spin-down age
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ppdot}, as well as from population synthesis studies
\citep{fauchergiguerekaspi06,popovetal10}.
Therefore if SXPs have weak magnetic fields, their initial field either
decayed to the current level or has been buried below the surface.
The global magnetic field in neutron stars decays rather slowly and on the
timescale $\sim 10^6\mbox{ yr}$
\citep{haenseletal90,goldreichreisenegger92,glampedakisetal11},
while the maximum age of an OBe star is
$\sim 10^7\mbox{ yr}$. Thus there is insufficient time
for the field to decay the many orders of magnitude required.
Burial of the field by accretion \citep{romani90} is unlikely in so many
SXPs because of the very short time over which a large amount of accretion
must take place \citep{chevalier89,geppertetal99}.
On the other hand, if SXPs have strong magnetic fields, then many are
currently near spin equilibrium,
which they can easily achieve given their short spin-evolution timescale
($P/|\dot{P}|\sim 10^3\mbox{ yr}$) compared to their age.
Finally, spin equilibrium also allows spin-down ($\dot{P}>0$) without
retrograde rotation.
\subsection{Connection to LMXBs and millisecond pulsars} \label{sec:lmxb}
The evolutionary scenario that leads to the formation of fast-spinning
($P\lesssim 10\mbox{ ms}$, hence millisecond) pulsars is briefly described
here (see, e.g., \citealt{alparetal82,bhattacharyavandenheuvel91,tauris12}).
A millisecond pulsar begins as a standard pulsar in a wide binary that
has spun down past the death line.
This pulsar can be brought back to radio activity by accreting
matter from its (low-mass) companion star, either when the orbit shrinks due
to gravitational radiation or the companion evolves off the main sequence.
Accretion of matter spins up the pulsar, thus recycling it back from
beyond death, although it is only seen as a millisecond radio pulsar after
accretion ceases.
However some pulsars are observed in the X-rays which are emitted during
the accretion process, and these are the LMXBs \citep{bildstenetal97}.
Thus LMXBs are predecessors of millisecond radio pulsars.
In this scenario, there is a lower limit to the spin period that
accretion can produce.
This minimum period is obtained by considering a pulsar that has reached
spin equilibrium through accretion at the maximum accretion rate or luminosity
$\sim 10^{38}\mbox{ erg s$^{-1}$}$,
above which radiation pressure prevents further accretion.
Equation~(\ref{eq:spineq}) then yields the magnetic field of the pulsar,
and these fields turn out to be low for LMXBs ($B\sim 10^8-10^9\mbox{ G}$).
After accretion ceases, the pulsar spins down by the standard electromagnetic
energy loss.
The resulting maximum spin-up line is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ppdot}.
We see that almost all observed pulsars which are likely to be recycled
are below this line and above the death line.
Figure~\ref{fig:pb} shows the magnetic field and spin period of known pulsars.
The magnetic field of rotation-powered pulsars are obtained from their
$P$ and $\dot{P}$ and using eq.~(\ref{eq:torqueem}).
Only four LMXBs have a measured $\dot{P}$ or upper limit on $\dot{P}$,
and spin equilibrium is assumed in order to calculate their magnetic field.
Many LMXBs have large distance errors which affects the determination of
their luminosity.
Thus their inferred magnetic fields are very uncertain, and this uncertainty
limits our ability to understand the physics of accretion using LMXBs.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f4.eps}
\caption{
Pulsar magnetic field $B$ versus spin period $P$.
Open squares are pulsars from the ATNF Pulsar Catalogue
\citep{manchesteretal05}, and solid squares denote magnetars.
Open and closed circles denote sources that have $\dot{P}<0$ and $\dot{P}>0$,
respectively
\citep{ghoshlamb79,baykaletal02,cuismith04,ikhsanov12,reigetal12,klusetal13a,klusetal13}.
Triangles denote LMXBs \citep{patrunoetal12}.
Stars denote high mass X-ray binaries whose field is determined from an
electron cyclotron spectral line
(see http://www.sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de/wiki/doku.php?id=cyclo:start).
The short-dashed lines indicate spin-down age ($=P/2\dot{P}$), the
long-dashed line indicates the QED field $B_{\mathrm{QED}}=4.414\times 10^{13}\mbox{ G}$,
and the dotted line indicates the (theoretically uncertain) death line for
pulsar radio emission.
The solid lines bounding the shaded region indicate the $B$ and $P$
[see eq.~(\ref{eq:spineq})] that a pulsar can possess as a result of
accretion from a binary companion at the mass accretion rate observed
for SXPs/ESPs (red circles).
}
\label{fig:pb}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure*}
The SXPs bridge this gap in knowledge.
The weak magnetic field solution to these pulsars would place them in the
extreme bottom right of Fig.~\ref{fig:pb}, in a region far away from all
previously known sources, and thus is not shown.
Instead we show the strong magnetic field solution, which is determined
from their measured spin period and X-ray luminosity and
eq.~(\ref{eq:spineq}) since SXPs are near spin equilibrium for this solution.
The shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:pb} is the spin equilibrium region for the
range of luminosities [$L=(0.2-4)\times 10^{37}\mbox{ erg s$^{-1}$}$]
spanned by our sources.
Evidently SXPs (as ESPs) are governed by the same accretion physics as that
used to explain the recycling of LMXBs into millisecond pulsars even though
the physics regime spans many orders of magnitude in magnetic field.
While LMXBs, with their low magnetic fields ($B\sim 10^8-10^9\mbox{ G}$),
produce pulsars with millisecond spin periods,
SXPs, with their high magnetic fields ($B\sim 10^{12}-10^{15}\mbox{ G}$),
produce pulsars with long spin periods ($P\gtrsim 10\mbox{ s}$).
An important difference between the LMXBs and SXPs is that the latter
are now known to be close to spin equilibrium, as well as having a more
accurate distance, and thus their magnetic fields are much better determined.
\subsection{Connection to magnetars and high-$B$ pulsars} \label{sec:magnetars}
The strong magnetic field of SXPs spans a wide range
($B\approx 10^{12}-10^{15}\mbox{ G}$),
similar to the range for rotation-powered pulsars.
There are also $<20$ Galactic HMXBs for which electron cyclotron spectral
lines have been detected; however there is uncertainty in where these lines
are generated and likely selection effects (see \citealt{klusetal13}, for
more details).
Of particular note are those 24 of 42 SXPs with
$B>B_{\mathrm{QED}}=m_{\mathrm{e}}^2c^3/e\hbar=4.414\times 10^{13}\mbox{ G}$,
where $B_{\mathrm{QED}}$ is the critical quantum electrodynamics (QED) magnetic field
(and 13 SXPs have $B>10^{14}\mbox{ G}$).
There are about two dozen previously known neutron stars
($\sim 1\%$ of the total population) with these fields. They are composed
of magnetars, which are strong X-ray/gamma-ray sources and can undergo
transient outbursts both of which are powered by their strong magnetic
fields \citep{woodsthompson06,mereghetti08},
and high-$B$ pulsars, which behave similar to the bulk of the radio
pulsars \citep{ngkaspi11}.
The difference between these two groups could be due to the strength of
internal toroidal fields \citep{ponsperna11}.
Magnetar-like behavior has not been seen in SXPs, which indicates SXPs
with $B>B_{\mathrm{QED}}$ are in the latter group and possess weak toroidal fields.
This may suggest that formation of high-$B$ pulsars is more efficient than
that of magnetars and there exists many more of the former than latter.
The relative number of SXPs with superstrong fields ($B>B_{\mathrm{QED}}$) is much higher
than in the normal pulsar population.
On the one hand, this significantly higher fraction of highly-magnetized
neutron stars could be due to inherently different source populations,
e.g., neutron star formation as a result of an electron capture supernova
\citep{nomoto84,podsiadlowskietal04} or accretion induced collapse
\citep{nomoto84,taamvandenheuvel86,nomotokondo91}.
On the other hand, selection effects could be hindering detection of
isolated highly-magnetized neutron stars.
Effects include X-ray absorption, radio dispersion, and/or quenching of
radio emission beyond the death line,
and some of these effects are taken into account in population synthesis
models (see, e.g., \citealt{fauchergiguerekaspi06,popovetal10}).
Note that for SXPs, their rotational energy loss rate $\dot{E}$
[$=4\pi^2I\dot{P}/P^3$ and using eq.~(\ref{eq:torqueem})] is
$\sim 4\times 10^{25}\mbox{ erg s$^{-1}$}
(B/10^{13}\mbox{ G})^2(P/100\mbox{ s})^{-4}$.
In addition, magnetars and high-$B$ pulsars have a short spin-down
timescale ($\approx 10^3-10^5\mbox{ yr}$; see Figs.~\ref{fig:ppdot} and
\ref{fig:pb}) and are
young (age on the same order as their spin-down timescale).
Meanwhile, the high-mass companion of SXPs has a much longer lifetime
($\sim\mbox{a few}\times 10^6\mbox{ yr}$),
which allows us to study the pulsars at later stages in their life.
In other words, it is only because of accretion that we are able to detect
these highly-magnetized neutron stars when they are older than when they are
young and isolated (see also \citealt{chashkinapopov12}).
This may suggest that magnetic field decay in neutron stars occurs slower
than previously thought \citep{ponsetal09}
and could be the result of the magnetic field extending into the
superconducting neutron star core, where the field decay timescale is
much longer \citep{glampedakisetal11}.
Importantly, this scenario where all pulsars are drawn from the same
source population would resolve the neutron star birthrate
problem \citep{keanekramer08,wattersromani11} and
support a unified picture of neutron stars
\citep{keanekramer08,kaspi10,popovetal10}.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{Summary} \label{sec:discuss}
Using recent measurements of a large number of spin period time derivatives
$\dot{P}$ for pulsars in high-mass binaries in the Small Magellanic Cloud
\citep{klusetal13}, we examined the torque implications for the standard disk
accretion model \citep{ghoshlamb79} and model of \citet{kluzniakrappaport07}
and for neutron star magnetic fields.
We find several interesting results.
Many of the 42 SXPs are near spin equilibrium, where torques that increase
and decrease the spin period are balanced, and thus SXPs are ESPs;
previously only four pulsars have been found to possibly be near spin
equilibrium.
The standard disk accretion model links SXPs (which have high mass companion
stars) with pulsars at very short spin periods (which have low mass
companions); this is demonstrated by the shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:pb}.
The strong magnetic field of many SXPs is above the QED-field and links
them with magnetars and strong-$B$ radio/X-ray pulsars.
The decay of magnetic field in SXPs occurs after $10^6$~yr, suggesting
magnetic field penetration into the superconducting pulsar core.
It is possible there are many more superstrong magnetic field pulsars in
the Galaxy that remain as yet undetected.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section*{acknowledgments}
We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments.
WCGH and NA acknowledge support from the Science and Technology
Facilities Council (STFC) in the United Kingdom.
HK acknowledges a STFC studentship.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
We will study existence and regularity of solutions $\bfu:\mathcal Q\rightarrow\mathbb R^D$,
$\mathcal Q:=(0,T)\times G$ with $T>0$ and $G\subset\mathbb R^d$ bounded, to systems of stochastic PDE's of the type
\begin{align}\label{eq:}
\begin{cases}d\bfu&=\divergence\,\bfS(\nabla \bfu)\,dt+\Phi(\bfu)d\bfW_t\\
\bfu(0)&=\bfu_0\end{cases}.
\end{align}
Here $\bfS:\mathbb R^{d\times D}\rightarrow\mathbb R^{d\times D}$ is a non-linear operator and $\bfu_0$ some in general random initial datum. The most famous example is the
$p$-Laplacian operator
\begin{align}\label{eq:S}
\bfS(\bfxi)=(1+|\bfxi|)^{p-2}\bfxi,\quad \bfxi\in\mathbb R^{d\times D},
\end{align}
with $p\in(1,\infty)$.
Equation (\ref{eq:}) is an abbreviation for
\begin{align}\label{eq:strong}
\bfu(t)&=\bfu_0+\int_0^t\divergence\,\bfS(\nabla \bfu)\,d\sigma+\int_0^t\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW_\sigma
\end{align}
$\mathbb P\otimes\mathcal L^1$-a.e.
We assume that $\bfW$ is a Brownian motion with values in a Hilbert space (see section 2 for details) .
We suppose linear growth of $\Phi$ - roughly speaking $|\Phi(\bfu)|\leq c(1+|\bfu|)$ and $|\Phi'(\bfu)|\leq c$ (for a precise formulation see (\ref{eq:phi}) in section 2).
The motivation for this is an interaction between the solution and the random perturbation caused by
the Brownian motion. For large values of $|\bfu|$ we expect a larger perturbation than for small values.\\
Since the $p$-Laplace equation is a basic problem in non-linear PDE's it can be understood as a
model-problem to a large class of equations. In view of applications we especially mention the flow of
Non-Newtonian fluids (see for instance \cite{DRW}, \cite{BrDS}, \cite{TeYo} and \cite{MNRR}) which might be the topic of some future projects. The deterministic equivalent to the equation mentioned above is already well understood, we refer to \cite{Gi}, \cite{Giu} and \cite{Uh} for the stationary case and to \cite{LaUrSo} \cite{DiFr},\cite{Wi} for the evolutionary situation. We also refer to the survey papers \cite{Mi} and \cite{DuMiSt} giving a nice overview.\\
Regarding the stochastic problem there is a lot of literature regarding the existence of solutions
to nonlinear evolutionary equations. The popular variational approach by Pardoux \cite{Pa} for SPDEs provides an existence theory for a quite general class of equations. It requires a Banach space $V$ which is continuously embedded into the Hilbert space $\mathscr H$ on which the equation is considered. The main part of the equation is to be understood in the dual $V^*$. In the situation (\ref{eq:})-(\ref{eq:S}) we have $V=\mathring{W}^{1,p}(G)$ and $\mathscr H=L^2(G)$.
Although this does not include the case $p\leq\frac{2d}{d+2}$ (this bound arises from Sobolev's Theorem) system (\ref{eq:}) can still be treated by slightly modified arguments. For recent developments we refer to \cite{LiRo} and \cite{PrRo}.\\
However, there is not much literature about the regularity for nonlinear stochastic problems like (\ref{eq:}). Certain regularity results about nonlinear stochastic PDEs are known:
\begin{itemize}
\item In \cite{Ho1} and \cite{Ho2} semilinear stochastic PDEs are considered, were also regularity
statements are shown. Anyway, the elliptic part of the equations studied there is still linear.
\item Zhang \cite{Zh} observes non-linear stochastic PDEs but only in space-dimension one.
\item Very recently the regularity of certain nonlinear parabolic systems with stochastic perturbation was investigated in \cite{BeFl}. The results are $C^\alpha$-estimates
for the solution under a quadratic growth assumption.
\end{itemize}
The literature dedicated to the regularity theory for linear SPDEs is quite extensive, we refer to \cite{Kr}, \cite{KrRo1}, \cite{KrRo2}, \cite{Fl1} and the references therein.
The situation in the non-linear case is different, as explained above and to our best knowledge there is nothing about regularity for the stochastic $p$-Laplacian system.
Hence this is the aim of the present paper. We will prove the following statements:
\begin{itemize}
\item The weak solution $\bfu$ is a strong solution to (\ref{eq:}) and it holds
\begin{align}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_{G'}|\nabla\bfu(t)|^2\,dx+\int_0^T\int_{G'}|\nabla\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]<\infty\label{neu}
\end{align}
for all $G'\Subset G$, where $\bfF(\bfxi)=(1+|\bfxi|)^{\frac{p-2}{2}}\bfxi$ (see Theorem \ref{thm:2.3} and Theorem and \ref{thm:sub2}).
\item Let $\bfS(\bfxi)=\nu(|\bfxi|)\bfxi$ for $\nu:[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$\footnote{the so-called Uhlenbeck-structure, see \cite{Uh}} and $p>2-\frac{4}{d}$. Then
the strong solution $\bfu$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq:moser}
\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\int_{G'}|\nabla\bfu|^q\,dx\,dt\bigg]<\infty
\end{align}
for all $G'\Subset G$ and all $q<\infty$ (see Theorem \ref{thm:4.3}).
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The estimate in (\ref{neu}) is the natural extension of the results for non-linear PDE's in the deterministic situation to the stochastic setting, see \cite{DuMiSt} (chapter 5). In the deterministic case, it is also
quite standard to get regularity results in time: testing with $\partial_t^2\bfu$ gives $\partial_t\bfu\in L^\infty(L^2)$ and $\partial_t\bfF(\nabla\bfu)\in L^2(\mathcal Q)$. Due to the appearance of the Brownian motion such a results cannot be true for the stochastic problem.
\item We consider only the non-degenerated case, see (\ref{eq:Sp}). However, the regularity estimates are independent of $\Lambda$ which means it is possible to obtain results for the degenerate case via approximation.
\item It is only a technical matter to assume general Dirichlet boundary conditions. In order to keep the proofs easier, we assume them to be zero.
\item A lot of other statements which are known in the deterministic situation are still open for the stochastic problem. For instance partial regularity for the parabolic problems with $p$-structure which is shown in \cite{DuMi} via the $\mathcal A$-caloric approximation method.
\item The proof of (\ref{eq:moser}) is based on Moser iteration (see for instance \cite{GT}, ch. 8.5, for a nice presentation in the stationary deterministic case). Moser iteration in the stochastic setting also appears
in \cite{DMS1}-\cite{DMS3}. The authors study estimates and maximum princples for the solution to
SPDEs with a linear operator in the main part. This paper is concerned with gradient estimates for nonlinear systems of SPDEs.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
Our procedure is as follows:
In section 3 we study the case $p\geq2$.
We apply the difference quotient method to gain higher differentiability and the corresponding estimates in the superquadratic case (section 4). Since this does not work immediately if $p<2$ we approximate by a quadratic problem and show uniform estimates.
We have to combine the techniques from non-linear PDE's with stochastic calculus for martingales. Note that it is not possible to work directly with test functions. Instead we apply It\^{o}'s formula to certain functions of $\bfu$.\\
Finally we prove arbitrarily high integrability of $\nabla\bfu$ under special structure assumptions. This is done by Moser iteration.
\section{Probability framework}
Let $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P)$ be a probability space equipped with a filtration $\left\{\mathcal F_t,\,\,0\leq t\leq T\right\}$, which is a nondecreasing
family of sub-$\sigma$-fields of $\mathcal F$, i.e. $\mathcal F_s\subset\mathcal F_t$ for $0\leq s\leq t\leq T$. We further assume that $\left\{\mathcal F_t,\,\,0\leq t\leq T\right\}$ is right-continuous and $\mathcal F_0$ contains all the $\mathbb P$-negligible events in $\mathcal F$.\\
For a Banach space $(X,\|\cdot\|_X)$ we denote for $1\leq p<\infty$ by $L^p(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;X)$ the Banach space of all $\mathcal F$-measurable functions $v:\Omega\rightarrow X$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\big[\|v\|_X^p\big]<\infty,
\end{align*}
where the expectation is taken w.r.t. $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P)$.\\
Let $U,\mathscr H$ be two separable Hilbert spaces and let $(\bfe_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}$ be an orthonormal basis of $U$. We denote by $L_2(U,\mathscr H)$ the set of Hilbert-Schmidt operators from $U$ to $\mathscr H$.
Throughout the paper we consider a cylindrical Wiener process
$\bfW=(\bfW_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ which has the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:W}
\bfW(\sigma)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb N}\beta_k(\sigma)\bfe_k
\end{align}
with a sequence $(\beta_k)$ of independent real valued Brownian motions on $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P)$. Now
\begin{align*}
\int_0^t \psi(\sigma)d\bfW_\sigma,\quad \psi\in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^2(0,T;L_2(U,\mathscr H))),
\end{align*}
with $\psi$ progressively $(\mathcal F_t)$-measurable,
defines a $\mathbb P$-almost surely continuous $L^2(\Omega)^D$ valued $\mathcal F_t$-martingale.\footnote{for stochastic calculus in infinite dimensions we refer to \cite{PrZa}} Moreover, we can multiply with test-functions since
\begin{align*}
\bigg\langle\int_0^t \psi(\sigma)d\bfW_\sigma,\bfphi\bigg\rangle_\mathscr H=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_0^t\langle\psi(\sigma)( \bfe_k),\bfphi\rangle_\mathscr H\,d\beta_k(\sigma),\quad \bfphi\in \mathscr H,
\end{align*}
is well-defined (the series converges in $L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P; C[0,T])$).\\
Our actual aim is the study of the system (\ref{eq:}), where $\bfH=L^2(G)$, $V=\mathring{W}^{1,p}(G)$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:auxp}
\begin{cases}d\bfu&=\divergence\,\bfS(\nabla \bfu)\,dt+\Phi (\bfu)\,d\bfW_t\\
\bfu(0)&=\bfu_0\end{cases},
\end{align}
where $\bfS:\mathbb R^{d\times D}\rightarrow \mathbb R^{d\times D}$ is $C^1$ and fulfils
\begin{align}\label{eq:Sp}
\lambda (1+|\bfxi|)^{p-2}|\bfzeta|^2\leq D\bfS(\bfxi)(\bfzeta,\bfzeta)\leq \Lambda(1+|\bfxi|)^{p-2} |\bfzeta|^2
\end{align}
for all $\bfxi,\bfzeta\in\mathbb R^{d\times D}$ with some positive constants $\lambda,\Lambda$ and $p\in(1,\infty)$. Suppose that $\Phi$ satisfies (\ref{eq:phi}).
\begin{definition}[weak solution]
\label{def:weakp}
$\left.\right.$\\
Let $\bfW$ be a Brownian motion as in (\ref{eq:W}) on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P)$ with filtration $(\mathcal F_t)$.
A function $\bfu\in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^\infty(0,T;L^2(G)))\cap L^p(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P; L^p(0,T;\mathring{W}^{1,p}(G)))$ which is progressively $(\mathcal F_t)$-measureable is called a weak solutions to (\ref{eq:}) if
for every $\bfphi\in C^\infty_0(G)$ it holds for a.e. $t$
\begin{align*}
\int_G\bfu(t)\cdot\bfvarphi\,dx &+\int_G\int_0^t\bfS(\nabla \bfu(\sigma)):\nabla\bfphi\,dx\,d\sigma\\&=\int_G\bfu_0\cdot\bfvarphi\,dx+\int_G\int_0^t\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW_\sigma\cdot \bfvarphi\,dx
\end{align*}
$\mathbb P$-almost surely.
\end{definition}
In order to show regularity of solutions we suppose the following linear growth assumptions on $\Phi$ (following \cite{Ho1}): For each $\bfz\in L^2(G)$ there is a mapping $\Phi(\bfz):U\rightarrow L^{2}(G)^D$ defined by $\Phi(\bfz)\bfe_k=g_k(\cdot,\bfz(\cdot))$. In particular, we suppose
that $g_k\in C^1(G\times\mathbb R^D)$ and the following conditions
\begin{align}\label{eq:phi}\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k\in\mathbb N}|g_k(x,\bfxi)|^2 \leq c(1+|\bfxi|^2)&,\quad
\sum_{k\in\mathbb N}|\nabla_{\bfxi} g_k(x,\bfxi)|^2\leq c,\quad\bfxi\in\mathbb R^D,\\
\sum_{k\in\mathbb N}|\nabla_x g_k(x,\bfxi)|^2 &\leq c(1+|\bfxi|^2).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
\begin{definition}[strong solution]
\label{def:strong}
$\left.\right.$\\
A weak solution is called a strong solutions to (\ref{eq:})\\ if $\divergence\bfS(\nabla \bfu)\in L^1(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^1_{loc}(\mathcal Q))$ and
\begin{align*}
\bfu(t)&=\bfu_0+\int_0^t\divergence\,\bfS(\nabla \bfu)\,d\sigma+\int_0^t\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW_\sigma
\end{align*}
holds $\mathbb P\otimes \mathcal L^{d+1}$-a.e.
\end{definition}
\section{Regularity for $p\geq2$}
Throughout this section we study problems of the type (\ref{eq:}) with (\ref{eq:Sp}) for $p\geq2$. In the following section we consider subquadratic problems regularized by quadratic ones.
\begin{theorem}[Regularity]\label{thm:2.3}
$\left.\right.$\\
Assume $\bfu_0\in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F_0,\mathbb P,\mathring{W}^{1,2}(G))$, (\ref{eq:Sp}) with $p\geq2$ and (\ref{eq:phi}).
Then the unique weak solution $\bfu$ to (\ref{eq:}) is a strong solution and satisfies
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_{G'}|\nabla\bfu(t)|^2\,dx+\int_0^T\int_{G'}|\nabla\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]<\infty
\end{align*}
for all $G'\Subset G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\bfu_0\in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F_0,\mathbb P,\mathring{W}^{1,2}(G))$ and $p\geq2$ the existence of a unique weak solution (in the sense of defintion \ref{def:weakp})
follows by the common variational approach (see for instance \cite{PrRo}) and satisfies
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bfu \in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^\infty(0,T; L^2(G)))$;
\item $\bfu \in L^p(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^p(0,T; \mathring{W}^{1,p}(G)))$.
\end{itemize}
We consider a cut-off function $\eta\in C^\infty_0(G)$ and the difference quotient $\Delta_h^\gamma$ in direction $\gamma\in\left\{1,...,d\right\}$ with $|h|<\frac 12\mathrm{dist}(\support\eta,\partial\Omega)$. We apply It\^{o}'s formula to the function $f(\bfv)=\tfrac{1}{2}\|\eta\Delta_h^\gamma\bfv\|_{L^2(G)}^2$. In appropriate version it is shown in \cite{DHoV}, Prop. A.1. Although only the $L^2$-case is considered there it is straightforward to extend it to the $L^p$-setting
This shows
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\|\eta\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu(t)\|_{L^2(G)}^2&=\frac{1}{2}\|\eta\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu_0\|_{L^2(G)}^2+\int_0^t f'(\bfu)d\bfu_\sigma+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t f''(\bfu)d\langle\bfu\rangle_\sigma\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\|\eta\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu_0\|_{L^2(G)}^2+\int_G\int_0^t \eta^2\langle\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu\rangle_\sigma\,dx\\&+\frac{1}{2}\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2 \,d\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\Delta_h^\gamma \big(\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW\big)\Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx
=:(I)+(II)+(III).
\end{align*}
We consider the three integrals separately.
For the second one we get
\begin{align*}
(II)&=-(II)_1-(II)_2+(II)_3,\\
(II)_1&:=\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2\Delta_h^\gamma\bfS(\nabla\bfu):\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu\,dx\,d\sigma,\\
(II)_2&:=\int_0^t\int_G \Delta_h^\gamma\bfS(\nabla\bfu):\nabla\eta^2\otimes\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu\,dx\,d\sigma,\\
(II)_3&:=\int_0^t\int_G\eta^2\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu
\cdot\Delta_h^\gamma\Big(\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW_\sigma\Big)\,dx.
\end{align*}
Using the assumptions for $\bfS$ in (\ref{eq:Sp}) we get
\begin{align*}
(II)_1&= \int_0^t\int_G \eta^2\int_0^1D\bfS(\nabla\bfu+sh\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu)\,ds\big
(\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu,\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&\geq \lambda\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2\int_0^1(1+|\nabla\bfu+sh\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}\,ds
|\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&\geq c\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2(1+|\nabla\bfu|+|h\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}
|\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&\geq c\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2
|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,d\sigma.
\end{align*}
In the second last step we used \cite{AF}, Lemma 2.1.
For the second term we obtain by similar arguments
\begin{align*}
(II)_2&\leq \,c\, \int_0^t\int_G \eta\int_0^1(1+|\nabla\bfu+sh\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}\,ds|\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu||\nabla\eta||\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&\leq \delta\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2\int_0^1(1+|\nabla\bfu+sh\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}\,ds|\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&+c(\delta)\int_0^t\int_G \int_0^1(1+|\nabla\bfu+sh\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}\,ds
|\nabla\eta|^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&\leq c(\delta)\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}} (1+|\nabla\bfu|+|h\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&+\delta \int_0^t\int_G \eta^2
|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,d\sigma.
\end{align*}
Here we used Young's inequality for an arbitrary $\delta>0$.
Moreover, we have by (\ref{eq:phi})
\begin{align*}
(III)&=\frac{1}{2}\int_G\int_0^t \eta^2\,d\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\Delta_h^\gamma \big(\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW\big)\Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2 \,d\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\Delta_h^\gamma\big(\Phi(\bfu)\bfe_k\big) d\beta_k\Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2 \Big|\bigg(\int_0^1 \nabla_{\bfxi} g_k(\cdot,\bfu+sh\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu)\,ds\bigg)\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu\Big|^2\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2 \Big|\int_0^1 \partial_\gamma g_k(x+sh e_\gamma,\bfu)\,ds\Big|^2\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq c\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2\,d\sigma\,dx+c\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2|\bfu|^2\,d\sigma\,dx.
\end{align*}
Plugging all together and using $\mathbb E[(II)_3]=0$ we see
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\int_G\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu(t)|^2\,dx+\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G|\nabla\bfu_0|^2\,dx\bigg]+c\int_0^t\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\eta^2\big(|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2+|\bfu|^2\big)\,dx\bigg]\,d\sigma\\
&+c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}} \eta^2(1+|\nabla\bfu|+|h\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg].
\end{align*}
By Gronwall's Lemma and since $\bfu_0\in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F_0,\mathbb P; \mathring{W}^{1,2}(G))$ we end up with
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\int_G\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu(t)|^2\,dx+\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]\\&\leq c(\eta)\bigg(1+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}}(1+|\nabla\bfu|+|h\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\bigg).
\end{align*}
Here we also took into account $\bfu\in L^2(\Omega\times Q)$.
If $p>2$ we gain by Young's inequality for the exponents $\frac{p}{2}$ and $\frac{p}{p-2}$\footnote{This step is trivial if $p=2$.}
\begin{align*}
(RHS)&\leq c(\eta)\bigg(1+\int_0^t\int_{G} |\nabla\bfu|^{p}\,dx\,d\sigma+\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}} |h\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu|^{p}\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg)\\
&\leq c(\eta)\bigg(1+\int_0^t\int_{G} |\nabla\bfu|^{p}\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg)
\end{align*}
which is bounded as well (independent of $h$). This means we have shown
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\int_G\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu(t)|^2\,dx+\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]\leq c(\eta).
\end{align*}
Now we want to interchange supremum and expectation value. Applying similar arguments as before we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:GG}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}&\int_G\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu(t)|^2\,dx\bigg]+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]\\
&\leq c(\eta)+c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}|(II)_3|\bigg].
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Using the assumptions on $\bfW$ (see (\ref{eq:phi})) we see
\begin{align*}
(II)_3&=\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu\cdot\Delta_h^\gamma\Big(\Phi(\bfu)\bfe_k\,d\beta_k(\sigma)\Big)\,dx\\
&=\sum_k\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu\cdot\Delta_h^\gamma\Big(g_k(\cdot,\bfu)\,d\beta_k(\sigma)\Big)\,dx\\
&=\sum_k\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2\bigg(\int_0^1 \nabla_{\bfxi} g_k(\cdot,\bfu+sh\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu)\,ds\bigg)
(\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu,\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu)\,d\beta_k(\sigma)\,dx\\
&+\sum_k\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu\cdot\bigg(\int_0^1 \partial_\gamma g_k(x+she_\gamma,\bfu)\,ds\bigg)\,d\beta_k(\sigma)\,dx\\
&=\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2\mathcal G^\bfxi
(\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu,\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu)\,d\beta_k(\sigma)\,dx\\
&+\int_G\int_0^t\eta^2\mathcal G^x(\bfu)\cdot\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu\,d\beta_k(\sigma)\,dx\\
&=:(II)_3^1+(II)_3^2
\end{align*}
where we abbreviated
\begin{align*}
\quad \mathcal G^\bfxi&:=\sum_k\mathcal G^\bfxi_k:=\sum_k\bigg(\int_0^1 \nabla_{\bfxi} g_k(\cdot,\bfu+sh\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu)\,ds\bigg),\\
\mathcal G^x(\bfu)&:=\sum_k\mathcal G^x_k(\bfu):=\sum_k\int_0^1 \partial_\gamma g_k(x+she_\gamma,\bfu)\,ds.
\end{align*}
On account of assumption (\ref{eq:phi}) Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality and Young's inequality imply for arbitrary $\delta>0$
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|(II)^1_3|\bigg]&\leq \mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\Big|\int_0^t\sum_k\int_G\eta^2\mathcal G^\bfxi_k
(\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu,\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu)\,dx\,d\beta_k(\sigma)\Big|\bigg]\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\bigg(\int_G \eta^2 \mathcal G^\bfxi
(\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu,\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu)\,dx\bigg)^2\,dt\bigg]^{\frac 12}\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\bigg(\int_0^T\bigg(\int_G\eta^2
|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2\,dx\bigg)^2\,dt\bigg]^{\frac 12}\\
&\leq \delta\,\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G\eta^2
|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2\,dx\bigg]+ c(\delta)\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2
|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg].
\end{align*}
By similar arguments we gain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|(II)^2_3|\bigg]
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\bigg(\int_G \eta^2 \mathcal G^x(\bfu)
\cdot\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu\,dx\bigg)^2\,dt\bigg]^{\frac 12}\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\bigg(\int_0^T\bigg(\int_G\eta^2
|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu||\bfu|\,dx\bigg)^2\,dt\bigg]^{\frac 12}\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G\eta^2
|\bfu|^2\,dx\bigg]+ c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2
|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg].
\end{align*}
Combining this with (\ref{eq:GG}), using $\bfu\in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^\infty(0,T;L^2(G)))$ and choosing $\delta$ sufficiently small shows
\begin{align}\label{eq:E_sup}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu(t)|^2\,dx\bigg]+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]
\leq c(\eta).
\end{align}
This finally proves the claim (see \cite{BeFl}, section 3.2, for difference quotients and differentiability in the stochastic setting).
\end{proof}
\section{The subquadratic case: $p<2$}
Throughout this section we study problems of the type (\ref{eq:}) with (\ref{eq:Sp}) and $p\leq2$.
We add the Laplacian to the main part in order to get a problem with quadratic growth. Let $\bfu^\epsilon$ be the solution to
\begin{align}\label{eq:strongsub}
\begin{cases}
d\bfu^\epsilon&=\divergence\big(\bfS(\nabla \bfu^\epsilon)\big)dt+\epsilon\Delta\bfu dt+\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)d\bfW_t,\\
\bfu(0)&=\bfu_0.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
From Theorem \ref{thm:2.3} we know that the solution has the following properties
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bfu^\epsilon \in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^\infty(0,T;L^2(G)))$;
\item $\nabla \bfu^\epsilon \in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^2(0,T;W^{1,2}_{loc}(G)))$.
\end{itemize}
We will prove the following a priori estimates which are uniform in $\epsilon$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:aprisub}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}&\int_G |\bfu^\epsilon(t)|^2\,dx+\int_\mathcal{Q} |\nabla \bfu^\epsilon|^p\,dx\,dt+\epsilon\int_\mathcal{Q} |\nabla \bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]\\&\leq c\bigg(1+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G |\bfu_0|^2\,dx\bigg]\bigg).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
We apply It\^{o}'s formula to the function $f(\bfv)=\tfrac{1}{2}\|\bfv\|_{L^2(G)}^2$ which shows
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}\|\bfu^\epsilon(t)\|_{L^2(G)}^2&=\frac{1}{2}\|\bfu_0\|_{L^2(G)}^2+\int_0^t f'(\bfu^\epsilon)d\bfu^\epsilon_\sigma+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t f''(\bfu^\epsilon)\,d\langle\bfu^\epsilon\rangle_\sigma\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\|\bfu_0\|_{L^2(G)}^2-\epsilon\int_G\int_0^t|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma-\int_{G}\int_0^t\bfS(\nabla \bfu^\epsilon):\nabla\bfu^\epsilon\,dx\,d\sigma\nonumber\\
&+\int_G\int_0^t\bfu^\epsilon\cdot\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)\,d\bfW_\sigma\,dx
+\int_G\int_0^td\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)\, d\bfW\Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx.\label{eq:cuN}
\end{align}
Now we can follow, building expectations and using (\ref{eq:Sp}), that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G &|\bfu^\epsilon(t)|^2\,dx+\epsilon\int_0^t\int_G |\nabla \bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma+\int_0^t\int_G |\nabla \bfu^\epsilon|^p\,dx\,d\sigma\\&\leq c\Big(\mathbb E\big[1+\|\bfu_0\|^2_{L^2(G)}\big]+\mathbb E\big[J_1(t)\big]+\mathbb E\big[J_2(t)\big]\Big).
\end{align*}
Here we abbreviated
\begin{align*}
J_1(t)&=\int_G\int_0^t\bfu^\epsilon\cdot\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)\,d\bfW_\sigma\,dx,\\
J_2(t)&=\int_G\int_0^td\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)\, d\bfW\Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx.
\end{align*}
Using (\ref{eq:phi}) we gain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E[J_2]&= \mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\sum_{i=1}^\infty\int_G |\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)\bfe_i|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\\
&= \mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\sum_{i=1}^\infty\int_G |g_i(\cdot,\bfu^\epsilon)|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\\
&\leq\,c\, \mathbb E\bigg[1+\int_0^t\int_G|\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg].
\end{align*}
Clearly, we have $\mathbb E[J_1]=0$. So
interchanging the time-integral and the expectation value and applying Gronwall's Lemma leads to
\begin{align}\label{eq:4.4}
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\mathbb E&\bigg[\int_G |\bfu^\epsilon(t)|^2\,dx\bigg]+\epsilon\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal{Q} |\nabla \bfu^\epsilon|^p\,dx\,dt\bigg]+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal{Q} |\nabla \bfu^\epsilon|^p\,dx\,dt\bigg]\\&\leq \,c\,\mathbb E\bigg[1+\int_G |\bfu_0|^2\,dx\bigg].
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
A similar observation shows
\begin{align}\label{eq:4.4'}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_G |\bfu^\epsilon(t)|^2\,dx\bigg]&\leq \,c\,\mathbb E\bigg[1+\int_G |\bfu_0|^2\,dx+\int_0^T\int_G |\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\\&+\,c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|J_1(t)|\bigg].
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
On account of the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality, (\ref{eq:phi}) and Young's inequality we obtain for arbitrary $\kappa>0
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|J_1(t)|\bigg]&=\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\Big|\int_0^t\int_G\bfu^\epsilon\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)\,dx\,d\bfW_\sigma\Big|\bigg]\\
&=\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\Big|\int_0^t\sum_i\int_G\bfu^\epsilon\cdot g_i(\cdot,\bfu^\epsilon)\,dx\,d\beta_i(\sigma)\Big|\bigg]\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\sum_i\bigg(\int_G|\bfu^\epsilon|g_i(\cdot,\bfu^\epsilon)\,dx\bigg)^2\,dt\bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[1+\bigg(\int_0^T\bigg(\int_G|\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\bigg)^2\,d\sigma\bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\leq \kappa\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_G|\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\bigg]+c(\kappa)\mathbb E\bigg[1+\int_0^T\int_G|\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]
\end{align*}
Inserting this in (\ref{eq:4.4'}), choosing $\kappa$ small enough and using (\ref{eq:4.4}) proves (\ref{eq:aprisub}).\\
After passing to a (not relabeled) subsequence we have for a certain function $\bfu$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:conv_sub}
\begin{aligned}
\bfu^\epsilon&\rightharpoondown \bfu \quad\text{in}\quad L^p(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^p(\mathcal Q)),\\
\bfu^\epsilon&\rightharpoondown \bfu \quad\text{in}\quad L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^r(0,T;L^2(G)))\quad\forall r<\infty,\\
\nabla\bfu^\epsilon&\rightharpoondown \nabla\bfu \quad\text{in}\quad L^p(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^p(\mathcal Q)),\\
\epsilon\nabla\bfu^\epsilon &\rightarrow 0 \quad\text{in}\quad L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^2(\mathcal Q)).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}[Regularity]\label{thm:sub2}
$\left.\right.$\\
Assume (\ref{eq:Sp}) with $p\leq2$, (\ref{eq:phi}) and $\bfu_0\in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F_0,\mathbb P,\mathring{W}^{1,2}(G))$.
Then there is a unique weak solution $\bfu$ to (\ref{eq:}) which is a strong solution and satisfies
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_{G'}|\nabla\bfu(t)|^2\,dx+\int_0^T\int_{G'}|\nabla\bfF(\nabla\bfu)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]<\infty
\end{align*}
for all $G'\Subset G$, where $\bfF(\bfxi)=(1+|\bfxi|)^{\frac{p-2}{2}}\bfxi$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
In cthe ase $1<p<\frac{2d}{d+2}$ even the existence of a weak solution is not contained in literature. In this
case no Gelfand triple is available and hence the general results for evolutionary SPDEs based on the variational approach (see for instance \cite[Thm. 4.2.4]{PrRo}) do not hold. The uniqueness is again classical and follows from the monotonicity of the coefficients.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
From the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2.3} we can quote (recall (\ref{eq:aprisub}))
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\int_G\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu^\epsilon(t)|^2\,dx+\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfF(\nabla\bfu^\epsilon)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]\\&\leq c(\eta)\bigg(1+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}}(1+|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|+|h\Delta_h^\gamma\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|)^{p-2}|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\bigg)\\
&+c(\eta)\epsilon\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}}|\Delta_h^\gamma\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\bigg)
\end{align*}
since the arguments up to this step also work for $p\leq2$. All involved quantities have weak derivatives so we can go to the limit $h\rightarrow0$. This shows by (\ref{eq:aprisub})
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\int_G\eta^2|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon(t)|^2\,dx+\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\nabla\bfF(\nabla\bfu^\epsilon)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]\\&\leq c(\eta)\bigg(1+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\int_{G}(1+|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|)^{p-2}|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\bigg)\\
&+c(\eta)\epsilon\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\int_{G}|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\bigg).\\
&\leq c(\eta)\bigg(1+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\int_{G}(1+|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|)^{p-2}|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\bigg)\\
&\leq c(\eta)\bigg(1+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^t\int_{G}|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|^p\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\bigg).
\end{align*}
Using similar arguments as in the last section we can interchange supremum and integral and conclude
\begin{align}\label{eq:estpll2}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_G\eta^2|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon(t)|^2\,dx+\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\nabla\bfF(\nabla\bfu^\epsilon)|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]\\
&\leq c(\eta)\bigg(1+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal Q|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|^p\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\bigg)\leq c(\eta).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Now we have to go to the limit in the equation. We get
\begin{align}\label{eq:conv_eps}
\begin{aligned}
\bfS(\nabla\bfu^\epsilon)&\rightharpoondown: \tilde{\bfS} \quad\text{in}\quad L^{p'}(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^{p'}(\mathcal Q)),\\
\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)&\rightharpoondown: \tilde{\Phi} \quad\text{in}\quad L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^2(0,T;L_2(U,L^2(G)^D))).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
One can now pass to the limit in the
equation to obtain the corresponding equation for u with $\tilde{\bfS}$ and $\tilde{\Phi}$ instead of $\bfS(\nabla\bfu)$ and $\Phi(\bfu)$,
respectively. The passage to the limit in the stochastic integral is justified since the
mapping
\begin{align*}
L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^2(0,T;L_2(U;L^2(G))))&\rightarrow L^2(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^2(0,T;L^2(G))),\\
\bfphi&\mapsto \int_0^t\bfphi\,d\bfW_\sigma,
\end{align*}
is continuous hence weakly continuous.
We have to show that $\tilde{\bfS}=\bfS(\nabla\bfu)$ and $\tilde{\Phi}=\Phi(\bfu)$ hold. Subtracting the formula for $\|\bfu^\epsilon\|^2_{L^2(G)}$ and $\|\bfu\|^2_{L^2(G)}$ (see (\ref{eq:cuN})) shows
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{2}\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G|\bfu^\epsilon(T)- \bfu(T)|^2\,dx\bigg]\\
+&\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\int_0^T\big(\bfS(\nabla\bfu^\epsilon)-\bfS(\nabla\bfu)\big):\nabla\big(\bfu^\epsilon-\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]+\epsilon\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\int_G|\nabla\bfu^\epsilon|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\\
&=\mathbb E\bigg[-\int_G\bfu^\epsilon(T)\cdot \bfu(T)\,dx\bigg]\\
&+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\int_0^T\big(\tilde{\bfS}-\bfS(\nabla\bfu^\epsilon)\big):\nabla\bfu\,dx\,d\sigma-\int_G\int_0^T\bfS(\nabla\bfu):\nabla\big(\bfu^\epsilon-\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\\
&+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\int_0^T\Big(\bfu^\epsilon\cdot\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon) d\bfW_\sigma
-\bfu\cdot\tilde{\Phi} d\bfW_\sigma\Big)\,dx\bigg]\\
&+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\int_0^Td\Big(\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon) d\bfW\Big\rangle_\sigma
-\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\tilde{\Phi} d\bfW\Big\rangle_\sigma\Big)\,dx\bigg].
\end{align*}
By (\ref{eq:conv_sub}) $\bfu^\epsilon(T)$ is bounded in $L^2(\Omega\times G,\mathbb P\otimes\mathcal L^d)$. Which gives $\bfu^\epsilon(T)\rightharpoondown \bfu(T)$ in the same space at least for a subsequence (note that both are weakly continuous in $L^2(\Omega\times G,\mathbb P\otimes\mathcal L^d)$ with respect to $t$ which can be shown by the equations).
Letting $\epsilon\rightarrow\infty$ shows for a subsequence using (\ref{eq:conv_sub}) and (\ref{eq:conv_eps})
\begin{align*}
\lim_\epsilon\mathbb E&\bigg[\int_G|\bfu^\epsilon(T)- \bfu(T)|^2\,dx+\int_G\int_0^T\big(\bfS(\nabla\bfu^\epsilon)-\bfS(\nabla\bfu)\big):\nabla\big(\bfu^\epsilon-\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\\
&\leq \lim_\epsilon\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\int_0^Td\Big(\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon) d\bfW\Big\rangle_\sigma
-\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\tilde{\Phi} d\bfW\Big\rangle_\sigma\Big)\,dx\bigg].
\end{align*}
Following essential ideas of \cite{ChCh} (section 6) the last integral $\tilde{T}$ can be written as
\begin{align*}
\tilde{T}&=\sum_i \mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\int_0^T|\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)\bfe_i|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]-\sum_i \mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\int_0^T|\tilde{\Phi}\bfe_i|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]\\
&=\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\|\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)\|^2_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]-\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\|\tilde{\Phi}\|^2_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]\\
&=\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\|\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)-\tilde{\Phi}\|^2_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]+2\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\Big\langle\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon),\tilde{\Phi}\Big\rangle_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]\\&-2\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\|\tilde{\Phi}\|^2_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg].
\end{align*}
On account of (\ref{eq:conv_eps}) for $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ we only have to consider the first term which can be written as
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\|\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)-\tilde{\Phi}\|^2_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]&=\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\|\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)-\Phi(\bfu)\|^2_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]\\&-\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\|\Phi(\bfu)-\tilde{\Phi}\|^2_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]\\
&+2\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\Big\langle\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)-\tilde{\Phi},\Phi(\bfu)-\tilde{\Phi}\Big\rangle_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]
\end{align*}
Using again (\ref{eq:conv_eps}) and also (\ref{eq:phi}) implies
\begin{align*}
\lim_\epsilon \tilde{T}&\leq \lim_\epsilon\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\|\Phi(\bfu^\epsilon)-\Phi(\bfu)\|^2_{L_2(U,L^2(G))}\,dt\bigg]\\
&\leq \,c\,\lim_\epsilon\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\int_G|\bfu^\epsilon-\bfu|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg].
\end{align*}
We finally gain on account of Grownwall's lemma after interchanging expectation and integral
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\int_0^T\big(\bfS(\nabla\bfu^\epsilon)-\bfS(\nabla\bfu)\big):\nabla\big(\bfu^\epsilon-\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]=0.
\end{align*}
From this we deduce, by monotonicity of $\bfS$ that
\begin{align*}
\nabla\bfu^\epsilon\longrightarrow \nabla\bfu\quad\mathbb P\otimes \mathcal L^{d+1}-a.e.
\end{align*}
This means we have shown $\tilde{\bfS}=\bfS(\nabla\bfu)$.
Now we combine the uniform $L^p$-estimates for $\nabla\bfu^\epsilon$ with Vitali's Theorem to get
\begin{align}\label{eq:compactnablaN}
\nabla\bfu^\epsilon\longrightarrow \nabla\bfu\quad\text{in}\quad L^q(\Omega\times(0,T)\times G;\mathbb P\otimes\mathcal L^{d+1})\quad\text{for all } q<p.
\end{align}
Of course this also means compactness of $\bfu^\epsilon$ in the same space (we have zero traces). Therefore, we gain $\tilde{\Phi}=\Phi(\bfu)$.
Now we can pass to the limit in the approximated equation and finish the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sub2}.
\end{proof}
\section{Uhlenbeck-structure}
In order to get better results we assume Uhlenbeck structure for the non-linear tensor $\bfS$. If $D\geq2$ we suppose
\begin{align}\label{eq:nu}
\bfS(\bfxi)=\nu(|\bfxi|)\bfxi
\end{align}
for a $C^1$-function $\nu:[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$.
\begin{theorem}[Higher integrability]\label{thm:4.3}
$\left.\right.$\\
Assume (\ref{eq:Sp}), (\ref{eq:nu}), (\ref{eq:phi}) and $\bfu_0\in L^q(\Omega,\mathcal F_0,\mathbb P,\mathring{W}^{1,q}(G))$ for all $q<\infty$.
If $p>2-\frac{4}{d}$ then the solution $\bfu$ to (\ref{eq:}) satisfies
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\int_{G'}|\nabla\bfu|^q\,dx\,dt\bigg]<\infty
\end{align*}
for all $G'\Subset G$ and all $q<\infty$.
\end{theorem}
Since we now assume higher moments for the initial data we gain higher moments for the solution as well.
\begin{lemma}\label{lems:hm}
$\left.\right.$\\
Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:4.3} we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_{G}|\bfu(t)|^2\,dx+\int_0^T\int_{G}|\nabla\bfu|^p\,dx\,dt\bigg]^q<\infty
\end{align*}
for all $q<\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Due to the regularity results from Theorem \ref{thm:2.3} and \ref{thm:sub2} we have a strong solution and It\^{o}'s formula can be directly applied to the funtion $f(\bfv)=\frac{1}{2}\|\bfv\|_{L^2(G)}^2$. Using the growth condition on $\bfS$ from (\ref{eq:Sp}), taking the supremum and the $q$-th power of both sides of the equation and applying expectations shows
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G &|\bfu(t)|^2\,dx+\int_0^T\int_G |\nabla \bfu|^p\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]^q\\&\leq c\bigg(\mathbb E\bigg[1+\int_G|\bfu_0|^{2q}\,dx\bigg]+\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}|J_1(t)|\bigg]^q+\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}|J_2(t)|\bigg]^q\bigg),\\
J_1(t)&=\int_G\int_0^t\bfu\cdot\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW_\sigma\,dx,\\
J_2(t)&=\int_G\int_0^td\Big\langle\int_0^\cdot\Phi(\bfu) \,d\bfW\Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx.
\end{align*}
Using (\ref{eq:phi}) we gain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|J_2(t)|\bigg]^q&= \mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_0^t\sum_{i=1}^\infty\int_G |\Phi(\bfu)\bfe_i|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]^q\\
&\leq \mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\sum_{i=1}^\infty\int_G |g_i(\cdot,\bfu)|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]^q\\
&\leq \,c\,\mathbb E\bigg[1+\int_0^T\int_G|\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]^q.
\end{align*}
On account of the Burkholder-Davis-Gundi inequality, (\ref{eq:phi}) and Young's inequality we obtain for arbitrary $\epsilon>0
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|J_1(t)|\bigg]^q
&=\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\Big|\sum_i\int_0^t\int_G\bfu\cdot g_i(\cdot,\bfu)\,dx\,d\beta_i(\sigma)\Big|\bigg]^q\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\sum_i\bigg(\int_G\bfu\cdot g_i(\cdot,\bfu)\,dx\bigg)^2\,dt\bigg]^{\frac{q}{2}}\\
&\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[1+\bigg(\int_0^T\bigg(\int_G|\bfu|^2\,dx\bigg)^2\,d\sigma\bigg]^{\frac{q}{2}}\\
&\leq \epsilon\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_G|\bfu|^2\,dx\bigg]^q+c(\epsilon)\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\int_G|\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]^q.
\end{align*}
Choosing $\epsilon$ small enough and using Gronwall's lemma proves the claim.\\
Since the calculations above are not well-defined a priori one can work with a quadratic approximation for the function $z\mapsto z^q$.
\end{proof}
Before we begin with the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:4.3} which is based on the Moser iteration (see \cite{GT} for a nice presentation in the easier elliptic case) we need some preparations. The basic idea is estimating higher powers of $|\nabla\bfu|$ by lower powers and iterate this. Therefore, we define $$h(s):=\int_0^s(1+\theta)^{\alpha}\theta\,d\theta,\quad \alpha\geq0,$$
which behaves like $s^{\alpha+2}$ for large $s$.
Unfortunately we cannot work directly with $h$, we need an approximation $h_L$ which grows quadratically and converges to $h$. We follow the approach in \cite{BiFu} and define for $L\gg1$
\begin{align}\label{eq:hL}
\begin{aligned}
h_{L}(s)&:=\int_{0}^ s\tau g_{L}(\tau)\,d\tau,\\
g_{L}(\tau)&:=g(0)+\int_{0}^\tau\psi(\theta)g'(\theta)\,d\theta,\\
g(\theta)&:=\frac{h'(\theta)}{\theta}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Here $\psi\in C^1([0,\infty))$ denotes a cut-off function with the properties $0\leq\psi\leq1$, $\psi'\leq0$, $|\psi'|\leq c/L$, $\psi\equiv1$ on $[0,3L/2]$ and $\psi\equiv0$ on $[2L,\infty)$. For the function $h_L$ we obtain the following properties (see \cite{Br}, Lemma 2.1, and \cite{Br2}, section 2)
\begin{lemma}
\label{lems41}
For the sequence $(h_{L})$ we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $h_{L}\in C^2[0,\infty)$, $h_{L}(s)=h(s)$ for all $t\leq 3L/2$ and
\begin{align*}
\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}h_{L}(s)=h(s)\,\,\text{ for all }s\geq0;\qquad \qquad\qquad
\end{align*}
\item $h_{L}\leq h$, $g_{L}\leq g$ and $h_{L}''\leq c(L)$ on $[0,\infty)$;
\item It holds
\begin{align*}
\,\frac{h_{L}'(s)}{s}\leq h_{L}''(s)\leq c(\alpha+1)\,\frac{h_{L}'(s)}{s}
\end{align*}
and $h_{L}'(s)s\leq ch_L(s)$ uniformly in $L$.
\item We have for all $s,t\geq0$ uniformly in $L$
\begin{align*}
\frac{h_L'(s)}{s}t^2\leq \,c\big(1+h_L(s)+h_L(t)t^2\big).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
With this preparations the following calculations are well-defined by Theorem \ref{thm:2.3} and Theorem \ref{thm:sub2}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lems:alphau}
$\left.\right.$\\
Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:4.3} we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_{G}|\bfu(t)|^q\,dx\bigg]<\infty
\end{align*}
for all $q<\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We apply It\^{o}'s formula to the function $$f_L(\bfv):=\int_GH_L(\bfv)\,dx:=\int_Gh_L(|\bfv|)\,dx,$$
where $h_L$ is defined in (\ref{eq:hL}) and set $\alpha=q-2$. We obtain
\begin{align*}
\int_G&h_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\\&=\int_G\eta^2h_L(|\bfu_0|)\,dx+\int_0^t f'_L(\bfu)d\bfu_\sigma+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t f''_L(\bfu)\,d\langle\bfu_\sigma\rangle_\sigma\\
&=\int_G\eta^2h_L(|\bfu_0|)\,dx+\int_G \int_0^t DH_L(\bfu)\cdot d\bfu_\sigma\,dx\\&+\int_G\int_0^t D^2H_L(\bfu) \,d\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW \Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx\\
&=:(I)_q+(II)_q+(III)_q.
\end{align*}
We consider the three integrals separately and decompose the second one into
\begin{align*}
(II)_q&=-(II)^1_q-(II)^2_\alpha+(II)^3_q,\\
(II)_q^1&:=\int_0^t\int_G\tfrac{h_L'(|\bfu|)}{|\bfu|}\bfS(\nabla\bfu):\nabla\bfu\,dx,\\
(II)_q^2&:=\int_0^t\int_G \bfS(\nabla\bfu):\nabla\tfrac{h_L'(|\bfu|)}{|\bfu|}\otimes\bfu\,dx\,d\sigma,\\
(II)_q^3&:=\int_0^t\int_G\tfrac{h_L'(|\bfu|)}{|\bfu|}\bfu
\cdot\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW_\sigma\,dx.
\end{align*}
Using the Uhlenbeck structure (\ref{eq:nu}) and Lemma \ref{lems41} c) we gain
\begin{align*}
(II)_q^1&=\int_0^t\int_G\tfrac{h_L'(|\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}\nu(|\nabla\bfu|)|\nabla\bfu|^2\,dx\geq0,\\
(II)_q^2&=\int_0^t\int_G \nu(|\nabla\bfu|)\nabla\bfu:\tfrac{h_L''(|\bfu|)|\bfu|-h_L'(|\bfu|)}{|\bfu|^2}\nabla|\bfu|\otimes\bfu\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&=\frac{1}{4}\int_0^t\int_G \nu(|\nabla\bfu|)\tfrac{h_L''(|\bfu|)|\bfu|-h_L'(|\bfu|)}{|\bfu|^3}\big|\nabla|\nabla\bfu|^2\big|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\geq0.
\end{align*}
This and the assumptions on $\bfu_0$ imply
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_Gh_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\bigg]&\leq\,c\,\mathbb E\bigg[1+\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|(II)_q^3|+\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|(III)_q|\bigg]
\end{align*}
We have by (\ref{eq:phi}) and Lemma \ref{lems41}
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|(III)_q|
&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^TD^2H_L(\bfu)\,d\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot} g_k(\cdot,\bfu) d\beta_k\Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^T|D^2H_L(\bfu)||g_k(\cdot,\bfu) |^2\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq c(q)\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^T\tfrac{h_L'(|\bfu|)}{|\bfu|}|g_k(\cdot,\bfu)|^2\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq c(q)\int_G\int_0^T h_L'(|\bfu|)|\bfu|^2\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq c(q)\int_G\int_0^Th_L(|\bfu|)\big)\,d\sigma\,dx.
\end{align*}
Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2.3} we gain using $\big(\tfrac{h_L'(s)}{s}+h_L''(s)\big)s^2\leq c(\alpha)h_L(s)$ uniformly in $L$ (recall Lemma \ref{lems41} c))
\begin{align*}
&\,\mathbb E\,\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|(II)_q^3|\bigg]\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\bigg(\int_0^T\bigg(\int_G
h_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\bigg)^2\,dt\bigg]^{\frac 12}\\
&\leq \delta\,\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G
h_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\bigg]+ c(\delta)\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal Q
h_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\,dt\bigg].
\end{align*}
Finally we have shown
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_Gh_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\bigg]&\leq\,c\,\mathbb E\bigg[1+\int_0^T\int_Gh_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\,dt\bigg]
\end{align*}
and by Gronwall's Lemma
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}\int_Gh_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\bigg]&\leq\,c\,
\end{align*}
uniformly in $L$. Passing to the limit $L\rightarrow\infty$ yields the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof} (of Theorem \ref{thm:4.3})
We apply It\^{o}'s formula to the function $$f_L(\bfv):=\int_G\eta^2H_L(\nabla\bfv)\,dx:=\int_G\eta^2h_L(|\nabla\bfv|)\,dx,$$
where $\eta\in C^\infty_0(G)$ is a cut-off function and $h_L$ is defined in (\ref{eq:hL}). We obtain
\begin{align*}
\int_G&\eta^2h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx\\&=\int_G\eta^2h_L(|\nabla\bfu_0|)\,dx+\int_0^t f'_L(\bfu)d\bfu_\sigma+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t f''_L(\bfu)\,d\langle\bfu_\sigma\rangle_\sigma\\
&=\int_G\eta^2h_L(|\nabla\bfu_0|)\,dx+\int_G \int_0^t\eta^{2}DH_L(\nabla\bfu): d\nabla\bfu_\sigma\,dx\\&+\int_G\int_0^t \eta^{2}D^2H_L(\nabla\bfu) \,d\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot}\nabla\big(\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW\big) \Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx\\
&=:(I)_\alpha+(II)_\alpha+(III)_\alpha.
\end{align*}
We consider the three integrals separately and decompose the second one into
\begin{align*}
(II)_\alpha&=-(II)^1_\alpha-(II)^2_\alpha-(II)^3_\alpha+(II)^4_\alpha,\\
(II)_\alpha^1&:=\int_0^t\int_G \eta^{2}\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}D\bfS(\nabla\bfu)\big(\partial_\gamma\nabla\bfu,\partial_\gamma\nabla\bfu\big),\\
(II)_\alpha^2&:=\int_0^t\int_G \tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}D\bfS(\nabla\bfu)\big(\partial_\gamma\nabla\bfu,\nabla\eta^{2}\otimes\partial_\gamma\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma,\\
(II)_\alpha^3&:=\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2D\bfS(\nabla\bfu)\big(\partial_\gamma\nabla\bfu,\nabla\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}\otimes\partial_\gamma\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma,\\
(II)_\alpha^4&:=\int_0^t\int_G\eta^{2}\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}\nabla\bfu
:\nabla\big(\Phi(\bfu)\,d\bfW_\sigma\big)\,dx.
\end{align*}
Using the assumptions on $\bfS$, see (\ref{eq:Sp}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
(II)_\alpha^1
&\geq c\int_0^t\int_G \eta^{2}\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}(1+|\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}
|\nabla^2\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma.
\end{align*}
For the second term we gain for every $\delta>0$ using Young's inequality and Lemma \ref{lems41}
\begin{align*}
(II)_\alpha^2
&\leq \delta (II)_\alpha^1+c(\delta)\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}}\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}D\bfS(\nabla\bfu)\big(\nabla\eta^{2}\otimes\partial_\gamma\bfu,\nabla\eta^{2}\otimes\partial_\gamma\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&\leq \delta (II)_\alpha^1+c(\delta)\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}} (1+|\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx\,d\sigma.
\end{align*}
Thanks to assumption (\ref{eq:nu}) and Lemma \ref{lems41} it holds\footnote{for a detailed explanation of this step we refer to \cite{Bi}, (32) on p. 62.}
\begin{align*}
(II)_\alpha^3&=\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2D\bfS\big(\partial_\gamma\nabla\bfu,\nabla\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}\otimes\partial_\gamma\bfu\big)\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2D\bfS\big(e_\gamma\otimes\nabla\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|},e_\gamma\otimes\nabla|\nabla\bfu|^2\big)\,dx\,d\sigma\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\int_G \eta^2\tfrac{h_L''(|\nabla\bfu|)|\nabla\bfu|-h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|^3}D\bfS\big(e_\gamma\otimes\nabla|\nabla\bfu|^2,e_\gamma\otimes\nabla|\nabla\bfu|^2\big)\,dx\,d\sigma
\\&\geq0.
\end{align*}
Moreover, we have by (\ref{eq:phi}) and Lemma \ref{lems41}
\begin{align*}
(III)_\alpha
&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^t\eta^{2}D^2H_L(\nabla\bfu)\,d\Big\langle\int_0^{\cdot} \nabla\big(g_k(\cdot,\bfu) \big)d\beta_k\Big\rangle_\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^t\eta^{2}|D^2H_L(\nabla\bfu)||\nabla\big(\cdot,g_k(\bfu) \big)|^2\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq \sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^t\eta^{2}\Big(h_L''(|\nabla\bfu|)+\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}\Big) |\nabla\big( g_k(\cdot,\bfu)\big)\Big|^2\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq c(\alpha+1)\sum_{k}\int_G\int_0^t\eta^{2}\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}\big(|\nabla_{\bfxi}g_k(\cdot,\bfu)\nabla\bfu|^2+|\nabla_x g_k(\cdot,\bfu)|^2\big)\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq c(\alpha+1)\int_G\int_0^t\eta^{2}\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}\big(|\nabla\bfu|^2+|\bfu|^2\big)\,d\sigma\,dx\\
&\leq c(\alpha+1)\int_G\int_0^t\eta^{2}\big(1+h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)+h_L(|\bfu|)|\bfu|^2\big)\,d\sigma\,dx.
\end{align*}
In the last step we applied Lemma \ref{lems41} c) and
d).Thus we obtain taking the supremum, the $q$-th power and applying expectations
\begin{align}\label{eq:hLq}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G\eta^{2}h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx+\int_0^T\int_G \eta^{2}\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}(1+|\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}
|\nabla^2\bfu|^2\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]^q\\
&\leq c(\eta)\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_Gh_L(|\nabla\bfu_0|)\,dx+\int_0^T\int_{\support{\eta}}(1+|\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]^q\\
&+c(\alpha+1)\int_0^T\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\eta^{2}\big(h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)+h_L(|\bfu|)\big)\,dx\bigg]^q\,d\sigma+c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}|(II)_\alpha^4(t)|\bigg]^q.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2.3} we gain using $\big(\tfrac{h_L'(s)}{s}+h_L''(s)\big)s^2\leq c(\alpha)h_L(s)$ uniformly in $L$ (recall Lemma \ref{lems41} c))
\begin{align*}
&\,\mathbb E\,\bigg[\sup_{t\in(0,T)}|(II)_\alpha^4|\bigg]^q\leq c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\bigg(\int_0^T\bigg(\int_G\eta^2
h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx\bigg)^2\,dt\bigg]^{\frac q2}\\
&\leq \delta\,\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G\eta^2
h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx\bigg]^q+ c(\delta)\,\int_0^T\mathbb E\bigg[\int_G\eta^2
h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx\bigg]^q\,dt\\
&+ c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G\eta^2
h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx\bigg]^q+ c\,\mathbb E\bigg[\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2
h_L(|\bfu|)\,dx\,dt\bigg]^q.
\end{align*}
If we choose $\delta$ small enough we can remove the term involving $(II)_\alpha^4$ from the right-hand-side of (\ref{eq:hLq}).
By Gronwall's Lemma, the assumptions on $\bfu_0$ and Lemma \ref{lems:alphau} we end up with
\begin{align}\label{eq:highq}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\int_G\eta^2h_L(|\nabla\bfu(t)|)\,dx+\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2\tfrac{h_L'(|\nabla\bfu|)}{|\nabla\bfu|}(1+|\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}
|\nabla^2\bfu|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]^q\\
&\leq c(\eta,\alpha)\mathbb E\bigg[1+\int_0^t\int_{\support{\eta}}(1+|\nabla\bfu|)^{p-2}h_L(|\nabla\bfu|)\,dx\,d\sigma\bigg]^q.
\nonumber
\end{align}
Assume for a moment that
\begin{align}\label{eq:Lalpha}
\nabla\bfu\in L^q(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^{p+\alpha}((0,T)\times G'))\quad\forall G'\Subset G,\,\, \forall q<\infty,\\
\bfu\in L^q(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^{\infty}(0,T;L^{\alpha+2}(G')))\quad\forall G'\Subset G,\,\, \forall q<\infty,
\end{align}
Then we are allowed to go to the limit $L\rightarrow\infty$ on the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:highq}). By Fatou's Theorem we are now allowed to do this on the l.h.s. as well. We obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E&\bigg[\sup_{(0,T)}\int_G\eta^2h(|\nabla\bfu(t)|)\,dx+\int_\mathcal Q\eta^2|\nabla(1+|\nabla\bfu|)^{\frac{p+\alpha}{2}}|^2\,dx\,dt\bigg]^q\\&\leq c(\eta,\alpha)\bigg(1+\mathbb E\bigg[\int_0^T\int_{\support{\eta}}|\nabla\bfu|^{p+\alpha}\,dx\,dt\bigg]^q\bigg).
\end{align*}
This yields
\begin{align*}
|\nabla\bfu|^{\frac{p+\alpha}{2}}\in L^q(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P; L^2(0,T;W^{1,2}_{loc}(G)))\cap L^{q}(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^\infty(0,T;L_{loc}^{2\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+p}}(G)))\quad \forall q<\infty.
\end{align*}
A parabolic interpolation (see for instance \cite{Am}, Thm. 3.1) shows on account of $p>2-\frac{4}{d}$
\begin{align}\label{eq:Lalpha'}
\nabla\bfu&\in L^q(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P;L^{\omega(\alpha)}(0,T)\times G'))\quad\forall G'\Subset G,\,\,\forall q<\infty,\\
\omega(\alpha)&:=(p+\alpha)\Big(1+\frac{2}{d}\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+p}\Big).
\end{align}
Since (\ref{eq:Lalpha}) is true for $\alpha=0$ (by Lemma \ref{lems:hm}) we start an iteration procedure by
\begin{align*}
\alpha_0:=0,\quad\alpha_{k+1}:=\omega(\alpha_k)-p,\quad k\in\mathbb N.
\end{align*}
On account of $\alpha_k\rightarrow\infty$ the claim is proven.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
As already observed in \cite{DiFr}, Remark 2.1., for the deterministic problem, it is not possible to obtain $L^\infty$-bounds for $\nabla \bfu$ except of the case $p=2
via Moser iteration. So it is an open question if one can gain Lipschitz regularity
for the stochastic problem. In the deterministic case this is shown using the DeGiorgi method (see \cite{DiFr}, Lemma 2.3). However it is not clear if similar arguments will work for stochastic problems.
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
\begin{itemize}
\item The work of the author was supported by Leopoldina (German National Academy of Science).
\item The author wishes to thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and many helpful advises.
\end{itemize}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
A striking characteristic of the nuclear photo-absorption cross section is a very pronounced peak around
10--20~MeV called the giant dipole resonance (GDR). Historical semi-classical interpretations are based on
a dipole collective motion of protons against neutrons~\cite{Ref1}. Later, both collective
and in microscopic many-body approaches have tried to account for its centroid and width~\cite{Ref2,Ref3}.
For {\it ab initio} approaches the difficulty is the position of the resonance in the continuum part of the spectrum.
The LIT method~\cite{Ref4} reduces the continuum problem into a bound state problem. Its application however,
has been restricted to $A<8$ nuclei~\cite{Ref5}. Therefore it is expedient to try to couple it with the
CC method~\cite{Ref6,Ref7}, which is very powerful in dealing with bound states of many-body systems.
\section{Formalism}
\label{sec:1}
The main point of the LIT method is that the function $S(\omega)$ entering the photonuclear cross
section ($\sigma_\gamma(\omega)=4\,\pi^2\,\alpha \,\omega S(\omega)$)
can be accessed via inversion of its integral transform with a Lorentzian kernel
\begin{equation}\label{eq:(1)}
L(\omega_0,\Gamma)\ =\ \frac{\Gamma}{\pi}\int d\omega\ \frac{S(\omega)} {(\omega -\omega_0)^2 + \Gamma^2}\,,
\end{equation}
In dipole approximation $S(\omega)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
S(\omega)= \sum_n|\langle \Psi_n| {\bf D} |\Psi_0\rangle|^2\delta(\omega-E_n+E_0)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is the photon energy and $E_0,E_n$ and $|\Psi_0\rangle,|\Psi_n\rangle$ are ground and
excited state eigenvalues and eigenstates, respectively.
The completeness property of the hamiltonian eigenstates allows to write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:(2)}
L(\omega_0,\Gamma)=\langle\Psi_0| {\bf D} \frac{1}{(H-E_0-\omega_0-i \Gamma)}
\frac{1}{(H-E_0-\omega_0+ i \Gamma)} {\bf D}|\Psi_0\rangle\equiv
\langle{\tilde \Psi}|{\tilde \Psi}\rangle\,.
\end{equation}
Since the integral in (1) is finite $ |{\tilde \Psi}\rangle$ is bound, therefore bound state techniques can
be used to calculate its norm $L(\omega_0,\Gamma)$, for fixed values of $\Gamma$ and many values of $\omega_0$.
For $A<8$ hyperspherical harmonics (HH) expansions have been used~\cite{Ref8}.
Accurate enough results for $L$ have allowed its inversion~\cite{Ref9,Ref10} to give the required response function.
Here we reformulate the LIT within the CC approach. To this aim we rewrite Eq. (3) introducing
a similarity transformation $ e^T $:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:(3)}
L(\omega_0,\Gamma)&=&\langle \Psi_0|e^Te^{-T} {\bf D}e^T e^{-T} \frac{1}{(H-E_0-\omega_0-i\Gamma)}e^Te^{-T}
\frac{1}{(H-E_0-\omega_0+ i\Gamma)} e^T e^{-T} {\bf D}e^T e^{-T} |\Psi_0\rangle \nonumber\\
&\equiv&\langle0_L|{\bf \bar D} \frac{1}{(\bar H-E_0-\omega_0-i \Gamma)}
\frac{1}{(\bar H-E_0-\omega_0+ i \Gamma)}
{\bf \bar D} |0_R\rangle \equiv \langle\bar \Psi_L|\bar\Psi_R\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that $\langle 0_L|$ is different from $|0_R\rangle$.
In the CC approach the operator $T$ is such that $|0_R\rangle\equiv e^{-T} |\Psi_0\rangle$ is a single Slater
determinant, and in the single-double (CCSD) approximation it is chosen as a linear combination
of one-particle-one-hole (1p-1h) and two-particle-two-hole (2p-2h) operators, only. The amplitudes of $T$ are obtained by solving
the CC equations~\cite{Ref11}.
To calculate the LIT within the CC method one has the additional problem to find $|\bar\Psi_R\rangle$
and $\langle\bar \Psi_L|$, which are solutions of the following equations:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:(4)}
\langle\bar \Psi_L| (\bar H-E_0-\omega_0-i \Gamma)&=&\langle0_L|{\bf \bar D}\,; \nonumber \\
(\bar H-E_0-\omega_0+i \Gamma) |\bar\Psi_R\rangle&=& {\bf \bar D} |0_R\rangle \,.
\end{eqnarray}
To this aim one may use the equation of motion (EoM) method, namely one can write $|\bar\Psi_R\rangle = {\cal R} |0_R\rangle$
and $\langle\bar \Psi_L|= \langle 0_L| {\cal L}\,,$
where ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal L}$ are linear combinations of 1p-1h and 2p2h
excitation operators, similar to $T$. Their amplitudes are obtained by solving the following equations
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:(6)}
[\bar{H},{\cal R}]\,|0_R\rangle &=& (\omega_0-i\Gamma) {\cal R} |0_R\rangle \nonumber+\bar{D}|0_R \rangle\,;\\
\langle 0_L\,[\bar{H},{\cal L}] &=& \langle 0_L |{\cal L}(\omega_0+i\Gamma)+\langle 0_L\bar{D}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
They differ from the CC EoM only by the presence of the source terms
$\bar{D}|0_R \rangle$ and $\langle 0_L|\bar{D}$.
\section{Results}
The results presented in the following have been obtained using a realistic chiral effective field theory potential
(N3LO~\cite{Ref12}). The method has been first validated on the $S(\omega)$ of $^4$He.
This has been obtained from the inversion of the LIT calculated by expanding $|\tilde\Psi\rangle$
in HH, up to full convergence. Therefore the HH calculation can be considered virtually
``exact'' and the excellent agreement with the LIT-CC result can be seen in Ref.~\cite{Ref13}.
From the same reference we report in Fig.~\ref{Fig1} the results for $^{16}$O.
In Fig.~\ref{Fig1}a the theoretical LIT is compared to the LIT of the data~\cite{Ref14}. The value of $\Gamma$
has been chosen to be 10 MeV, since it is the smallest value for which we are able to obtain a convergent result
(the smaller the value of $\Gamma$, the slower the rate of convergence). Nevertheless one can notice that
the transform of the data maintains the resonant structure and preserves the peak position. This is due to
the fact that the Lorentzian kernel is a representation of the delta-function (for $\Gamma=0$ the transform
coincides with the response). While the comparison shows that the experimental centroid of the GDR
is well reproduced by a calculation that neglects three-body forces, the inversion of the transform
leads to a less pronounced peak with respect to experiment (see Fig.~\ref{Fig2}b).
\bigskip\bigskip\bigskip
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a): Comparison of the LIT at $\Gamma=10$~MeV for $N_{max}=18$
and the Lorentz integral transform of Ahrens {\it et al.}~data~\cite{Ref14}. (b): Comparison
of $S(\omega)$ of $^{16}$O dipole response against experimental data.}
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a): Convergence of $L(\omega_0,\Gamma)$ at
$\Gamma=10$~MeV as a function of $N_{max}$. (b) Comparison of the LIT at $\Gamma=10$~MeV for $N_{max}=16,18$
and the LIT of Ahrens {\it et al.}~data~\cite{Ref14}.}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure*}
Aiming at addressing {\it ab initio} the interesting case of $^{48}$Ca, for which recent photoabsorption
measurements have been performed~\cite{Ref15}, we have calculated the LIT of its
N=Z partner $^ {40}$Ca. In Fig.~\ref{Fig2}a we present preliminary results about the rate of convergence
of the transform. As for $^{16}$O, in Fig.~\ref{Fig2}b we show the comparison with the LIT of the data~\cite{Ref14}.
Three remarks are in order here:
\begin{itemize}
\item as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig2}a full convergence is not yet reached, therefore an inversion is not worth;
\item different from the case of $^{16}$O a purely experimental comparison between the peak positions of
the data in~\cite{Ref14} and of their LIT in Fig ~\ref{Fig2}b shows a slight difference.
This is due to the fact that $S(\omega)$ has a tail at higher energies. This tail contributes to the LIT,
which differs enough from a delta-function to shift its peak to the right. Therefore the LIT peak position
cannot be considered a prediction of the centroid of the GDR, but one needs an inversion;
\item the use of larger model spaces seem to move the theoretical result towards the data.
However, the agreement in the transforms would not clearly imply an agreement
in $S(\omega)$ (as the results on $^{16}$O have also shown), being only a minimal condition.
On the other hand, a disagreement in the integral transforms already might give a important
information, pointing to possible shortcomings in the potential (or in the neglect of higher clusters).
\end{itemize}
\section{Conclusions}
Here we have summarized the CC-LIT method, which allows to calculate response functions in
the continuum of not-so-few-body systems. We have presented {\it ab initio} results obtained with this method
and using only the chiral N3LO two-body potential. The application to the GDR of $^{16}$O has shown
the ability of this potential to reproduce the centroid of the resonance, while a somewhat less
pronounced structure has been found inverting the transform. Preliminary results on the application of
the method to the GDR of $^{40}$Ca show that larger model spaces are still needed
to reach a convergent LIT. There are indications that larger and larger model spaces might lead to an
agreement between theoretical and experimental LIT's. Convergent results are needed to attempt an
inversion of the transform.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by the MIUR grant
PRIN-2009TWL3MX, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the National Research
Council of Canada, the Israel Science Foundation (Grant number 954/09),
the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (Grant No 2012212), the Office of Nuclear
Physics, U.S. Department of Energy (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and DE-SC0008499
(NUCLEI SciDAC collaboration). Computer time was provided by the
Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment
(INCITE) program. This research used resources of the Oak Ridge
Leadership Computing Facility located in the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, which is supported by the Office of Science of the
Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725, and used
computational resources of the National Center for Computational
Sciences, the National Institute for Computational Sciences.
|
\section{{\normalsize Introduction}}
The phenomenon of bound-states in continuum (BIC) was first discovered by Wigner and von Neumann
\cite{Von -W}. Subsequent studies can be found in a number of papers
(e.g., \cite{Sudarshan}-\cite{Sadreev}). An experimental report showed evidence
of BIC in super-lattice structures of quantum wells with a single
impurity site \cite{F.Cappasso} or in single defect tube \cite{P. S. Deo}.
Examples of BIC in a double-cavity, 2-dimensional (2D) electron waveguide
was reported in \cite{Ordonez-Na}-\cite{Linda}.
In general if a discrete state embeds inside the continuum, the state will become
unstable due to the resonance effect. If the transition channels are
more than one, the resonance line-shape becomes asymmetric due to
the quantum interference between those decay channels. The phenomenon
often refereed as the Fano interference \cite{Fano,Fano-1-1}.
There are many studies that have followed Fano's work. However,
the phenomena of the BIC and the Fano interference have been often
studied as individual effects. In this paper we discuss the relation between
BIC and Fano interference.
As an example, we consider here a tight-binding model with two
\emph{intra-atoms }attached to a semiconductor nanowire under a constant
irradiation of an intense monochromatic radiation field. An electron
of an \emph{intra-atom} is excited by the radiation field from a lower
energy state to an intermediate energy state to states with a continuous range of energies; alternatively, the electron from the lower energy state can jump directly to the continuous states. We label these two optical transition paths as $T_{1\cdot}$ and $T_{2\cdot}$,
respectively (see FIG.1). Since there are two optical transition channels, Fano interference appears in this model
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{ (a) Energy levels of donor and acceptor atoms. (b) Transitions among energy levels}
\end{figure}
The main results that we present in this paper are twofold: The first
one is a new type of BIC in this system.
In this BIC, the energy of the bound state
depends on the coupling constant $g$ of the interaction between
the discrete state and the continuum. This is not the case of ordinary
BIC that has been discussed before (see, e.g., Refs. \cite{Tanaka,Longhi}).
The ordinary BIC can be found for special values of energy of the
discrete state that are imbedded in the continuum, where the energy
shift of the discrete state due to the interaction vanishes. This
value of the energy may found by requiring that the so-called \textquotedblleft{}self-energy
part\textquotedblright{}of the discrete state vanishes. Hence, this
type of BIC has the same energy as the unperturbed energy without
the interaction. We found this type of BIC in our model. In addition,
however, we found the new type of BIC as mentioned above. Since this
new type of BIC depends on the interaction, we call this a \textquotedblleft{}dynamic
BIC,\textquotedblright{} while we call the ordinary type of BIC a
\textquotedblleft{}static BIC.\textquotedblright{} As discussed in
\cite{Tanaka}, the static BIC is due to a geometrical interference
in the wire between electron wave functions emitted by impurities.
\footnote{In other systems such as the system of Ref. \cite{G.Ordonez}, the energy of the BIC due to geometrical interference does depend on the interaction; however in the present system this energy is independent of the interaction. Due to this feature it is much easier to distinguish the two types of BIC in the present system.}
In contrast, the dynamic BIC appears because of the multichannels
of the transition, $T_{1}{\cdot}$ and $T_{2}{\cdot}$, as we shall show. Hence,
the dynamic BIC is the result of Fano interference.
The second main result is that because the freedom to chose the frequency
of the radiation field, both BIC (the dynamic BIC and static BIC)
may exist for wide value of the spectrum of the discrete state. This
is not the case of the BIC that has been discussed in \cite{Tanaka}
for the system without the radiation field. Indeed, in the absence
of the radiation field, we have shown in \cite{Tanaka} that the BIC
may exist only for a special value of the discrete energy. In contrast, here
one can tune the frequency of the radiation field in order to achieve
the BIC for arbitrary value of the energy of the discrete state. This
tune-ability makes the BIC phenomena much more feasible to observe experimentally.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce the
model. Then, we decompose the Hamiltonian of the system into the symmetric
part and anti-symmetric part so that we can analyze our problem
in much simpler form. In section 3, we construct the complex eigenvalue
of resonance states to analyze the instability of the discrete states
inside the continuum. Then we find the BIC by requiring
that the imaginary part of the complex eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian
vanishes at the BIC. In section 4, we present several cases of the
dynamic BIC and the static BIC by plotting the imaginary part of the
eigenvalue as a function of the frequency of the radiation field.
In section 5, we summarize our results.
\section{ Model }
We shall consider a semiconductor nanowire with donor-acceptor impurities,
e.g. 3D transition metal impurities \cite{Pradhan11,Chin09},
where the multiplet discrete levels of transition metals appear in
the semiconductor band gap \cite{Watanabe87}. An electron of a donor
is excited by an optical transition and is transferred to the acceptor
through a semiconductor conduction band, and the electron is dexcited
by an \emph{intra-atomic} transition to emit a photon (see FIG. 1).
We show the model system of the present work in FIG. 1. The system
consists of a semiconductor nanowire with donor and acceptor impurities
located at $x_{D}$ and $x_{A}$, respectively. The semiconductor
nanowire is described by a 1D tight-binding model
with a nearest neighbor interaction $-B/2$ yielding a 1D conduction
band with bandwidth $B$ with a lattice constant of $d$. We consider
the lower and higher energy states of the donor (acceptor) impurity
represented by $|D\rangle$ ($|A\rangle$) and $|D^{*}\rangle$ ($|A^{*}\rangle$),
respectively. In this paper we use a conventional
notation ``{*}'' for excited states used in Atomic Molecular and
Optical physics. We consider the charge transfer between the higher energy
state to the nanowire at the impurity sites of $x_{D}$ and $x_{A}$
with a coupling $gB$, where $g$ is a dimensionless coupling constant.
The electronic Hamiltonian is then represented by
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{el} & = & E_{D}|D\rangle\langle D|+E_{D^{*}}|D^{*}\rangle\langle D^{*}|\nonumber \\
& & +E_{A}|A\rangle\langle A|+E_{A^{*}}|A^{*}\langle A^{*}|\nonumber \\
& & +E_{0}\sum_{i=-N/2}^{N/2}|x_{i}\rangle\langle x_{i}|-\frac{B}{2}\sum_{<i,i'>}|x_{i}\rangle\langle x_{i'}|\nonumber \\
& & +gB\left(|x_{D}\rangle\langle D|+|D^{*}\rangle\langle x_{D}|\right)\nonumber \\
& & +gB\left(|x_{A}\rangle\langle A^{*}|+|A^{*}\rangle\langle x_{A}|\right)\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_{D}$ ($E_{A}$) and $E_{D^{*}}$ ($E_{A^{*}}$)
are the energies of $|D\rangle$ ($|A\rangle$) and $|D^{*}\rangle$
($|A^{*}\rangle$), respectively. The symbol $<i,i^{\prime}>$ represents the sum over
nearest neighbors, where the sum runs from $-N$ to $N$.
The 1D tight-binding Hamiltonian is diagonalized by the wave-number
representation defined by
\begin{equation}
|k\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{i=-N/2}^{N/2}e^{ikx_{i}}|x_{i}\rangle\;,
\end{equation}
Where under the periodic boundary condition the wave number takes
the values of
\begin{equation}
k_{j}=\frac{2\pi j}{Nd}\;,\;\left(j=\text{interger , }-\frac{N}{2}\leq j<\frac{N}{2}\right)\,\label{eq:bc}
\end{equation}
with the length of the nanowire $L\equiv Nd$. We consider the case
$N\gg1$, and approximate it by taking the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$. In this limit we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{2\pi}{L}\sum_{j=-N/2}^{N/2}\to\int_{-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}\, dk,\;\;\;\;\;\frac{2\pi}{L}\delta_{j,j'}^{Kr}\to\delta(k-k')\;,\label{eq: krtodi}
\end{equation}
where the ``$\delta^{Kr}$'' stands for Kronecker delta. We will take this limit in section 3.
In terms of the wave number representation, $H_{el}$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{el} & = & E_{D}|D\rangle\langle D|+E_{D^{*}}|D^{*}\rangle\langle D^{*}|\nonumber \\
& + & E_{A}|A\rangle\langle A|+E_{A^{*}}|A^{*}\rangle\langle A^{*}|\nonumber \\
& + & \sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}E_{k}|k\rangle\langle k|\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{gB}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}\left(e^{-ikx_{D}}|k\rangle\langle D^{*}|+e^{ikx_{D}}|D^{*}\rangle\langle k|\right)\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{gB}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}\left(e^{-ikx_{A}}|k\rangle\langle A^{*}|+e^{ikx_{A}}|A^{*}\rangle\langle k|\right)\;,\label{eq: hel-5}
\end{eqnarray} where the dispersion relation of an electron in the continuum is
given by
\begin{equation}
E_{k}= E_{0}-2B\cos(kd)\;.\label{Ek}
\end{equation}
As convention\emph{ }we will use the summation notation over wave
vector $k$. In Eq.(\ref{eq: hel-5}) and hereafter. In this paper
we will set the origin of energy at $E_{0},$ i.e., $E_{0}=0,$ then
we have $E_{k}=-2B\cos(kd).$
We also consider a monochromatic radiation field with a frequency
$\Omega$ which is close to the transition energies of $E_{D^{*}}-E_{D}$
or $E_{A^{*}}-E_{A}$. The radiation field is described by
\begin{equation}
H_{R}=\hbar\Omega b^{\dagger}b\;,
\end{equation}
where $b$ ($b^{\dagger}$) is an annihilation (creation) operator
for the radiation field.
As for the interaction of the electron with the radiation field, we
consider two optical transition paths from the impurity lower
levels. One is the \emph{intra-atomic }transition in which an electron
is excited from the lower impurity level to the upper impurity level.
The other is the\emph{ inter-atomic} transition in which an electron
at the lower impurity level is directly excited into the host semiconductor
nanowire at the impurity site. Then the interaction Hamiltonian is
described under the dipole approximation \cite{F.H.Stillinger} as
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{V} & = & T_{1D}\left(|D^{*}\rangle\langle D|b+|D\rangle\langle D^{*}|b^{\dagger}\right)\nonumber \\
& + & T_{1A}\left(|A^{*}\rangle\langle A|b+|A\rangle\langle A^{*}|b^{\dagger}\right)\nonumber \\
& + & T_{2D}\left(|x_{D}\rangle\langle D|b+|D\rangle\langle x_{D}|b^{\dagger}\right)\nonumber \\
& + & T_{2A}\left(|x_{A}\rangle\langle A|b+|A\rangle\langle x_{A}|b^{\dagger}\right)\;,\label{eq:HV}
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{1\cdot}$ and $T_{2\cdot}$ represent the transition strengths for
the two optical transitions. Since the monochromatic radiation $\hbar\Omega$
is near resonant to the transition from the lower level to the upper
level or semiconductor conduction band, we have used rotating wave
approximation (RWA) in Eq. (\ref{eq:HV}) where we have neglected
further excitation from the conduction electron to higher excited
states.
Even though the interactions of the electron with the radiation field,
$T_{1\cdot}$ and $T_{2\cdot}$, are small, when the the radiation field intensity
is large with a large value of $n$, we have to incorporate the radiation
field non-perturbatively in terms of the dressed state concept.
We then consider the composite vector space of the electronic states
and the radiation field \cite{CohenTannouji}. Let us denote the number
state $|n\rangle$ ($n=0,1,2,\dots$) as an eigenstate of the radiation
filed. Then the composite vector basis is comprised of $|\alpha,n\rangle$,
where $\alpha$ denotes the electronic states: $\alpha=D,A,D^{*},A^{*}$, and $k$.
In terms of these basis, total Hamiltonian is described by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
H & =& H_{el}+H_{R}+H_{V}\nonumber \\
& &= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\alpha=D,A,D^{*},A^{*},k}(E_{\alpha}+\hbar\Omega n)|\alpha,n\rangle\langle\alpha,n|\nonumber \\
& +& \frac{gB}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}\Big(e^{-ikx_{D}}|k,n\rangle\langle D^{*},n|+e^{ikx_{D}}|D^{*},n\rangle\langle k,n| + e^{-ikx_{A}}|k,n\rangle\langle A^{*},n|+e^{ikx_{A}}|A^{*},n\rangle\langle k,n|\Big)\nonumber \\
& +& \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sqrt{n}[T_{1D}(|D^{*},n-1\rangle\langle D,n|+|D,n\rangle\langle D^{*},n-1|)+ T_{1A}(|A^{*},n-1\rangle A,n|+|A,n\rangle\langle A,n-1|)] \nonumber\\
& +& \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}[T_{2D}(e^{-ikx_{D}}|k,n-1\rangle\langle D,n|+e^{ikx_{D}}|D,n\rangle\langle k,n-1|) \nonumber\\
&& + T_{2A}(e^{-ikx_{A}}|k,n-1\rangle\langle A,n|+e^{ikx_{A}}|A,n\rangle\langle k,n-1|)] \;.
\end{eqnarray}
This can be also written as
\begin{eqnarray}
H & = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\Big\{\sum_{\alpha=D,A}\big(E_{\alpha}+\hbar\Omega(n+1)\big)|\alpha,n+1\rangle\langle\alpha,n+1|
+ \sum_{\alpha=D^{*},A^{*},k}\big(E_{\alpha}+\hbar\Omega n\big)|\alpha,n\rangle\langle\alpha,n|\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{gB}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}\Big(e^{-ikx_{D}}|k,n\rangle\langle D^{*},n|+e^{ikx_{D}}|D^{*},n\rangle\langle k,n| + e^{-ikx_{A}}|k,n\rangle\langle A^{*},n|+e^{ikx_{A}}|A^{*},n\rangle\langle k,n|\Big)\nonumber \\
& + & \sqrt{n+1}[T_{1D}(|D^{*},n\rangle\langle D,n+1|+|D,n+1\rangle\langle D^{*},n|) + T_{1A}(|A^{*},n\rangle\langle A,n+1|+|A,n+1\rangle\langle A,n|)]\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\sqrt{n+1}}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}[T_{2D}(e^{-ikx_{D}}|k,n\rangle\langle D,n+1|+e^{ikx_{D}}|D,n+1\rangle\langle k,n|) \nonumber\\
&&+ T_{2A}(e^{-ikx_{A}}|k,n\rangle\langle A,n+1|+e^{ikx_{A}}|A,n+1\rangle\langle k,n|)]\Big\}\nonumber \\
& \equiv & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}H_{n} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
Note that the total vector subspace is classified into independent
manifolds according to the photon number $n$ \cite{CohenTannouji}.
In the present work, we solve the complex eigenvalue problem of $H$.
For simplicity, we shall consider a symmetric situation where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&x_{D}=-x_{A}\;,\; E_{l}\equiv E_{D}=E_{A}\;,\; E_{u}\equiv E_{D^{*}}=E_{A^{*}}\;\;,\nonumber\\
&& T_{i}\equiv T_{iA}=T_{iD}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $l$ stands for the lower level, and $u$ stands for the upper
level. In this case, because of the inversion symmetry of the system, we
can further decompose the vector space according to the parity. We
denote the following symmetrized basis as (for symmetric basis)
\begin{eqnarray}
|S_{l},n+1\rangle & \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|D,n+1\rangle+|A,n+1\rangle),\\
|S_{u},n\rangle & \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|D^{*},n\rangle+|A^{*},n\rangle),\\
|S_{k},n\rangle & \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|k,n\rangle+|-k,n\rangle),
\end{eqnarray}
and (for anti-symmetric basis)
\begin{eqnarray}
|P_{l},n+1\rangle & \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|D,n+1\rangle-|A,n+1\rangle),\\
|P_{u},n\rangle & \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|D^{*},n\rangle-|A^{*},n\rangle),\\
|P_{k},n\rangle & \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|k,n\rangle-|-k,n\rangle).
\end{eqnarray}
With these basis, $H_{n}$ is divided as
\begin{equation}
H_{n}=H_{n}^{p}+H_{n}^{s}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{n}^{s} & = & \big(E_{l}+\hbar\Omega(n+1)\big)|S_{l},n+1\rangle\langle S_{l},n+1|\nonumber \\
& & +(E_{u}+n\Omega)|S_{u},n\rangle\langle S_{u},n|+\sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}E_{k}|S_{k},n\rangle\langle S_{k},n|\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{gB}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=0}^{\pi/d}2\cos(kx_{D})\Big(|S_{k},n\rangle\langle S_{u},n|+|S_{u},n\rangle\langle S_{k},n|\Big)\nonumber \\
& + & T_{1}\sqrt{n+1}\Big(|S_{u},n\rangle\langle S_{l},n+1|+|S_{l},n+1\rangle\langle S_{u},n|\Big)\nonumber \\
& + & T_{2}\frac{\sqrt{n+1}}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=0}^{\pi/d}2\cos(kx_{D})\Big(|S_{k},n\rangle\langle S_{l},n+1|\nonumber \\
& & +|S_{l},n+1\rangle\langle S_{k},n|\Big)\;,\label{eq:hs}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{n}^{p} & = & \big(E_{l}+\hbar\Omega(n+1\big))|P_{l},n+1\rangle\langle P_{l},n+1|\nonumber \\
& & +(E_{u}+n\Omega)|P_{u},n\rangle\langle P_{u},n|+\sum_{k=-\pi/d}^{\pi/d}E_{k}|P_{k},n\rangle\langle P_{k},n|\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{gB}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=0}^{\pi/d}2i\sin(kx_{D})\Big(|P_{k},n\rangle\langle P_{u},n|+|P_{u},n\rangle\langle P_{k},n|\Big)\nonumber \\
& + & T_{1}\sqrt{n+1}\Big(|P_{u},n\rangle\langle P_{l},n+1| - |P_{l},n+1\rangle\langle P_{u},n|\Big)\nonumber \\
& + & T_{2}\frac{\sqrt{n+1}}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_{k=0}^{\pi/d}2i\sin(kx_{D})\Big(|P_{k},n\rangle\,\langle P_{l},n+1|\nonumber \\
& & - |P_{l},n+1\rangle\langle P_{k},n|\Big)\;.\label{eq:hp}
\end{eqnarray}
Hereafter we use the units $d=1$ and $\hbar=1.$ By taking the limit
$L\equiv Na\rightarrow\infty$, summation over the wave number
$k$ turns into the integration as in Eq.(\ref{eq:bc}).
\section{{\normalsize Optical Dressed Bound State in Continuum}}
As we pointed out previously, our main focus is to study the decay
process under influence of a constant irradiation of an intense monochromatic
optical field. For this purpose, we solve the complex eigenvalue problem
of the Hamiltonian. The solutions corresponding to unstable state
are found on the second Riemann sheet of the complex energy plane.
The imaginary part gives decay rate of the unstable state.
We shall solve the complex eigenvalue problem of the Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H_{n}\psi_{E}=E\psi_{E}\label{eq:Hpsi} .
\end{equation}
We start with the anti-symmetric sector, i.e., $p$-sector
in Eq.(\ref{eq:hp}). We denote the components of the eigenstates in the $p$-sector
as
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{D}\\
\tilde{D}^{*}\\
\tilde{x}_{k}
\end{array}\right)\equiv\left(\begin{array}{c}
\langle P_{l},n+1|\psi_{E}\rangle\\
\langle P_{u},n|\psi_{E}\rangle\\
\langle P_{k},n|\psi_{E}\rangle
\end{array}\right) ,
\end{equation}
From Eq. (\ref{eq:Hpsi}) we obtain the following system of equations (for
$d=1$)
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
(E_{l}+(n+1)\Omega)\tilde{D}+\sqrt{n+1}T_{1}\tilde{D}^{*}+\frac{\sqrt{n+1}T_{2}}{\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}dk\, i\text{sin}(x_{D}k)\tilde{x}_{k} & = & E\tilde{D} \;,\nonumber \\
\sqrt{n+1}T_{1}\tilde{D}+(E_{u}+n\Omega)\tilde{D}^{*}+\frac{g}{\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}dk\, Bi\text{sin}(x_{D}k)\tilde{x}_{k} & = & E\tilde{D}^{*}\;,\nonumber \\
\text{\ensuremath{-\frac{\sqrt{n+1}T_{2}}{\pi}i}sin}(x_{D}k^{\prime})\tilde{D}-\text{\ensuremath{\frac{gB}{\pi}i}sin}(x_{D}k^{\prime})\tilde{D}^{*}+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}dk\, B\text{cos}(x_{D}k)\delta(k-k^{\prime})\tilde{x}_{k} & = & E\tilde{x}_{k}\;.\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
From the above relations, we obtain the eigenvalue equation for $p$-sector.
With similar calculations, we can also obtain the eigenvalue equations
for the symmetric sector, $s$-sector in Eq.(\ref{eq:hs}). We summarize
both $p$- and $s$-sectors into one form as the following
eigenvalue equations whose solutions give the resonant-state pole
of the resolvent operator $[z-H_{n}]^{-1}$ at $z=E$ in the second Riemann
sheet,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& (z-((n+1)\Omega+E_{l}))(z-(E_{u}+n\Omega))-(n+1)T_{1}^{2}\nonumber \\
&& -\Xi^{p,s}(z)g^{2}[(z-(\Omega(n+1)+E_{l}))B+2(n+1)\frac{T_{1}T_{2}}{g}+(n+1)\frac{T_{2}^{2}}{g^{2}B}(z-(E_{u}+n\Omega))] =0\nonumber \\
\label{eq:disp}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $\Xi^{p,s}(z)$ are the self-energies of the Hamiltonian that
without the lower energy level and external radiation field \cite{Tanaka}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Xi^{p,s}(z) \equiv\frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}dk\frac{B(1\pm\text{cos\ensuremath{(2kx_{D}))}}}{(z-B\mbox{cos\ensuremath{k)}}}\nonumber \\
&& = \frac{1}{i\sqrt{1-z^{2}/B^{2}}}\left[1\pm\left(-\frac{z}{B}+\sqrt{1-z^{2}/B^{2}}\right)^{2x_{D}}\right]\label{eq: self1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the plus and minus is for the $s$- and $p$-sectors, respectively.
Putting
\begin{equation}
z=-B\text{cos\ensuremath{\theta}}\label{eq:dis-e}
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\Xi^{p,s}(z)=\frac{1}{i\text{sin\ensuremath{\theta}}}(1\pm e^{i2x_{D}\theta})
\end{equation}
The BIC corresponds to real solution of the eigenvalue Eq.(\ref{eq:disp}). Note that if the last term of the equation vanishes,
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
z&=&\frac{1}{2}\Big\{\left((2n+1)\Omega+E_{l}+E_{u}\right)\nonumber\\
&\pm &\sqrt{(\Omega+E_{l}-E_{u})^{2}+4(n+1)T_{1}^{2}}\Big\}\label{eq:z}
\end{eqnarray}
which are real solutions.
One can show that these are the only real solutions of Eq.(\ref{eq:disp})
as follows: Let us denote the real eigenvalue as
\begin{equation}
z=z_{0}
\end{equation}
Substituting it into Eq.(\ref{eq:disp}), we have
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
& & (z_{0}-((n+1)\Omega+E_{l}))(z_{0}-(n\Omega+E_{u}))-(n+1)T_{1}^{2}\nonumber \\
& &= \Xi^{p,s}(z_{0})[(z_{0}-((n+1)\Omega+E_{l}))Bg^{2}+(n+1)2gT_{1}T_{2}+(n+1)\frac{T_{2}^{2}}{B}(z_{0}-(E_{u}+n\Omega))]\nonumber \\
\label{eq:proof of two solutions}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
Note the left-hand side itself and the factor in front of $\Xi^{p,s}(z_{0})$
are both real, because all parameters are real. Hence $\Xi^{p,s}(z_{0})$
must be real, or else, the factor in front must vanish.
By the definition of BIC we have
\begin{equation}
|\frac{z_{0}}{B}|\leq1
\end{equation}
As a result $\theta$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:dis-e}) is real for $z=z_{0}$.
Therefore, $\Xi^{p,s}(z_{0})$ is a complex number with a non-vanishing
imaginary part except for
\begin{equation}
\Xi^{p,s}(z)=\frac{1}{i\text{sin\ensuremath{\theta}}}(1\pm e^{i2x_{D}\theta})=0\label{eq:sef}
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{eq:sef}) leads to one possible set of the
BIC that satisfies
\begin{equation}
1\pm e^{i2x_{D}\theta}=0\label{eq:dx=00003D0}
\end{equation}
Then, this leads to Eq.(\ref{eq:z}).
On the other hand, if Eq.(\ref{eq:sef}) is not satisfied, then,
$\Xi^{p,s}(z)$ is a complex number as mentioned above. Hence, to
be consistent which the fact that the left-hand side of Eq.(\ref{eq:proof of two solutions})
must be real, we shall have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(z_{0}-((n+1)\Omega+E_{l}))Bg^{2}+(n+1)2gT_{1}T_{2}\nonumber\\
&&+(n+1)\frac{T_{2}^{2}}{B}(z_{0}-(E_{u}+n\Omega))=0\label{eq: dz}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, once again we obtain Eq.(\ref{eq:z}). This proves that $z$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:z})
are only the real solutions of Eq.(\ref{eq:disp}).
Let us first consider the case of Eq.(\ref{eq:sef}). We notice that
the self-energy for the $s$- and $p$-sectors periodically vanish
when
\begin{equation}
\theta=\frac{m\pi}{2x_{D}}\,,\,\,\begin{cases}
\text{even integer \ensuremath{m} for \ensuremath{p}-sector}\\
\text{odd interger \ensuremath{m} for \ensuremath{s}-sector}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and then the real solution of the eigenvalue equation, i.e. BIC, is
given
\begin{equation}
z_{0}=-B\cos\left(\frac{m\pi}{2x_{D}}\right)\label{eq:z_0&m}
\end{equation}
Note that the energies of the BIC are the same as obtained in \cite{Tanaka},
where $z_{0}$ does not depend on $g$. This is a typical feature
of the ordinary BIC in this system, hence the static BIC mentioned in the introduction
comes from a geometrical interference of the two electron wavefunctions emitted from $|D^{*}\rangle$
and $|A^{*}\rangle$ states.
Substituting Eq. (\ref{eq:z_0&m}) into Eq.(\ref{eq:proof of two solutions}) with the right-hand-side equal $0$, we obtain
an equation for the frequency $\Omega$ of the photon which can achieve static BIC in this
system
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Om}
&&\left[-\cos\left(\frac{m \pi}{2 x_D}\right) -((n+1)\Omega+E_{l})\right] \nonumber\\
&\times& \left[-\cos\left(\frac{m \pi}{2 x_D}\right)
- (n\Omega+E_{u})\right]-(n+1)T_{1}^{2} =0\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this frequency does not depend on $T_{2}$. Hence, the BIC
which appears at this frequency does not come from the Fano interference
between the two transition branches corresponding to $T_{1}$ and
$T_{2}$. As discussed in \cite{Tanaka}, in this BIC the electron is trapped in a delocalized state extended over the two atoms and the section of wire between them.
Next we consider the case of Eq. (\ref{eq: dz}). This case leads
to a new type of BIC, which is a main result of the present paper.
In contrast to the BIC in Eq. (\ref{eq:Om}), the value of $\Omega$
that satisfies Eqs. (\ref{eq: dz}) and (\ref{eq:z}) must meet the
condition
\begin{equation}
\Omega=E_{u}-E_{l}-\frac{BgT_{1}}{T_{2}}+(n+1)\frac{T_{1}T_{2}}{Bg}\label{eq:Om2}
\end{equation}
It should be noted that the frequency $\Omega$ depends on $g$ and
$T_{2},$ in contrast to the case Eq.(\ref{eq:Om}).
Hence, we call this BIC the dynamic BIC as mentioned in the introduction.
Note that in the limit $T_{2}\rightarrow0,$ the dynamic BIC disappears
for $T_{1}\ne0.$ Hence, the BIC is a result of existence of two transition
branches associated with $T_{1}$ and $T_{2}.$ In other words, the
BIC is a result of Fano interference.
It should be emphasized that all BICs obtained in our system exist
for any value of $E_{u}$ for a suitable value of $\Omega$ . This
is in contrast to the system without radiation field discussed in
\cite{Tanaka}, where the BIC occur only for special values given
by
\begin{equation}
E_{u}=-B\cos\left(\frac{m\pi}{2x_{D}}\right)\label{eq:oldbic-1}
\end{equation}
In other words, the BICs in the system with decoupled lower $|D\rangle$
and $|A\rangle$ states occurs only for a special kind of\emph{ intra-atoms
}with the discrete state energies given by Eq.(\ref{eq:oldbic-1}).
In contrast, for the present system which $T_{1}\neq0$ and $T_{2}\neq0,$
the BICs in the system may exist for any intra-atomic levels by
tuning the value of $\Omega$. In this sense, it is experimentally
more feasible to achieve the BIC in our system than the system we
have discussed in \cite{Tanaka}.
\section{{\normalsize BIC and General Solution of the Eigenvalue
EQ. (\ref{eq:disp})}}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2}Absolute value of the imaginary part
of eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian ($p$-sector) as a function of $\Omega+E_{l}$.
The parameters are $T_{1}=0.2,$ $g=0.2,$ $E_{u}=0.1$ and $x_{D}=2.$
The solid line corresponds to $T_{2}=0.2$, while the dashed line corresponds
to $T_{2}=0$. The curves on the upper-left corner correspond to another
solution of Eq.(\ref{eq:disp}). For $T_{2}=0.2$ (solid
line) there is a static BIC at $\Omega+E_{l}=0.4$ which is independent of the strength of the interaction $g$. In addition there is a dynamic BIC at $\Omega+E_{l}=-0.2$ that is due to the interactin with the Fano interference. The $\Omega+E_{l}$ values for which BIC occurs
in the plot are consistent with Eqs. (\ref{eq:Om}) and (\ref{eq:Om2}),
respectively. When $T_{2}=0$ (dashed line) the Fano interference is
suppressed, so only the first BIC occurs.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.4}Absolute value of the imaginary part
of eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian ($p-$sector) as a function of $\Omega+E_{l}$.
The parameters are the same as in figure \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2}
except for $g=0.4.$ The solid line corresponds to $T_{2}=0.2$,
while the dashed line corresponds to $T_{2}=0$. The static BIC that occurs due to the vanishing of the self-energy still occurs at $\Omega+E_{l}=0.4$, while the dynamic BIC is shifted to $\Omega+E_{l}=-0.659$ due to a change of $g$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.2}Absolute value of the imaginary part
of eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian ($p$-sector) as a function of $\Omega+E_{l}$.
The parameters are the same as in figure \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2}
except for $x_{D}=4.$ The solid line corresponds to $T_{2}=0.2$,
while the dashed line corresponds to $T_{2}=0$. There are two BICs
at $\Omega+E_{l}=1.38$, and $\Omega+E_{l}=0.4,$ where the self-energy
vanishes. There is another BIC at $\Omega+E_{l}=-0.2$, for which
the self-energy does not vanish. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig5.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.4}Absolute value of the imaginary part
of eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian ($p$-sector) as a function of $\Omega+E_{l}$.
The parameters are the same as in figure \ref{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.2}
except for $g=0.4.$ The solid line corresponds to $T_{2}=0.2$,
while the dashed line corresponds to $T_{2}=0$. There are two static BICs at $\Omega+E_{l}=1.38$, and $0.4$, while the dynamic BIC is shifted to $\Omega+E_{l}=-0.659$ due to a change of $g$. }
\end{figure}
In this section we will present numerical results showing the general
solution of Eq. (\ref{eq:disp}) as function of $\Omega+E_{l}$ and
compare them to the analytic solutions of the BIC we obtained in the
previous section. For illustration we will consider the simplest case with $n = 0$ where Eq. (\ref{eq:Om}) reduces to a linear equation for $\Omega$. For $n \not= 0$, there appear more static BICs than the simplest case with $n = 0$. However, in order to demonstrate the essential difference between dynamic BIC and static BIC, it is enough to show the simplest case. The numerical results were obtained through a numerical solution of Eq. (\ref{eq:disp}). In FIGS. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2}-\ref{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.4},
we plot the imaginary part of the solution, $\Gamma\equiv-\text{Im\ensuremath{z}}$
as a function of $\Omega+E_{l}$ for the $p$-sector. The figures
for the $s$-sector are essentially the same as except the locations
of BICs are different.
In FIGS. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2}-\ref{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.4},
we plot the case $E_{l}=0.1$ and $T_{2}=0.2.$ In all these figures
the red solid line corresponds to the case $T_{2}=0.2$, and the blue
dashed line corresponds to the case $T_{2}=0$. We consider both cases in order to identify the BIC due to Fano interference.
We show in FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2} the case $x_{D}=2$
and $g=0.2$; in FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.4} we have
the same $x_{D}=2$ but $g=0.4$. As theoretically predicted, we have
two BICs, one from Eq.(\ref{eq:Om}) and the other from Eq.(\ref{eq:Om2})
with $\Gamma=0$.
The BIC at the positive value of $\Omega+E_{l}$ is the static BIC
that exists even in the case $T_{2}=0.$ As one can see, the location
of the BIC is at same point in FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2}
and FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.4}, though the value of $g$
is different. The BIC at the negative value of $\Omega+E_{l}$ in
FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2} and FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.4}
is the dynamic BIC that exist only for the case $T_{2}\ne0.$ The
location of this BIC depends on the value of $g$ (compare FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.2}
and FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D2g=00003D.4}).
We show in FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.2} the case $x_{D}=4$
and $g=0.2$; in FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.4} we show the case
with the same $x_{D}=4$ but $g=0.4$. As predicted, we have different
BICs: two are from Eq.(\ref{eq:Om}), and the other from Eq. (\ref{eq:Om2})
with $\Gamma=0.$
All
the static BICs are located at predicted values of $\Omega+E_{l}$.
They exist also in the case $T_{2}=0.$ The location of the static
BICs in FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.2} appear at the same points
in FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.4} though the value of $g$ is
different. The dynamic BIC appears at the negative values of $\Omega+E_{l}$
in FIG. \ref{fig:n=00003D4g=00003D.2}. We have this dynamic BIC only
for $T_{2}\ne0$. The location of the BIC depends on the value $g$
as predicted by Eq. (\ref{eq:Om2}).
\section{{\normalsize Summary }}
In this paper we have shown tunable bound-states in continuum (BIC)
in a 1D quantum wire with two impurities, induced by an intense monochromatic
radiation field. We found a new type of BIC in this system that we call ``dynamic
BIC,'' in addition to the other type of BIC that we call ``static
BIC.'' In contrast to the static BIC, the energy of the dynamic BIC depends
on the coupling constant $g$ between the discrete state of the electron
and the continuous state of the electron. Moreover, we have shown
that the dynamic BIC occurs because of the Fano interference among
the two transition channels of the electron induced by the radiation
field.
Furthermore, we have shown that all BICs obtained in our system exist for any value of $E_{l}$ of the discrete
state for a suitable frequency $\Omega$ of the radiation field. This is
not the case for the ordinary BIC without the radiation
field. In this sense, it is experimentally more feasible to achieve
the BIC in our system.
In order to justify experimentally our theoretical results, however,
we need the Fano profile of the absorption spectrum
of the radiation field \cite{Tanaka}. To construct the Fano profile, we have to
construct the eigenstates with the complex eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian
for the resonance states (see e.g. \cite{Bohm}). We hope to
present this elsewhere.
\acknowledgements
We thank L.E. Reichl, J. Keto, A. Bohm and S. Garmon for insightful
discussions. Y.B. thanks the Robert. A. Welch Foundation (Grand No.
F-1051) for partial support of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec: introduction}
It has remained a fundamental challenge to reveal the nature of dark matter,
while the presence of dark matter has been confirmed in astrophysics and cosmology.
In particular, recent observations of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy\,\cite{wmap9, planck}
determine the relic density of dark matter almost at the several percent level,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_{\rm dm}h^{2} \simeq 0.12 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Our little but certain knowledge about the nature of dark matter, i.e. longevity and coldness,
tells us that the standard model of particle physics does not provide a candidate of dark matter.
Therefore, the investigation of the nature and the origin of dark matter is important subject
in particle physics as well as astrophysics and cosmology.
The physics beyond the standard model, which is originally suggested to address the large hierarchy between the
electro-weak scale and the scale of the grand unified theory (GUT) or the Planck scale, provide promising candidates of dark matter.
The lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) in R-parity conserving supersymmetric (SUSY) theories is one of such candidates\,\cite{susydm}.
SUSY theories are also supported by the precise unification
of the three gauge coupling constants of the standard model at the GUT scale.
SUSY models are reexamined after the discovery of the Higgs boson\,\cite{higgsatlas, higgscms} and null-detection of SUSY signals at the LHC.
Among them, high-scale SUSY breaking scenarios, which are characterised by the heavy gravitino with a mass of $m_{3/2} \simeq 10-1000$\,TeV,
attract considerable attention\,\cite{splitsusy, puregrav, spreadsusy, minimalSplit}.
In addition to explaining the relatively large Higgs mass,
high-scale SUSY breaking scenarios evade the gravitino/Polony problems, the flavour changing neutral current problems, and the CP-problems.
In this paper, we consider the bino LSP with the at most around $30$\,GeV heavier wino as the next-to-LSP (NLSP) in high-scale SUSY breaking scenarios.
Due to the heavy sfermions, the self-annihilation of the bino LSP is insufficient and its thermal relic over-closes the Universe if the slightly heavier wino is not accompanied.
On the other hand, the wino dark matter self-annihilates effectively, since the approximate custodial symmetry
prohibits the large mass splitting between the neutral and the charged winos.
The mass splitting between the neutral and the charged winos can be around $150-170$\,MeV\,\cite{winofeng, winogiudice, winomasssplitsato}.
The large annihilation cross section of the wino dark matter, however, is in tension with gamma-ray observations
of the Galactic center in the Fermi-LAT and the H.E.S.S. telescope\,\cite{winogammacohen, winogammareece},
while there is still large ambiguity in the dark matter profile at the Galactic center.
These issues are solved if the mass splitting between the bino LSP and the wino NLSP is sufficiently small.
The small mass splitting keeps the wino and the bino abundance almost the same (except for the small Boltzmann factor) at the freeze-out.
In this case, the efficient wino annihilation can reduce the resultant bino abundance to the observed dark matter density or below.
This mechanism is referred to the co-annihilation\,\cite{coannihilation}.
We also consider the late-time decay of the gravitino, which provides the non-thermal bino dark matter
when the small mass splitting between the bino and the wino
does not leave the sufficient amount of the thermal bino dark matter.
The non-thermal binos are highly energetic at the time of the gravitino decay.
After that, they can loose their energy via interactions with the thermal background.
Since the bino does not interact with the standard model particles elastically,
the energy-loss proceeds via a cycle of interactions with the winos.
The bino turns into the charged winos via the inelastic scattering by the thermal background.
This inelastic process triggers the energy-loss cycle of the bino.
The inelastic scattering rate is sensitive to the mass splitting between the bino and the wino, which
also determines the thermal relic abundance of the bino.
By direct integration of the Boltzmann equation with the energy-loss cycle, we show that a sizable fraction of the non-thermal bino
remains relativistic after the energy-loss cycle becomes inefficient.
Therefore, the bino dark matter, which consists of thermal and non-thermal components, can be mixed (cold+warm) dark matter.
The imprints on the small-scale matter power spectrum may provide further insights on the origin of dark matter via the future $21{\rm cm}$ line survey\,\cite{21cmcosmology}.
The organization of the paper is as follows.
In section\,\ref{sec:binowino}, we summarize the bino-wino co-annihiliation scenario
mainly assuming the pure gravity mediation\,\cite{puregrav}/minimal split SUSY model\,\cite{minimalSplit}, although
our discussion can be applied to generic bino-wino co-annihiliation scenarios.
In section\,\ref{sec:masssplitting}, we determines the mass splitting
between the bino LSP and the wino NLSP for a given thermal relic abundance.
The mass splitting determines the inelastic scattering rate of the non-thermal bino.
In section\,\ref{sec:smallscale}, we discuss the imprints of the non-thermal bino
on the small-scale matter power spectrum, assuming that the non-thermal bino is
produced by the decay of the gravitino.
Here, we clarify the energy-loss cycle of the non-thermal bino.
The final section is devoted to summary.
\section{The bino-wino co-annihilation Scenario}
\label{sec:binowino}
First, we summarize the bino-wino co-annihilation scenario in high-scale SUSY breaking models. %
\footnote{
The bino-wino co-annihilation scenario, especially the thermal relic abundance of the bino, is studied
in other contexts such as of the minimal supergravity model with non-universal gauging mass\,\cite{nonunivmixed, nonunivbwca}
and the gaugino condensation in hidden sector\,\cite{gauginocond}.
}
To be specific, we concentrate on the pure gravity mediation/minimal split SUSY model,
although we do not need to change our discussion for generic bino-wino co-annihilation scenarios with the heavy sfermions and the heavy higgsinos.
Then, we discuss phenomenological implications of the model.
\subsection{Mass spectrum of the model}
In the pure gravity mediation/minimal split SUSY model, the sfermion mass $m_{\tilde f}$ and the higgsino mass $\mu$ originate from the generic tree-level interactions in the supergravity,
and thus they are expected to be of the order of the gravitino mass.
The gravitino mass is set $m_{3/2} \simeq 10-1000$\,TeV in order to explain the large quantum corrections to the Higgs mass.
On the other hand, the charge of the SUSY breaking field under some symmetry allows only one-loop suppressed contributions to the gaugino masses,
i.e. the anomaly mediated contributions\,\cite{anomalymedgiudice, anomalymedrandall}.
The heavy higgsinos also lead to large threshold effects to the gaugino masses, which are parametrized by $L$\,\cite{puregrav, winogiudice, anomalymedgiudice}.
The gaugino masses are numerically evaluated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:gluinomass}
m_{\tilde g} &\simeq&
2.5\times (1 - 0.13 \, \delta_{3/2} - 0.04 \, \delta_{0})
\times 10^{-2} \, m_{3/2},
\\
\label{eq:winomass}
m_{\tilde w} &\simeq&
3.0\times(1 - 0.04 \, \delta_{3/2+L} + 0.02 \, \delta_{0})
\times 10^{-3} \, (m_{3/2} + L),
\\
\label{eq:binomass}
m_{\tilde b} &\simeq&
9.6\times(1 + 0.01 \, \delta_{0})
\times 10^{-3} \, (m_{3/2} + L/11),
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscripts $\tilde g$, $\tilde w$ and $\tilde b$ denote gluino, wino and bino, respectively.
Here, $\delta_{0} = \log[m_{\tilde f}/100 \,{\rm TeV}]$,
$\delta_{3/2} = \log[m_{3/2}/100 \, {\rm TeV}]$,
and $\delta_{3/2+L} = \log[(m_{3/2} + L) /100 \,{\rm TeV}]$.
The terms proportional to $m_{3/2}$ and $L$ in the above formulas represent the anomaly mediation contributions
and the higgsino threshold effects, respectively.
In the following discussion, we set the sfermion mass and the higgsino mass equal to the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde f}=\mu=m_{3/2}$.
The above formulas of the gaugino masses imply that bino is LSP for $L/m_{3/2} > 3$.
We focus on the parameter region of $L/m_{3/2} \simeq 3.5-4.0$,
where the mass splitting between the bino and the wino, ${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde b} \equiv m_{\tilde w} - m_{\tilde b}$,
is about $10\,\%$ of the bino mass and the bino-wino co-annihilation is efficient.
In the next section, we identify the suitable mass splitting for a given thermal relic density.
\subsection{Phenomenological aspects of the model}
\label{subsec:phenomenology}
Here, we describe phenomenological implications of the heavy sfermions and the heavy higgsinos.
First, the large $\mu$-term suppresses the bino-wino mixing to ${\mathcal O}(m_{Z}^{2} / (\mu |m_{\tilde w} - m_{\tilde b}|))$.
Even with the small mass splitting between the bino and the wino,
the bino compose at least $0.99$ of LSP in the parameter region of interest.
The tiny mixing and the heavy sfermions result in the extremely weakly interacting bino.
Therefore, in the present model, the bino dark matter does not leave detectable signals
in current and near-future direct and indirect detections of dark matter.
The only constraint is put by null-detection of the gluino signals at the LHC.
By using multi-jets plus missing transverse momentum events, the ATLAS experiment reports
that the gluino mass should be $m_{\tilde g} \gtrsim 1.2$\,TeV for the LSP mass below $500$\,GeV\,\cite{atlasgluino}.
In the near future, the $14$\,TeV LHC with $300$\,fb$^{-1}$ has a potential to discover the gluino
below $m_{\tilde g} \simeq 2.3$\,TeV\,\cite{nearfuturegluino}.
Furthermore, a $33$\,TeV future proton collider with $3000$\,fb$^{-1}$ can reach the gluino mass of $m_{\tilde g} \simeq 3.6$\,TeV\,\cite{futuregluino}.
Here, we should note that in these collider experiments, we can probe only the gluino production and its subsequent cascade decay, but not the bino LSP itself.
This motivates us to study the cosmological imprints of the bino dark matter as the direct probe for the present scenario in this paper.
The large $\mu$-term also ensures the small mass splitting between the neutral wino
${\tilde w}^{0}$ and the charged winos ${\tilde w}^{\pm}$,
${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde w} \equiv m_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}} - m_{{\tilde w}^{0}}$.
This is because the large $\mu$-term suppresses the effect of the approximate custodial symmetry on the mass splitting ${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde w}$.
The tree-level contribution to the mass splitting is ${\mit \Delta} m^{\rm tree}_{\tilde w} \lesssim 20$\,MeV
in the parameter region of interest.
On the other hand, the one-loop contribution\,\cite{winofeng, winogiudice} is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:deltaM}
{\mit \Delta} m^{\rm loop}_{\tilde w} = m_{\tilde w^\pm}- m_{\tilde w^0} =
\frac{g_2^2}{16\pi^2} m_{\tilde w}
\left[ f(r_W) - \cos^2 \theta_W f(r_Z) - \sin^2 \theta_W f(0) \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_{W}$ is the Weinberg angle, $f(r)= \int^1_0 dx (2 + 2 x^2) \ln[x^2 + (1 - x)r^2]$, and $r_{W,Z}=m_{W,Z}/m_{\tilde w}$ with the $W,Z$-boson mass $m_{W,Z}$.
The one loop contribution is ${\mit \Delta} m^{\rm loop}_{\tilde w} \simeq 150-170$\,MeV, %
\footnote{
Recently the mass splitting is carefully analysed up to the two-loop contribution
in the similar context of the high scale SUSY breaking model\,\cite{winomasssplitsato}.
The two loop contribution can shift the mass splitting at most $10$\,MeV.
We ignore this small effect, which does not change our discussion.
}
and thus dominates the mass splitting ${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde w}$.
In the other scenarios with $|m_{\tilde b}-m_{\tilde w}| \sim m_{\tilde b}\,(m_{\tilde w})$,
the tree-level contribution is negligible compared with the one-loop contribution,
${\mit \Delta} m^{\rm tree}_{\tilde w} < {\mathcal O}(100)$\,keV.
However, in the present bino-wino co-annihilation scenario ${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde b}/m_{\tilde b} \ll 1$,
the tree-level contribution is subdominant but can not be ignored, ${\mit \Delta} m^{\rm tree}_{\tilde w}/{\mit \Delta} m^{\rm loop}_{\tilde w} \lesssim 0.1$.
\section{Mass splitting between bino and wino}
\label{sec:masssplitting}
The interactions of the bino LSP is extremely weak due to the heavy sfermions and the heavy higgisnos.
The inefficient annihilation of the bino LSP generically leads to the over-closure of the Universe.
However, when the bino is accompanied by the slightly heavier wino, the presence of the wino at the freeze-out of bino reduces
the relic abundance of the bino.
For the heavier bino with $m_{\tilde b} \gtrsim 1$\,TeV, the bino-wino co-annihilation is also boosted up
by the non-perturbative effects.
The countless exchanges of gauge bosons ($\gamma, W, Z$) between the winos distort the initial state wave function
from the direct product of the plane waves.
This is known as the Sommerfeld enhancement\,\cite{sommerfeldgeneral}.
In this section, we calculate the bino relic abundance taking into account the co-annihilation and the Sommerfeld enhancement.
\subsection{Thermally averaged effective cross section}
The thermal relic of the non-relativistic stable particle can be evaluated by solving the following Boltzmann equation\,\cite{thermalrelic},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:boltzmannchemical}
\frac{dY}{dx}=-\frac{\langle \sigma v \rangle}{H x} \left( 1-\frac{x}{3 g_{*s}} \frac{dg_{*s}}{dx} \right)
s \, (Y^{2} - Y^{2}_{\rm eq}) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the time coordinate $x$, which is the inverse of the cosmic temperature $T$ normalized by the particle mass $m$, $x \equiv m/T$.
The yield of the particle $Y$ is defined by the ratio of the particle number density $n$ to the entropy density $s$, $Y=n/s$.
The equilibrium yield $Y_{\rm eq}$ is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
Y_{\rm eq} = \frac{g}{(2 \pi)^{3/2}} \frac{m^{3}}{s \, x^{3/2}} e^{-x} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the degrees of freedom of the particle $g$.
The entropy density and the cosmic expansion rate $H$ is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
s = g_{*s} \frac{2 \pi^{2}}{45} \frac{m^{3}}{x^{3}} \,, \quad
H = \left( \frac{g_{*}}{10} \right)^{1/2} \frac{\pi}{3 M_{\rm pl}} \frac{m^{2}}{x^{2}} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the reduced Planck mass $M_{\rm pl} \simeq 2.43 \times 10^{18}$\,GeV.
The effective degrees of freedom for the energy density $g_{*}$ and for the entropy density $g_{*s}$ is calculated as the function of $x$
according to Ref.\,\cite{effectivedegrees}.
The thermally averaged annihilation cross section $\langle \sigma v \rangle$ is
related to the annihilation cross section $(\sigma v)$ by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma v \rangle = \left( \frac{m}{4 \pi T} \right)^{3/2} \int 4 \pi v^{2} dv \, (\sigma v) \, \exp \left( -\frac{m v^{2}}{4T} \right) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the relative velocity of the initial particles, $v$.
The co-annihilation introduces two changes in the above formulas\,\cite{winorelic},
\begin{eqnarray}
g &\to& g_{\rm eff} = \sum_{i} g_{i}(1+{\mit \Delta}_{i})^{3/2} e^{-x {\mit \Delta}_{i}} \,, \\
\label{eq:coannihilation}
\langle \sigma v \rangle &\to& \langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle = \sum_{i, j} \langle \sigma_{i j} v \rangle \frac{g^{2}}{g_{\rm eff}^2}
(1+{\mit \Delta}_{i})^{3/2} (1+{\mit \Delta}_{j})^{3/2} e^{- x({\mit \Delta}_{i}+{\mit \Delta}_{j})} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The index $i, j$ runs over the all particles that contribute to the co-annihilation including the stable particle itself.
The dimensionless mass splitting between the stable particle and the particle $i$ is defined by ${\mit \Delta}_{i} = m_{i}/m - 1$.
Since the thermal relic of the stable particle freeze-out at $x \simeq 20$ and
the thermally averaged effective annihilation cross section $\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$
depends exponentially on the dimensionless mass splitting (Eq.\,(\ref{eq:coannihilation})) ,
the co-annihilation is significant
only with at most $\sim 10 \, \%$ heavier particles than the stable particle.
The above formulas of the co-annihialation are valid only if the chemical equilibrium between the stable particle and the accompanying particles
is kept around the freeze-out.
In order to check this point, we should specify the inelastic interactions in charge of keeping the chemical equilibrium.
In the case of our present bino-wino co-annihilation scenario, the dominant processes are
${\tilde b} + e\,(\nu_{e}) \leftrightarrow {\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e)$, ${\tilde w}^{0} + e\,(\nu_{e}) \leftrightarrow {\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e)$,
${\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde b} + f_{1} + {\bar f}_{2}$, ${\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde w}^{0} + \pi$ and ${\tilde w}^{0} \to {\tilde b} + f + {\bar f}$.
The $2$-body decays of ${\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde b} + \pi$ and ${\tilde w}^{0} \to {\tilde b} + \pi$ are sub-dominant
compared with the $3$-body decays for $\Delta m > 1$\,GeV\,\cite{2decay}.
The interaction rates are given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Gamma_{{\tilde b} + e\,(\nu_{e}) \to {\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e)} = 4 N_{1 2}^{2}
\langle \Gamma_{\rm fi} (p_{\tilde b}, T; m_{\tilde b}, {\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde b}+{\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde w}) \rangle_{\tilde b} \,, \\
\label{eq:winononrelainelastic}
&& \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{0} + e\,(\nu_{e}) \to {\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e)} = 4
\langle \Gamma_{\rm fi} (p_{\tilde w}, T; m_{\tilde w}, {\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde w}) \rangle_{{\tilde w^{0}}} \,, \\
&& \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e) \to {\tilde b} + e\,(\nu_{e})} = 4 N_{1 2}^{2}
\langle \Gamma_{\rm bi} (T; m_{\tilde w}) \rangle_{{\tilde w^{\pm}}} \,, \\
&& \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e) \to {\tilde w}^{0} + e\,(\nu_{e})} = 4
\langle \Gamma_{\rm bi} (T; m_{\tilde w}) \rangle_{{\tilde w^{\pm}}} \,, \\
&& \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde b} + f_{1} + {\bar f}_{2}} = N_{1 2}^{2} {\bigg [} \sum_{l} \Gamma_{c} (m_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}, m_{\tilde b}, m_{l}, 0) \notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad
+ 3\sum_{U, D} \left| V^{\rm CKM}_{U D} \right|^{2} \Gamma_{c} (m_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}, m_{\tilde b}, m_{q_{1}}, m_{q_{2}}) {\bigg ]} \,, \\
&& \label{eq:2-body}
\Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde w}^{0} + \pi} = \frac{2}{\pi} \left| V^{\rm CKM}_{u d} \right|^{2} G_{F}^{2} f_{\pi}^{2}
{\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde w}^{3} \left( 1 - \frac{m_{\pi}}{{\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde w}} \right)^{1/2} \,,\\
&& \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{0} \to {\tilde b} + f + {\bar f}} = {\bigg [} \frac{1}{2} \left ( N_{1 3} - N_{2 3} \tan\theta_{W} \right) \cos\beta
- \frac{1}{2} \left ( N_{1 4} - N_{2 4} \tan\theta_{W} \right) \sin\beta {\bigg ]}^{2} \notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad
\times {\bigg [} \sum_{l} \Gamma_{n} (m_{{\tilde w}^{0}}, m_{\tilde b}, m_{l}) + 3 \sum_{q} \Gamma_{n} (m_{{\tilde w}^{0}}, m_{\tilde b}, m_{q}) {\bigg ]} \notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad
+ {\bigg [} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{2} \sum_{l} \Gamma_{\tilde f} (m_{{\tilde w}^{0}}, m_{\tilde b}, m_{l})
\notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
+ 3 \left( \frac{1}{6} \right)^{2} \sum_{q} \Gamma_{\tilde f} (m_{{\tilde w}^{0}}, m_{\tilde b}, m_{q}) {\bigg ]}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the Fermi constant $G_{F}$, the pion mass $m_{\pi}$, and the pion decay constant $f_{\pi}$.
The mixing matrix of the neutralinos $N_{i j}$ is defined in the same way as in Ref.\,\cite{susyprimer}.
The indices $(i, j)$ on $N_{i j}$ correspond to (mass, gauge) eigenstates.
The subscripts $q$s and $l$s represent the quarks and the leptons, respectively.
The Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix is denoted by $V^{\rm CKM}_{U D}$.
The indices $(U, D)$ on $V^{\rm CKM}_{U D}$ correspond to (up, down)-type quarks,
while the indices $(u, d)$ on $V^{\rm CKM}_{u d}$ in Eq.\,(\ref{eq:2-body}) denote the (up, down) quarks concretely.
The ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the (up, down)-type Higgs, $(v_{u}, v_{d})$ is written as $\tan \beta = v_{u} / v_{d}$.
It should be noted that $p_{{\tilde b}, {\tilde w}}$ is the physical momentum of the bino (wino) at the cosmic temperature $T$.
Here, we define
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Gamma_{\rm fi} (p, T; m, {\mit \Delta} m) = \frac{4}{3 \pi^{3}} G_{F}^{2} T^{5}
{\bigg [} 72 + 36 \frac{{\mit \Delta} m}{T} + 6 \left( \frac{{\mit \Delta} m}{T} \right)^{2} \notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad
- 6 \frac{p}{E} \left( \frac{{\mit \Delta} m}{T} \right)^{3}
+ 4 \left( \frac{p}{E} \right)^{2} \left( \frac{{\mit \Delta} m}{T} \right)^{4} {\bigg ]}
\exp \left( - \frac{{\mit \Delta} m}{T} \right) \,, \\
&& \Gamma_{\rm bi} (p, T; m) = \frac{96}{\pi^{3}} G_{F}^{2} T^{5}
\frac{E^{2}+p^{2}}{m^{2}} \,, \\
&& \Gamma_{c} (M_{1}, M_{2}, m_{1}, m_{2}) = \frac{1}{3 \pi^{3}} G_{F}^{2} \int_{M_{2}}^{\frac{M_{1}^{2} + M_{2}^{2} - (m_{1} + m_{2})^{2}}{2 M_{1}}}
dE_{2} \, p_{2} \left(1 - \frac{q^{2}}{m_{W}^{2}} \right)^{-2} \notag \\
&& \qquad \quad
\times {\bigg [} C_{1} \left( 2 (M_{1} E_{2} - M_{2}^{2}) (M_{1} - E_{2}) - M_{2} q^2 \right)
- C_{2} \left( 2 M_{2} - E_{2} \right) q^{2} {\bigg ]} \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad
\stackrel{M_{1} \to M_{2},\,m_{1}=m_{2}=0}{\to} \frac{2}{15 \pi^{3}} G_{F}^{2} (M_{1} - M_{2})^{5} \,, \\
&& \Gamma_{n} (M_{1}, M_{2}, m) = \frac{1}{64 \pi^{3}} \frac{g_{2}^{4}}{m_{h}^{4}} \left( \frac{m}{m_{W}} \right)^{2} \int_{M_{2}}^{\frac{M_{1}^{2} + M_{2}^{2} - 4m^{2}}{2 M_{1}}}
dE_{2} \, p_{2} \left(1 - \frac{q^{2}}{m_{h}^{2}} \right)^{-2} \notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\times \left(1 - \frac{4 m^{2}}{q^{2}} \right)^{3/2} q^{2} \left( M_{2} + E_{2} \right) \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad
\stackrel{M_{1} \to M_{2},\,m=0}{\to} \frac{1}{240 \pi^{3}} \frac{g_{2}^{4}}{m_{h}^{4}} \left( \frac{m}{m_{W}} \right)^{2} (M_{1} - M_{2})^{5} \,, \\
&& \Gamma_{\tilde f} (M_{1}, M_{2}, m, c_{{\tilde b}{\tilde w}}) = \frac{1}{320 \pi^{3}} \frac{g_{1}^{2} g_{2}^{2}}{m_{\tilde f}^{4}} \int_{M_{2}}^{\frac{M_{1}^{2} + M_{2}^{2} - 4m^{2}}{2 M_{1}}}
dE_{2} \, p_{2} \notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\times {\bigg [} C_{1} \left( 2 (M_{1} E_{2} - M_{2}^{2}) (M_{1} - E_{2}) + c_{{\tilde b}{\tilde w}} M_{2} q^2 \right) \notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
+ C_{2} \left( 2 c_{{\tilde b}{\tilde w}} M_{2} + E_{2} \right) q^{2} {\bigg ]} \notag \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\stackrel{M_{1} \to M_{2},\,m=0}{\to} \frac{(2 + c_{{\tilde b}{\tilde w}})}{800 \pi^{3}} \frac{g_{1}^{2} g_{2}^{2}}{m_{\tilde f}^{4}} (M_{1} - M_{2})^{5} \,, \\
&& C_{1} = \left( q^{2} - (M_{1} + M_{2})^{2} \right)^{1/2} \left( q^{2} - (M_{1} - M_{2})^{2} \right)^{1/2} \notag \\
&& \qquad \quad
\times \left( q^{4} + (M_{1}^{2} + M_{2}^{2}) q^{2} - 2 (M_{1}^{2} - M_{2}^{2})^{2} \right) / q^{6} \,, \\
&& C_{2} = \left( q^{2} - (M_{1} + M_{2})^{2} \right)^{3/2} \left( q^{2} - (M_{1} - M_{2})^{2} \right)^{3/2} / q^{6} \,, \\
&& q^{2} = M_{1}^{2} + M_{2}^{2} - 2 M_{1} E_{2} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the mass of the standard model Higgs boson $m_{h}$.
We normalize $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ such that $g_{1} = \sqrt{5/3} \, g'$ and $g_{2} = g$
with the conventional electro-weak gauge couplings $g$ and $g'$ ($e = g \sin \theta_{W} = g' \sin \theta_{W}$ with the positron charge $e$).
The quantity in angle brackets $\langle Q \rangle_{\tilde b,\,(\tilde w)}$ denotes the average of quantity $Q$ over the bino (wino) thermal distribution.
The relative phase between the bino and the wino mass parameter ${c_{{\tilde b}{\tilde w}}}$ is unity in the present model, ${c_{{\tilde b}{\tilde w}}}=1$.
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:chemical1}, we show the reaction rates for $m_{\tilde b} = 600$\,GeV and ${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde b} = 31.5$\,GeV.
The inelastic scatterings are efficient to keep the chemical equilibrium between $\tilde b$, ${\tilde w}^{0}$, and ${\tilde w}^{\pm}$ until the freeze-out of the bino LSP.
It should also be noted that the 3-body decay of ${\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde b} + f_{1} + f_{2}$,
not the 2-body decay of ${\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde w}^{0} + \pi$, dominates the decay of the charged winos.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figs/chemical1.eps}
\caption{\sl \small The reaction rates of the inelastic processes in charge of keeping the chemical equilibrium between the bino $\tilde b$ and the winos $\tilde w$s.
In the explanation of each line, we omit the standard model particles and explicitly specify the decay processes. Here, we set $m_{\tilde b} = 600$\,GeV and ${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde b} = 31.5$\,GeV.}
\label{fig:chemical1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The Sommerfeld enhancement is incorporated for the annihilations of the winos by calculating the annihilation cross section as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{i j} v = c_{i j} \sum_{(k, l), (m,n)} d_{i j, k l} d^{*}_{m n, i j} \Gamma_{k l, m n} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{i i} = 2$ and $c_{i j} = 1$ ($i \neq j$), and $\Gamma_{i j, k l}$ is the absorptive term between two body states $\Phi_{i j}$ and $\Phi_{k l}$
\,\cite{sommerfeldgeneral}.
The enhancement factor $d_{i j, k l}$ is given by the distortion of the wave function with respect to the relative position $r$ of the annihilation particles
at the infinity,
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{>}_{i j, k l} (r) \stackrel{r \to \infty}{\to} d_{i j, k l} \exp(i \sqrt{mE} r) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $g^{>}_{i j, k l} (r)$ is the solution of the Schr{\" o}dinger equation of
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:schrodinger}
-\frac{1}{m} \frac{d^{2}}{dr^{2}} g^{>}_{i j, k l} (r) + \sum_{(m, n)} V_{i j, m n} \, g^{>}_{m n, k l} (r) = E g^{>}_{i j, k l} (r) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the potential $V_{i j, k l} (r)$ and the boundary condition of
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{>}_{i j, k l} (0) = 0 \,, \quad g^{>}_{i j, k l} (r) \stackrel{r \to \infty}{\propto} \exp(i \sqrt{mE} r) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The absorptive term and the potential for each annihilation channel of the winos are summarized in Table\,\ref{table:winoannihilation}.
\begin{table}[tb]
\caption{\sl \small
The summary of absorptive term $\Gamma_{i j, k l}$ and the potential $V_{i j, k l} (r)$ for each annihilation channel of the winos.
Here, we take an abbreviated notation of $c_{W} = \cos \theta_{W}$, $\alpha=e^{2}/4\pi$, and $\alpha_{2}=g_{2}^{2}/4\pi$.}
\label{table:winoannihilation}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|} \hline
channel ($i$, $j$) $\leftrightarrow$ ($k$, $l$) & $\Gamma_{i j,kl}$ & $V_{i j,kl} (r)$ \\ \hline \hline
(${\tilde \chi}^{+ (-)}$, ${\tilde \chi}^{+ (-)}$) (S=0)
& ${\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha_{2}^{2}}{2 m^{2}}}$
& $\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}} + \alpha_{2} c_{W}^{2} {\displaystyle \frac{e^{-m_{Z} r}}{r}}$ \\ \hline
(${\tilde \chi}^{0}$, ${\tilde \chi}^{\pm}$) (S=0, 1)
& ${\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha_{2}^{2}}{2 m^{2}}}, {\displaystyle \frac{25 \pi \alpha_{2}^{2}}{24 m^{2}}}$
& $-\alpha_{2} {\displaystyle \frac{e^{-m_{W} r}}{r}}$ \\ \hline
(${\tilde \chi}^{+}$, ${\tilde \chi}^{-}$) (S=1)
& ${\displaystyle \frac{25 \pi \alpha_{2}^{2}}{24 m^{2}}}$
& $-\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}} - \alpha_{2} c_{W}^{2} {\displaystyle \frac{e^{-m_{Z} r}}{r}}$ \\ \hline
(${\tilde \chi}^{+}$, ${\tilde \chi}^{-}$) $\leftrightarrow$ (${\tilde \chi}^{0}$, ${\tilde \chi}^{0}$) (S=0)
& ${\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha_{2}^{2}}{2 m^{2}}}
\begin{pmatrix}
3 & \sqrt{2} \\
\sqrt{2} & 3
\end{pmatrix}$
& $\begin{pmatrix}
2 {\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde w} -\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}} - \alpha_{2} c_{W}^{2} {\displaystyle \frac{e^{-m_{Z} r}}{r}}
& -\sqrt{2} \alpha_{2} {\displaystyle \frac{e^{-m_{W} r}}{r}} \\
-\sqrt{2} \alpha_{2} {\displaystyle \frac{e^{-m_{W} r}}{r}}
& 0
\end{pmatrix}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{The mass splitting between the bino and the wino ${\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde b}$}
We numerically solve the Boltzmann equation (Eq.\,(\ref{eq:boltzmannchemical})) with the co-annihilation and the Sommerfeld enhancement.
We identify the suitable mass splitting between the bino and the wino ${\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde b}$ for a given bino thermal relic,
$r_{\rm T} \equiv \Omega_{\tilde b}^{\rm T} / \Omega_{\rm dm} = 1.0, \, 0.9, \, 0.5, \, 0.1$, up to $5\,\%$.
The results are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:rt}.
Here, we comment on the resonance in the Sommerfeld enhancement that is induced by the existence of the zero-energy binding states.
As shown in Ref.\,\cite{winorelic}, the wino relic abundance is resonantly reduced around some critical mass of $m_{\tilde w} > 2$\,TeV.
The resonance may change the monotonic decrease of ${\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde b}$ in large $m_{\tilde w}$ (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:rt}).
The first resonance appears around $m_{\tilde b} \simeq 2.4$\,TeV in our numerical calculation in the case of ${\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde b} = 0$.
However, we find that with a tiny mass splitting of at most ${\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde b} \simeq 10$\,MeV, the bino thermal relic can explain the observed dark matter density
even around $m_{\tilde b} \simeq 2.4$\,TeV.
This is because the resonance is highly sensitive to the freeze-out temperature,
which depends on the mass splitting between the bino and the wino ${\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde b}$ (see Eq.\,(\ref{eq:coannihilation})).
The tiny mass splitting leads to an order of one mixing between the bino and the wino, i.e. the bino-wino dark matter rather than the bino dark matter.
Since the phenomenology of the bino-wino dark matter is not the subject of this paper,
in the following we restrict ourselves within $m_{\tilde b} \lesssim 2.4$\,TeV.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figs/rT.eps}
\caption{\sl \small
The mass splitting ${\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde b}$ as a function of the bino mass.
Each line represents the thermal abundance of $r_{\rm T} = 1.0, \, 0.9, \, 0.5, \, 0.1$.
The vertical lines show the constraints on the bino mass from the gluino search in the current LHC (dashed), the near-future LHC (dotted), and the future high-energy proton collider (dot-dashed).
}
\label{fig:rt}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The mass splitting ${\mit \Delta}m_{\tilde b}$ for $r_{\rm T} = 1.0$, plotted in Fig.\,\ref{fig:rt}, is the upper limit.
If the mass splitting is larger, the bino thermal relic over-closes the Universe.
On the other hand, for $r_{\rm T} < 1$, the thermal relic can not explain the observed mass density of dark matter.
In that case, we need another production mechanism of the bino after the thermal freeze-out.
We assume that the late-time decay of the gravitino is in charge.
In the present scenario, the gravitino decays into the gauginos before the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:decaytemp}
T_{\rm d} = \left( \frac{10}{\pi^{2} g_{*}} M_{\rm pl}^{2} \Gamma_{3/2}^{2} \right)^{1/4} \simeq 0.12 \,{\rm MeV} \left( \frac{m_{3/2}}{10\,{\rm TeV}} \right)^{3/2} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the decay rate of the gravitino is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{3/2} \simeq \frac{8+3+1}{32 \pi} \frac{m_{3/2}^{3}}{M_{\rm pl}^{2}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The yield of the gravitino depends on the cosmic reheating temperature
$T_{\rm R}$.
The resultant non-thermal bino relic is given by\,\cite{gravitinoabundance},
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_{\tilde b}^{\rm NT}h^{2} \simeq 2.7 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde b}}{100\,{\rm GeV}} \right) \left( \frac{T_{\rm R}}{10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}} \right) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The non-thermal bino produced by the late time decay of the gravitino is relativistic.
The dark matter with sizable peculiar velocity is called hot or warm dark matter, depending on the comoving velocity (roughly speaking, warm dark matter has comoving velocity of $v/c \sim 10^{-(7-8)}$).
The peculiar velocity of warm dark matter suppresses the growth of primordial perturbations and leaves the cut-off in the matter power spectrum
around the galactic or the sub-galactic scales\,\cite{warmdarkmatter}.
The cut-off in the matter power spectrum is not only characteristic feature of the nature of dark matter,
but also possible solution to the so-called ``small-scale crisis"\,\cite{cuspcore, missingsatellite, reviewkravtsov, toobigtofail}.
As we will see in the next section, in the present scenario, the bino dark matter is mixed (warm+cold) dark matter rather than pure warm dark matter in the favored parameter range.
However, tomography of the matter density fluctuations in the future $21$\,cm line observations is expected to give us a chance to find
even weaker imprints on the matter power spectrum\,\cite{21cmsmallscale}.
As mentioned in subsection\,\ref{subsec:phenomenology}, it is highly challenging to find the bino dark matter in direct and indirect detections.
Therefore, the imprints on the matter power spectrum can give valuable evidence of the bino-wino co-annihilation scenario
in high-scale SUSY models.
\section{Imprints on the small-scale matter power spectrum}
\label{sec:smallscale}
In this section, we study the imprints of the non-thermal bino on the small-scale matter power spectrum.
The comoving velocity of the non-thermal bino at the gravitino decay can be estimated as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:comovingvb}
v_{\tilde b} / c \simeq 6.8 \times 10^{-8} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde b}}{100\,{\rm GeV}} \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{m_{3/2}}{10\,{\rm TeV}} \right)^{-1/2} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The non-thermal bino is sufficiently energetic to be warm dark matter when they are produced.
However, after that, they may lose their energy through the interactions with the thermal background.
Our goal is to obtain the momentum spectrum of the bino dark matter after the energy-loss processes become inefficient.
To this end, first, we clarify the dominant energy-loss process for non-thermal bino.
Then, we derive and solve the Boltzmann equation of the momentum spectrum of the ``warm'' bino dark matter.
Finally, we introduce two quantities that characterize the imprints of mixed dark matter on the matter power spectrum,
and calculate them from the obtained momentum spectrum.
\subsection{Energy-loss process}
As mentioned above repeatedly, the bino LSP in the present scenario does not elastically interact
with the standard model particles, i.e. thermal background.
On the other hand, the winos can be a messenger between the bino and the standard model particles due to the small mass splitting
${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde b}$.
The energy-loss of the non-thermally produced wino is investigated for the wino LSP in previous works\,\cite{winoenergylossarcadi, winoenergylossibe}.
Here we summarize their results, and discuss points of modification when we apply the previous results to the present scenario.
The charged winos lose their energy efficiently via Coulomb scattering,
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{dE_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}}{dt}=\frac{\pi \alpha^2 T^2}{3}\Lambda \left(1-\frac{m^2_{\tilde w}}{2E^2_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}}\ln \left( \frac{E_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}+p_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}}{E_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}-p_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}} \right) \right) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the Coulomb logarithm $\Lambda$, which is estimated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda = \ln \left[ \frac{4 \langle p_{e}^{2} \rangle}{k_{\rm D}^{2}} \right] \,, \quad
\langle p_{e}^{2} \rangle \sim \left( \frac{E_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}}{m_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}} T \right)^{2} \,, \quad
k_{\rm D}^{2} \simeq \frac{4 \pi \alpha}{3} T^{2} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
taking into account the contributions to the Debye screening scale $k_{\rm D}$ from the relativistic electrons and the relativistic positrons.
At the temperature of interest, $T_{\rm d} \simeq 0.1-10$\,MeV, the charged wino turns into the neutral wino mainly via the 2-body decay process (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:kinetic12}) in the case of the wino LSP.
In this case, the relatively long lifetime of the charged winos allow the non-thermal charged
winos lose most of their energy before they decay\,\cite{winoenergylossibe},
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}} \equiv \frac{1}{m_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}} \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde b} + f_{1} + {\bar f}_{2}}} \left( - \frac{dE_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}}{dt} \right) \gg 1.
\end{eqnarray}
However, in the present scenario, the charged winos mainly decay into the bino LSP with a shorter lifetime.
For the mass splitting of ${\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde b} \gtrsim 5$\,GeV, the energy-loss of the charged winos becomes inefficient, $-dE_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}} / \left( E_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}} \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}} dt \right) \lesssim 1$ , at $T \gtrsim 1$\,MeV.
The neural wino itself does not have elastic energy-loss processes at the tree-level.
The neutral wino lose its energy through the inelastic scattering of ${\tilde w}^{0} + e\,(\nu_{e}) \to {\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e)$.
The inelastic scattering rate is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:kinetic}
\Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{0}, \, {\rm inelastic}} &=& \frac{8}{\pi^3} G_{F}^2 T^5 \frac{(E_{{\tilde w}^{0}}+p_{{\tilde w}^{0}})^4}{m_{{\tilde w}}^2E_{{\tilde w}^{0}}p_{{\tilde w}^{0}}} \left(6+2\frac{m_{\tilde w}}{E_{{\tilde w}^{0}}+p_{{\tilde w}^{0}}}\frac{{\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde w}}{T} \right) \notag \\
&& \times \exp \left(-\frac{m_{\tilde w}}{E_{{\tilde w}^{0}}+p_{{\tilde w}^{0}}}\frac{{\mit \Delta} m_{\tilde w}}{T} \right)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
It should noted that this formula is applicable to only the relativistic wino and it is different from Eq.\,(\ref{eq:winononrelainelastic}) that is for the non-relativistic wino.
This formula can be easily translated into the inelastic scattering rate for the relativistic bino
by multiplying the mixing and substituting physical quantities (e.g. mass splitting) related to the bino instead of the wino,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{{\tilde b}, \, {\rm inelastic}} = N_{1 2}^{2} \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{0}, \, {\rm inelastic}} ({\tilde w}^{0} \to {\tilde b})\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:kinetic12}, we show the reaction rates for $m_{\tilde b} = 600$\,GeV and ${\mit\Delta} m_{\tilde w}=29.7$\,GeV, which corresponds to the case of $r_{\rm T}=0.5$.
The energy of the bino (wino) is different in each panel, $E_{{\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})} = 2$\,TeV for the left panel and
$E_{{\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})} = 10$\,TeV for the right panel.
The inelastic scattering rate both for the bino and for the neutral wino sharply drops around
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:criticaltemp}
T_{\rm c} = \frac{m_{{\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})} {\mit \Delta} m_{{\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})}}{2 E_{{\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})}} \simeq 900 \, {\rm MeV}
\left( \frac{m_{{\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})}}{600\,{\rm GeV}} \right) \left( \frac{{\mit \Delta} m_{{\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})}}{30\,{\rm GeV}} \right)
\left( \frac{E_{{\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})}}{10\,{\rm TeV}} \right)^{-1}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
due to the Boltzmann factor in Eq.\,(\ref{eq:kinetic}).
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/kinetic1.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/kinetic2.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl \small
The normalized reaction rates of interactions relevant to the energy-loss of the non-thermal bino (wino). Here, we take $m_{\tilde b} = 600$\,GeV and ${\mit\Delta} m_{\tilde w}=29.7$\,GeV ($\leftrightarrow$ $r_{\rm T}=0.5$) for $E_{{\tilde b}({\tilde w})} = 2$\,TeV (left panel) and $E_{{\tilde b}({\tilde w})} = 10$\,TeV (right panel).
The vertical line shows the decay temperature of the gravitino (Eq.\,(\ref{eq:decaytemp})).}
\label{fig:kinetic12}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[tb]
\caption{\sl \small
The energy-loss cycle of the bino and the winos around and after the gravitino decay.}
\label{table:cycle}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|} \hline
particle & dominant process \\ \hline \hline
${\tilde w}^{\pm}$ & ${\tilde w}^{\pm} \stackrel{\rm Coulomb}{\to} {\tilde w}^{\pm} \to {\tilde b} + f_{1} + {\bar f}_{2}$ \\ \hline
${\tilde w}^{0}$ & ${\tilde w}^{0} + e\,(\nu_{e}) \to {\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e)$ (high T) \\ \cline{2-2}
& ${\tilde w}^{0} \to {\tilde b} + f + {\bar f}$ (low T) \\ \hline
$\tilde b$ & ${\tilde b} + e\,(\nu_{e}) \to {\tilde w}^{\pm} + \nu_{e}\,(e)$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
From Fig.\,\ref{fig:kinetic12}, we can identify the energy-loss cycle of
the bino and the winos around and after the gravitino decay and summarize it in Table\,\ref{table:cycle}.
The non-thermal charged winos ${\tilde w}^{\pm}$ lose their energy thorough the Coulomb interaction and then decay into the bino $\tilde b$.
The energetic bino $\tilde b$ is scattered inelastically and turns into the charged wino ${\tilde w}^{\pm}$.
The relativistic neutral wino goes in two ways depending on the cosmic temperature.
If the temperature is high enough, the inelastic scattering rapidly turns the neutral wino ${\tilde w}^{0}$ into the charged wino ${\tilde w}^{\pm}$.
Otherwise, it decays into the bino $\tilde b$ before it is scattered inelastically.
\subsection{Boltzmann equation and characteristic quantities}
The discussion in the previous subsection clarifies the evolution equation of the bino momentum spectrum that should be solved.
However, the calculation cost is still high and thus, we further simplify the evolution equation as follows without missing the essence.
First, we take into account the incomplete energy-loss of the charged winos until their decay by changing the bino inelastic scattering rate as,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Gamma_{{\tilde b}, \, {\rm inelastic}} \to \left( 1 - e^{- \tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}} \right) \Gamma_{{\tilde b}, \, {\rm inelastic}} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The prefactor $\left( 1 - e^{- \tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}} \right)$ represents the probability of complete energy-loss at each inelastic scattering.
The second simplification is for the neutral wino process.
As we mentioned, the dominant process for the neutral wino shifts from the inelastic scattering to the decay as the temperature of the Universe decreases.
We assume that this takes place instantaneously at the time
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_{{\tilde w}^{0}} \equiv \frac{\Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{0}, \, {\rm inelastic}}}{(m_{{\tilde w}^{0}} / E_{{\tilde w}^{0}}) \Gamma_{{\tilde w}^{0} \to {\tilde b} + f + {\bar f}}} = 1 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
With these simplifications, the Boltzmann equation of the momentum spectrum of the ``warm" bino dark matter, $f_{\rm warm}(p, t)$, can be written as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Boltzmanneq}
&& \frac{\partial}{\partial t} f_{\rm warm}(p, t) - H p \frac{\partial}{\partial p} f_{\rm warm}(p, t) \notag \\
&& \quad
= {\bigg [} e^{- \tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}}
\frac{d\Gamma_{3/2, \, {\tilde w}^{\pm}}}{d^3 p}
+ e^{ - \Theta (\tau_{{\tilde w}^{0}} - 1) \tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}} \frac{d\Gamma_{3/2, \, {\tilde w}^{0}}}{d^3 p}
+ \frac{d\Gamma_{3/2, \, {\tilde b}}}{d^3 p} {\bigg ]}
\frac{a(t_{0})^3}{a(t)^3}e^{-\Gamma_{3/2} t} \notag \\
&& \qquad
- \left( 1 - e^{- \tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}} \right) \Gamma_{{\tilde b}, \, {\rm inelastic}} \, f_{\rm warm}(p, t) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the Heaviside step function $\Theta(x)$.
The differential decay rate of the gravitino into the bino $\tilde b$ (wino ${\tilde w}$),
$d\Gamma_{3/2, \, {\tilde b} \, ({\tilde w})} / d^3 p$, are given in Ref.\,\cite{winoenergylossibe}.
The prefactor $e^{ - \Theta (\tau_{\tilde b} - 1) \tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}}$ and $e^{- \tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}}$ represent
the energy-loss of the neutral and the charged winos immediately after their production, respectively.
The momentum spectrum of the ``warm'' bino dark matter is normalized such that,
\begin{eqnarray}
\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \, f_{\rm warm}(p, t) {\Big |}^{\tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}=0}_{t=t_{0}} = 1 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
at present $t=t_{0}$ when we turn off the energy-loss process by hand, $\tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}=0$.
After obtaining the momentum spectrum of the ``warm" bino dark matter, we calculate two quantities,
which characterize the ``warmness'' of dark matter (see Ref\,\cite{winoenergylossibe} for the case of the wino LSP).
One is the resultant ``warm'' fraction of dark matter,
\begin{eqnarray}
r_{\rm warm} = (1-r_{\rm T}) \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \, f_{\rm warm}(p, t) {\Big |}_{t=t_{0}} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The larger ``warm'' fraction leads to the more suppression of the matter power spectrum.
The other is the free-streaming scale, which is defined by the Jeans scale at the matter radiation equality $a_{\rm eq}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&k_{\rm fs}= a \sqrt{\frac{4 \pi G \rho_{\rm mat}}{\langle v^2 \rangle}} {\bigg |}_{t=t_{\rm eq}} \,, \notag \\
&&\langle v^2 \rangle (t_{\rm eq}) = (1-r_{\rm T}) \frac{a(t_{0})^{2}}{a(t_{\rm eq})^{2}} \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \, \frac{p^{2}}{m_{\tilde b}^{2}} f_{\rm warm}(p, t) {\Big |}_{t=t_{0}} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The free-streaming scale determines the critical scale below which the suppression on the matter power spectrum becomes significant\,\cite{warmkamada}.
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/rwarm05.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/kJ05.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl \small
The ``warm'' fraction $r_{\rm warm}$ (left panel) and the free-streaming scale $k_{\rm fs}$ (right panel).
We set the mass splitting such that $r_{\rm T}=0.5$ (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:rt}).
The different choice of $c\,(=1,\,2)$ corresponds to the different value of the sfermion mass and the higgisino mass, $m_{\tilde f}=\mu=c\,m_{3/2}$.
For comparison, we plot the ``warmest'' case ($\leftrightarrow \tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}=0$) in the dot-dashed line.
Here, we also show the constraint on the bino mass from the current (8\,TeV) and the future (14\,TeV) gluino search at the LHC.}
\label{fig:warm05}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/rwarm09.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/kJ09.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl \small
The same plot as Fig.\,\ref{fig:warm05}, but for $r_{\rm T}=0.9$.}
\label{fig:warm09}
\end{figure}
For each bino mass $m_{\rm b}$, we solve the Boltzmann equation (Eq.\,(\ref{eq:Boltzmanneq})) numerically to calculate $r_{\rm warm}$ and $k_{\rm fs}$.
The results are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:warm05} ($\leftrightarrow r_{\rm T} = 0.5$) and Fig.\,\ref{fig:warm09} ($\leftrightarrow r_{\rm T} = 0.9$).
The suppression of $r_{\rm warm}$ for the heavier bino mass $m_{\tilde b}$ is owing to the larger gravitino mass.
The larger gravitino mass has two effects.
First, the heavier gravitino decays in the earlier and hotter Universe, where the energy-loss processes are more efficient.
Second, the bino and the winos are more energetic at the decay of the heavier gravitino,
for which the inelastic scatterings are less suppressed.
While we set $m_{\tilde f}=\mu=m_{3/2}$ in the above discussion, this relation can be different by an order of one factor.
In order to take into account this ambiguity, we introduce the parameter $c$, which is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\tilde f}=\mu=c\,m_{3/2} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The effects of $c$ parameter can be interpreted as follows.
For the heavier sfermions and the heavier higgsinos ($c=2$), the inelastic scattering rate $\Gamma_{{\tilde b}, \, {\rm inelastic}}$ is more suppressed.
However, as can be seen from Fig.\,\ref{fig:kinetic12}, the inelastic scattering rate has dropped around the critical temperature (Eq.\,\ref{eq:criticaltemp})
well above the decay temperature of the gravitino $T_{\rm d}$ (Eq.\,\ref{eq:decaytemp}).
Therefore the additional order of one factor $c$ does not have significant effects through the inelastic scattering rate.
On the other hand, the energy-loss via Coulomb scattering remains efficient until just before the gravitino decay.
The large $c$ prolongs the lifetime of the charged winos and thus, enhances their energy-loss during one lifetime $\tau_{{\tilde w}^{\pm}}$.
Moreover, the large $c$ increases the fraction of the non-thermal neutral wino that turns into the charged wino (i.e. large $\tau_{{\tilde w}^{0}}$).
Therefore, the large $c$ results in the ``colder'' bino dark matter with the smaller $r_{\rm warm}$ and the larger $k_{\rm fs}$.
Before closing this subsection, we remark the implication of our results.
As we can see in Fig.\,\ref{fig:warm05} and Fig.\,\ref{fig:warm09}, in the favorable (not constrained) parameter region,
the ``warm'' component accounts for sizable fraction (at least $1$\,\%) of the whole bino dark matter.
This is why we refer the bino dark matter to mixed (cold+warm) dark matter in the present model.
The bino dark matter can not resolve the so-called ``small scale crisis'',
since the free-streaming scale should be much smaller for that purpose, e.g. $k_{\rm fs} \simeq 20-200 \, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$\,\cite{warmkamada}.
Its imprints on the small-scale matter power spectrum, however, are significant before the formation of non-linear objects (e.g. dark matter halos) in the Universe.
The future $21$\,cm survey will probe matter density fluctuations at high-redshifts, e.g. $z \simeq 30-200$, and thus provide us an important hint
on the non-thermal production of the bino dark matter.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
In this paper, we studied the bino-wino co-annihilation scenario in high-scale SUSY breaking models with the heavy sfermions and the heavy higgsinos.
As one specific realization, we consider the pure gravity mediation/minimal split SUSY model, which is highly motivated after the discovery of the Higgs boson.
The wino LSP is now in tension with indirect dark matter searches by the Fermi-LAT and the H.E.S.S. telescope,
while there is still large ambiguity in the dark matter profile at the Galactic center.
On the other hand, the bino LSP is almost free from any direct and indirect detections.
The suppressed interaction of the bino dark matter generically results in the over-closure of the Universe.
In order to account for the observed dark matter density, the bino LSP should be accompanied by the slightly heavier wino NLSP.
The small mass splitting between the bino and the wino allows the sizable amount of the winos to exist at the freeze-out of the bino and
it boosts the annihilation effectively.
Therefore, for the first step, we identify the mass splitting needed for a correct bino thermal relic.
In the calculation of the thermal relic, we take into account both the co-annihilation and the Sommerfeld enhancement.
For that purpose, we also clarify the relevant processes in charge of keeping chemical equilibrium between the bino and the winos.
For smaller mass splittings, the bino thermal relic can not account for the whole dark matter density.
We assume the late time decay of the gravitino produces the non-thermal bino after the freeze-out.
The non-thermal bino is produced with sufficiently high energy to be ``warm'' dark matter.
However, the ``warmness'' of the bino dark matter depends on the energy-loss processes after the production.
To this end, we clarified the energy-loss cycle of the non-thermal bino and the non-thermal winos.
With several reasonable simplifications, we derive the Boltzmann equation of the momentum spectrum of the ``warm'' bino dark matter.
We solve it numerically and show that the ``warm'' component accounts for sizable fraction (at least $1$\,\%) of the bino dark matter.
The matter power spectrum is suppressed below $1-10$\,kpc ($\leftrightarrow k_{\rm fs}=10^{3}-10^{4} \, [{\rm Mpc}^{-1}]$).
As a result, we find that the imprints of non-thermal component on the small-scale matter power spectrum provides an invaluable hint
on the present scenario, e.g. in the future $21$\,cm surveys.
In this paper, we concentrated on the pure gravity mediation/minimal split SUSY model and its gaugino mass spectrum (Eq.\,(\ref{eq:gluinomass})-(\ref{eq:binomass})).
However, the existence of the extra vector-like matter fields can change the gaugino mass spectrum\,\cite{extendedpuregrav}.
In this case, the gluino mass as well as the wino mass can be close to the bino mass.
The mass degeneracy hides the gluino from the collider experiments, since the decay products of the gluino do not have sufficient energy to be distinguished from the background events.
On the other hand, the cosmological imprints, which are discussed in this paper, can be enhanced.
This is because the gravitino mass can be smaller for the fixed bino mass.
The lighter gravitino leaves the non-thermal bino with large comoving velocity at the gravitino decay (Eq.\,(\ref{eq:comovingvb})).
Moreover, the lighter gravitino decays at very late time (still before BBN), at which the energy-loss processes are insufficient (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:kinetic12}).
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture (MEXT), Japan, No. 24740151 (M.I.), No. 22244021 and No. 23740169 (S.M.), JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists (A.K.) and also by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Consider a delay-constrained communication system operating over a slowly-varying fading channel.
In such a scenario, it is plausible to assume that the duration of each of the transmitted codewords is smaller than the coherence time of the channel, so the random fading coefficients stay constant over the duration of each codeword~\cite[p.~2631]{biglieri98-10a},\cite[Sec.~5.4.1]{tse05a}.
We shall refer to this channel model as \emph{quasi-static fading channel}.\footnote{\label{footnote:terms}The term ``quasi-static'' is widely used in the communication literature~(see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~5.4.1]{tse05a},\cite{foschini98}). The quasi-static channel model belongs to the general class of \emph{composite channels}~\cite[p.~2631]{biglieri98-10a},\cite{effros98-08} (also known as \emph{mixed channels}~\cite[Sec.~3.3]{han03a}).}
When communicating over quasi-static fading channels at a given rate~$R$, the realization of the random fading coefficient may be very small, in which case the block (frame) error probability~$\error$ is bounded away from zero even if the blocklength~$n$ tends to infinity. In this case, the channel is said to be in \emph{outage}. For fading distributions for which the fading coefficient can be arbitrarily small (such as for Rayleigh, Rician, or Nakagami fading), the probability of an outage is positive.
Hence, the overall block error probability $\epsilon$ is bounded away from zero for every positive rate $R>0$, in which case the Shannon capacity is zero.
More generally, the Shannon capacity depends on the fading probability density function (pdf) only through its support~\cite{effros10-07,verdu94-07a}.
For applications in which a positive block error probability $\epsilon>0$ is acceptable, the maximal achievable rate as a function of the outage probability (also known as \emph{capacity versus outage})~\cite[p.~2631]{biglieri98-10a},~\cite{ozarow94}, may be a more relevant performance metric than Shannon capacity.
The capacity versus outage coincides with the $\epsilon$-capacity $C_{\epsilon}$ (which is the largest achievable rate under the assumption that the block error probability is less than $\epsilon>0$) at the points where $C_{\epsilon}$ is a continuous function of $\epsilon$~\cite[Sec.~IV]{verdu94-07a}.
For the sake of simplicity, let us consider for a moment a single-antenna communication system operating over a quasi-static flat-fading channel.
The outage probability as a function of the rate $R$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:outage_prob}
F(R) = \prob\mathopen{}\left[\log(1+|H|^2 \rho) < R\right].
\end{equation}
Here, $H$ denotes the random channel gain and $\rho$ is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
For a given $\epsilon>0$, the outage capacity (or $\epsilon$-capacity) $C_{\epsilon}$ is the supremum of all rates $R$ satisfying $F(R)\leq\epsilon$. The rationale behind this definition is that, for every realization of the fading coefficient $H=h$, the quasi-static fading channel can be viewed as an AWGN channel with channel gain $|h|^2$, for which communication with arbitrarily small block error probability is feasible if and only if $R<\log(1+|h|^2\rho)$, provided that the blocklength $n$ is sufficiently large. Thus, the outage probability can be interpreted as the probability that the channel gain~$H$ is too small to allow for communication with arbitrarily small block error probability.
A major criticism of this definition is that it is somewhat contradictory to the underlying motivation of the channel model. Indeed, while $\log(1+|h|^2\rho)$ is meaningful only for codewords of sufficiently large blocklength, the assumption that the fading coefficient is constant during the transmission of the codeword is only reasonable if the blocklength is smaller than the coherence time of the channel. In other words, it is \emph{prima facie} unclear whether for those blocklengths for which the quasi-static channel model is reasonable, the outage capacity is a meaningful performance metric.
In order to shed light on this issue, we study the maximal achievable rate $R^{*}(\bl, \error)$ for a given blocklength~$\bl$ and block error probability~$\error$ over a quasi-static multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) fading channel, subject to a per-codeword power constraint.
\paragraph*{Previous results}
\label{par:previous_results}
Building upon Dobrushin's and Strassen's asymptotic results, Polyanskiy, Poor, and Verd\'u recently showed that for various channels with positive Shannon capacity $C$,
the maximal achievable rate can be tightly approximated by~\cite{polyanskiy10-05}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:approx_R_introduction}
R^{*}(\bl,\error) = C -\sqrt{\frac{V}{\bl}}Q^{-1}(\error) + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log \bl }{\bl}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $Q^{-1}(\cdot)$ denotes the inverse of the Gaussian $Q$-function
%
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}
Q(x)&\define&\int\nolimits_{x}^{\infty}\!\!\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-t^2/2} dt
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
%
and $V$ is the \emph{channel dispersion}~\cite[Def.~1]{polyanskiy10-05}.
%
The approximation~(\ref{eq:approx_R_introduction}) implies that to sustain the desired error probability~$\error$ at a finite blocklength~$\bl$, one pays a penalty on the rate (compared to the channel capacity) that is proportional to $1/\sqrt{\bl}$.
%
Recent works have extended~\eqref{eq:approx_R_introduction} to some ergodic fading channels.
Specifically, the dispersion of single-input single-output (SISO) stationary fading channels for the case when channel state information (CSI) is available at the receiver was derived in \cite{polyanskiy11-08a}.
This result was extended to block-memoryless fading channels in~\cite{yang12-09}.
Upper and lower bounds on the second-order coding rate of quasi-static MIMO Rayleigh-fading channels have been reported in~\cite{hoydis13} for the asymptotically ergodic setup when the number of antennas grows linearly with the blocklength. A lower bound on $R^*(\bl,\error)$ for the imperfect CSI case has been developed in~\cite{potter13-07}. The second-order coding rate of single-antenna quasi-static fading channels for the case of perfect CSI and long-term power constraint has been derived in~\cite{yang14-07b}.
\paragraph*{Contributions} We provide achievability and converse bounds on $R^\ast(\bl,\error)$ for quasi-static MIMO fading channels.
We consider both the case when the transmitter has full transmit CSI (CSIT) and, hence, can perform spatial water-filling, and the case when no CSIT is available.
Our converse results are obtained under the assumption of perfect receive CSI (CSIR), whereas the achievability results are derived under the assumption of no CSIR.
By analyzing the asymptotic behavior of our achievability and converse bounds, we show that under mild conditions on the fading distribution,\footnote{These conditions are satisfied by the fading distributions commonly used in the wireless communication literature (e.g., Rayleigh, Rician, Nakagami).}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:zero-dispersion}
R^\ast(\bl,\error) =C_{\epsilon} +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{\bl}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This results holds both for the case of perfect CSIT and for the case of no CSIT, and independently on whether CSIR is available at the receiver or not.
By comparing~\eqref{eq:approx_R_introduction} with~\eqref{eq:zero-dispersion}, we observe that for the quasi-static fading case, the $1/\sqrt{\bl}$ rate penalty is absent. In other words, the \error-dispersion (see~\cite[Def.~2]{polyanskiy10-05} or \eqref{eq:def-dispersion-epsilon} below) of quasi-static fading channels is \emph{zero}.
This suggests that the maximal achievable rate $R^*(n,\epsilon)$ converges quickly to $C_{\epsilon}$ as $n$ tends to infinity, thereby indicating that the outage capacity is indeed a meaningful performance metric for delay-constrained communication over slowly-varying fading channels. Fast convergence to the outage capacity provides mathematical support to the observation reported by several researchers in the past that the outage probability describes accurately the performance over quasi-static fading channels of actual codes (see~\cite{caire99-05} and references therein).
The following example supports our claims: for a $1\times 2$ single-input multiple-output (SIMO) Rician-fading channel with $C_{\epsilon}=1$ bit$/$channel use and $\epsilon=10^{-3}$, the blocklength required to achieve $90\%$ of $C_{\epsilon}$ for the perfect CSIR case is between $120$ and $320$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds-simo} on p.~\pageref{fig:bounds-simo}), which is about an order of magnitude smaller compared to the blocklength required for an AWGN channel with the same capacity (see~\cite[Fig.~12]{polyanskiy10-05}).
Fast convergence to the outage capacity further suggests that communication strategies that are optimal with respect to outage capacity may perform also well at finite blocklength.
Note, however, that this need not be true for very small blocklengths, where the $\mathcal{O}(n^{-1}\log n)$ term in~\eqref{eq:zero-dispersion} may dominate. Thus, for small $n$ the derived achievability and converse bounds on $R^*(n,\epsilon)$ may behave differently than the outage capacity.
Table~\ref{tab:wisdom} summarizes how the outage capacity and the achievability/converse bounds on $R^*(n,\epsilon)$ derived in this paper depend on system parameters such as the availability of CSI and the number of antennas at the transmitter/receiver. These observations may be relevant for delay-constrained communication over slowly-varying fading channels.
\paragraph*{Proof techniques} Our converse bounds on $R^{*}(\bl,\error)$ are based on the meta-converse theorem~\cite[Th.~30]{polyanskiy10-05}.
Our achievability bounds on $R^{*}(\bl,\error)$ are based on the $\kappa\beta$ bound~\cite[Th.~25]{polyanskiy10-05} applied to a stochastically degraded channel, whose choice is motivated by geometric considerations.
The main tools used to establish~\eqref{eq:zero-dispersion} are a Cramer-Esseen-type central-limit theorem~\cite[Th.~VI.1]{petrov75} and a result on the speed of convergence of $\prob[B> A/\sqrt{\bl} ]$ to $\prob[B>0]$ for $\bl\to\infty$, where $A$ and $B$ are independent random variables.
\begin{savenotes}
\begin{table*}[ht]\label{tab:wisdom}
\caption{Outage capacity vs. finite blocklength wisdom; $\txant$ is the number of transmit antennas.}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{|p{5.5cm}||c|c|}
\hline
Wisdom & $C_{\epsilon}$ & Bounds on $R^*(n,\epsilon)$\\\hline\hline
CSIT is beneficial & only if $\txant>1$ & only if $\txant>1$ \\ \hline
CSIR is beneficial & no~{\cite[p.~2632]{biglieri98-10a}} & yes \\\hline
With CSIT, waterfilling is optimal & yes~{\cite{telatar99-11a}} & no \\\hline
With CSIT, the channel is reciprocal\footnotemark & yes~{\cite{telatar99-11a}} & only with CSIR \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\end{savenotes}
\paragraph*{Notation}
Upper case letters such as $X$ denote scalar random variables and their realizations are written in lower case, e.g.,~$x$.
We use boldface upper case letters to denote random vectors, e.g., $\randvecx$, and boldface lower case letters for their realizations, e.g., $\vecx$.
Upper case letters of two special fonts are used to denote deterministic matrices (e.g., $\matY$) and random matrices (e.g., $\randmatY$).
The superscripts~$\tp{}$ and $\herm{}$ stand for transposition and Hermitian transposition, respectively.
We use $\mathrm{tr}(\matA)$ and $\det(\matA)$ to denote the trace and determinant of the matrix $\matA$, respectively, and use $\spanm(\matA)$ to designate the subspace spanned by the column vectors of $\matA$.
The Frobenius norm of a matrix $\matA$ is denoted by $\fnorm{\matA} \define \sqrt{\mathrm{tr}(\matA\herm{\matA})}$.
The notation $\matA \succeq \mathbf{0}$ means that the matrix $\matA$ is positive semi-definite.
The function resulting from the composition of two functions $f$ and $g$ is denoted by $g\circ f$, i.e., $(g\circ f) (x) =g(f(x))$.
%
For two functions~$f(x)$ and~$g(x)$, the
notation~$f(x) = \bigO(g(x))$, $x\to \infty$, means that
$\lim \sup_{x\to\infty}\bigl|f(x)/g(x)\bigr|<\infty$, and
$f(x) = \littleo(g(x))$, $x\to \infty$, means that $\lim_{x\to\infty}\bigl|f(x)/g(x)\bigr|=0$.
We use $\matI_{a}$ to denote the identity matrix of size $a\times a $, and designate by $\matI_{a,b}$ $(a>b)$ the $a\times b$ matrix containing the first $b$ columns of $\matI_{a}$.
The distribution of a circularly-symmetric complex
Gaussian random vector with covariance matrix~$\matA$ is denoted by $\jpg(\mathbf{0}, \matA)$, the Wishart distribution~\cite[Def.~2.3]{tulino04a} with $\bl$ degrees of freedom and covariance matrix $\mathsf{\matA}$ defined on matrices of size $m\times m$ is denoted by $\mathcal{W}_m(\bl,\mathsf{\matA})$, and the Beta distribution~\cite[Ch.~25]{johnson95-2} is denoted by $\mathrm{Beta}(\cdot,\cdot)$.
The symbol $\posrealset$ stands for the nonnegative real line, $\posrealset^{m} \subset \realset^{\minant}$ is the nonnegative orthant of the $m$-dimensional real Euclidean spaces, and $\realset_{\geq}^{m}\subset\realset_{+}^{m}$ is defined by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\realset^{\minant}_{\geq} \define \{\vecx\in \posrealset^{\minant}: x_1\geq\cdots\geq x_\minant\}.
\label{eq:def-R-geq}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The indicator function is denoted by $\indfun{\cdot}$, and $[\,\cdot\,]^{+} \define \max\{\,\cdot\,, 0\}$. Finally, $\log(\cdot)$ is the natural logarithm.
Given two distributions $\indist$ and $\outdist$ on a common measurable space $\setW$, we define a randomized test between $\indist$ and $\outdist$ as a random transformation $\testdist_{Z\given W}: \setW\mapsto\{0,1\}$ where $0$ indicates that the test chooses $\outdist$. We shall need the following performance metric for the test between~$\indist$ and~$\outdist$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:def-beta}
\beta_\alpha(\indist,\outdist) \define \min\int \testdist_{Z\given W}(1\given w) \outdist(d w)
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the minimum is over all probability distributions $\testdist_{Z\given W}$
satisfying
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\int \testdist_{Z\given W} (1\given w) \indist(dw)\geq \alpha.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\footnotetext{A channel is reciprocal for a given performance metric (e.g., outage capacity) if substituting $\randmatH$ with $\herm{\randmatH}$ does not change the metric.}
\section{System Model}
We consider a quasi-static MIMO fading channel with $\txant$ transmit and~$\rxant$ receive antennas.
Throughout this paper, we denote the minimum number of transmit and receive antennas by $\minant$, i.e., $\minant\define \min\{\txant,\rxant\}$.
The channel input-output relation is given by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:channel_io}
\randmatY &=& \matX \randmatH + \randmatW.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $\matX\in\complexset^{\bl\times\txant}$ is the signal transmitted over $\bl$ channel uses;
$\randmatY\in\complexset^{\bl\times\rxant}$ is the corresponding received signal;
the matrix $\randmatH\in\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant}$ contains the complex fading coefficients, which are random but remain constant over the~$\bl$ channel uses; $\randmatW\in\complexset^{\bl\times\rxant}$ denotes the additive noise at the receiver, which is independent of $\randmatH$ and has independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) $\jpg(0,1)$ entries.
We consider the following four scenarios:
\begin{enumerate}
\item no-CSI: neither the transmitter nor the receiver is aware of the realizations of the fading matrix~$\randmatH$;
\item CSIT: the transmitter knows~$\randmatH$;
\item CSIR: the receiver knows~$\randmatH$;
\item CSIRT: both the transmitter and the receiver know~$\randmatH$.
\end{enumerate}
To keep the notation compact, we shall abbreviate in mathematical formulas the acronyms no-CSI, CSIT, CSIR, and CSIRT as $\nocsi$, $\csit$, $\csir$, and $\csirt$, respectively.
%
%
Next, we introduce the notion of a channel code for each of these four settings.
\begin{dfn}[no-CSI]
\label{dfn:no-csi-code}
An $(\bl, \NumCode, \error)_{\nocsi}$ code consists of:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item an encoder $\encoder_{\nocsi}$: $\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\} \mapsto \complexset^{\bl\times \txant}$ that maps the {message} $\msg \in \{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ to a codeword $\matX \in \{\matC_1,\ldots, \matC_{\NumCode}\}$. The codewords satisfy the power constraint
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:peak-power-constraint}
\fnorm{\matC_i}^2 &\leq& \bl \snr,\quad i=1,\ldots,\NumCode.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\item A decoder $\decoder_{\nocsi}$: $\complexset^{\bl\times \rxant } \mapsto\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ satisfying a \emph{maximum probability of error} constraint
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:max-prob-error}
\max\limits_{1\leq j \leq \NumCode}\prob[\decoder_{\nocsi}(\outseqrand) \neq \msg \given \msg =j] \leq \error
\end{equation}
where $\outseqrand$ is the channel output induced by the transmitted codeword $\matX = \encoder_{\nocsi}(j)$ according to~\eqref{eq:channel_io}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}[CSIR]
\label{def:csir-code}
An $(\bl, \NumCode, \error)_{\csir}$ code consists of:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item an encoder $\encoder_{\nocsi}$: $\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\} \mapsto \complexset^{\bl\times \txant}$ that maps the message $\msg \in \{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ to a codeword $\matX \in \{\matC_1,\ldots, \matC_{\NumCode}\}$. The codewords satisfy the power constraint~\eqref{eq:peak-power-constraint}.
\item A decoder $\decoder_{\csir}$: $\complexset^{\bl\times \rxant } \times \complexset^{\txant \times \rxant} \mapsto\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:avg-prob-error-csir}
\max\limits_{1\leq j \leq \NumCode}\prob[\decoder_{\csir}(\outseqrand,\randmatH) \neq \msg \given \msg =j] \leq \error.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}[CSIT]\label{def:csit-code} An $(\bl, \NumCode, \error)_{\csit}$ code consists of:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item an encoder $\encoder_{\csit}$: $ \{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}\times \complexset^{\txant\times\rxant} \mapsto \complexset^{\bl\times \txant}$ that maps the message $j \in \{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ and the channel $\matH$ to a codeword $\matX = \encoder_{\csit}(j,\matH)$ satisfying
%
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:power-constraint-csit}
\fnorm{\matX}^2=\fnorm{\encoder_{\csit}(j,\matH)}^2 &\leq& \bl\snr, \notag\\
&&\forall j=1,\dots, \NumCode,\, \forall \matH \in \complexset^{\txant\times\rxant}. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
%
\item A decoder $\decoder_{\nocsi}$: $\complexset^{\bl\times \rxant } \mapsto\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:max-prob-error}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}[CSIRT]
\label{dfn:csirt-code}
An $(\bl, \NumCode, \error)_{\csirt}$ code consists of:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item an encoder $\encoder_{\csit}$: $ \{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}\times \complexset^{\txant\times\rxant} \mapsto \complexset^{\bl\times \txant}$ that maps the message $j \in \{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ and the channel $\matH$ to a codeword $\matX = \encoder_{\csit}(j,\matH)$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:power-constraint-csit}.
\item A decoder $\decoder_{\csir}$: $\complexset^{\bl\times \rxant } \times \complexset^{\txant \times \rxant} \mapsto\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:avg-prob-error-csir}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
The maximal achievable rate for the four cases listed above is defined as follows:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:def-r-nocsit}
R^{\ast}_l(\bl,\error) \define \sup\mathopen{}\left\{\frac{\log\NumCode}{\bl}: \exists(\bl
,\NumCode, \error)_{l}\text{ code}\right\},\\ l\in\{\nocsi,\csir,\csit,\csirt\}.
\end{multline}
From Definitions~\ref{dfn:no-csi-code}--\ref{dfn:csirt-code}, it follows that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Rnocsi^{\ast}(\bl,\error) &\leq& \Rcsit^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \leq \Rcsirt^{\ast}(\bl,\error)\label{eq:relation-ct-rt}\\
\Rnocsi^{\ast}(\bl,\error) &\leq& \Rcsir^{\ast}(\bl,\error)\leq \Rcsirt^{\ast}(\bl,\error)\label{eq:relation-no-cr}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\section{Asymptotic Results and Preview}
\label{sec:error-capacity}
It was noted in~\cite[p.~2632]{biglieri98-10a} that the $\error$-capacity of quasi-static MIMO fading channel does not depend on whether CSI is available at the receiver.
Intuitively, this is true because the channel stays constant during the transmission of a codeword, so it can be accurately estimated at the receiver through the transmission of~$\sqrt{\bl}$ pilot symbols with no rate penalty as $\bl\to\infty$. A rigorous proof of this statement follows by our zero-dispersion results (Theorems~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt} and~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}).
%
In contrast, if CSIT is available and $\txant >1$, then water-filling over space yields a larger $\error$-capacity~\cite{caire99-05}.
We next define~$C_{\epsilon}$ for both the CSIT and the no-CSIT case.
Let $\insetcov$ be the set of $\txant\times\txant$ positive semidefinite matrices whose trace is upper-bounded by $\snr$, i.e.,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}\label{eq:def_set_covariance_matrices}
\insetcov \define \{\matA \in \complexset^{\txant\times\txant}: \matA\succeq \mathbf{0}, \mathrm{tr}(\matA)\leq \snr\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
When CSI is available at the transmitter, the $\error$-capacity $\Ccsit$ is given by~\cite[Prop.~2]{caire99-05}\footnote{More precisely, \eqref{eq:C-epsilon-csit} and~\eqref{eq:C-epsilon-nocsit} hold provided that $\Ccsit$ and $\Cnocsit$ are continuous functions of $\epsilon$~\cite[Th.~6]{verdu94-07a}.\label{footnote:continuity}}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Ccsit &=& \lim\limits_{\bl\to\infty} \Rcsit^{\ast}(\bl,\error)\\
&=&\lim\limits_{\bl\to\infty}\Rcsirt^\ast(\bl,\error)\\
&=& \sup\mathopen{}\left\{R: \cdistcsit(R)\leq \error\right\}
\label{eq:C-epsilon-csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistcsit(R) \define \prob\mathopen{}\left[\max_{\condcov} \log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH\right)< R\right]
\label{eq:cadist_csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
denotes the outage probability.
Given $\randmatH =\matH$, the function $\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH\right)$ in~\eqref{eq:cadist_csit} is maximized by the well-known water-filling power-allocation strategy (see, e.g.,~\cite{telatar99-11a}), which results in
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\max_{\condcov} \log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH\right) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \left[\log(\bar{\gamma}\lambda_j)\right]^{+}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the scalars $\lambda_1\geq \cdots\geq \lambda_\minant$ denote the~$\minant$ largest eigenvalues of $\herm{\matH}\matH$, and
$\bar{\gamma}$ is the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} [\bar{\gamma}- 1 / \lambda_{j}]^{+} =\snr.
\label{eq:def-gamma-bar}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In Section~\ref{sec:mimo-csit}, we study quasi-static MIMO channels with CSIT at finite blocklength.
We present an achievability (lower) bound on $\Rcsit^\ast(\bl,\error)$ (Section~\ref{sec:ach-csit-mimo}, Theorem~\ref{thm:actual_ach_bound_csit}) and a converse (upper) bound on $\Rcsirt^\ast(\bl,\error)$ (Section~\ref{sec:converse-csirt}, Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csirt}).
We show in~Section~\ref{sec:asy-analysis-csit} (Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt}) that, under mild conditions on the fading distribution, the two bounds match asymptotically up to a $\bigO(\log(\bl)/\bl)$ term.
This allows us to establish the zero-dispersion result~\eqref{eq:zero-dispersion} for the CSIT case.
When CSI is not available at the transmitter, the $\error$-capacity~$\Cnocsit$ is given by~\cite{telatar99-11a,effros10-07}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Cnocsit&=&\lim\limits_{\bl\to\infty} \Rnocsi^{\ast}( \bl,\error)\\
&=& \lim\limits_{\bl\to\infty}\Rcsir^\ast(\bl,\error)\\
&=& \sup\{R: \cdistno(R) \leq \error\} \label{eq:C-epsilon-nocsit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:cadist_nocsi}
\cdistno(R) \define \inf_{\condcov}\prob\mathopen{}\left[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH\right)< R\right]
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
is the outage probability for the no-CSIT case.
The matrix $\matQ$ that minimizes the right-hand-side (RHS) of~\eqref{eq:cadist_nocsi} is in general not known, making this case more difficult to analyze and our nonasymptotic results less sharp and more difficult to evaluate numerically.
The minimization in~\eqref{eq:cadist_nocsi} can be restricted to all $\matQ$ on the boundary of~$\insetcov$, i.e.,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistno(R) = \inf_{\matQ \in \insetcove}\prob\mathopen{}\left[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH\right)< R\right]
\label{eq:P-out-alt-exp}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\insetcove \define \{\matA \in \complexset^{\txant\times\txant}: \matA \succeq \bm{0}, \mathrm{tr}(\matA) = \snr\}.
\label{eq:def-insetcove}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We lower-bound $\Rnocsi^{\ast}(\bl,\error)$ in Section~\ref{sec:ach-nocsi-mimo} (Theorem~\ref{thm:actual_ach_bound_nocsit}), and upper-bound $\Rcsir^{\ast}(\bl,\error)$ in Section~\ref{sec:converse-csir} (Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csir}).
The asymptotic analysis of the bounds provided in Section~\ref{sec:asy-results-nocsi} (Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}) allows us to establish~\eqref{eq:zero-dispersion}, although under slightly more stringent assumptions on the fading probability distribution than for the~CSIT~case.
For the i.i.d. Rayleigh-fading model (without CSIT), Telatar~\cite{telatar99-11a} conjectured that the optimal $\matQ$ is of the form\footnote{This conjecture has recently been proved for the multiple-input single-output case~\cite{abbe13-05}.}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\frac{\snr}{\txantop}\, \diag\{\underbrace{1,\ldots,1}_{\txantop},\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\txant-\txantop}\},\quad\,\, 1\leq \txantop\leq \txant
\label{eq:opt-cov-mat}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and that for small $\error$ values or for high SNR values, all available transmit antennas should be used, i.e., $\txantop=\txant$.
We define the $\error$-rate $\Ciso $ resulting from the choice $\matQ=(\snr/\txant)\matI_{\txant}$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Ciso \define \sup\{R: \cdistiso(R) \leq \error \}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistiso(R) \define \prob\mathopen{}\left[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_{\rxant}+ \frac{\snr}{\txant}\herm{\randmatH} \randmatH\right) < R\right].
\label{eq:def-cdist-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The $\error$-rate $\Ciso $ is often taken as an accurate lower bound on the actual $\error$-capacity for the case of i.i.d Rayleigh fading and no CSIT.
Motivated by this fact, we consider in Section~\ref{sec:mimo-nocsi} codes with isotropic codewords, i.e., chosen from the set
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\insetiso \define \left\{\matX \in \complexset^{\bl\times\txant}: \frac{1}{\bl}\herm{\matX} \matX = \frac{\snr}{\txant}\matI_{\txant}\right\}.
\label{eq:def-f-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We indicate by $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\iso}$ a code with $\NumCode$ codewords chosen from $\insetiso$ and with a maximal error probability smaller than~$\error$.
For this special class of codes, the maximal achievable rate $\Rnoiso^*(\bl,\error)$ for the no-CSI case and~$\Rcriso^*(\bl,\error)$ for the CSIR case can be characterized more accurately at finite blocklength (Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csir-iso}) than for the general no-CSI case.
Furthermore, we show in Section~\ref{sec:asy-results-nocsi} (Theorem~\ref{thm:proof-asy-iso}) that under mild conditions on the fading distributions (weaker than the ones required for the general no-CSI case)
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\{\Rnoiso^{*}(\bl,\error), \Rcriso^{*}(\bl,\error)\}= \Ciso +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{\bl}\right). \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
A final remark on notation. For the single-transmit-antenna case (i.e., $\txant=1$), the $\error$-capacity does not depend on whether CSIT is available or not~\cite[Prop.~3]{caire99-05}. Hence, we shall denote the $\error$-capacity for this case simply as~$\Csimo$.
\section{CSI Available at the Transmitter}
\label{sec:mimo-csit}
\subsection{Achievability}
\label{sec:ach-csit-mimo}
In this section, we consider the case where CSI is available at the transmitter but not at the receiver. Before establishing our achievability bound in Section~\ref{sec:rigious-derivation}, we provide some geometric intuition that will guide us in the choice of the decoder~$\decoder_{\nocsi}$ (see Definition~\ref{def:csit-code}).
\subsubsection{Geometric Intuition}
\label{sec:geometric-intution}
Consider for simplicity a real-valued quasi-static SISO channel ($\txant=\rxant=1$), i.e., a channel with input-output relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:siso_real_channel}
\randvecy = H \vecx + \randvecw
\end{equation}
where $\randvecy$, $\vecx$, and $\randvecw$ are $\bl$-dimensional vectors, and $H$ is a (real-valued) scalar.
As reviewed in Section \ref{sec:introduction}, the typical error event for the quasi-static fading channel (in the large blocklength regime) is that the instantaneous channel gain $H^2$ is not large enough to support the desired rate $R$, i.e., $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+\snr H^2) <R$ (outage event).
For the channel in~\eqref{eq:siso_real_channel}, the $\error$-capacity $C_\error$, i.e., the largest rate~$R$ for which the probability that the channel is in outage is less than $\error$, is given by
\begin{equation}
C_{\error} = \sup \mathopen{}\left\{R: \prob\mathopen{}\left[\frac{1}{2}\log(1+\snr H^2)< R\right]\leq \error \right\}.
\label{eq:C-epsilon-siso}
\end{equation}
Roughly speaking, the decoder of a $C_\error$-achieving code may commit an error only when the channel is in outage.
Pick now an arbitrary codeword $\vecx_1$ from the hypersphere
$\{\vecx\in \realset^{\bl}:\, \|\vecx\|^2=\bl\snr\}$,
and let $\randvecy$ be the received signal corresponding to~$\vecx_1$.
Following~\cite{shannon59}, we analyze the angle $\theta(\transmitcwd, \randrevec)$ between~$\transmitcwd$ and~$\randrevec$ as follows.
By the law of large numbers, the noise vector~$\randvecw$ is approximately orthogonal to~$\vecx_1$ if~$\bl$ is large, i.e.,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\frac{\langle\transmitcwd,\randnoisevec\rangle}{\|\transmitcwd\|\|\randnoisevec\|} \to 0, \quad \bl \to \infty.
\label{eq:approx-angle}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Also by the law of large numbers, $\|\randnoisevec\|^2/\bl \to 1$ as $\bl\to\infty$.
Hence, for a given~$H$ and for large~$\bl$, the angle $\theta(\transmitcwd, \randrevec)$ can be approximated as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\theta(\transmitcwd, \randrevec) &\approx& \arcsin \frac{\|\randnoisevec\|}{\sqrt{H^2\|\transmitcwd\|^2 + \|\randnoisevec\|^2}}\\
&\approx& \arcsin \frac{1}{\sqrt{\snr H^2+1}} \label{eq:angle-app-siso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the first approximation follows by~\eqref{eq:approx-angle} and the second approximation follows because $\|\randnoisevec\|^2 \approx \bl$.
It follows from~\eqref{eq:C-epsilon-siso} and~\eqref{eq:angle-app-siso} that $\theta(\transmitcwd, \randrevec)$ is larger than $\theta_{\error} \define \arcsin(e^{-C_\error})$ in the outage case, and smaller than $\theta_\error$ otherwise (see Fig.~\ref{fig:sphere}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.71]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:sphere} A geometric illustration of the outage event for large blocklength $\bl$.
In the example, the fading realization $h'$ triggers an outage event, $h$ does not.
}
\end{figure}
This geometric argument suggests the use of a threshold decoder that, for a given received signal~$\randvecy$, declares~$\vecx_i$ to be the transmitted codeword if~$\vecx_i$ is the only codeword for which $\theta(\vecx_i, \randrevec) \leq \theta_\error$. If no codewords or more than one codeword meet this condition, the decoder declares an error. %
Thresholding angles instead of log-likelihood ratios (cf.,~\cite[Th.~17 and Th.~25]{polyanskiy10-05}) appears to be a natural approach when CSIR is unavailable.
Note that the proposed threshold decoder does neither require CSIR nor knowledge of the fading distribution.
As we shall see, it achieves~\eqref{eq:zero-dispersion} and yields a tight achievability bound at finite blocklength, provided that the threshold $\theta_{\epsilon}$ is chosen appropriately.
In the following, we generalize the aforementioned threshold decoder to the MIMO case and present our achievability results.
\subsubsection{The Achievability Bound}
\label{sec:rigious-derivation}
To state our achievability (lower) bound on~$\Rcsit^\ast(\bl,\error)$, we will need the following definition, which extends the notion of angle between real vectors to complex subspaces.
\begin{dfn
Let $\setA$ and $\setB$ be subspaces in $\complexset^{\bl}$ with $a =\dim(\setA) \leq \dim(\setB) =b$. The \emph{principal angles} $0\leq \theta_1\leq \cdots\leq \theta_{a}\leq {\pi}/{2}$ between $\setA$ and $\setB$ are defined recursively by
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:def-princal-angle}
\cos \theta_k \define \!\!\!\max\limits_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{c}
\veca\in \setA, \vecb\in\setB\colon \|\veca\|=\|\vecb\|=1,
\\ \langle\veca,\veca_i\rangle=\langle\vecb,\vecb_i\rangle=0, i=1,\ldots,k-1 \end{array}} \!\!\!\!|\langle\veca,\vecb\rangle |,\\
\quad k=1,\ldots,a.
\end{multline}
Here, $\veca_k$ and $\vecb_k$, $k=1,\ldots,a$, are the vectors that achieve the maximum in~\eqref{eq:def-princal-angle} at the $k$th recursion.
The angle between the subspaces $\setA$ and $\setB$ is defined by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:def-product-prin-sine}
\sin\{\setA,\setB\}\define \prod\limits_{k=1}^{a}\sin\theta_k.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{dfn}
With a slight abuse of notation, for two matrices $\matA\in \complexset^{\bl\times a}$ and $\matB\in\complexset^{\bl\times b}$, we abbreviate $\sin\mathopen{}\left\{\spanm(\matA),\spanm(\matB)\right\}$ with
$\sin\{\matA,\matB\} $.
When the columns of $\matA $ and $\matB$ are orthonormal bases for $\spanm(\matA)$ and $\spanm(\matB)$, respectively, we have (see, e.g.,~\cite[Sec.~I]{barg02-09})
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sin^2\{\matA,\matB\} &=& \det\mathopen{}\left(\matI - \herm{\matA}\matB\herm{\matB} \matA\right)\\
&=& \det\mathopen{}\left(\matI - \herm{\matB}\matA\herm{\matA} \matB\right).
\label{eq:rel-angle-sin-eigen}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Some additional properties of the operator $\sin\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ are listed in Appendix~\ref{app:proof-angle-btw-subspaces}.
We are now ready to state our achievability bound.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:actual_ach_bound_csit}
Let $\Lambda_1\geq \cdots\geq\Lambda_\minant$ be the $\minant$ largest eigenvalues of $\randmatH\herm{\randmatH}$.
For every $0\!<\!\error\!<\!1$ and every $0\!<\!\tau\!<\!\error$, there exists an $(\bl, \NumCode, \error)_{\csit}$ code for the channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io}
that satisfies
%
%
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:lb-numcode-csit}
\frac{\log\NumCode}{\bl} &\geq& \frac{1}{\bl} \log\frac{\tau}{\prob\mathopen{}\big[\prod_{j=1}^{\rxant} B_j \leq \gamma_{\bl}\big] }.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
%
%
Here, $B_j\sim \mathrm{Beta}(\bl-\txant-j+1,\txant)$, $j =1,\ldots,\rxant$, are independent Beta-distributed random variables, and~\mbox{$\gamma_{\bl}\in[0,1]$} is chosen so that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\bigg[\sin^2 \mathopen{}\Big\{\matI_{\bl,\txant},\sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txant}\diag\mathopen{}\Big\{\sqrt{v_1^*\Lambda_1},\ldots, }\notag\\ \quad\quad\quad\sqrt{v_{\minant}^*\Lambda_\minant},\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\txant-\minant}\Big\}
+ \randmatW \Big\}\leq \gamma_\bl\bigg] \geq 1-\error+\tau \label{eq:def-gamma-n-ach-csit} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
v^\ast_j=[\bar{\gamma} - 1/\Lambda_{j}]^{+}, \,\,\, j=1,\ldots,\rxant
\label{eq:water-filling-power}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
are the water-filling power gains and $\bar{\gamma}$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:def-gamma-bar}.
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The achievability bound is based on a decoder that operates as follows: it first computes the sine of the angle between the subspace spanned by the received matrix~$\randmatY$ and the subspace spanned by each codeword; then, it chooses the first codeword for which the squared sine of the angle is below~$\gamma_\bl$.
To analyze the performance of this decoder, we apply the $\kappa\beta$ bound~\cite[Th.~25]{polyanskiy10-05} to a physically degraded channel whose output is~$\spanm(\randmatY)$.
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof-ach-bound-csit} for the complete proof.
\end{IEEEproof}
\subsection{Converse}
\label{sec:converse-csirt}
In this section, we shall assume both CSIR and CSIT. Our converse bound is based on the meta-converse theorem~\cite[Th.~30]{polyanskiy10-05}. Since CSI is available at both the transmitter and the receiver, the MIMO channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} can be transformed into a set of parallel quasi-static channels. The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csirt} below builds on~\cite[Sec.~4.5]{polyanskiy10}, which characterizes the nonasymptotic coding rate of parallel AWGN channels.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:converse-csirt}
Let $\Lambda_1\geq \cdots\geq\Lambda_\minant$ be the $\minant$ largest eigenvalues of $\randmatH\herm{\randmatH}$, and let $\bm{\Lambda} \define \tp{[\Lambda_1,\ldots,\Lambda_\minant]}$.
Consider an arbitrary power-allocation function $\powallocvec: \posrealset^{\minant} \mapsto \setV_{\minant}$,
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}\label{eq:def_setV}
\setV_{\minant} \define \left\{[p_1,\ldots,p_{\minant}]\in \posrealset^{\minant}:\,\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{\minant}p_j \leq \snr \right\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:info_density_mimo_alt_csirt}
\Lcsirt_{\bl}(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) &\define& \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\bl}\sum \limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \! \Bigg(\!\log\mathopen{}\big(1+\Lambda_j\powalloc_j(\bm{\Lambda})\big) + 1 \notag\\
&& - \,\left|\sqrt{\Lambda_j\powalloc_j(\bm{\Lambda})} Z_{i,j} - \sqrt{ 1 + \Lambda_j\powalloc_j(\bm{\Lambda})} \right|^2\!\Bigg)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) &\define& \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\bl}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \Bigg(\!\log\mathopen{}\big(1+\Lambda_j\powalloc_j(\bm{\Lambda})\big) + 1 \notag\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\,\, -\, \frac{\big|\sqrt{\Lambda_j\powalloc_j(\bm{\Lambda})}Z_{ij} - 1\big|^2}{1+\Lambda_j\powalloc_j(\bm{\Lambda})}\!\Bigg)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:info_density_mimo_csirt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\powalloc_j(\cdot)$ is the $j$th coordinate of $\powallocvec(\cdot)$, and $Z_{ij}$, $i=1,\ldots, \bl$, $j=1,\ldots,\minant$, are i.i.d. $\jpg(0,1)$ distributed random variables.
For every $\bl$ and every $0<\error<1$, the maximal achievable rate on the channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} with CSIRT is upper-bounded by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Rcsirt^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \leq \frac{1}{n}\log \frac{ c_\csirt(\bl) }{\inf\limits_{\powallocvec(\cdot)} \prob[\Lcsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\powallocvec) ]}
\label{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:def-n-func-converse-csirt}
c_\csirt(\bl) &\define& \left(\frac{(\bl-1)^\bl e^{-(\bl-1)}}{\Gamma(\bl)} +\frac{ \Gamma(\bl,\bl-1)}{\Gamma(\bl)} \right)^\minant \notag\\
&& \times \,\Ex{\randmatH}{\det(\matI_{\txant}+\snr \randmatH\herm{\randmatH})}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and the scalar $\gamma_{\bl}(\powallocvec)$ is the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:thm-converse-def-gamma-n}
\prob[ \Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\powallocvec)] =\error.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The infimum on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} is taken over all power allocation functions $\powallocvec: \posrealset^{\minant}\mapsto \setV_{\minant}$.
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof-converse-cisrt}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:converse-csirt-tight}
The infimum on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} makes the converse bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csirt} difficult to evaluate numerically.
We can further upper-bound the RHS of~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} by lower-bounding $\prob[\Lcsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\powallocvec)]$ for each $\powallocvec(\cdot)$ using~\cite[Eq.~(102)]{polyanskiy10-05} and the Chernoff bound. After doing so, the infimum can be computed analytically and the resulting upper bound on $\Rcsirt^\ast(\bl,\error)$ allows for numerical evaluations. Unfortunately, this bound is in general loose.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
As we shall discuss in Section~\ref{sec:converse-csir}, the bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} can be tightened and evaluated numerically in the SIMO case or when the codewords are isotropic, i.e., are chosen from the set~$\setF_{\iso}$ in~\eqref{eq:def-f-iso}.
Note that in both scenarios CSIT is not beneficial.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Asymptotic Analysis}
\label{sec:asy-analysis-csit}
Following~\cite[Def. 2]{polyanskiy10-05}, we define the $\error$-dispersion of the
channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} with CSIT via $\Rcsit^{\ast}(\bl,\error)$ (resp.
$\Rcsirt^{\ast}(\bl,\error)$) as
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:def-dispersion-epsilon}
V_\error^{l} \define \limsup\limits_{\bl\to\infty} \bl\left( \frac{\Ccsit -
R^{\ast}_l(n,\epsilon)}{Q^{-1}(\error)}\right)^2,\\
\,\, \error\in(0,1)\backslash \{1/2\},\, l=\{\csit,\csirt\}.
\end{multline}
Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt} below characterizes the \error-dispersion of the quasi-static fading channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} with CSIT.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:asy-mimo-csirt}
Assume that the fading channel $\randmatH$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:cond-expec-finite} the expectation $\Ex{\randmatH}{\det(\matI_{\txant} + \snr \randmatH\herm{\randmatH})}$ is finite;
\item \label{item:cond-cont-pdf-eig}the joint pdf of the ordered nonzero eigenvalues of $\herm{\randmatH}\randmatH$ exists and is continuously differentiable;
\item\label{item:cond-pos-cdf} $\Ccsit$ is a point of growth of the outage probability function~\eqref{eq:cadist_csit} , i.e.,\footnote{Note that this condition implies that $\Ccsit$ is a continuous function of $\error$ (see Section~\ref{sec:error-capacity}).}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistcsit'\mathopen{}\left(\Ccsit\right) >0.
\label{eq:thm-dispersion-condition2-conv}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
Then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\big\{ \Rcsit^{\ast}(\bl,\error) , \Rcsirt^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \big\} &=& \Ccsit + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right) \label{eq:thm-R-star-expansion-ct}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, the $\error$-dispersion is zero for both the CSIRT and the CSIT case:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
V_\error^{\csit} = V_\error^{\csirt}=0, \quad\,\,\error\in(0,1)\backslash \{1/2\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
To prove~\eqref{eq:thm-R-star-expansion-ct}, we first establish in Appendix \ref{app:proof-asy-csit-conv} the converse result
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Rcsirt^\ast(\bl,\error) \leq \Ccsit + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right)
\label{eq:proof-asy-conv-csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
by analyzing the upper bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} in the limit $\bl\to\infty$. We next prove in Appendix~\ref{app:proof-asy-csit-ach} the achievability result
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Rcsit^\ast(\bl,\error) \geq \Ccsit + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right)
\label{eq:proof-asy-ach-csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
by expanding~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-csit} for $\bl\to\infty$.
The desired result then follows by~\eqref{eq:relation-ct-rt}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\begin{rem}
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:introduction}, the quasi-static fading channel considered in this paper belongs to the general class of composite or mixed channels, whose $\error$-dispersion is known in some special cases.
Specifically, the dispersion of a mixed channel with two states was derived in~\cite[Th.~7]{polyanskiy11-04}.
This result was extended to channels with finitely many states in~\cite[Th.~4]{tomamichel13-05}.
%
In both cases, the rate of convergence to the $\error$-capacity is $\bigO(1/\sqrt{\bl})$ (positive dispersion), as opposed to $\bigO(\log(\bl)/\bl)$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt}.
Our result shows that moving from finitely many to uncountably many states (as in the quasi-static fading case) yields a drastic change in the value of the channel dispersion.
For this reason, our result is not derivable from~\cite{polyanskiy11-04} or \cite{tomamichel13-05}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
It can be shown that the assumptions on the fading matrix in Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt} are satisfied by most probability distributions used to model MIMO fading channels, such as i.i.d. or correlated Rayleigh, Rician, and Nakagami.
However, the (nonfading) AWGN MIMO channel, which can be seen as a quasi-static fading
channel with fading distribution equal to a step function, does not meet these assumptions and has, in fact, positive dispersion~\cite[Th.~78]{polyanskiy10}.
While zero dispersion indeed may imply fast convergence to $\error$-capacity, this is not true anymore when the probability distribution of the fading matrix approaches a step function, in which case the higher-order terms in the expansion~\eqref{eq:thm-R-star-expansion-ct} become more dominant.
Consider for example a SISO Rician fading channel with Rician factor $K$.
For $\error<1/2$, one can refine~\eqref{eq:thm-R-star-expansion-ct} and show that~\cite{yang13-07}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
&&C_\error-\frac{\log\bl}{\bl} - \frac{c_1 \sqrt{K} + c_2}{\bl} + \littleo\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right) \leq \Rcsit^\ast(\bl,\error)\notag\\
&&\quad\quad\leq \Rcsirt^\ast(\bl,\error) \leq C_\error + \frac{\log\bl}{\bl} - \frac{\tilde{c}_1 \sqrt{K}+\tilde{c}_2}{\bl} + \littleo\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:eg-rician-bounds}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $c_1$, $c_2$, $\tilde{c}_1$ and $\tilde{c}_2$ are finite constants with $c_1>0$ and $\tilde{c}_1>0$.
As we let the Rician factor~$K$ become large, the fading distribution converges to a step function and the third term in both the left-most lower bound and the right-most upper bound becomes increasingly large in absolute value.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Normal Approximation}
\label{sec:normal-app-csit}
We define the \emph{normal approximation} $\Rnormalcsirt(\bl,\error)$ of $\Rcsirt^*(\bl,\error)$ as the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\epsilon &=& \Ex{}{Q\mathopen{}\left(\frac{C(\randmatH)- \Rnormalcsirt(\bl,\error)}{\sqrt{V(\randmatH)/\bl}}\right) }.
\label{eq:normal-dist}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:capacity_with_waterfilling}
C(\matH) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \log(1+ v_j^\ast\lambda_j)
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
is the capacity of the channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} when $\randmatH=\matH$ (the water-filling power allocation values $\{v_j^\ast\}$ in~\eqref{eq:capacity_with_waterfilling} are given in~\eqref{eq:water-filling-power} and~$\{\lambda_j\}$ are the eigenvalues of $\herm{\matH}\matH$), and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}\label{eq:dispersion_gaussian_approx}
V(\matH) = \minant - \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \frac{1}{(1+ v_j^\ast\lambda_j)^2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
is the dispersion of the channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} when $\randmatH=\matH$ \cite[Th.~78]{polyanskiy10}.
Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt} and the expansion
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Rnormalcsirt(\bl,\error) = \Ccsit +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right)
\label{eq:expan-RN}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
(which follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi} in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_averaging_over_channel} and Taylor's theorem) suggest that this approximation is accurate, as confirmed by the numerical results reported in Section~\ref{sec:numerical-results}.
Note that the same approximation has been concurrently proposed in~\cite{molavianJazi13-10}; see also~\cite[Def.~2]{polyanskiy11-04} and~\cite[Sec.~4]{tomamichel13-05} for similar approximations for mixed channels with finitely many states.
\section{CSI Not Available at the Transmitter}
\label{sec:mimo-nocsi}
\subsection{Achievability}
\label{sec:ach-nocsi-mimo}
In this section, we shall assume that neither the transmitter nor the receiver have \emph{a priori} CSI. Using the decoder described in~\ref{sec:ach-csit-mimo}, we obtain the following achievability bound.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:actual_ach_bound_nocsit}
Assume that for a given $0<\error <1$ there exists a $\optcov \in \setU_{\txant}$ such that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistno(\Cnocsit) &=& \inf_{\condcov}\prob\mathopen{}\left[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH\right)\leq \Cnocsit\right] \label{eq:C-epsilon-nocsit-comput0}\\
&=&\prob\mathopen{}\left[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\optcov\randmatH\right)\leq \Cnocsit\right]\label{eq:C-epsilon-nocsit-comput}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
i.e., the infimum in~\eqref{eq:C-epsilon-nocsit-comput0} is a minimum.
Then, for every $0\!<\!\tau\!<\!\error$ there exists an $(\bl, \NumCode, \error)_{\nocsi}$ code
for the channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io}
that satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:lb-numcode-nocsi}
\frac{\log \NumCode}{\bl} &\geq& \frac{1}{\bl} \log\frac{\tau}{\prob\mathopen{}\big[\prod_{j=1}^{\rxant} B_j \leq \gamma_{\bl}\big] }\,.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
%
%
Here, $B_j\sim \mathrm{Beta}(\bl-\txantop-j+1,\txantop)$, $j=1,\ldots,\rxant$, are independent Beta-distributed random variables, $\txantop \define \mathrm{rank}(\optcov)$, and $\gamma_{\bl}\in[0,1]$ is chosen so that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\sin^2\{\matI_{\bl,\txantop}, \sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txantop}\halfcov\randmatH +\randmatW\}\leq \gamma_\bl\right] \geq 1-\error+\tau
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
with $\halfcov\in \complexset^{\txantop\times \txant}$ satisfying $\herm{\halfcov}\halfcov=\optcov$.
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is identical to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:actual_ach_bound_csit}, with the only difference that the precoding matrix $\matP(\randmatH)$ (defined in~\eqref{eq:precoding-matrix}) is replaced by $\sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txantop}\halfcov$.
\end{IEEEproof}
The assumption in~\eqref{eq:C-epsilon-nocsit-comput} that the $\error$-capacity-achieving input covariance matrix of the channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} exists is mild. A sufficient condition for the existence of $\optcov$ is given in the following proposition
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:continuous}
Assume that $\Ex{}{\fnorm{\randmatH}^2}<\infty$ and that the distribution of $\randmatH $ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant}$.
Then, for every $R\in \posrealset$, the infimum in~\eqref{eq:cadist_nocsi} is a minimum.
\end{prop}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof-prop-continuous}.
\end{IEEEproof}
For the SIMO case, the RHS of~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-csit} and the RHS of~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-nocsi} coincide, i.e.,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\big\{\Rcsit(\bl,\error), \Rnocsi(\bl,\error) \big\} &\geq& \frac{1}{\bl} \log\frac{\tau}{\prob\mathopen{}\left[ B \leq \gamma_{\bl}\right] }
\label{eq:simo-ach-bound}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $B\sim\mathrm{Beta}(\bl-\rxant,\rxant)$, and \mbox{$\gamma_{\bl}\in[0,1]$} is chosen so that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob[\sin^2\{\vece_1, \sqrt{\bl\snr}\vece_1\tp{\randvech} +\randmatW\}\leq \gamma_\bl] \geq 1-\error+\tau.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $\vece_1$ stands for the first column of the identity matrix $\matI_{\bl}$.
The achievability bound~\eqref{eq:simo-ach-bound} follows from~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-csit} and~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-nocsi} by noting that the random variable $B$ on the RHS of \eqref{eq:simo-ach-bound} has the same distribution as $\prod\nolimits_{i=1}^{\rxant}B_i$, where $B_i\sim\mathrm{Beta}(\bl-i,1)$, $i=1,\ldots,\rxant$.
\subsection{Converse}
\label{sec:converse-csir}
For the converse, we shall assume CSIR but not CSIT. The counterpart of Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csirt} is the following result.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:converse-csir}
Let \insetcove be as in~\eqref{eq:def-insetcove}.
For an arbitrary $\matQ \in \insetcove$, let $\Lambda_1\geq \cdots\geq\Lambda_\minant$ be the ordered eigenvalues of $\herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH$.
Let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:info_density_mimo_alt_csir}
\Lcsir_\bl(\matQ) \define \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\bl}\sum \limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \! \bigg(\!\log(1+\Lambda_j) + 1 - \bigl|\sqrt{\Lambda_j} Z_{ij} - \sqrt{ 1 + \Lambda_j} \bigr|^2\bigg)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Scsir_\bl(\matQ) \define \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\bl}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \bigg(\!\log(1+\Lambda_j) + 1- \frac{\big|\sqrt{\Lambda_j}Z_{ij} - 1\big|^2}{1+\Lambda_j}\bigg)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:info_density_mimo_csir}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $Z_{ij}$, $i=1,\ldots, \bl$, $j=1,\ldots,\minant$, are i.i.d. $\jpg(0,1)$ distributed.
Then, for every $\bl\geq \rxant$ and every $0<\error<1$, the maximal achievable rate on the quasi-static MIMO fading channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} with CSIR is upper-bounded by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:thm-converse-rcsir}
\Rcsir^{\ast}(\bl-1,\error) \leq \frac{1}{\bl-1}\log \frac{c_{\csir}(\bl)}{\inf\limits_{\matQ \in \insetcove} \prob[\Lcsir_\bl(\matQ) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\matQ)]} \, .\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
c_{\csir}(\bl) &\define&
\frac{\pi^{\rxant(\rxant-1)}}{\Gamma_{\rxant}(\bl) \Gamma_{\rxant}(\rxant)}\Ex{}{\left(1+\snr\fnorm{\randmatH}^2\right)^{\lfloor(\rxant+1)^2/4 \rfloor} }
\notag\\
&& \times \,\prod\limits_{i=1}^{\rxant}\bigg[ \left(\bl+\rxant-2i\right)^{\bl+\rxant -2i+1} e^{-(\bl+\rxant -2i)} \notag\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\,\, +\, \Gamma(\bl+\rxant-2i+1, \bl+r-2i) \bigg]\label{eq:def-crn} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
with $\Gamma_{(\cdot)}(\cdot)$ denoting the \emph{complex} multivariate Gamma function~\cite[Eq.~(83)]{james64},
and $\gamma_{\bl}(\matQ)$ is the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:thm-converse-def-gamma-n1}
\prob[ \Scsir_\bl(\matQ) \leq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\matQ)] =\error.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof-converse-cisr}.
\end{IEEEproof}
The infimum in~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsir} makes the upper bound more difficult to evaluate numerically and to analyze asymptotically up to~$\bigO(\log(\bl)/\bl)$ terms than the upper bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} that we established for the CSIT case.
In fact, even the simpler problem of finding the matrix $\matQ$ that minimizes $\lim\limits_{\bl\to\infty}\prob[\Lcsir_\bl(\matQ) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}]$ is open.
Next, we consider two special cases for which the bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsir} can be tightened and evaluated numerically: the SIMO case and the case where all codewords are chosen from the set~$\insetiso$.
\subsubsection{SIMO case} For the SIMO case, CSIT is not beneficial~\cite{yang13-07} and the bounds~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} and~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsir} can be tightened as follows.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:converse}
Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Lsimo_\bl &\define& \bl \log(1+\snr G) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\bl}
\left(1-\bigl| \sqrt{\snr G}Z_i- \sqrt{1+\snr G} \bigr|^2\!\right)\notag\\
&&\label{eq:info_density_simo_alt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Ssimo_\bl &\define& \bl \log(1+\snr G) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\bl}\left(1-\frac{\big|\sqrt{\snr G}Z_i-1\big|^2}{1+\snr G}\right)\label{eq:info_density_simo}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
with $G \define \|\randvech\|^2$ and $Z_i$, $i=1,\ldots,\bl$, i.i.d. $\jpg(0,1)$ distributed.
For every $\bl$ and every $0<\error<1$, the maximal achievable rate on the quasi-static fading channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} with one transmit antenna and with CSIR (with or without CSIT) is upper-bounded by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:thm-converse-rcsit-simo}
\Rcsir^{\ast}(\bl-1,\error) \leq \Rcsirt^\ast(\bl-1,\error) \leq \frac{1}{n-1} \log \frac{1}{\prob[\Lsimo_\bl \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}]} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\gamma_{\bl}$ is the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:thm-converse-def-gamma-n-simo}
\prob[ \Ssimo_\bl \leq \bl \gamma_{\bl}] =\error.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See~\cite[Th.~1]{yang13-07}. The main difference between the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converse} and the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csirt} and~Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csir} is that the simple bound $\error'\geq 1-1/\NumCode$ on the maximal error probability of the auxiliary channel in the meta-converse theorem~\cite[Th.~30]{polyanskiy10-05} suffices to establish the desired result.
The more sophisticated bounds reported in Lemma~\ref{lem:converse-q-csirt} (Appendix~\ref{app:proof-converse-cisrt}) and Lemma~\ref{lem:converse-q-channel} (Appendix~\ref{app:proof-converse-cisr}) are not needed.
\end{IEEEproof}
\subsubsection{Converse for~$(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\iso}$ codes}
In Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csir-iso} below, we establish a converse bound on the maximal achievable rate of $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\iso}$ codes introduced in Section~\ref{sec:error-capacity}.
As such codes consist of isotropic codewords chosen from the set $\setF_{\iso}$ in~\eqref{eq:def-f-iso}, CSIT is not beneficial also in this scenario.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:converse-csir-iso}
Let $\Lcsir_\bl(\cdot)$ and $\Scsir_\bl(\cdot)$ be as in~\eqref{eq:info_density_mimo_alt_csir} and~\eqref{eq:info_density_mimo_csir}, respectively.
Then, for every $\bl$ and every $0<\error<1$, the maximal achievable rate $\Rcriso^{\ast}(\bl,\error)$ of $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\iso}$ codes over the quasi-static MIMO fading channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} with CSIR is upper-bounded~by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Rcriso^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \leq \Rrtiso^{\ast}(\bl,\error)\leq \frac{1}{n}\log \frac{1}{ \prob[\Lcsir_\bl((\snr/\txant) \matI_{\txant}) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}]}\notag\\
&& \label{eq:thm-converse-rcsir-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\gamma_{\bl}$ is the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:thm-converse-def-gamma-n-iso}
\prob[ \Scsir_\bl((\snr/\txant) \matI_{\txant}) \leq \bl \gamma_{\bl}] =\error.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof follows closely the proof of~Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csir}.
As in the SIMO case, the main difference is that the simple bound $\error'\geq 1-1/\NumCode$ on the maximal error probability of the auxiliary channel in the meta-converse theorem~\cite[Th.~30]{polyanskiy10-05} suffices to establish~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-def-gamma-n-iso}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\subsection{Asymptotic Analysis}
\label{sec:asy-results-nocsi}
To state our dispersion result, we will need the following definition of the gradient $\gradient g$ of a differentiable function $g: \complexset^{\txant\times\rxant} \mapsto \realset$.
Let $\matL \in \complexset^{\txant\times \rxant}$, then we shall write $\gradient g(\matH) =\matL$ if
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\frac{d}{dt} g(\matH + t\matA) \Big|_{t=0}= \mathrm{Re}\mathopen{}\left\{\mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\big(\herm{\matA} \matL\big)\right\},\quad \forall \matA \in \complexset^{\txant\times\rxant}. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:def-gradient-Crt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit} below establishes the zero-dispersion result for the case of no CSIT.
Because of the analytical intractability of the minimization in the converse bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsir}, Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit} requires more stringent conditions on the fading distribution compared to the CSIT case (cf., Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt}), and its proof is more involved.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}
Let $\pdfH$ be the pdf of the fading matrix $\randmatH$.
Assume that $\randmatH$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:th-zd-no-cond1} $\pdfH$ is a smooth function, i.e., it has derivatives of all orders.
\item \label{item:th-zd-no-cond2} There exists a positive constant $a$ such that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\pdfH(\matH) &\leq& a \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -\lfloor(\rxant+1)^2/2\rfloor -1} \label{eq:cond-bdd-pdf}\\
\fnorm{\gradient \pdfH(\matH)} &\leq& a \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -5}.\label{eq:cond-bdd-pdf-deri}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\item\label{item:th-zd-no-cond3} The function $\cdistno(\cdot)$ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\liminf\limits_{\delta\to 0} \frac{\cdistno(\Cnocsit + \delta) - \cdistno(\Cnocsit)}{\delta} >0 .
\label{eq:condition-nocsit-subgradient}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
%
Then,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\big\{ \Rnocsi^{\ast}(\bl,\error) , \Rcsir^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \big\} &=& \Cnocsit + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right) \label{eq:thm-R-star-expansion-no}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, the $\error$-dispersion is zero for both the CSIR and the no-CSI case:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
V_\error^{\nocsi} = V_\error^{\csir}=0, \quad\,\,\error\in(0,1)\backslash \{1/2\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendices~\ref{app:proof-zero-dispersion-nocsit-ub} and \ref{app:proof-asy-ach-nocsit}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:conditions-nocsit}
It can be shown that Conditions~\ref{item:th-zd-no-cond1}--\ref{item:th-zd-no-cond3} in Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit} are satisfied by the probability distributions commonly used to model MIMO fading channels, such as Rayleigh, Rician, and Nakagami.
Condition~\ref{item:th-zd-no-cond2} requires simply that $f_{\randmatH}$ has a polynomially decaying tail.
Condition~\ref{item:th-zd-no-cond3} plays the same role as~\eqref{eq:thm-dispersion-condition2-conv} in the CSIT case.
The exact counterpart of~\eqref{eq:thm-dispersion-condition2-conv} for the no-CSIT case would~be
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistno'(\Cnocsit)>0.
\label{eq:condition-nocsit-gradient}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
However, different from~\eqref{eq:thm-dispersion-condition2-conv}, the inequality~\eqref{eq:condition-nocsit-gradient} does not necessarily hold for the commonly used fading distributions.
Indeed, consider a MISO i.i.d. Rayleigh-fading channel.
As proven in~\cite{abbe13-05}, the $\error$-capacity-achieving covariance matrix for this case is given by~\eqref{eq:opt-cov-mat}.
The resulting outage probability function $\cdistno(\cdot)$ may not be differentiable at the rates $R$ for which the infimum in~\eqref{eq:P-out-alt-exp} is achieved by two input covariance matrices with different number of nonzero entries $t^*$ on the main diagonal.
Next, we briefly sketch how to prove that Condition~\ref{item:th-zd-no-cond3} holds for Rayleigh, Rician, and Nakagami distributions.
Let
\begin{equation}
F_{\matQ}(R) \define \prob[ \log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\randmatH} \matQ\randmatH \right) < R].
\label{eq:def-F-matQ}
\end{equation}
Let $\setQ_\error$ be the set of all $\error$-capacity-achieving covariance matrices, i.e.,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\setQ_{\error} \define \{\matQ\in \insetcove: F_{\matQ}(\Cnocsit) = \cdistno(\Cnocsit)\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:continuous}, the set~$\setQ_{\error}$ is non-empty for the considered fading distributions.
It follows from algebraic manipulations that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\liminf\limits_{\delta\to 0} \frac{\cdistno(\Cnocsit + \delta) - \cdistno(\Cnocsit)}{\delta} = \inf\limits_{\matQ\in \setQ_\error} F_{\matQ}' (\Cnocsit). \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:lb-subgradient}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To show that the RHS of~\eqref{eq:lb-subgradient} is positive, one needs to perform two steps.
First, one shows that the set~$\setQ_\error$ is compact with respect to the metric $d(\matA,\matB) = \fnorm{\matA-\matB}$ and that under Conditions~\ref{item:th-zd-no-cond1} and~\ref{item:th-zd-no-cond2} of Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}, the function $\matQ\mapsto F_{\matQ}'(\Cnocsit)$ is continuous with respect to the same metric.
By the extreme value theorem~\cite[p.~34]{munkres91-a}, these two properties imply that the infimum on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:lb-subgradient} is a minimum.
Then, one shows that for Rayleigh, Rician, and Nakagami distributions
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
F_{\matQ}'(\Cnocsit) > 0 , \quad \forall \matQ \in \setQ_\error.
\label{eq:condition-f-Q-pos}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
One way to prove~\eqref{eq:condition-f-Q-pos} is to write $F_{\matQ}'(\Cnocsit)$ in integral form using Lemma~\ref{lem:formula-Stokes} in Appendix~\ref{app:proof-uniform-bdd-pdfu} and to show that the resulting integral is positive.
\end{rem}
For the SIMO case, the conditions on the fading distribution can be relaxed and the following result holds.
\begin{thm}
Assume that the pdf of $\|\randvech\|^2$ is continuously differentiable and that the $\error$-capacity~$\Csimo$ is a point of growth for the outage probability function
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}
F(R)=\prob[\log(1+\|\randvech\|^2\snr) <R]
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
i.e., $F'(\Csimo)>0$.
Then,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\big\{ \Rnocsi^{\ast}(\bl,\error) , \Rcsir^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \big\} &=& \Csimo + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right) \label{eq:thm-R-star-expansion-SIMO}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
In the SIMO case, CSIT is not beneficial~\cite[Th.~5]{yang13-07}.
Hence, the result follows directly from Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt} and Proposition~\ref{thm:proof-asy-ach-nocsit} in Appendix~\ref{app:proof-asy-ach-nocsit}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Similarly, for the case of codes consisting of isotropic codewords, milder conditions on the fading distribution are sufficient to establish zero dispersion, as illustrated in the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:proof-asy-iso}
Assume that the joint pdf of the nonzero eigenvalues of $\herm{\randmatH}\randmatH$ is continuously differentiable and that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistiso' (\Ciso) >0
\label{eq:thm-disp-cond2-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\cdistiso$ is the outage probability function given in~\eqref{eq:def-cdist-iso}.
Then, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:asy-formula-iso}
\{\Rnoiso^{\ast}(\bl,\error), \Rcriso^{\ast}(\bl,\error)\} = \Ciso +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof-asy-iso}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\subsection{Normal Approximation}
For the general no-CSIT MIMO case, the unavailability of a closed-form expression for the $\error$-capacity $\Cnocsit$ in~\eqref{eq:C-epsilon-nocsit} prevents us from obtaining a normal approximation for the maximum coding rate at finite blocklength.
However, such an approximation can be obtained for the SIMO case and for the case of isotropic codewords.
In both cases, CSIT is not beneficial and the outage capacity can be characterized in closed form.
For the SIMO case, the normal approximation follows directly from \eqref{eq:normal-dist}--\eqref{eq:dispersion_gaussian_approx} by setting $\minant=1$, $v_1^\ast=\rho$ and noting that $\lambda_1=\|\vech\|^2$.
For $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\iso}$ codes, the normal approximation $\Rnormaliso(\bl,\error)$ to the maximal achievable rate $\Rcriso^*(\bl,\error)$ is obtained as the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\epsilon &=& \Ex{}{Q\mathopen{}\left(\frac{ C_{\iso}(\randmatH)- \Rnormaliso(\bl,\error) }{\sqrt{V_{\iso}(\randmatH)/\bl} }\right) }.
\label{eq:normal-dist-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
C_{\iso}(\matH) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \log(1+ \snr\lambda_j/\txant)
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
V_{\iso}(\matH) = \minant - \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \frac{1}{(1+ \snr\lambda_j/\txant)^2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~$\{\lambda_j\}$ are the eigenvalues of $\herm{\matH}\matH$.
A comparison between $\Rnormaliso(\bl,\error)$ and the bounds~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-nocsi} and~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsir-iso} is provided in the next section.
\section{Numerical Results}
\subsection{Numerical Results}
\label{sec:numerical-results}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.82]{Fig2.pdf}
\vspace{-1.5mm}
\caption{Achievability and converse bounds for a quasi-static SIMO Rician-fading channel with $K$-factor equal to $20$ dB, two receive antennas, $\text{SNR}=-1.55 $ dB, and \mbox{$\epsilon=10^{-3}$}. Note that in the SIMO case $\Ccsit=\Cnocsit=C_{\epsilon}$. \label{fig:bounds-simo}}
\end{figure}
In this section, we compute the bounds reported in~Sections~\ref{sec:mimo-csit} and~\ref{sec:mimo-nocsi}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds-simo} compares $\Rnormalcsirt(\bl,\error)$ with the achievability bound~\eqref{eq:simo-ach-bound} and the converse bound (\ref{eq:thm-converse-rcsit-simo}) for a quasi-static SIMO fading channel with two receive antennas.
The channels between the transmit antenna and each of the two receive antennas are Rician-distributed with $K$-factor equal to $20$ dB.
The two channels are assumed to be independent.
We set $\error=10^{-3}$ and choose $\snr=-1.55$~dB so that $\Csimo =1$ bit$/$(ch. use).
We also plot a lower bound on $\Rcsirt^\ast(\bl,\error)$ obtained by using the~$\kappa\beta$ bound~\cite[Th.~25]{polyanskiy10-05} and assuming CSIR.\footnote{Specifically, we took $\inset = \{\vecx\in \complexset^{\bl} : \|\vecx\|^2 = \bl\snr\}$, and $\outdist_{\randmatY\randvech} = \indist_{\randvech} \prod\nolimits_{j=1}^{\bl} Q_{\randvecy_j \given \randvech} $ where $Q_{\randvecy_j \given \randvech = \vech} = \jpg(\mathbf{0}, \matI_{\rxant} + \snr \vech \herm{\vech})$.}
For reference, Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds-simo} shows also the approximation~\eqref{eq:approx_R_introduction} for $R^\ast(\bl,\error)$ corresponding to an AWGN channel with $C =1$ bit$/$(ch. use),
replacing the term $\bigO(\log(\bl)/\bl)$ in (\ref{eq:approx_R_introduction}) with $\log(\bl)/(2\bl)$~\cite[Eq.~(296)]{polyanskiy10-05}\cite{tan13-11}.\footnote{\label{footnote:complex-gaussian}The approximation reported in~\cite[Eq.~(296)]{polyanskiy10-05},\cite{tan13-11} holds for a real AWGN channel.
Since a complex AWGN channel with blocklength $\bl$ can be identified as a real AWGN channel with the same SNR and blocklength~$2\bl$, the approximation~\cite[Eq.~(296)]{polyanskiy10-05},\cite{tan13-11} with $C=\log(1+\snr)$ and $V=\frac{\snr^2+2\snr}{(1+\snr)^2}$ is accurate for the complex case.}
The blocklength required to achieve $90\%$ of the $\error$-capacity of the quasi-static fading channel is in the range $[120,320]$ for the CSIRT case and in the range $[120,480]$ for the no-CSI case.
For the AWGN channel, this number is approximately~$1420$. Hence, for the parameters chosen in Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds-simo}, the prediction (based on zero dispersion) of fast convergence to capacity is validated.
The gap between the normal approximation $\Rnormalcsirt(\bl,\error)$ defined implicitly in~\eqref{eq:normal-dist} and both the achievability (CSIR) and the converse bounds is less than $0.02$ bit$/$(ch.~use) for blocklengths larger than $400$.
%
Note that although the AWGN curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds-simo} lies below the achievability bound for the quasi-static fading channel, this does not mean that ``fading helps''.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds-simo}, we chose the SNRs so that both channels have the same \error-capacity.
This results in the received power for the quasi-static case being $1.45$~dB larger than that for the AWGN case.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.82]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{Achievability and converse bounds for $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\iso}$ codes over a quasi-static MIMO Rayleigh-fading channel with two transmit and three receive antennas, $\text{SNR}=2.12 $ dB, and \mbox{$\epsilon=10^{-3}$}. \label{fig:bounds-mimo}}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds-mimo}, we compare the normal approximation $\Rnormaliso(\bl,\error)$ defined (implicitly) in~\eqref{eq:normal-dist-iso} with the achievability bound~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-nocsi} and the converse bound \eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsir-iso} on the maximal achievable rate with $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\iso}$ codes over a quasi-static MIMO fading channel with $\txant=2$ transmit and $\rxant=3$ receive antennas. The channel between each transmit-receive antenna pair is Rayleigh-distributed, and the channels between different transmit-receive antenna pairs are assumed to be independent.
We set $\error=10^{-3}$ and choose $\snr=2.12$~dB so that $\Ciso =1$ bit$/$(ch. use).
For this scenario, the blocklength required to achieve $90\%$ of $\Ciso$ is less than $500$, which again demonstrates fast convergence to~$\Ciso$.
\subsection{Comparison with coding schemes in LTE-Advanced}
The bounds reported in Sections~\ref{sec:mimo-csit} and~\ref{sec:mimo-nocsi} can be used to benchmark the coding schemes adopted in current standards.
%
In Fig.~\ref{fig:codes-simo}, we compare the performance of the coding schemes used in LTE-Advanced~\cite[Sec.~5.1.3.2]{3gpp-ts36212} against the achievability and converse bounds for the same scenario as in Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds-simo}.
%
Specifically, Fig.~\ref{fig:codes-simo} illustrates the performance of the family of turbo codes chosen in LTE-Advanced for the case of QPSK modulation.
%
The decoder employs a max-log-MAP decoding algorithm~\cite{robertson95} with 10 iterations.
We further assume that the decoder has perfect CSI.
For the AWGN case, it was observed in~\cite[Fig.~12]{polyanskiy10-05} that about half of the gap between the rate achieved by
the best available channel codes\footnote{The codes used in~\cite[Fig.~12]{polyanskiy10-05} are a certain family of multiedge low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes.}
and capacity is due to the $1/\sqrt{\bl}$ penalty in~\eqref{eq:approx_R_introduction}; the other half is due to the suboptimality of the codes.
From Fig.~\ref{fig:codes-simo}, we conclude that for quasi-static fading channels the finite-blocklength penalty is significantly reduced because of the zero-dispersion effect. However, the penalty due to the code suboptimality remains. In fact, we see that the gap between the rate achieved by the LTE-Advanced turbo codes and the normal approximation $\Rnormalcsirt(\bl,\error)$ is approximately constant up to a blocklength of $1000$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Fig4.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between achievability and converse bounds and the rate achievable with the coding schemes in LTE-Advanced.
We consider a quasi-static SIMO Rician-fading channel with $K$-factor equal to $20$ dB, two receive antennas, $\text{SNR}=-1.55 $ dB, \mbox{$\epsilon=10^{-3}$}, and CSIR.
The star-shaped markers indicate the rates achievable by the turbo codes in LTE-Advanced (QPSK modulation and 10 iterations of a max-log-MAP decoder~\cite{robertson95}).
\label{fig:codes-simo}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Fig5.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between achievability and converse bounds and rate achievable with the coding schemes in LTE-Advanced.
We consider a quasi-static SIMO Rayleigh-fading channel with two receive antennas, $\text{SNR} = 2.74$ dB, \mbox{$\epsilon = 0.1$}, and CSIR.
The star-shaped markers indicate the rates achievable by the turbo codes in LTE-Advanced (QPSK modulation and 10 iterations of a max-log-MAP decoder~\cite{robertson95}).
\label{fig:codes-rayleigh}}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
LTE-Advanced uses hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) to compensate for packets loss due to outage events.
When HARQ is used, the block error rate that maximizes the average throughput is about $10^{-1}$~\cite[p.~218]{sesia11}.
The performance of LTE-Advanced codes for $\error =10^{-1}$ is analyzed in Fig.~\ref{fig:codes-rayleigh}.
We set $\snr=2.74$~dB and consider Rayleigh fading (the other parameters are as in Fig.~\ref{fig:codes-simo}).
Again, we observe that there is a constant gap between the rate achieved by LTE-Advanced turbo codes and $\Rnormalcsirt(\bl,\error)$.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we established achievability and converse bounds on the maximal achievable rate $R^\ast(\bl,\error)$ for a given blocklength $\bl$ and error probability $\error$ over quasi-static MIMO fading channels.
We proved that (under some mild conditions on the fading distribution) the channel dispersion is zero for all four cases of CSI availability.
The bounds are easy to evaluate
when CSIT is available, when the number of transmit antennas is one, or when the code has isotropic codewords.
In all these cases the outage-capacity-achieving distribution is known.
The numerical results reported in Section~\ref{sec:numerical-results} demonstrate that, in some scenarios, zero dispersion implies fast convergence to $C_\error$ as the blocklength increases.
This suggests that the outage capacity is a valid performance metric for communication systems with stringent latency constraints operating over quasi-static fading channels.
We developed an easy-to-evaluate approximation of $R^\ast(\bl,\error)$ and demonstrated its accuracy by comparison to our achievability and converse bounds.
Finally, we used our bounds to benchmark the performance of the coding schemes adopted in the LTE-Advanced standard.
Specifically, we showed that for a blocklength between $500$ and $1000$ LTE-Advanced codes achieve about $85\%$ of the maximal coding rate.
\begin{appendices}
\section{Auxiliary Lemmas Concerning the Product of Sines of Principal Angles}
\label{app:proof-angle-btw-subspaces}
In this appendix, we state two properties of the product of principal sines defined in~\eqref{eq:def-product-prin-sine}, which will be used in the proof of~Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt} and of Proposition~\ref{thm:proof-asy-ach-nocsit}.
The first property, which is referred to in \cite{miao92} as ``equalized Hadamard inequality'', is stated in Lemma~\ref{lem:equalize-Hadamard} below.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:equalize-Hadamard}
Let $\matA=[\matA_1,\matA_2]\in\complexset^{\bl\times(a_1+a_2)}$, where $\matA_1\in\complexset^{\bl\times a_1}$ and $\matA_2\in\complexset^{\bl\times a_2}$. If $\mathrm{rank}(\matA_1)=a_1$ and $\mathrm{rank}(\matA_2)=a_2$, then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\det(\herm{\matA}\matA) =\det(\herm{\matA_1}\matA_1)\det(\herm{\matA_2}\matA_2) \sin^2\{\matA_1,\matA_2\}.
\label{eq:lemma-equal-hadamard}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof follows by extending~\cite[Th.~3.3]{afriat57} to the complex case.
\end{IEEEproof}
The second property provides an upper bound on $\sin\{\setA,\setB\}$ that depends on the angles between the basis vectors of the two subspaces.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:angle-btw-subspaces}
Let $\setA$ and $\setB$ be subspaces of $\complexset^{\bl}$ with $\dim(\setA)=a$ and $\dim(\setB) =b$.
Let $\{\veca_1,\ldots,\veca_{a}\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $\setA$, and let $\{\vecb_1,\ldots,\vecb_{b}\}$ be an arbitrary basis (not necessarily orthonormal) for $\setB$. Then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:lemma-angle}
\sin\{\setA,\setB\} \leq \prod\limits^{\min\{a,b\}}_{j=1} \sin \{\veca_j,\vecb_j\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
To keep notation simple, we define the following function, which maps a complex matrix $\matX$ of arbitrary size to its volume:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathrm{vol}(\matX) \define \sqrt{\det(\herm{\matX}\matX)}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let $\matA=[\veca_1,\ldots,\veca_{a}]\in\complexset^{\bl\times a}$ and $\matB = [\vecb_1,\ldots,\vecb_{b}]\in\complexset^{\bl\times b}$.
If the vectors $\veca_1,\ldots,\veca_{a},\vecb_1,\ldots,\vecb_{b}$ are linearly dependent, then the LHS of~\eqref{eq:lemma-angle} vanishes, in which case~\eqref{eq:lemma-angle} holds trivially.
In the following, we therefore assume that the vectors $\veca_1,\ldots,\veca_{a},\vecb_1,\ldots,\vecb_{b}$ form a linearly independent set.
Below, we prove Lemma~\ref{lem:angle-btw-subspaces} for the case $a\leq b$.
The proof for the case $a>b$ follows from similar steps.
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:equalize-Hadamard}, we get the following chain of (in)equalities:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\sin\{\matA,\matB\}}\notag\\
&=&\frac{\mathrm{vol}([\matA,\matB])}{\mathrm{vol}(\matA)\mathrm{vol}(\matB)} \\
&=& \frac{\mathrm{vol}([\matA,\matB])}{\mathrm{vol}(\matB)} \label{eq:app-comput-volAB-1}\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\matB)} \underbrace{\|\veca_1\|}_{=1} \mathrm{vol}\mathopen{}\big([\veca_2,\ldots,\veca_a,\matB]\big) \notag \\
&&\cdot\, \sin\mathopen{}\big\{\veca_1, [\veca_{2},\ldots,\veca_a, \matB]\big\}\label{eq:app-comput-volAB-20}\\
&\vdots&\notag\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\matB)} \left(\prod \limits_{i=1}^{a} \sin\mathopen{}\big\{\veca_i, [\veca_{i+1},\ldots,\veca_a, \matB]\big\}\!\right) \mathrm{vol}(\matB)\label{eq:app-comput-volAB-2} \quad \\
&\leq & \prod \limits_{i=1}^{a} \sin\{\veca_i,\vecb_i\}\label{eq:app-comput-volAB-3}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:app-comput-volAB-1} holds because the columns of $\matA$ are orthonormal and, hence, $\det(\herm{\matA}\matA) =1$;~\eqref{eq:app-comput-volAB-20} and \eqref{eq:app-comput-volAB-2} follow from Lemma~\ref{lem:equalize-Hadamard}; \eqref{eq:app-comput-volAB-3} follows because
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}
\sin\mathopen{}\big\{\veca_i, [\veca_{i+1},\ldots,\veca_a, \matB]\big\} \leq \sin\{\veca_i,\vecb_i\}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:actual_ach_bound_csit} (CSIT Achievability Bound)}
\label{app:proof-ach-bound-csit}
Given $\randmatH =\matH$, we perform a singular value decomposition (SVD) of $\matH$ to obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\matH = \matL \matSigma \herm{\matV}
\label{eq:ach-csit-svd}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\matL \in \complexset^{\txant\times\txant}$ and $\matV\in\complexset^{\rxant\times\rxant}$ are unitary matrices, and $\matSigma\in\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant}$ is a (truncated) diagonal matrix of dimension $\txant\times\rxant$, whose diagonal elements $\sqrt{\lambda_1},\ldots,\sqrt{\lambda_{\minant}}$, are the ordered singular values of $\matH$.
It will be convenient to define the following $\txant\times\txant$ precoding matrix for each~$\matH$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:precoding-matrix}
\matP(\matH) \define \diag\{\sqrt{\bl v^\ast_1},\ldots,\sqrt{\bl v^\ast_{\minant}},\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\txant -\minant}\} \herm{\matL}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We consider a code whose codewords $\matX_{j}(\randmatH)$, $j = 1,\ldots,\NumCode$, have the following structure
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\matX_{j}(\randmatH) = \mathsf{\Phi}_j \matP(\randmatH), \quad \mathsf{\Phi}_j\in \setS_{\bl,\txant}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\setS_{\bl,\txant}\define \{\matA\in\complexset^{\bl\times\txant}: \herm{\matA}\matA = \matI_{\txant}\}$ denotes the set of all $\bl\times\txant$ unitary matrices, (i.e., the complex \emph{Stiefel manifold}).
%
As $\{\mathsf{\Phi}_j\}$ are unitary, the codewords satisfy the power constraint~\eqref{eq:power-constraint-csit}.
%
Motivated by the geometric considerations reported in Section~\ref{sec:geometric-intution}, we consider for a given input $\matX(\randmatH) = \mathsf{\Phi} \matP(\randmatH)$ a physically degraded version of the channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io}, whose output is given by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:channel-io-degraded}
\Omega_{\randmatY} = \spanm(\mathsf{\Phi}\matP(\randmatH) \randmatH + \randmatW).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that the subspace $\Omega_{\randmatY}$ belongs with probability one to the \emph{Grassmannian manifold} $\setG_{\bl,\rxant}$, i.e., the set of all $\rxant$ dimensional subspaces in $\complexset^{\bl}$.
Because~\eqref{eq:channel-io-degraded} is a physically degraded version of~\eqref{eq:channel_io}, the rate achievable on~\eqref{eq:channel-io-degraded} is a lower bound on the rate achievable on~\eqref{eq:channel_io}.
To prove the theorem, we apply the $\kappa\beta$ bound~\cite[Th.~25]{polyanskiy10-05} to the channel~\eqref{eq:channel-io-degraded}.
Following~\cite[Eq.~(107)]{polyanskiy10-05}, we define the following measure of performance for the composite hypothesis test between an \emph{auxiliary} output distribution $Q_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}$ defined on the subspace $\Omega_{\randmatY}$ and the collection of channel-output distributions $\{P_{\Omega_{\randmatY} \given \mathbb{\Phi}=\mathsf{\Phi}}\}_{\mathsf{\Phi}\in\setS_{\bl,\txant}}$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\kappa_{\tau}(\setS_{\bl,\txant}, Q_{\Omega_{\randmatY}} ) \define \inf \int \testdist_{Z\given \Omega_{\randmatY}}(1\given \Omega_{\matY}) \outdist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}(d \Omega_{\matY}) \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:def-kappa-tau}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the infimum is over all probability distributions $\testdist_{Z\given \Omega_{\randmatY}}: \setG_{\bl,\txant} \mapsto \{0,1\}$ satisfying
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\, \int \testdist_{Z\given \Omega_{\randmatY}}(1\given \Omega_{\matY}) P_{\Omega_{\randmatY} \given \mathbb{\Phi}=\mathsf{\Phi}}(d \Omega_{\matY})\geq \tau,\quad \forall \mathsf{\Phi}\in\setS_{\bl,\txant}. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:cond-def-kappa}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
By~\cite[Th.~25]{polyanskiy10-05}, we have that for every auxiliary distribution $Q_{\Omega_{\randmatY}} $
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\NumCode \geq \frac{\kappa_{\tau}(\setS_{\bl,\txant}, Q_{\Omega_{\randmatY}})}{\sup_{\mathsf{\Phi}\in \setS_{\bl,\txant} }\beta_{1-\error+\tau}(\indist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}\given\mathbb{\Phi}=\mathsf{\Phi}}, \outdist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}) }
\label{eq:kappa-beta-bound-subspace}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\beta_{(\cdot)}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:def-beta}.
We next lower-bound the RHS of~\eqref{eq:kappa-beta-bound-subspace} to obtain an expression that can be evaluated numerically.
Fix a $\mathsf{\Phi} \in\setS_{\bl,\txant}$ and let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:threshold_tester_Z}
\angletest_{\mathsf{\Phi}}(\Omega_{\randmatY} ) &=& \indfun{\sin^2\{ \spanm(\mathsf{\Phi}), \Omega_{\randmatY}\}\leq \gamma_\bl}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\gamma_\bl\in[0,1]$ is chosen so that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:definition_gamma_x}
\indist_{\Omega_{\randmatY} | \mathbb{\Phi} = \mathsf{\Phi}}[\angletest_{\mathsf{\Phi}}(\Omega_{\randmatY} ) =1] \geq 1-\error+\tau.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since the noise matrix $\randmatW$ is isotropically distributed, the probability distribution of the random variable $\sin^2\{ \spanm(\mathsf{\Phi}), \Omega_{\randmatY}\}$ (where $\Omega_{\randmatY} \sim \indist_{\Omega_{\randmatY} | \mathbb{\Phi} = \mathsf{\Phi}}$) does not depend on $\mathsf{\Phi}$.
Hence, the chosen $\gamma_{\bl}$ satisfies~\eqref{eq:definition_gamma_x} for all $\mathsf{\Phi}\in\setS_{\bl,\txant}$.
Furthermore, $\angletest_{\mathsf{\Phi}}(\Omega_{\randmatY} )$ can be viewed as a hypothesis test between $\indist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}\given\mathbb{\Phi}=\mathsf{\Phi}}$ and $ \outdist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}$. Hence, by definition
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\beta_{1-\error+\tau}(\indist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}\given\mathbb{\Phi}=\mathsf{\Phi}}, \outdist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}) \leq \outdist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}[ \angletest_{\mathsf{\Phi}}( \Omega_{\randmatY} ) =1 ]
\label{eq:csit-ach-beta-ub}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for every $\mathsf{\Phi} \in \setS_{\bl, \txant}$.
We next evaluate the RHS of~\eqref{eq:csit-ach-beta-ub}, taking as the auxiliary output distribution the uniform distribution on $\setG_{\bl,\rxant}$, which we denote by~$Q^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}$.
With this choice, $Q^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}[ \sin^2\{\spanm(\mathsf{\Phi}),\Omega_{\randmatY}\} \leq \gamma_\bl]$ does not depend on $\mathsf{\Phi}\in\setS_{\bl,\txant}$.
To simplify calculations, we can therefore set $\mathsf{\Phi} =\matI_{\bl,\txant}$.
Observe that under $Q^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}$, the squares of the sines of the principle angles between $\spanm(\matI_{\bl,\txant})$ and~$\Omega_{\randmatY}$ have the same distribution as the eigenvalues of a \emph{complex} multivariate Beta-distributed matrix $\randmatB \sim \mathrm{Beta}_{\rxant}(\bl-\txant,\txant)$~\cite[Sec.~2]{absil06}. By~\cite[Cor.~1]{roh06}, the distribution of $\det \randmatB$ coincides with the distribution of $\prod_{i=1}^{\rxant} B_i$, where $\{B_i\}$, ${i=1,\ldots,\rxant}$, are independent with $B_i\sim \mathrm{Beta}(\bl-\txant-i+1, \txant)$.
Using this result to compute the RHS of~\eqref{eq:csit-ach-beta-ub} we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:upper_bound_on_beta_part}
\sup_{\mathsf{\Phi}\in \setS_{\bl,\txant} }\beta_{1-\error+\tau}(\indist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}\given\mathbb{\Phi}=\mathsf{\Phi}}, \outdist_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}) \leq
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod_{j=1}^{\rxant} B_j \leq \gamma_{\bl}\right]\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\gamma_{\bl}$ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:def-gamma-n-ach-csit-temp}
\prob\mathopen{}\Big[\sin^2 \mathopen{}\big\{\matI_{\bl,\txant},\matI_{\bl,\txant}\matP(\randmatH)\randmatH + \randmatW \big\} \leq \gamma_\bl\Big] \geq 1-\error+\tau. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that~\eqref{eq:def-gamma-n-ach-csit-temp} is equivalent to~\eqref{eq:def-gamma-n-ach-csit}. Indeed
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\sin^2\mathopen{}\Big\{\matI_{\bl,\txant},\sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txant}\matP(\randmatH)\randmatH + \randmatW \Big\}\leq \gamma_\bl\right]} \notag\\
&=&\prob\mathopen{}\Big[ \sin^2\mathopen{}\Big\{\matI_{\bl,\txant},\sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txant}
\diag\mathopen{}\big\{\sqrt{v_1^{\ast} \Lambda_1},\ldots,\sqrt{v_\minant^{\ast}\Lambda_{\minant}},\quad\quad\quad\notag\\
&&\hfill \underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\txant-\minant} \big\}\herm{\randmatV} + \randmatW \Big\} \leq \gamma_\bl \Big]\label{eq:ach-csit-angle0}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\Big[ \sin^2\mathopen{}\Big\{\matI_{\bl,\txant}, \sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txant}
\diag\mathopen{}\big\{\sqrt{v_1^{\ast} \Lambda_1},\ldots,\sqrt{v_\minant^{\ast} \Lambda_{\minant}},\notag\\
&&\hfill \underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\txant-\minant} \big\} + \randmatW\randmatV \Big\}\leq \gamma_\bl \Big]\label{eq:ach-csit-angle1} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&=&\prob\mathopen{}\Big[ \sin^2\mathopen{}\Big\{\matI_{\bl,\txant}, \sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txant}
\diag\mathopen{}\big\{\sqrt{v_1^{\ast} \Lambda_1},\ldots,\sqrt{v_\minant^{\ast}\Lambda_{\minant}},\notag\\
&&\hfill \underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\txant-\minant} \big\} + \randmatW\Big\}\leq \gamma_\bl \Big]\label{eq:ach-csit-angle2}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~$\randmatV$ contains the right singular vectors of~$\randmatH$ (see~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-svd}).
%
Here,~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-angle0} follows from~\eqref{eq:precoding-matrix};
\eqref{eq:ach-csit-angle1} follows because right-multiplying a matrix $\matA$ by a unitary matrix does not change the subspace spanned by the columns of $\matA$ and hence, it does not change $\sin\{\cdot,\cdot\}$;
\eqref{eq:ach-csit-angle2} follows because~$\randmatW$ is isotropically distributed and hence $\randmatW\randmatV$ has the same distribution as $\randmatW$.
To conclude the proof, it remains to show that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\kappa_{\tau}(\setS_{\bl,\txant}, Q^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}) \geq \tau.\label{eq:u-bound-kappa-csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Once this is done, the desired lower bound~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-csit} follows by using the inequality~\eqref{eq:upper_bound_on_beta_part} and~\eqref{eq:u-bound-kappa-csit} in~\eqref{eq:kappa-beta-bound-subspace}, by taking the logarithm of both sides of~\eqref{eq:kappa-beta-bound-subspace}, and by dividing by the blocklength $\bl$.
To prove~\eqref{eq:u-bound-kappa-csit}, we replace~\eqref{eq:cond-def-kappa} with the less stringent constraint that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:refined-kappa-beta-constraint1}
\Ex{\indist_{\mathbb{\Phi}}^{\mathrm{u}}}{ \int \testdist_{Z\given \Omega_{\randmatY}}(1\given \Omega_{\matY}) P_{\Omega_{\randmatY}\given \mathbb{\Phi}}(d \Omega_{\matY}) } \geq \tau
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\indist_{\mathbb{\Phi}}^{\mathrm{u}}$ is the uniform input distribution on $\setS_{\bl,\txant}$.
Since replacing~\eqref{eq:cond-def-kappa} by~\eqref{eq:refined-kappa-beta-constraint1} enlarges the feasible region of the minimization problem~\eqref{eq:def-kappa-tau}, we obtain an infimum in~\eqref{eq:def-kappa-tau} (denoted by $\kappa^{\mathrm{u}}_\tau(\setS_{\bl,\txant}, Q^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}})$) that is no larger than $\kappa_{\tau}(\setS_{\bl,\txant}, Q^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}})$.
The key observation is that the uniform distribution $\indist_{\mathbb{\Phi}}^{\mathrm{u}}$ induces an isotropic distribution on~$\randmatY$.
This implies that the induced distribution on~$\Omega_{\randmatY}$ is the uniform distribution on~$\setG_{\bl,\rxant}$, i.e., $\outdist^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}$.
Therefore, it follows that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{\int \testdist_{Z\given \Omega_{\randmatY}}(1\given \Omega_{\matY}) \outdist^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}(d \Omega_{\matY})
}\notag\\
%
\quad &=& \Ex{\indist_{\mathbb{\Phi}}^{\mathrm{u}}}{ \int \testdist_{Z\given \Omega_{\randmatY}}(1\given \Omega_{\matY}) P_{\Omega_{\randmatY}\given \mathbb{\Phi}}(d \Omega_{\matY}) }\\
%
&\geq& \tau
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for all distributions $\indist_{Z\given \Omega_{\randmatY}}$ that satisfy (\ref{eq:refined-kappa-beta-constraint1}).
This proves~\eqref{eq:u-bound-kappa-csit}, since
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:kappa-tau-value}
\kappa_{\tau}(\setS_{\bl,\txant}, Q^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}) \geq \kappa^{\mathrm{u}}_\tau(\setS_{\bl,\txant}, Q^{\mathrm{u}}_{\Omega_{\randmatY}}) \geq \tau.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csirt} (CSIRT Converse Bound)}
\label{app:proof-converse-cisrt}
When CSI is available at both the transmitter and the receiver, the MIMO channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} can be transformed into the following set of $\minant$ parallel quasi-static channels
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:channel-io-para}
\randvecy_i = \vecx_i \sqrt{\Lambda_i} + \randvecw_i,\quad\quad i=1,\ldots,\minant
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
by performing a singular value decomposition~\cite[Sec.~3.1]{telatar99-11a}.
Here, $\Lambda_1\geq \cdots\geq\Lambda_\minant$ denote the $\minant$ largest eigenvalues of~$\randmatH\herm{\randmatH}$, and $\randvecw_i\sim\jpg(\mathbf{0},\matI_\bl)$, $i=1,\ldots,\minant$, are independent noise vectors.
Next, we establish a converse bound for the channel~\eqref{eq:channel-io-para}. Let $\matX = [\vecx_1 \cdots \vecx_{\minant}]$ and fix an $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\csirt}$ code.
Note that~\eqref{eq:power-constraint-csit} implies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:power-constraint-csirt-para}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\minant} \|\vecx_i\|^2\leq \bl\snr.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To simplify the presentation, we assume that the encoder $\encoder_{\csit}$ is deterministic.
Nevertheless, the theorem holds also if we allow for randomized encoders.
We further assume that the encoder~$\encoder_{\csit}$ acts on the pairs $(j, \bm{\lambda})$ instead of $(j,\matH)$ (cf., Definition~\ref{def:csit-code}).
The channel~\eqref{eq:channel-io-para} and the encoder~$\encoder_{\csit}$ define a random transformation $\indist_{\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda}\given\msg}$ from the message set $\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ to the space $\complexset^{\bl\times\minant} \times \posrealset^{\minant}$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\indist_{\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda}\given\msg}
&=&\indist_{\bm{\Lambda}} \indist_{\randmatY\given\bm{\Lambda},\msg}\label{eq:converse-deri-indist2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\randmatY=[\randvecy_1,\ldots,\randvecy_m]$ and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\indist_{\randmatY\given\bm{\Lambda}=\bm{\lambda},\msg =j}\define \indist_{\randmatY\given\bm{\Lambda}=\bm{\lambda} , \randmatX=\encoder_{\csit}(j,\bm{\lambda}) }.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We can think of $\indist_{\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda}\given\msg}$ as the channel law associated with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:channel-io-new-csirt}
\msg \, {\longrightarrow} \,\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda}.
\end{equation}
To upper-bound $\Rcsirt^\ast (\bl,\error)$, we use the meta-converse theorem~\cite[Th.~30]{polyanskiy10-05} on the channel~\eqref{eq:channel-io-new-csirt}.
We start by associating to each codeword $\matX$ a power-allocation vector $\tilde{\powallocvec}(\matX)$ whose entries $\tilde{\powalloc}_i(\matX)$ are
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\tilde{\powalloc}_i(\matX) \define \frac{1}{\bl} \|\vecx_i\|^2,\quad i=1,\ldots,\minant.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We take as auxiliary channel $\outdist_{\randmatY , \bm{\Lambda}\given\msg}=\indist_{\bm{\Lambda}}\outdist_{\randmatY\given \bm{\Lambda}, \msg}$,
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:def-q-channel-mimo-csirt}
\outdist_{\randmatY\given \bm{\Lambda} = \bm{\lambda}, \msg = j} = \prod\limits_{i=1}^{\minant} \outdist_{\randvecy_i\given \bm{\Lambda} = \bm{\lambda}, \msg = j}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}
\outdist_{\randvecy_i\given \bm{\Lambda} = \bm{\lambda}, \msg = j}=\jpg\mathopen{}\Big( \veczero , \bigl[1+ (\tilde{v}_i\circ\encoder_\csit(j,\bm{\lambda})) \lambda_i\bigr] \matI_{\bl}\Big). \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
By~\cite[Th.~30]{polyanskiy10-05}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:meta-converse-cisrt}
\min_{j\in\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}} \beta_{1-\error}(\indist_{\randmatY\bm{\Lambda}\given\msg =j},\outdist_{\randmatY\bm{\Lambda}\given\msg =j}) \leq 1-\error'
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\error'$ is the maximal probability of error over $\outdist_{\randmatY, \bm{\Lambda} \given\msg}$.
We shall prove Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csirt} in the following two steps: in Appendix~\ref{sec:lower-bound-beta-csirt}, we evaluate $\beta_{1-\error}(\indist_{\randmatY\bm{\Lambda}\given\msg =j},\outdist_{\randmatY\bm{\Lambda}\given\msg =j})$; in Appendix~\ref{sec:converse-Q-csirt}, we relate $\error'$ to $\Rcsirt^\ast(\bl,\error)$ by establishing a converse bound on the auxiliary channel~$\outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg}$.
\subsubsection{Evaluation of $\beta_{1-\error}$}
\label{sec:lower-bound-beta-csirt}
Let $j^\ast$ be the message that achieves the minimum in~\eqref{eq:meta-converse-cisrt}, let $\encoder^\ast_{\csit}(\bm{\lambda}) \define \encoder_{\csit}(j^\ast,\bm{\lambda})$,
and let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\beta_{1-\error}(\encoder^\ast_{\csit}) &\define& \beta_{1-\error}(\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast} , \outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}) . \label{eq:evaluate-beta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using~\eqref{eq:evaluate-beta}, we can rewrite \eqref{eq:meta-converse-cisrt} as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}\label{eq:meta-converse-cisrt-eqv}
\beta_{1-\error}(\encoder^\ast_{\csit}) \leq 1-\error'.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let now
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
r(\encoder^\ast_{\csit};\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda}) \define \log\frac{ d\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}}{ d\outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}}.
\label{eq:def-r-csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that, under both $\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}$ and $\outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}$, the random variable $r(\encoder^\ast_{\csit};\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda})$ has absolutely continuous cumulative distribution function (cdf) with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
By the Neyman-Pearson lemma~\cite[p.~300]{neyman33a}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\beta_{1-\error}(\encoder^\ast_{\csit}) = \outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast} [r(\encoder^\ast_{\csit} ;\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda}) \geq \bl\gamma_\bl(\encoder^\ast_{\csit})]\label{eq:beta-dist} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\gamma_\bl(\encoder^\ast_{\csit})$ is the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}[r(\encoder^\ast_{\csit};\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda} ) \leq \bl\gamma_\bl(\encoder^\ast_{\csit})] =\error.
\label{eq:condition-satisfied-gamma-n-csirt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let now $\powallocvec \define \tilde{\powallocvec} \circ \encoder^\ast_{\csit}$. Because of the power constraint~\eqref{eq:power-constraint-csirt-para}, $\powallocvec$ is a mapping from $\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\}$ to the set~$\setV_\minant$ defined in~\eqref{eq:def_setV}.
Furthermore, under $\outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}$, the random variable $r(\encoder^\ast_{\csit};\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda} )$ has the same distribution as $\Lcsirt_\bl(\powallocvec, \bm{\Lambda})$ in~\eqref{eq:info_density_mimo_alt_csirt}, and under $\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}$, it has the same distribution as $\Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda})$ in~\eqref{eq:info_density_mimo_csirt}.
Thus,~\eqref{eq:meta-converse-cisrt-eqv} is equivalent to
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}\label{eq:meta-converse-final-form}
\prob[\Lcsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\powallocvec)]\leq 1-\epsilon'
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\gamma_{\bl}(\powallocvec)$ is the solution of~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-def-gamma-n}.
Note that this upper bound depends on the chosen code only through the induced power allocation function $\powallocvec$.
To conclude, we take the infimum of the LHS of~\eqref{eq:meta-converse-final-form} over all power allocation functions $\powallocvec$ to obtain a bound that holds for all $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\csirt}$ codes.
\subsubsection{Converse on the auxiliary channel} %
\label{sec:converse-Q-csirt}
We next relate $\error'$ to $\Rcsirt^\ast(\bl,\error)$.
The following lemma, whose proof can be found at the end of this appendix, serves this purpose.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:converse-q-csirt}
For every code with $\NumCode$ codewords and blocklength $\bl$,
the maximum probability of error $\error'$ over the channel $\outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg}$ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1-\error'\leq \frac{c_{\csirt}(\bl)}{\NumCode}
\label{eq:converse-q-csirt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $c_{\csirt}(\bl)$ is given in~\eqref{eq:def-n-func-converse-csirt}.
\end{lemma}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:converse-q-csirt}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:beta-mimo-csirt-relate}
\inf\limits_{\powallocvec(\cdot)} \prob[ \Lcsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda} ) \geq \bl \gamma_\bl(\powallocvec)] \leq \frac{c_{\csirt}(\bl)}{\NumCode}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The desired lower bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} follows by taking the logarithm on both sides of~\eqref{eq:beta-mimo-csirt-relate} and dividing by \bl.
\paragraph*{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:converse-q-csirt}}
By~\eqref{eq:def-q-channel-mimo-csirt}, given $\bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda}$, the output of the channel $\outdist_{\randmatY, \bm{\Lambda} \given\msg}$ depends on the input $\msg$ only through $\randvecs \define \tilde{\powallocvec} \circ \encoder_{\csit}(\msg,\bm{\lambda})$, i.e., through the norm of each column of the codeword matrix $\encoder_{\csit}(\msg,\bm{\lambda})$.
Let $\randvecu \define \tilde{\powallocvec} (\randmatY)$.
In words, the entries of $\randvecu$ are the square of the norm of the columns of $\randmatY$ normalized by the blocklength $\bl$.
It follows that $(\randvecu,\bm{\Lambda})$ is a sufficient statistic for the detection of $\msg$ from $(\randmatY,\bm{\Lambda})$.
Hence, to lower-bound $\error'$ and establish~\eqref{eq:converse-q-csirt}, it suffices to lower-bound the maximal error probability over the channel ${\outdist}_{\randvecu , \bm{\Lambda} \given \randvecs}$ defined by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
U_i = \frac{1+ S_i\Lambda_i}{\bl} \sum\limits_{l=1}^{\bl}|W_{i,l}|^2,\quad i=1,\ldots,\minant.
\label{eq:app-q-dist-eqv-csirt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $U_i$ denotes the $i$th entry of $\randvecu$, the random variables $\{W_{i,l}\}$ are i.i.d. $ \jpg(0,1)$-distributed, and the input $\randvecs=[S_1\ldots S_\minant]$ has nonnegative entries whose sum does not exceed $\rho$, i.e., \mbox{$\randvecs\in\setV_{\minant}$}.
Note that, given $S_i$ and $\Lambda_i$, the random variable $U_i$ in~\eqref{eq:app-q-dist-eqv-csirt} is Gamma-distributed, i.e., its pdf $q_{U_i\given S_i, \Lambda_i}$ is given by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{ q_{U_i\given S_i, \Lambda_i}(u_i\given s_i, \lambda_i) }\notag\\
\quad &=&\frac{n^n}{(1+s_i\lambda_i)^n\Gamma(n)}u_i^{n-1}\exp\mathopen{}\left(-\frac{n u_i}{1+s_i\lambda_i}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Furthermore, the random variables $U_1,\dots,U_m$ are conditionally independent given $\randvecs$ and $\bm{\Lambda}$.
We shall use that $q_{U_i\given S_i, \Lambda_i}$ can be upper-bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{ q_{U_i\given S_i, \Lambda_i}(u_i\given s_i,\lambda_i)}\notag\\
&\leq& g_i(u_i,\lambda_i)\\
&\define& \left\{\!\!
\begin{split}
&\frac{\bl(\bl-1)^{\bl-1} }{\Gamma(\bl)}e^{-(\bl-1)}, & \hbox{if $u_i\leq\frac{\bl-1}{\bl} (1+\snr \lambda_i)$} \\
&\frac{\bl^\bl u_i^{\bl-1}e^{ -\bl u_i/(1+\snr\lambda_i)} }{ \Gamma(\bl) (1+\snr \lambda_i)^{\bl-1}} , & \hbox{if $u_i> \frac{\bl-1}{\bl}(1+\snr \lambda_i)$}
\end{split}
\right. \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\label{eq:density-qbar-ub2-rt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which follows because $1+s_i\lambda_i\leq 1+\snr\lambda_i$, and because $q_{U_i\given S_i, \Lambda_i}$ is a unimodal function with maximum at
\begin{equation}
u_i=\frac{n-1}{n}(1+s_i\lambda_i).
\end{equation}
The bound in~\eqref{eq:density-qbar-ub2-rt} is useful because it is integrable and does not depend on the input $s_i$.
Consider now an arbitrary code $\{\vecc_1(\bm{\Lambda}),\ldots,\vecc_\NumCode(\bm{\Lambda})\} \subset \setV_{\minant}$ for the channel ${\outdist}_{\randvecu, \bm{\Lambda} \given \randvecs}$.
Let $\setD_j(\bm{\Lambda})$, $j=1,\dots,\NumCode$, be the (disjoint) \emph{decoding sets} corresponding to the \NumCode codewords $\{\vecc_j(\bm{\Lambda})\}$.
Let $\error'_{\mathrm{avg}}$ be the \emph{average} probability of error over the channel ${\outdist}_{\randvecu ,\bm{\Lambda} \given \randvecs}$.
We have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1-\error'&\leq&
1-\error'_{\mathrm{avg}}\\
&=&\frac{1}{\NumCode}\Ex{\bm{\Lambda}}{ \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\NumCode} \int\nolimits_{\setD_j(\bm{\Lambda})} q_{\randvecu\given\randvecs,\bm{\Lambda}}(\vecu\given\vecc_j(\bm{\Lambda}), \bm{\Lambda})d\vecu} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:converse-q-step1-rt}\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{\NumCode}\Ex{\bm{\Lambda}}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\NumCode} \int\nolimits_{\setD_j(\bm{\Lambda})}\left(\prod\limits_{i=1}^{\minant} g_i(u_i,\Lambda_i)\right) d\vecu} \label{eq:converse-q-step2-rt}\\
&=& \frac{1}{\NumCode}\Ex{\bm{\Lambda}}{\int\nolimits_{ \posrealset^{\minant} } \left(\prod\limits_{i=1}^{\minant} g_i(u_i,\Lambda_i)\right) d\vecu} \label{eq:converse-q-step3-rt}\\
&=& \frac{1}{\NumCode}\Ex{\bm{\Lambda}}{ \prod\limits_{i=1}^{\minant}\int\nolimits_{0}^{+\infty} g_i(u_i,\Lambda_i) d u_i} \label{eq:converse-q-step4-rt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:converse-q-step2-rt} follows from~\eqref{eq:density-qbar-ub2-rt}, and where \eqref{eq:converse-q-step3-rt} follows because $g_i(u_i, \Lambda_i)$ is independent of the message $j$ and because $\bigcup\nolimits_{j=1}^{\NumCode} \setD_j(\bm{\Lambda}) = \posrealset^{\minant}$.
After algebraic manipulations, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\int\nolimits_{0}^{\infty} g_i(u_i, \lambda_i) d u_i}\notag\\
\quad &=& \frac{(1+\snr\lambda_i)}{\Gamma(\bl)}\left[(\bl-1)^\bl e^{-(\bl-1)} + \Gamma(\bl,\bl-1)\right]. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:app-converse-q-integ-rt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $\Gamma(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the \emph{(upper) incomplete Gamma function}~\cite[Sec.~6.5]{abramowitz72}.
Substituting~\eqref{eq:app-converse-q-integ-rt} into \eqref{eq:converse-q-step4-rt}, we finally obtain that for every code $\{c_1(\bm{\Lambda}),\ldots,c_{\NumCode}(\bm{\Lambda})\}\subset \setV_{\minant}$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1-\error' &\leq& \frac{1}{\NumCode} \left(\frac{(\bl-1)^\bl e^{-(\bl-1)}}{\Gamma(\bl)} +\frac{ \Gamma(\bl,\bl-1)}{\Gamma(\bl)} \right)^\minant \notag\\
&&\times \,\Ex{}{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{\minant}(1+\snr\Lambda_i)}\\
&=& \frac{c_{\csirt}(\bl)}{\NumCode}.\label{eq:lb-error-avg-Q-rt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This proves Lemma~\ref{lem:converse-q-csirt}.
\section{Proof of the Converse Part of Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt}}
\label{app:proof-asy-csit-conv}
As a first step towards establishing~\eqref{eq:proof-asy-conv-csit}, we relax the upper bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} by lower-bounding its denominator.
Recall that by definition (see Appendix~\ref{sec:lower-bound-beta-csirt})
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob[\Lcsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\powallocvec)] &=& \beta_{1-\error}(\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given \msg =j^\ast} , \outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}).\notag\\
&& \label{eq:recall_def_L}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We shall use the following inequality: for every $\eta>0$~\cite[Eq.~(102)]{polyanskiy10-05}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\label{eq:inequality_beta-poly}
\beta_{1-\epsilon}(\indist,\outdist)\geq \frac{1}{\eta}\left(1-\indist \mathopen{}\left[\frac{d\indist}{d\outdist}\geq \eta \right]-\epsilon \right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using~\eqref{eq:inequality_beta-poly} with $\indist=\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given \msg =j^\ast}$, $\outdist=\outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}$, $\eta=e^{n\gamma}$, and recalling that (see Appendix~\ref{sec:lower-bound-beta-csirt})
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1-\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given \msg =j^\ast}\mathopen{}\left[\frac{d\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given \msg =j^\ast}}{d\outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given \msg =j^\ast}}\geq e^{n\gamma}\right] &=& \prob[ \Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda})\leq n\gamma]\notag\\
&&
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
we obtain that for every $\gamma>0$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\beta_{1-\error}\mathopen{}\big(\indist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given \msg =j^\ast} , \outdist_{\randmatY ,\bm{\Lambda} \given\msg =j^\ast}\big)}\notag\\
\quad &\geq& e^{-n\gamma}\left(\prob[ \Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda})\leq n\gamma] -\error\right).\label{eq:bound_on_L_term}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using~\eqref{eq:bound_on_L_term} and the estimate
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\log c_{\csirt}(\bl) = \frac{\minant}{2}\log \bl + \bigO(1)
\label{eq:conv-csirt-const-term}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
(which follows from~\eqref{eq:def-n-func-converse-csirt}, Assumption~\ref{item:cond-expec-finite} in Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt}, and from algebraic manipulations), we upper-bound the RHS of~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsirt} as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Rcsirt^{\ast}(\bl,\error) &\leq& \gamma - \frac{1}{\bl}\log\mathopen{}\Big( \inf\limits_{\powallocvec(\cdot)} \prob[ \Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda})\leq n\gamma] -\error \Big)\notag\\
&&+ \,\frac{\minant}{2}\frac{\log\bl}{\bl} + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right). \label{eq:ub-rcsirt-original}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To conclude the proof we show that for every $\gamma$ in a certain neighborhood of $\Ccsit$ (recall that $\gamma$ is a free optimization parameter),
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\inf\limits_{\powallocvec(\cdot)}\prob[\Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \bl \gamma] &\geq& \cdistcsit(\gamma) + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right)
\label{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-csit-inf-v}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~$\cdistcsit(\cdot)$ is the outage probability defined in~\eqref{eq:cadist_csit} and the $\bigO\mathopen{}\left({1}/{\bl}\right)$ term is uniform in $\gamma$.
The desired result~\eqref{eq:proof-asy-conv-csit} follows then by substituting~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-csit-inf-v} into~\eqref{eq:ub-rcsirt-original}, setting $\gamma$ as the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistcsit(\gamma) -\error + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(1/\bl\right) &=& {1}/{\bl}
\label{eq:choose-gamma-csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and by noting that this $\gamma$ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\gamma = \Ccsit + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(1/\bl\right)
\label{eq:asy-exp-gamma-csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
i.e., it belongs to the desired neighborhood of \Ccsit for sufficiently large $\bl$.
Here,~\eqref{eq:asy-exp-gamma-csit} follows by a Taylor series expansion~\cite[Th.~5.15]{rudin76} of $\cdistcsit(\gamma)$ around $\Ccsit$, and because $\cdistcsit(\Ccsit) =\error$ and $\cdistcsit'(\Ccsit)>0$ by assumption.
In the reminder of this appendix, we will prove~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-csit-inf-v}. Our proof consists of the three steps sketched below.
\paragraph*{Step 1}
\label{par:step_1}
Given $\powallocvec$ and $\bm{\Lambda}$, the random variable $\Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda})$ (see~\eqref{eq:info_density_mimo_csirt} for its definition) is the sum of $\bl$ i.i.d. random variables with mean
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\murt(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \define \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant}\log\mathopen{}\big(1+\Lambda_j\powalloc_j(\bm{\Lambda})\big)
\label{eq:def-mean-conv-csirt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and variance
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sigmart^2(\powallocvec, \bm{\Lambda}) \define \minant - \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant}\frac{1}{\big(1+\Lambda_j\powalloc_j(\bm{\Lambda})\big)^2}.
\label{eq:def-var-conv-csirt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Fix an arbitrary power allocation function $\powallocvec(\cdot)$, and assume that $\bm{\Lambda}=\bm{\lambda}$.
Let
\begin{equation}
u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda}) \define \frac{\gamma-\murt(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})}{\sigmart(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})}.
\label{eq:def-u-v-lambda}
\end{equation}
Using the Cramer-Esseen theorem (see Theorem~\ref{thm:refine-be} below), we show in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_eq:kramer_esseen_step} that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}\label{eq:kramer_esseen_step}
\prob[ \Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \bl\gamma \given \bm{\Lambda}=\bm{\lambda}] \geq q_\bl( u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda}) ) +\frac{ \constthree }{\bl}
\label{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
q_{\bl}(x) \define Q(-\sqrt{\bl}x) - \frac{[1-\bl x^2]^{+}e^{-\bl x^2/2}}{6\sqrt{\bl}}
\label{eq:def-q-n-y}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and $\constthree$ is a finite constant independent of $\bm{\lambda}$, $\powallocvec$ and $\gamma$.
%
\paragraph*{Step 2}
\label{par:step_2}
We make the RHS of~\eqref{eq:kramer_esseen_step} independent of $\powallocvec$ by minimizing $q_\bl( u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda}) )$ over $\powallocvec$.
Specifically, we establish in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_minimization_over_power_allocation} the following result: for every $\gamma$ in a certain neighborhood of $\Ccsit$, we have that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob[\Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \bl \gamma \given \bm{\Lambda}=\bm{\lambda}] &\geq& q_\bl(\ulower(\bm{\lambda})) + \frac{\constthree}{\bl}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\ulower(\bm{\lambda})$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:conv-bdd-u-csirt-final}.
\paragraph*{Step 3}
\label{par:step_3}
We average~\eqref{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond2} over $\bm{\Lambda}$ and establish in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_averaging_over_channel}
the bound~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-csit-inf-v}.
This concludes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of~\eqref{eq:kramer_esseen_step}}
\label{sec:proof_of_eq:kramer_esseen_step}
We need the following version of the Cramer-Esseen Theorem.\footnote{The Berry-Esseen Theorem used in \cite{polyanskiy10-05} to prove (\ref{eq:approx_R_introduction}) yields an asymptotic expansion in~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-csit-inf-v} up to a $\bigO(1/\sqrt{\bl})$ term.
This is not sufficient here, since we need an expansion up to a $\bigO(1/\bl)$ term (see~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-csit-inf-v}).}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:refine-be}
Let $X_1,\ldots,X_\bl$ be a sequence of i.i.d. real random variables having zero mean and unit variance.
Furthermore, let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\CF(t)&\define&\Ex{}{e^{itX_1}}\,\,\text{and}\,\,
F_\bl(\xi) \define \prob\mathopen{}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\bl}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\bl}X_j \leq \xi\right].\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
If $\Ex{}{|X_1|^4} < \infty$ and if $\sup_{|t|\geq \zeta} |\CF(t)| \leq \ConstThm$ for some $\ConstThm <1$, where $\zeta\define1/({12\Ex{}{|X_1|^3}})$, then for every $\xi$ and $\bl$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\left|F_\bl(\xi) - Q(-\xi) - k_1(1-\xi^2)e^{-\xi^2/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\bl}}\right|
}\notag\\ \quad
&\leq& k_2\left\{\frac{\Ex{}{|X_1|^4} }{\bl}+ \bl^6\left(k_0+\frac{1}{2\bl}\right)^{\bl}\right\}.\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:thm-osipov-refine}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, $k_1 \define \Ex{}{X_1^3}/(6\sqrt{2\pi})$, and $k_2$ is a positive constant independent of $\{X_i\}$ and $\xi$.
\end{thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The inequality~\eqref{eq:thm-osipov-refine} is a consequence of the tighter inequality reported in~\cite[Th.~VI.1]{petrov75}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:defn_tj}
T_l(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda})\define \frac{1}{\sigmart(\powallocvec, \bm{\Lambda}) }\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \left(1-\frac{\big|\sqrt{\Lambda_j v_j(\bm{\Lambda})}Z_{l,j}-1 \big|^2}{1+ \Lambda_j v_j(\bm{\Lambda})}\right)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $Z_{l,j}$, $l=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,m$, are i.i.d. $\jpg(0,1)$ distributed.
The random variables $T_1,\ldots, T_\bl$ have zero mean and unit variance, and are conditionally i.i.d. given~$\bm{\Lambda}$.
Furthermore, by construction
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec, \bm{\Lambda}) \leq \bl \gamma \right] &=& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\bl}}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\bl} T_l(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \sqrt{\bl} u(\powallocvec, \bm{\Lambda}) \right]\notag\\
&&\label{eq:converse_info_densi_formula}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $u(\powallocvec, \bm{\Lambda})$ was defined in~\eqref{eq:def-u-v-lambda}.
We next show that the conditions under which Theorem~\ref{thm:refine-be} holds are satisfied by the random variables $\{T_l\}$.
We start by noting that if $\lambda_j v_j(\bm{\lambda})$, $j=1,\dots,\minant$, are identically zero, then $\Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec, \bm{\Lambda})=0$, so~\eqref{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond} holds trivially.
%
Hence, we will focus on the case where $\{\lambda_j v_j(\bm{\lambda})\}$ are not all identically zero.
%
Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\CF_{T_l}(t)\define \Ex{}{e^{it T_l}\big| \bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda}} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\zeta \define \frac{1}{12\Ex{}{|T_l|^3 \big| \bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda} }}.
\end{equation}
We next show that there exists a $\const_0<1$ such that $ \sup_{|t|>\zeta} |\CF_{T_l}(t)|\leq k_0$
for every $\bm{\lambda}\in\posrealset^{\minant}$ and every function~$\powallocvec(\cdot)$.
We start by evaluating $\zeta$.
For every $\bm{\lambda}\in\posrealset^{\minant}$ and every~$\powallocvec(\cdot)$ such that $\lambda_j v_j(\bm{\lambda})$, ${1\leq j\leq \minant}$, are not identically zero, it can be shown through algebraic manipulations that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:fourth_norm}
\Ex{}{|T_l|^4 \big| \bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda}} \leq 9.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
By Lyapunov's inequality~\cite[p.~18]{petrov75}, this implies that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Ex{}{|T_l|^3 \big| \bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda} } \leq \Big(\Ex{}{|T_l|^4 \big| \bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda} }\Big)^{3/4} \leq 9^{3/4}.\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app-zeta-bound}
\zeta = \frac{1}{12\Ex{}{|T_l|^3 \big| \bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda} } }\geq\frac{1}{12 \times 9^{3/4} }\define \zeta_0.
\end{equation}
By~\eqref{eq:app-zeta-bound}, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sup\limits_{|t|>\zeta} \big|\CF_{T_l}(t)\big| \leq \sup\limits_{|t|>\zeta_0} \big|\CF_{T_l}(t)\big|
\label{eq:conv-asy-bd-v_T}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\zeta_0$ does not depend on $\bm{\lambda}$ and $\powallocvec$.
Through algebraic manipulations, we can further show that the RHS of~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-v_T} is upper-bounded by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}\label{eq:second_condition}
\sup\limits_{|t|>\zeta_0} \big|\CF_{T_l}(t)\big| \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\zeta_0^2/\minant}} \define \ConstThm<1.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The inequalities~\eqref{eq:fourth_norm} and~\eqref{eq:second_condition} imply that the conditions in Theorem~\ref{thm:refine-be} are met.
Hence, we conclude that, by Theorem~\ref{thm:refine-be}, for every $\bl$, $\bm{\lambda}$, and $\powallocvec(\cdot)$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\left.\frac{1}{\sqrt{\bl}} \sum\limits_{l=1}^{\bl} T_l \leq \sqrt{\bl} u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda}) \right| \bm{\Lambda}=\bm{\lambda}\right]
- Q\mathopen{}\left(-\sqrt{\bl}u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda})\right)}\notag\\
\quad&\geq& \frac{\Ex{}{T_l^3 \given \bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda}}}{6\sqrt{2\pi} \sqrt{\bl}} (1-\bl u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda})^2)e^{-\bl u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})^2/2} - \frac{9 \const_2}{\bl} \notag\\
&&-\, k_2 \bl^6\left(k_0+\frac{1}{2\bl}\right)^{\bl}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:app-estimate-prob-minus-phi}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~$ u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda})$ was defined in~\eqref{eq:def-u-v-lambda}.
The inequality \eqref{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond} follows then by noting that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:third-moment-conv}
0 \geq \Ex{}{T_l^3 \Big| \bm{\Lambda} =\bm{\lambda}} \geq-\sqrt{2\pi}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:lemma-last-term-cramer-esseen}
\sup\limits_{\bl\geq 1} \bl\left( k_2 \bl^6 \left( k_0+\frac{1}{2 \bl}\right)^{\bl}\right) < \infty.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\subsection{Proof of~\eqref{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond2}}
\label{sec:proof_of_minimization_over_power_allocation}
For every fixed $\bm{\lambda}$, we minimize $q_\bl(u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda} ))$ on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond} over all power allocation functions $\powallocvec(\cdot)$.
%
With a slight abuse of notation, we use $\powallocvec\in\setV_{\minant}$ (where $\setV_{\minant}$ was defined in~\eqref{eq:def_setV}) to denote the vector $\powallocvec(\bm{\lambda})$ whenever no ambiguity arises.
%
Since the function $q_\bl(x)$ in~\eqref{eq:def-q-n-y} is monotonically increasing in~$x$, the vector $\powallocvec\in\setV_{\minant}$ that minimizes $q_\bl(u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda} ))$ is the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\min_{\powallocvec \in \setV_{\minant}} \,\,u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda}).
\label{eq:opt-pow-prob}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The minimization in~\eqref{eq:opt-pow-prob} is difficult to solve since $u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$ is neither convex nor concave in $\powallocvec$.
For our purposes, it suffices to obtain a lower bound on~\eqref{eq:opt-pow-prob}, which is given in~Lemma~\ref{lem:diff-sigma-rt} below.
Together with~\eqref{eq:conv-bdd-u-csirt-final} and the monotonicity of $q_\bl(\cdot)$, this then yields~\eqref{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond2}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:diff-sigma-rt}
Let $\bm{v}^\ast$, $\murt(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$, $\sigmart(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$, and $u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$ be as in~\eqref{eq:water-filling-power},~\eqref{eq:def-mean-conv-csirt},~\eqref{eq:def-var-conv-csirt}, and~\eqref{eq:def-u-v-lambda}, respectively.
Moreover, let $\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) \define \murt(\bm{v}^{\ast},\bm{\lambda} )$ and
$\sigmart^\ast(\bm{\lambda})\define \sigmart(\bm{v}^\ast, \bm{\lambda})$.
Then, there exist $ \delta>0 $, $ \tilde{\delta}>0 $ and $\const<\infty $ such that for every $\gamma\in(\Ccsit-\tilde{\delta},\Ccsit + \tilde{\delta})$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\min\limits_{\powallocvec \in\setV_{\minant}} u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda}) }\notag\\
\,\,&\geq& \ulower(\bm{\lambda}) \define \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\!\! \delta/\sqrt{\minant}, &\hbox{if $\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) \leq \gamma-\delta$}\\
\!\! \dfrac{\gamma - \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})}{\sigmart^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) + \const(\gamma - \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}))}, & \hbox{if $|\gamma - \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})|< \delta$}\\
\!\!-\infty, & \hbox{if $\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) \geq \gamma+ \delta$}.
\end{array}
\right.\notag\\
&& \label{eq:conv-bdd-u-csirt-final}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof-lemma-diff-sigma-rt}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\subsection{Proof of~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-csit-inf-v}}
\label{sec:proof_of_averaging_over_channel}
We shall need the following lemma, which concerns the speed of convergence of $\prob[B> A/\sqrt{\bl} ]$ to $\prob[B>0]$ as $\bl\to\infty$ for two independent random variables $A$ and $B$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:expectation-phi}
Let $A$ be a real random variable with zero mean and unit variance.
Let $B$ be a real random variable independent of~$A$ with continuously differentiable pdf $\pdff_B$.
Then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}\label{eq:lemma_convergence_speed}
\left|\prob\mathopen{}\left[B\geq \frac{A}{\sqrt{\bl}} \right] -\prob[B\geq 0] \right|\leq \frac{1}{\bl}\Big(\frac{2}{\delta^2} + \frac{\auxconstone}{\delta} + \frac{\auxconstone}{2}\Big)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\auxconstone \define \sup\limits_{t\in(-\delta,\delta)}\max\mathopen{}\big\{|f_{B}(t)|,|f_B'(t)|\big\}
\end{equation}
and $\delta>0$ is chosen so that~$\auxconstone$ is finite.
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof-lem-expectation-phi}.
\end{IEEEproof}
To establish~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-csit-inf-v}, we lower-bound $\Ex{}{q_\bl(\ulower(\bm{\Lambda}))}$ on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond2} using Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi}.
This entails technical difficulties since the pdf of $\ulower(\bm{\Lambda})$ is not continuously differentiable due to the fact that the water-filling solution~\eqref{eq:water-filling-power} may give rise to different numbers of active eigenmodes for different values of~$\bm{\lambda}$. %
To circumvent this problem, we partition $\realset^{\minant}_{\geq}$ into~$\minant$ non-intersecting subregions $\setW_j$, $j=1,\dots,\minant$~\cite[Eq.~(24)]{caire99-05}
\begin{multline}
\setW_j \define
\Big\{\vecx\in \realset^{\minant}_{\geq}:
\frac{1}{x_{j+1}}> \frac{1}{j}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{j}\frac{1}{x_l} + \frac{\snr}{j} \geq \frac{1}{x_j}\Big\},\\ j=1,\ldots,\minant-1
\label{eq:ach-asy-csit-def-setw}
\end{multline}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\setW_\minant \define \Big\{\vecx\in \realset^{\minant}_{\geq}: \frac{1}{\minant}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\minant}\frac{1}{x_l} + \frac{\snr}{\minant} \geq \frac{1}{x_\minant}\Big\}.
\label{eq:ach-asy-csit-def-setw-m}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In the interior of $\setW_j$, $j=1,\ldots,\minant$, the pdf of $\hat{u}(\bm{\Lambda})$ is continuously differentiable.
Note that $\bigcup_{j=1}^{\minant} \setW_j =\realset^{\minant}_{\geq}$.
For every $\veclambda\in\setW_j$,
the water-filling solution gives exactly $j$ active eigenmodes, i.e.,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
v_1^\ast(\bm{\lambda})\geq \cdots \geq v_j^\ast(\bm{\lambda})>v_{j+1}^{\ast}(\bm{\lambda})=\cdots=v_{\minant}^\ast(\bm{\lambda})=0. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:expression-gamma-star}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\setK_\delta \define \Big\{\veclambda \in \realset^{\minant}_{\geq}:\, |\gamma - \murt^\ast(\veclambda)|< \delta\Big\}.
\label{eq:def-set-K-delta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using~\eqref{eq:def-set-K-delta} and the sets $\{\setW_j\}$, we express $\Ex{}{q_\bl(\ulower(\bm{\Lambda}))}$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Ex{}{q_\bl(\ulower(\bm{\Lambda}))} }\notag\\
\quad &=& \Ex{}{q_\bl(\ulower(\bm{\Lambda})) \indfun{ \bm{\Lambda}\notin \setK_{\delta}}} \notag\\
&&+ \,
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \Ex{}{ q_\bl(\ulower(\bm{\Lambda})) \indfun{ \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-lambda2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathrm{Int}(\cdot)$ denotes the interior of a given set.
To obtain~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-lambda2}, we used that $\bm{\Lambda}$ lies in $ \bigcup_{j=1}^{\minant}\mathrm{Int}(\setW_j)$ almost surely, which holds because the joint pdf of $\{\Lambda_j\}_{j=1}^{\minant}$ exists by assumption and because the boundary of $\setW_j$ has zero Lebesgue measure.
We next lower-bound the two terms on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-lambda2} separately.
We first consider the first term. When $\murt^\ast(\veclambda) \geq \gamma+\delta$, we have $\ulower(\veclambda)=-\infty$ and $q_\bl\mathopen{}\big(u_1(\veclambda)\big)=0$;
when $\murt^\ast(\veclambda) \leq \gamma-\delta$, we have $\ulower(\veclambda) = \delta/\sqrt{\minant}$ and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
q_\bl \mathopen{}\big(\ulower(\veclambda)\big) = Q\mathopen{}\left(-\sqrt{\bl}\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{\minant}}\right) -\frac{[1-\bl\delta^2/\minant]^{+}e^{-\bl\delta^2/(2\minant)}}{6\sqrt{\bl}}.\notag\\
\label{eq:bound-qbl-ustar-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Assume without loss of generality that $\bl\geq \minant/\delta^2$ (recall that we are interested in the asymptotic regime $\bl\to\infty$).
In this case, the second term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:bound-qbl-ustar-1} is zero. Hence,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Ex{}{q_\bl(\ulower(\bm{\Lambda})) \indfun{ \bm{\Lambda}\notin \setK_{\delta}}} } \notag\\
\quad & = & Q\mathopen{}\left(-\sqrt{\bl}\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{\minant}}\right) \prob\mathopen{}\big[\murt^\ast(\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \gamma -\delta \big] \\
&\geq & \prob\mathopen{}\big[\murt^\ast(\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \gamma -\delta \big] - e^{-\bl \delta^2/(2\minant)} .\label{eq:p-0-rt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:p-0-rt} follows because $Q(-t)\geq 1-e^{-t^2/2}$ for all $t\geq 0 $ and because $\prob[\murt^\ast(\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \gamma-\delta ]\leq 1$.
We next lower-bound the second term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-lambda2}.
If $\prob[ \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})] =0$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Ex{}{ q_\bl(\ulower(\bm{\Lambda})) \indfun{ \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}} = 0
\label{eq:exp-qn-ul-zero}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
since $q_\bl(\cdot)$ is bounded. We thus assume in the following that $\prob[ \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})] >0$.
Let $\randulower$ denote the random variable $\ulower(\bm{\Lambda})$.
To emphasize that $\randulower$ depends on $\gamma$ (see~\eqref{eq:conv-bdd-u-csirt-final}), we write $\randulower(\gamma)$ in place of $\randulower$ whenever necessary.
Using this definition and~\eqref{eq:def-q-n-y}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Ex{}{ q_\bl(\randulower) \indfun{ \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}}}\notag\\
&=&\bigg( \Ex{}{Q(-\sqrt{\bl}\randulower)\given \bm{\Lambda } \in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})} \notag\\
&&-\,\frac{1}{6\sqrt{\bl}}\Ex{}{\big[1-\bl \randulower^2\big]^{+}e^{-\bl \randulower^2 /2}\Big| \bm{\Lambda } \in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}\bigg)\notag\\
&&\times \, \prob\mathopen{}\big[\bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j}) \big].\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:p-j-rt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Observe that the transformation
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_j,\gamma) \mapsto (\ulower(\bm{\lambda}),\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_j,\gamma)
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
is one-to-one and twice continuously differentiable with nonsingular Jacobian for $\bm{\lambda} \in \setK_{\delta} \,\cap\, \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})$, i.e., it is a diffeomorphism of class $C^2$~\cite[p.~147]{munkres91-a}.
Consequently, the conditional pdf $f_{\randulower(\gamma) \given \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j}) }(t)$ of $\randulower(\gamma)$ given $\bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})$ as well as its first derivative are jointly continuous functions of $\gamma$ and $t$.
Hence, they are bounded on bounded sets.
It thus follows that for every $j\in\{1,\ldots,\minant\}$, every $\gamma\in(\Ccsit-\altdelta, \Ccsit+\altdelta)$ (where~$\altdelta$ is given by Lemma~\ref{lem:diff-sigma-rt}), and every $\altdelta_1>0$, there exists a $\auxconsttwo <\infty$ such that the conditional pdf $f_{\randulower(\gamma)\given \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}$
and its derivative satisfy
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
&&\sup_{t\in [-\altdelta_1, \altdelta_1]} \sup\limits_{\gamma \in (\Ccsit-\altdelta, \Ccsit+\altdelta )}\! \big|\pdff_{\randulower(\gamma)\given \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}(t)\big| \leq \auxconsttwo\label{eq:lemma-ub-pdfu} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&&\sup_{t\in [-\altdelta_1, \altdelta_1]}\sup\limits_{\gamma \in (\Ccsit-\altdelta, \Ccsit+\altdelta )}\! \big|\pdff_{\randulower(\gamma)\given \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}'(t)\big| \leq \auxconsttwo \label{eq:lemma-ub-pdfud}.\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We next apply Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi} with $A$ being a standard normal random variable and $B$ being the random variable $\randulower$ conditioned on $ \bm{\Lambda } \in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})$.
This implies that there exists a finite constant~$\auxconstthree$ independent of~$\gamma$ and~$\bl$ such that the first term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:p-j-rt} satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Ex{}{Q\mathopen{}\big(-\sqrt{\bl}\randulower(\gamma)\big)\big| \bm{\Lambda } \in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}}\notag\\
\quad &\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\big[ \murt^\ast(\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \gamma \given \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})\big ] + \frac{\auxconstthree}{\bl}.
\label{eq:exp-q-nu}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We next bound the second term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:p-j-rt} for $\bl \geq \tilde{\delta}_1^{-2} $ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\frac{1}{6\sqrt{\bl}}\Ex{}{\big[1-\bl \randulower^2\big]^{+}e^{-\bl \randulower^2 /2} \Big| \bm{\Lambda } \in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}}\notag\\
\quad &\leq & \frac{\auxconsttwo }{6\sqrt{\bl}}\int\nolimits_{-1/\sqrt{\bl}}^{1/\sqrt{\bl}} (1-\bl t^2)e^{-\bl t^2/2} dt\label{eq:ub-ex-1-minus-nu-2}\\
&=& \frac{\auxconsttwo}{3\sqrt{ e} \bl}\label{eq:ub-ex-1-minus-nu-3}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:ub-ex-1-minus-nu-2} follows from~\eqref{eq:lemma-ub-pdfu}.
Substituting~\eqref{eq:exp-q-nu} and~\eqref{eq:ub-ex-1-minus-nu-3} into~\eqref{eq:p-j-rt} we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Ex{}{ q_\bl(\randulower) \indfun{ \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})}}}\notag\\
\quad &\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\big[ \mu^\ast(\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \gamma, \bm{\Lambda}\in \setK_{\delta} \cap \mathrm{Int}(\setW_{j})\big] + \frac{\auxconstfour}{\bl}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:p-j-rt-final}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for some finite $\auxconstfour$ independent of $\gamma$ and $\bl$.
Using~\eqref{eq:p-0-rt},~\eqref{eq:exp-qn-ul-zero} and~\eqref{eq:p-j-rt-final} in~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-lambda2}, and substituting~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-avg-lambda2} into~\eqref{eq:conv-csirt-lb-prob-s-cond2}, we conclude that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}
\prob[\Scsirt_\bl(\powallocvec,\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \bl \gamma] &\geq& \prob[ \mu^\ast(\bm{\Lambda}) \leq \gamma ] + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right) \IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&=& \cdistcsit(\gamma) + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the $\bigO\mathopen{}\left({1}/{n}\right)$ term is uniform in $\gamma\in(\Ccsit-\deltaup,\Ccsit+\deltaup)$.
Here, the last step follows from~\eqref{eq:def-mean-conv-csirt} and~\eqref{eq:cadist_csit}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:diff-sigma-rt}}
\label{app:proof-lemma-diff-sigma-rt}
For an arbitrary $\bm{\lambda}\in \realset^{\minant}_{\geq}$, the function $\murt(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$ in the numerator of~\eqref{eq:def-u-v-lambda} is maximized by the (unique) water-filling power allocation $v_j=v_j^\ast$ defined in~\eqref{eq:water-filling-power}:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:max-mu-csirt}
\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) = \max_{\powallocvec\in\setV_{\minant}} \murt(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda}) = \murt(\bm{v}^{\ast} , \bm{\lambda}).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The function~$\sigmart(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$ on the denominator of~\eqref{eq:def-u-v-lambda} can be bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:bdd-var-csirt}
0\leq \sigmart(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})\leq \sqrt{\minant}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using~\eqref{eq:max-mu-csirt} and~\eqref{eq:bdd-var-csirt} we obtain that for an arbitrary $\delta>0$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\min_{\powallocvec \in \setV_{\minant}} \,\,u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda}) \geq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\delta}/{\sqrt{\minant}}, & \hbox{$\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})\leq \gamma-\delta$} \\
-\infty, & \hbox{$\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})\geq \gamma + \delta$.}
\end{array}
\right.\label{eq:conv-bdd-u-csirt}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let $\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}}$ be the minimizer of $u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$ for a given $\bm{\lambda}$.
To prove Lemma~\ref{lem:diff-sigma-rt}, it remains to show that there exist $\delta>0$, $ \tilde{\delta}>0 $ and $\const<\infty $ such that for every $\gamma\in(\Ccsit-\tilde{\delta},\Ccsit + \tilde{\delta})$ and every $\bm{\lambda}\in\realset^{\minant}_{\geq }$ satisfying $|\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})-\gamma| <\delta$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\min_{\powallocvec \in \setV_{\minant}} \,\,u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda}) &=& u(\powallocvec_{\min},\bm{\lambda} )\\
&\geq& \frac{\gamma - \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})}{\sigmart^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) + \const(\gamma - \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}))}.
\label{eq:conv-bdd-u-csirt-2nd}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
u(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\veclambda) = \frac{\gamma-\murt (\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\veclambda)}{ \sigmart (\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\veclambda) } &\geq& \frac{\gamma-\murt^\ast(\veclambda)}{ \sigmart (\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\veclambda) }\label{eq:lb-u-step1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
it suffices to show that for every $\gamma\in(\Ccsit-\tilde{\delta},\Ccsit + \tilde{\delta})$ and every $\bm{\lambda}\in\realset^{\minant}_{\geq }$ satisfying $|\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})-\gamma| <\delta$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
|\sigmart (\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\veclambda)- \sigmart^\ast (\veclambda)|\leq \const |\gamma - \mu^\ast(\veclambda)|
\label{eq:bound-diff-sigma-min-star}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sigmart^* (\veclambda) -\const |\gamma - \mu^\ast(\veclambda)| >0.
\label{eq:positivity-sigma-star-k}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The desired bound~\eqref{eq:conv-bdd-u-csirt-2nd} follows then by lower-bounding $\sigmart(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})$ in~\eqref{eq:lb-u-step1} by $\sigmart^* (\veclambda) -\const |\gamma - \mu^\ast(\veclambda)|$ when $\murt^\ast(\veclambda) \geq \gamma$ and by upper-bounding $\sigmart(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})$ by $\sigmart^* (\veclambda) + \const |\gamma - \mu^\ast(\veclambda)|$ when $\murt^\ast(\veclambda) < \gamma$.
We first establish~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-sigma-min-star}.
By the mean value theorem, there exist $\powalloc'_j$ between $\powalloc^*_j$ and $\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},j}$, $j=1,\ldots,\minant$, such that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{ \big|\sigmart(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda}) -\sigmart^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) \big|}\notag\\
\quad &=& \left|\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \frac{2\lambda_j}{(1+\lambda_j \powalloc'_j)^3}(\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},j} - \powalloc^*_j)\right| \label{eq:bound-eig-E-00}\\
&\leq &\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \frac{2\lambda_j}{(1+\lambda_j \powalloc'_j)^3}\left|\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},j} - \powalloc^*_j\right| \\
&\leq & 2\lambda_1 \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \left|\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},j} -\powalloc^*_j\right| \label{eq:bound-eig-E-1} \\
&\leq& 2\lambda_1 \sqrt{\minant}\|\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}} - \powallocvec^*\|.
\label{eq:bound-eig-E-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, the last step follows because for every $\veca=[a_1,\ldots,a_\minant]\in \realset^{\minant}$, we have $\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{\minant} |a_j| \leq \sqrt{\minant}\|\veca\|$.
Next, we upper-bound $\lambda_1$ and $\|\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}} - \powallocvec^*\|$ separately.
The variable $\lambda_1$ can be bounded as follows.
Because the water-filling power levels $\{v_l^\ast\}$ in~\eqref{eq:water-filling-power} are nonincreasing, we have that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\frac{\snr}{\minant} &\leq& v_1^\ast \leq \snr.
\label{eq:bound-gamma-star}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Choose $\delta_1>0$ and $\altdelta>0$ such that $\delta_1 + \altdelta < \Ccsit$.
Using~\eqref{eq:bound-gamma-star} together with
\begin{equation}
\log(1+\lambda_1 v^\ast_1)\leq\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) \leq \minant\log(1+\lambda_1 v^\ast_1)
\end{equation}
and the assumption that $\gamma \in (\Ccsit- \altdelta, \Ccsit+\altdelta)$, we obtain that whenever $|\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) - \gamma|<\delta_1$
\begin{multline}
\const_{0} \define \frac{1}{\snr} \left(e^{(\Ccsit -\delta_1-\altdelta)/\minant}-1\right) \\
\leq \lambda_1 \leq \frac{\minant}{\snr}\left(e^{\Ccsit +\delta_1+\altdelta}-1\right) \define \constrt_1 .
\label{eq:bd-lambda1}
\end{multline}
The term $\|\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}} - \powallocvec^*\|$ can be upper-bounded as follows.
Since~$\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}}$ is the minimizer of $u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$, it must satisfy the Karush--Kuhn--Tucker (KKT) conditions~\cite[Sec.~5.5.3]{boyd04}:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
-\frac{\partial u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda} )}{\partial \powalloc_l}\Big|_{\powalloc_l=\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l}} &=& \eta, \,\,\,\hbox{$\forall \,l$ for which $\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l}>0$} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace \label{eq:KKT-cond1}\\
-\frac{\partial u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda} )}{\partial \powalloc_l}\Big|_{\powalloc_l=\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l}} &\leq& \eta, \,\,\,\hbox{$\forall\, l$ for which $\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l}=0$}\label{eq:KKT-cond2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for some $\eta$.
The derivatives in~\eqref{eq:KKT-cond1} and~\eqref{eq:KKT-cond2} are given by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
-\frac{\partial u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda} )}{\partial \powalloc_l}\Big|_{\powalloc_l=\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l}} &= &
\left(1+ \frac{\gamma - \murt(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})}{(1+\lambda_l\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l})^2\sigmart^2(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})}\right)\notag\\
&& \times \frac{1}{(\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l}+1/\lambda_l) \sigmart(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})}
.\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\,\,\,\,
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let $\tilde{\eta} \define 1/ (\sigmart(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda}) \eta)$.
Then,~\eqref{eq:KKT-cond1} and~\eqref{eq:KKT-cond2} can be rewritten as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l} &=& \left[\tilde{\eta} \left(1+ \frac{\gamma - \murt(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})}{(1+\lambda_l\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l})^2\sigmart^2(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})}\right)-\frac{1}{\lambda_l}\right]^{+}
\label{eq:KKT-cond21}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\!
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\tilde{\eta}$ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\minant} \left[\tilde{\eta} \left(1+ \frac{\gamma - \murt(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})}{(1+\lambda_l\powalloc_{\mathrm{min},l})^2\sigmart^2(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})}\right)-\frac{1}{\lambda_l}\right]^{+} =\snr.\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:KKT-cond21-cont}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, the equality in~\eqref{eq:KKT-cond21-cont} follows because $u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda})$ is monotonically decreasing in~$\powalloc_j$, which implies that the minimizer~$\powallocvec_{\min}$ of $u(\powallocvec, \bm{\lambda})$ must satisfy $\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{\minant} \powalloc_{\min,l} = \snr$.
Comparing~\eqref{eq:KKT-cond21} and~\eqref{eq:KKT-cond21-cont} with~\eqref{eq:water-filling-power} and~\eqref{eq:def-gamma-bar},
we obtain, after algebraic manipulations
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\|\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}} - \bm{v}^{\ast} \| &\leq& \constrt_{2} |\gamma - \murt(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})|
\label{eq:second-ub-on-diff-powallocvec}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for some $\constrt_{2}<\infty$ that does not depend on $\veclambda$, $\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}}$, $\powallocvec^*$ and $\gamma$.
To further upper-bound the RHS of~\eqref{eq:second-ub-on-diff-powallocvec},
recall that $\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}}$ minimizes $u(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})=(\gamma-\murt(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda}))/\sigmart(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$ for a given $\bm{\lambda}$ and that $\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) = \max_{\powallocvec\in\setV_{\minant}} \murt(\powallocvec,\bm{\lambda})$.
Thus, if $\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) \geq \gamma$ then we must have $u(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda}) \leq u(\bm{v}^\ast, \veclambda) \leq 0$, which implies that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
0 \leq \murt(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda}) -\gamma \leq \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) -\gamma.
\label{eq:bound-diff-mu-star-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
If $\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) < \gamma$ then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
0\leq \frac{\gamma - \murt(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda})}{\sqrt{\minant}} \leq u(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda}) \leq \frac{\gamma - \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})}{\sigmart^\ast(\bm{\lambda})} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:bound-u-lambda-vbar}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where in the second inequality we used that~$\sigmart(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda}) \leq \sqrt{\minant}$ (see~\eqref{eq:bdd-var-csirt}).
Using~\eqref{eq:bound-gamma-star} and~\eqref{eq:bd-lambda1}, we can lower-bound $\sigmart^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) $ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:bound-sigma-rt}
\sigmart^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) &\geq& \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{(1+\lambda_1 \powalloc^*_1)^2}} \\
&\geq& \sqrt{1-\frac{1}{(1+ \snr\constrt_0 /\minant)^2} } \define \constrt_3.
\label{eq:bound-sig-star}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Substituting~\eqref{eq:bound-sig-star} into~\eqref{eq:bound-u-lambda-vbar}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
0\leq \gamma - \murt(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda}) &\leq& \frac{\sqrt{\minant}}{\const_3}\big[\gamma-\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})\big].
\label{eq:bound-diff-mu-star-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Combining~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-mu-star-2} with~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-mu-star-1} and using that $\sqrt{\minant} / k_3 >1$, we get
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\big |\gamma - \murt(\powallocvec_{\mathrm{min}},\bm{\lambda}) \big| \leq \frac{\sqrt{m}}{k_3}\big|\gamma - \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})\big|.
\label{eq:conv-asy-bd-mu1-diff}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Finally, substituting~\eqref{eq:conv-asy-bd-mu1-diff} into~\eqref{eq:second-ub-on-diff-powallocvec}, then~\eqref{eq:second-ub-on-diff-powallocvec} and~\eqref{eq:bd-lambda1} into~\eqref{eq:bound-eig-E-2},
and writing $ \const \define \constrt_{1}\constrt_{2} \sqrt{\minant}/\const_3 $, we conclude that~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-sigma-min-star} holds for every $\gamma\in(\Ccsit-\tilde{\delta},\Ccsit + \tilde{\delta})$ and every $\bm{\lambda}$ satisfying $|\murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})-\gamma| <\delta_1$.
To prove~\eqref{eq:positivity-sigma-star-k}, we choose $0<\delta< \min\{\delta_1, \const_3/\const \}$.
It then follows that for every $\veclambda$ satisfying~$|\murt^\ast(\veclambda)-\gamma|<\delta$ we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sigmart^\ast(\bm{\lambda}) - \const|\gamma - \murt^\ast(\bm{\lambda})| \geq \const_3 -\const \delta >0.
\label{eq:verify-sigma-positive}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, in~\eqref{eq:verify-sigma-positive} we used the bound~\eqref{eq:bound-sig-star}. This concludes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi}}
\label{app:proof-lem-expectation-phi}
By assumption, there exist $\delta>0$ and $\auxconstone<\infty$ such that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:app-bdd-pdfb}
\sup_{t \in (-\delta,\delta)} \max\mathopen{}\big\{|\pdff_{B}(t)|,|\pdff_{B}'(t)|\big\}\leq \auxconstone.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
%
Let $F_A$ and $\cdfF_B$ be the cdfs of $A$ and $B$, respectively.
We rewrite $\prob[B\geq A/\sqrt{\bl}]$ as follows:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob[B\geq A/\sqrt{\bl}] &=& \underbrace{\int\nolimits_{|a|\geq\delta\sqrt{\bl}}\prob[B \geq a/\sqrt{\bl}] dF_A(a)}_{\define c_0(n)} \notag\\
&&+\, \int\nolimits_{|a|< \delta\sqrt{\bl}} \underbrace{\prob[B \geq a/\sqrt{\bl}]}_{= 1-\cdfF_B(a/\sqrt{\bl})}dF_A(a).\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:app-prob-x-leq-u}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We next expand the argument of the second integral in~\eqref{eq:app-prob-x-leq-u} by applying Taylor's theorem~\cite[Th.~5.15]{rudin76} on $\cdfF_B(a/\sqrt{\bl})$ as follows:
for all $a\in(-\delta \sqrt{\bl},\delta\sqrt{\bl})$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1-\cdfF_B(a/\sqrt{\bl})&=& 1-\cdfF_B(0) - \pdff_B(0)\frac{a}{\sqrt{\bl}} - \frac{\pdff'_B(a_0)}{2}\frac{a^2}{\bl}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for some $a_0 \in (0, a/\sqrt{\bl})$.
Averaging over $A$, we get
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\int\nolimits_{|a|<\delta\sqrt{\bl}}1-\cdfF_B(a/\sqrt{\bl}) d F_A(a) } \notag\\
\;\;
&=& \underbrace{(1-\cdfF_B(0))}_{=\prob[B\geq 0]}\prob[|A|< \delta\sqrt{\bl}]\notag\\
&& -\; \frac{\pdff_B(0)}{\sqrt{\bl}}\underbrace{\Ex{}{A \cdot
\indfun{|A| < \delta \sqrt{\bl}}}}_{\define c_1(\bl)} \notag\\
&& -\, \underbrace{\Ex{}{\frac{A^2 \pdff_{B}'(A_0)}{2\bl} \cdot \indfun{|A|<\delta\sqrt{\bl}}}}_{\define c_2(n)}.
\label{eq:taylor_expectation}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}
%
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{\left| \prob[B\geq A/\sqrt{n}] -\prob[B\geq 0]\right|}\\
&=& \bigg|c_0(n) -\prob[B\geq 0]\cdot\prob[|A|\geq \delta\sqrt{\bl}]\notag\\
&& \quad -\,\frac{\pdff_B(0)}{\sqrt{\bl}}c_1(n)-c_2(n)\bigg| \\
%
&\leq & c_0(n) + \prob[|A|\geq \delta\sqrt{\bl}] +\frac{\auxconstone}{\sqrt{\bl}}\abs{c_1(n)} +\abs{c_2(n)}\label{eq:triangle_ineq}\,\,\,\,\\
%
&\leq & 2\prob[|A|\geq \delta\sqrt{\bl}] +\frac{\auxconstone}{\sqrt{\bl}}\abs{c_1(n)} +\abs{c_2(n)} \label{eq:triangle_ineq-2}\\
&\leq & \frac{2}{\delta^2\bl} +\frac{\auxconstone}{\sqrt{\bl}}\abs{c_1(n)} +\abs{c_2(n)}\label{eq:markov_ineq}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, in~\eqref{eq:triangle_ineq} we used the triangle inequality together with~\eqref{eq:app-bdd-pdfb} and the trivial bound $\prob[B\geq 0]\leq 1$;
\eqref{eq:triangle_ineq-2} follows because $ c_0(n) \leq \prob[|A|\geq \delta\sqrt{\bl}] $;
\eqref{eq:markov_ineq} follows from Chebyshev's inequality and because $\Ex{}{A^2}=1$ by assumption.
To conclude the proof, we next upper-bound $\abs{c_1(n)}$, and $\abs{c_2(n)}$.
The term $\abs{c_1(\bl)}$ can be bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\left|c_1(\bl)\right|
&=& \big|\Ex{}{A \cdot \indfun{|A|\geq \delta \sqrt{\bl}}}\big| \label{eq:app-bound-x-u-c1-1} \\
&\leq &\frac{1}{\delta\sqrt{\bl}} \Ex{}{\delta\sqrt{\bl} |A| \cdot \indfun{ |A|\geq \delta \sqrt{\bl} } }\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{\delta\sqrt{\bl}} \Ex{}{ A^2 \cdot \indfun{|A|\geq \delta \sqrt{\bl}}}\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{\delta\sqrt{\bl}}\label{eq:app-bound-x-u-c1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where \eqref{eq:app-bound-x-u-c1-1} follows because $\Ex{}{A}=0$ by assumption.
Finally, $\abs{c_2(\bl)}$ can be bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
|c_2(\bl)|&\leq& \Ex{}{\frac{A^2 |\pdff_{B}'(A_0)| }{2\bl} \cdot \indfun{|A|<\delta\sqrt{\bl}}}\\
&\leq & \Ex{}{A^2\cdot \indfun{|A|<\delta\sqrt{\bl}} } \frac{\auxconstone}{2\bl} \label{eq:app-bound-x-u-c3_b}\\
&\leq & \frac{\auxconstone}{2\bl}.
\label{eq:app-bound-x-u-c3}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, (\ref{eq:app-bound-x-u-c3_b}) follows because the support of $A_0$ is contained in $(0, \delta)$ and from~\eqref{eq:app-bdd-pdfb}.
Substituting \eqref{eq:app-bound-x-u-c1} and~\eqref{eq:app-bound-x-u-c3} into~\eqref{eq:markov_ineq}, we obtain the desired inequality~\eqref{eq:lemma_convergence_speed}.
\section{Proof of the Achievability Part of Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt}}
\label{app:proof-asy-csit-ach}
In order to prove~\eqref{eq:proof-asy-ach-csit}, we study the achievability bound~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-csit} in the large-\bl limit.
We start by analyzing the denominator on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-csit}.
Let $\alpha= \bl -\txant -\rxant >0$. Then,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod_{i=1}^{\rxant} B_i \leq \gamma_\bl\right] &=& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod_{i=1}^{\rxant}B_i^{-\alpha} \geq \gamma_\bl^{-\alpha}\right]\label{eq:app-prob-error2-inner-step0-t}\\
&\leq& \frac{\Ex{}{\prod_{i=1}^{\rxant} B_i^{-\alpha}}}{\gamma_\bl^{-\alpha}}\label{eq:app-prob-error2-inner-step1-t}\\
&=&\gamma_\bl^{\bl -\txant-\rxant} \prod_{i=1}^{\rxant}\Ex{}{B_i^{-(\bl-\txant -\rxant)}}\label{eq:app-prob-error2-inner-step2-t}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:app-prob-error2-inner-step1-t} follows from Markov's inequality, and \eqref{eq:app-prob-error2-inner-step2-t} follows because the $B_1,\ldots,B_{\rxant}$ are independent.
Recalling that $B_i\sim \mathrm{Beta}(\bl-\txant-i+1, \txant)$, we obtain that for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,\rxant\}$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Ex{}{B_i^{-(\bl-\txant-\rxant)}}
}\notag\\
\quad
&=& \frac{\Gamma(\bl-i+1)}{\Gamma(\bl-\txant-i+1)\Gamma(\txant)}\int\nolimits_{0}^{1} s^{\rxant - i} (1-s)^{\txant-1} ds\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&\leq & \frac{\Gamma(\bl-i+1)}{\Gamma(\bl-\txant-i+1)\Gamma(\txant)}\\
&\leq& \bl^{\txant}\label{eq:app-bound-exp-bi-t}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Substituting (\ref{eq:app-bound-exp-bi-t}) into (\ref{eq:app-prob-error2-inner-step2-t}), we get
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod_{i=1}^{\rxant} B_i \leq \gamma_\bl\right]&\leq& \bl^{\rxant\txant} \gamma_\bl^{\bl-\txant-\rxant}.\label{eq:asy-analysis-error2-t}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Setting $\tau=1/\bl$ and $\gamma_\bl = \exp(-\Ccsit + \bigO(1/\bl))$ in~\eqref{eq:lb-numcode-csit}, and using \eqref{eq:asy-analysis-error2-t}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:ach_logM_MIMO_csit}
\frac{\log \NumCode}{\bl} &\geq& \Ccsit - (1+\rxant\txant) \frac{\log\bl}{\bl} +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To conclude the proof, it remains to show that there exists a $\gamma_\bl = \exp(-\Ccsit + \bigO(1/\bl))$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:def-gamma-n-ach-csit}.
To this end, we note that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\bigg[ \sin^2\mathopen{}\bigg\{\matI_{\bl,\txant}, \sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txant}
\diag\Big\{\sqrt{v_1^{\ast}\Lambda_1},\ldots,\sqrt{v_\minant^{\ast}\Lambda_{\minant}},}\notag\\
&& \hfill \underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\txant-\minant} \Big\}+ \randmatW\bigg\}\leq \gamma_\bl \bigg] \quad\notag\\
\quad &\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\bigg[ \prod_{j=1}^{\minant} \sin^2\mathopen{}\left\{ \vece_j, \sqrt{\bl v_j^{\ast}\Lambda_j}\vece_j + \randvecw_j \right\}\leq \gamma_\bl \bigg] \label{eq:ach-csit-angle3}\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\bigg[\prod_{j=1}^{\minant} \sin^2\mathopen{}\left\{\vece_1, \sqrt{\bl v_j^{\ast}\Lambda_j}\vece_1 + \randvecw_j \right\}\leq \gamma_\bl \bigg].\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:ach-csit-angle4}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-angle3} follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:angle-btw-subspaces} (Appendix~\ref{app:proof-angle-btw-subspaces}) by letting~$\vece_j$ and~$\randvecw_j$ stand for the $j$th column of~$\matI_{\bl,\txant}$ and $\randmatW$, respectively;~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-angle4} follows by symmetry.
%
We next note that by~\eqref{eq:lemma-equal-hadamard}, the random variable $\sin^2\{\vece_1, \sqrt{\bl v_j^{\ast}\Lambda_j}\vece_1 + \randvecw_j\}$ has the same distribution as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
T_j \define \frac{\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2}{|\sqrt{\bl v_j^\ast\Lambda_j} + W_{1,j}|^2 + \sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2}.\label{eq:ach-dist-sin-theta-csit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Thus,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\!\prod_{j=1}^{\minant} \! \sin^2\mathopen{}\left\{\vece_1, \!\sqrt{\bl v_j^{\ast}\Lambda_j}\vece_1 + \randvecw_j \right\}\! \leq \gamma_\bl \!\Bigg]
= \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\!\prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \! T_j\leq \gamma_\bl\! \Bigg].\notag\\
\label{eq:asy-ach-csit-prob-prod-ts}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To evaluate the RHS of~\eqref{eq:asy-ach-csit-prob-prod-ts}, we observe that by the law of large numbers, the noise term $\frac{1}{\bl}\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2$ in~\eqref{eq:ach-dist-sin-theta-csit} concentrates around $1$ as $\bl\to\infty$.
Hence, we expect that for all $\gamma > 0$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} T_j\leq \gamma\right] \to \prob\mathopen{}\left[ \prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minant}\frac{1}{v_j^\ast\Lambda_j +1 }\leq \gamma \right]\text{ as } \bl \to\infty.\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:expect-prod-t}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We shall next make this statement rigorous by showing that, for all $\gamma$ in a certain neighborhood of~$e^{-\Ccsit}$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}\label{eq:expansion to be proven}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} T_j\leq \gamma \right] \geq
%
\prob\mathopen{}\left[ \prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minant}\frac{1}{v_j^\ast\Lambda_j +1 }\leq \gamma \right] + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the term $\bigO(1/n)$ is uniform in $\gamma$.
To this end, we build on Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi} in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_averaging_over_channel}.
The technical difficulty is that the joint pdf of $\Lambda_1 v_1^{\ast},\ldots,\Lambda_\minant v_\minant^{\ast}$ is not continuously differentiable because the functions $\{v_j^{\ast}(\cdot)\}$ are not differentiable on the boundary of the nonintersecting regions $\setW_1,\ldots, \setW_\minant$ defined in~\eqref{eq:ach-asy-csit-def-setw} and~\eqref{eq:ach-asy-csit-def-setw-m}.
To circumvent this problem, we study the asymptotic behavior of~$\{T_j\}$ conditioned on $\bm{\Lambda}\in \mathrm{Int}(\setW_u)$, in which case the joint pdf of $\Lambda_j v_j^\ast(\bm{\Lambda})$, $j=1,\ldots,\minant$, is continuously differentiable.
This comes without loss of generality since~$\bm{\Lambda}$ lies in $\bigcup_{u=1}^{\minant} \mathrm{Int}\mathopen{}\big(\setW_u)$ almost surely (see also Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_averaging_over_channel}).
To simplify notation, we use~$T_{j}^{(u)}$ to denote the random variable $T_j$ conditioned on the event $\bm{\Lambda}\in \mathrm{Int}(\setW_u)$, $u=1,\ldots,\minant$.
We further denote by $\bm{\Lambda}^{(u)}$ and $\altbmLambda^{(u)}$ the random vectors~$\tp{[\Lambda_1,\ldots,\Lambda_u]}$ and $[\Lambda_1 v_1^\ast(\bm{\Lambda}), \ldots,\Lambda_u v_u^\ast(\bm{\Lambda})\tp{]}$ conditioned on the event $\bm{\Lambda}\in\mathrm{Int}(\setW_u)$, respectively.
Using these definitions, the LHS of~\eqref{eq:expansion to be proven} can be rewritten as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} T_j\leq \gamma \Bigg]
}\notag\\
&=& \sum\limits_{u=1}^{\minant} \Bigg\{ \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} T_j\leq \gamma \Big| \bm{\Lambda}\in \mathrm{Int}(\setW_u)\Bigg] \prob[\bm{\Lambda}\in \mathrm{Int}(\setW_u)]\Bigg\}\notag\\
\label{eq:ach-csit-prob-whole-lb-step1} \\
&=&\sum\limits_{u=1}^{\minant} \Bigg\{ \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\bigg(\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}T_j^{(u)}\bigg) \cdot \underbrace{\bigg(\prod\limits_{j=u+1}^{\minant} \frac{\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2}{ \sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2}\bigg)}_{\leq 1}
\leq \gamma \Bigg]\notag\\
&&\quad\quad\,\,\times\, \prob[\bm{\Lambda}\in \mathrm{Int}(\setW_u)]\Bigg\}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace \label{eq:ach-csit-prob-whole-lb-1}\\
&\geq & \sum\limits_{u=1}^{\minant}\Bigg\{ \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} T_j^{(u)} \leq \gamma \Bigg]\prob[\bm{\Lambda}\in \mathrm{Int}(\setW_u)]\Bigg\}.
\label{eq:ach-csit-prob-whole-lb}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-prob-whole-lb-1} follows because, by~\eqref{eq:expression-gamma-star}, $T_j = (\sum_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2) \\ / (\sum_{i=1}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2)$ for $j=u+1,\ldots,\minant$.
The following lemma, built upon Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi}, allows us to establish~\eqref{eq:expansion to be proven}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:prob-prod-cdf}
Let $\randvecg =\tp{[G_1,\ldots,G_u]} \in \realset^{u}_{\geq}$ be a random vector with continuously differentiable joint pdf. Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
D_j \define \frac{\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2}{|\sqrt{\bl G_j} + W_{1,j}|^2 + \sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,j}|^2},\, j=1,\ldots, u\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:def-D-j}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $W_{i,j}$, $i=1,\ldots, \bl$, $j =1,\ldots, u$, are i.i.d.$~\jpg(0,1)$-distributed.
%
Fix an arbitrary $\argpn_0\in(0,1)$.
Then, there exist a $\delta>0$ and a finite constant $\const$ such that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\inf_{\argpn\in (\argpn_0-\delta, \argpn_0+\delta)}\!\! \Bigg(\!\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} D_j \leq \argpn \Bigg] - \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} \frac{1}{1+G_j} \leq \argpn\Bigg]\! \Bigg) > \frac{\const}{\bl}.\notag\\
\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:lemma-prod-cdf}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix \ref{app:proof-ach-prod-cdf}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:prob-prod-cdf} with $G_j = \altLambda_j^{(u)} $, it follows that there exist $\delta_u >0$ and $0\leq \const_u <\infty$, such that for every $\gamma \in \big(e^{-\Ccsit-\delta_u},e^{ -\Ccsit +\delta_u }\big)$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} T_{j}^{(u)} \leq \gamma \right] \geq \prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}\frac{1}{1+\widetilde{\Lambda}_j^{(u)}} \leq \gamma \right] + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right).\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:ach-csit-prob-region-lb}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To show that $\altLambda_j^{(u)}$, $j=1,\ldots,u$, indeed satisfy the conditions in Lemma~\eqref{lem:prob-prod-cdf}, we use~\eqref{eq:expression-gamma-star},~\eqref{eq:water-filling-power}, and~\eqref{eq:def-gamma-bar}, to obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:ach-csit-change-vari-cond}
\altLambda_j^{(u)} = \frac{\Lambda_j^{(u)} }{u}\left(\snr+\sum\limits_{l=1}^{u}\frac{1}{\Lambda_l^{(u)}} \right)-1,\quad j=1,\ldots,u.\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since the joint pdf of $\bm{\Lambda}$ is continuously differentiable by assumption, the joint pdf of $\bm{\Lambda}^{(u)}$ is also continuously differentiable. Moreover, it can be shown that the transformation $\bm{\Lambda}^{(u)} \mapsto \altbmLambda^{(u)}$ defined by~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-change-vari-cond} is a diffeomorphism of class $C^2$~\cite[p.~147]{munkres91-a}.
Therefore, the joint pdf of $\altbmLambda^{(u)}$ is continuously differentiable.
We next use~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-prob-region-lb} in~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-prob-whole-lb} to conclude that for every $\gamma\! \in\! \big(e^{-\Ccsit-\deltalow}, e^{-\Ccsit + \deltalow} \big)$ (where $\deltalow \define \min\{\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_{\minant}\}$)
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{u=1}^{\minant} T_j\leq \gamma \Bigg]}\notag\\
&\geq& \sum\limits_{u=1}^{\minant}\Bigg\{ \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} \frac{1}{1+\widetilde{\Lambda}_j^{(u)}} \leq \gamma \Bigg] \prob[\bm{\Lambda}\in \mathrm{Int}(\setW_u)]\Bigg\} + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right) \notag\\
&&\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minant} \frac{1}{1 + \Lambda_j v_j^\ast(\bm{\Lambda})} \leq \gamma\Bigg] + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right)\\
&=& 1- \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[ \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant}\log(1 + \Lambda_j v_j^\ast(\bm{\Lambda})) \leq -\log \gamma\Bigg] + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right) \\
&=& 1- \cdistcsit( -\log \gamma) + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right)
\label{eq:ach-csit-prob-whole-lb2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\cdistcsit(\cdot)$ is given in~\eqref{eq:cadist_csit}.
We next choose $\gamma_\bl$ as the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1- \cdistcsit( -\log \gamma_\bl) + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right) = 1- \error + \frac{1}{\bl}.
\label{eq:ach-csit-gamma-bl-0}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since $\cdistcsit(\Ccsit)=\error $ and $\cdistcsit'(\Ccsit)>0$, it follow from Taylor's theorem that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
-\log \gamma_\bl &=& \Ccsit +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right) \label{eq:ach-csit-gamma-bl}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
So, for sufficiently large \bl, $\gamma_\bl$ in~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-gamma-bl} belongs to the interval $\big(e^{-\Ccsit-\deltalow}, e^{-\Ccsit + \deltalow} \big)$.
Hence, by~\eqref{eq:asy-ach-csit-prob-prod-ts},~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-prob-whole-lb2}, and~\eqref{eq:ach-csit-gamma-bl-0}, this~$\gamma_\bl$ satisfies~\eqref{eq:def-gamma-n-ach-csit}.
This concludes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:prob-prod-cdf}}
\label{app:proof-ach-prod-cdf}
Choose $\delta>0$ such that $\delta \leq \argpn_0/2$.
Throughout this appendix, we shall use $\constrm$ to indicate a finite constant that does neither depend on $\argpn\in(\argpn_0-\delta,\argpn_0+\delta)$ nor on $\bl$; its magnitude and sign may change at each occurrence.
Let $\gth \define 2/\argpn_0-1$ and let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p_1 &\define& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}D_j\leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1\geq \gth \Bigg] \\
p_2 &\define& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}D_j\leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1< \gth \Bigg].
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To prove Lemma~\ref{lem:prob-prod-cdf}, we decompose $\prob\mathopen{}\big[\prod\nolimits_{j=1}^{u}D_j\leq \argpn \big]$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}D_j\leq \argpn \Bigg]&=& p_1 \prob\mathopen{}\left[G_1\geq \gth\right] + p_2\prob\mathopen{}\left[G_1< \gth \right].\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:ach-prob-prod-leq-gamma-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The proof consists of the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{item:bounding-p1} We show in Section~\ref{app:item-bound-p1} that for every $\argpn\in(\argpn_0-\delta, \argpn_0+\delta)$, the term $p_1$ in~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-prod-leq-gamma-1} can be lower-bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p_1&\geq& 1- \frac{\constrm}{\bl}.
\label{eq:ach-lb-p1-4-ol}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\item \label{item:altD-1}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi} in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_averaging_over_channel}, we show in Section~\ref{app:item-altD-1} that~$p_2$ can be lower-bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p_2 &\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[ \frac{1}{1 + G_1}\prod\limits_{j=2}^{u} D_j \leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1< \gth \Bigg] - \frac{\constrm}{\bl}. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod-first-term-ol}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\item\label{item:bounding-p2} Reiterating Step~\ref{item:altD-1} for $D_2,\ldots, D_u$, we conclude that~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod-first-term-ol} can be further lower-bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p_2
&\geq & \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} \frac{1}{1 + G_j}\leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1< \gth\Bigg]- \frac{\constrm}{\bl}.
\label{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod-all-term} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\item\label{item:end-step} Finally, using~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-4-ol} and~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod-all-term} in~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-prod-leq-gamma-1}, we show in Section~\ref{app:item-end-step} that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} D_j \leq \argpn\Bigg]& \geq & \prob\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} \frac{1}{1+G_j} \leq \argpn \Bigg] - \frac{\constrm}{\bl}. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:ach-lb-prod-tj-1-ol}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This proves Lemma~\ref{lem:prob-prod-cdf}.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Proof of~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-4-ol}}
\label{app:item-bound-p1}
Let $\delta_1$ be an arbitrary real number in $(1/( \argpn_0-\delta), 2/\argpn_0)$ and let $\delta_2\define \sqrt{\gth} - \sqrt{\delta_1-1}>0$.
Let $W_{\bl+1,1}\sim \jpg(0,1)$ be independent of all other random variables appearing in the definition of the $\{D_j\}$ in~\eqref{eq:def-D-j}.
Finally, let $W_{\mathrm{re}} $ denote the real part of $W_{1,1}$.
For every $\argpn\in(\argpn_0-\delta,\argpn_0+\delta)$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p_1&\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\left[D_1 \leq \argpn \big| G_1\geq \gth \right]\label{eq:ach-lb-p1-1}\\
&\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\left|\sqrt{\bl G_1} + W_{1,1}\right|^2 \geq \frac{ 1 - \argpn }{\argpn} \sum\limits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,1}|^2,\notag\\
&& \quad\quad W_{\mathrm{re}}\geq -\sqrt{\bl}\delta_2 \Bigg| G_1\geq \gth \Bigg]\\
&\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\bl (\sqrt{G_1}-\delta_2)^2 \geq \frac{ 1 - \argpn }{\argpn}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,1}|^2 \Bigg|G_1\geq \gth \right]
\notag\\
&&\times\, \prob\mathopen{}\big[ W_{\mathrm{re}}\geq -\sqrt{\bl}\delta_2\big] \\
&\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\bl (\delta_1-1) \geq \frac{ 1 - \argpn }{\argpn} \sum\limits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,1}|^2\right]
\prob\mathopen{}\big[W_{\mathrm{re}}\geq -\sqrt{\bl}\delta_2\big]\notag\\
&& \label{eq:ach-lb-p1-12}\\
&\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\bl (\delta_1-1) \geq \big(1/(\argpn_0-\delta) -1 \big) \sum\limits_{i=2}^{\bl+1} |W_{i,1}|^2\right]
\notag\\
&&\times\,
\prob\mathopen{}\big[|W_{\mathrm{re}}| \leq \sqrt{\bl}\delta_2\big]
\label{eq:ach-lb-p1-2}\\
&\geq& \left(1 -\frac{1}{\bl} \left(\frac{\delta_1(\argpn_0-\delta)-1}{1-(\argpn_0-\delta)}\right)^2 \right)\left( 1- \frac{1}{2\bl\delta_2^2}\right)\label{eq:ach-lb-p1-3}\\
&\geq& 1- \frac{\constrm}{\bl} . \label{eq:ach-lb-p1-4}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-1} follows because $D_i\leq 1$, $i=2,\ldots,u$, with probability one (see~\eqref{eq:def-D-j});
\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-12} follows because $\delta_1-1 = (\sqrt{\gth} -\delta_2)^2$;
\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-2} follows because $\argpn > \argpn_0-\delta$ and because $\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl+1}|W_{i,1}|^2$ is stochastically larger than $\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl}|W_{i,1}|^2$;
\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-3} follows from Chebyshev's inequality applied to both probabilities in~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-2}. This proves~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-4-ol}.
Before proceeding to the next step, we first argue that, if $\prob[G_1\geq \gth]=1$, then~\eqref{eq:lemma-prod-cdf} follows directly from~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-4}. Indeed, in this case we obtain from~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-4} and~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-prod-leq-gamma-1} that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}D_j \leq \argpn \Bigg] =p_1 \geq 1-\frac{\constrm}{\bl} .
\label{eq:ach-prob-prod-leq-gamma-spec}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We further have, with probability one,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}\frac{1}{1+G_j} \leq \frac{1}{1+G_1} \leq \frac{1}{1+\gth} = \frac{\argpn_0}{2} \leq \argpn_0-\delta < \argpn \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:exception-case}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which gives
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}\frac{1}{1+G_j} \leq \argpn \Bigg]=1.
\label{eq:ach-prod-prob-G-spec}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Subtracting~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-prod-leq-gamma-spec} from~\eqref{eq:ach-prod-prob-G-spec} yields~\eqref{eq:lemma-prod-cdf}.
In the following, we shall focus exclusively on the case $\prob[G_1\geq \gth]<1$.
\subsubsection{Proof of~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod-first-term-ol}}
\label{app:item-altD-1}
To evaluate $p_2$ in~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-prod-leq-gamma-1}, we proceed as follows.
Defining~$\randratio \define \argpn /\prod\nolimits_{j=2}^{u} D_j$, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p_2
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}D_j\leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1< \gth \Bigg] \\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\left[ D_1 \leq \randratio \big| G_1< \gth \right]\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\left[ D_1 \leq \randratio ,\, \randratio\geq 1\big| G_1< \gth \right] \notag\\
&&+\, \prob\mathopen{}\left[ D_1 \leq \randratio, \, \randratio<1\big| G_1< \gth \right]\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\left[ \randratio \geq 1\big| G_1< \gth \right] + \prob\mathopen{}\left[ D_1 \leq \randratio, \, \randratio<1 \big| G_1< \gth \right] \notag\\
&& \label{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod} follows because
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[ D_1 \leq \randratio \big|\randratio\geq 1 ,\, G_1< \gth \right]=1.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The second term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod} can be rewritten as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\left[ D_1 \leq \randratio, \, \randratio<1 \big| G_1< \gth \right]
}\notag
\\ \,\,\,
&=&\opE_{\randratio, G_2,\ldots, G_{u}\given G_1<\gth}\mathopen{}\Big[ \indfun{\randratio < 1} \notag\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\,\, \times\, \prob\mathopen{}\big[D_1\leq \randratio \big| \randratio, G_2,\ldots, G_u, G_1<\gth \big]\Big].\label{eq:ach-prob-avg-term1}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since events of measure zero do not affect~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-avg-term1}, we can assume without loss of generality that the conditional joint pdf of $Z,G_2,\ldots,G_u $ given $G_1 < \gth$ is strictly positive.
To lower-bound~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-avg-term1}, we first bound the conditional probability $\prob\mathopen{}\left[D_1\leq \randratio \big| \randratio, G_2,\ldots, G_u, G_1<\gth \right]$.
Again, let $W_{\mathrm{re}}$ denote the real part of $W_{1,1}$, and let $W_{n+1,1}\sim \jpg(0,1)$ be independent of all other random variables appearing in the definition of the $\{D_j\}$ in~\eqref{eq:def-D-j}.
Following similar steps as in~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-1}--\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-4}, we obtain for $Z<1$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\left[D_1 \leq \randratio \given \randratio, G_2 ,\ldots, G_u, G_1<\gth\right]}\notag\\
\,\,\,\,&=& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[ \frac{\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,1}|^2 }{\big|\sqrt{\bl G_1} + W_{1,1} \big|^2 + \sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,1}|^2}
\leq \randratio \Bigg| \notag\\
&&
\hfill \randratio, G_2, \ldots,G_u, G_1<\gth \Bigg]\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\left|\sqrt{\bl G_1} + W_{1,1}\right|^2 \geq \big(\randratio^{-1}-1\big)\sum\limits_{i=2}^{\bl} |W_{i,1}|^2 \Bigg| \notag\\
&& \hfill \randratio, G_2, \ldots, G_u, G_1<\gth \Bigg]\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
& \geq & \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[ \Big|\sqrt{\bl G_1} + W_{\mathrm{re}} \Big|^2 \geq \big(\randratio^{-1}-1\big)\sum\limits_{i=2}^{\bl+1} |W_{i,1}|^2 \Bigg|\notag\\
&& \hfill \randratio, G_2, \ldots, G_u, G_1<\gth \Bigg] \label{eq:ach-cond-prob1-2}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
& \geq &\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\sqrt{\bl G_1} \geq - W_{\mathrm{re}} +\sqrt{\randratio^{-1}-1}\sqrt{\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl+1} |W_{i,1}|^2} \Bigg| \quad \notag\\
&&\hfill \randratio, G_2,\ldots, G_u, G_1<\gth \Bigg].\label{eq:ach-cond-prob1} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Next, we lower-bound the RHS of~\eqref{eq:ach-cond-prob1} using Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi} in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_averaging_over_channel}.
Let $\mu_{W}$ and $\sigma_{W}^2$ be the mean and the variance of the random variable $\sqrt{\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl+1} |W_{i,1}|^2}$.
Let $\randratiotwo\define \sqrt{ \randratio^{-1}-1}$.
Furthermore, let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
K_1 \define \frac{1}{\sqrt{1/2+ \randratiotwo^2\sigma_W^2}} \Bigg(\!\!-W_{\mathrm{re}} + \randratiotwo\sqrt{\sum\limits_{i=2}^{\bl+1} |W_{i,1}|^2} -\mu_W \randratiotwo \!\Bigg)\notag\\
&& \label{eq:def-K1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\overline{G}_1\define \frac{1}{\sqrt{1/2+\randratiotwo^2\sigma_W^2}} \left(\sqrt{G_1} - \frac{ \mu_W}{\sqrt{\bl} }\randratiotwo\right).
\label{eq:def-overlineG-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that $K_1$ is a zero-mean, unit-variance random variable that is conditionally independent of~$\overline{G}_1$ given $Z_2$.
Using these definitions, we can rewrite the RHS of~\eqref{eq:ach-cond-prob1} as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[ \overline{G}_1 \geq K_1 /\sqrt{\bl} \Big| \randratiotwo, G_2,\ldots, G_u, G_1<\gth \right].
\label{eq:ach-prob-equivent-form-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In order to use Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi}, we need to establish an upper bound on the conditional pdf of ${\overline{G}_1}$ given $\randratiotwo, G_2,\ldots, G_u$ and $G_1<\gth $, which we denote by $\condpdfbarG$, and on its derivative.
As $f_{G_1,\ldots,G_u}$ is continuously differentiable by assumption, $f_{G_1,\ldots,G_u}$ and its partial derivatives are bounded on bounded sets.
Together with the assumption that $\prob[G_1 \geq \gth] <1$, this implies that the conditional pdf $f_{G_1,\ldots,G_u \given G_1<\gth }$ of $G_1,\ldots,G_u$ given $G_1<\gth$ and its partial derivatives are all bounded on $[0,\gth)^{u}$. Namely, for every $\{x_1,\dots,x_u\} \in [0,\gth)^u$ and every $i\in\{1,\ldots,u\}$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
f_{G_1,\ldots,G_u\given G_1<\gth }(x_1,\ldots,x_u) &\leq& \constrm \label{eq:app-bound-pdf-G1}\\
\left|\frac{\partial f_{G_1,\ldots,G_u\given G_1<\gth }(x_1,\ldots,x_u)}{\partial x_i}\right| &\leq& \constrm \label{eq:app-bound-pdf-G1-d}. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let $\condpdfG$ be the conditional pdf of $G_1$ given $G_2,\ldots,G_u$ and $G_1<\gth $, and let $f_{G_2,\ldots, G_u \given G_1<\gth}$ be the conditional pdf of $G_2,\ldots,G_u$ given $G_1<\gth$.
Then, $\condpdfbarG$ can be bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\condpdfbarG(x\given \ratiotwo, g_2\ldots,g_u)}\notag\\
&=& 2 \condpdfG\mathopen{}\bigg(\Big(\sqrt{1/2+ z_2^2\sigma^2_{W}} x + \ratiotwo\mu_{W}/\sqrt{\bl}\Big)^2\bigg| g_2,\ldots,g_u\! \bigg)
\notag\\%\label{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG00}\\
&&\times \, \sqrt{1/2+ \ratiotwo^2\sigma^2_{W}} \left(\sqrt{1/2 + \ratiotwo^2\sigma^2_{W}} x + \ratiotwo\mu_{W}/\sqrt{\bl}\right)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace \label{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG1}\\
&\leq & \frac{\constrm \cdot \sqrt{\gth} \sqrt{1/2+ \sigma^2_{W}\ratiotwo^2} }{f_{G_2,\ldots, G_u \given G_1<\gth}(g_2,\ldots,g_u)}\label{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG2}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, \eqref{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG1} follows from \eqref{eq:def-overlineG-1}, and \eqref{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG2} follows from~\eqref{eq:app-bound-pdf-G1} and because
we condition on the event that $G_1 < \gth$, so
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sqrt{1/2 + \ratiotwo^2\sigma^2_{W}} x + \ratiotwo\mu_{W}/\sqrt{\bl} \leq \sqrt{\gth}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To further upper-bound~\eqref{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG2}, we shall use that $\sigma_W$ and~$\randratiotwo$ are bounded:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sigma_W^2 &=& \bl - \left(\frac{\Gamma(\bl+1/2)}{\Gamma(\bl)}\right)^2\label{eq:app-bound-sigma_W-1}\\
& \leq& 1/4\label{eq:app-bound-sigma_W-3}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\randratiotwo^2 &=& \randratio^{-1} -1 \\
&\leq& 1/\argpn-1 \label{eq:app-bound-arpgn-2-1}\\
&\leq& (\argpn_0-\delta)^{-1}-1. \label{eq:app-bound-arpgn-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:app-bound-sigma_W-1} follows by using that $\sqrt{2\sum\nolimits_{i=2}^{\bl+1} |W_{i,1}|^2}$ is $\chi$-distributed with $2\bl$ degrees of freedom and by using~\cite[Eq.~(18.14)]{johnson95-1};~\eqref{eq:app-bound-sigma_W-3} follows from~\cite[Sec.~2.2]{qi12-02};~\eqref{eq:app-bound-arpgn-2-1} follows from the definition of $Z$ and because $\prod_{j=2}^{u}D_j \leq 1$. Substituting~\eqref{eq:app-bound-sigma_W-3} and~\eqref{eq:app-bound-arpgn-2} into~\eqref{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG2}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\condpdfbarG (x\given \ratiotwo, g_2\ldots,g_u) &\leq& \frac{\constrm}{f_{G_2,\ldots, G_u\given G_1<\gth}(g_2,\ldots,g_u)}. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG3}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Following similar steps, we can also establish that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}
\left| \condpdfbarG'(x \given \ratiotwo, g_2\ldots,g_u)\right|\leq\frac{\constrm}{f_{G_2,\ldots, G_u\given G_1<\gth}(g_2,\ldots,g_u)}. \notag\\
\label{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using~\eqref{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG3}--\eqref{eq:app-bound-pdf-barG-2} and Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi}, we obtain that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\left[ \overline{G}_1 \geq K_1 /\sqrt{\bl} \Big| \randratiotwo ,G_2=g_2, \ldots, G_u=g_u, G_1<\gth\right] } \notag\\
\quad &\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\left[ \overline{G}_1 \geq 0 \Big| \randratiotwo ,G_2=g_2, \ldots, G_u=g_u,G_1<\gth\right] \notag\\
&&- \, \frac{\constrm}{\bl}\left(1 + \frac{1}{f_{G_2,\ldots, G_u\given G_1<\gth}(g_2,\ldots,g_u)}\right) \label{eq:ach-nocsit-bdd-G1-2}. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Returning to the analysis of~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-avg-term1}, we combine \eqref{eq:ach-cond-prob1},~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-equivent-form-1} and~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-bdd-G1-2} to obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\left[ D_1 \leq \randratio, \, \randratio<1 \big| G_1< \gth \right] }\notag\\
&\geq & \opE_{\randratio, G_2,\ldots,G_u \given G_1 < \gth}\Bigg[ \indfun{\randratio< 1} \notag\\
&&\times \Bigg(\prob\mathopen{}\Big[ \overline{G}_1 \geq 0 \Big| \randratio, G_2,\ldots,G_u,G_1<\gth\Big] \notag\\
&&- \, \frac{\constrm}{\bl}\bigg(1 + \frac{1}{f_{G_2,\ldots, G_u\given G_1<\gth}(G_2,\ldots,G_u)}\bigg)\!\Bigg)\Bigg] \label{eq:ach-prob-avg-term2-step1}\\
&\geq & \prob\mathopen{}\left[\frac{1}{1+ \bl G_1/\mu_W^2 } \leq \randratio, \randratio<1 \bigg| G_1<\gth \right]- \frac{\constrm}{\bl} \notag\\
&&\times \Biggl(1 + \!\! \int_{0}^{\gth} \!\!\cdots\!\!\int_{0}^{\gth}\!\frac{ f_{G_2,\ldots,G_{u}\given G_1<\gth }(g_2,\ldots,g_{u})}{ f_{G_2,\ldots, G_{u} \given G_1<\gth }(g_2,\ldots,g_{u})} dg_2 \cdots dg_{u}\!\Biggr) \notag\\
&&\label{eq:ach-prob-avg-term2-step2}\\
&\geq & \prob\mathopen{}\left[\frac{1}{1+ G_1 } \leq\randratio, \randratio<1 \bigg| G_1<\gth\right] -\frac{\constrm}{\bl}\label{eq:ach-prob-avg-term2}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, in~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-avg-term2-step2} we used~\eqref{eq:def-overlineG-1}, that $\indfun{\randratio< 1} \leq 1$, that $G_1,\ldots,G_{u}$ are nonincreasing, and that $\constrm$ in~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-avg-term2-step1} is positive;~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-avg-term2} follows because~\cite[Eq.~(18.14)]{johnson95-1}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mu_W =\frac{\Gamma(\bl+1/2)}{\Gamma(\bl)} \leq \sqrt{\bl}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and because the integral on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-avg-term2-step2} is bounded.
Substituting (\ref{eq:ach-prob-avg-term2}) into \eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
p_2 &\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\randratio \geq 1 \given G_1<\gth\right] \notag\\
&& +\, \prob\mathopen{}\left[ \frac{1}{1+G_1} \leq \randratio, \randratio<1 \bigg| G_1<\gth\right]-\frac{\constrm}{\bl}\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\frac{1}{1+G_1} \leq \randratio, \randratio \geq 1 \bigg| G_1<\gth\right]
\notag\\
&& +\, \prob\mathopen{}\left[\frac{1}{1+G_1} \leq \randratio, \randratio<1 \bigg| G_1<\gth\right] -\frac{\constrm}{\bl} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace \label{eq:ach-p2-final-prob-2}\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\frac{1}{1+G_1} \leq \randratio \bigg| G_1<\gth \right] -\frac{\constrm}{\bl}\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\frac{1}{1 + G_1}\prod\limits_{j=2}^{u} D_j \leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1< \gth \Bigg] -\frac{\constrm}{\bl}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:ach-p2-final-prob-2} follows because $1/(1+G_1) \leq 1$ with probability one. This proves~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod-first-term-ol}.
\subsubsection{Proof of~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-prod-tj-1-ol}}
\label{app:item-end-step}
Set $p_0\define \prob[G_1\geq \gth]$. Substituting~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-p1-4-ol} and~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsit-lb-prod-all-term} into~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-prod-leq-gamma-1}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{\prob \mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} D_j \leq \argpn\Bigg]}\notag\\
\,\,& \geq & p_0 + (1-p_0) \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} \frac{1}{1 + G_j}\leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1< \gth\Bigg] - \frac{\constrm}{\bl}\notag \\
&&\\
&=& \underbrace{\prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u}\frac{1}{1+G_j} \leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1\geq \gth \Bigg]}_{=1} p_0
\notag\\
&& +\,(1-p_0) \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} \frac{1}{1 + G_j}\leq \argpn \Bigg| G_1< \gth\Bigg]
- \frac{\constrm}{\bl} \label{eq:ach-lb-prod-tj-1-0} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\Bigg[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{u} \frac{1}{1+G_j} \leq \argpn \bigg] - \frac{\constrm}{\bl} .\label{eq:ach-lb-prod-tj-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The first factor in~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-prod-tj-1-0} is equal to one because of~\eqref{eq:exception-case}. This proves~\eqref{eq:ach-lb-prod-tj-1-ol} and concludes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:prob-prod-cdf}.
\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:continuous} (Existence of Optimal Covariance Matrix)}
\label{app:proof-prop-continuous}
Since the set~$\setU_{\txant}$ is compact, by the extreme value theorem~\cite[p.~34]{munkres91-a}, it is sufficient to show
that, under the assumptions in the proposition, the function
$\matQ \mapsto \prob\mathopen{}\left[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH\right)\leq \argpn\right]$
is continuous in $\matQ\in\setU_{\txant}$ with respect to the metric $d(\matA,\matB) =\fnorm{\matA-\matB}$.
Consider an arbitrary sequence $\{\matQ_{l}\}$ in $\setU_{\txant}$ that converges to~$\matQ$.
Then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ_l\matH)}\notag\\
&=& \det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH + \herm{\matH}(\matQ_l - \matQ)\matH)\\
&=& \det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH) \notag\\
&& \times \det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}(\matQ_l-\matQ)\matH (\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH)^{-1} \right)\\
&\leq& \det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH)\notag\\
&&\times \Big(1 + \fnorm{ \herm{\matH}(\matQ_l-\matQ)\matH (\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH)^{-1}}\Big)^\rxant \label{eq:bound-ratio-det00}\\
&\leq & \det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH) \notag\\
&&\times \Big(1 + \fnorm{\matQ_l-\matQ} \fnorm{\matH}^2 \fnorm{(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH)^{-1}}\Big)^\rxant \IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:bound-ratio-det01}\\
&\leq &\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH) \Big(1+ \fnorm{\matQ_l-\matQ} \fnorm{\matH}^2\sqrt{\rxant}\Big)^\rxant.\label{eq:bound-ratio-det1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:bound-ratio-det00} follows from Hadamard's inequality;~\eqref{eq:bound-ratio-det01} follows from the sub-multiplicative property of the Frobenius norm, namely, $\fnorm{\matA\matB}\leq \fnorm{\matA} \fnorm{\matB}$;~\eqref{eq:bound-ratio-det1} follows because $\fnorm{(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH)^{-1}} \leq \fnorm{\matI_{\rxant}} =\sqrt{\rxant}$.
Similarly, by replacing $\matQ_l$ with $\matQ$ in the above steps, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH) }\notag\\
\quad &\leq& \det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ_l\matH) (1+ \fnorm{\matQ_l-\matQ} \fnorm{\matH}^2\sqrt{\rxant})^\rxant.\label{eq:bound-ratio-det2} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The inequalities~\eqref{eq:bound-ratio-det1} and~\eqref{eq:bound-ratio-det2} imply that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{\big| \log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ_l\matH) - \log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH) \big| }\notag\\
\quad &\leq & \rxant \log (1+ \fnorm{\matQ_l-\matQ} \fnorm{\matH}^2\sqrt{\rxant})\\
&\leq& \rxant^{3/2} \fnorm{\matQ_l-\matQ} \fnorm{\matH}^2.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Hence, for every $c>0$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\Big[\big|\log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ_l\randmatH) -\log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH)\big|\geq c \Big] }\notag\\
\quad &\leq & \prob\mathopen{}\left[ \fnorm{\randmatH}^2 \geq \frac{c}{\rxant^{3/2}} \frac{1}{\fnorm{\matQ_l-\matQ}}\right]\\
& \leq& \Ex{}{\fnorm{\randmatH}^2} \cdot \fnorm{\matQ_l-\matQ} \frac{\rxant^{3/2}}{c} \label{eq:convergence-prob-logdet1}\\
&\to& 0, \quad\quad\text{as } \matQ_l\to \matQ\label{eq:convergence-prob-logdet}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:convergence-prob-logdet1} follows from Markov's inequality and~\eqref{eq:convergence-prob-logdet} follows because, by assumption, $\Ex{}{\fnorm{\randmatH}^2} <\infty$.
Thus, the sequence of random variables $\{\log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ_l\randmatH) \}$ converges in probability to $\log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH)$.
Since convergence in probability implies convergence in distribution, we conclude that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ_l\randmatH\right)\leq \argpn\right] }\notag\\
\quad &\to & \prob\mathopen{}\left[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH\right)\leq \argpn\right] \text{ as } \matQ_l\to \matQ
\label{eq:convergence-logdet-l}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for every $\argpn\in \realset$ for which the cdf of $\log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH)$ is continuous~\cite[p.~308]{grimmett01}.
%
However, the cdf of $\log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\randmatH}\matQ\randmatH)$ is continuous for every $\argpn \in \realset$ since the distribution of $\randmatH$ is, by assumption, absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure and the function $\matH \mapsto \log\det(\matI_\rxant + \herm{\matH}\matQ\matH)$ is continuous.
Consequently,~\eqref{eq:convergence-logdet-l} holds for every $\argpn\in \realset$, thus proving Proposition~\ref{prop:continuous}.
\setcounter{subsubsection}{0}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csir} (CSIR Converse Bound)}
\label{app:proof-converse-cisr}
For the CSIR case, the input of the channel~\eqref{eq:channel_io} is $\matX$ and the output is the pair $(\randmatY,\randmatH)$.
An $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\mathrm{e}}$ code is defined in a similar way as the $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\csir}$ code in Definition~\ref{def:csir-code}, except that each codeword satisfies the power constraint~\eqref{eq:peak-power-constraint} with equality, i.e., each codeword belongs to the set
\begin{equation}
\setF_{\bl, \txant} \define \{\matX \in \complexset^{\bl\times \txant} : \fnorm{\matX}^2 =\bl\snr \}.
\end{equation}
Denote by $R_{\mathrm{e}}^\ast(\bl,\error)$ the maximal achievable rate with an $(\bl,\NumCode,\error)_{\mathrm{e}}$ code.
Then by~\cite[Sec.~XIII]{shannon59} (see also~\cite[Lem.~39]{polyanskiy10-05},
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:relate-R-Re}
\Rcsir^{\ast}(\bl-1,\error) \leq \frac{\bl}{\bl-1} R_{\mathrm{e}}^\ast(\bl,\error).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We next establish an upper bound on $R_{\mathrm{e}}^\ast(\bl,\error)$.
Consider an arbitrary $(\NumCode,\bl,\epsilon)_{\mathrm{e}}$ code.
To each codeword $\matX\in \setF_{\bl, \txant}$, we associate a matrix $\covmat(\matX) \in \complexset^{\txant\times\txant}$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:def-u-mimo-csir}
\covmat(\matX) \define \frac{1}{\bl}\herm{\matX}\matX.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To upper-bound $R_{\mathrm{e}}^\ast(\bl,\error)$, we use the meta-converse theorem~\cite[Th.~30]{polyanskiy10-05}.
As \emph{auxiliary} channel $\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX}$, we take
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:def-q-channel-mimo}
\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX}=\indist_{\randmatH}\times \outdist_{\randmatY\given \randmatX\randmatH}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:def-q-channel-mimo-cond}
\outdist_{\randmatY\given \randmatX = \matX,\randmatH=\matH} = \prod\limits_{i=1}^{\bl} \outdist_{\randvecy_i \given \randmatX = \matX,\randmatH=\matH
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
with $\randvecy_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$ denoting the rows of $\randmatY$, and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}\label{eq:def_pdf_rows_Y}
\outdist_{\randvecy_i \given \randmatX = \matX,\randmatH=\matH} =\jpg\mathopen{}\left(\mathbf{0} , \matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\matH} \covmat(\matX) \matH\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
By~\cite[Th.~30]{polyanskiy10-05}, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\inf\limits_{\matX\in \setF_{\bl, \txant}} \beta_{1-\error}\mathopen{}\left(\indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX}, \outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX}\right)\leq 1-\error'
\label{eq:def-beta-X0}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\error'$ is the \textit{maximal probability of error} of the optimal code with $\NumCode$ codewords over the auxiliary channel~(\ref{eq:def-q-channel-mimo}).
To shorten notation, we define
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\beta_{1-\error}^\bl(\matX) \define \beta_{1-\error}\mathopen{}\left(\indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX}, \outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To prove the theorem, we proceed as in Appendix~\ref{app:proof-converse-cisrt}: we first evaluate $\beta^\bl_{1-\error}(\matX)$, then we relate $\error'$ to $R_{\mathrm{e}}^\ast(\bl,\error)$ by establishing a converse bound on the channel $\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX}$.
\subsubsection{Evaluation of $\beta_{1-\error}(\matX)$}
\label{sec:lower-bound-beta-csir}
Let $\matG$ be an arbitrary $\bl\times\bl$ unitary matrix. Let $g_{\mathrm{i}}: \setF_{\bl, \txant} \mapsto \setF_{\bl, \txant}$ and $g_{\mathrm{o}}: \complexset^{\bl\times\rxant}\times\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant} \mapsto \complexset^{\bl\times\rxant}\times\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant}$ be two mappings defined as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
g_{\mathrm{i}}(\matX) \define \matG\matX \quad\text{and}\quad g_{\mathrm{o}}(\matY,\matH) \define (\matG\matY, \matH).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given\randmatX}(g_{\mathrm{o}}^{-1}(\setE) \given g_{\mathrm{i}}(\matX)) = \indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given\randmatX}(\setE\given \matX)
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for all measurable sets $\setE \subset \complexset^{\bl\times\rxant}\times\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant}$ and $\matX\in\setF_{\bl, \txant}$, i.e., the pair $(g_{\mathrm{i}},g_{\mathrm{o}})$ is a symmetry~\cite[Def.~3]{polyanskiy13} of $\indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given\randmatX}$.
Furthermore, \eqref{eq:def-q-channel-mimo-cond} and~\eqref{eq:def_pdf_rows_Y} imply that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given\randmatX=\matX} = \outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given\randmatX=g_{\mathrm{i}}(\matX)}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and that $\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given\randmatX=\matX}$ is invariant under $g_{\mathrm{o}}$ for all $\matX\in\insetMIMO$.
Hence, by~\cite[Prop.~19]{polyanskiy13}, we have that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\beta_{1-\error}^{\bl} (\matX) = \beta_{1-\error}^{\bl} (g_{\mathrm{i}}(\matX)) = \beta_{1-\error}^{\bl} (\matG\matX).
\label{eq:beta-rotation-invariant}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since $\matG$ is arbitrary, this implies that $\beta_{1-\error}^{\bl} (\matX)$ depends on $\matX$ only through $\matU(\matX)$.
Consider the QR decomposition~\cite[p.~113]{horn85a} of~$\matX$
\begin{equation}
\matX=\matV\matX_0
\label{eq:qr-x}
\end{equation}
where $\matV\in \complexset^{\bl\times\bl}$ is unitary and $\matX_0 \in \complexset^{\bl\times\txant}$ is upper triangular.
By~\eqref{eq:beta-rotation-invariant} and~\eqref{eq:qr-x},
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\beta_{1-\error}^\bl(\matX_0) =\beta_{1-\error}^\bl(\matX).
\label{eq:same-beta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
r(\matX_0;\randmatY\randmatH ) \define \log \frac{d\indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX_0}}{d\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX_0}}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Under both $\indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX_0}$ and $\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX_0}$, the random variable $r(\matX_0;\randmatY\randmatH )$ has absolutely continuous cdf with respect to the Lebesgue measure. By the Neyman-Pearson lemma~\cite[p.~300]{neyman33a}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:neyman_pearson_one-csir}
\beta_{1-\error}^{\bl}( \matX_0) =\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX_0}\bigl[r(\matX_0;\randmatY\randmatH ) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\matX_0) \bigr]
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\gamma_{\bl}(\matX_0)$ is the solution of
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX = \matX_0} \bigl[r(\matX_0;\randmatY\randmatH ) \leq \bl \gamma_{\bl}(\matX_0)\bigr]=\error.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
It can be shown that under $\indist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX =\matX_0}$, the random variable $r(\matX_0; \randmatY \randmatH)$ has the same distribution as $\Scsir_\bl(\matU(\matX_0))$ in~\eqref{eq:info_density_mimo_csir}, and under $\outdist_{\randmatY\randmatH\given \randmatX =\matX_0}$, it has the same distribution as $\Lcsir_\bl(\covmat(\matX_0))$ in~\eqref{eq:info_density_mimo_alt_csir}.
\subsubsection{Converse on the auxiliary channel}
\label{sec:converse-Q-channel}
To prove the theorem, it remains to lower-bound $\error'$, which is the maximal probability of error over the auxiliary channel~\eqref{eq:def-q-channel-mimo}.
The following lemma serves this purpose.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:converse-q-channel}
For every code with $\NumCode$ codewords and blocklength $\bl\geq \rxant$, the maximum probability of error $\error'$ over the auxiliary channel \eqref{eq:def-q-channel-mimo} satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1-\error'\leq \frac{c_{\csir}(\bl)}{\NumCode}
\label{eq:converse-q}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $c_{\csir}(\bl)$ is given in~\eqref{eq:def-crn}.
\end{lemma}
Substituting~\eqref{eq:neyman_pearson_one-csir} into~\eqref{eq:def-beta-X0} and using~\eqref{eq:converse-q}, we then obtain upon minimizing~\eqref{eq:neyman_pearson_one-csir} over all matrices in $ \insetcove$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
R_{\mathrm{e}}^*(\bl,\error ) \leq \frac{1}{\bl} \frac{c_{\csir}(\bl)}{\inf\limits_{\matQ \in \insetcove} \prob[\Lcsir_\bl(\matQ) \geq \bl \gamma_{\bl}]}.
\label{eq:ineq-Re-n}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The final bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsir} follows by combining~\eqref{eq:ineq-Re-n} with~\eqref{eq:relate-R-Re} and by noting that the upper bound does not depend on the chosen code.
\paragraph*{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:converse-q-channel}}
According to \eqref{eq:def_pdf_rows_Y}, given $\randmatH =\matH$, the output of the auxiliary channel depends on~$\matX$ only through $\covmat(\matX)$.
In the following, we shall omit the argument of $\covmat(\matX)$ where it is immaterial.
Let $\randcmY \define \covmat(\randmatY)$.
Then, $(\randcmY,\randmatH)$ is a sufficient statistic for the detection of $\matX$ from $(\randmatY,\randmatH)$.
Therefore, to establish~\eqref{eq:converse-q}, it is sufficient to lower-bound the
maximal probability of error~$\error'$ over the equivalent auxiliary channel
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
{\outdist}_{\randcmY\randmatH\given\randmatU} = \indist_{\randmatH}\times {\outdist}_{\randcmY\given\randmatU,\randmatH}
\label{eq:app-q-dist-eqv-tot}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where ${\outdist}_{\randcmY\given\randmatU =\matU,\randmatH=\matH}$ is the Wishart distribution~\cite[Def.~2.3]{tulino04a}:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
{\outdist}_{\randcmY\given\randmatU =\matU,\randmatH=\matH} = \mathcal{W}_\rxant\mathopen{}\left(\bl,\frac{1}{\bl}(\matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\matH}\covmat\matH)\right).
\label{eq:app-q-dist-eqv}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let $\matB\define \matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\matH}\covmat\matH$, and let $q_{\randcmY\given\randmatB}(\covmatY\given \matB)$ be
the pdf associated with~\eqref{eq:app-q-dist-eqv}, i.e.,~\cite[Def.~2.3]{tulino04a}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
{q}_{\randcmY\given \randmatB}(\covmatY\given \matB)
&=& \frac{\det\covmatY^{\bl-\rxant}}{\Gamma_{\rxant}(\bl)\det\bigl(\frac{1}{\bl}\matB\bigr)^\bl} \exp\mathopen{}\left(\!-\mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\Big(\!\big(\bl^{-1}\matB\big)^{-1}\covmatY\Big)\!\right).\notag\\ && \label{eq:density-wishart}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
It will be convenient to express ${q}_{\randcmY\given \randmatB}(\covmatY\given \matB)$ in the coordinate system of the eigenvalue decomposition
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:change-variable-eigend}
\randcmY = \randmatQ\randmatD \herm{\randmatQ}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\randmatQ\in\complexset^{\rxant\times\rxant}$ is unitary, and $\randmatD$ is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements $D_1,\ldots,D_\rxant$ are the eigenvalues of $\randcmY$ in descending order. In order to make the eigenvalue decomposition~\eqref{eq:change-variable-eigend} unique, we assume that the first row of $\randmatQ$ is real and non-negative. Thus, $\randmatQ$ only lies in a \emph{submanifold} $\widetilde{\setS}_{\rxant,\rxant}$ of the Stiefel manifold~$\setS_{\rxant,\rxant}$.
Using \eqref{eq:change-variable-eigend}, we rewrite~\eqref{eq:density-wishart} as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
q_{\randmatQ,\randmatD \given \randmatB}(\matQ, \matD \given \matB)
&=& \frac{\bl^{\rxant \bl} \exp\mathopen{}\left(-\bl \cdot\mathrm{tr}(\matB^{-1}\matQ\matD \herm{\matQ})\right)}{ \Gamma_{\rxant}(\bl)\det\matB^\bl}\notag\\
&& \times \det\matD^{\bl-\rxant} \prod\limits_{i<j}^{\rxant}(d_i-d_j)^2\label{eq:density-eigend}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where in~\eqref{eq:density-eigend} we used the fact\ that the Jacobian of the eigenvalue decomposition~\eqref{eq:change-variable-eigend} is $\prod\nolimits_{i<j}^{\rxant}(d_i-d_j)^2$ (see~\cite[Th.~3.1]{edelman89-05a}).
We next establish an upper bound on~\eqref{eq:density-eigend} that is integrable and does not depend on~$\matB$.
To this end, we will bound each of the factors on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:density-eigend}.
To bound the argument of the exponential function, we apply the trace inequality~\cite[Th.~20.A.4]{marshall79}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathrm{tr}(\matB^{-1}\matQ\matD \herm{\matQ}) \geq \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\rxant}\frac{d_i}{b_i}
\label{eq:bound-trace-exp}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for every unitary matrix $\matQ$, where $b_1\geq \ldots\geq b_\rxant$ are the ordered eigenvalues of $\matB$.
Using~\eqref{eq:bound-trace-exp} in~\eqref{eq:density-eigend} and further upper-bounding the terms $(d_i-d_j)^2$ in~\eqref{eq:density-eigend} with $d_i^2$, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
q_{\randmatQ \randmatD\given \randmatB}(\matQ, \matD\given \matB)
&\leq&\frac{\bl^{\rxant\bl}}{\Gamma_{\rxant}(\bl)}\prod\limits_{i=1}^{\rxant} \Bigg\{ \frac{d_i^{\bl+\rxant-2i}}{b_i^{\bl}}\exp\mathopen{}\left(-\bl\frac{d_i}{b_i}\right) \Bigg\}.\notag\\
&& \label{eq:density-eigend-ub1} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since $\matB =\matI_\rxant +\herm{\matH} \covmat\matH$, we have that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1\leq b_i &\leq& 1+\mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\left(\herm{\matH} \covmat\matH\right)\\
&\leq &1 + \fnorm{\matH}^{2}\mathrm{tr}\left( \covmat\right)\label{eq:upper-bd-eigenvalue-snr2}\\
&= & 1 + \fnorm{\matH}^{2}\snr \define \ubb \label{eq:upper-bd-eigenvalue-snr3}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:upper-bd-eigenvalue-snr2} follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and \eqref{eq:upper-bd-eigenvalue-snr3} follows because $\matU \in \insetcove$.
Using~\eqref{eq:upper-bd-eigenvalue-snr3}, we can upper-bound each factor on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:density-eigend-ub1} as follows:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\frac{d_i^{\bl+\rxant-2i}}{b_i^{\bl}}\exp\mathopen{}\left(-\bl\frac{d_i}{b_i}\right)
}\notag\\
&\leq& g_i(d_i)\define \left\{\!\!
\begin{array}{l}
\!\!\left(\dfrac{\bl+\rxant-2i}{\bl}\right)^{\bl+\rxant -2i}b_0^{[\rxant-2i]^{+}} e^{-(\bl+\rxant -2i)},\\
\hfill \hbox{if $d_i \leq \frac{\ubb(\bl+\rxant-2i)}{\bl}$} \quad \\
\!\!\left(\dfrac{ d_i}{\ubb}\right)^{\bl + \rxant-2i} b_0^{[\rxant -2i]^{+}} e^{-\bl d_i/ \ubb},\\
\hfill \hbox{if $d_i > \frac{\ubb(\bl+\rxant-2i)}{\bl}$.}\quad
\end{array}
\right. \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\label{eq:density-eigend-ub2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We are now ready to establish the desired converse result for the auxiliary channel~$Q$.
%
Consider an arbitrary code for the auxiliary channel~$Q$ with encoding function $\encoder_0:\{1,\ldots,\NumCode\} \mapsto\insetcove$.
%
Let $\setD_j(\matH)$ be the decoding set for the $j$th codeword $\encoder_0(j)$ in the eigenvalue decomposition coordinate such that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\bigcup\limits_{j=1}^{\NumCode} \setD_j(\matH) = \widetilde{\setS}_{\rxant,\rxant}\times \realset^{\rxant}_{ \geq }\label{eq:union-decoding-set}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let $\error'_{\mathrm{avg}}$ denote the average probability of error over the auxiliary channel.
%
Then,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
1-\error'}\notag\\
&\leq& 1-\error'_{\mathrm{avg}} \\
&=&\frac{1}{\NumCode}\Ex{\randmatH}{ \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\NumCode} \int\nolimits_{\setD_j(\randmatH)} \!\!q_{\randmatQ,\randmatD \given \randmatB =\matI_r+\herm{\randmatH}\encoder_0(j)\randmatH}(\matQ, \matD)d\matQ d\matD }\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:converse-q-step1}\\
&\leq&\frac{\bl^{\rxant\bl}}{\Gamma_{\rxant}(\bl) \NumCode} \Ex{\randmatH}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\NumCode} \int\nolimits_{\setD_j(\randmatH)}\prod\limits_{i=1}^{\rxant} g_i(d_i) d\matQ d\matD} \label{eq:converse-q-step2}\\
&=& \frac{\bl^{\rxant\bl}}{\Gamma_{\rxant}(\bl) \NumCode} \Ex{\randmatH}{\int\nolimits_{ \widetilde{\setS}_{\rxant,\rxant}\times \realset^{\rxant}_{\geq } }\prod\limits_{i=1}^{\rxant} g_i(d_i) d\matQ d\matD} \label{eq:converse-q-step3}\\
& \leq & \frac{\pi^{\rxant(\rxant-1)}\bl^{\rxant\bl}}{\Gamma_{\rxant}(\rxant) \Gamma_{\rxant}(\bl) \NumCode} \Ex{\randmatH}{ \prod\limits_{i=1}^{\rxant}\int\nolimits_{\posrealset} g_i(x_i) d x_i} \label{eq:converse-q-step4}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:converse-q-step2} follows from~\eqref{eq:density-eigend-ub1} and~\eqref{eq:density-eigend-ub2}; \eqref{eq:converse-q-step3} follows from~\eqref{eq:union-decoding-set}; \eqref{eq:converse-q-step4} holds because the integrand does not depend on $\matQ$, because $\realset^{\rxant}_{\geq }\subset \realset^{\rxant}_{+}$
and because the volume of $\widetilde{\setS}_{\rxant,\rxant}$ (with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\widetilde{\setS}_{\rxant,\rxant}$) is $\pi^{\rxant(\rxant-1)}/\Gamma_{\rxant}(\rxant) $.
After algebraic manipulations, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\int\nolimits_{\posrealset} g_i(x_i) d x_i &=&
\frac{b_0^{[\rxant-2i]^{+}+1} }{ \bl^{\bl+\rxant-2i+1} }\bigg[\Gamma(\bl+\rxant-2i+1, \bl+r-2i) \notag\\
&&+ \left(\bl+\rxant-2i\right)^{\bl+\rxant -2i+1} e^{-(\bl+\rxant -2i)} \bigg].\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\label{eq:app-converse-q-integ}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Substituting~\eqref{eq:app-converse-q-integ} into~\eqref{eq:converse-q-step4} and using~\eqref{eq:upper-bd-eigenvalue-snr3}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
1-\error'
&\leq & \frac{ c_{\csir}(\bl) }{\NumCode}.~\label{eq:app-ub-error2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Note that the RHS of~\eqref{eq:app-ub-error2} is valid for every code.
\section{Proof of the Converse Part of Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}}
\label{app:proof-zero-dispersion-nocsit-ub}
In this appendix, we prove the converse asymptotic expansion for Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}. More
precisely, we show the following:
\begin{prop}\label{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit-ub}
Let the pdf of the fading matrix $\randmatH$ satisfy the conditions in Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}.
Then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCL}
\Rcsir^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \leq \Cnocsit + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right).
\label{eq:prop-converse-nocsit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{prop}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Proceeding as in~\eqref{eq:inequality_beta-poly}--\eqref{eq:ub-rcsirt-original}, we obtain from Theorem~\ref{thm:converse-csir} that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
(\bl-1)\Rcsir^\ast(\bl-1,\error ) } \notag\\
\,\, &\le& \bl \gamma - \log\mathopen{}\Big( \inf\limits_{\matQ \in \setU_{\txant}^{\mathrm{e}}} \prob[S^{\csir}_\bl(\matQ) \leq \bl\gamma] -\error \Big) + \log c_{\csir}(\bl)\label{eq:basic-ineq-R-csir}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\gamma>0$ is arbitrary.
The third term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:basic-ineq-R-csir} is upper-bounded by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\log c_{\csir}(\bl) &\le & \frac{\rxant^2}{2} \log\bl + \log\mathopen{}\left(\Ex{}{\left(1+\snr\fnorm{\randmatH}^2\right)^{\lfloor(\rxant+1)^2/4 \rfloor} }\right) \notag\\
&&+\,\bigO(1)\label{eq:bound-c-rx-n-asy-1} \\
&=& \frac{\rxant^2}{2} \log\bl + \bigO(1).\label{eq:bound-c-rx-n-asy-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, ~\eqref{eq:bound-c-rx-n-asy-1} follows from algebraic manipulations, and~\eqref{eq:bound-c-rx-n-asy-2} follows from the assumption~\eqref{eq:cond-bdd-pdf}, which ensures that the second term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:bound-c-rx-n-asy-1} is finite.
To evaluate $\prob[S^{\csir}_\bl(\matQ) \leq \bl\gamma]$ on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:basic-ineq-R-csir}, we note that given $\randmatH = \matH$, the random variable $S^{\csir}_\bl(\matQ)$ is the sum of $\bl$ i.i.d. random variables.
Hence, using Theorem~\ref{thm:refine-be} (Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_eq:kramer_esseen_step}) and following similar steps as the ones reported in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_eq:kramer_esseen_step}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob[ S^{\csir}_\bl(\matQ) \leq \bl\gamma \given \randmatH = \matH] &\geq& q_\bl(\functQ (\matH) ) + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right) \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:conv-csir-lb-prob-s-cond}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the function $\functQ: \complexset^{\txant \times \rxant} \mapsto \realset$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\functQ (\matH) \define \frac{\gamma - \log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\matH} \matQ\matH \right)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\big(\matI_{\rxant} - (\matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\matH} \matQ\matH)^{-2}\big)}}
\label{eq:def-f-argpn-matQ}
\end{equation}
the function $q_\bl(\cdot)$ was defined in~\eqref{eq:def-q-n-y}, and the $\bigO(1/\bl)$ term is uniform in $\matQ$, $\gamma$ and $\matH$.
Let
\begin{equation}
\UgammaQ\define \functQ(\randmatH).
\end{equation}
Averaging~\eqref{eq:conv-csir-lb-prob-s-cond} over $\randmatH$, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob[ S^{\csir}_\bl(\matQ) \leq \bl\gamma]}\notag\\
\,\,&\geq& \Ex{}{ Q(-\sqrt{\bl} \UgammaQ )} \notag\\
&&-\, \Ex{}{\frac{[1-\bl U^2(\gamma, \matQ)]^{+} e^{-\bl U^2(\gamma, \matQ) /2}}{6\sqrt{\bl}}} + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right). \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:conv-csir-lb-prob-s-avg}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We proceed to lower-bound the first two terms on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:conv-csir-lb-prob-s-avg}.
To this end, we show in Lemma~\ref{lem:bound-pdf-der-pdf-csir} ahead that there exist $\delta_1\in(0,\Cnocsit)$ and $\delta>0$ such that $u\mapsto f_{\UgammaQ}(u)$, where $\pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ}$ denotes the pdf of $\UgammaQ$, is continuously differentiable on $(-\delta,\delta)$, and that $f_{\UgammaQ}(u)$ and $f_{\UgammaQ}'(u)$ are uniformly bounded for every $\gamma\in~(\Cnocsit-\delta_1, \Cnocsit+\delta_1)$, every $\matQ\in \insetcove$, and every $u\in (-\delta,\delta)$.
We then apply Lemma~\ref{lem:expectation-phi} in Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_averaging_over_channel} with $A$ being a standard normal random variable and $B=U(\gamma, \matQ) $ to lower-bound the first term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:conv-csir-lb-prob-s-avg} for every $\delta>0$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Ex{}{ Q(-\sqrt{\bl} \UgammaQ )}}\notag\\
&\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\big[\log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\randmatH} \matQ\randmatH \right) \leq \gamma\big] - \frac{1}{\bl}\frac{2}{\delta^{2}}\quad \notag\\
&& -\,\frac{1}{\bl}\Big(\frac{1}{\delta}+\frac{1}{2}\Big) \sup\limits_{u\in(-\delta,\delta)}\!\! \max\mathopen{}\left\{ \pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ} (u) , \big|\pdfgeneral'_{\UgammaQ} (u)\big|\right\} . \notag\\
&& \label{eq:bound-Q-nX-csir}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We upper-bound the second term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:conv-csir-lb-prob-s-avg} for $\bl > \delta^{-2}$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Ex{}{\frac{\big|1-\bl U^2(\gamma, \matQ)\big|^{+} e^{-\bl U^2(\gamma, \matQ) /2}}{6\sqrt{\bl}}} }\notag\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{6\sqrt{\bl}} \! \sup\limits_{u\in(-\delta,\delta)}\!\pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ} (u) \! \int\nolimits_{-1/\sqrt{\bl}}^{1/\sqrt{\bl}} \underbrace{(1-\bl t^2)e^{-\bl t^2/2}}_{\leq 1} dt\label{eq:ub-ex-1-minus-nu-2-nocsi} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace \\
&\leq & \frac{1 }{3 \bl} \sup\limits_{u\in(-\delta,\delta)} \pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ} (u) .\label{eq:ub-ex-1-minus-nu-3-nocsi}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The following lemma establishes that $f_{\UgammaQ}$ and $f'_{\UgammaQ}$ are indeed uniformly bounded.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:bound-pdf-der-pdf-csir}
Let $\randmatH$ have pdf $\pdfH$ satisfying Conditions \ref{item:th-zd-no-cond1} and~\ref{item:th-zd-no-cond2} in Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}.
Let $\functQ: \complexset^{\txant \times \rxant} \mapsto \realset$ be defined as in~\eqref{eq:def-f-argpn-matQ} and let $\UgammaQ $ with pdf $\pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ}$ denote the random variable $\functQ (\randmatH)$. Then, there exist $\delta_1\in(0,\Cnocsit)$ and $\delta>0$ such that $u\mapsto f_{\UgammaQ}(u)$ is continuously differentiable on $(-\delta,\delta)$ and that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\sup\limits_{\gamma \in( \Cnocsit-\delta_1, \Cnocsit+\delta_1) } \sup\limits_{\matQ \in \insetcove} \sup\limits_{u\in(-\delta,\delta)} \pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ} (u) &<& \infty \label{eq:lemma-bound-pdf-1} \\
\sup\limits_{\gamma \in( \Cnocsit-\delta_1, \Cnocsit+\delta_1) } \sup\limits_{\matQ \in \insetcove} \sup\limits_{u\in(-\delta,\delta)} \big|\pdfgeneral'_{\UgammaQ} (u)\big| &<& \infty.\label{eq:lemma-bound-pdf-2}\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof-boundedness-pdf-deri}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Using~\eqref{eq:bound-Q-nX-csir},~\eqref{eq:ub-ex-1-minus-nu-3-nocsi}, and Lemma~\ref{lem:bound-pdf-der-pdf-csir} in~\eqref{eq:conv-csir-lb-prob-s-avg}, and then~\eqref{eq:conv-csir-lb-prob-s-avg} and~\eqref{eq:bound-c-rx-n-asy-2} in~\eqref{eq:basic-ineq-R-csir}, we obtain for every $\gamma \in( \Cnocsit-\delta_1, \Cnocsit+\delta_1) $ that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
(\bl-1)\Rcsir^\ast(\bl-1,\error ) }\notag\\
\,\,&\leq&\bl \gamma - \log \mathopen{}\Big( \inf\limits_{\matQ \in \insetcove} \prob[ \log\det\mathopen{}\left(\matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\matH} \matQ\matH \right) \leq \gamma] -\error \quad\quad\notag\\
&& \hfill + \, \bigO\mathopen{}\left(1/\bl\right) \Big)+ \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\log\bl\right) \quad\quad\\
&=&\bl\gamma -\log \mathopen{}\big( \cdistno(\gamma)-\error + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(1/\bl\right) \big)+ \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\log\bl\right) \IEEEeqnarraynumspace \label{eq:ub-R*-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:ub-R*-2} follows from~\eqref{eq:P-out-alt-exp}.
We next set $\gamma$ so that
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\cdistno(\gamma)-\error + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(1/\bl\right) = 1/\bl.
\label{eq:choose-gamma}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In words, we choose $\gamma$ so that the argument of the logarithm in~\eqref{eq:ub-R*-2} is equal to $1/\bl$.
Since the function $(\matQ,R)\mapsto F_{\matQ}(R)$ is continuous and $\insetcove$ is compact, by the maximum theorem~\cite[Sec.~VI.3]{berge63} the function $\cdistno(R) =\inf\nolimits_{\matQ\in\insetcove} F_{\matQ}(R)$ is continuous in $R$.
This guarantees that such a~$\gamma$ indeed exists.
We next show that, for sufficiently large $\bl$, this $\gamma$ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
|\gamma - \Cnocsit| \le \bigO(1/\bl).
\label{eq:asy-exp-gamma}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This implies that, for sufficiently large $\bl$, $\gamma$ belongs to the interval $(\Cnocsit-\delta_1,\Cnocsit+\delta_1)$. We then obtain~\eqref{eq:prop-converse-nocsit} by combining~\eqref{eq:ub-R*-2} with~\eqref{eq:choose-gamma} and~\eqref{eq:asy-exp-gamma}, and dividing both sides of~\eqref{eq:ub-R*-2} by $\bl-1$.
To prove~\eqref{eq:asy-exp-gamma}, we note that by~\eqref{eq:condition-nocsit-subgradient} and the definition of $\liminf$, there exists a $\delta_2\in(0,\delta_1)$ such that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\inf\limits_{\gamma\in (\Cnocsit -\delta_2, \Cnocsit+\delta_2)}\frac{ \cdistno(\gamma) - \cdistno(\Cnocsit) }{\gamma - \Cnocsit} >0. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:rephase-cond-pos-deriv}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Substituting~\eqref{eq:rephase-cond-pos-deriv} into~\eqref{eq:choose-gamma} and using that $\cdistno(\Cnocsit) =\error$, we obtain~\eqref{eq:asy-exp-gamma}.
This concludes the proof of Proposition~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit-ub}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:bound-pdf-der-pdf-csir}}
\label{app:proof-boundedness-pdf-deri}
Throughout this section, we shall use $\constrm$ to indicate a finite constant that does not depend on any parameter of interest; its magnitude and sign may change at each occurrence.
The proof of this lemma is technical and makes use of concepts from Riemannian geometry.
Denote by $\{\setM_l\}$ the open subsets
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\setM_l \define \{ \matH \in \complexset^{\txant\times\rxant} : \fnorm{\matH} < l \}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
indexed by $l\in \use@mathgroup \M@U \symAMSb{N}$.
We shall use the following \emph{flat Riemannian} metric~\cite[pp.~13 and~165]{jost11} on $\setM_l$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\langle\matH_1, \matH_2\rangle \define \Real\mathopen{}\big\{\mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\left(\herm{\matH_1}\matH_2\right)\!\big\}.
\label{eq:Riemannian-metric}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using this metric, we define the gradient $\gradient g$ of an arbitrary function $g : \setM_l \mapsto \realset $ as in~\eqref{eq:def-gradient-Crt}.
Note that the metric~\eqref{eq:Riemannian-metric} induces a norm on the tangent space of $\setM_l$, which can be identified with the Frobenius norm.
Our proof consists of two steps.
Let $f_{l} (u)$ denote the pdf of the random variable $\UgammaQ$ conditioned on $\randmatH \in \setM_l$.
We first show that there exist $l_0 \in \integerset$, $\delta>0$, and $\delta_1\in(0,\Cnocsit)$ such that $f_{l}(u)$ and $f_{l}'(u)$ are uniformly bounded for every $\gamma \in (\Cnocsit-\delta_1, \Cnocsit+\delta_1)$, every $\matQ\in\insetcove$, every $u\in[-\delta, \delta]$, and every $l\geq l_0$.
We then show that $u \mapsto f_{\UgammaQ}(u)$ is continuously differentiable on $(-\delta,\delta)$, and that for every $u\in(-\delta,\delta)$, the sequences $\{f_{l}(u)\}$ and $\{f'_l(u)\}$ converge uniformly to $f_{\UgammaQ}(u)$ and $f'_{\UgammaQ}(u)$, respectively, i.e.,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\lim\limits_{l\to\infty} \sup\limits_{u\in(-\delta,\delta)}\mathopen{}\left|f_l(u)- f_{\UgammaQ}(u)\right| &=& 0\label{eq:convergence-f_l}\\
\lim\limits_{l\to\infty} \sup\limits_{u\in(-\delta,\delta)} \mathopen{}\left|f'_l(u) - f_{\UgammaQ}'(u)\right| &=& 0\label{eq:convergence-f_l_d}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
from which Lemma~\ref{lem:bound-pdf-der-pdf-csir} follows.
\subsubsection{Uniform Boundness of $\{\pdfgeneral_l\}$ and $\{\pdfgeneral'_l\}$}
\label{app:proof-uniform-bdd-pdfu}
To establish that $\{\pdfgeneral_l\}$ and $\{\pdfgeneral'_l\}$ are uniformly bounded, we shall need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:formula-Stokes}
Let $\setM$ be an oriented Riemannian manifold with Riemannian metric~\eqref{eq:Riemannian-metric} and let $\funct : \setM \mapsto \realset$ be a smooth function with $\mnorm{\gradient \funct } \neq 0$ on $\setM$. Let $P$ be a random variable on $\setM$ with smooth pdf~$\pdfgeneral$.
Then,
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item the pdf $\pdfgeneral_{\ast}$ of $\funct(P)$ at $u$ is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:pdf-fu}
\pdfgeneral_{\ast}(u) = \int\nolimits_{\funct^{-1}(u) } \pdfgeneral \frac{\surform }{ \mnorm{ \gradient \funct } }
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\funct^{-1}(u)$ denotes the preimage $\{x \in \setM : \funct(x) = u\}$ and $\surform$ denotes the surface area form on $\funct^{-1}(u) $, chosen so that $\surform(\gradient \funct)>0$;
\item if the pdf $f$ is compactly supported, then the derivative of~$\pdfgeneral_{\ast}$~is
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\pdfgeneral_{\ast}'(u) = \int\nolimits_{\funct^{-1}(u)} \psi_1 \frac{\surform }{ \mnorm{ \gradient \funct } }
\label{eq:pdf-fu-der}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\psi_1$ is defined implicitly via
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\psi_1 \volform = d \mathopen{}\left(\pdfgeneral \frac{\surform}{ \mnorm{\gradient \funct} } \right)
\label{eq:def-psi-1-stokes}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
with $\volform$ denoting the volume form on $\setM$ and $d(\cdot)$ being exterior differentiation~\cite[p.~256]{munkres91-a}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
To prove~\eqref{eq:pdf-fu}, we note that for arbitrary $a,b\in \realset$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\int\nolimits_{a}^{b} \pdfgeneral_{\ast}(u) du &=& \int\nolimits_{\funct^{-1}((a,b)) } \pdfgeneral \volform \label{eq:proof-pdf-f-u-1}\\
&=& \int\nolimits_{a}^{b} \left(\int\nolimits_{\funct^{-1}(u) } \pdfgeneral \frac{ \surform }{ \mnorm{\gradient \funct}} \right) du \label{eq:proof-pdf-f-u-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:proof-pdf-f-u-2} follows from the smooth coarea formula~\cite[p.~160]{chavel06}.
This implies~\eqref{eq:pdf-fu}.
To prove~\eqref{eq:pdf-fu-der}, we shall use that for an arbitrary $\delta>0$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\pdfgeneral_{\ast}(u + \delta) - \pdfgeneral_{\ast}(u) }\notag\\
\quad &=& \int\nolimits_{\funct^{-1}(u+\delta)} \pdfgeneral \frac{\surform }{ \mnorm{ \gradient \funct } } - \int\nolimits_{\funct^{-1}(u)} \pdfgeneral \frac{\surform }{ \mnorm{\gradient \funct } }\\
&=& \int\nolimits_{\funct^{-1}((u,u+\delta)) } d \mathopen{}\left( \pdfgeneral \frac{\surform }{ \mnorm{ \gradient \funct } } \right) \label{eq:use-stokes}\\
&=& \int\nolimits_{\funct^{-1}((u,u+\delta)) } \psi_1 \volform \label{eq:use-def-psi-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where in~\eqref{eq:use-stokes} we used Stoke's theorem~\cite[Th.~III.7.2]{{chavel06}}, that $\pdfgeneral$ is compactly supported, and that the restriction of the form~$\pdfgeneral \frac{\surform }{ \mnorm{ \gradient \funct } } $ to $\funct^{-1}((u,u+\delta))$ is also compactly supported;~\eqref{eq:use-def-psi-1} follows from the definition of~$\psi_1$ (see~\eqref{eq:def-psi-1-stokes}).
Equation~\eqref{eq:pdf-fu-der} follows then from similar steps as in~\eqref{eq:proof-pdf-f-u-1}--\eqref{eq:proof-pdf-f-u-2}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:formula-Stokes}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\pdfgeneral_{l}(u) = \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}(u) \cap \setM_l} \frac{\pdfgeneral_{\randmatH}}{\prob[\randmatH \in \setM_l]} \frac{ \surform}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ } }
\label{eq:formula-varphi}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\pdfgeneral'_l(u) = \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}(u) \cap \setM_l}\frac{ \psi_1}{\prob[\randmatH \in \setM_l]} \frac{ \surform}{\mnorm{\gradient \functQ} }
\label{eq:formula-varphi-d}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\psi_1$ satisfies
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\psi_1 \volform = d \mathopen{}\left(\pdfgeneral_{\randmatH} \frac{\surform}{\mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }} \right).
\label{eq:def-psi-1-stokes-real 1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since $\prob[\randmatH \in \setM_l]\to 1$ as $l\to\infty$, there exists a $l_0$ such that $\prob[\randmatH \in \setM_l] \geq 1/2$ for every $l\geq l_0$.
We next show that there exist $\delta>0$, $0<\delta_1<\Cnocsit$, such that for every $\gamma\in(\Cnocsit-\delta_1 , \Cnocsit+\delta_1)$, every $u\in(-\delta,\delta)$, every $\matQ \in \setU_{\txant}^{\mathrm{e}}$, every $\matH \in \functQ^{-1}(u) \cap \setM_l$, and every $l\geq l_0$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\pdfH(\matH) &\leq& \constrm \cdot \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3}\label{eq:bound-pdfH-1}\\
|\psi_1(\matH)| &\leq& \constrm \cdot \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3}
\label{eq:bound-psi-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
A_l(u) \define \int\nolimits_{\funct_{\argpn, \matQ}^{-1}(u) \cap \setM_l } \frac{ \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3} \, \surform}{\fnorm{\gradient \functQ}} \leq \constrm.
\label{eq:bound-area-u-0}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The uniform boundedness of~$\{\pdfgeneral_l\}$ and $\{\pdfgeneral'_l\}$ follows then by using the bounds~\eqref{eq:bound-pdfH-1}--\eqref{eq:bound-area-u-0} in~\eqref{eq:formula-varphi} and~\eqref{eq:formula-varphi-d}.
\paragraph*{Proof of~\eqref{eq:bound-pdfH-1}}
Since $\pdfH(\matH)$ is continuous by assumption, it is uniformly bounded for every $\matH\in\setM_1$. Hence,~\eqref{eq:bound-pdfH-1} holds for every $\matH\in\setM_1$.
For $\matH \notin \setM_1$, we have by~\eqref{eq:cond-bdd-pdf}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\pdfH(\matH) \leq a \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -\lfloor(1+\rxant)^2/2\rfloor -1} \leq a \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3}.\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This proves~\eqref{eq:bound-pdfH-1}.
\paragraph*{Proof of~\eqref{eq:bound-psi-1}}
The surface area form $\surform$ on $\functQ^{-1}(u) \cap \setM_l$ is given by
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\surform = \frac{\star d \functQ}{\mnorm{ \gradient \functQ}}
\label{eq:surface-form-dS}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\star$ denotes the Hodge star operator~\cite[p.~103]{jost11} induced by the metric~\eqref{eq:Riemannian-metric}.
Using~\eqref{eq:surface-form-dS} and the definition of the Hodge star operator, the RHS of \eqref{eq:def-psi-1-stokes-real 1} becomes
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{ d\mathopen{}\Bigg(\frac{\pdfH }{\mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }^2}\Bigg) \wedge \star d \functQ + \frac{\pdfH }{\mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }^2} \wedge d \star d \funct_{\argpn,\matQ} }\notag\\
\quad &=&\Bigg( \frac{\langle \gradient \pdfH,\gradient\functQ \rangle}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }^2 }
- \frac{\pdfH \langle \gradient \mnorm{\gradient \functQ }^2 , \gradient \functQ \rangle }{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }^4} \notag\\
&&\quad - \,\frac{\pdfH \cdot \Delta \functQ }{\mnorm{\gradient \functQ }^2} \Bigg) \volform\label{eq:bound-psi-1-init1-3}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\wedge$ denotes the wedge product~\cite[p.~237]{munkres91-a} and $\Delta$ denotes the Laplace operator~\cite[Eq.~(3.1.6)]{jost11}.\footnote{The Laplace operator used here and in~\cite[Eq.~(3.1.6)]{jost11} differs from the usual one on $\realset^{\bl}$, as defined in calculus, by a minus sign. See~\cite[Sec.~3.1]{jost11} for a more detailed discussion.}
From~\eqref{eq:bound-psi-1-init1-3} we get
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
|\psi_1| &=& \bigg|\frac{\langle \gradient \pdfH,\gradient\functQ \rangle}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }^2 }
- \frac{\pdfH \langle \gradient \mnorm{\gradient \functQ }^2 , \gradient \functQ \rangle }{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }^4}\notag\\
&&\,\,\,-\, \frac{\pdfH \cdot \Delta \functQ }{\mnorm{\gradient \functQ }^2} \bigg|\\
&\leq & \frac{\fnorm{\gradient\pdfH}}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ } } + \frac{\pdfH \fnorm{ \gradient \mnorm{\gradient \functQ }^2}}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }^3}
+\frac{\pdfH \cdot |\Delta \functQ| }{\mnorm{\gradient \functQ }^2}\notag\\
&&\label{eq:bound-psi-1-start}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where the last step follows from the triangle inequality and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
We proceed to lower-bound $\mnorm{\gradient \functQ }$.
Using the definition of the gradient~\eqref{eq:def-gradient-Crt} together with the matrix identities~\cite[p.~29]{lutkepohl96}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl l}
\det(\matI + \varepsilon \matA) &=& 1 + \varepsilon \mathrm{tr}(\matA) + \bigO(\varepsilon^2), \quad&\varepsilon \to 0 \label{eq:matrix-identity}\\
(\matI+ \varepsilon\matA)^{-1} &=& \matI -\varepsilon \matA +\bigO(\varepsilon^2), \quad &\varepsilon \to 0
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for every bounded square matrix $\matA$, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\gradient\functQ (\matH) &=& -\frac{2 \matQ\matH \matPhi^{-3} }{\left(\mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\big(\matI_{\rxant} - \matPhi^{-2}\big) \right)^{3/2} }\notag\\
&& \times \Big( \underbrace{\mathrm{tr}(\matI_{\rxant} -\matPhi^{-2})\matPhi^2 + (\gamma - \log\det \matPhi)\matI_{\rxant}}_{\define \matT} \Big) \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:def-gradient-f}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\matPhi \define \matI_{\rxant} + \herm{\matH} \matQ\matH $.
Fix an arbitrary $\delta_1\in(0,\Cnocsit)$ and choose $\delta \in (0, (\Cnocsit-\delta_1)/\sqrt{\rxant})$.
We first bound~$\mathrm{tr}(\matI_{\rxant} - \matPhi^{-2})$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\rxant \geq \mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\big(\matI_{\rxant} - \matPhi^{-2}\big) &\geq& 1 - (1+\lambda_{\max}(\herm{\matH}\matQ\matH))^{-2}. \label{eq:bound-on-trace-I-Phi-0}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
It follows from the first inequality in~\eqref{eq:bound-on-trace-I-Phi-0} and from~\eqref{eq:def-f-argpn-matQ} that for every $u\in(-\delta, \delta)$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
|\gamma - \log\det\matPhi| = |u| \sqrt{\mathrm{tr}(\matI_{\rxant} - \matPhi^{-2}) } \leq \delta \sqrt{\rxant}.
\label{eq:bound-argpn-logdet}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Using~\eqref{eq:bound-argpn-logdet} and that the determinant is given by the product of the eigenvalues, we obtain that, for every $ \gamma \in(\Cnocsit-\delta_1, \Cnocsit-\delta_1)$ and every $u\in(-\delta, \delta)$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\rxant \log( 1 + \lambda_{\max} (\herm{\matH}\matQ\matH )) &\geq& \log\det\matPhi \label{eq:relation-lambda-max-det}\\
&\geq& \gamma - \sqrt{\rxant}\delta\\
& \geq &\Cnocsit-\delta_1 - \sqrt{\rxant}\delta > 0\IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
which implies that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\lambda_{\max} (\herm{\matH}\matQ\matH ) \geq e^{(\Cnocsit -\delta_1- \sqrt{\rxant}\delta)/\rxant} -1 >0.
\label{eq:bound-lambda-max}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Combing~\eqref{eq:bound-lambda-max} with the second inequality in~\eqref{eq:bound-on-trace-I-Phi-0}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\big(\matI_{\rxant} - \matPhi^{-2}\big) \geq 1- e^{-2(\Cnocsit -\delta_1- \sqrt{\rxant}\delta)/\rxant}.
\label{eq:bound-on-trace-I-Phi-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We use~\eqref{eq:bound-argpn-logdet} and~\eqref{eq:bound-on-trace-I-Phi-1} to lower-bound the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix $\matT$ defined in~\eqref{eq:def-gradient-f} as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\lambda_{\min}\mathopen{}\left(\matT \right) &=&\mathrm{tr}(\matI_{\rxant} -\matPhi^{-2}) \underbrace{\lambda_{\min}( \matPhi^2)}_{\geq 1} + (\gamma - \log\det \matPhi) \IEEEeqnarraynumspace \\
&\geq & \mathrm{tr}(\matI_{\rxant} -\matPhi^{-2}) - \delta \sqrt{\rxant}\\
&\geq & 1- e^{-2(\Cnocsit -\delta_1- \sqrt{\rxant}\delta)/\rxant} - \delta \sqrt{\rxant} \label{eq:bound-eigenvalue-complex-mat-3}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The RHS of~\eqref{eq:bound-eigenvalue-complex-mat-3} can be made positive if we choose $\delta$ sufficiently small, in which case $\matT$ is invertible. We can theorefore lower-bound $\mnorm{ \gradient \functQ }$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\mnorm{ \gradient \funct_{\argpn, \matQ} } &=& \frac{2}{\left(\mathrm{tr}\mathopen{}\big(\matI_{\rxant} - \matPhi^{-2}\big) \right)^{3/2} } \fnorm{ \matQ\matH\matPhi^{-3} \matT }\\
&\geq & \frac{2}{\rxant^{3/2}}\fnorm{ \matQ\matH\matPhi^{-3}}\cdot \frac{1}{\fnorm{ \matT^{-1} }} \label{eq:bound-grad-f-norms-1}\\
&\geq & \frac{2}{\rxant^{3/2}}\fnorm{ \matQ\matH} \cdot \frac{1}{\fnorm{\matPhi^{3}}} \cdot \frac{1}{\fnorm{ \matT^{-1} }} \label{eq:bound-grad-f-norms-2}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here, we use the first inequality in~\eqref{eq:bound-on-trace-I-Phi-0} and the submultiplicativity of the Frobenius norm.
The term $\fnorm{ \matQ\matH}$ can be bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\fnorm{ \matQ\matH} &\geq & \frac{\fnorm{\herm{\matH} \matQ\matH}}{\fnorm{\matH}}\\
&\geq & \frac{ \lambda_{\max}(\herm{\matH} \matQ \matH) }{ \fnorm{\matH}}\label{eq:bound-fnorm-QH-2-1} \\
&\geq & \frac{e^{(\Cnocsit - \delta_1 - \sqrt{\rxant}\delta )/\rxant} -1}{\fnorm{\matH}} \label{eq:bound-fnorm-QH-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-QH-2} follows from~\eqref{eq:bound-lambda-max}.
The term~$\fnorm{\matPhi^{3}}$ in~\eqref{eq:bound-grad-f-norms-2} can be upper-bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\fnorm{\matPhi^{3}} &\leq& \sqrt{\rxant}(1+ \lambda_{\max}(\herm{\matH}\matQ\matH))^3 \\
&\leq& \sqrt{\rxant} (1+ \det\matPhi )^3 \label{eq:bound-fnorm-matPhi-3-2}\\
&\leq& \constrm. \label{eq:bound-fnorm-matPhi-3}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-matPhi-3} follows from~\eqref{eq:bound-argpn-logdet} and because $\gamma \leq \Cnocsit+\delta$.
Finally, $\fnorm{ \matT^{-1} }$ in~\eqref{eq:bound-grad-f-norms-2} can be bounded as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\fnorm{ \matT^{-1} } \leq \sqrt{\rxant} \lambda_{\max}(\matT^{-1}) = \frac{\sqrt{\rxant} }{\lambda_{\min}(\matT)}.
\label{eq:bound-fnorm-matT-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The RHS of~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-matT-1} is bounded because of~\eqref{eq:bound-eigenvalue-complex-mat-3}.
Substituting~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-QH-2},~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-matPhi-3} and~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-matT-1} into \eqref{eq:bound-grad-f-norms-2}, we conclude that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\| \gradient \functQ\|^{-1} \leq \constrm\cdot \fnorm{\matH}.
\label{eq:bound-grad-f-norm-final}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Following similar steps as the ones reported in~\eqref{eq:matrix-identity}--\eqref{eq:bound-grad-f-norm-final}, we can show that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\fnorm{ \gradient \mnorm{\gradient \functQ }^2}<\constrm \cdot\mnorm{\gradient \functQ } \label{eq:bound-gradd-delta-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
|\Delta \functQ|<\constrm. \label{eq:bound-gradd-delta}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Substituting~\eqref{eq:bound-grad-f-norm-final}--\eqref{eq:bound-gradd-delta} into~\eqref{eq:bound-psi-1-start} and using the bounds~\eqref{eq:cond-bdd-pdf} and~\eqref{eq:cond-bdd-pdf-deri}, we obtain~\eqref{eq:bound-psi-1}.
\paragraph*{Proof of~\eqref{eq:bound-area-u-0}}
We begin by observing that for every $\matH \in \functQ^{-1}(u) \cap \setM_l$, every $\gamma\in(\Cnocsit-\delta_1 , \Cnocsit+\delta_1)$, every $u\in(-\delta,\delta)$ and every $\matQ \in \setU_{\txant}^{\mathrm{e}}$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\fnorm{\matH}^2 &\geq& \frac{\mathrm{tr}(\herm{\matH}\matQ\matH)}{\mathrm{tr}(\matQ)} \label{eq:bound-fnorm-H-11}\\
&\geq& \frac{1}{\snr} \lambda_{\max}(\herm{\matH}\matQ\matH)\label{eq:bound-fnorm-H-12}\\
&\geq& \frac{1}{\snr} \left(e^{(\Cnocsit -\delta_1- \sqrt{\rxant}\delta)/\rxant} -1 \right) \define k_0.\label{eq:bound-fnorm-H-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-H-11} follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality;~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-H-12} follows because $\mathrm{tr}(\matQ)=\snr$ for every $\matQ\in\insetcove$;~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-H-1} follows from~\eqref{eq:bound-lambda-max}.
From~\eqref{eq:bound-fnorm-H-1} we conclude that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Big(\functQ^{-1}((-\delta,\delta)) \cap \setM_l\Big)
\subset \setM' \define \{\matH \in \complexset^{\txant\times\rxant}: \fnorm{\matH} \geq \sqrt{k_0}\}. \nonumber\\
\label{eq:subset-funtQ-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To upper-bound $A_l(u)$, we note that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\int\nolimits_{-\delta}^\delta A_l(u) du &=& \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}((-\delta,\delta)) \cap \setM_l } \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3} \volform\label{eq:bound-area-l-u-1}\\
&\leq& \int\nolimits_{\setM'} \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3} \volform \label{eq:bound-area-l-u-2}\\
&=& \constrm \cdot \int\nolimits_{\sqrt{k_0}}^{\infty} x^{-4} dx\label{eq:bound-area-l-u-3}\\
& =&\constrm.
\label{eq:bound-area-l-u}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:bound-area-l-u-1} follows from the smooth coarea formula~\cite[p.~160]{chavel06};~\eqref{eq:bound-area-l-u-2} follows from~\eqref{eq:subset-funtQ-1};~\eqref{eq:bound-area-l-u-3} follows by writing the RHS of~\eqref{eq:bound-area-l-u-2} in polar coordinates and by using that, by~\eqref{eq:bound-lambda-max}, $k_0>0$.
By the mean value theorem, it follows from~\eqref{eq:bound-area-l-u} that there exists a $u_0\in(-\delta,\delta)$ satisfying
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
A_l(u_0) = \frac{\int\nolimits_{-\delta}^\delta A_l(u) du}{2\delta} \leq \constrm.
\label{eq:bound-A-l-u-0}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Next, for every $u\in(u_0, \delta)$ we have that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
A_l(u) - A_l (u_0) &=& \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}(u) \cap \setM_l }\frac{ \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3} }{\fnorm{\gradient \functQ }} \surform \notag\\
&& -\, \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}(u_0) \cap \setM_l } \frac{ \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3} }{\fnorm{\gradient \functQ }} \surform\label{eq:calc-deri-area-0}\\
&=& \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}((u_0, u)) \cap \setM_l}\!\! d \mathopen{}\left( \frac{ \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3} }{\fnorm{\gradient \functQ}} \surform \right) \label{eq:use-stokes-2nd} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
&=& \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}((u_0, u)) \cap \setM_l } \psi_2 \volform \label{eq:calc-deri-area}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\psi_2$ is defined implicitly via
\begin{equation}
\psi_2 \volform = d \mathopen{}\left( \frac{ \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -3} }{\fnorm{\gradient \functQ}} \surform \right) .
\label{eq:expression-psi-2}
\end{equation}
Here,~\eqref{eq:use-stokes-2nd} follows from Stokes' theorem. Following similar steps as the ones reported in~\eqref{eq:surface-form-dS}--\eqref{eq:bound-gradd-delta}, we obtain that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
|\psi_2| \leq \constrm\cdot \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -1} .
\label{eq:bound-psi-2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We can therefore upper-bound $A_l(u)$ as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
A_l(u) &=& A_l(u_0) + \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}((u_0, u)) \cap \setM_l } \psi_2 \volform \label{eq:bound-A_l_u-1}\\
&\leq & \constrm + \int\nolimits_{\setM' } \constrm\cdot \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant -1} \volform\label{eq:bound-A_l_u-2}\\
&\leq & \constrm + \int\nolimits_{\sqrt{k_0}}^{\infty} \constrm\cdot x^{-2 } dx \label{eq:bound-A_l_u-2}\\
&=& \constrm\label{eq:bound-A_l_u-3}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:bound-A_l_u-1} follows from~\eqref{eq:calc-deri-area};~\eqref{eq:bound-A_l_u-2} follows from~\eqref{eq:bound-A-l-u-0},~\eqref{eq:bound-psi-2}, and~\eqref{eq:subset-funtQ-1}.
Note that the bound~\eqref{eq:bound-A_l_u-3} is uniform in $\gamma$, $\matQ$, $u$, and~$l$.
Following similar steps as the ones reported in~\eqref{eq:calc-deri-area-0}--\eqref{eq:bound-A_l_u-3}, we obtain the same result for $u\in(-\delta, u_0)$. This proves~\eqref{eq:bound-area-u-0}.
\subsubsection{Convergence of $f_l(u)$ and $f_l'(u)$}
In this section, we will prove~\eqref{eq:convergence-f_l} and~\eqref{eq:convergence-f_l_d}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:formula-Stokes},
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ}(u) = \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}(u)} \frac{\pdfgeneral_{\randmatH} \surform}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ } }.
\label{eq:formula-varphi-pdf-u}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
We have the following chain of inequalities
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
|\pdfgeneral_{l}(u) - \pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ}(u) | }\notag\\
\quad&\leq& |\prob[ \randmatH \in \setM_l]\pdfgeneral_{l}(u) -\pdfgeneral_{\UgammaQ}(u)|\notag\\
&& +\, |(1-\prob[ \randmatH \in \setM_l] )\pdfgeneral_{l}(u)|\label{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-1}\\
&\leq& \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}(u) \cap (\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant} \setminus \setM_l)} \frac{\pdfgeneral_{\randmatH} \surform}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ } } \notag\\
&&+\, \constrm \cdot(1-\prob[ \randmatH \in \setM_l] )\label{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-2}\\
&\leq & \constrm \cdot \int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}(u) \cap (\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant} \setminus \setM_l)} \frac{ \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant-3} \surform}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ } }\notag\\
&& + \,\constrm \cdot (1-\prob[ \randmatH \in \setM_l] )\label{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-3}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-1} follows from the triangle inequality;~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-2} follows from~\eqref{eq:formula-varphi} and because $\{\pdfgeneral_{l}(u)\}$ is uniformly bounded;~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-3} follows from~\eqref{eq:bound-pdfH-1}.
Following similar steps as the ones reported in~\eqref{eq:bound-area-l-u-1}--\eqref{eq:bound-A_l_u-3}, we upper-bound the first term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-3} as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\int\nolimits_{\functQ^{-1}(u) \cap (\complexset^{\txant\times\rxant} \setminus\setM_l)} \frac{ \fnorm{\matH}^{-2\txant\rxant-3} \surform}{ \mnorm{ \gradient \functQ } } \leq \frac{\constrm}{l}.
\label{eq:ub-int-funcQ-u-b}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Substituting~\eqref{eq:ub-int-funcQ-u-b} into~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-3}, and using that $\prob[ \randmatH \in \setM_l] \to 1$ as $l\to\infty$, we obtain that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\lim\limits_{l\to\infty} \sup\limits_{u\in(-\delta,\delta)}\mathopen{}\left|f_l(u)- f_{\UgammaQ}(u)\right| &=& 0.
\label{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-l}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This proves~\eqref{eq:convergence-f_l}.
To prove~\eqref{eq:convergence-f_l_d}, we proceed as follows. Let $C^1([-\delta,\delta])$ denote the set of continuously differentiable functions on the compact interval $[-\delta,\delta]$.
The space $C^1([-\delta,\delta])$ is a Banach space (i.e., a complete normed vector space) when equipped with the~$C^1$ norm~\cite[p.~92]{hunter01}
\begin{equation}
\|f\|_{C^1([-\delta,\delta])} =\sup\limits_{x\in[-\delta,\delta]}(|f(x)| + |f'(x)|).
\label{eq:def-C1-norm}
\end{equation}
Following similar steps as in~\eqref{eq:calc-deri-area-0}--\eqref{eq:bound-A_l_u-3}, we obtain that $\{f'_l\}$ is continuous on $[-\delta,\delta]$, i.e., the restriction of~$\{f_l\}$ to $[-\delta,\delta]$ belongs to $C^1([-\delta,\delta])$.
Moreover, following similar steps as in~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-1}--\eqref{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-l}, we obtain that for all $m>l>0$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\lim\limits_{l\to\infty} \sup_{u\in[-\delta,\delta]} \mathopen{}\Big(|f_m(u)-f_{l}(u)|+ | f_{m}'(u) -f_{l}'(u)| \Big)=0. \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
This means that $\{f_l\}$ restricted to $[-\delta,\delta]$ is a Cauchy sequence, and, hence, converges in $C^1([-\delta,\delta])$ with respect to the $C^1$ norm~\eqref{eq:def-C1-norm}.
Moreover, by~\eqref{eq:bound-diff-pdf-U-l} the limit of $\{f_l\}$ is $f_{\UgammaQ}$.
Therefore, we have $f_{\UgammaQ} \in C^1([-\delta,\delta])$, and $\{f_l'\}$ converges to $f'_{\UgammaQ}$ with respect to the sup-norm $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$.
%
This proves~\eqref{eq:convergence-f_l_d}.
\section{Proof of the Achievability Part of Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}}
\label{app:proof-asy-ach-nocsit}
We prove the achievability asymptotic expansion for Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}. More
precisely, we prove the following:
\begin{prop}
\label{thm:proof-asy-ach-nocsit}
Assume that there exists a $\optcov \in \setU_{\txant}$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:C-epsilon-nocsit-comput}.
Let $F_{\matQ^*}(\cdot)$ be as in~\eqref{eq:def-F-matQ}.
Assume that the joint pdf of the nonzero eigenvalues of $\herm{\randmatH}\optcov\randmatH$ is continuously differentiable and that $F_{\matQ^*}(\cdot)$ is differentiable and strictly increasing at
$\Cnocsit$, i.e.,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
F_{\matQ^*}'(\Cnocsit) >0.
\label{eq:thm-dispersion-condition2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Let $\txantop = \mathrm{rank}(\optcov)$. Then,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:ach-asy-formula}
\Rnocsi^{\ast}(\bl,\error)\geq \Cnocsit - (1+\rxant\txantop) \frac{\log\bl}{\bl} +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
\end{prop}
Note that the conditions on the distribution of the fading matrix~$\randmatH$ under which Proposition~\ref{thm:proof-asy-ach-nocsit} holds are less stringent than (and, because of Proposition~\ref{prop:continuous} on p.~\pageref{prop:continuous} and Lemma~\ref{lem:bound-pdf-der-pdf-csir} on p.~\pageref{lem:bound-pdf-der-pdf-csir}, implied by) the conditions under which Proposition~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit-ub} (converse part of Theorem~\ref{thm:zero-dispersion-nocsit}) holds.
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof follows closely the proof of the achievability part of Theorem~\ref{thm:asy-mimo-csirt}. Following similar steps as the ones reported in~\eqref{eq:app-prob-error2-inner-step0-t}--\eqref{eq:asy-analysis-error2-t}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod_{i=1}^{\rxant} B_i \leq \gamma_\bl\right]&\leq& \bl^{\rxant\txantop} \gamma_\bl^{\bl-\txantop-\rxant}.\label{eq:asy-analysis-error2-nocsit}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Setting $\tau =1/\bl$ and $\gamma_\bl = \exp(-\Cnocsit + \bigO(1/\bl))$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:actual_ach_bound_nocsit}, and using \eqref{eq:asy-analysis-error2-nocsit}, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:ach_logM_MIMO_nocsit}
\frac{\log \NumCode}{\bl} &\geq& \Cnocsit - (1+\rxant\txantop) \frac{\log\bl}{\bl} +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To conclude the proof, we show that there exists indeed a $\gamma_\bl = \exp(-\Cnocsit + \bigO(1/\bl))$ satisfying
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob\mathopen{}\big[\sin^2\{\matI_{\bl,\txantop}, \sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txantop}\halfcov\randmatH +\randmatW\}\leq \gamma_\bl\big] \geq 1-\error+1/\bl \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:ach-nocsi-condition-gamma-n}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\halfcov \in\complexset^{\txantop\times\txant}$ satisfies $\herm{\halfcov}\halfcov=\optcov$.
Hereafter, we restrict ourselves to $\gamma_{\bl} \in \big(e^{-\Cnocsit-\delta},e^{-\Cnocsit+\delta} \big)$ for some $\delta \in (0,\Cnocsit)$.
Let $\minantop \define \min\{\txantop,\rxant\}$.
Consider the SVD of $\halfcov\matH$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:ach-nocsit-svd}
\halfcov\matH =\matL \underbrace{\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathsf{\Sigma}_{\minantop}
& \mathbf{0}_{\minantop \times (\rxant-\minantop)}\\
\mathbf{0}_{ (\txantop-\minantop)\times \minantop} &\mathbf{0}_{(\txantop-\minantop)\times(\rxant-\minantop)}\\
\end{array}
\right)}_{\define \mathsf{\Sigma}} \herm{\matV} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\matL\in\complexset^{\txantop\times\txantop}$ and $\matV\in\complexset^{\rxant\times\rxant}$ are unitary matrices, $\mathsf{\Sigma}_{\minantop}=\diag\{\sqrt{\lambda_1},\ldots,\sqrt{\lambda_{\minantop}}\}$ with $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{\minantop}$ being the $\minantop$ largest eigenvalues of $\herm{\matH}\optcov\matH$, and $\mathbf{0}_{a,b}$ denotes the all zero matrix of size $a\times b$.
Conditioned on $\randmatH=\matH$, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\sin^2\{\matI_{\bl,\txantop}, \sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txantop}\matU\matH +\randmatW\} }\notag\\
\quad &=& \sin^2\mathopen{}\big\{ \matI_{\bl,\txantop}\matL, (\sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txantop}\halfcov \matH +\randmatW) \matV\big\}\label{eq:ach-sin-equality}\\
&=& \sin^2\mathopen{}\big\{\widetilde{\matL} \matI_{\bl,\txantop}\matL, \widetilde{\matL} (\sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txantop}\halfcov \matH +\randmatW) \matV\big\}\label{eq:ach-sin-equality-2}\\
&=&\sin^2\mathopen{}\big\{\matI_{\bl,\txantop}, \sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txantop}\mathbf{\Sigma} + \randmatW\big\}\label{eq:ach-sin-equality-3}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\widetilde{\matL} &\define& \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\herm{\matL} & \mathbf{0}_{(\bl-\txantop)\times\txantop} \\
\mathbf{0}_{\txantop\times(\bl-\txantop)} & \matI_{\bl-\txantop} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
is unitary. Here,~\eqref{eq:ach-sin-equality} follows because $\spanm(\matA)=\spanm(\matA\matB)$ for every invertable matrix $\matB$; \eqref{eq:ach-sin-equality-2} follows because the principal angles between two subspaces are invariant under simultaneous rotation of the two subspaces; \eqref{eq:ach-sin-equality-3} follows because $\randmatW$ is isotropically distributed, which implies that $\widetilde{\matL}\randmatW\matV$ has the same distribution as $\randmatW$.
Let $\vece_j$ and $\randvecw_j$ be the $j$th column of $\matI_{\bl,\txantop}$ and $\randmatW$, respectively.
Then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob\mathopen{}\left[\sin^2 \mathopen{}\big\{\matI_{\bl,\txantop},\sqrt{\bl}\matI_{\bl,\txantop}\mathbb{\Sigma} + \randmatW\big\}\leq \gamma_\bl\right]}\notag\\
\quad &\geq & \prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minantop} \sin^2\mathopen{} \big\{\vece_j, \sqrt{\bl\Lambda_j}\vece_j + \randvecw_j \big\}\leq \gamma_\bl\right]\label{eq:ach-prob-sin-ub-mid1}\\
&=& \prob\mathopen{}\left[\prod\limits_{j=1}^{\minantop} \sin^2 \mathopen{}\big\{\vece_1, \sqrt{\bl\Lambda_j}\vece_1 + \randvecw_j \big\}\leq \gamma_\bl\right].\label{eq:ach-prob-sin-ub-mid2}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here,~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-sin-ub-mid1} follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:angle-btw-subspaces} (Appendix~\ref{app:proof-angle-btw-subspaces}) and~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-sin-ub-mid2} follows by symmetry.
By repeating the same steps as in \eqref{eq:ach-dist-sin-theta-csit}--\eqref{eq:ach-csit-gamma-bl}, we obtain from~\eqref{eq:ach-prob-sin-ub-mid2} that there exists a $\gamma_\bl = \exp(-\Cnocsit + \bigO(1/\bl))$ that satisfies~\eqref{eq:ach-nocsi-condition-gamma-n}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:proof-asy-iso} (Dispersion of Codes with Isotropic Codewords)}
\label{app:proof-asy-iso}
Using Proposition~\ref{thm:proof-asy-ach-nocsit} with $\optcov$ replaced by $(\snr/\txant)\matI_{\txant}$, we obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Rnoiso^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \geq \Ciso +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right).
\label{eq:proof-asy-ach-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Since~$\Rnoiso^{\ast}(\bl,\error) \leq \Rcriso^{\ast}(\bl,\error)$, the proof is completed by showing that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\label{eq:proof-asy-conv-iso}
\Rcriso^{\ast}(\bl,\error)\leq \Ciso +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log\bl}{n}\right).
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
To prove~\eqref{eq:proof-asy-conv-iso}, we evaluate the converse bound~\eqref{eq:thm-converse-rcsir-iso} in the large-\bl limit.
This evaluation follows closely the proof of~\eqref{eq:proof-asy-conv-csit} in Appendix~\ref{app:proof-asy-csit-conv}.
Let $\Lambda_1\geq\cdots\geq \Lambda_{\minant}$ be the ordered nonzero eigenvalues of $\herm{\randmatH}\randmatH$.
Following similar steps as in~\eqref{eq:inequality_beta-poly}--\eqref{eq:ub-rcsirt-original}, we obtain that for every $\gamma>0$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\Rcriso^{\ast}(\bl,\error) }\notag\\
\quad &\leq& \gamma - \frac{1}{\bl}\log \mathopen{}\Big(\prob[\Scsir_\bl((\snr/\txant) \matI_{\txant}) \leq \bl \gamma] -\error\Big) +\bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{\bl}\right) \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:proof-asy-conv-iso-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
with $\Scsir_\bl(\cdot)$ defined in~\eqref{eq:info_density_mimo_csir}.
To evaluate the second term on the RHS of~\eqref{eq:proof-asy-conv-iso-1}, we proceed as in~Appendix~\ref{sec:proof_of_eq:kramer_esseen_step} to obtain
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob[ \Scsir_\bl((\snr/\txant) \matI_{\txant}) \leq \bl \gamma \given \bm{\Lambda} =\veclambda] \geq q_\bl\mathopen{}\big( \altu_{\gamma}(\veclambda)\big) + \frac{\const_1}{\bl} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:lb-prob-s-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for $\gamma$ in a certain neighborhood of~$\Ciso$.
Here, the function $q_\bl(\cdot)$ is given in~\eqref{eq:def-q-n-y}; the function $\altu_{\gamma}(\cdot): \posrealset^{\minant} \mapsto \realset$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\altu_{\gamma}(\bm{\lambda}) \define \frac{\gamma - \sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{\minant}\log(1+ \snr\lambda_j/\txant)}{\sqrt{\minant - \sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{\minant}(1+\snr\lambda_j/\txant)^{-2}}};
\label{eq:define-altu}
\end{equation}
$\bm{\Lambda}=[\Lambda_1,\ldots,\Lambda_{\minant}]$; and $\const_1$ is a finite constant independent of $\gamma$ and $\bm{\lambda}$.
%
A lower bound on $\prob[ \Scsir_\bl((\snr/\txant) \matI_{\txant}) \leq \bl \gamma]$ follows then by averaging both sides of~\eqref{eq:lb-prob-s-iso} with respect to~$\bm{\Lambda}$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\prob[ \Scsir_\bl((\snr/\txant) \matI_{\txant}) \leq \bl \gamma ] \geq \Ex{}{q_\bl\mathopen{}\big( \altu_{\gamma} (\bm{\Lambda})\big)} + \frac{\const_1}{\bl}.
\label{eq:lb-prob-Sn-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Proceeding as in~\eqref{eq:p-j-rt}--\eqref{eq:p-j-rt-final} and using the assumption that the joint pdf of $\Lambda_1,\ldots,\Lambda_\minant$ is continuously differentiable, we obtain that
for all $\gamma \in (\Ciso-\delta,\Ciso+\delta)$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\Ex{}{q_\bl\mathopen{}\big( \altu_{\gamma}(\bm{\Lambda})\big)} \geq \prob\mathopen{}\left[ \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant}\log(1+\snr\Lambda_j/\txant)\leq\gamma\right] + \frac{\const_2}{\bl} \IEEEeqnarraynumspace
\label{eq:evaluate-Ex-qn-iso}
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
for some $\delta>0$ and $\const_2>-\infty$.
Substituting~\eqref{eq:evaluate-Ex-qn-iso} into~\eqref{eq:lb-prob-Sn-iso}, we see that for every $\gamma \in (\Ciso-\delta,\Ciso+\delta)$
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\prob[ \Scsir_\bl((\snr/\txant) \matI_{\txant}) \leq \bl \gamma]}\notag\\
\quad &\geq& \prob\mathopen{}\left[ \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\minant}\log(1+\snr\Lambda_j/\txant)\leq\gamma\right] +\frac{\const_1+\const_2}{\bl}\\
&=& \cdistiso(\gamma) + \frac{\const_1+\const_2}{\bl}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
The proof of~\eqref{eq:proof-asy-conv-iso} is concluded by repeating the same steps as in~\eqref{eq:choose-gamma-csit}--\eqref{eq:asy-exp-gamma-csit}.
\end{appendices}
|
\chapter{#1} \label{chp:#1}}
\newcommand{\sectionl}[1] {\section{#1} \label{sec:#1}}
\newcommand{\subsectionl}[1] {\subsection{#1} \label{ssec:#1}}
\newcommand{\bs}[1] {\boldsymbol{#1}}
\newcommand{\mrm}[1] {\mathrm{#1}}
\newcommand{\mcl}[1] {\mathcal{#1}}
\newcommand{\mcr}[1] {\mathscr{#1}}
\newcommand{\msf}[1] {\mathsf{#1}}
\newcommand{\mfr}[1] {\mathfrak{#1}}
\newcommand{\brm}[1] {\boldsymbol{\mathrm{#1}}}
\newcommand{\bsf}[1] {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{#1}}}
\newcommand{\wti}[1] {\widetilde{#1}}
\newcommand{\wht}[1] {\widehat{#1}}
\newcommand{\ul}[1] {\underline{#1}}
\newcommand{\tE} {\mathbbm{E}}
\newcommand{\tP} {\mathbbm{P}}
\newcommand{\Con} {\mathbbm{Con}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\argmin} {argmin}
\DeclareMathOperator{\arccot} {arccot}
\newcommand{\rank} {\mathrm{rank}}
\newcommand{\diag} {\mathrm{diag}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{T}}{\mathrm{T}}
\newcommand{\Id} {\mathrm{Id}}
\newcommand{\cond} {\msp{1}:\msp{1}}
\newcommand{\ins} {\msp{1}\in\msp{1}}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert #1 \rvert}
\newcommand{\absb}[1]{\big\lvert #1 \big\rvert}
\newcommand{\absB}[1]{\Bigl\lvert #1 \Bigr\rvert}
\newcommand{\absbb}[1]{\biggl\lvert #1 \biggr\rvert}
\newcommand{\abss}[1]{\left\lvert #1 \biggr\right}
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert #1 \rVert}
\newcommand{\normb}[1]{\big\lVert #1 \big\rVert}
\newcommand{\normB}[1]{\Bigl\lVert #1 \Bigr\rVert}
\newcommand{\normbb}[1]{\biggl\lVert #1 \biggr\rVert}
\newcommand{\floor} [1] { \lfloor {#1} \rfloor}
\newcommand{\floors}[1] {\left \lfloor {#1} \right \rfloor}
\newcommand{\ceil} [1] { \lceil {#1} \rceil}
\newcommand{\ceils} [1] {\left \lceil {#1} \right \rceil}
\newcommand{\w} {\wedge}
\renewcommand{\v} {\vee}
\newcommand{\R} {\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\cR} {\bar{\R}}
\newcommand{\C} {{\mathbb{C}}}
\newcommand{\K} {\mathbb{K}}
\newcommand{\N} {\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\Z} {\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand{\Q} {\mathbb{Q}}
\newcommand{\Cp} {\mathbb{H}}
\newcommand{\T} {\mathbb{T}}
\newcommand{\Tl} {\mathbb{S}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{B}}
\newcommand{\Lspace} {\mathscr{L}}
\newcommand{\Cspace} {\mathscr{C}}
\newcommand{\sett}[1] { \{ {#1} \} }
\newcommand{\set}[1] { \sett{\,{#1}\,}}
\newcommand{\sset}[1] { \left\{\, {#1} \,\right\} }
\newcommand{\setb}[1] { \bigl\{ {#1} \bigl\} }
\newcommand{\setB}[1] { \Bigl\{ {#1} \Bigr\} }
\newcommand{\setbb}[1] { \biggl\{\, {#1} \,\biggr\} }
\newcommand{\cmpl} {\mathrm{c}}
\newcommand{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}
\newcommand{\titem}[1] {\item[\emph{(#1)}]}
\newcommand{\msp}[1] {\mspace{#1 mu}}
\newcommand{\1} {\mspace{1 mu}}
\newcommand{\2} {\mspace{2 mu}}
\newcommand{\genarg} {{\,\brm{v}llet\,}}
\newcommand{\sprod} {\otimes}
\newcommand{\mat}[1]{\begin{bmatrix} #1 \end{bmatrix}}
\newcommand{\dif} {\msp{1}\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\cI} {\mathrm{i}}
\newcommand{\nE} {\mathrm{e}}
\renewcommand{\Im}{\mathrm{Im}}
\renewcommand{\Re}{\mathrm{Re}}
\newcommand{\imply} {\Longrightarrow}
\newcommand{\tsprod}[2] {{\textstyle \prod_{#1}^{#2}}\msp{2}}
\newcommand{\tsint}[2] {{\textstyle \int_{#1}^{#2}}\msp{2}}
\newcommand{\tssum}[2] {{\textstyle \sum_{#1}^{#2}}\msp{2}}
\newcommand{\tsfrac}[2] {{\textstyle \frac{#1}{#2}}}
\begin{document}
\title{Local semicircle law with imprimitive variance matrix}
\author[1]{Oskari Ajanki\thanks{Partially supported by SFB-TR 12 Grant of the German Research Council. On leave from Institute of Mathematics, University of Munich, \url{<EMAIL>}}}
\author[1]{L\'aszl\'o Erd{\H o}s\thanks{Partially supported by SFB-TR 12 Grant of the German Research Council. On leave from Institute of Mathematics, University of Munich, \url{<EMAIL>}}}
\author[1]{Torben Kr\"uger\thanks{Partially supported by SFB-TR 12 Grant of the German Research Council, \url{<EMAIL>}}}
\affil[1]{IST Austria, Am Campus 1, Klosterneuburg A-3400}
\renewcommand\Authands{ and }
\maketitle
\thispagestyle{empty}
\begin{abstract}
We extend the proof of the local semicircle law for generalized Wigner matrices given in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} to the case when the matrix of variances has an eigenvalue $-1$. In particular, this result provides a short proof of the optimal local Marchenko-Pastur law at the hard edge (i.e. around zero) for sample covariance matrices $ \brm{X}^\ast \brm{X} $, where the variances of the entries of $\brm{X}$ may vary.
\end{abstract}
\section{Model and results}
The local semicircle law on the local distribution of eigenvalues of large Wigner matrices has been the basic technical input in the recent works on the Wigner-Dyson-Gaudin-Mehta universality (see \cite{EYBull} and references therein). The analysis was extended to generalized Wigner matrices \cite{Erdos11-BulkUnGenWig, Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} but always practically assuming that the matrix of variances is primitive \footnote{A non-negative $ d \times d $-matrix $ \brm{M} $ is said to be primitive (cf. Definition 4.1 of \cite{Berman94-NonNegMatrices}) if there exists an integer $ k $ such that every element of $ \brm{M}^k $ is strictly positive.}, in particular $ -1 $ is not in its spectrum.
This assumption naturally holds for random band matrices that were the main motivation to generalize Wigner matrices in \cite{Erdos11-BulkUnGenWig}. However, some important matrices with a certain block structure do not satisfy this condition. Most notable example is the $2N\times 2N$ matrix
\bels{HXX}{
\brm{H} = \mat{ \,\brm{0} & \brm{X^*} \\ \2\brm{X} & \!\brm{0}\, }
}
where the $ N \times N $ matrix $ \brm{X} $ has independent entries. The matrix $ \brm{H}$ is the linearization of the of the sample covariance matrix $\brm{X^*}\brm{X}$. In this paper we show how to remove the primitivity assumption in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}.
We consider generalized $ N\times N $ hermitian or symmetric Wigner matrix $ \brm{H} = (h_{ij})_{i,j=1}^N $ with independent entries (up to the symmetry constraint $\brm{H}=\brm{H}^*$) such that
\bels{H is mean zero and s_ij finite}{
\tE\, h_{ij} \,=\,0\,,
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
s_{ij} := \tE\,\abs{h_{ij}}^2 < \infty
\,.
}
We assume that all moments are bounded in the sense that,
\bels{finite moments}{
\tE\, \absbb{\frac{h_{\1i\1j}}{s_{ij}^{1/2}\!}}^p <\, C_p\,,
\qquad
\forall\,p < \infty
\,,
\msp{-50}
}
with constants $ C_p $ independent of $ N $.
In order to avoid unnecessary clutter we have suppressed the $ N $-dependence in the notations, e.g., we use $ \brm{H} $ and $ \brm{S}$ to refer to the sequences of matrices $ \brm{H}^{(N)} = (h_{ij}^{(N)})_{i,j=1}^N $ and $ \brm{S}^{(N)} = (s^{(N)}_{ij})_{i,j=1}^N $, respectively.
Besides the natural constraints, $ \brm{S}^{\mrm{T}} = \brm{S} $, $ s_{ij} \ge 0 $,
we make the following additional assumptions on the variance matrix:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A1)]
{\bf Boundedness:} There exists a sequence $ N^\delta \leq M = M_N \leq N $, with $ \delta > 0 $, such that
\bels{bounded}{
0 \,\leq\, s_{ij} \,\leq\, M^{-1}\,;
}
\item[(A2)]
{\bf Constant row sums:} $ \brm{S} $ is (double) stochastic:
\bels{constant}{
\sum_{j=1}^N s_{ij} \,=\, 1
\,,\qquad
\forall\,i=1,\dots,N\,;
}
\item[(A3)]
{\bf Isolated extremum eigenvalues:} There exists ($ N $-independent) constant $ 0 < \rho < 1 $, such that
\bels{isolated extremum eigenvalues}{
\mrm{Spec}(\brm{S}) \subset \sett{-1}\cup [-\rho,\2\rho\2] \cup \sett{+ 1}\,.
}
\end{itemize}
This setup is similar to that in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}, except that here we explicitly allow $ -1 $ in the spectrum of $\brm{S} $. This allows us to consider $ \brm{S} $ which contain imprimitive irreducible components. The results in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} practically excluded this case since the estimates became unstable, see Section 7 of \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}. The main observation of this paper is that this instability is not present.
The relaxation of the irreducibility condition is elementary algebra (cf. Lemma \ref{lmm:Decomposition of S} below), and this extension was already mentioned in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}. However, the inclusion of $ -1 $'s in the spectrum of $\brm{S}$ requires a new algebraic identity that is stated as Lemma \ref{lmm:symm2} below. We will show here how to incorporate this identity into the proof given in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} with minor modifications.
The condition (A2) guarantees that the diagonal elements of the resolvent matrix,
\bels{}{
\msp{100}\brm{G}(z) \,:=\,
\frac{1}{\brm{H}-z}
\,,\qquad
z := E + \cI\1\eta\,,\quad E \in \R\,,\;\eta > 0
\,,
}
converge towards the Stieltjes transform
\bels{}{
m(z) \,=\,
\frac{-\1z \,+\2 \sqrt{z^2-4\,}}{2}
}
of the Wigner semicircle law, $\varrho(x) = (2\1\pi)^{-1}\sqrt{\max\sett{4-x^2,0}}$, as $ N $ approaches infinity.
In order to state this main result, we recall the concept of stochastic domination (Definition 2.1 in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}).
We say that a (sequence) of random variables $ X=X^{(N)} $ is stochastically dominated by another (sequence) of random variables $ Y=Y^{(N)} $, in notation $ X \prec Y$, if for any $\varepsilon, D>0$ there exists $ N_0 = N_0(\varepsilon, D)< \infty $ such that
\bels{}{
\tP\setb{X > N^\varepsilon Y}\;\leq\; N^{-D}
\qquad \forall\,N\ge N_0
\,.
}
If $X, Y$ depend on some other parameters (like $z$ or labels like $i, j$), then the definition is always taken uniform in these parameters (i.e. $N_0$ depends only on $\varepsilon, D>0$). The notation $ X = \mcl{O}_\prec(Y) $ means same as $ \abs{X} \prec Y $.
\Theorem{Main Result}{
Suppose $ \brm{S} $ satisfies the assumptions (A1)--(A3), and denote
\bels{def of spectral domain D(gamma)}{
\mathbb{D}(\gamma)
\,=\,
\mathbb{D}^{(N)}(\gamma)
\;:=\, \setb{ z : \; \abs{z}\leq 10\,,\; \Im\,z\ge M_N^{-1+\gamma}}\,,\qquad\gamma > 0\,.
}
Then for any fixed $\gamma>0$, the local estimates
\begin{subequations}
\label{main results}
\begin{align}
\label{x-lsc}
\max_{i,\1j=1}^N\absb{G_{ij}(z) -m(z)\1\delta_{ij}}
\;\,&\prec\;
\sqrt{\frac{\Im \,m(z)}{M\eta}} +\frac{1}{M\eta}
\\
\label{lsc}
\absB{\frac{1}{N}\mrm{Tr}\, \brm{G}(z) - m(z)} \;&\prec\;\, \frac{1}{M\eta}
\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
apply uniformly in $ z = E + \cI\1\eta \,\in\, \mathbb{D}(\gamma) $.
Moreover, outside the spectrum \eqref{lsc} can be strengthened by introducing the distance, $ \kappa := \max\sett{\2\abs{E-2},\abs{E+2}\2} $, of $ E $ from the spectral edges:
\bels{lscout}{
\absB{\frac{1}{N}\mrm{Tr}\,\brm{G}(z) - m(z)}
\;\prec\;
\frac{1}{M(\kappa+\eta) } \,+\,
\frac{1}{(M\eta)^2\sqrt{\kappa+\eta}}
\;.
}
This estimate is also uniform in $ z = E+\cI\1\eta \in \mathbb{D}(\gamma) $ as long as the constraints $ \abs{E}\ge 2 $ and $ \eta\sqrt{\kappa+\eta} \ge M^{-1+\gamma} $ are satisfied.
}
This theorem is a generalization of the following result.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}]
\label{thr:OldResult}
Assume that $ \brm{S} $ satisfies (A1)--(A2), but (A3) is strengthened to
$ \mrm{Spec}(\brm{S}) \subset [-\rho,\rho\1] \cup \sett{+1} $.
Then conclusions of Theorem \ref{thr:Main Result} hold true.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thr:OldResult} is a special case of the more general Theorem 2.3 of \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} which also covers the cases $ \mrm{Spec}(\brm{S}) \subset [-\rho^{(N)}_-\, ,\, \rho_+^{(N)} \1] \cup \sett{+1} $ where the spectral gaps $1-\rho_\pm^{(N)} $ may close at certain rates as $ N \to \infty $.
However, the estimates near $ E = 0 $ in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} deteriorated if the smallest eigenvalue approached $ -1 $, and in particular $ -1 $ was not allowed belong to the spectrum. The condition (A3) rules out closing of the upper gap, and hence the spectral domain $ \wti{\mathbb{S}}(\gamma) $, defined by formulas (2.14) and (2.17) in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}, has been replaced here by the simpler set $ \mathbb{D}(\gamma) $.
It is straighforward to extend Theorem~\ref{thr:Main Result} to the entire set $ \wti{\mathbb{S}}(\gamma) $ in the spirit of Theorem 2.3 in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} but for brevity of this note we refrain from doing so.
Theorem~\ref{thr:Main Result} directly implies a rigidity result for the increasingly ordered eigenvalues $ (\lambda_\alpha)_{\alpha=1}^N $ of $\brm{H} $ in terms of the $N$-th quantiles $ (\gamma_\alpha)_{\alpha=1}^N$ of the semicircle density:
\bels{rig}{
\abs{ \2\lambda_\alpha -\2\gamma_\alpha\1}
\;\prec\;
\frac{1}{M}
\Big(\frac{N}{\widehat\alpha}\Big)^{1/3}
\,,
\quad\text{when}\quad
\wht{\alpha} := \min\sett{\alpha, N+1-\alpha} \,\ge\, N M^{-1+\varepsilon}
\,,
}
with $ \varepsilon > 0 $ arbitrary.
See Theorem 7.6 in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} for a proof in a more general setup and for the estimates on the extreme eigenvalues.
We remark that there have been many results on local semicircle laws prior to \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}, in fact most methods used in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} stem from \cite{Erdos11-BulkUnGenWig, Erdos11-UnivGenWigBernoulli, Erdos12-RigGenWig}. See \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} for a complete account of the history and for the most concise general proof.
Finally, we mention a simple application. The eigenvalues of $ \brm{H} $ in \eqref{HXX} generically come in pairs, $\pm\lambda $, (see \eqref{simple eigenpairs of H} below) and their squares $\lambda^2 $ are the eigenvalues of the sample covariance matrices $\brm{X}\1\brm{X}^*$ and $\brm{X}^*\brm{X}$.
We assume that the elements of the square matrix $ \brm{X} $ are independent, centred and their variances are chosen such that $\brm{S}$ and $\brm{H} $ satisfy \eqref{finite moments}--\eqref{isolated extremum eigenvalues} (note that $-1$ is an eigenvalue of $\brm{S}$).
Under these conditions, Theorem~\ref{thr:Main Result} can be directly used to estimate the resolvent matrix elements and the trace of $\brm{X}^*\brm{X}$. Indeed, by applying the Schur formula to the $ N \times N $-block decomposition
\[
\brm{G}(z)
\,=\,
\frac{1}{\brm{H}-z}
\,=\,
\mat{
-z & \brm{X}^\ast\,
\\
\brm{X}\! & -z\,}^{-1}
\!=:\,
\mat{
\1\brm{G}_{11} & \brm{G}_{12}
\\
\1\brm{G}_{21} & \brm{G}_{22}
}
\,,
\]
we see that the blocks on the diagonal equal:
\[
\brm{G}_{11}(z) \,=\,
\frac{z}{\brm{X^*}\brm{X} -z^2},
\qquad
\brm{G}_{22}(z) \,=\,
\frac{z}{\brm{X}\brm{X^*} -z^2}
\,.
\]
Thus Theorem~\ref{thr:Main Result} implies that the local Marchenko-Pastur law holds in the critical ``hard-edge'' case, when the limiting density\\
\bels{MP-density}{
\varrho_{\mrm{MP}}(x) \,:=\, \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{\frac{\max\sett{4-x,0}}{x}}
\,,
}
is singular at the origin. In fact $ \varrho_{\mrm{MP}}(x) = x^{-1/2}\varrho(x^{1/2})$, $x>0$, where $ \varrho $ is the Wigner semicircle density.
By denoting the Stieltjes transform of the Marchenko-Pastur law \eqref{MP-density} by $ m_{\mrm{MP}} $ and and writing $ w := z^2 $, an elementary calculation from Theorem~\ref{thr:Main Result} yields the following result.
\NCorollary{Local Marchenko-Pastur law at the hard edge}{
Under the conditions on $\brm{X}$ above, we have for any fixed $ \gamma > 0 $,
\begin{subequations}
\label{}
\begin{align}
\max_{i,j=1}^N\,\absbb{\Big( \frac{1}{\brm{X}^*\brm{X}- w\1} \Big)_{ij} -\, m_{\mrm{MP}}(w)\1 \delta_{ij}\,}
\;&\prec\:
\sqrt{\frac{\Im \,m_{\mrm{MP}}(w)}{M\2\Im\,w}} \,+\frac{1}{M\2\Im\,w}
\\
\absbb{\,\frac{1}{N}\,
\mrm{Tr} \, \frac{1}{\brm{X}^*\brm{X}- w\1} \,-\, m_{\mrm{MP}}(w)\,}
\;&\prec\;\,
\frac{1}{M\2\Im\,w}
\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
uniformly in $ w \in \C $ satisfying $ \abs{w} \leq 100 $ and $\Im\,w \ge
\sqrt{\abs{\Re\,w}\,}\,M^{-1+\gamma}$.
}
The estimate outside of the spectrum \eqref{lscout} and the rigidity bound \eqref{rig} can also be directly translated to the similar statements for the sample covariance matrices.
We remark that local Marchenko-Pastur law on the smallest local scale was first proven in \cite{ESYY} away from the critical case. The hard-edge case was independently considered in \cite{CMS} and in \cite{Bourgade13-LocCircRMT}, the latter providing an optimal error bound. Both works dealt with the case when the variances $ \tE\, \abs{x_{ij}}^2$ are constant, the above corollary extends the result to the case of non-constant variances.
\medskip
{\it Acknowledgement.} The authors are grateful to Ofer Zeitouni who pointed out the importance of removing the primitivity condition on $\brm{S}$ for various applications.
An alternative albeit somewhat weaker extension of \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} to treat the case $ -1 \in \mrm{Spec}(\brm{S}) $ was given in \cite{VZ}.
\section{Two algebraic lemmas}
Let us define for arbitrary square matrices $ \brm{M}_1,\dots,\brm{M}_k $, the diagonal block matrix by:
\bels{def of block matrix brmD}{
\brm{D}(\brm{M}_1,\dots,\brm{M}_k)
\;:=\,
\mat{
\,\brm{M}_1\! & \brm{0} & \cdots & \!\brm{0}
\\
\brm{0} & \brm{M}_2\! & \cdots & \!\brm{0}
\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \!\vdots
\\
\brm{0} & \brm{0} & \cdots & \brm{M}_k
}
\,.
}
General algebraic results for non-negative matrices yield the following decomposition when applied to $ \brm{S} $ satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thr:Main Result}.
\Lemma{Decomposition of S}{
Suppose that $ \brm{S} $ is a symmetric (double) stochastic matrix that satisfies
conditions (A1)--(A3).
%
Then, after an appropriate permutation $ \brm{P} $ of the indices, $ \brm{S} $ has a block structure
\bels{irreducible decomposition of S}{
\brm{S}
\,=\,
\brm{P}
\2
\brm{D}\bigl(\2\brm{S}_1,\dots,\brm{S}_p\1,\2\wti{\brm{S}}_1,\dots,\wti{\brm{S}}_q\bigr)
\,
\brm{P}^{-1}
\,,
}
where $ \brm{S}_\alpha $, $ 1 \leq \alpha \leq p $, and $ \wti{\brm{S}}_\beta $, $ 1 \leq \beta \leq q $, are irreducible doubly stochastic matrices with some $ p,q $.
The spectrums of the blocks
\[
\wti{\brm{S}}_\beta = (\tilde{s}_{\beta;\1ij})_{i,j=1}^{\tilde{d}_\beta}
\,,
\quad 1 \leq \beta \leq q\,,
\]
satisfy $ \mrm{Spec}(\wti{\brm{S}}_\beta)\subset
[-\rho,\2\rho\1]\cup\sett{+1} $.
The blocks $ \brm{S}_\alpha $ have both $ +1 $ and $-1$ as simple eigenvalues, and they have the structure
\bels{irreducible block of S with period 2}{
\qquad
\brm{S}_\alpha = \mat{\brm{0} & \brm{A}_\alpha^{\!\mrm{T}} \\ \brm{A}_\alpha\! & \brm{0}\;}
\,,\qquad
\brm{A}_\alpha = (a_{\alpha;\1ij})_{i,j=1}^{d_\alpha}\,,
\quad 1 \leq \alpha \leq p\,,\msp{-30}
}
where both the rows and the columns of the (generally) non-symmetric matrices $\brm{A}_\beta $ sum to one, i.e., $ \sum_i a_{\beta;\1ij}= \sum_j a_{\beta;\1ij}=1 $.
The matrix elements are bounded,
\[
\tilde{s}_{\beta;\1ij}\,,\,a_{\beta;\1ij} \,\leq\, \frac{1}{M}
\,,
\]
and the dimensions satisfy $ d_\alpha,\,\tilde{d}_\beta \ge M $, and
\bels{}{
2\1d_1 \,+\, \dots \,+\,2\1d_p \,+\, \tilde{d}_1 \,+\, \dots \,+\,\tilde{d}_q \;=\; N
\,.
}
}
\begin{Proof}
Irreducible components of $ \brm{S} $ can be permuted into diagonal square blocks \eqref{irreducible decomposition of S} and the properties (A1)--(A3) are preserved under relabelling.
In particular, the constant row and column sums for $ \brm{S} $, as well as the bound $ 0 \leq s_{ij} \leq M^{-1} $, translate directly to analogous bounds for $ \wti{S}_\beta $'s and $ \brm{A}_\alpha $'s, and this in turn implies $ d_\alpha, \tilde{d}_\beta \ge M $.
The structure of the block decomposition of
$ \brm{S}_\alpha $ \eqref{irreducible block of S with period 2} follows from the general theory of non-negative irreducible matrices $ \brm{M} = (m_{ij})_{i,j=1}^d $, $ m_{ij} \ge 0 $, e.g. Theorem 2.20 of \cite{Berman94-NonNegMatrices}:
If $ \brm{M}$ has $ k $-eigenvalues on its spectral circle, $ \sett{z \in \C: \abs{z} = r }$, then those eigenvalues are precisely the $ k $ complex roots of $ r^2 $, i.e., they equal $ r\1\nE^{\cI\12\pi j/k}$, $ 1 \leq j\leq k $. Moreover, the matrix $\brm{M}$ has the block representation:
\bels{general decomposition of non-negative matrix M}{
\brm{M}
\;=\;
\mat{
\brm{0} & \brm{D}\bigl(\1\brm{M}_1,\dots,\brm{M}_{k-1}\bigr)
\\
\,\brm{M}_k\msp{-7} & \brm{0}
}
}
for some matrices $ \brm{M}_1, \ldots, \brm{M}_k $.
The dimensions of $ \brm{M}_j $'s are such that the zero blocks along the diagonal (not visible in \eqref{general decomposition of non-negative matrix M}) are square, so that the rows of $ \brm{M}_j $ and the columns of $ \brm{M}_{j+1} $ have the same dimensions for each $j=1,2,\ldots,k $ if one identifies $ \brm{M}_{k+1} := \brm{M}_1 $.
Applying the decomposition \eqref{general decomposition of non-negative matrix M} to $ \brm{M} := \brm{S}_\alpha $ yields the representation \eqref{irreducible block of S with period 2} since the symmetry $ \brm{S}_\alpha^{\mrm{T}} = \brm{S}_\alpha $ implies $ 1 \leq k \leq 2 $, while $ -1 \in \mrm{Spec}(\brm{S}_\alpha) $ excludes the case $ k \neq 1 $.
\end{Proof}
The random matrix $ \brm{H} $ inherits the structure \eqref{irreducible decomposition of S} of $ \brm{S} $ through \eqref{H is mean zero and s_ij finite}:
\[
\brm{H}
\,=\,
\brm{P}
\2
\brm{D}\bigl(\2\brm{H}_1,\dots,\brm{H}_p\1,\2\wti{\brm{H}}_1,\dots,\wti{\brm{H}}_q\bigr)
\,
\brm{P}^{-1}
\,.
\]
Here $\brm{H}_\alpha $ and $ \wti{\brm{H}}_\beta $ are independent generalised Wigner matrices satisfying
$ \tE\,\abs{h_{\alpha;ij}}^2 = s_{\alpha;ij} $ and $ \tE\,\abs{\tilde{h}_{\beta;ij}}^2 = \tilde{s}_{\beta;ij} $, respectively.
This decomposition means that it suffices to prove Theorem \ref{thr:Main Result} for the irreducible components separately.
The components $ \wti{\brm{H}}_\beta $ are already covered by Theorem \ref{thr:OldResult}.
Hence, dropping the indices $ \alpha \ge 1 $, we are left to prove Theorem \ref{thr:Main Result} in the case
\bels{blocks of H and S}{
\brm{H} \,=\, \mat{\;\brm{0} & \,\brm{X}^* \\ \brm{X}\! & \brm{0}\,}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\brm{S} \,=\, \mat{\;\brm{0} & \,\brm{A}^{\!\mrm{T}} \\ \,\brm{A}\! & \brm{0}\,}
\,,
}
where $ \brm{S} $ is irreducible, and the entries $ x_{ij} $ of the square matrices $\brm{X}$ are independent, and satisfy $ \tE\,\abs{x_{ij}}^2 = a_{ij} $.
For the sake of convenience, we also redefine $ N $ to be equal to the
dimension of $ \brm{A} $, so that $ \brm{H} $ and $ \brm{S} $ are
$ 2N \times 2N$ matrices.
Using the special structure \eqref{blocks of H and S} it follows that if $ \lambda \in \mrm{Spec}(\brm{H}) $ then also $ -\lambda \in \mrm{Spec}(\brm{H}) $, and the corresponding eigenvectors are related in the following simple way:
\bels{simple eigenpairs of H}{
\brm{H}\mat{\brm{u}\\ \pm\brm{w}} = \pm\,\lambda \mat{\brm{u}\\ \pm\brm{w}}
\,.
}
In particular, the same reasoning can be applied to the $ \pm 1 $ eigenvalues of $ \brm{S } $. Moreover, since $ \brm{S} $ is double stochastic and irreducible, the eigenvectors of $ \brm{S} $ belonging to the non-degenerate eigenvalues $ \pm 1$, equal
\bels{def of e and f}{
\brm{e} \,&:=\, \tsfrac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}(\11,\dots,1,1,\dots,1)
\\
\brm{f} \,&:=\, \tsfrac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}(\11,\ldots, 1, -1, -1, \ldots, -1)
\,,
}
so that $ \brm{S}\1\brm{e} = \brm{e} $ and $ \brm{S}\1\brm{f} = -\1\brm{f}$.
Let us denote the complex inner product between vectors $ \brm{a},\brm{b} \in \C^{2N} $ by $ (\brm{a},\brm{b}) = \sum_i \overline{a_i}\,b_i $.
Combining the symmetries \eqref{simple eigenpairs of H} and \eqref{def of e and f} of $ \brm{H} $ and $ \brm{S} $ yields
the following algebraic identity.
\Lemma{symm2}{
Let $ \brm{H} $ be a $ 2N $-dimensional self-adjoint matrix that has the block structure \eqref{blocks of H and S} but is otherwise arbitrary, e.g., \eqref{H is mean zero and s_ij finite} is not assumed.
Then the Green function $ \brm{G}(z) := (\brm{H}-z)^{-1} $ is orthogonal to the $ -1 $ eigenspace of $ \brm{S} $,
\bels{id2}{
\bigl(\1\brm{f}\1,\1\mrm{diag}(\brm{G})\bigr) \,=\, 0
\,,
}
where $ \mrm{diag}(\brm{G}) = (G_{11},\dots,G_{2N,2N}) $ and $ \brm{f} $ is defined in \eqref{def of e and f}.
}
\begin{Proof}
Let us additionally assume that $ 0 \notin \mrm{Spec}(\brm{H}) $, and, that besides the pairs \eqref{simple eigenpairs of H}, there are no further degeneracies.
Suppose
\[
\brm{v} := \mat{\brm{u}\\ \brm{w}}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\wti{\brm{v}} := \mat{\brm{u}\!\\ -\brm{w}\,}
\,,\qquad\text{with}\qquad \brm{u},\brm{w} \in \C^N\,,\msp{-100}
\]
are the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues $ \lambda $ and $ - \lambda $ in \eqref{simple eigenpairs of H}, respectively.
Since $ \lambda \neq 0 $ (so that $ -\lambda \neq \lambda $) these eigenvectors are orthogonal
\[
0\,=\, (\brm{v},\wti{\brm{v}}) \,=\,
\sum_{i=1}^N\, \abs{u_i}^2 - \sum_{k=1}^N \abs{w_k}^2
\,,
\]
i.e., the first and the second blocks are balanced: $ \norm{\brm{u}}_2 = \norm{\brm{w}}_2 $.
Now, let $ \brm{v}^{(\alpha)} $, $ \alpha =1,\dots, 2N $, be the $ 2N $ eigenvectors of $ H $, and let $ \brm{u}^{(\alpha)} $ and $ \brm{w}^{(\alpha)} $ contain the first and the last $ N $-components of $ \brm{v}^{(\alpha)} $.
Then combining the spectral theorem,
\[
G_{kk}(z) \,=\, \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2N} \frac{ |v_k^{(\alpha)}|^2 }{\lambda_\alpha-z}\,,
\]
with the balancing conditions, $ \norm{\brm{u}^{(\alpha)}}_2 = \norm{\brm{w}^{(\alpha)}}_2 $, yields
\bels{balancing conditioning for G}{
\sum_{k=1}^N G_{kk}
\,=\,
\sum_{\alpha=1}^{2N} \frac{\norm{\brm{u}^{(\alpha)}}_2^2}{\lambda_\alpha-z}
\,=\,
\sum_{\alpha=1}^{2N} \frac{\norm{\brm{w}^{(\alpha)}}_2^2}{\lambda_\alpha-z}
\,=\,
\sum_{k=N+1}^{2N} G_{kk}
\,,
}
which is equivalent to \eqref{id2}.
Finally, by using a basic continuity argument, one sees that \eqref{balancing conditioning for G} must apply also without the extra assumptions concerning the degeneracies and the exclusion of $ 0 $ from the spectrum of $ \brm{H}$.
\end{Proof}
\section{Translating proof of Theorem \ref{thr:OldResult} to cover case \eqref{blocks of H and S}}
With the identity \eqref{id2} at hand we may translate the proof of Theorem \ref{thr:OldResult} from \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} to the setting \eqref{blocks of H and S} without significant changes.
In order to see this, we recall that the $ -1 $ eigenvalue of $ \brm{S} $ enters the proofs in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} only when one needs to bound the inverse of the operator $ 1-m^2\brm{S} $.
However, using the identity \eqref{id2} one can show that in all such cases it suffices to restrict the analysis to the orthogonal complement of the eigendirection $ \brm{f} $ corresponding to the eigenvalue $-1$.
The lower spectral gap assumption \eqref{isolated extremum eigenvalues} above $ -1 $ then guarantees that $ (1-m^2\brm{S})^{-1} $ stays uniformly bounded even when $ m(z)^2 $ becomes close to $ -1 $ (equivalently, $z\approx 0$), i.e.,
\[
(1-m(z)^2\brm{S})^{-1} \,\approx\; (1 + \brm{S}\1)^{-1}\,,
\qquad\text{for}\quad z \approx 0\,.
\]
Since the 'bad direction' $ \brm{f} $ will not play any role in the analysis, the only necessary modification of \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} in the end,
is to replace the operator norm $ \wti{\Gamma}(z) $ (cf. equation (2.11) in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}) of $ (1-m^2\brm{S})^{-1} $ in $ \brm{e}^\perp $, by the analogous norm in the orthogonal complement of both $ \brm{e} $ and $ \brm{f} $:
\bels{}{
\wht{\Gamma}(z) \,:=\, \normb{ (1-m(z)^2\brm{S}\1)^{-1}|_{ \mrm{span}\sett{\brm{e}\1,\2 \brm{f}}^\perp}}_{\ell^\infty \to \ell^\infty}
\,.
}
The estimate (A.3) of \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT},
\[
\wht{\Gamma}(z) \,\leq\, C(\rho) \log N
\]
remains valid since the operator norm of $ (1-m^2\brm{S})^{-1} $ from $ \ell^{\12} $ to itself is bounded by $1/(1-\rho)$ in the complement of $ \mrm{span}\sett{\brm{e}\1,\2 \brm{f}} $. Here the logarithm comes from the fact that the $\ell^{\1\infty}$-norm is bigger by this factor over the $\ell^{\12}$-norm (cf. p. 46 of \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}).
It remains to demonstrate why the inversion of $ 1-m^2\1\brm{S} $ can be always be restricted to the orthogonal complement of $ \brm{f}$.
This inversion was used to bound the random fluctuations of the diagonal resolvent elements,
\bels{def of v}{
v_i \,:\,= G_{ii}-m_i
}
in terms of the small random error terms $ \Upsilon_i = \mcl{O}_{\!\prec}(N^{-c}) $ appearing the self-consistent vector equation (cf. (5.9) in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}):
\bels{SCE for errors v}{
- \sum_k s_{ik} v_k \,+\, \Upsilon_i \;=\; \frac{1}{m+v_i} \,-\,\frac{1}{m}
\,.
}
Under the assumption, $ \abs{v_i} \prec \Lambda \prec N^{-c} $, with some control parameter $\Lambda$, and
using $ \abs{m} \sim 1 $, \eqref{SCE for errors v}, takes the form
\bels{linearised SCE for v}{
(1-m^2\brm{S}\1)\1\brm{v} \,=\, \mcl{O}_\prec(\norm{\brm{\Upsilon}}_\infty+\Lambda^2)
\,.
}
Writing \eqref{def of v} as
\[
\brm{v} = \mrm{diag}(\brm{G}) - \sqrt{2N}\1m\2\brm{e}
\,,
\]
recalling $ (\brm{f},\brm{e}) = 0 $, and then applying Lemma \ref{lmm:symm2} yields:
\bels{f-projection of v = 0}{
(\1\brm{f},\brm{v}) \,=\, (\1\brm{f},\1\mrm{diag}(\brm{G})\1) \,=\,0
\,.
}
The identity \eqref{f-projection of v = 0} shows that inversion of $ 1-m^2\brm{S} $ can be indeed restricted to the complement of $ \brm{f} $ in the case of \eqref{linearised SCE for v}.
The inverse of $ 1-m^2\brm{S} $ becomes unbounded also in the direction $ \brm{e} $ when $ m^2 \approx 1 $.
However, unlike with direction $ \brm{f} $, the inversions of $ 1-m^2\brm{S} $ can not be straightforwardly restricted to the complement of $ \brm{e} $, since the average of $ \brm{v} $,
\bels{}{
[\brm{v}] \,:=\, \frac{1}{2N}\sum_{i=1}^{2N}v_i \,=\, \frac{(\brm{e},\brm{v})}{\!\sqrt{2N\,}}
\,,
}
is not small.
For this reason the critical part $ [\brm{v}] $ was treated separately from the remainder, $ \brm{v} - (\brm{e},\brm{v})\2 \brm{e} \in \mrm{span}\sett{\brm{e},\brm{f}}^\perp $ in a more precise second order scalar equation in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}.
The remainder part satisfies a linearised vector equation for which one needs to again invert $ 1-m^2\brm{S} $. We will now demonstrate that also in this case the component $ \brm{f} $ is not present due to Lemma \ref{lmm:symm2}.
Indeed, in order to get from (6.19) to (6.20) in \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} one applies the fluctuation averaging estimate (4.14) (with the choice $ t_{ij} = s_{ij}) $ to bound the remainder $ \brm{v} - (\brm{e},\brm{v})\2 \brm{e} $.
The crucial steps appear in the proof of (4.14) located at the end of the proof of Theorem 4.7 on p. 54 of \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT}, where a bound for
\bels{}{
w_a := \sum_i t_{ai}\1(v_i- [v])
\,,
}
is derived from a linearised self-consistent equation
\bels{SCE for FA}{
\sum_i t_{ai}(v_i-[\brm{v}]) \,&=\; m^2 \sum_{b,j} s_{ab}\1t_{bj} (v_j-[\brm{v}]) \;+\; \mcl{O}_\prec(\Psi^2)\,,
\,,
}
in terms of the small control parameter $ \Psi \leq N^{-c}$.
Writing $ \brm{w} = \brm{T}\1(\brm{v}-(\brm{e},\brm{v})\2\brm{e}) $, and recalling $ [\brm{T},\brm{S}] = \brm{0} $ (actually we need only the case $ \brm{T} = \brm{S} $ here) and $ (\1\brm{f},\brm{v}) = 0 $ by \eqref{f-projection of v = 0}, we obtain:
\bels{f-projection of w = 0}{
(\1\brm{f},\brm{w}) \,=\, 0
\,.
}
Thus by expressing \eqref{SCE for FA} in the vector form,
\bels{linearised SCE for w}{
(1-m^2\brm{S}\1)\1\brm{w} \,=\, \mcl{O}_{\msp{-1}\prec}\msp{-1}(\Psi^2)
\,,
}
we see that $ 1-m^2\brm{S} $ can be also inverted in the subspace orthogonal to both the $ +1 $ and $ -1 $ eigendirections. Hence \eqref{linearised SCE for w} yields
\[
\brm{w} \,=\, \mcl{O}_{\msp{-2}\prec}\msp{-1}\bigl(\2\widehat{\Gamma}\,\Psi^2\bigr)
\,,
\]
which is exactly the fluctuation averaging bound (4.14) of \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} with $ \wti{\Gamma} $ updated to $ \wht{\Gamma} $.
Besides these observations and the replacement of $ \wti{\Gamma} $ by $ \wht{\Gamma} $ the proof from \cite{Erdos13-LoclScGenRMT} can be carried out without further modifications.
|
\section{Introduction}
Planetary nebulae (PNe) arise from intermediate- and low-mass stars,
which makes them an excellent probe of the dynamics of these stars in
nearby galaxies. Their bright emission lines can provide accurate
line-of-sight velocities with a minimum of telescope time. Therefore
spectroscopy of PNe can be used as a powerful tool for the study of
the kinematics of nearby galaxies \citep[e.g.,][ hereafter HK04,
PFF04, and M06]{HK04,PFF04,Mer06} and for the mapping of stellar
streams around massive galaxies such as M31\ \citep{Mer03,Mor03}. The
spectra of individual PNe in nearby galaxies also provide chemical
abundances of certain elements in their progenitor stars
\citep[e.g.,][]{W97,Richer98,Fornax,SALT_Sgr,Sa09,Magr09a,Kwitter12,Sanders12}.
They complement photometric or spectroscopic metallicity information
traditionally derived from old red giants or from H\,{\sc ii} regions
by providing a probe of the abundances of intermediate-age
populations.
Searches for PNe are usually based on narrow-band imaging in the
H$\alpha$ and [O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007 bandpasses in which PNe can
emit 15--20\% of their total luminosity
\citep[e.g.,][]{Magr03,Magr05a}. Occasionally special instruments like
the Planetary Nebula Spectrograph \citep[PM.S;][]{Douglas02} are
employed for the simultaneous identification of PNe and the
measurement of their radial velocities \citep[e.g.,][]{Mer06}, or
integral field spectrographs are used in small fields of view with
particularly high crowding in order to identify and measure [O\,{\sc
iii}] $\lambda$5007 emission against a pronounced stellar background
\citep{Pastorello13}. Other searches, especially photometric ones,
aim at covering as large an area as possible.
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) \citep{york00,stou02} was an
imaging and spectroscopic survey that covered about one quarter of the
celestial sphere. The imaging data were collected in drift-scan mode
in the five bandpasses $u, \ g, \ r, \ i$, and $z$
\citep{fuku96,gunn98,hogg01}. The images were subsequently processed
with special data reduction pipelines to measure the photometric,
astrometric, and structural properties of all detectable sources
\citep{lupt02, stou02, smit02, pier03} and to identify targets for
spectroscopy. The SDSS passbands were carefully chosen to provide a
wide color baseline, to avoid night sky lines and atmospheric OH
bands, to match passbands of photographic surveys, and to guarantee
good transformability to existing extragalactic studies.
The SDSS has been used extensively for the detection and
characterization of objects with special characteristics, including
different types of emission-line objects
\citep[e.g.,][]{Rich02,Kni03,Kni04,PT11,Tanaka12,Zhao13}.
Since the detected flux from PNe comes almost entirely from nebular
emission lines in the optical, the range of colors characteristic of
PNe is defined by the ratios of these emission lines and their
corresponding contributions in different SDSS passbands. Some of these
colors may be expected to be similar to the colors of emission-line
galaxies \citep[ELGs; see, e.g.,][]{Kni04} and should be usable for
the detection of PNe based on SDSS photometry.
In this paper, we present a method designed to detect PN candidates
based on their SDSS colors. Using a sample of known PNe, we isolate
a region in the SDSS $ugri$ two-color diagram in which the probability
of an object to be a PN is very high. In \S\ref{txt:method} we
describe the detection method. We apply this method to the M31\ region
scanned by the SDSS in 2002 \citep[DR6,][]{DR6}. In
\S\ref{txt:obs_red} the follow-up observations and data reduction are
described. In \S\ref{txt:compar} we compare our data with other
surveys for PNe in M31. In \S\ref{txt:efficiency} the resulting
detection efficiency of the method is discussed. In
\S\ref{txt:M31PNe} we present our results for the new PNe in M31\ and
discuss them. A summary is presented in \S\ref{txt:summary}.
For the remainder of this paper, we assume a distance to M31\ of
760\,kpc \citep{vand99}.
\section{The Method}
\label{txt:method}
\subsection{Primary Selection Criteria}
\label{txt:Sel_determ}
In order to develop a method for the selection of PN candidates from
Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) imaging data based on photometric
criteria, we used an SDSS scan of M31\ reduced with the standard SDSS
photometric pipeline \citep[see][]{Zucker04a}. Using 37 PNe in M31\
from \citet[][NF87 hereafter]{NF87} and one PN from \citet{JF86} we
constructed a test sample of previously known PNe in this region. We
re-identified these PNe in the SDSS data and developed selection
criteria on the basis of their SDSS colors and magnitudes. Because the
standard SDSS pipeline (PHOTO) does not work properly in very crowded
fields, there are {\em no}\ SDSS data in the central area of M31\
where many of the previously identified PNe in M31\ are located. In
addition, eight PNe from the list of 37 from \citet{NF87} could not be
recovered since they are either located close to diffraction spikes of
bright stars on SDSS images or lie in regions where the SDSS source
detections are incomplete due to crowding. Our final test sample
contained 30 PNe.
The location of the known PNe from our test sample and of other
stellar sources from the SDSS M31\ data in different color-magnitude
diagrams (CMDs) is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Sel_crit}. Throughout
this paper, we use magnitudes resulting from point spread function
(PSF) fitting in the SDSS photometry pipeline, as these magnitudes
give the best results for point sources in the SDSS. To minimize any
reddening effects, the measured magnitudes for each object and each
filter were corrected using the extinction values from the
\citet{Schl98} maps prior to further analysis.
One of the basic characteristics for PNe is the magnitude m$_{5007}$,
which is an equivalent of the V-magnitude calculated from the flux of
the emission line [O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007 \citep{J89}. The SDSS
filter $g$ (central wavelength 4686 \AA) covers this emission line in
a region very close to the maximum of its response. Since PNe at the
distance of M31\ are objects without detected continuum we assume
that the $g$ magnitudes for these objects have to be very close to the
m$_{5007}$ magnitudes (see Section~\ref{txt:compar} for the final
comparison). Our final criteria to recover all objects of the test
sample from the SDSS photometric database are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:final_select}
{\rm Object~type} & = & {\rm star} \nonumber \\
{\rm Magnitude~type} & = & {\rm PSF} \nonumber \\
19\fm9 \le g_0 & \le & 21\fm6 \nonumber \\
(g - r)_0 & \le & -0\fm4 \\
(r - i)_0 & \le & -0\fm2 \nonumber \\
(u - g)_0 & \ge & 1\fm0 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
As Figure~\ref{fig:Sel_crit} demonstrates the most important CMD is
$(u - g)_0$ versus $g_0$, in which the locus of all PNe from our test
sample is clearly separated from the location of most other stars in
this diagram. The very red $(u - g)_0$ colors of PNe are defined by
the existence of strong [O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007 emission in the
$g$ filter and the absence of any strong emission lines in the $u$
filter. The limiting magnitude for the bright end of the PN
distribution, $g_0 = 19\fm9$, was selected on the basis of the
distance modulus $\rm (m - M)_0 = 24.4$ to M31\ \citep[][]{vand99} and
the absolute magnitude cut-off of the PN [O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007
luminosity function (PNLF) in massive galaxies with a large population
of PNe \citep[$M_{5007} = -4\fm47$;][]{Ciar02}. The limiting
magnitude for the faint end and the bluest limiting $(u - g)_0$ color
of the PNe was selected such as to recover all objects of the test
sample.
The locus of the PNe from the test sample defines the selection
parameter range for our ``first priority'' candidates. Since these are
objects whose photometric properties match those of the known PNe from
the test sample, they are considered to be very likely PNe
as well. However, it is conceivable that ``true'' PNe are located not
only in this region of parameters, but have some spread around it.
PNe could have brighter $g_0$ magnitudes because $g$ is not exactly
identical with a narrow-band m$_{5007}$ filter. We also expect PNe
with fainter $g_0$ magnitudes, because the PNLF for M31\ has been traced down
to 6 mag fainter from its bright cut-off \citep[][]{Mer06}. PNe could
also have redder $(u - g)_0$ colors in the case that the [O\,{\sc
iii}] $\lambda$5007 line is not as strong as for objects from the test
sample.
For these reasons, based only on the distribution plotted in the $(u -
g)_0$ vs.\ $g_0$ CMD, we additionally defined more relaxed selection
criteria of $19\fm4 \le g_0 \le 22\fm2$ and $(u - g)_0 \ge 0\fm6$ to
identify ``second priority'' candidates. We realized that we can
assess how good or bad these relaxed criteria are only after getting
additional information or confirmation observations for the selected
candidates. These softer criteria for the selection of the second
priority candidates are indicated with dotted lines in the
bottom-right $(u-g)_0$ vs.\ $g_0$ diagram in
Figure~\ref{fig:Sel_crit}. As can be seen from this figure, for
magnitudes fainter than $g_0 = 22\fm2$, the CMD data become very
uncertain because of the incompleteness of the SDSS M31\ data
themselves. The completeness of the SDSS M31\ data varies from field
to field because of, for instance, variable seeing during the
observations and photometry pipeline problems caused by crowding.
Because of the high stellar density in the M31\ region, the
incompleteness is higher than in standard SDSS imaging data,
which have 95\% completeness for point sources at the level
of $r \sim 22\fm2$ \citep{DR2}.
We then applied our criteria to the whole area of M31\ observed by the
SDSS in 2002 \citep[][]{DR6} in order to select PN candidates. Since
the star-galaxy separation in the SDSS is better than 90\% at $r =
21\fm6$ \citep{DR1}, but worsens for fainter magnitudes, fainter PNe
may have been wrongly identified as (slightly) extended sources in the
SDSS database. In our case $r = 21\fm6$ can be transformed to $g_0
\sim 20\fm6$ using $(g-r)_0 \sim -1$ from Figure~\ref{fig:Sel_crit},
and could be even brighter. In order not to lose such potential PNe,
we applied the same color and magnitude selection criteria as listed
above to extended objects and selected additional PN candidates of
first and second priority. Subsequently all candidates were visually
inspected to eliminate recognizably false detections, such as
diffraction spikes of bright stars and clearly extended objects.
We also visually checked our selected candidates using the images of
the ``Survey of Local Group Galaxies Currently Forming Stars''
\citep[SLGG hereafter;][]{Mas06,Mas07}. In this survey, imaging was
obtained in broadband {\em UBVRI} filters and in narrow-band filters
centered on the H$\alpha$ and [O\,{\sc iii}]$\lambda$5007 lines. Using
the SLGG we marked those of our candidates with obvious emission in
the [O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007 and H$\alpha$ narrow-band filters and
removed all candidates without such emission. This work was done only
for that part of our sample covered by the SLGG images.
In the end, we detected a total of 167 PN candidates, 100 first
priority and 67 second priority. By design, all PNe from the
test sample were detected as candidates of the first priority. We
list all selected M31\ PN candidates in the SDSS data in
Table~\ref{tbl-1}. This table contains the designations (column 1),
coordinates (columns 2--3), PSF magnitudes corrected for the
extinction and magnitude uncertainties as given by the SDSS (columns
4--8), and the priority type (column 9). The table also shows the
result of our spectroscopic follow-up observations and visual checks
with data from the SLGG (column 10; see Section \ref{txt:obs} for
detailed explanations), cross-identifications with other catalogs of
PNe in M31\ (column 12), and the possible association of objects from
our sample with some structures of the outer region of M31\ (column
11). In Figure~\ref{fig:Sel_pos} we show the positions of all
selected candidates of both priorities in our survey using a standard
coordinate projection centered on M31.
\subsection{Possible Contaminants}
\label{txt:contam}
In order to understand possible contamination by point sources such as
QSOs and stars, we analyzed the distribution of our candidates as compared to the
known loci of quasars of different redshifts as shown and discussed in
\citet{Rich02} and \citet{QSO10}. Our analysis shows that our
criteria select star-like sources that are far from both the QSO loci
and the loci of the Galactic stars fainter than $g_0 \sim 15.3$ mag.
Only a few data points from stars are located in our areas of
interest, which would yield perhaps 1--10 objects per 1000 deg$^2$.
Since the SDSS M31\ data studied in this paper cover only
about 26 deg$^2$ in total \citep{DR6},
including the central part of M31, such contamination should thus be
extremely small.
For stars brighter than $g_0 \sim 15.3$ mag foreground stars from the
Galaxy begin to contribute as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:All_stars},
where the CMD for all available stellar sources from the M31\ SDSS
data is plotted after applying the criteria $(g - r)_0 \le
-0\fm4~~and~~(r - i)_0 \le -0\fm2$. Figure~\ref{fig:All_stars} shows
that $g_0 \sim 15.3$ mag is a natural limit of our color-selection
method and is far away from the limiting magnitude of 19\fm4 we
used for the M31\ data.
We also estimated the amount of possible contamination by background
ELGs using data from \citet{Kni04} for galaxies with strong emission
lines from SDSS Data Release 1 \citep{DR1}. With our color criteria,
only two of the ELGs from the SDSS catalog of \citet{Kni04} would be
selected. These two have very high ([O\,{\sc iii}]
$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$) line ratios of 6.5 and 7.2, respectively,
which are very close to the characteristics of the PNe from the test
sample (see Section~\ref{txt:efficiency}).
Considering that the above ELG catalog is based on the SDSS Data
Release 1, which covers an area of 1360 deg$^2$, the number of
possible contaminants in our M31\ region is obviously very small.
Furthermore, the two recovered ELGs are clearly very extended objects
and would therefore certainly have been rejected during the visual
inspection. These two ELGs are both relatively bright sources with
total magnitudes $r \le 17\fm77$ (this was the spectroscopic target
magnitude limit for galaxies in the SDSS-I). In contrast, it is
conceivable that very distant, very faint ELGs might appear as
star-like sources instead. As can be seen in
Figure~\ref{fig:ELGs_red}, the $(g-r)_0$ color for ELGs increases with
redshift. Beyond a redshift of 0.1 all ELGs will lie outside of our
color selection area. Hence we may assume that contamination of our
PN sample by faint ELGs is negligible.
We conclude that our color-selection method for PN candidates using
SDSS $ugri$ filters appears to work very well for point-like sources
at the distance of M31\ with a very low probability for the selected
sources to be contaminated with other types of objects. Potentially,
this method can work up to the bright limit of $g_0 \sim 15.3$, which
corresponds to a distance of $\sim 90$~kpc (for the absolute magnitude
cutoff of the PNLF of $M_{5007} = -4\fm47$).
For extended sources at the distance of M31, the probability that the
selected candidates could be contaminated by nearby (redshift $\le$
0.1) ELGs with strong emission lines is also very low. But this
contamination will surely grow when the $(u-g)_0$ color criterion is
relaxed (see Section~\ref{txt:efficiency} for more details).
\section{Spectroscopic Follow-up Observations}
\label{txt:obs_red}
\subsection{Observations}
\label{txt:obs}
Spectroscopic follow-up observations of a subset of our PN candidates in
M31\ were carried out in 2004 October 7 to 14 at Calar Alto
Observatory with the Calar Alto Faint Object Spectrograph (CAFOS) at
the 2.2\,m telescope. During the eight nights of observations in
service mode a total of 80 PN candidates of both first and second
priorities were observed under variable weather conditions. The seeing
varied from 0\farcs8 to 2\farcs5. A long slit whose width was
adjusted depending on the seeing (1\arcsec\ -- 2.5\arcsec) was used in
combination with a G-100 grism (87\,\AA\,mm$^{-1}$, first order). The
spatial scale along the slit was $0\farcs53$~pixel$^{-1}$. The
detector was a SITE 2K$\times$2K CCD, which we used without binning.
The resulting wavelength coverage was $\lambda$\,4200 --
$\lambda$\,6800\,\AA\ with maximum sensitivity at $\sim$~6000\,\AA.
The obtained dispersion was $\sim$1.9--2\,\AA/pixel, leading to a
spectral resolution of $\sim$~4 -- 6\,\AA\ (FWHM). The exposure times
were adjusted according to the target brightness and weather
conditions and ranged from 15 to 30 minutes per target. In addition,
the flux standard star Hiltner~102 was observed at least once per
night, and Hg--Cd reference spectra for wavelength calibration were
obtained, complemented by the usual dome flatfields, bias, and dark
exposures.
We have marked all spectroscopically observed PNe in Table~\ref{tbl-1}.
Column 10 specifies which of the PNe were observed at Calar Alto
Observatory during our spectroscopic follow-up campaign. Confirmed
PNe are marked with the flag value ``1''. Three candidates that were
not detected as PNe in our follow-up but that were confirmed later
via cross-identifications with other catalogues as real PNe are marked
with the flag value ``2''. PN candidates that were not found in our
follow-up observations are marked with the flag value ``3''. We did
not reject these unconfirmed candidates because all of them are
fainter than g=21\fm5 and possibly were not identified correctly with
the 2.2\,m telescope under poor weather conditions.
\subsection{Data Reduction}
\label{txt:red}
The two-dimensional spectra were bias-subtracted and flat-field
corrected using IRAF\footnote{IRAF: the Image Reduction and Analysis
Facility is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory,
which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National
Science Foundation (NSF).}. Cosmic ray removal was done with the
FILTER/COSMIC task in MIDAS\footnote{MIDAS is an acronym for the
European Southern Observatory data reduction package -- Munich Image
Data Analysis System.}. We used the IRAF software routines IDENTIFY,
REIDENTIFY, FITCOORD, and TRANSFORM to perform the wavelength
calibration and to correct each frame for distortion and tilt. The
accuracy of the velocity determination depends on careful wavelength
calibration of the spectra. The rms error in fitting the dispersion
curve was always less than 0.3~\AA, or 18~km~s$^{-1}$ at a wavelength
of 5000~\AA. After flux calibration, one-dimensional (1D) spectra
were extracted from the reduced frames using the IRAF APALL routine to
allow us to measure the total flux. The resulting reduced and
extracted spectra of typical observed PNe of different $g$ magnitudes
are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:SDSS_PN_spec}.
After 1D spectra were extracted, we used our standard method for
measuring emission-line intensities \citep{Kni04,Kni05}. Briefly, our
programs determine the location of the continuum, perform a robust
noise estimation, and fit separate emission lines by a single Gaussian
superimposed on the continuum-subtracted spectrum. The emission lines
H$\alpha$ $\lambda$6563 and [N\,{\sc ii}] $\lambda\lambda$6548,6584
were fitted simultaneously as a blend of three Gaussian features. The
quoted uncertainties of the individual line intensities $\sigma_{\rm
tot}$ include two components: $\sigma_{\rm p}$ caused by the Poisson
statistics of line photon flux, and $\sigma_{\rm c}$, the uncertainty
resulting from the creation of the underlying continuum and calculated
using the Absolute Median Deviation (AMD) estimator.
Since our data are not of good quality, only the strongest emission
lines are detected in our spectra. The emission lines [O\,{\sc iii}]
$\lambda$4959,5007 and H$\alpha$ are seen in all spectra. The
emission lines H$\beta$ and [N\,{\sc ii}] $\lambda\lambda$6548,6584
are detected in most (but not all) spectra. The average
signal-to-noise ratios for the detected lines are 33.3 for [O\,{\sc
iii}] $\lambda$5007, 13.2 for H$\alpha$ and 3.8 for H$\beta$. Lines
with a signal-to-noise ratio less than one were rejected. The strong
emission line He\,{\sc ii} $\lambda$4686 was also found in the
spectrum of SDSS~J005123+435321, which is located in the area of
Andromeda~NE \citep{Zucker04a} shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SDSS_PN_spec}.
The observed flux of this line is about 65\% of the flux of the
H$\beta$ emission line.
The quoted velocities were derived as mean values weighted by the
velocities determined from the individual lines. The weights are
inversely proportional to the velocity accuracy for each line. The
observed velocities were further corrected for the motion of the Earth
and transformed to heliocentric velocities. The resulting radial
heliocentric velocities and their errors (column 2), the observed line
fluxes (columns 3 -- 6), and the derived extinction coefficient
$C$(H$\beta$) (column 7) based on the H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio are
listed in Table~\ref{tbl-2}. The distributions of the observed
[O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007~/~H$\alpha$ and [N\,{\sc ii}]
$\lambda\lambda$6548,6584~/~H$\alpha$ line ratios are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:lines_ratio}. The observed and the
extinction-corrected [O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007~/~H$\alpha$ line
ratios are plotted versus the $g_0$ magnitude in
Figure~\ref{fig:mag_ratio}.
It is worth noting here that in all cases of non-detection we see no
other emission lines in the spectra and do not see any continuum. For
this reason we are not able to conclude anything about nature of the
candidates that are not identified as genuine PNe: no obvious ELGs,
QSOs, or identifiable special types of stars are detected.
\section{Comparison with other data sets}
\label{txt:compar}
After we constructed our sample and obtained follow-up observations,
data from four additional surveys for PNe in M31\ were published.
These new data allow us to compare and to check for different
systematic effects or to test the external accuracy. The fifth
new survey of the center of M31\ \citep{Pastorello13} is not included
here since the central regions are not resolved in our data.
\citet[][ hereafter HK04]{HK04} present positions and radial
velocities of a sample of 135 PNe, which were selected using
narrow-band imaging and follow-up spectroscopy in the area located to
the South and East of the nucleus of M31. \citet[][ hereafter
H06]{Hall06} published positions and velocities for 723 PNe located in
the disk and bulge of M31. H06 used the conventional approach of
narrow-band imaging and fibre-fed spectroscopy. \citet[][ hereafter
M06]{Mer06} present a catalogue of positions, magnitudes, and
velocities for 3300 emission-line objects (of which 2730 are probably
PNe) found by the Planetary Nebula Spectrograph in the area of M31.
In our cross-identification work
we used a $2.5''$ search box, which is larger than the cited
astrometric accuracy of of both HK04 and M06.
We did not compare our data with the data of H06, because the M06
sample includes 99\% of the H06 sample and the H06 sample is located
more in the central region of M31. We also do not compare with the
outer disk sample of \citet{Kwitter12}, since their 16 PNe were
selected from the M06 data.
Finally, we do not compare our data with the survey for PNe in globular
clusters in M31 \citep{Jacoby13} since due to crowding none of those
PNe and PN candidates are in our sample.
Figure~\ref{fig:Sel_pos1} shows the spatial distribution of all PNe
from our sample, and of the samples of HK04, H06 and M06 relative to
the center and orientation of M31.
The PN candidates from our
sample are shown with red (first priority) and green (second priority)
squares. All observed PNe from our sample that are real PNe are
marked by blue squares that are larger in size than the other symbols.
All PNe from M06 and H06 are shown with plus signs (+). All PNe from
HK are indicated by crosses (x). In this figure, it is easy to see
the PNe that belong to both samples (as indicated by square symbols of
any color with a cross or plus inside) or that are new ones that were
discovered during this work (empty squares).
\subsection{Velocities}
As was described in Section~\ref{txt:Sel_determ} we used PNe from NF87
to define our selection criteria. Therefore the PNe from the NF87
sample are also in our sample. We have nine PNe in common that were
re-observed at Calar Alto Observatory. The weighted mean velocity
difference $\Delta v$(Our$-$NF87) is $14.3\pm6.6$ km~s$^{-1}$. This
is very close to the systematic difference of 10.4 km~s$^{-1}$ that
HK04 found comparing their velocities with those of NF87.
In our final sample we have 17 PNe in common with HK04 (six of them
are from NF87), but only eight PNe that were re-observed at Calar
Alto. The weighted mean velocity difference $\Delta v$(Our$-$HK04) is
$3.7\pm3.7$~km~s$^{-1}$, which means that we do not have any
substantial systematic offset in the velocities of our and of the HK04
data. We have 12 PNe in common with H06, seven of which were
re-observed at Calar Alto. Similarly, the weighted mean difference
$\Delta v$(Our$-$H06) is $1.2\pm2.4$~km~s$^{-1}$. All these PNe from
H06 in our sample are also found by M06.
We have 66 PNe in common with M06 (many of them are in common with
NF87 and/or HK04 as well) of which 43 were re-observed at Calar Alto.
The weighted mean difference $\Delta v$(Our$-$M06) is $1.6\pm3.0$
km~s$^{-1}$ with a combined dispersion of 19.5~km~s$^{-1}$, implying
that we do not have any systematic offset between our and the M06
data. M06 found that the PN.S data have an uncertainty of
14~km~s$^{-1}$, thus our data have about the same 14~km~s$^{-1}$
uncertainty.
\subsection{Astrometry and $g$ versus m$_{5007}$}
The PN.S astrometry can also be compared with SDSS astrometry. Both
the differences in right ascension (RA) and in declination (Dec) for
our 66 PNe in common with M06 are extremely small ($\Delta {\rm
RA}$(Our$-$M06) = $0.004\pm0.9$ arcsec and $\Delta {\rm
Dec}$(Our$-$M06) = $0.08\pm0.8$ arcsec) and do not show any systematic
effects.
Data from the SDSS together with data from M06 can be used to check
our basic hypothesis that the SDSS $g$ magnitudes for PNe are very
close to $m_{5007}$ magnitudes. Figure~\ref{fig:g_v_5007} shows a
comparison between $g$ magnitudes from the SDSS without extinction
correction and $m_{5007}$ magnitudes from M06 for 66 PNe that are
common to both samples. As can be seen in the top panel of the
figure, most of the points are located around the line of slope unity
where both values would equal each other. To check more accurately
for possible systematic differences, the value $\Delta
$($g-$m$_{5007}$) is drawn in the bottom panel. As this panel shows,
the difference does not reveal any systematic trends up to
$g\sim22.5$~mag, which is around our detection limit.
Only five data points show an underestimation of their flux in the
PN.S data starting from m$_{5007}\sim22.0$~mag, or an overestimation
of the $g$ magnitude by the SDSS. Since the difference amounts to up to 2.3
mag, but all these PNe were observed with the 2.2m telescope, it seems
more likely that the flux was underestimated by M06. Without these
five points the $g$ and $m_{5007}$ magnitudes agree within a
weighted standard deviation of 0.09 mag, which supports our assumption
of the approximate equivalence of the $g$ and $m_{5007}$
magnitudes.
\section{The Efficiency of the Method}
\label{txt:efficiency}
\subsection{Spectral observations}
Our spectroscopic follow-up observations of part of our sample allow
us to estimate the efficiency of our color-selection method.
Altogether, out of the 80 observed PN candidates in the SDSS M31 data,
70 objects turned out to be genuine PNe, resulting in an estimated
detection efficiency of $\sim88\%$. The efficiency is different for
the first ($\sim95\%$) and the second priority ($\sim63\%$) candidates
and depends obviously on the magnitude and color of the selected
candidates. The histogram distribution of the PN candidates as a
function of magnitude in the $g$ band is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:Obs_hist}. Cross-hatched bins indicate observed PN
candidates that turned out not to be PNe in our follow-up spectroscopy
(no obvious emission lines). As can be seen from this figure the
detection efficiency is essentially 100\% for magnitudes brighter than
$g_0 = 21\fm6$, but shows a pronounced decrease for fainter
magnitudes.
There are two possibilities inherent to our method and data set that
help to explain this trend with luminosity. Firstly, the decreasing
number of detected true PNe with decreasing luminosity may reflect the
increasing photometric errors for fainter magnitudes and the thus
increasing number of false detections. This affects in particular the
SDSS $u$ band, since this band has the lowest sensitivity of all the
passbands used in our detection method. At the same time, the
incompleteness of true detections is likely to increase towards
fainter magnitudes, since especially PNe with weak emission lines may
remain unrecognized in the photometric data.
Secondly, the small telescope employed for our follow-up observations
contributes to the difficulty of confirming fainter candidates. There
is at least one PN candidate with $g = 22\fm0$, which we re-observed
with an exposure time of 1800~s after a 900~s exposure did not reveal
emission lines. In the longer exposure emission lines were detected.
Furthermore, three additional, known PNe from the lists of HK04 and
M06 do not show any emission in our spectra (even though two of them
lie within the selection box of our ``first priority'' objects -- see
Figure~\ref{fig:Obs_hist}). These three PNe are shown in
Table~\ref{tbl-1} with a flag value ``2'', and our total efficiency is
$\sim91\%$ ($\sim98\%$ for the first priority candidates and
$\sim68\%$ for the second) after taking them into account.
Hence we cannot be certain that our faint PN candidates without
detected emission lines in their spectra are indeed false
identifications -- deeper observations or observations with larger
telescopes may uncover weak emission lines after all and may thus
improve our detection statistics. In this sense, our listed numbers
may, in fact, only be lower limits. Therefore we did not remove
these candidates from Table~\ref{tbl-1}.
As explained in Section~\ref{txt:Sel_determ}, very red $(u-g)_0$
colors of PNe are caused by the strong emission line [O\,{\sc iii}]
$\lambda$5007 in the wavelength range covered by the $g$ filter and by
the absence of any strong emission lines in the $u$ band. The
H$\beta$ emission line is also located in the $g$ filter, close to the
position of [O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007, but the ([O\,{\sc iii}]
$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$) line ratio is usually much stronger for
spectra of PNe as compared to spectra of ELGs. This contributes to
the efficiency of our color-selection method to select PNe as opposed
to ELGs.
Using our observational data, we can try to evaluate our $(u-g)_0$
color criterion in terms of this ratio. The distribution of the
observed ([O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$) line ratio versus the
$(u - g)_0$ color is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:5007_ug}. Taking into
account that ELGs with strong emission lines have a mean line ratio of
4.06$\pm$1.11 \citep{Kni04}, we can conclude that $(u - g)_0 =
0\fm6-1\fm0$ is approximately the limit where ELGs with strong lines
and PNe start to be comparable in SDSS colors.
\subsection{Cross-identification with other data}
Additional cross identifications with data from HK04 and M06 (73
identifications in total) and visual checks using images of the SLGG
(22 identifications in total) provide further possibilities to
evaluate our method.
A CMD of the SDSS M31\ data with all our PN
candidates and those currently known as genuine PNe is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:obs1}. All PN candidates are shown as crosses in
the selected color-magnitude area. All PNe from the test sample and true
PNe confirmed with spectroscopic follow-up observations are shown with
red filled circles. All PNe that were identified in the HK04 and/or
M06 samples are marked with empty blue circles. All PNe candidates
that were not observed or not identified by HK04 and/or M06, but that
showed obvious emission in the [O\,{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007 and
H$\alpha$ images in the SLGG data are shown with green filled circles.
Observed PN candidates without obvious emission lines that are still
in the sample are shown as empty red circles. All PNe candidates that
were deleted from the sample after the visual inspection of the SLGG
data are depicted by empty black circles.
In total, 103 candidates were selected as first priority candidates,
out of which three were rejected after checking the SLGG data. Only
five first priority candidates still remain to be confirmed.
Altogether, this results in an efficiency of our method in the area of
the first priority candidates of at least 92\%. The efficiency for
the area of the second priority candidates drops from $\sim100\%$ for
magnitudes $g<20\fm0$ to $\sim30\%$ for magnitudes $g>21\fm6$.
Finally, we made one more cross-identification search using the HK04
and M06 sample, but this time for {\em all} available M31\ SDSS data
(both stellar and extended sources). We identified only one
additional PN as compared to those previously identified in our
sample. We thus conclude that with our selection criteria we are able
to select 99\% of the known PNe in the SDSS M31\ data.
We show a comparison of the PNLF from our work with the PNLF from M06
in Figure~\ref{fig:PN_5007}. All data were binned in 0.25 mag
intervals. The data were not corrected for reddening.
The PNLF from M06 is plotted as a blue line. The black line shows the
PNLF for our sample assuming that all selected PN candidates are real
PNe. The red line shows the PNLF for confirmed PNe from our sample.
As expected for a presumably universal curve regardless of the region
sampled, at the bright end our PNLF and the one of M06 show excellent
agreement. Our completeness limit is about $g = 21\fm0-21\fm2$.
\section{A Few Characteristics of the Planetary Nebulae in M31}
\label{txt:M31PNe}
\subsection{Spatial Distribution}
\label{txt:space}
The spatial distribution of all newly discovered PNe is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:Obs_final}. They are overplotted on top of all stars
detected by the SDSS. It is obvious that the discovered PNe really
trace the distribution of stars in the outer regions of M31. In part,
many of them are seen superimposed on various of the recently
uncovered well-known morphological features like the Northern Spur,
the NE Shelf, the NGC\,205 Loop, the G1 Clump, etc. For a more
detailed description of these features and of their stellar
populations, see \citet{Fer02,Fer05,Ibata05,Ibata07,Rich08}.
Certain structures stand out in the spatial distribution of the PNe: A
large number of PNe is seen in the area of the Northern Spur and three
PN candidates are identified at the location of Andromeda NE
\citep{Zucker04a}. Those newly discovered PNe, which could be
associated with known structures in the outer regions of M31, are
marked in Table~\ref{tbl-1}. However, whether individual PNe are
associated with M\,31's disk itself or alternatively with tidal
streams (or other M31\ components) cannot be decided solely based on
their location or spatial coincidence. Such examples will be
discussed in the next sections.
There is a certain asymmetry in the distribution of newly detected PNe
around M31: we find more in the upper and central portion of
Figure~\ref{fig:Obs_final} (corresponding to the northwestern part of
M31) than in the lower portion. Hardly any PNe appear to be
associated with the giant stellar stream, while there are several in
the area of the NE shelf. \citet{Fer05} point out that the stellar
populations of the NE shelf and of the Giant Stream are very similar,
but that the Giant Stream is approximately 60 kpc more distant from us
than the shelf. \citet{Tan10} found the distance to the Giant Stream
to be even twice as large: 883$\pm$45 kpc in total. Deeper data might
reveal more PNe in these two metal-rich features whose stellar
population properties appear to be so similar. Alternatively, the
lower number of detected PNe could also be an effect of the PNLF
affected by the inclination of M31's disk relative to the observer
\citep{Mer06}, and a higher extinction in the more distant part as
seen from our perspective.
\subsection{A minor axis density profile for M31}
\label{txt:minor_axis}
The very extended, diffuse, and disturbed outer regions of M31, which
are visible in, e.g., SDSS star counts as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:Obs_final}, is not a unique occurence. For instance, deep optical
surveys of nearby face-on and edge-on dIrrs and disk galaxies have also
found that their stellar distributions are much more extended than
previously thought, e.g., NGC\,6822 \citep{deBlok06}, Leo\,A
\citep{Vans04}, IC\,1613 \citep{Batt07}, Pegasus \citep{Kniaz09}, the
Magellanic Clouds \citep[][and references therein]{Casetti-Dinescu12}
and the works of \citet{Malin99,Ti05,Ti06}. Moreover, warps and
flaring have been shown to be common features of galactic disks
\citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{Guijarro10,vanderKruit11}. In
addition, accretion features are now commonly detected
\citep[e.g.,][]{Delgado08,Delgado09,Delgado10,Mouhcine10,Miskolczi11,Ludwig12}.
In the case of M31\ we have the opportunity to use PNe as tracers of
intermediate-age stellar components in these various structures.
In the case of M31\ we appear to see an extension of the disk, which
has been shown to possess a complex structure with considerable
warping, both in the optical and in H\,{\sc i}
\citep[e.g.,][]{Brinks84,Walterbos88,Braun91,Morris94,Carb10},
probably caused and modified by interactions
\citep[e.g.,][]{McConnachie09,Richardson11,Qu11}.
In recent years the surroundings of M31\
have been mapped using deep ground-based photometric
surveys of the Andromeda galaxy
\citep{Fer02,Irwin05,Ibata07,McConnachie09} with the wide-field
cameras of the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) and the Canada France
Hawaii Telescope (CFHT). \citet{Ibata05,Ibata07} presented a surface
brightness profile for M31\ and concluded that along the minor axis,
in the region $0.2^\circ<R<0.4^\circ$, the classical inner (thin) disk
of M31\ contributes to the profile, but at $0.5^\circ<R<1.3^\circ$ the
extended disk component becomes dominant.
Since PNe trace the distribution of the underlying intermediate-age
stellar populations, we construct a PN density profile for M31\ using
the catalogue of PNe we compiled from our sample and from the samples
of HK04, H06, and M06 (see Section~\ref{txt:compar}). We used the
same method as in \citet{Kniaz09}, where the density profile for the
outer parts of the Pegasus dIrr was constructed using star counts: PN
densities were calculated within elliptical apertures with a fixed
aspect ratio. The following assumptions and rules were used during
this procedure: (1) We assume that the PNLF of M31\ does not vary
throughout the entire M31\ area. (2) For the central part of M31\ ,
i.e., the region inside of the classical disk (within an ellipse with
a semimajor axis of two degrees in Figure~\ref{fig:Sel_pos1}), where
the standard SDSS software does not work properly due to crowding, the
sample from M06 provides most of the PNe and our data added only very
few objects. The aspect ratio for this region was chosen to be the
same as for the optical disk. All PNe from the compact elliptical
galaxy M\,32 were excluded. The PN densities were calculated in
elliptical apertures with a stepwise axis increase of 0.01 degrees.
(3) For all PNe outside of this inner region we first limited the
sample to PNe brighter than $g = m_{5007} = 22.5$~mag (see
Figure~\ref{fig:PN_5007}). In addition, all PNe from the dwarf elliptical
galaxy NGC\,205 were excluded. An aspect ratio of 3:5 was used for
this region \citep{Fer02,Irwin05,Ibata07}. PN densities were
calculated within elliptical apertures with a step of 0.2 degrees.
The PN data cover only part of the studied region and this geometrical
incompleteness increases with radius. To correct for this effect, we
used an ``incompleteness factor'' -- the ratio between the total area
for the elliptical annulus and the actually covered area. This factor
is about 1.0 at $0.5^\circ<R<1.0^\circ$, but increases drastically
after that. We included this factor in the error propagation. All
subsequent fitting was done with weights of $w_k = \sigma_k^{-1}$,
where $\sigma_k$ is the uncertainty calculated for each level
\citep{LSBs}.
The final density distribution was normalized such that the surface
brightness level at a distance of 0.5$^\circ$ from the center of M31\
is $\sim25$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. This normalization was chosen in order
to be comparable with the V-band minor-axis surface brightness profile
shown in Figure~51 of \citet{Ibata07}. Our calculated density
distribution along the minor axis is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:exp_disk}. Data calculated for the central part of
M31\ are marked by small open circles, and data for the outer part are
shown as blue circles. Error bars indicating the uncertainties for
each point are also plotted.
Our profile looks very similar to the $V$-band minor-axis surface
brightness profile of \citet[][their Figure 51]{Ibata07}: in the very
center at minor axis radii $R<0.1^\circ$ we clearly see the bulge.
Farther out in the region of $0.1^\circ<R<0.5^\circ$ the classical
inner disk (with bumps caused by spiral arms) contributes to the
profile. Then the extended disk becomes dominant, and our profile
shows an exponential decline out to the $R=20$~kpc, where our data, in
principle, still trace the extended disk. Fitting the data for the
region $8<R<20$~kpc, we measure an exponential scale length of
3.21$\pm$0.14~kpc, which is quite similar to what was found for the
same region by \citet{Irwin05} and \citet{Ibata07}, who found a scale
length of 3.22$\pm$0.02~kpc along the minor axis profile using
photometric data from the INT Wide Field Camera survey of M31. This
structure has a very low central surface brightness at a level of
$\mu_0\sim23$~mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
Various scenarios for the formation of the extended disk were
discussed by \citet{Ibata05}. These authors concluded that the most
probable scenario is the formation via accretion of many small
subgalactic structures. \citet*{Pen06} interpreted the extended disk
as a possible result of a single dwarf satellite merger (with a mass of
$10^9-10^{10} M_{\sun}$) and suggested that the inner disk would not
be strongly affected by such an accretion event \citep[see
also][]{Hammer10}. \citet{Magr05b} correlate the number of PNe within
four magnitudes of the absolute magnitude of the PNLF bright-end
cut-off with the total stellar mass for different galaxies (their
Fig.\ 5). Taking the number of PNe detected in the outer region of M31\
into account ($\sim$200), the fact that most of them belong to the extended disk,
and considering the relation derived by \citet{Magr05b}, we can
conclude that the PNe in this area trace a total stellar mass
comparable to that of M\,33 ($\sim10^{10} M_{\sun}$) or to the
stellar mass estimate inferred for M31's thick disk component as
analyzed by \citet{Collins11}. If we then assume that the
abundance distribution for PNe in the extended disk was also similar
to the distribution for M\,33, we would expect a mean oxygen abundance
value close to 12+log(O/H)=8.2--8.4 dex following \citet{Magr09b}.
Finally, we note that a similar, very extended (up to 40--50 kpc) and
rotationally supported disk-like structure was found with PN data
in the halo of the nearby peculiar giant elliptical galaxy
Centaurus\,A \citep[][]{PFF04}.
\subsection{Extended disk or rotating spheroid?}
\label{txt:M31velocities}
A number of studies of the M31\ surface brightness profile and of the
stellar populations in M31\ have suggested that fields as far out as 20~kpc
were still dominated by the bulge \citep[e.g.][]{PB94, Durrell01,
Irwin05}. Deep HST imaging studies of selected minor-axis fields out
to 35 kpc suggest that both the spheroid and the giant stellar stream
contain, in part, similar (though not identical) intermediate-age
populations younger than 10 Gyr and that the spheroid populations are
polluted with stars from the progenitor of the stream
\citep[e.g.,][]{Brown06,Brown07,Brown08}. These photometric findings
are supported by the spectroscopic studies of red giants along the
minor axis by \citet{Gilbert07} and \citet{Fardal12}.
Altogether, out to 20 kpc from the center of M31\ we see the
superimposed contributions of stars belonging to M31's spheroid (bulge
and halo components), disk components, and accreted components. In
their kinematic study, \citet{Collins11} identify a dynamically hotter
thick disk component in M31\ (in addition to the colder classical thin
disk and extended disk). \citet{Dorman12}, in another kinematic study
based on red giants, find that although the disk components dominate
in the inner 20~kpc of M31, the inner spheroid can be traced
throughout this region as a rotating, hot component.
HK04 had a sample of 135 PNe that only cover a fraction of M31, but
their data include a similar range of minor and major axis distances
from the center of M31\ as the above studies that are based on red
giants. HK04 carried out dynamical modeling and conclude that a
standard model for the thin and thick disks and bulge can not
reproduce the observed PNe kinematics. They suggest that the majority
of the PNe in their sample are probably members of a very extended
bulge, which rotates rapidly at large distances and dominates over the
halo out to at least 20 kpc. (In the more recent literature this hot
rotating component is commonly referred to as ``inner spheroid''
\citep[see, e.g.,][]{Dorman12,Fardal12}.
\citet{Ibata05} discovered an additional extended disk population and
reassessed HK04's data in the light of this discovery. They concluded
HK04's data may favor the disk interpretation, but could not confirm
or exclude whether a rotating spheroid is still needed. \citet{Mer06}
obtained velocities for a vast number of PNe and found that M31's
extended bulge (or spheroid) component can be traced out to ten
effective bulge radii or approximately 15~kpc. \citet{Far07} conclude
that \citet{Mer06}'s global PNe kinematics can be best represented as
a combination of M31\ components plus debris from accreted satellites,
including the counterrotating shelf structures.
In their kinematic PN study, \citet{Hall06} argue that the
substantial drop in the PN velocity dispersion from the center of
M31\ ($\sim 130$~km~s$^{-1}$) out to about 11~kpc ($\sim
50$~km~s$^{-1}$) along the major axis does not support the existence
of a dynamically hot PN halo, but they, too, find evidence for an
extended bulge component akin to HK04. For the PNe belonging to the
disk component \citet{Hall06} find a rotation velocity of $\sim
140$~km~s$^{-1}$. As pointed out by \citet{Kwitter12}, the PN
velocity dispersions at large radii and those of the thick disk red
giants measured by \citet{Collins11} are roughly in agreement.
A full dynamical model fit to all PN data is beyond the scope of this
paper. But considering the data shown in Figures~\ref{fig:Sel_pos1},
\ref{fig:Obs_final}, \ref{fig:exp_disk}, and \ref{fig:gen_vels} we
suggest that the domination by an immense rotating spheroid traced by
PNe out to $R\sim20$~kpc along the minor axis looks less probable than
the extended disk scenario: (1) The spatial PN distribution follows
that of the stars with an aspect ratio close to 3:5 for the outer part
of M31. (2) The density profile along the minor axis for the PNe is
very similar to the surface brightness profile of M31\ for the region
$0^\circ<R<0.5^\circ$ and shows a similar exponential-like profile in
the region $0.5^\circ<R<1.5^\circ$. (3) As also found in the studies
mentioned earlier, clearly the bulk of the PNe does not show the
signature of a kinematically hot halo where all objects would have
random velocities except for the very central part dominated by the
bulge population; (4) most PNe (except for those in the very central
part) exhibit a distribution indicating that they belong to a
component that is rotationally supported.
In Figure~\ref{fig:gen_vels} we show the velocity distribution of all
PNe from HK04, H06, M06, and our sample along the major axis of M31.
All shown velocities were corrected for the systemic velocity of M31\
of V$_{sys} = -306$ km s$^{-1}$ \citep{Carb10}. This plot shows that
the majority of the PNe belongs to the rotationally supported system,
where most of our new PNe (blue circles) have velocities
systematically shifted to lower values. This may be the expected
situation in the case of, for example, a simple model for the velocity
of stars on circular orbits around M31\ \citep{Ibata05}.
Alternatively, we may be seeing the difference between the kinematics
of the inner part of M31\ and the extended disk as predicted by
\citet{Pen06}. Which of these scenarios is the more likely one cannot
yet be answered with the existing data.
There are also indications for the presence of an intermediate-age
population in the halo of M31\ that may amount to up to 30\% of the
stars \citep{Brown03}. The few PNe that deviate from the rotational
signature might be members of the halo of M31\ or of its ``extended
spheroid'' \citep[see discussion of the vast extent of M31\
in][]{W05,Tan10}. Considering the apparent presence of an
intermediate-age population in M31's halo, PNe should exist there as
well, but since the number of PNe strongly depends on the luminosity
of the underlying population \citep[e.g.,][]{Ciardullo89} only a
handful of PNe can be expected. However, whether the intermediate-age
population is indeed part of the halo is still being debated,
especially when considering that M31's disk may be even more extended
than commonly thought, that the existing pencil-beam pointings may be
contaminated by stream stars, and that there are apparent large-scale
variations in the stellar populations in M31's outer regions
\citep{Durrell04,Fer05,Chapman05}. We find very few PNe with
distances of more than 30 kpc from M31's center.
\subsection{PNe in Andromeda NE}
\label{txt:AndNE_ab}
We identified three PN candidates at the location of Andromeda NE
\citep{Zucker04a}. The nature of this diffuse low-surface brightness
structure in the outer regions of M31\ is still unclear. It may be a
very low-mass and low surface-brightness galaxy, a portion of an
extended stellar tidal stream, or possibly just turn-off material from
the disk of M31. Andromeda NE has an absolute luminosity in the
$g$-band of $\sim -11.6$~mag and a central surface brightness of only
$\sim 29$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ \citep{Zucker04a}.
According to \citet{RB86} the number of stars n$_P$ in any
post-main-sequence phase $P$ can be calculated with the equation
$ n_P = \eta\,L_T\,t_P$,
where $\eta$ is the number of stars per unit luminosity that leave the
main sequence per year (between 5$\times10^{-12}$ to 2$\times10^{-11}$
yr$^{-1}$ $L_{\odot}^{-1}$), $L_T$ is the total luminosity of the
galaxy (5$\times10^6 L_{\odot}$ for Andromeda NE), and $t_P$ is the
duration of the evolutionary phase ($\le$~20,000 years for PNe).
Applying this formula shows that the number of PNe that might be
expected in Andromeda NE is 0.5--2. These numbers are in good
agreement with the number of PN candidates that we found in this area.
Both our 2.2m spectroscopy in this paper and later 3.5m (Calar Alto,
Spain) and 6m Russian telescope spectroscopy (Kniazev et al., in
preparation) confirm that all these candidates are real PNe, which
could be used for kinematical and chemical studies of Andromeda NE.
Two of the PNe presented in this work are located at projected
distances of $\sim$48~kpc and $\sim$41~kpc from the center of M31\ and
are the most distant PNe in M31\ found up to now.
\citet{Ibata05} obtained stellar spectra of presumed M31\ disk stars
with the Keck DEIMOS multi-object spectrograph. Only one of their
DEIMOS fields ($16.7\times5$ arcmin) was located in the area of
Andromeda NE. The measured heliocentric velocities for 92 stars in
this field show a narrow distribution in the region $V_h=-100$ to
$-200$~km~s$^{-1}$. This velocity distribution peaks at about
$V_h=-150$~km~s$^{-1}$ \citep[Figure~24 in][]{Ibata05} though there
may be some contamination from Galactic foreground stars. All our
newly found PNe in the area of Andromeda NE have heliocentric
velocities in a very narrow velocity range close to
$V_h=-150$~km~s$^{-1}$, which suggests that Andromeda NE has an
average velocity close to that value.
\subsection{Could Andromeda NE be the core or a remnant of the Giant Stream?}
\label{txt:AndNE_core}
In Figure~\ref{fig:gen_vels} we show all PNe identified as a possible
continuation of the Giant Stream by \cite{Mer03}. The Giant Stream
was first detected by \citet{Ibata01} at the southeastern outer part
of M31, close to the minor axis, and was photometrically and
spectroscopically studied at various locations along the stream by,
e.g., \citet{McC03,Ibata04,Guha06}. The continuation of this stream
in the internal part of M31\ is rather uncertain. It is also unknown
whether the progenitor of the stream has survived, and if so where it
is. For these reasons various possible scenarios have been suggested and
studied and different models for the Giant Stream have been
calculated \citep[e.g.,][]{Mer03,Fer02,Ibata04,Far06,Far07,Far08}.
To constrain the stream's orbit \citet{Far06} carried out N-body
simulations. They find that the PN distribution of \citet{Mer03} can
be fit well when assuming that it is part of the expected extension of
the stream. They also note that it is easy to make the orbit of this
stream pass through Andromeda NE but warn that there is no strong
evidence that Andromeda NE is indeed part of the stream since it is
not visibly connected with it.
In Figure~\ref{fig:gen_vels}, we plot all our PNe as green circles
that are located within the same region of ($X$, $V_{\rm los}$)
parameters as the previously identified PNe that may represent a
continuation of the Giant Stream \citep[see][]{Far06}. Three of our
PNe were identified before, and our velocities for them are very close
to the values of \citet{Mer06}. Two of our PNe are new. It is easy to
see that positions of the two new PNe in Andromeda NE are located
along the extension of the line that goes through the ``continuation
of the Giant Stream'' PN sample.
In Figure~\ref{fig:gen_stream} we also plot positions of all these PNe
relative to the center and orientation of M31. All PNe from the
``continuation of the Giant Stream'' sample show a cone-like
structure, beginning close to the southeastern minor axis area, then
expanding to northeastern direction and covering the Northern Spur and
Andromeda NE area.
Taking into account the results of \citet{Far06} and our own plots, we
suggest that the PN data support the notion that Andromeda NE could be
a remnant of the Giant Stream. If this suggestion is correct, then
there are altogether 24 PNe in this putative stream sample.
Using PN surveys of (other) LG galaxies, \citet{Magr05b} infer a
relation between the number of PNe and the stellar mass of the
intermediate-age population of a galaxy. Applying their relation, we
estimate that the Giant Stream progenitor had a mass of $\approx10^9
M_{\sun}$ \citep{Magr05b}, close to the mass of the NGC\,205 dwarf
elliptical galaxy. Similarly, using the relation between the number
of PNe in a given galaxy and its $V$-band luminosity derived by
\citet{Magr03}, we estimate a total luminosity $10^8-10^{8.5}
L_{\odot}$ for the progenitor of the Giant Stream. Comparing this
value to its currently measured luminosity, we suggest that about 90\%
of its stars have been lost during the interaction with M31. This
estimate is very close to the calculated dynamical mass of the Giant
Stream progenitor, $M_s \approx 10^9 M_{\sun}$, from \citet{Far06}.
Our estimate of the possible luminosity range of the progenitor is of
the order of the luminosities of the dwarf elliptical companions of
M31\ as well as the Local Group dwarf irregular galaxy IC\,10. The
estimated lower limits of the metallicity of the PNe in NGC\,185 and
NGC\,205 are $12+\log$\,(O/H) = 8.2 and 8.6, respectively
\citep{Richer95}. For the PNe in NGC\,147 \citet{Goncalves07} find a
mean metallicity of $12+\log$\,(O/H) $=8.06^{+0.09}_{-0.12}$.
In IC\,10, only one PN metallicity based on a direct
measurement of $T_{\rm eff}$ has been published so far, yielding
$12+\log$\,(O/H) = 7.96 \citep{Magr09a}. The lower limits estimated
for the remaining PNe without direct $T_{\rm eff}$ measurements are
higher. We recall that for a given luminosity early-type dwarfs tend
to have higher metallicities than late-type dwarfs by up to 0.5 dex
\citep[e.g.,][]{Richer99, Grebel03}. In any case, regardless of the
morphological type of the progenitor, these sparse data
on known or estimated PN abundances in dwarf galaxies in the infered
luminosity range of the Giant Stream progenitor suggest that the
intermediate-age stellar populations in the progenitor may have had
metallicities $12+\log$\,(O/H) of the order of 8.0 to 8.6 dex.
Finally, we would like to emphasize two findings resulting from our PN
analysis: (1) The estimated difference in mass between the Giant Stream
progenitor ($\approx20$ PNe; $\sim10^9$~M$_{\sun}$) and the extended
disk of M31\ ($\approx200$ PNe; $\sim10^{10}$~M$_{\sun}$) is an
order of magnitude. For that reason the extended disk cannot be the
result of a merger of the Giant Stream progenitor and M31\ as a number
of models have suggested \citep[e.g.,][]{Far06,Far08}. (2) Some part
of the Giant Stream progenitor may be spread across the extended disk,
but its contribution has to be small compared to the material of the
extended disk itself.
\subsection{The Giant Stream and the Northern Spur connection}
\label{txt:GS_NE_connect}
The Northern Spur was first noticed by \citet{Walterbos88}. This
structure is located near the northeastern major axis of M31. The
direction of the gaseous warp \citep[e.g.,][]{Carb10} provides strong
support for the association of the Northern Spur with a warp in the
outer stellar disk. \citet{Fer02} were the first to show that this
feature is an excess of stars at the same distance as M31\ and that it
is about a factor of 1.5--2 times more overdense than the G1 clump.
They also suggested that the Northern Spur possibly consists of
intermediate-age stars of moderate metallicity, [Fe/H]$\ge-0.7$ dex.
Analyzing a DEIMOS field ($16.7\times5$ arcmin) in this area
\citet{Ibata05} found that the stellar velocities are similar to the
velocities of other fields located in the outer part of M31.
\citet{Fer02, Zucker04a} and \citet{Ibata07} suggested that the
metallicity of the Northern Spur agrees well with those of many other
parts of the extended disk of M31\ such as the G1 clump and Andromeda
NE. \citet{Rich08} analyzed HST data of a number of fields sampling
different areas of the outer part of M31\ and distinguished two types
of fields based on the morphology seen in the color-magnitude
diagrams. Their ``stream-like'' fields resemble the populations found
in the Giant Stream, while their ``disk-like'' fields reveal prominent
internmediate-age and recent star formation. The Northern Spur
belongs to their ``disk-like'' fields, just as the G1 Clump and
Andromeda NE.
Our data provide further support for the presence of intermediate-age
populations, since we found 3--4 PNe in the area of the G1 Clump and
7--10 PNe in the area of the Northern Spur. Our
Figures~\ref{fig:Sel_pos1} and \ref{fig:Obs_final} show the high
density of detected PNe in the area of the Northern Spur as compared
to the neighboring regions, and Figures~\ref{fig:gen_vels} and
\ref{fig:gen_stream} show that three of these PNe are kinematically
different and belong to the ``continuation of the Giant Stream''
sample. In this scenario the progenitor of the Giant Stream
passed over, near, or through the Northern Spur area and lost there a
sufficiently large part of its mass to account for the PNe.
Considering the detected PNe, the total mass of the Northern Spur may
be estimated to be $6\times10^8 M_{\sun}$, of which 20--30\% could
have been contributed by the Giant Stream. Since the resulting mixture
of populations spread over a sufficiently large area and the resulting
range of the metallicities is unknown the detection of such a
proposed accreted component would be difficult observationally.
However, it would be interesting to compare abundances of different PNe
from the Northern Spur area with those from an in-situ population in
the same area and with PNe from Anromeda NE.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{txt:summary}
In this paper we present a method to identify extragalactic PNe based
on $ugri$ SDSS photometry and results from follow-up studies. Our
results and conclusions can be summarized as follows:
1. We have developed a method to identify PN candidates in imaging
data of the SDSS using their unique characteristics in $ugri$
photometric data. We apply and test this technique using M31\ and its
large number of PNe. Altogether, we identify 167 PN candidates in the
M31\ area.
2. We demonstrate that our color-selection method for PN candidates
using SDSS $ugri$ filters can work very well for point-like sources at
distances of 90--800~kpc. The probability for the selected sources
to be contaminated with other types of objects is very low. For
extended sources the probability that the selected candidates could be
contaminated by ELGs with strong emission lines and with redshift
$\le$ 0.1 is also very low. But this contamination will surely grow
when the $(u-g)_0$ color criterion is relaxed: $(u - g)_0 =
0\fm6-1\fm0$ is approximately the limit at which ELGs with strong
lines and PNe start to be comparable in SDSS colors.
3. We obtained spectroscopic follow-up observations of 80 PN
candidates in the M31\ area. These observations, additional
cross-identification work with other samples, and visual checks with
narrow-band images show that the efficiency of our method is at least
92\% for the area of our ``first priority'' candidates. The
efficiency for the area of our ``second priority'' candidates drops
from $\sim100\%$ for magnitudes of $g<20\fm0$ to $\sim30\%$ for
magnitudes of $g>21\fm6$.
4. In general, the distribution of PNe in the outer region of M31,
i.e., $8<R<20$~kpc along the minor axis follows the rotationally
supported low surface-brightness structure with an exponential scale
length of 3.21$\pm$0.14~kpc, the so-called extended disk suggested by
\citet{W05}. This disk-like component is also visible in photometric
data from the Isaac Newton Telescope Wide Field Camera survey of M31\
\citep[][]{Ibata05,Ibata07}. We estimate the total stellar mass of
this structure to be $\sim10^{10} M_{\sun}$, which is equivalent of
the mass of M\,33.
5. Our spectroscopy confirms that we have found two new PNe in the
area of Andromeda NE \citep{Zucker04a}, a number consistent with the
number of PNe that can be expected in a stellar structure of this low
a luminosity ($\sim 5\times10^6 L_\odot$). These two PNe are located
at projected distances of $\sim$46 Kpc and $\sim$40 Kpc along the
major axis from the center of M31.
6. With the new PN data at hand we see a possible kinematic connection
between the Giant Stream and PNe in Andromeda\,NE suggesting that
Andromeda\,NE could be the core or remnant of the Giant Stream. Using
the PN data we estimate the total mass of the Giant Stream progenitor
to be $\approx10^9 M_{\sun}$, which would imply that about 90\% of
stars were lost during the interaction with M31.
6. Our data show an obvious kinematic connection between the
continuation of the Giant Stream and the Northern Spur. We suggest
that 20 -- 30\% of stars in the Northern Spur area could belong to the
Giant Stream.
\acknowledgments
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is a joint project of The
University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the
Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, the
Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute
for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Princeton
University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of
Washington. Apache Point Observatory, site of the SDSS telescopes, is
operated by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC).
Funding for the project has been provided by the Alfred P.\ Sloan
Foundation, the SDSS member institutions, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S.\
Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck
Society. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/.
A.Y.K acknowledges the support
from the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa
and support from the Collaborative Research Area
``The Milky Way System'' (SFB 881) of the German Research Foundation
(DFG) during his visits to Heidelberg.
EKG acknowledges
support from the Swiss National Science Foundation through the grants
200021-101924/1 and 200020-105260/1.
|
\section*{Introduction}
Quantum field theory at finite temperature is known to be very successful at dealing with problems such as phase transitions, spontaneous symmetry breaking and restoration, and similar collective phenomena in the context of high energy physics \cite{kapusta,Bellac}. In such applications, a quantity of key interest is the thermodynamic potential which to one-loop order is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\text{B/F}} = \frac{2}{\beta} \int{\frac{\d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \ln\left(1 \mp \mathrm{e}^{- \beta E}\right)},
\label{TheIntegral0}
\end{equation}
where $\beta > 0$ is the inverse temperature and $E=\sqrt{\bm{p}^2+m^2}$ is the relativistic energy of the field of mass $m>0$. Here, the upper (lower) sign corresponds to Bose (Fermi) statistics. It should be noted that the vacuum contribution to $\Omega_{\text{B/F}}$ is neglected since it is temperature independent and as such is irrelevant for our considerations. The thermodynamic potential can be calculated approximately in the limit of low $(\beta m \gg 1)$ or high temperature $(\beta m \ll 1)$. In our notation, the original result for $\Omega_{\text{B/F}}$ in the high temperature limit, given by Dolan and Jackiw \cite{Dolan:1973qd}, reads
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\text{B}} \approx -\frac{\pi^2}{45 \beta^4} + \frac{1}{12\beta^2}m^2 - \frac{1}{6\pi\beta}m^3 + \frac{1}{32\pi^2} \left(\frac{3}{2} - 2\gamma + 2 \ln 4\pi - \ln \beta^2 m^2\right)m^4,
\label{Bos}
\end{equation}
for bosons and
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\text{F}} \approx \frac{7\pi^2}{360\beta^4} - \frac{1}{24\beta^2}m^2 + \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}-2\gamma+2\ln \pi - \ln \beta^2 m^2 \right)m^4,
\label{Fer}
\end{equation}
for fermions. Here, $\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. One of the most striking differences in the above results is the appearance of $m^3$ term in $\Omega_{\text{B}}$, the expression otherwise being very similar to $\Omega_{\text{F}}$. It is evident that the origin of the term in question is `singular' since the original integral is dependent only on $m^2$ (through $E$), and all other terms in the high temperature expansion are indeed functions of $m^2$. This is reminiscent of the Bose-Einstein condensation (cf.~\cite{Haber:1981ts,Haber:1981tr}) which is also, in a certain sense, a singular phenomenon, occurring only in bosonic systems. Ultimately, the $m^3 \equiv (m^2)^{3/2}$ term is a manifestation of a branch cut in $\Omega_{\text{B}}$ in the variable $m^2$ running from $m^2 = 0$ to $m^2 = - \infty$. Such a branch cut does not appear in $\Omega_{\text{F}}$. Given the similarities and the differences in the expressions for $\Omega_{\text{B}}$ and $\Omega_{\text{F}}$, it is natural to ask, is there a way of calculating both potentials at once?
The above discussion motivates us to consider the thermodynamic potential given in Eq.~\eqref{TheIntegral0} as a special case of a generalized thermodynamic potential
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi) = \frac{1}{\beta} \int{\frac{\d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \ln\left(1-\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi} \mathrm{e}^{- \beta E}\right)} + \mathrm{c.c.},
\label{TheIntegral}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi \in [0,2\pi \rangle$ is an effective generalized-statistics parameter which interpolates between bosons ($\varphi=0$) and fermions ($\varphi=\pi$). The c.c.~stands for complex conjugation and corresponds to the antiparticle contribution to $\Omega(\varphi)$. Since we are dealing with thermodynamic potential in (3+1) dimensions, the term generalized statistics should not be confused with the anyon statistics which is only relevant in (2+1) dimensions. The parameter $\varphi$ is directly related to the imaginary chemical potential $\mu_\i$ ($\mu_{\i} = \varphi/\beta$ for bosons and $\mu_{\i} = (\varphi+\pi)/\beta$ for fermions), which is especially relevant for finite temperature quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The imaginary chemical potential can be used to obtain the information about the QCD phase diagram and is particularly well suited for the lattice calculations \cite{Roberge:1986mm,Hart:2000ef,deForcrand:2002ci,deForcrand:2010he,Aarts:2013bla}. Furthermore, the Polyakov loop is the order parameter in deconfinement phase transitions, where it plays the role of the imaginary chemical potential \cite{Polyakov:1978vu,Weiss:1980rj,Weiss:1981ev,Fukushima:2003fw,Ratti:2005jh} in the mean field approximation. The imaginary chemical potential is also used to calculate the so-called dressed Polyakov loop \cite{Gattringer:2006ci,Synatschke:2007bz,Bilgici:2008qy} which is used, in particular, to study the connection between the chiral and deconfinement phase transitions \cite{Fischer:2009gk,Fischer:2009wc,Kashiwa:2009ki,Mukherjee:2010cp,Gatto:2010qs,Benic:2013zaa}.
Integrals of the type \eqref{TheIntegral0} and \eqref{TheIntegral} have been investigated by several authors (cf. \cite{Braden:1981we,Actor:1985zf,Weldon:1985yh,Actor:1987cf,Meisinger:2001fi} and references therein) in the past. The first step in all the calculations is performing the angular integration, followed by a change of integration variable and then a partial integration. This transforms Eq.~\eqref{TheIntegral} into
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi) = -\frac{m^4}{6\pi^2}\int_1^\infty{\frac{(t^2-1)^{3/2}}{\mathrm{e}^{-\i\varphi} \mathrm{e}^{\beta m t}-1} \d t} + \mathrm{c.c.}.
\label{Fifth}
\end{equation}
From the form of the Eq.~\eqref{Fifth}, it is clear that if one allows $\varphi$ to be a complex number $\varphi = \varphi_\text{r} + \i \varphi_\text{i}$ with $\varphi_\text{r} \in [0,2\pi \rangle$ and $\varphi_\text{i} \in \mathbb{R}$, the function $\Omega(\varphi)$ has two branch cuts in the restriction of the complex plane $\mathbb{C}' = [0,2\pi \rangle \times \i \mathbb{R}$ located on the imaginary axis and running from $\pm \i \beta m$ to $\pm \i \infty$. Therefore, for non-zero values of $\beta m$, the potential $\Omega(\varphi)$ is analytic in the neighborhood of $\varphi = 0$ and an analytic continuation from real $\varphi$ to complex $\varphi$ can be performed.
Next, taking into account that $|\mathrm{e}^{\i\varphi} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta m t}|<1$, the denominator is expanded in (a uniformly convergent) Taylor series and a termwise integration is performed which, upon using the integral representation of the modified Bessel function of second kind
\begin{equation}
K_n(x) = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{\Gamma(n+\frac{1}{2})} \left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^n \int_1^\infty \d t\, \mathrm{e}^{-t x} (t^2-1)^{n-1/2},
\label{Bessel}
\end{equation}
turns Eq.~\eqref{TheIntegral} into a sum over Bessel functions
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi) = -\frac{m^2}{2\pi^2 \beta^2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}}{n^2}} K_2(n \beta m) + \mathrm{c.c.}.
\label{TheSum}
\end{equation}
There are three different approaches, known to the author, which make it possible to transform the sum of Bessel functions into a more tractable result. It should be noted, however, that the original approximate results for $\Omega_{\text{B/F}}$, given by Eqs.~\eqref{Bos} and \eqref{Fer}, were obtained directly from Eq.~\eqref{TheIntegral0}, without the use of Bessel functions. In the first approach, an exact series representation of the integral $\Omega(\varphi)$ is limited to boson and fermion statistics and given in Ref.~\cite{Braden:1981we} using Mellin transform. The result obtained is of the form
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\text{B/F}} = \sum_k (a_{\text{B/F}})_k (\beta m)^k,
\label{eq:Braden}
\end{equation}
and correctly reproduces the original approximate results \cite{Dolan:1973qd}. The second approach consists in substituting the series representation of the Bessel function into the Eq.~\eqref{TheSum} and performing the termwise sum over $n$ making the use of the zeta regularization techniques. This method was first employed, in the special case of bosons and fermions, in Refs.~\cite{Actor:1985zf,Weldon:1985yh}. The final result is given in terms of an expansion in the parameter $\beta m$, in agreement with Ref.~\cite{Braden:1981we}. The method was later generalized in Ref.~\cite{Actor:1987cf} for the case of arbitrary parameter $\varphi$ by expanding the exponential term $\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}$ of Eq.~\eqref{TheSum} in Taylor series. This led to a double series expansion in the parameters $\beta m$ and $\varphi$,
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi) = \sum_{k,m} a_{km} (\beta m)^k \varphi^m.
\label{eq:Actor}
\end{equation}
The author of Ref.~\cite{Actor:1987cf}, in fact, has also considered the non-zero real chemical potential $\mu$ and obtained the triple series expansion in parameters $\beta m$, $\varphi$ and $\mu$. Finally, the third method of resumming Eq.~\eqref{TheSum} is given in Ref.~\cite{Meisinger:2001fi}. It utilizes various Bessel function identities to convert the sum over Bessel functions to a sum over elementary functions (integer powers and square roots) containing both the $\beta m$ and $\varphi$ parameters combined in a nontrivial way as
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi) = \sum_k f_k (\beta m, \varphi).
\label{eq:Meisinger}
\end{equation}
Although Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Actor} and \eqref{eq:Meisinger} generalize the result \eqref{eq:Braden} for arbitrary $\varphi$, it is of special interest to express generalized result in a power expansion of the form
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi) = \sum_k a_k(\varphi) (\beta m)^k,
\label{TheForm}
\end{equation}
with the coefficients $a_k(\varphi)$ being simple analytic functions of the phase $\varphi$. Namely, the main benefits of such a form are: it is a single sum expression, which is an advantage in comparison to form \eqref{eq:Actor} and the parameter $\varphi$ is `decoupled' from the physical variable $\beta m$ which is physically more operational and transparent than the form \eqref{eq:Meisinger}. The form in Eq.~\eqref{TheForm} is particularly suitable for Landau--Ginzburg-type analysis of phase transitions for arbitrary $\varphi$. Moreover, in electroweak baryogenesis, the appearance of the $m^3$ term in Eq.~\eqref{Bos} is necessary for the electroweak phase transition to be of the first order (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Funakubo:1996iw} and references therein). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Eq.~\eqref{TheForm} will produce a deeper insight on the origin and properties of the $m^3$ term in the expression for $\Omega_{\text{B}}$.
In this paper, we derive the exact series representation of the thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\varphi)$ of the type given in Eq.~$\eqref{TheForm}$. The final expression is given in Eq.~\eqref{TheResult}, where the coefficients $a_k(\varphi)$ are given in terms of polynomials and polygamma functions. With expression \eqref{TheResult} in hand, we are in a position to show that the singular $m^3$ term is absent in $\Omega(\varphi)$ for all $\varphi \neq 0$ but appears naturally in the limit $\varphi \to 0$. Also, due to a simple analytic structure of $a_k(\varphi)$, we generalize our results to the case of complex chemical potential $\tilde{\mu} = \mu + \i \varphi/\beta$ in Eq.~\eqref{FinalResult}, thereby obtaining for the first time the complete dependence of the thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\tilde{\mu})$ on the complex chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}$ which is the main result of this paper.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section I, we obtain the exact high temperature expansion of the thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\varphi)$ for $\varphi \neq 0$ using a generalization of the zeta-regularization method of Refs.~\cite{Actor:1985zf,Weldon:1985yh}. In Section II, we explicitly show that $\lim_{\varphi \to 0} \Omega(\varphi) = \Omega_{\text{B}}$, and that the singular term in $\Omega_{\text{B}}$ containing $m^3$ is generated by a resummation of a divergent series generated by the coefficients $a_k(\varphi)$ in the limit $\varphi \to 0$. Finally, in Section III, we use the analyticity of $\Omega(\varphi)$ to extend the domain of the thermodynamic potential to the complex $\varphi$ plane $\Omega(\varphi) \to \Omega(\tilde{\mu})$, with $\tilde{\mu} = \mu + \i \varphi/\beta$, as a result of which it becomes a function of the real $\mu$, as well as the imaginary chemical potential $\mu_\i$. At the end, we discuss the relation between our result and the results obtained earlier and give an outlook to possible future work. Some calculation details are given in an Appendix.
\section{Calculating the thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\varphi)$ for $\varphi \neq 0$}
\subsection{Expanding the modified Bessel function}
To calculate the thermodynamic potential given in Eq.~\eqref{TheSum}, we use the series representation of the modified Bessel function valid for $x>0$ \cite{abramowitz1970handbook},
\begin{equation}
K_2(x) = \frac{2}{x^2}-\frac{1}{2} +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\psi(k+1)+\psi(k+3)- 2 \ln \frac{x}{2}}{\Gamma(k+1)\Gamma(k+3)}\left(\frac{x^2}{4}\right)^{k+1},
\end{equation}
where the digamma function $\psi(z) = \frac{\d}{\d z} \ln \Gamma(z)$ is the logarithmic derivative of the gamma function. Plugging this expression in Eq.~\eqref{TheSum}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi) = -\frac{m^2}{2\pi^2 \beta^2} \left\{\frac{2}{\beta^2 m^2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}}{n^4}} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}}{n^2}} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left[A(k)-2B(k) \ln n \right]n^{2k} \right\} + \mathrm{c.c.},
\label{Expanded}
\end{equation}
where we have defined two auxiliary functions,
\begin{equation}
A(k) = \frac{\psi(k+1)+\psi(k+3)- \ln \frac{\beta^2 m^2}{4}}{\Gamma(k+1)\Gamma(k+3)}\left(\frac{\beta^2 m^2}{4}\right)^{k+1},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
B(k) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(k+1)\Gamma(k+3)}\left(\frac{\beta^2 m^2}{4}\right)^{k+1}.
\end{equation}
Due to the nature of the gamma and digamma functions, these functions are entire in the complex $k$ plane.
The two single sums inside the curly bracket in Eq.~\eqref{Expanded} are convergent and can be immediately identified as polylogarithms \cite{abramowitz1970handbook,lewin1981polylogarithms}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}}{n^4}} = \mathrm{Li}_4(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}), \quad \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}}{n^2}} = \mathrm{Li}_2(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}).
\label{eq:Convergent}
\end{equation}
To perform the sum over $n$ in the double sum terms in Eq.~\eqref{Expanded}, one would first have to interchange the order of summation to find that the sum over $n$ diverges. Therefore, the naive summation swap does not work. To correctly sum over $n$, we follow (and generalize) the method of Refs.~\cite{Weldon:1985yh,Actor:1987cf,Elizalde:1988xc}.
\subsection{Interchanging the order of summations}
Due to the fact that the functions $A(k)$ and $B(k)$ are regular in the complex $k$ plane, the residue theorem can be used to write the sum over $k$ in Eq.~\eqref{Expanded} as an contour integral
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left[A(k)-2B(k) \ln n \right]n^{2k} = \frac{1}{2\i} \oint_{\mathcal{C}}{\d k \left[A(k)-2B(k) \ln n \right]n^{2k} \cot \pi k},
\end{equation}
where the curve $\mathcal{C}$ encompasses the positive real axis $\Re k$ (a Hankel curve). The poles of the cotangent function inside the curve reproduce the original sum over $k$. Again, due to the regularity of the integrand, the curve $\mathcal{C}$ can be deformed into a perimeter of a half-disk consisting of a straight line $p$, defined by $\Re k = - \epsilon$, $\epsilon \in \langle 0, 1 \rangle$, and a semicircle $\sigma$ in the right half-plane (see Fig.~\ref{Figure}.). The integral over $\sigma$ vanishes \cite{Actor:1987cf}, and only the integral over $p$ contributes.
To interchange the sum over $n$ with the integral over $k$, the sum must converge. This is the case for $\Re (2k) < -1$, i.e. for $\epsilon \in \langle\frac{1}{2},1\rangle$. Therefore, if the line $p$ is at a distance of at least $\frac{1}{2}$ from the origin of the complex $k$ plane, the sum over $n$ can be safely introduced into the integral over $k$, with the result
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}}{n^{-2k}}} = \mathrm{Li}_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}}{n^{-2k}} \ln n} = - \frac{\partial}{\partial s} \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\i n \varphi}}{n^s}}\Big|_{s=-2k} \equiv - \mathrm{Li}'_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}).
\label{derpol}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics{contour.pdf}
\caption{The contours of integration in the complex $k$ plane. Dots represent the poles of the cotangent function, while \textbf{x} represents the summation-induced pole of the polylogaritm functions for $\varphi = 0$.}
\label{Figure}
\end{figure}
On the line $p$, all sums over $n$ produce non-positive integer order polylogarithms and their derivatives with respect to the order. Now, we simply extend the validity of this summation by analytical continuation over the whole complex plane $k$. This is, in effect, a generalization of the zeta function regularization \cite{Elizalde:1994gf}, since the polylogarithm is a generalization of the Riemann zeta function, in such a way that
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Li}_s(1) = \zeta(s).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the polylogarithm of a variable defined on the unit complex circle, as in this case, is sometimes called the periodic zeta function \cite{apostol1990modular}
\begin{equation}
F(\varphi/2\pi,s) = \mathrm{Li}_s(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}).
\end{equation}
This function is regular as a function of $s$ for fixed $\varphi \neq 0$, and has a simple pole at $s=1$ for $\varphi = 0$, when it simplifies to the ordinary zeta function. This means that in the purely boson case, the introduction of the sum over $n$ under the integral over $k$ produces an additional simple pole at $k = -\frac{1}{2}$ (see Fig.~\ref{Figure}.).
After the summation over $n$ is performed, the integral over the semicircle $\sigma$ again vanishes (including the `worst-case-scenario' $\varphi = 0$ \cite{Elizalde:1988xc,Elizalde:1994gf}), so it can be safely added to the integral over $p$ to form a closed contour. Let us, for the time being, assume $\varphi \neq 0$, so that we can again deform the contour to the original Hankel contour $\mathcal{C}$ and finally obtain
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi)\big|_{\varphi \neq 0} = -\frac{m^2}{2\pi^2 \beta^2} \Bigg\{\frac{2}{\beta^2 m^2} \mathrm{Li}_4(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Li}_2(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left[A(k) \mathrm{Li}_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) + 2 B(k) \mathrm{Li}'_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) \right] \Bigg\} + \mathrm{c.c.}.
\label{Interchanged}
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{Interchanged} shows that for $\varphi \neq 0$ we could have simply interchanged the order of $k$ and $n$ sums and regularize the sum over $n$ using the polylogarithms. However, this procedure would not work for $\varphi = 0$ (this was first shown in Ref.~\cite{Weldon:1985yh}), as we will see later in greater detail. We next concentrate on simplifying the expressions containing polylogarithms and their derivatives.
\subsection{Simplifying the polylogarithms}
Since the polylogarithms (together with their derivatives) in Eq.~\eqref{Interchanged} appear in complex conjugate pairs, they can be simplified using the relation between the polylogarithms and the Hurwitz zeta function $\zeta(s,x)$ \cite{abramowitz1970handbook,lewin1981polylogarithms}
\begin{equation}
\i^{-s} \mathrm{Li}_s(\mathrm{e}^{\i\varphi}) + \i^s \mathrm{Li}_s(\mathrm{e}^{-\i\varphi}) = \frac{(2\pi)^s}{\Gamma(s)}\zeta(1-s,\varphi/2\pi),
\label{Hurwitz}
\end{equation}
which holds for $s \in \mathbb{C}$, $\Re \varphi \in [0,2\pi\rangle$, $\Im \varphi \geq 0$. In the case $\Im \varphi < 0$, for the relation to be valid, it is necessary that $\Re \varphi \in \langle0,2\pi]$. For $s = n \in \mathbb{N}_0$, the Hurwitz zeta function is related to the Bernoulli polynomials \cite{abramowitz1970handbook} via
\begin{equation}
\zeta(-n,x) = - \frac{B_{n+1}(x)}{n+1}.
\label{Bernoulli}
\end{equation}
Equations \eqref{Hurwitz} and \eqref{Bernoulli} can be directly used for $s=2,4$ while for $s=0$ we find
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Li}_0(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) + \mathrm{Li}_0(\mathrm{e}^{-\i \varphi}) = \lim_{s \to 0} \frac{(2\pi)^s}{\Gamma(s)}\zeta(1-s,\varphi/2\pi) = -1.
\label{limit}
\end{equation}
For $s = -2k, \ k \in \mathbb{N}$, the sum of polylogarithms vanishes due to the poles of the gamma function. This completes the simplification of the polylogarithms.
As for the derivatives of polylogarithms, we differentiate Eq.~\eqref{Hurwitz} with respect to $s$ and find
\begin{equation}
\label{Derivative}
\mathrm{Li}'_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) + \mathrm{Li}'_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{-\i \varphi}) = \frac{\i \pi}{2}\left(\mathrm{Li}_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) - \mathrm{Li}_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{-\i \varphi})\right) + (-1)^k \frac{\partial}{\partial s} \left[\frac{(2\pi)^s}{\Gamma(s)}\zeta(1-s,\varphi/2\pi)\right]_{s=-2k},
\end{equation}
where $k \in \mathbb{N}_0$. The first term on the r.h.s.~can be calculated using the recurrence relation for the polylogarithms
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Li}_{-n}(z) = \left(z\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)^n \mathrm{Li}_{0}(z) \equiv \left(z\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)^n \frac{z}{1-z},
\end{equation}
which in our case leads to
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Li}_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) = -\frac{1}{2}\delta_{k0} + (-1)^k \frac{\i}{2} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \varphi}\right)^{2k} \cot \frac{\varphi}{2}.
\end{equation}
The unpleasant $2k$-th derivative of the cotangent can be dealt with by using the relation
\begin{equation}
\pi \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)^n \cot \pi z = (-1)^n \psi^{(n)}(1-z) - \psi^{(n)}(z),
\end{equation}
which can be derived by the repeated differentiation of the reflection formula for the gamma function. Here $\psi^{(n)}(z)$ is the polygamma function, the $(n+1)$-th logarithmic derivative of the gamma function and we have $\psi^{(0)}(z) \equiv \psi(z)$. As a result, the difference of polylogarithms can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Li}_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) - \mathrm{Li}_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{-\i \varphi}) = \frac{\i}{\pi} \frac{(-1)^k}{(2\pi)^{2k}}\left[\psi^{(2k)}(1-\varphi/2\pi) - \psi^{(2k)}(\varphi/2\pi)\right].
\end{equation}
For the second term on the r.h.s.~of Eq.~\eqref{Derivative}, the cases $k=0$ and $k>0$ should be treated separably. For $k = 0$, we expand the function around $s = 0$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial s} \left[\frac{(2\pi)^s}{\Gamma(s)}\zeta(1-s,\varphi/2\pi)\right]_{s=0} = - \frac{\partial}{\partial s} \left[(1 + s \ln 2\pi) (s + \gamma s^2) \left(\frac{1}{s} + \psi (\varphi/2\pi)\right)\right]_{s=0} = -(\ln 2\pi + \gamma + \psi(\varphi / 2\pi)).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, for $k > 0$, we can perform the differentiation and note that due to the gamma function in the denominator, most of the terms vanish, so that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial s} \left[\frac{(2\pi)^s}{\Gamma(s)}\zeta(1-s,\varphi/2\pi)\right]_{s=-2k} = - \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{2k}}\zeta(2k+1,\varphi/2\pi)\frac{\psi(s)}{\Gamma(s)}\Bigg|_{s=-2k} = \frac{(2k)!}{(2\pi)^{2k}}\zeta(2k+1,\varphi/2\pi).
\end{equation}
Therefore, the second term in the r.h.s.~in Eq.~\eqref{Derivative} has also been resolved.
As a final touch of simplification, we utilize the relation between the polygamma function and Hurwitz zeta function for integer $k>0$, which is
\begin{equation}
\zeta(2k+1,\varphi/2\pi) = -\frac{1}{(2k)!} \psi^{(2k)}(\varphi/2\pi),
\end{equation}
to finally obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Li}'_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi}) + \mathrm{Li}'_{-2k}(\mathrm{e}^{-\i \varphi}) = - \delta_{k0} (\gamma + \ln 2\pi) - \frac{1}{2} \frac{(-1)^k}{(2\pi)^{2k}}\left[\psi^{(2k)}(\varphi/2\pi) + \psi^{(2k)}(1-\varphi/2\pi)\right].
\label{finob}
\end{equation}
\subsection{The general result for $\Omega(\varphi)\big|_{\varphi \neq 0}$}
Putting together Eqs.~\eqref{Expanded}, \eqref{eq:Convergent}, \eqref{derpol}, \eqref{Hurwitz}, \eqref{Bernoulli}, \eqref{limit} and \eqref{finob}, we arrive at a simple series representation for the thermodynamic potential $\Omega$ in the generic $\varphi \neq 0$ case,
\begin{align}
\Omega(\varphi)\big|_{\varphi \neq 0} &= \frac{2\pi^2}{3\beta^4}B_4(\varphi/2\pi) + \frac{1}{2\beta^2}B_2(\varphi/2\pi)m^2 + \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}+2\ln 4\pi - \ln \beta^2 m^2 \right)m^4 \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{m^4}{16 \pi^2} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!(k+2)!} \left[\psi^{(2k)}(\varphi/2\pi) + \psi^{(2k)}(1-\varphi/2\pi)\right]\left(\frac{\beta m}{4\pi}\right)^{2k},
\label{TheResult}
\end{align}
where we have used
\begin{equation}
A(0) = \frac{\beta^2 m^2}{8}\left(\frac{3}{2}-2\gamma - \ln \frac{\beta^2 m^2}{4}\right).
\end{equation}
This result has several interesting features which are worth pointing out. First of all, it is an exact high temperature series representation of the thermodynamic potential given by \eqref{TheIntegral}. Second, the parameter $\varphi$ appears only in the coefficients of the series and is, therefore, decoupled from the physical parameter $\beta m$. Third, due to the symmetry of the Bernoulli polynomials, $B_n(1/2 + x) = B_n(1/2 - x)$, we have the (expected) symmetry property for $\Omega(\varphi)$, namely
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi) = \Omega(2\pi - \varphi).
\label{TheSymmetry}
\end{equation}
The most relevant special case of Eq.~\eqref{TheResult} is the fermion thermodynamic potential, for which $\varphi/2\pi = 1/2$. For this value of $\varphi$, the Bernoulli polynomials take on the values $B_4(1/2) = \frac{7}{240}$ and $B_2(1/2) = -\frac{1}{12}$, while the polygamma function can be written in terms of the Riemann zeta function
\begin{equation}
\psi^{2k}(1/2)=-\delta_{k0}(\gamma + 2\ln 2) - \bar{\delta}_{k0}(2k)!(2^{2k+1}-1)\zeta(2k+1),
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the notation $\bar{\delta}_{ij} = 1-\delta_{ij}$. This amounts to the following result
\begin{align}
\Omega_{\text{F}} &= \frac{7\pi^2}{360\beta^4} - \frac{1}{24\beta^2}m^2 + \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}-2\gamma+2\ln \pi - \ln \beta^2 m^2 \right)m^4 \nonumber \\
&- \frac{m^4}{8 \pi^2} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \frac{(2k)!}{(k+2)!}(2^{2k+1}-1)\zeta(2k+1) \left(\frac{\beta m}{4\pi}\right)^{2k},
\label{TheFermion}
\end{align}
in agreement with the previously obtained results \cite{Dolan:1973qd,Braden:1981we,Weldon:1985yh,Actor:1987cf,Meisinger:2001fi}. It should be noted that the above series has a finite radius of convergence, namely, it converges for $\beta m < \pi$.
While the result of Eq.~\eqref{TheResult} covers almost all of the domain of the parameter $\varphi$, it leaves out the crucial point $\varphi = 0$, which, however, is of key importance in physics, corresponding to the case of the boson gas. In the next section, we examine this particular value of $\varphi$ in great detail.
\section{Calculating the thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\varphi)$ for $\varphi = 0$}
\subsection{A direct calculation}
To calculate the thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\varphi)$ for $\varphi = 0$, we start with Eq.~\eqref{Interchanged}. As stated earlier, in the boson case, all the polylogarithms reduce to the Riemann zeta function and the contour $\mathcal{C}$ picks up a pole at $k = -\frac{1}{2}$. Denoting by $\Delta$ the contribution of that pole, we have
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\text{B}} \equiv \Omega(\varphi)\big|_{\varphi = 0} = -\frac{m^2}{2\pi^2 \beta^2} \Bigg\{\frac{2}{\beta^2 m^2} \zeta(4) - \frac{1}{2} \zeta(2) + \frac{1}{2} \Delta + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left[A(k) \zeta(-2k) + 2 B(k) \zeta'(-2k) \right] \Bigg\} + \mathrm{c.c.},
\label{Additional}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta = 2\pi\i \, \mathrm{Res}\, \left[\frac{1}{2\i} (A(k) \zeta(-2k) + 2B(k) \zeta'(-2k))\cot \pi k\right]_{k=-\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{\pi^2}{2} B(-1/2) = \frac{\pi}{3} \beta m.
\label{Delta}
\end{equation}
Using the known values of the zeta function
\begin{equation}
\zeta(4) = \frac{\pi^4}{90},\ \ \zeta(2) = \frac{\pi^2}{6},\ \ \zeta(-2k) = -\frac{1}{2} \delta_{k0},
\end{equation}
and expressing its derivatives as
\begin{equation}
\zeta'(-2k) = - \delta_{k0} \frac{1}{2} \ln 2\pi + \bar{\delta}_{k0} \frac{(-1)^k}{2} \frac{(2k)!}{(2\pi)^{2k}} \zeta(2k+1),
\end{equation}
the Eq.~\eqref{Additional} takes the form
\begin{align}
\Omega_{\text{B}} &= -\frac{\pi^2}{45 \beta^4} + \frac{1}{12\beta^2}m^2 - \frac{1}{6\pi\beta}m^3 + \frac{1}{32\pi^2} \left(\frac{3}{2} - 2\gamma + 2 \ln 4\pi - \ln \beta^2 m^2\right)m^4 \nonumber \\
&- \frac{m^4}{8\pi^2}\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \frac{(2k)!}{(k+2)!} \zeta(2k+1) \left(\frac{\beta m}{4\pi}\right)^{2k}.
\label{TheBoson}
\end{align}
This result, as well, confirms the earlier calculations in Refs.~\cite{Dolan:1973qd,Braden:1981we,Weldon:1985yh,Actor:1987cf,Meisinger:2001fi}. Similarly to the fermion potential $\Omega_{\text{F}}$ of Eq.~\eqref{TheFermion}, the series representation of $\Omega_{\text{B}}$ converges only for $\beta m < 2\pi$.
Equation \eqref{TheBoson} raises an interesting question. Given the above calculations, it appears that the boson statistics, $\varphi = 0$, is very distinct in comparison with the generic phase $\varphi \neq 0$ of which the fermion statistics is a special instance. As pointed out before (and now becoming even more apparent), the $m^3$ term in the series expansion for $\Omega(\varphi)$ is present only in the boson case, $\varphi = 0$. Is it the case that almost all generalized statistics are fermion-like, and bosons are some kind of an exception? The following calculation will show that the answer is -- no.
\subsection{Deriving $\Omega_{\text{B}}$ from $\Omega(\varphi)\big|_{\varphi \neq 0}$}
If the bosons were an exceptional statistics, we would expect the thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\varphi)$ not to be continuous at $\varphi = 0$. Indeed, given that the $m^3$ term appears only for $\varphi = 0$, we have every reason to believe this to be the case. However, the original integral in Eq.~\eqref{TheIntegral} does not appear problematic around $\varphi = 0$. The only way to resolve this dilemma is by examining the limit $\varphi \to 0$ of Eq.~\eqref{TheResult}.
In this limit, the Bernoulli polynomials are finite and yield $B_4(0) = -\frac{1}{30}$ and $B_4(0) = \frac{1}{6}$, while the polygamma functions are unbounded
\begin{equation}
\psi^{(2k)}(\varphi/2\pi) + \psi^{(2k)}(1-\varphi/2\pi) \approx -(2k)! \left(\frac{2\pi}{\varphi}\right)^{2k+1} - 2\left(\delta_{k0} \gamma + \bar{\delta}_{k0} (2\pi)! \zeta(2k+1)\right) + \mathcal{O}(\varphi), \quad \varphi \to 0.
\end{equation}
Plugging these limits in Eq.~\eqref{TheResult}, we find
\begin{align}
\lim_{\varphi \to 0} \Omega(\varphi) &= -\frac{\pi^2}{45\beta^4} + \frac{1}{12\beta^2} + \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}-2\gamma +2\ln 4\pi - \ln \beta^2 m^2 \right)m^4 \nonumber \\
&- \frac{m^4}{8 \pi^2} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \frac{(2k)!}{(k+2)!} \zeta(2k+1) \left(\frac{\beta m}{4\pi}\right)^{2k} \nonumber \\
&- \lim_{\varphi \to 0} \frac{m^4}{8\pi \varphi} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \frac{(2k)!}{(k+2)!} \left(\frac{\beta m}{2 \varphi}\right)^{2k}.
\label{TheLimit}
\end{align}
The sum under the limit is evaluated in the Appendix, and is given by
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \frac{(2k)!}{(k+2)!} \left(\frac{\beta m}{2 \varphi}\right)^{2k} \approx \frac{4\varphi}{3\beta m}, \quad \varphi \to 0.
\label{Approx}
\end{equation}
Consequently, we arrive to an important conclusion that the thermodynamic potential is indeed continuous at $\varphi = 0$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\varphi \to 0} \Omega(\varphi) = \Omega_{\text{B}},
\label{Continuous}
\end{equation}
which is consistent with the fact that the original expression for $\Omega(\varphi)$ in Eq.~\eqref{TheIntegral} is analytic at $\varphi = 0$.
\section{Generalization of the result for complex chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}$}
Given the result of Eq.~\eqref{TheResult}, we can now easily generalize our calculation for $\mu \neq 0$. The required integral takes the form
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi,\mu) = \frac{1}{\beta} \int{\frac{\d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \ln\left(1-\mathrm{e}^{\i \varphi} \mathrm{e}^{- \beta (E - \mu)}\right)} + \{\varphi \to - \varphi, \mu \to -\mu\}.
\label{eq:NonZero}
\end{equation}
Here, it should be noted that the (real) chemical potential of antiparticles differs in sign with respect to that of particles. In other words, we have
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\varphi,\mu) = \Omega(\varphi)\big|_{\varphi \to \varphi - \i \beta \mu},
\label{eq:TheVeza}
\end{equation}
since $\Omega(\varphi)$ is an analytic function in $\varphi$. Therefore, we arrive at our final result
\begin{align}
\Omega(\varphi,\mu) \equiv \Omega(\tilde{\mu}) &= \frac{2\pi^2}{3\beta^4}B_4\left(\frac{-\i \beta \tilde{\mu}}{2\pi}\right) + \frac{1}{2\beta^2}B_2\left(\frac{- \i \beta \tilde{\mu}}{2\pi}\right)m^2 + \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}+2\ln 4\pi - \ln \beta^2 m^2 \right)m^4 \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{m^4}{16 \pi^2} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!(k+2)!} \left[\psi^{(2k)}\left(\frac{- \i \beta \tilde{\mu}}{2\pi}\right) + \psi^{(2k)}\left(1+\frac{\i \beta \tilde{\mu}}{2\pi}\right)\right]\left(\frac{\beta m}{4\pi}\right)^{2k},
\label{FinalResult}
\end{align}
where $\tilde{\mu} = \mu + \i \varphi/\beta$ is the complex chemical potential. Equation \eqref{FinalResult} represents the main result of this work. The radius of convergence of the series in Eq.~\eqref{FinalResult} is finite and dependent on the value of the parameter $\beta \tilde{\mu}$. As a check, we consider the case of massless ($m=0$) fermions ($\varphi = \pi$) with non-zero chemical potential $\mu$, and find that the result agrees with the case considered in Ref.~\cite{Benic:2012ec}
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\pi,\mu)\big|_{m=0} = \frac{2\pi^2}{3\beta^4}B_4\left(\frac{\pi - \i \beta \mu}{2\pi}\right) = \frac{7\pi^2}{360 \beta^4} + \frac{\mu^2}{12\beta^2} + \frac{\mu^4}{24\pi^2}.
\label{eq:Khm}
\end{equation}
\section*{Discussion and outlook}
In this paper, we have obtained an exact high temperature expansion for a one-loop thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\tilde{\mu})$ with complex chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}$. The final expression for $\Omega(\tilde{\mu})$ is given in Eq.~\eqref{FinalResult} and is the main result of this work. It is for the first time that the generalized thermodynamic potential is given as a single compact sum the coefficients of which are analytical functions of $\tilde{\mu}$, consisting of polynomials and polygamma fucntions, decoupled from the physical expansion parameter $\beta m$. This is what makes our solution convenient for the analysis of phase transitions for arbitrary $\tilde{\mu}$. We have used this fact to investigate the origin of the $m^3$ term in the boson case. For this, it was crucial to have an exact expansion of the type given in Eq.~\eqref{TheForm} in all orders of $\beta m$. Furthermore, the analytic nature of the coefficients $a_k(\varphi)$ allowed us to perform analytical continuation from purely imaginary to complex chemical potential almost effortlessly.
Earlier approaches have led to more complicated and less transparent results. The author of Ref.~\cite{Actor:1987cf} gave an expression for $\Omega(\tilde{\mu})$ in terms of triple expansion over $\beta m$, $\varphi$ and $\mu$. Our result can, therefore, be considered as a resummation of the two expansions, namely over $\varphi$ and $\mu$ into a compact function. Furthermore, in case of zero $\mu$, a result \cite{Meisinger:2001fi} gave a single sum representation of $\Omega(\varphi)$ in which the physical variable $\beta m$ was entangled with the parameter $\varphi$ in a nontrivial way. Moreover, the terms in the expansion were not analytic functions and the analytic continuation to nonzero $\mu$ could not be obtained so easily as in our case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that our result represents a significant improvement over earlier results and fills the gap in the literature concerning the compact analytic expression for generalized thermodynamic potential.
It would certainly be interesting to extend our calculation to an arbitrary number of spatial dimensions $d$. In the most interesting case $d=2$, the parameter $\varphi$ might be related to the anyon statistics phase and need not be interpreted as an imaginary chemical potential, as we have implicitly done in the paper. This leaves the possibility that the analysis performed in this paper could be relevant to the theory of phase transitions in $(2+1)$ dimensions, especially in the light of the famous Mermin--Wagner theorem \cite{PhysRevLett.17.1133,PhysRev.158.383,Coleman} which states that there are no phase transitions for boson and fermion systems in $d \leq 2$. We leave, however, this considerations for some future work.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank Sanjin Beni\'c for introducing him to the problem and discussing its physical applications at length. Also, the author has benefited greatly from many useful discussions with Goran Duplan\v ci\' c, Tajron Juri\'c, Matko Milin, Bene Ni\v zi\' c and Petar \v Zugec. Valuable suggestions and comments were given by an anonymous referee. This work was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport under the contract no.~098-0982390-2864.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The most important continuous alphabet channel in communication systems is the discrete-time additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel in which at each time $i$, the output of the channel $Y_i$ is the sum of the input $X_i$ and Gaussian noise $Z_i$. Shannon showed in his original paper~\cite{Shannon48} that launched the field of information theory that the capacity of the AWGN channel is
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{C}(P) = \frac{1}{2}\log(1+P), \label{eqn:cap}
\end{equation}
where $P$ is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). More precisely, let $M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P)$ be the maximum number of codewords that can be transmitted over $n$ independent uses of an AWGN channel with SNR $P$ and average error probability not exceeding $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$. Then, combining the direct part in \cite{Shannon48} and the strong converse by Shannon in~\cite{Sha59b} (also see Yoshihara~\cite{Yoshihara} and Wolfowitz~\cite{Wolfowitz}), one sees that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P)=\mathsf{C}(P) \quad \mbox{bits per channel use}
\end{equation}
holds for every $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$.
Recently, there has been significant renewed interest in studying the higher-order terms in the asymptotic expansion of non-asymptotic fundamental limits such as $\log M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P)$. This line of analysis was pioneered by Strassen \cite[Theorem~1.2]{Strassen} for discrete memoryless channels (DMCs) and is useful because it provides key insights into the amount of backoff from channel capacity for block codes of finite length $n$. For the AWGN channel, Hayashi \cite[Theorem~5]{Hayashi09} showed that
\begin{equation}
\log M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P) = n\mathsf{C}(P) + \sqrt{n\mathsf{V}(P)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) + o(\sqrt{n}) \label{eqn:hayashi}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi^{-1}(\cdot)$ is the inverse of the Gaussian cumulative distribution function and
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{V}(P) = \log^2 \mathrm{e}\cdot\frac{P(P+2)}{2(P+1)^2} \quad \mbox{bits$^2$ per channel use} \label{eqn:disp}
\end{equation}
is termed the {\em Gaussian dispersion function}~\cite{PPV10}. The first two terms in the expansion in \eqref{eqn:hayashi} are collectively known the {\em normal approximation}. The functional form of $\mathsf{V}(P)$ was already known to Shannon~\cite[Section~X]{Sha59b} who analyzed the behavior of the reliability function of the AWGN channel at rates close to capacity. Subsequently, the $o(\sqrt{n})$ remainder term in the expansion in~\eqref{eqn:hayashi} was refined by Polyanskiy-Poor-Verd\'u~\cite[Theorem~54, Eq.~(294)]{PPV10} who showed that
\begin{equation}
O(1)\le\log M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P) - \Big( n\mathsf{C}(P) + \sqrt{n\mathsf{V}(P)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) \Big) \le\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1). \label{eqn:ppv_gauss}
\end{equation}
The same bounds hold under the maximum probability of error formalism.
Despite these impressive advances in the fundamental limits of coding over a Gaussian channel, the gap in the third-order term beyond the normal approximation in \eqref{eqn:ppv_gauss} calls for further investigations. The authors of the present paper showed for DMCs with positive $\varepsilon$-dispersion that the third-order term is no larger than $\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1)$ \cite[Theorem~1]{TomTan12}, matching a lower bound by Polyanskiy~\cite[Theorem~53]{Pol10} for non-singular channels (also called channels with positive reverse dispersion~\cite[Eq.~(3.296)]{Pol10}). Altu\u{g} and Wagner~\cite{altug13} showed for singular, symmetric DMCs that the third-order term is $O(1)$. Moulin~\cite{mou13b} recently showed for a large class of channels (but {\em not} the AWGN channel) that the third-order term is $\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1)$. In light of these existing results for DMCs, a reasonable conjecture would be that the third-order term for the Gaussian case is either $O(1)$ or $\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1)$. In this paper, we show that in fact, the lower bound in \eqref{eqn:ppv_gauss} is loose. In particular, we establish that it can be improved to match the upper bound $\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1)$. Our proof technique is similar to that developed by Polyanskiy~\cite[Theorem 53]{Pol10} to show that $\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1)$ is achievable for non-singular DMCs. However, our proof is more involved due to the presence of power constraints on the codewords.
\section{Problem Setup and Definitions}
Let $W$ be an AWGN channel where the noise variance\footnote{The assumption that the noise variance is $1$ does not entail any loss of generality because we can simply scale the admissible power accordingly to ensure that the SNR is $P$.} is $1$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
W(y|x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\Big(-\frac{(y-x)^2}{2} \Big).
\end{equation}
Let $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ and $\mathbf{y}=(y_1,\ldots, y_n)$ be two vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $W^n(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})=\prod_{i=1}^n W(y_i|x_i)$ be the $n$-fold memoryless extension of $W$. An {\em $(n,M,\varepsilon,P)_{\mathrm{av}}$-code} for the AWGN channel $W$ is a system $\{ (\mathbf{x}(m), \mathcal{D}_m)\}_{m=1}^M$ where $\mathbf{x}(m)\in\mathbb{R}^n,m \in\{ 1,\ldots, M\}$, are the codewords satisfying the maximal power constraint $\|\mathbf{x}(m)\|_2^2\le n P$, the sets $\mathcal{D}_m\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ are disjoint decoding regions and the {\em average probability of error} does not exceed $\varepsilon$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^M W^n\big( \mathcal{D}_m^c \,\big|\, \mathbf{x}(m)\big)\le \varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Define $M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P) :=\max\big\{ M \in\mathbb{N} : \exists \, \mbox{ an } (n,M,\varepsilon,P)_{\mathrm{av}}\mbox{-code for } W\big\}$.
We also employ the Gaussian cumulative distribution function
\begin{equation}
\Phi(a) := \int_{-\infty}^a \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\Big( -\frac{u^2}{2}\Big)\,\mathrm{d} u
\end{equation}
and define its inverse as $\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon): =\sup\{a\in\mathbb{R}: \Phi(a)\le \varepsilon\}$, which evaluates to the usual inverse for $0 <\varepsilon < 1$ and continuously extends to take values $\pm\infty$ outside that range.
\section{Main Result and Remarks}
Let us reiterate our main result.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:ach3}
For all $0<\varepsilon<1$ and $P \in (0,\infty)$,
\begin{equation}
\log M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P) \ge n \mathsf{C}(P)+\sqrt{n\mathsf{V}(P)}\Phi^{-1} (\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1) \label{eqn:sizeM_star}
\end{equation}
where $\mathsf{C}(P)$ and $\mathsf{V}(P)$ are the Gaussian capacity and dispersion functions respectively.
\end{theorem}
We make the following remarks before proving the theorem in the following section.
\begin{enumerate}
\item As mentioned in the Introduction, the upper bound on $\log M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P)$ in \eqref{eqn:ppv_gauss} was first established by Polyanskiy-Poor-Verd\'u~\cite[Theorem~65]{PPV10}. They evaluated the meta-converse~\cite[Theorem~28]{PPV10} and appealed to the spherical symmetry in the Gaussian problem. The third-order term in the normal approximation was shown to be upper bounded by $\frac{1}{2}\log n+O(1)$ (under the average or maximum error probability formalism). Thus, one has
\begin{equation}
\log M^*(W^n,\varepsilon,P) = n \mathsf{C}(P)+\sqrt{n\mathsf{V}(P)}\Phi^{-1} (\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1) . \label{eqn:sizeM_eq}
\end{equation}
The technique developed by the present authors in \cite{TomTan12} can also be used to prove the $\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1)$ upper bound on the third-order term.
\item Our strategy for proving \eqref{eqn:sizeM_star} parallels that for non-singular DMCs without cost constraints by Polyanskiy~\cite[Theorem~53]{Pol10}. It leverages on the random-coding union (RCU) bound~\cite[Theorem~16]{PPV10} and uses the log-likelihood ratio as the decoding metric, i.e.\ we do maximum likelihood decoding. However, the Gaussian problem involves cost (power) constraints and our random codebook generation strategy (which is similar to Shannon's~\cite{Sha59b}) involves drawing codewords independently and uniformly at random from the power sphere. Thus, a more delicate analysis (vis-\`a-vis~\cite[Theorem~53]{Pol10}) is required. In particular, one cannot directly employ the refined large-deviations result stated in \cite[Lemma~47]{PPV10} which is crucial in showing the achievability of $\frac{1}{2}\log n+O(1)$. This is because \cite[Lemma~47]{PPV10} requires independence of a collection random variables whereas the independence structure is lacking in the AWGN problem.
\item In Theorem~\ref{thm:ach3}, we considered a maximal power constraint on the codewords, i.e.\ $\|\mathbf{x}(m)\|_2^2\le nP$ for all $m$. It is easy to show that the third-order term is the same for the case of equal power constraints, i.e.\ $\|\mathbf{x}(m)\|_2^2= nP$ for all $m$. However, the strong converse does not even hold~\cite[Theorem~77]{Pol10} under the {\em average probability of error} formalism and the {\em average power constraint across the codebook}, i.e.\ $\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^M\|\mathbf{x}(m)\|_2^2\le nP$. The $\varepsilon$-capacity depends on $\varepsilon$. We do not consider this case in this paper. Nonetheless, the strong converse and normal approximation do hold~\cite[Theorem~54]{PPV10} under the {\em maximum probability of error} formalism and average power constraint across the codebook but we do not consider this setup here. It is known~\cite[Eq.~(295)]{PPV10} that the third-order term is sandwiched between $O(1)$ and $\frac{3}{2}\log n + O(1)$.
\item A straightforward extension of our proof technique (in particular, the application of Lemma~\ref{lem:boundU} in Section~\ref{sec:interval}) shows that the achievability of $\frac{1}{2}\log n+O(1)$ also holds for the problem of information transmission over {\em parallel Gaussian channels} \cite[Section~9.4]{Cov06} in which the capacity is given by the well-known {\em water-filling} solution. See Appendix \ref{app:parallel} for a description of the modifications to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ach3} to this setting. This improves on the result in \cite[Theorem~81]{Pol10} by $\frac{1}{2}\log n$. However, this third-order achievability result does not match the converse bound given in \cite[Theorem~80]{Pol10} in which it is shown that the third-order term is upper bounded by $\frac{k+1}{2}\log n + O(1)$ where $k\ge 1$ is the number of parallel Gaussian channels. We leave the closing of this gap for future research.
\item Finally, we make an observation concerning the relation between prefactors in the error exponents regime and the third-order terms in the normal approximation. In \cite{Sha59b}, Shannon derived exponential bounds on the average error probability of optimal codes over a Gaussian channel using geometric arguments. For {\em high rates} (i.e.\ rates above the critical rate and below capacity), he showed that \cite[Eqs.~(4)--(5)]{Sha59b}
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{e}}^*(M,n)=\Theta\Big( \frac{\exp(-n F(\varphi))}{\sqrt{n}}\Big) \label{eqn:shannon_exponent}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{e}}^*(M,n)$ is the optimal average probability of error of a length-$n$ block code of size $M \in\mathbb{N}$, $\varphi=\varphi(R)$ is a cone angle related to the signaling rate $R :=\frac{1}{n}\log M$ as follows \cite[Eq.~(28)]{Sha59b}
\begin{align}
\exp(-nR ) = \frac{\big(1+O\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)\big)\sin^n\varphi}{\sqrt{2\pi n} \, \sin\varphi \, \cos\varphi} , \label{eqn:theta1_Rn}
\end{align}
and the exponent in \eqref{eqn:shannon_exponent} is defined as
\begin{align}
F(\varphi)&:=\frac{P }{2}-\frac{\sqrt{P} \,G \, \cos\varphi}{2}-\log\big(G\sin\varphi\big), \quad\mbox{where}\\
G=G(\varphi ) & := \frac{1}{2}\big(\sqrt{P} \cos\varphi+ \sqrt{P\cos^2 \varphi+4}\big).
\end{align}
Furthermore for high rates, the error exponent (reliability function) of an AWGN channel is known and equals the sphere-packing exponent~\cite[Eq.~(7.4.33)]{gallagerIT}
\begin{equation}
E(R) = \frac{P}{4\beta}\bigg( (\beta+1) -(\beta-1)\sqrt{ 1+\frac{4\beta}{P(\beta-1)}} \bigg)+\frac{1}{2}\log\bigg( \beta-\frac{P(\beta-1)}{2}\bigg[\sqrt{ 1+\frac{4\beta}{P(\beta-1)}}-1\bigg]\bigg) \label{eqn:ER}
\end{equation}
where $\beta :=\exp(2R)$. Simple algebra shows that $F(\theta )= E(\tilde{R}(\theta))$ when $\tilde{R}(\theta):= -\log\sin\theta$. Thus,
\begin{align}
F\big(\varphi(R) \big) &= E\big( \tilde{R}(\varphi(R) )\big) \\
&= E\big(-\log\sin (\varphi(R)) \big) \\
& = E\Big(R-\frac{\log n}{2n}+ \Theta\Big(\frac{1}{n}\Big)\Big) \label{eqn:use_theta1_Rn}\\
&= E(R) - E'(R) \frac{\log n}{2n}+\Theta\Big(\frac{1}{n}\Big), \label{eqn:taylor_ER}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eqn:use_theta1_Rn} follows from \eqref{eqn:theta1_Rn} and \eqref{eqn:taylor_ER} follows by Taylor expanding the continuously differentiable function $E(R)$. Note that $E'(R)\le 0$. This leads to the conclusion that for high rates,
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{e}}^*(M,n)=\Theta\Big( \frac{\exp(-nE(R))}{n^{(1+ | E'(R)| )/2}}\Big).
\end{equation}
Thus, the prefactor of the AWGN channel is $\Theta(n^{-(1+ | E'(R) | )/2})$. We showed in Theorem~\ref{thm:ach3} that the third-order term is $\frac{1}{2}\log n+O(1)$. Somewhat surprisingly, this is analogous to the symmetric, discrete memoryless case. Indeed for non-singular, symmetric DMCs (such as the binary symmetric channel) the prefactor in the error exponents regime for high rates is $\Theta(n^{-(1+ |E'(R) |)/2})$ \cite{altug11,altug12, altug12a, Sca13} and for DMCs with positive $\varepsilon$-dispersion, the third-order term is $\frac{1}{2}\log n+O(1)$ (combining \cite[Theorem~1]{TomTan12} and \cite[Theorem~53]{Pol10}). (Actually symmetry is not required for the third-order term to be $\frac{1}{2}\log n+O(1)$.) On the other hand, for singular, symmetric DMCs (such as the binary erasure channel), the prefactor is $\Theta(n^{-1/2})$ \cite{altug12,altug11, altug12a, Sca13} and the third-order term is $O(1)$ (combining \cite[Proposition~1]{altug13} and \cite[Theorem~45]{PPV10}). Also see~\cite[Theorem~23]{Pol13}. These results suggest a connection between prefactors and third-order terms. Indeed, a precise understanding of this connection is a promising avenue for further research.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ach3}}
The proof, which is based on random coding, is split into several steps.
\subsection{Random Codebook Generation And Encoding}
We first start by defining the random coding distribution
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathbf{X}} (\mathbf{x}) := \frac{\delta ( \|\mathbf{x}\|_2^2 -nP )}{S_n(\sqrt{nP})} \label{eqn:rc_dist}
\end{equation}
where $\delta(\cdot)$ is the Dirac delta and $S_n(r) = \frac{2\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(n/2)}r^{n-1}$ is the surface area of a radius-$r$ sphere in $\mathbb{R}^n$. We sample $M$ length-$n$ codewords independently from $f_{\mathbf{X}}$. In other words, we draw codewords uniformly at random from the surface of the sphere in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with radius $\sqrt{nP}$. The number of codewords $M$ will be specified at the end of the proof in \eqref{eqn:logM}. These codewords are denoted as $\mathbf{x}(m) = (x_1(m),\ldots, x_n(m)), m \in \{ 1,\ldots, M\}$. To send message $m$, transmit codeword~$\mathbf{x}(m)$.
\subsection{Maximum-Likelihood Decoding }
Let the induced output density be $f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n(\mathbf{y}):=\int_{\mathbf{x}'} f_{\mathbf{X}}(\mathbf{x}')W^n(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x}')\,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}' .
\end{equation}
Given $\mathbf{y}=(y_1,\ldots, y_n)$, the decoder selects the message $m$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
q(\mathbf{x}(m),\mathbf{y})> \max_{ \tilde{m} \in \{1,\ldots, M\}\setminus \{m\}} q(\mathbf{x}(\tilde{m}),\mathbf{y}) , \label{eqn:decode-rule}
\end{equation}
where the decoding metric is the log-likelihood ratio defined as
\begin{equation}
q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) := \log \frac{W^n(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})}{f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n(\mathbf{y})} . \label{eqn:decoding_metric}
\end{equation}
If there is no unique $m\in\{1,\ldots, M\}$ satisfying \eqref{eqn:decode-rule}, declare an error. (This happens with probability zero.)
Since the denominator in \eqref{eqn:decoding_metric}, namely $f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n(\mathbf{y})$, is constant across all codewords, this is simply maximum-likelihood or, in this Gaussian case, minimum-Euclidean distance decoding.
We will take advantage of the latter observation in our proof, more precisely the fact that
\begin{equation}
q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) = \frac{n}{2} \log \frac{1}{2\pi} + \langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} \rangle - nP - \|\mathbf{y}\|_2^2 - \log f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n(\mathbf{y}) \label{eqn:inner_product}
\end{equation}
only depends on the codeword through the inner product $\langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} \rangle=\sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i$. In fact, $q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ is equal to $\langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} \rangle$ up to a shift that only depends on $\|\mathbf{y}\|_2^2$.
Note that because $f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n$ is not a product density, $q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ is {\em not separable} (into a sum of $n$ terms) unlike in the i.i.d.\ random coding case~\cite[Theorem~53]{Pol10}.
\subsection{The Random Coding Union (RCU) Bound}
All the randomly drawn codewords satisfy the cost constraints with probability one. By using the same proof technique as that for the RCU bound~\cite[Theorem~16]{PPV10}, we may assert that there exists an $(n,M,\varepsilon', P)_{\mathrm{av}}$-code satisfying
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon'\le \mathbb{E}\left[ \min\big\{1,M \Pr \big( q(\bar{\mathbf{X}} , \mathbf{Y} ) \ge q(\mathbf{X} , \mathbf{Y} ) |\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y} \big)\big\}\right] \label{eqn:rcu}
\end{equation}
where the random variables $(\bar{\mathbf{X}},\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ are distributed as $f_{\mathbf{X}}(\bar{\mathbf{x}})\times f_{\mathbf{X}}(\mathbf{x})\times W^n(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})$. Now, introduce the function
\begin{equation}
g(t,\mathbf{y}) := \Pr\big(q(\bar{\mathbf{X}} , \mathbf{Y} ) \ge t \,\big|\, \mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{y} \big). \label{eqn:gty}
\end{equation}
Since $\bar{\mathbf{X}}$ is independent of $\mathbf{X}$, the probability in \eqref{eqn:rcu} can be written as
\begin{equation}
\Pr \big( q(\bar{\mathbf{X}} , \mathbf{Y} ) \ge q(\mathbf{X} , \mathbf{Y} ) |\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y} \big) = g(q(\mathbf{X} , \mathbf{Y} ) ,\mathbf{Y}).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, by Bayes rule, we have $f_{\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{y})\times f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n(\mathbf{y})= f_{\mathbf{X}}(\mathbf{x}) \times W^n(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})$ and so
\begin{equation}
f_{\mathbf{X}}(\bar{\mathbf{x}})=f_{\mathbf{X}}(\bar{\mathbf{x}})\frac{f_{\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{Y}}(\bar{\mathbf{x}}|\mathbf{y})}{f_{\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{Y}}(\bar{\mathbf{x}}|\mathbf{y})} = f_{\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{Y}}(\bar{\mathbf{x}}|\mathbf{y})\exp(-q(\bar{\mathbf{x}} , \mathbf{y})).
\end{equation}
For a fixed sequence $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and a constant $t\in\mathbb{R}$, multiplying both sides by $\mathbf{1}\{q (\bar{\mathbf{x}} , \mathbf{y})\ge t\}$ and integrating over all $\bar{\mathbf{x}}$ yields the following alternative representation of $g(t,\mathbf{y})$:
\begin{equation}
g(t,\mathbf{y}) =\mathbb{E}\big[ \exp(-q( \mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}))\mathbf{1}\{ q( \mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})\ge t \} \,\big|\, \mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{y}\big]. \label{eqn:integrating}
\end{equation}
\subsection{A High-Probability Set}
Consider the set of ``typical'' channel outputs whose norms are approximately $\sqrt{n(P+1)}$. More precisely, define
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}:=\Big\{ \mathbf{y}\in\mathbb{R}^n : \frac{1}{n} \|\mathbf{y}\|_2^2 \in [ P+1 -\delta , P+1+\delta]\Big\}.
\end{equation}
We claim that the probability of $\mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}$ is large. First the union bound yields
\begin{align}
\Pr(\mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}^c) \le \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\|\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2 > P+1+\delta\bigg) + \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\|\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2 < P+1 - \delta\bigg) .
\end{align}
Since the bounding of both probabilities can be done in a similar fashion, we focus on the first which may be written as
\begin{equation}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\|\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2 > P+1+\delta\bigg)= \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\big(2\langle\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z}\rangle + \|\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2\big) > 1+\delta\bigg).\label{eqn:dropP}
\end{equation}
Define the following ``typical'' set of noises
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{G}:=\Big\{ \mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^n:\frac{1}{n} \|\mathbf{z}\|_2^2 \le 1+\frac{\delta}{2} \Big\} .
\end{equation}
Since $\mathbf{Z}=(Z_1,\ldots, Z_n)\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I}_{n\times n})$, by the Chernoff bound (or, more precisely, by Cramer's theorem~\cite[Theorem~2.2.3]{Dembo} for $\chi_1^2$ random variables), the probability that $\mathbf{Z}\in\mathcal{G}^c$ is upper bounded by $\exp(-\kappa_1 n \delta^2)$ for some constant $\kappa_1>0$. Now, we continue bounding the probability in \eqref{eqn:dropP} as follows:
\begin{align}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\big(2\langle\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z}\rangle + \|\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2\big) > 1+\delta\bigg) &\le\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\big(2\langle\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z}\rangle \!+\! \|\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2\big) > 1+\delta\,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Z}\in\mathcal{G}\bigg)\Pr(\mathbf{Z}\in\mathcal{G}) \! +\!\Pr(\mathbf{Z}\in\mathcal{G}^c) \\
&\le \Pr\bigg( \frac{2}{n} \langle\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z}\rangle > \frac{\delta}{2}\,\bigg|\,\mathbf{Z}\in \mathcal{G}\bigg)\Pr(\mathbf{Z}\in\mathcal{G}) +\Pr(\mathbf{Z}\in\mathcal{G}^c) \label{eqn:usedefG}\\
&\le \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i Z_i> \frac{\delta}{4}\bigg) +\Pr(\mathbf{Z}\in\mathcal{G}^c) ,
\end{align}
where in~\eqref{eqn:usedefG} we used the definition of $\mathcal{G}$.
By spherical symmetry, we may take $\mathbf{X}$ to be any point on the power sphere $\{\mathbf{x}:\|\mathbf{x}\|_2^2 = nP\}$. We take $\mathbf{X}$ to be equal to $(\sqrt{nP}, 0, \ldots, 0)$. Then the first term reduces to
\begin{equation}
\Pr\bigg( Z_1 > \frac{\delta}{4} \cdot\sqrt{\frac{n}{P}} \, \bigg) =1-\Phi\bigg( \frac{\delta}{4} \cdot\sqrt{\frac{n}{P}} \, \bigg)\le\exp(-\kappa_2 n \delta^2) ,
\end{equation}
where $\kappa_2 >0$ is a constant. By putting all the bounds together and setting $\delta=n^{-1/3}$, we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\Pr(\mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F})\ge 1-\xi_n\label{eqn:chernoff}
\end{equation}
where $\xi_n := \exp(-\kappa_3 n^{1/3})$ for some $\kappa_3>0$. Note that $\xi_n$ decays faster than any polynomial.
\subsection{Probability Of The Log-Likelihood Ratio Belonging To An Interval} \label{sec:interval}
We would like to upper bound $g(t,\mathbf{y})$ in \eqref{eqn:gty} to evaluate the RCU bound. This we do in the next section. As an intermediate step, we consider the problem of upper bounding
\begin{equation}
h(\mathbf{y}; a, \mu) := \Pr\big( q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})\in [a,a+\mu] \, \big| \, \mathbf{Y} = \mathbf{y}\big) ,
\end{equation}
where $a \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\mu > 0$ are some constants. Because $\mathbf{Y}$ is fixed to some constant vector $\mathbf{y}$ and $\|\mathbf{X}\|_2^2$ is also constant, $h(\mathbf{y}; a, \mu)$ can be rewritten using~\eqref{eqn:inner_product} as
\begin{equation}
h(\mathbf{y};a,\mu) := \Pr\big( \langle\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}\rangle\in [a', a' + \mu] \, \big| \, \mathbf{Y} = \mathbf{y}\big) , \label{eqn:inner_prod}
\end{equation}
for some other constant $a' \in \mathbb{R}$. It is clear that $h(\mathbf{y}; a, \mu)$ depends on $\mathbf{y}$ through its norm and so we may define (with an abuse of notation),
\begin{equation}
h(s;a,\mu) : = h(\mathbf{y};a,\mu) ,\quad\mbox{if}\quad s = \frac{1}{n}\|\mathbf{y}\|_2^2.
\end{equation}
In the rest of this section, we assume that $\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{F}$ or, equivalently, $s\in [ P+1 -\delta , P+1+\delta]$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{overpic}[width=.6\columnwidth]{sphere4}
\put(93,41.5){$z_1$}
\put(67,86){$z_2$}
\put(64,35.5){$0$}
\put(42,34.5){$-\sqrt{nP}$}
\put(43.5,41.6){$-\mathbf{x}_0$}
\put(72,62.5){Q}
\put(80,35){$\sqrt{ns}\!-\!\sqrt{nP}$}
\put(-1,35){$-\!\sqrt{ns}\!-\!\sqrt{nP}$}
\put(56,50){\rotatebox{45}{$\sqrt{ns}$}}
\put(83,58){$\sqrt{ns}\sin\psi$}
\put(73,17){$\sqrt{ns}\cos\psi-\sqrt{nP}$}
\put(58,43){$\psi$}
\put(79.5,39.5){\circle*{2}}
\put(20.5,39.5){\circle*{2}}
\put(50.5,39.5){\circle*{2}}
\put(72,60.5){\circle*{2}}
\put(28,73){$\{\mathbf{z}:\|\mathbf{x}_0+\mathbf{z}\|_2^2=ns\}$}
\linethickness{1.2mm}
\put(66.5,39.8){\line(1,0){5}}
\end{overpic}
\caption{Illustration of the relation between $Z_1$ and $\Psi$ in \eqref{eqn:ZTheta} in two dimensions. The transformation of this figure to the $U$ coordinate system via~\eqref{eqn:UTheta} translates the sphere to the origin and scales its radius to be $1$. }
\label{fig:z1}
\end{figure}
By introducing the standard Gaussian random vector $\mathbf{Z}=(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n)\sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I}_{n\times n})$, we have
\begin{align}
h(s;a,\mu
&= \Pr\left( \langle\mathbf{X},\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Z}\rangle\in [a',a'+\mu] \, \Big|\, \|\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2 = ns\right) \\
&= \Pr\bigg( \sum_{i=1}^n X_i Z_i + nP \in [a',a'+\mu] \, \bigg|\, \|\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2 = ns \bigg) \label{eqn:a_prime}
\end{align}
where~\eqref{eqn:a_prime} follows by the observation that $\langle\mathbf{X},\mathbf{X}\rangle = nP$ with probability one. Now, define
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}_0 := \big( \sqrt{nP}, 0,\ldots, 0\big)
\end{equation}
to be a fixed vector on the power sphere. By spherical symmetry, we may pick $\mathbf{X}$ in \eqref{eqn:a_prime} to be equal to $\mathbf{x}_0$. Thus, we have
\begin{equation}
h(s;a,\mu) =
\Pr\bigg( Z_1 + \sqrt{nP} \in \Big[ \frac{a'}{\sqrt{nP}},\frac{a'+\mu}{\sqrt{nP}}\Big] \, \bigg|\, \|\mathbf{x}_0+\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2 =ns \bigg) . \label{eqn:x0}
\end{equation}
In other words, we are conditioning on the event that the random vector $\mathbf{Z} \sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I}_{n\times n})$ lands on the surface of a sphere of radius $\sqrt{ns}$ centered at $-\mathbf{x}_0 = (-\sqrt{nP}, 0, \ldots, 0)$.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:z1}. We are then asking what is the probability that the first component
plus $\sqrt{nP}$ belongs to the prescribed interval of length proportional to $\mu/\sqrt{n}$.
Let us now derive the conditional density of $Z_1$ given the event $\mathcal{E} :=\{ \|\mathbf{x}_0+\mathbf{Z}\|_2^2 = ns\}$. Denote this density as $f_{Z_1|\mathcal{E}} (z_1)$. Note that the support of $f_{Z_1|\mathcal{E}}(z_1)$ is
$[-\sqrt{ns}-\sqrt{nP},\sqrt{ns}-\sqrt{nP}]$.
It is easier to find the conditional density of the angle $\Psi \in [0,2\pi]$ given the event $\mathcal{E}$ where $\Psi$ and $Z_1$ are related as follows:
\begin{equation}
Z_1 = \sqrt{ns} \cos\Psi - \sqrt{nP} .
\label{eqn:ZTheta}
\end{equation}
Again see Fig.~\ref{fig:z1}. Now, we have
\begin{equation}
f_{\Psi|\mathcal{E}}(\psi)\, \mathrm{d} \psi\propto \left(\sin^{n-2} \psi\right) \exp\left( -\frac{n}{2} \left[ (\sqrt{s}\cos\psi - \sqrt{P}
)^2 + s\sin^2\psi\right]\right)\, \mathrm{d} \psi.
\end{equation}
This follows because the area element (an $(n-1)$-dimensional annulus of radius $\sqrt{ns}\sin\psi$ and width $\mathrm{d}\psi$) is proportional to $\sin^{n-2}\psi$ (similar to Shannon's derivation in~\cite[Eq.~(21)]{Sha59b}) and the Gaussian weighting is proportional to $\exp\big( -\frac{n}{2} \big[ (\sqrt{s}\cos\psi - \sqrt{P}
)^2 + s\sin^2\psi\big]\big)$. This is just $\exp(-d^2 / 2)$ where $d$ is the distance of the point described by $\psi$ (point Q in Fig.~\ref{fig:z1}) to the origin. We are obviously leveraging heavily on the radial symmetry of the problem around the first axis. Now, we consider the change of variables
\begin{equation}
U = \cos\Psi \label{eqn:UTheta}
\end{equation}
resulting in
\begin{equation}
f_{U|\mathcal{E}} (u) \, \mathrm{d} u \propto (1-u^2)^{(n-3)/2}\exp \big( n \sqrt{Ps} u \big) \, \mathrm{d} u.
\end{equation}
Note that $U$ takes values in $[-1,1]$. More precisely, the conditional density of $U$ given $\mathcal{E}$ is
\begin{equation}
f_{U|\mathcal{E}} (u) =\frac{1}{F_n} (1-u^2)^{(n-3)/2} \exp\big( n \sqrt{Ps} u \big) \mathbf{1}\{ u \in [-1,1]\} ,\label{eqn:densityU}
\end{equation}
where the normalization constant is
\begin{equation}
F_n := \int_{-1}^1 (1-u^2)^{(n-3)/2} \exp\big( n \sqrt{Ps} u \big)
\, \mathrm{d} u \label{eqn:Fn} .
\end{equation}
The conditional density we have derived in \eqref{eqn:densityU}--\eqref{eqn:Fn} reduces to that by Stam~\cite[Eq.~(3)]{Stam} for the limiting case $P=0$, i.e.\ the sphere is centered at the origin.
It is of paramount importance to analyze how $\sup_{u \in [-1,1]} f_{U|\mathcal{E}}(u)$ scales with $n$. The answer turns out to be $O(\sqrt{n})$. More formally, we state the following lemma whose proof is provided in Appendix~\ref{app:boundU}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:boundU}
Define the function
\begin{equation}
L(P,s) := \frac{(2Ps)^2}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\cdot \sqrt{\frac{1+4Ps-\sqrt{1+4Ps}}{ ( \sqrt{1+4Ps}-1)^5} } .\label{eqn:defL}
\end{equation}
The following bound holds:
\begin{align}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sup_{u\in [-1,1]} f_{U|\mathcal{E}}(u) \le L(P,s).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Equipped with this lemma, let us consider the probability $h(s;a,\mu)$ in \eqref{eqn:x0}. We have
\begin{align}
h(s;a,\mu) & =
\Pr\bigg( \sqrt{ns} \, U \in \Big[ \frac{a'}{\sqrt{nP}}, \frac{a' + \mu}{\sqrt{nP}} \Big]
\,\bigg|\,\, \mathcal{E}\bigg) \label{eqn:ch_to_U} \\
&=
\int_{ a'/ (n\sqrt{Ps}) }^{(a'+\mu)/ (n\sqrt{Ps} ) } f_{U|\mathcal{E}}(u) \, \mathrm{d} u \label{eqn:aprime2}\\
&\le
\int_{ a'/ (n\sqrt{Ps}) }^{(a'+\mu)/ (n\sqrt{Ps} ) } 2 \, L(P,s) \, \sqrt{n} \, \mathrm{d} u \label{eqn:use_lem} \\
&= \frac{2\, L(P,s) \, \mu}{\sqrt{n Ps}}, \label{eqn:final_bd}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eqn:ch_to_U} follows from the fact that $Z_1 = \sqrt{ns} \, U
-\sqrt{nP}$ due to \eqref{eqn:ZTheta} and \eqref{eqn:UTheta}, and~\eqref{eqn:use_lem} holds for all sufficiently large $n$ (depending only on $P$ and $s$) on account of Lemma~\ref{lem:boundU}.
Since $s\in [ P+1 -\delta , P+1+\delta]$ and $\delta = n^{-1/3}\to 0$, we deduce that for all $\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{F}$ and $n$ sufficiently large (depending only on $P$),
\begin{equation}
h(\mathbf{y};a,\mu) \le K(P) \cdot\frac{ \mu }{\sqrt{n }} , \label{eqn:root_n}
\end{equation}
for some function $K(P)$. In fact, by the continuity of $s\mapsto L(P,s)$, the constant $K(P)$ can be taken to be
\begin{equation}
K(P)=\frac{3\, L(P,P+1)}{\sqrt{P (P+1)}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Probability That The Decoding Metric Exceeds $t$ For An Incorrect Codeword}
We now return to bounding $g(t,\mathbf{y})$ defined in \eqref{eqn:gty}. Again, we assume $\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{F}$. The idea here is to consider the second form of $g(t,\mathbf{y})$ in \eqref{eqn:integrating} and to slice the interval $[t,\infty)$ into non-overlapping segments $\{ [t+l\eta, t+(l+1)\eta): l \in \mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}\}$ where $\eta>0$ is a constant. Then we apply \eqref{eqn:root_n} to each segment. This is modelled after the proof of \cite[Lemma~47]{PPV10}. Indeed, we have
\begin{align}
g(t,\mathbf{y})& =\mathbb{E}\big[ \exp(-q( \mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}))\mathbf{1}\{ q( \mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})\ge t \} \,\big|\, \mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{y}\big]\nn\\
&\le \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} \exp(-t -l\eta) \Pr\left(t+l\eta\le q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) < t+(l+1)\eta \,\big|\, \mathbf{Y} = \mathbf{y}\right) \label{eqn:slices} \\
&\le\sum_{l=0}^{\infty} \exp(-t -l\eta) \cdot \frac{ K(P)\, \eta}{ \sqrt{n}} \label{eqn:use_previous}\\
&= \frac{\exp(-t )}{1-\exp(-\eta)} \cdot\frac{K(P)\, \eta}{ \sqrt{n}} . \label{eqn:geom}
\end{align}
Since $\eta$ is a free parameter, we may choose it to be $\log 2$ yielding
\begin{equation}
g(t,\mathbf{y}) \le \frac{G \, \exp(-t )}{\sqrt{n}} \label{eqn:Lambda_bd}
\end{equation}
where $G=G(P)=(2\log 2)\, K(P)$.
\subsection{Evaluating The RCU Bound}
We now have all the necessary ingredients to evaluate the RCU bound in \eqref{eqn:rcu}. Consider,
\begin{align}
\varepsilon'&\le \mathbb{E}\left[ \min\big\{1,Mg(q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) ,\mathbf{Y}) \big\}\right]\nn\\
&\le\Pr(\mathbf{Y}\in \mathcal{F}^c)+ \mathbb{E}\left[ \min\big\{1,Mg(q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) ,\mathbf{Y}) \big\}\,\Big|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F} \right] \cdot \Pr(\mathbf{Y} \in \mathcal{F}) \\
& \le\Pr(\mathbf{Y}\in \mathcal{F}^c) + \mathbb{E}\left[ \min\left\{1, \frac{M G \exp(-q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) ) }{\sqrt{n}} \right\} \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F} \right] \cdot \Pr(\mathbf{Y} \in \mathcal{F})\label{eqn:use_integrating}\\
& \le\xi_n + \mathbb{E}\left[ \min\left\{1, \frac{MG\exp(-q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) ) }{\sqrt{n}} \right\} \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}\right] \cdot \Pr(\mathbf{Y} \in \mathcal{F})\label{eqn:use_F_bound}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eqn:use_integrating} is due to~\eqref{eqn:Lambda_bd} with $t = q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ and \eqref{eqn:use_F_bound} uses the bound in \eqref{eqn:chernoff}. Now we split the expectation into two parts depending on whether $q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})> \log (MG/\sqrt{n})$ or otherwise, i.e.\
\begin{align}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ \min\left\{1, \frac{MG\exp(-q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) ) }{\sqrt{n}} \right\} \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}\right] \nn\\
&\le \Pr\left( q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) \le \log \frac{MG}{\sqrt{n}} \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}\right) + \frac{MG}{\sqrt{n }} \mathbb{E}\left[ \mathbf{1}\left\{ q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) > \log\frac{MG}{\sqrt{n}} \right\}\exp(-q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})) \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}\right] \label{eqn:expand_min} .
\end{align}
By applying \eqref{eqn:Lambda_bd} with $t = \log (MG/\sqrt{n})$, we know that the second term can be bounded as
\begin{equation}
\frac{MG}{\sqrt{n }} \mathbb{E}\left[ \mathbf{1}\left\{ q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) > \log\frac{MG}{\sqrt{n}} \right\}\exp(-q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})) \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}\right]\le \frac{G}{\sqrt{n}}.
\end{equation}
Now let $f_{Y}^*(y) = \mathcal{N}(y;0,P+1)$ be the capacity-achieving output distribution and $f_{\mathbf{Y}}^* (\mathbf{y})=\prod_{i=1}^n f_{Y}^*(y_i)$ its $n$-fold memoryless extension. In Step 1 of the proof of Lemma~61 in~\cite{PPV10}, Polyanskiy-Poor-Verd\'u showed that on $\mathcal{F}$, the ratio of the induced output density $f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n(\mathbf{y})$ and $f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{y})$ can be bounded by a finite constant $J$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\sup_{\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{F}} \frac{ f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n(\mathbf{y})}{ f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{y})} \le J .\label{eqn:change_meas}
\end{equation}
Also see \cite[Proposition~2]{Mol13}. We return to bounding the first term in \eqref{eqn:expand_min}. Using the definition of $q(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ in~\eqref{eqn:decoding_metric} and applying the bound in~\eqref{eqn:change_meas} yields
\begin{align}
\Pr\left( q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) \le \log \frac{MG}{\sqrt{n}} \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F} \right) &=\Pr\left( \log\frac{W^n(\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{X})}{f_{\mathbf{X}}W^n(\mathbf{Y})} \le \log \frac{MG}{\sqrt{n}} \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F} \right) \\
& \le \Pr\left( \log\frac{W^n(\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{X})}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{Y})} \le \log \frac{MGJ}{\sqrt{n}} \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}\right) .
\end{align}
Thus, when we multiply the first term in \eqref{eqn:expand_min} by $\Pr(\mathbf{Y} \in \mathcal{F})$, use Bayes rule and drop the event $\{\mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F}\}$, we see that the product can be bounded as follows:
\begin{align}
\Pr\left( q(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}) \le \log \frac{MG}{\sqrt{n}} \,\bigg|\, \mathbf{Y}\in\mathcal{F} \right) \cdot\Pr(\mathbf{Y} \in \mathcal{F})\le\Pr \left( \log\frac{W^n(\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{X})}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{Y})} \le \log \frac{MGJ}{\sqrt{n}} \right)\label{eqn:first_term} .
\end{align}
The right-hand-side of \eqref{eqn:first_term} can be written as an average over $\mathbf{X}\sim f_{\mathbf{X}}$, i.e.\
\begin{align}
\Pr \left( \log\frac{W^n(\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{X})}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{Y})} \le \log \frac{MGJ}{\sqrt{n}} \right)= \int_{\mathbf{x}}f_{\mathbf{X}}(\mathbf{x}) \Pr\left( \log\frac{W^n(\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{X})}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{Y})} \le \log \frac{M G J }{\sqrt{n}} \, \bigg|\, \mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x} \right)\,\mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} \label{eqn:pick_X}.
\end{align}
By noting that $f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{y})$ is a product density,
\begin{equation}
\Pr\bigg( \log\frac{W^n(\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{X})}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{Y})} \le \log \frac{M G J }{\sqrt{n}} \, \bigg|\, \mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x} \bigg) = \Pr\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^n \log\frac{W (Y_i| X_i)}{f_{Y}^*(Y_i)} \le \log \frac{M G J }{\sqrt{n}} \, \bigg|\, \mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x} \bigg).
\end{equation}
The above probability does not depend on $\mathbf{x}$ as long as it is on the power sphere $\{\mathbf{x}:\|\mathbf{x}\|_2^2=nP\}$ because of spherical symmetry. Hence we may take $\mathbf{x}=(\sqrt{P},\ldots, \sqrt{P})$. It is then easy to check that the first two central moments of the information density are
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \log\frac{W (Y_i| \sqrt{P})}{f_{Y}^*(Y_i)} \right] = \mathsf{C}(P) , \quad\mbox{and}\quad \var\left[ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \log\frac{W (Y_i| \sqrt{P})}{f_{Y}^*(Y_i)}\right] = \frac{ \mathsf{V}(P) }{n}.
\end{align}
Furthermore, the following third-absolute moment
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{T}(P) := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E} \left[\left| \log\frac{W (Y_i| \sqrt{P})}{f_{Y}^*(Y_i)}- \mathbb{E}\bigg[\log\frac{W (Y_i| \sqrt{P})}{f_{Y}^*(Y_i)}\bigg]\right|^3\right]
\end{equation}
is obviously bounded (note the scaling). See \cite[Lemma~10 and Appendix~A]{ScarlettTan} for a precise analysis of third absolute moments of information densities involving Gaussians. This allows us to apply the Berry-Esseen theorem~\cite[Theorem~2 in Section~XVI.5]{feller}, which implies that
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left( \log\frac{W^n(\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{X})}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{Y})} \le \log \frac{M G J }{\sqrt{n}} \, \bigg|\, \mathbf{X}= (\sqrt{P},\ldots, \sqrt{P})\right)\le\Phi\left( \frac{\log \frac{M G J }{\sqrt{n}} -n\mathsf{C}(P)}{\sqrt{n\mathsf{V}(P)}} \right) + \frac{6\, \mathsf{T}(P)}{\sqrt{n\mathsf{V}(P)^3}} .\label{eqn:be}
\end{equation}
Let $B=B(P) := 6\,\mathsf{T}(P) / \mathsf{V}(P)^{3/2}$.
We deduce that
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left( \log\frac{W^n(\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{X})}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}^*(\mathbf{Y})} \le \log \frac{MGJ}{\sqrt{n}} \right)\le \Phi\left( \frac{\log \frac{M G J }{\sqrt{n}} -n\mathsf{C}(P)}{\sqrt{n\mathsf{V}(P)}} \right) + \frac{B}{\sqrt{n}} .
\end{equation}
Putting all the bounds together, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon'\le \Phi\left( \frac{\log \frac{M G J }{\sqrt{n}} -n\mathsf{C}(P)}{\sqrt{n\mathsf{V}(P)}} \right) + \frac{B}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{G}{\sqrt{n}}+\xi_n.
\end{equation}
Now choose
\begin{align}
\log M = n\mathsf{C}(P) + \sqrt{n \mathsf{V}(P)} \Phi^{-1}\left( \varepsilon - \frac{B+G}{\sqrt{n}}-\xi_n \right) + \frac{1}{2}\log n-\log(GJ) \label{eqn:logM}
\end{align}
ensuring that
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon'\le \varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Hence, there exists an $(n,M,\varepsilon,P)_{\mathrm{av}}$-code where $M$ is given by \eqref{eqn:logM}. It is easily seen by Taylor expanding $\Phi^{-1}(\cdot)$ around $\varepsilon$ that
\begin{equation}
\log M = n\mathsf{C}(P) + \sqrt{n \mathsf{V}(P)} \Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) + \frac{1}{2}\log n+O(1).
\end{equation}
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ach3}.\qed
\appendices
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\section{Modifications of the Proof to the Parallel Gaussian Channels Settng} \label{app:parallel}
In this appendix, we give a sketch of how the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ach3} can be used for the scenario where information is to be transmitted across $k$ parallel Gaussian channels. See Section 9.4 of \cite{Cov06} for the precise problem setting. Let the input and output to the channel be $(\mathbf{X}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{X}_k)$ and $(\mathbf{Y}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{Y}_k)$ respectively. Let the independent noises of each of the channels have variances $N_1,\ldots, N_k$ and denote the total admissible power as $P$. Let $|\cdot|^+:=\max\{0,\cdot\}$ and set $P_1,\ldots, P_k$ be the power assignments that maximize the information capacity expression, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
P_j = |\nu-N_j|^+ \label{eqn:water}
\end{equation}
where the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker multiplier $\nu$ is chosen to satisfy the total power constraint
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^k |\nu-N_j|^+=P. \label{eqn:kkt}
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{P}^+:=\{j \in\{1,\ldots, k\}: P_j>0\}$. Clearly, \eqref{eqn:water} and \eqref{eqn:kkt} imply that $\mathcal{P}^+$ is non-empty if $P>0$.
We use the random coding distribution $f_{\mathbf{X}_1}\times\ldots\times f_{\mathbf{X}_k}$ where each constituent distribution $f_{\mathbf{X}_j}$ is given by~\eqref{eqn:rc_dist} with $P_j$ in place of $P$ there. Close inspection of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ach3} shows that the only estimate that needs to be verified is~\eqref{eqn:final_bd}. For this, we consider the analogue of \eqref{eqn:a_prime} which can be written as
\begin{equation}
h(s_1,\ldots, s_k;a,\mu)=\Pr\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^k \sqrt{P_j}\, Z_{j1}\in \Big[\frac{a_2}{\sqrt{n}}, \frac{a_2+\mu}{\sqrt{n}}\Big] \,\bigg|\, \|\mathbf{X}_j+\mathbf{Z}_j\|_2^2 = ns_j,\,\forall\, j \in\{1,\ldots, k\} \bigg) , \label{eqn:Zk}
\end{equation}
where $a_2$ is related to $a'$ in \eqref{eqn:a_prime} by a constant shift. Note that the sum of the inner products $\sum_{j=1}^k\langle\mathbf{X}_j,\mathbf{Y}_j\rangle$ in the analogue of \eqref{eqn:inner_prod} reduces to $\sum_{j=1}^k\sqrt{P_j} Z_{j1}= \sum_{j\in \mathcal{P}^+}\sqrt{P_j}Z_{j1}$ once we have exploited spherical symmetry to choose $\mathbf{X}_j=\mathbf{x}_{j0}:=(\sqrt{nP_j},0,\ldots, 0)$ and moved all the constants to the right-hand-side.
Let $\mathcal{E}$ be the event $\{ \|\mathbf{x}_{j0}+\mathbf{Z}_j\|_2^2 = ns_j,\,\forall\, j \in\{1,\ldots, k\} \}$. By introducing the independent random variables $\{U_j: j\in\mathcal{P}^+\}$ that are related to $\{Z_{j1} : j\in\mathcal{P}^+\}$ analogously to~\eqref{eqn:ZTheta}, we see that \eqref{eqn:Zk} reduces to
\begin{equation}
h(s_1,\ldots, s_k;a,\mu)=\Pr\bigg(\sum_{j \in\mathcal{P}^+} \sqrt{P_js_j}\, U_{j }\in \Big[\frac{a_3}{n}, \frac{a_3+\mu}{n}\Big] \,\bigg|\, \mathcal{E}\bigg), \label{eqn:reduce_inner_prod}
\end{equation}
where $a_3$ is related to $a_2$ by a constant shift. In principle, since the $U_j$'s are independent, we can use its distribution in \eqref{eqn:densityU} to find the distribution of $\sum_{j \in\mathcal{P}^+} \sqrt{P_js_j}\, U_{j }$ by convolution and bound the probability using the steps that led to \eqref{eqn:final_bd}. However, the following method proves to be easier. Let $l$ be any element in $\mathcal{P}^+$ then consider
\begin{align}
&h(s_1,\ldots, s_k;a,\mu) \nn\\
& =\int \Pr\bigg(\sum_{j \in\mathcal{P}^+} \sqrt{P_js_j} \,U_{j }\in \Big[\frac{a_3}{n}, \frac{a_3+\mu}{n}\Big] \,\bigg|\, \mathcal{E},\,\big\{\forall j \in\mathcal{P}^+\setminus \{l\} , U_j=u_j\big\}\bigg)\, \prod_{ j \in\mathcal{P}^+\setminus \{l\} }f_{U_j|\mathcal{E}}(u_j)\, \mathrm{d} u_j \label{eqn:law_tp}\\
& =\int \Pr\bigg( \sqrt{P_{l } s_{l }} \,U_{l }\in \Big[\frac{a_4}{n}, \frac{a_4+\mu}{n}\Big] \,\bigg|\, \mathcal{E}, \, \big\{\forall j \in\mathcal{P}^+\setminus \{l\} , U_j=u_j\big\} \bigg)\, \prod_{ j \in\mathcal{P}^+\setminus\{l\} } f_{U_j|\mathcal{E}}(u_j)\, \mathrm{d} u_j \label{eqn:U_indep0}\\
& =\int \Pr\bigg( \sqrt{P_{l } s_{l }}\, U_{l }\in \Big[\frac{a_4}{n}, \frac{a_4+\mu}{n}\Big] \,\bigg|\, \mathcal{E} \bigg)\, \prod_{ j \in\mathcal{P}^+\setminus \{l\} } f_{U_j|\mathcal{E}}(u_j)\, \mathrm{d} u_j \label{eqn:U_indep}\\
& \le \int \frac{2\, L(P_{l }, s_{l }) \, \mu}{\sqrt{nP_{l }s_{l }}} \, \prod_{ j \in\mathcal{P}^+\setminus \{l\}} f_{U_j|\mathcal{E}}(u_j)\, \mathrm{d} u_j \label{eqn:U_indep1}\\
&= \frac{2\, L(P_{l }, s_{l }) \, \mu}{\sqrt{nP_{l }s_{l }}} ,
\end{align}
where \eqref{eqn:law_tp} follows from the law of total probability; \eqref{eqn:U_indep0} follows by noting that $\{u_j:j\in\mathcal{P}^+\setminus \{l\} \}$ are constants and defining $a_4$ to be related to $a_3$ by a constant shift; \eqref{eqn:U_indep} is due to the joint independence of the random variables $\{U_j: j \in\mathcal{P}^+\}$; and finally~\eqref{eqn:U_indep1}, which holds for $n$ sufficiently large, follows by the same reasoning in the steps that led to~\eqref{eqn:final_bd}. Since $l\in\mathcal{P}^+$ is arbitrary,
\begin{equation}
h(s_1,\ldots, s_k;a,\mu)\le\min_{l\in\mathcal{P}^+} \frac{2\, L(P_{l } , s_{l }) \, \mu}{\sqrt{nP_{l }s_{l }}} .
\end{equation}
We conclude that, just as in \eqref{eqn:root_n}, the probability $h(\mathbf{y}_1,\ldots, \mathbf{y}_k; a,\mu)$ is still bounded above by a constant multiple of $\mu/\sqrt{n}$ and the constant does not depend on $a$. The rest of the proof proceeds {\em mutatis mutandis}.
\section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:boundU}}
\label{app:boundU}
We first find a lower bound for the normalization constant $F_n$ defined in \eqref{eqn:Fn}. Using the fact that $(1-u^2)^{-3/2} \geq 1$, we have
\begin{equation}
F_n \ge \underline{F}_n:=\int_{-1}^1 \exp( n \alpha(u) ) \, \mathrm{d} u \label{eqn:underF}
\end{equation}
where the exponent is
\begin{equation}
\alpha(u) := \frac{1}{2}\log (1-u^2) + \sqrt{Ps} u .
\end{equation}
This exponent is maximized at
\begin{equation}
u^* = \frac{\sqrt{1+ 4Ps}-1}{2\sqrt{Ps}}, \label{eqn:u_star}
\end{equation}
which is in the interior of $[-1,1]$ for finite $P$. Furthermore, the second derivative of $\alpha$ is
\begin{equation}
\alpha''(u) = -\frac{(1+u^2)}{(1-u^2)^2}
\end{equation}
which is always negative. Now we use Laplace's method to lower bound the definite integral in \eqref{eqn:underF} with that of a Gaussian~\cite{Tierney86, Shun95}. We provide the details for the reader's convenience. Let $\epsilon\in(0, -\alpha''(u^*))$. By the continuity of $\alpha''(u)$ at $u^*$ and Taylor's theorem, there exists a $\zeta \in (0, 1-u^*)$ such that for any $u \in (u^*-\zeta,u^*+\zeta)\subset [-1, 1]$, we have $\alpha(u)\ge \alpha(u^*)+\frac{1}{2}(\alpha''(u^*)-\epsilon)(u-u^*)^2$. The following lower bounds hold:
\begin{align}
\underline{F}_n &\ge\int_{u^*-\zeta}^{u^*+\zeta} \exp(n\alpha(u))\, \mathrm{d} u \\
&\ge \exp(n\alpha(u^*))\int_{u^*-\zeta}^{u^*+\zeta} \exp\Big( \frac{n}{2}(\alpha''(u^*)-\epsilon) (u-u^*)^2\Big)\, \mathrm{d} u \\
&=\exp(n\alpha(u^*)) \sqrt{ \frac{1}{n( -\alpha''(u^*)+\epsilon)}} \int_{ -\zeta\sqrt{ n ( -\alpha''(u^*)+\epsilon) }}^{ \zeta\sqrt{ n ( -\alpha''(u^*)-\epsilon) }} \mathrm{e}^{-v^2/2} \, \mathrm{d} v . \label{eqn:change_vars}
\end{align}
We used the change of variables $v=\sqrt{n ( -\alpha''(u^*)+\epsilon)}(u-u^*)$ in the final step. The integral in \eqref{eqn:change_vars} tends to $\sqrt{2\pi}$ as $n$ becomes large so
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{\underline{F}_n}{ \sqrt{ \frac{2\pi}{n |\alpha''(u^*)|}} \exp(n\alpha(u^*))}\ge \sqrt{\frac{- \alpha''(u^*) }{-\alpha''(u^*)+\epsilon }} . \label{eqn:take_liminf}
\end{equation}
Since $\epsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we can rewrite \eqref{eqn:take_liminf} as
\begin{equation}
\underline{F}_n \ge \gamma_n \, \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{n |\alpha''(u^*)|}}\exp(n \alpha(u^*)), \label{eqn:laplace}
\end{equation}
for some sequence $\gamma_n$ that converges to $1$ as $n \to \infty$. Furthermore, the numerator of $f_{U|\mathcal{E}}(u)$ in \eqref{eqn:densityU} can be upper bounded as
\begin{equation}
(1-u^2)^{(n-3)/2} \exp\big( n \sqrt{Ps} u \big) = \exp (n \beta_n(u)) \le\exp( n \beta_n(u_n^*)) \label{eqn:upper_bd_num}
\end{equation}
where the exponent is
\begin{equation}
\beta_n(u):= \Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3}{2n}\Big)\log (1-u^2) + \sqrt{Ps} u
\end{equation}
and the maximizer of $\beta_n(u)$ is
\begin{equation}
u_n^* := \frac{ \sqrt{ (1-\frac{3}{n} )^2 + 4Ps }-(1-\frac{3}{n})}{2 \sqrt{Ps}}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $u_n^*\to u^*$ as $n\to\infty$. We have, by uniting \eqref{eqn:laplace} and \eqref{eqn:upper_bd_num}, that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{u \in [-1, 1]} f_{U|\mathcal{E}}(u) \le \frac1{\gamma_n} \sqrt{\frac{n |\alpha''(u^*)|}{2\pi}} \exp\big( n [\beta_n(u_n^*)-\alpha(u^*) ] \big) .\label{eqn:sup_u}
\end{equation}
Now, we examine the exponent $\beta_n(u_n^*)-\alpha(u^*)$ above. We have
\begin{align}
\beta_n(u_n^*)-\alpha(u^*) \le \beta_n(u_n^*)-\alpha(u_n^* ) = \frac{3}{2n}\log\frac{1}{1-(u_n^*)^2} \label{eqn:def_alpha_beta}
\end{align}
where the inequality follows because $u^*$ maximizes $\alpha$ and so $\alpha(u_n^*)\le\alpha(u^*)$ and the equality is due to the definitions of $\alpha(u)$ and $\beta_n(u)$. Thus, \eqref{eqn:sup_u} can be further upper bounded as
\begin{equation}
\sup_{u \in [-1, 1]} f_{U|\mathcal{E}}(u) \le \frac1{\gamma_n} \cdot\sqrt{\frac{n |\alpha''(u^*)|}{2\pi}} \cdot\frac{1}{(1-(u_n^*)^2)^{3/2}} .
\end{equation}
Dividing both sides by $\sqrt{n}$ and taking the $\limsup$ shows that the upper bound can be chosen to be
\begin{equation}
L(P,s) = \frac{1}{ (1-(u^*)^2)^{3/2}} \cdot\sqrt{\frac{ |\alpha''(u^*)|}{2\pi}} = \sqrt{ \frac{1+ (u^*)^2}{ 2\pi (1-(u^*)^2)^5} }\label{eqn:defB} .
\end{equation}
This concurs with \eqref{eqn:defL} after we substitute for the value of $u^*$ in \eqref{eqn:u_star}.\qed
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
VT sincerely thanks Shaowei Lin (I$^2$R, A*STAR) for many helpful explanations concerning approximation of integrals in high dimensions. The authors also thank Jonathan Scarlett (Cambridge) and Y\"ucel Altu\u{g} (Cornell) for discussions and constructive comments on the manuscript
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
For a second countable locally
compact group $G$,
the Baum-Connes conjecture (with coefficients)
\cite{Baum:1994pr,Valette:2002zz}
asserts that the Baum-Connes assembly map
\begin{equation}\label{oldass}
K_*^{top}(G;A)\to K_*(A\rtimes_\red G)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism for all $\gcstar$-algebras $A$. Here the
$C^*$-algebra $A$ is equipped with a continuous action of $G$ by
$C^*$-algebra automorphisms and, as usual, $A\rtimes_\red G$ denotes the
reduced crossed product. The conjecture has many deep
and important connections to geometry, topology, representation theory
and algebra. It is known to be true for large classes of groups: see
for example \cite{Higson:2001eb,Chabert:2003bq,Lafforgue:2009ss}.
Work of Higson, Lafforgue and Skandalis \cite{Higson:2002la} has,
however, shown the conjecture to be false in the generality stated
above. The counterexamples to the Baum-Connes conjecture they
discovered are closely connected to failures of \emph{exactness} in
the sense of Kirchberg and Wassermann (
\cite[Chapter~5]{Brown:2008qy}). Recall that a locally compact group
$G$ is \emph{exact} if for every short exact sequence of
$\gcstar$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & B \ar[r] & 0},
\end{equation*}
the corresponding sequence of reduced crossed products
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I\rtimes_\red G \ar[r] &
A\rtimes_\red G \ar[r] & B\rtimes_\red G \ar[r] & 0}
\end{equation*}
is still exact. All naturally occurring classes of
locally compact groups\footnote{Of course, what `naturally occuring' means is arguable! However, we think this can be reasonably justified.} are known to be exact. For example, countable
linear groups \cite{Guentner:2005xr}, word hyperbolic groups
\cite{Roe:2005rt}, and connected groups \cite[Corollary
6.9(c)]{Connes:1976fj} are all exact. Nonetheless, Gromov has indicated
\cite{Gromov:2003gf} how to construct non-exact `monster' groups. (See
Arzhantseva and Delzant \cite{Arzhantseva:2008bv}, Coulon \cite{Coulon:2013fk}, and Osajda \cite{Osajda:2014ys} for detailed accounts of related constructions; the last of these is most relevant for this paper). Higson, Lafforgue and Skandalis
\cite{Higson:2002la} used Gromov's groups to produce short exact
sequences of $G$-$C^*$-algebras such that the resulting sequence of
crossed products fails to be exact even on the level of $K$-theory.
This produces a counterexample to the Baum-Connes conjecture with
coefficients.
Furthermore, the Baum-Connes conjecture actually predicts that the
functor associating to a $\gcstar$-algebra $A$ the $K$-theory of the
reduced crossed product $A\rtimes_\red G$
should send short exact sequences of $\gcstar$-algebras to six-term
exact sequences of abelian groups. Thus any examples where exactness
of the right-hand-side of the conjecture in line \eqref{oldass} fails
necessarily produce counterexamples; conversely, any attempt to
reformulate the conjecture must take exactness into account.
Several results from the last five years show that some counterexamples can be obviated by using maximal completions, which are always exact. The first progress along these lines was work of Oyono-Oyono and Yu \cite{Oyono-Oyono:2009ua} on the maximal coarse Baum-Connes conjecture for certain expanders. Developing these ideas, Yu and the third author showed \cite{Willett:2010ud,Willett:2010zh} that some of the counterexamples to the Baum-Connes conjecture coming from Gromov monster groups can be shown to be confirming examples if the maximal crossed product $A\rtimes_{\max}G$ is instead used to define the conjecture. Subsequently, the geometric input underlying these results was clarified by Chen, Wang and Yu \cite{Chen:2012uq}, and the role of exactness, and also a-T-menability, in the main examples was made quite explicit by Finn-Sell and Wright \cite{Finn-Sell:2012fk}.
All this work suggests that the maximal crossed product sometimes has \emph{better} properties than the reduced crossed product; however, there are well-known property (T) obstructions \cite{Higson:1998qd} to the Baum-Connes conjecture being true for the maximal crossed product in general. The key idea of the current work is to study crossed products that combine the good properties of the maximal and reduced crossed products.\\
In this paper we shall study $C^*$-algebra crossed products that
preserve short exact sequences. The Baum-Connes conjecture also predicts that a crossed product takes equivariantly Morita equivalent $\gcstar$-algebras to Morita equivalent $\cstar$-algebras on the level of $K$-theory (this is true for the maximal and reduced crossed products, but not in general). We thus restrict attention to crossed products satisfying a \emph{Morita compatibilty} assumption that guarantees this.
We shall show that a minimal exact and Morita compatible
crossed product exists, and we shall use it to reformulate the
Baum-Connes conjecture. Denoting the minimal exact and Morita compatible
crossed product by $A\rtimes_{\mathcal{E}} G$ we propose that the natural
Baum-Connes assembly map
\begin{equation}\label{newass}
\mu:K_*^{top}(G;A)\to K_*(A\rtimes_{\mathcal{E}} G)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism for any second countable locally compact group $G$
and any $\gcstar$-algebra $A$.
This reformulation has the following four virtues:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item it agrees with the usual version of the conjecture for all exact
groups and all a-T-menable groups;
\item the property (T) obstructions to surjectivity of the maximal Baum-Connes assembly map do not apply to it;
\item all known constructions of counterexamples to the usual version
of the Baum-Connes conjecture (for groups, with coefficients) no
longer apply;
\item there exist groups $G$ and $G$-$C^*$-algebras $A$ for which the old assembly map in line \eqref{oldass} fails to be surjective, but for which the reformulated assembly map in line \eqref{newass} is an isomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
Note that thanks to point (i) above, the reformulated assembly map is an
isomorphism, or injective, in all situations where the usual version
of the assembly map is known to have these properties.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Goulnara Arzhantseva, Nate Brown, Alcides Buss, Siegfried Echterhoff, Nigel Higson, Eberhard Kirchberg, Ralf Meyer, Damian Osajda, John Quigg, and Dana Williams for illuminating discussions on aspects of this paper. The first author thanks the University of Hawai\kern.05em`\kern.05em\relax i ~at M\=anoa~
for the generous hospitality extended to him during his visits to the university. The second and third authors thank the Erwin Schr\"{o}dinger Institute in Vienna for its support and hospitality during part of the work on this paper. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for many helpful comments.
\subsection*{Outline of the paper}
In Section \ref{bcstmt} we define what we mean by a general crossed product, and show that any such has an associated Baum-Connes assembly map. In Section \ref{c*cross} we define exact and Morita compatible crossed products and show that there is a minimal crossed product with both of these properties. In Section \ref{newbcsec} we show that the minimal exact and Morita compatible crossed product has a descent functor in $E$-theory, and use this to state our reformulation of the Baum-Connes conjecture. In Section \ref{minpropsec} we show that the property (T) obstructions to the maximal Baum-Connes assembly map being an isomorphism do not apply to our new conjecture. In Section \ref{bcproof} we show that our reformulated conjecture is true in the presence of a-T-menability of an action. In Section \ref{hasec} we produce an
example where the new conjecture is true, but the old version of the
conjecture fails. Finally, in Section \ref{countersec}, we collect
together some natural questions and remarks. In Appendix \ref{cpapp} we discuss some examples of exotic crossed products: this material is not used in the main body of the paper, but is useful for background and motivation.
\section{Statement of the conjecture}\label{bcstmt}
Let $G$ be a second countable, locally compact group. Let
$\cstar$ denote the category of $C^*$-algebras: an object in
this category is a $C^*$-algebra, and a morphism is a
$*$-homomorphism. Let $\gcstar$ denote the category of
$G$-$C^*$-algebras: an object in this category is $C^*$-algebra
equipped with a continuous action of $G$ and a morphism is a
$G$-equivariant $*$-homomorphism.
We shall be interested in \emph{crossed product functors} from
$\gcstar$ to $\cstar$. The motivating examples are the usual maximal
and reduced crossed product functors
\begin{equation*}
A\mapsto A \rtimes_{\max}G, \qquad A\mapsto A\rtimes_{\red}G.
\end{equation*}
Recall that the maximal crossed product is the completion of the
algebraic crossed product for the maximal norm. Here, the algebraic
crossed product $A\rtimes_{\alg} G$ is the space of continuous
compactly supported functions from $G$ to $A$, equipped with the usual
twisted product and involution. Similarly, $A\rtimes_{\red}G$ is the
completion of the algebraic crossed product for the reduced
norm. Further, the maximal norm dominates the reduced norm so that the
identity on $A\rtimes_{\alg}G$ extends to a (surjective)
$*$-homomorphism $A\rtimes_{\max}G \to A\rtimes_{\red}G$. Together,
these $*$-homomorphisms comprise a natural transformation of functors.
With these examples in mind, we introduce the following definition.
\begin{definition}\label{cp}
A \emph{\textup{(}$C^*$-algebra\textup{)} crossed product} is a functor
\begin{equation*}
A\mapsto A\rtimes_\tau G \quad:\quad\gcstar\to \cstar,
\end{equation*}
such that each $C^*$-algebra $A\rtimes_\tau G$ contains $A\rtimes_\alg G$ as a dense $*$-subalgebra, together with natural transformations
\begin{equation}\label{nattran}
A \rtimes_{\max}G\to A \rtimes_\tau G \to A\rtimes_{\red} G
\end{equation}
which restrict to the identity on each $*$-subalgebra $A\rtimes_\alg G$.
\end{definition}
It follows that each $C^*$-algebra $A\rtimes_\tau G$ is a completion of the
algebraic crossed product for a norm which
necessarily satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\| x \|_\red \leq \| x \|_\tau \leq \| x \|_\max
\end{equation*}
for every $x\in A\rtimes_{\alg} G$. Note also that the $*$-homomorphism
$A\rtimes_\tau G \to B\rtimes_\tau G$ functorially induced by a
$G$-equivariant $*$-homomorphism $A\to B$ is necessarily the extension
by continuity of the standard $*$-homomorphism $A\rtimes_\alg G \to
B\rtimes_\alg G$.
In the appendix we shall see that there are in general many crossed
products other than the reduced and maximal ones. Our immediate goal
is to formulate a version of the Baum-Connes conjecture for a general
crossed product. For reasons involving descent (that will become
clear later), we shall formulate the
Baum-Connes conjecture in the language of $E$-theory, as in
\cite[Section~10]{Guentner:2000fj}.
We continue to let $G$ be a second countable, locally compact group
and consider the $\tau$-crossed product for $G$. The
\emph{$\tau$-Baum-Connes assembly map} for $G$ with coefficients in the
$\gcstar$-algebra $A$ is the composition
\begin{equation}
\label{tauBC-v1}
K_*^{top}(G;A)\to K_*(A\rtimes_\max G) \to K_*(A\rtimes_\tau G),
\end{equation}
in which the first map is the usual \emph{maximal} Baum-Connes
assembly map and the second is induced by the $*$-homomorphism
$A\rtimes_\max G \to A\rtimes_\tau G$. The domain of assembly is
independent of the particular crossed product we are using. It is the
\emph{topological $K$-theory of $G$ with coefficients in $A$}, defined
as the direct limit of equivariant $E$-theory groups
\begin{equation*}
K_*^{top}(G;A)=
\lim_{\stackrel{X\subseteq \underline{E}G}{\text{cocompact}}}E^G(C_0(X),A),
\end{equation*}
where the direct limit is taken over cocompact subsets of
$\underline{E}G$, a universal space for proper $G$ actions. The
(maximal) assembly map is itself a direct limit of assembly maps for
the individual cocompact subsets of $\underline{E}G$, each defined as
a composition
\begin{equation}
\label{ass}
\xymatrix{E^G(C_0(X),A)\ar[r] &
E(C_0(X)\rtimes_\max G,A\rtimes_\max G) \ar[r]
& E(\mathbb{C},A\rtimes_\max G) },
\end{equation}
in which the first map is the $E$-theoretic
\emph{\textup{(}maximal\textup{)} descent functor}, and the second map
is composition with the class of the \emph{basic projection} in
$C_0(X)\rtimes_\max G$, viewed as an element of
$E(\mathbb{C},C_0(X)\rtimes_\max G)$. Compatibility of the assembly maps for
the various cocompact subsets of $\underline{E}G$ indexing the direct
limit follows from the uniqueness (up to homotopy) of the basic
projection. For details see \cite[Section 10]{Guentner:2000fj}.
For the moment, we are interested in what validity of the
$\tau$-Baum-Connes conjecture -- the assertion that the
$\tau$-Baum-Connes assembly map is an isomorphism -- would predict
about the $\tau$-crossed product itself. The first prediction is
concerned with \emph{exactness}. Suppose
\begin{equation*}
0 \to I \to A \to B \to 0
\end{equation*}
is a short exact sequence of $\gcstar$-algebras. Exactness properties
of equivariant $E$-theory ensure that the sequence functorially
induced on the left hand side of assemly
\begin{equation*}
K_*^{top}(G;I) \to K_*^{top}(G;A) \to K_*^{top}(G;B)
\end{equation*}
is exact in the middle. (Precisely, this follows from the
corresponding fact for each cocompact subset of $\underline{E}G$ upon
passing to the limit.) Now, the assembly map is itself functorial for
equivariant $*$-homomorphisms of the coefficient algebra. As a
consequence, the functorially induced sequence on the right hand side
of assembly
\begin{equation*}
K_*(I\rtimes_\tau G) \to K_*(A\rtimes_\tau G) \to K_*(B\rtimes_\tau G)
\end{equation*}
must be exact in the middle as well.
The second prediction concerns Morita invariance. To
formulate it, let $H$ be the countably infinite direct sum
\begin{equation*}
H=L^2(G)\oplus L^2(G)\oplus \cdots
\end{equation*}
and denote the compact operators on $H$ by $\mathcal{K}_G$, which we consider
as a $\gcstar$-algebra in the natural way. Similarly, for any $\gcstar$-algebra $A$, we consider the spatial tensor product $A\otimes \mathcal{K}_G$ as a $\gcstar$-algebra via the diagonal action. Assume for simplicity that $A$ and $B$ are separable $\gcstar$-algebras. Then $A$ and $B$ are said to be \emph{equivariantly Morita equivalent} if $A\otimes \mathcal{K}_G$ is equivariantly $*$-isomorphic to $B\otimes \mathcal{K}_G$: results of \cite{Curto:1984uq} and \cite{Mingo:1984fk} show that this is equivalent to other, perhaps more usual, definitions (compare \cite[Proposition 6.11 and Theorem 6.12]{Guentner:2000fj}). If $A$ and $B$ are equivariantly Morita equivalent then $E^G(C,A)\cong E^G(C,B)$ for any $\gcstar$-algebra $C$ \cite[Theorem 6.12]{Guentner:2000fj}. There is thus an isomorphism
$$K_*^{top}(G;A) \cong K_*^{top}(G;B)$$
on the left hand side of assembly. Assuming the $\tau$-Baum-Connes conjecture is valid for $G$ we must therefore also have an isomorphism
$$K_*(A\rtimes_\tau G) \cong K_*(B\rtimes_\tau G)$$
on the level of $K$-theory.
\section{Crossed product functors}\label{c*cross}
Motivated by the discussion in the previous section, we are led to
study crossed product functors that have good properties with respect to exactness and Morita equivalence. The following two properties imply this `good behavior', and are particularly well-suited to our later needs.
Throughout this section, $G$ is a second countable, locally compact group.
\begin{definition}
\label{cpex}
The $\tau$-crossed product is \emph{exact} if for every short
exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & B\ar[r] & C\ar[r]& 0}
\end{equation*}
of $G$-$C^*$-algebras the corresponding sequence of $C^*$-algebras
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & A\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] &
B\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] & C\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r]& 0}
\end{equation*}
is short exact.
\end{definition}
Whereas the maximal crossed
product functor is always exact in this sense (see Lemma \ref{exlem}), the reduced crossed product functor is (by definition)
exact precisely when $G$ is an exact group \cite[page 170]{Kirchberg:1999fy}. Note that if the $\tau$-crossed product is exact, then the associated $K$-theory groups have the half exactness property predicted by the $\tau$-Baum-Connes conjecture and by half-exactness of $K$-theory.
For the second property, recall that $\mathcal{K}_G$ denotes the compact operators on the infinite sum Hilbert space $H=L^2(G)\oplus L^2(G) \oplus \dots$, considered as a $\gcstar$-algebra with the natural action. Write $\Lambda$ for the action of $G$ on $H$. Recall that for any $\gcstar$-algebra $A$, there are natural maps from $A$ and $G$ into the multiplier algebra $\mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_{\max}G)$, and we can identify $A$ and $G$ with their images under these maps. This gives rise to a covariant representation
$$
(\pi,u):(A\otimes \mathcal{K}_G,G)\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_{\max}G)\otimes\mathcal{K}_G
$$
defined by $\pi(a\otimes T)=a\otimes T$ and $u_g=g\otimes \Lambda_g$. The integrated form of this covariant pair
\begin{equation}\label{ut}
\Phi:(A\otimes \mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_{\max}G \to (A\rtimes_{\max}G)\otimes \mathcal{K}_G
\end{equation}
is well-known to be a $*$-isomorphism, which we call the \emph{untwisting isomorphism}.
\begin{definition}
\label{cput}
The $\tau$-crossed product is \emph{Morita compatible} if the
untwisting isomorphism descends to an isomorphism
$$\Phi:(A\otimes \mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_{\tau}G \to (A\rtimes_{\tau}G)\otimes \mathcal{K}_G$$
of $\tau$-crossed products.
\end{definition}
Both the maximal and reduced crossed product functors are
Morita compatible: see Lemma \ref{unlem1} in the appendix. Note that if $\rtimes_{\tau}$ is Morita compatible, then it takes equivariantly Morita equivalent (separable) $\gcstar$-algebras to Morita equivalent $\cstar$-algebras. Indeed, in this case we have
$$
(A\rtimes_{\tau}G)\otimes \mathcal{K}_G\cong (A\otimes\mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_{\tau}G\cong (B\otimes \mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_{\tau}G\cong (B\rtimes_{\tau}G)\otimes \mathcal{K}_G,
$$
where the middle isomorphism is Morita equivalence, and the other two are Morita compatibility. Thus if $\tau$ is Morita compatible, then the associated $K$-theory groups have the Morita invariance property predicted by the $\tau$-Baum-Connes conjecture.
Our goal for the remainder of the section is to show that there is a
`minimal' exact and Morita compatible crossed product. To make sense of
this, we introduce a
partial ordering on the collection of crossed products for $G$: the
$\sigma$-crossed product is \emph{smaller} than the $\tau$-crossed
product if the natural transformation in line \eqref{nattran} from the
$\tau$-crossed product to the reduced crossed product factors through
the $\sigma$-crossed product, meaning that there exists a diagram
\begin{equation*}
A\rtimes_\tau G \to A\rtimes_\sigma G \to A\rtimes_\red G
\end{equation*}
for every $\gcstar$-algebra $A$ where the maps from $A\rtimes_\tau G$ and $A\rtimes_\sigma G$ to $A\rtimes_\red G$ are the ones coming from the definition of a crossed product functor. Equivalently, for every
$x\in A\rtimes_\alg G$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\| x \|_\red \leq \| x \|_\sigma \leq \| x \|_\tau,
\end{equation*}
so that the identity on $A\rtimes_\alg G$ extends to a
$*$-homomorphism $A\rtimes_\tau G \to A\rtimes_\sigma G$. In
particular, the order relation on crossed products is induced by the
obvious order relation on $C^*$-algebra norms on
$A\rtimes_{\alg}G$.\footnote{Incidentally, this observation gets us
around the set-theoretic technicalities inherent when considering
the `collection of all crossed products'.} The maximal crossed
product is the maximal element for this ordering, and the reduced
crossed product is the minimal element.
Recall that the \emph{spectrum} of a $C^*$-algebra $A$ is the set $\widehat{A}$ of equivalence classes of non-zero irreducible $*$-representations of $A$. We will conflate a representation $\rho$ with the equivalence class it defines in $\widehat{A}$. For an ideal $I$ in a $C^*$-algebra $A$, an irreducible representation of $A$ restricts to a (possibly zero) irreducible representation of $I$, and conversely irreducible representations of $I$ extend uniquely to irreducible representations of $A$. It follows that $\widehat{I}$ identifies canonically with
$$
\{\rho\in \widehat{A}~|~\text{I}\not\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho)\}.
$$
Similarly, given a quotient $*$-homomorphism $\pi:A\to B$, the spectrum $\widehat{B}$ of $B$ identifies canonically with the collection
$$
\{\rho\in \widehat{A}~|~\text{Kernel}(\pi)\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho)\}
$$
of elements of $\widehat{A}$ that factor through $\pi$ via the correspondence $\widehat{B}\owns\rho \leftrightarrow \rho\circ \pi\in \widehat{A}$. We will make these identifications in what follows without further comment; note that having done this, a short exact sequence
$$
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & B \ar[r] & 0}
$$
gives rise to a canonical decomposition $\widehat{A}=\widehat{I}\sqcup \widehat{B}$.
We record the following basic fact as a lemma as we will refer back to it several times: for a proof, see for example \cite[Theorem 2.7.3]{Dixmier:1977vl}.
\begin{lemma}\label{basic}
For any non-zero element of a $C^*$-algebra, there is an irreducible representation that is non-zero on that element. \qed
\end{lemma}
The next lemma is the last general fact we need about spectra.
\begin{lemma}\label{genfunc}
Consider a diagram of $C^*$-algebras
$$
\xymatrix{ A_1 \ar[d]^{\pi_1} \ar[r]^\phi & A_2 \ar[d]^{\pi_2} \\ B_1 \ar@{-->}[r]^{\psi} & B_2 }
$$
where $\phi$ is a $*$-homomorphism, and $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are surjective $*$-homomorphisms. For each $\rho\in \widehat{A_2}$, define
$$
\phi^*\rho:=\{\rho'\in \widehat{A_1}~|~\text{Kernel}(\rho\circ \phi)\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho')\}.
$$
Then there exists a $*$-homomorphism $\psi:B_1\to B_2$ making the diagram commute if and only if $\phi^*\rho$ is a subset of $\widehat{B_1}$ for all $\rho$ in $\widehat{B_2}$ (where $\widehat{B_2}$ is considered as a subset of $\widehat{A_2}$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume first that $\psi$ exists. Let $\rho$ be an element of $\widehat{B_2}$, and $\rho\circ \pi_2$ the corresponding element of $\widehat{A_2}$. Then
\begin{align*}
\phi^*(\rho\circ \pi_2) &=\{\rho'\in \widehat{A_1}~|~\text{Kernel}(\rho\circ \pi_2\circ \phi)\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho')\} \\
& =\{\rho'\in \widehat{A_1}~|~\text{Kernel}(\rho\circ \psi\circ \pi_1)\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho')\} \\
& \subseteq \{\rho'\in \widehat{A_1}~|~\text{Kernel}(\pi_1)\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho')\} \\
& =\widehat{B_1}.
\end{align*}
Conversely, assume that no such $\psi$ exists. Then the kernel of $\pi_1$ is not a subset of the kernel of $\pi_2\circ \phi$, so there exists $a\in A_1$ such that $\pi_1(a)=0$, but $\pi_2(\phi(a))\neq 0$. Lemma \ref{basic} implies that there exists $\rho\in \widehat{B_2}$ such that $\rho(\pi_2(\phi(a)))\neq 0$. Write $C=\rho(\pi_2(\phi(A_1)))$ and $c=\rho(\pi_2(\phi(a))))$. Then Lemma \ref{basic} again implies that there exists $\rho''\in \widehat{C}$ such that $\rho''(c)\neq 0$. Let $\rho'=\rho''\circ \rho\circ \pi_2\circ \phi$, an element of $\widehat{A_1}$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{containment}
\text{Kernel}(\rho\circ \pi_2\circ \phi)\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho')
\end{equation}
and $\rho'(a)\neq 0$. Line \eqref{containment} implies that $\rho'$ is in $\phi^*\rho$, while the fact that $\rho'(a)\neq 0$ and $\pi_1(a)=0$ implies that $\rho'$ is not in the subset $\widehat{B_1}$ of $\widehat{A_1}$. Hence $\phi^*\rho\not\subseteq \widehat{B_1}$ as required.
\end{proof}
We now turn back to crossed products. Let $A$ be a $\gcstar$-algebra and $\sigma$ a crossed product. Let $S_\sigma(A)$ denote the subset of $\widehat{A\rtimes_{\max}G}$ consisting of representations of $A\rtimes_{\max}G$ that factor through the quotient $A\rtimes_\sigma G$; in other words, $S_\sigma(A)$ is the subset of $A\rtimes_{\max}G$ that identifies naturally with $\widehat{A\rtimes_\sigma G}$. In particular, $S_{\max}(A)$ denotes $\widehat{A\rtimes_{\max}G}$ and $S_{\red}(A)$ denotes $\widehat{A\rtimes_{\red}G}$, considered as a subset of $S_{\max}(A)$.
We will first characterize exactness in terms of the sets above. Let
$$
\xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] & A\ar[r] & B \ar[r] & 0}
$$
be a short exact sequence of $\gcstar$-algebras. If $\sigma$ is a crossed product, consider the corresponding commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{ses}
\xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & I\rtimes_{\max} G \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\pi_I} & A\rtimes_{\max} G\ar[r] \ar[d]^{\pi_A} & B\rtimes_{\max} G \ar[d]^{\pi_B}\ar[r] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & I\rtimes_\sigma G \ar[r]^\iota & A\rtimes_\sigma G\ar[r]^\pi & B\rtimes_\sigma G \ar[r] & 0}
\end{equation}
with exact top row. Note that the bottom row need not be exact, but we do have that the map $\pi$ is surjective (by commutativity of the right-hand square and surjectivity of $\pi_B$), and that the kernel of $\pi$ contains the image of $\iota$ (as $\sigma$ is a functor).
We make the following identifications:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $S_\sigma(A)$ is by definition a subset of $S_{\max}(A)$;
\item $S_{\max}(I)$ and $S_{\max}(B)$ identify canonically with subsets of $S_{\max}(A)$ as $I\rtimes_{\max}G$ and $B\rtimes_{\max} G$ are respectively an ideal and a quotient of $A\rtimes_{\max}G$;
\item $S_\sigma(I)$ and $S_\sigma(B)$ are by definition subsets of $S_{\max}(I)$ and $S_{\max}(B)$ respectively, and thus identify with subsets of $S_{\max}(A)$ by the identifications in the previous point.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lemma}\label{exact}
Having made the identifications above, the following conditions govern exactness of the bottom line in diagram \eqref{ses}.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item The map $\iota$ in line \eqref{ses} above is injective if and only if
$$
S_{\max}(I)\cap S_\sigma(A)=S_\sigma(I).
$$
\item The kernel of $\pi$ is equal to the image of $\iota$ in line \eqref{ses} above if and only if
$$
S_{\max}(B)\cap S_\sigma(A)=S_\sigma(B).
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For (i), as $\iota(I\rtimes_\sigma G)$ is an ideal in $A\rtimes_\sigma G$, we may identify its spectrum with a subset of $S_\sigma(A)$, and thus also of $S_{\max}(A)$.
Commutativity of line \eqref{ses} identifies the spectrum of $\iota(I\rtimes_\sigma G)$ with
\begin{align*}
&\{\rho\in S_{\max}(A)~|~\text{Kernel}(\pi_A)\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho) \text{ and } \rho(I\rtimes_{\max}G)\neq \{0\}\}
\\ &=S_{\max}(I)\cap S_{\sigma}(A).
\end{align*}
Lemma \ref{basic} implies the map $\iota$ is injective if and only if the spectrum of $\iota(I\rtimes_\sigma G)$ and $S_\sigma(I)$ are the same as subsets of $S_{\max}(A)$, so we are done.
For (ii), surjectivity of $\pi$ canonically identifies $S_{\sigma}(B)$ with a subset of $S_{\sigma}(A)$. Part (i) and the fact that the image of $\iota$ is contained in the kernel of $\pi$ imply that $S_\sigma(B)$ is disjoint from $S_{\max}(I)\cap S_\sigma(A)$ as subsets of $S_\sigma(A)$. Hence the kernel of $\pi$ equals the image of $\iota$ if and only if
$$
S_{\sigma}(A)=S_{\sigma}(B)\cup (S_{\max}(I)\cap S_{\sigma}(A)),
$$
or equivalently, if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{ontheway}
S_{\sigma}(B)=S_{\sigma}(A)\setminus S_{\max}(I).
\end{equation}
As the top line of diagram \eqref{ses} is exact, $S_{\max}(A)$ is equal to the disjoint union of $S_{\max}(I)$ and $S_{\max}(B)$, whence $S_{\sigma}(A)\setminus S_{\max}(I)=S_{\sigma}(A)\cap S_{\max}(B)$; the conclusion follows on combining this with the condition in line \eqref{ontheway}.
\end{proof}
We now characterize Morita compatibility. Recall that there is a canonical `untwisting' $*$-isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{untwist}
\Phi:(A\otimes\mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_{\max} G\to (A\rtimes_{\max}G)\otimes\mathcal{K}_G,
\end{equation}
and that a crossed product $\sigma$ is Morita compatible if this descends to an $*$-isomorphism
$$
(A\otimes\mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_{\sigma} G\cong (A\rtimes_{\sigma}G)\otimes\mathcal{K}_G.
$$
The following lemma is immediate from the fact that the spectrum of the right-hand-side in line \eqref{untwist} identifies canonically with $S_{\max}(A)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{mcglb}
A crossed product $\sigma$ is Morita compatible if and only if the bijection
$$
\widehat{\Phi}:S_{\max}(A\otimes\mathcal{K}_G)\to S_{\max}(A)
$$
induced by $\Phi$ takes $S_\sigma(A\otimes\mathcal{K}_G)$ onto $S_\sigma(A)$. \qed
\end{lemma}
The following lemma is the final step in constructing a minimal exact and Morita compatible crossed product.
\begin{lemma}\label{infimumu}
Let $\Sigma$ be a family of crossed products. Then there is a unique crossed product $\tau$ such that for any $\gcstar$-algebra $A$,
$$
S_\tau(A)=\bigcap_{\sigma\in \Sigma} S_\sigma(A).
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each $\sigma\in \Sigma$, let $I_\sigma$ denote the kernel of the canonical quotient map $A\rtimes_{\max}G \to A\rtimes_\sigma G$, and similarly for $I_\red$. Note that $I_\red$ contains all the ideals $I_\sigma$. Let $I$ denote the smallest ideal of $A\rtimes_{\max} G$ containing $I_\sigma$ for all $\sigma\in \Sigma$. Define
$$
A\rtimes_\tau G:=(A\rtimes_{\max} G) / I;
$$
as $I$ is contained in $I_\red$, this is a completion of $A\rtimes_\alg G$ that sits between the maximal and reduced completions. The spectrum of $A\rtimes_\tau G$ is
$$
S_\tau(A)=\{\rho\in S_{\max}(A)~|~I\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho)\}.
$$
Lemma \ref{basic} implies that this is equal to
$$
\{\rho\in S_{\max}(A)~|~I_\sigma\subseteq \text{Kernel}(\rho) \text{ for all } \sigma\in \Sigma\}=\bigcap_{\sigma\in \Sigma}S_{\sigma}(A)
$$
as claimed. Uniqueness of the completion $A\rtimes_\tau G$ follows from Lemma \ref{basic} again.
Finally, we must check that $\rtimes_\tau$ defines a functor on $\gcstar$: if $\phi:A_1\to A_2$ is an equivariant $*$-homomorphism, we must show that the dashed arrow in the diagram
$$
\xymatrix{ A_1\rtimes_{\max}G \ar[d] \ar[r]^{\phi\rtimes G} & A_2\rtimes_{\max}G \ar[d] \\ A_1\rtimes_\tau G \ar@{-->}[r] & A_2\rtimes_\tau G }
$$
can be filled in. Fix $\sigma\in \Sigma$. Lemma \ref{genfunc} applied to the analogous diagram with $\tau$ replaced by $\sigma$ implies that for all $\pi\in S_\sigma(A_2)$, $(\phi\rtimes G)^*\pi$ is a subset of $S_\sigma(A_1)$. Hence for all $\pi\in S_\tau (A_2)=\cap_{\sigma\in \Sigma}S_\sigma(A_2)$ we have that $(\phi\rtimes G)^*\pi$ is a subset of $\cap_{\sigma\in \Sigma}S_{\sigma}(A_1)=S_\tau(A_1)$. Lemma \ref{genfunc} now implies that the dashed line can be filled in.
\end{proof}
The part of the following theorem that deals with exactness is due to Eberhard Kirchberg.
\begin{theorem}\label{mc}
There is a unique minimal exact and Morita compatible crossed product.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Sigma$ be the collection of all exact and Morita compatible crossed products, and let $\tau$ be the crossed product that satisfies $S_\tau (A)=\cap_{\sigma\in \Sigma} S_\sigma(A)$ as in Lemma \ref{infimumu}. As $\tau$ is a lower bound for the set $\Sigma$, it suffices to show that $\tau$ is exact and Morita compatible. The conditions in Lemmas \ref{exact} and \ref{mc} clearly pass to intersections, however, so we are done.
\end{proof}
\section{A reformulation of the conjecture}
\label{newbcsec}
Continue with $G$ a second countable, locally compact group. We
propose to reformulate the Baum-Connes conjecture, replacing the usual
reduced crossed product with the minimal exact and Morita compatible crossed
product (the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product). There is no change to the left side of the conjecture.
\begin{definition}\label{newbc}
The \emph{$\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes conjecture with coefficients} is the
statement that the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes assembly map
\begin{equation*}
\mu:K_*^{top}(G;A)\to K_*(A\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G)
\end{equation*}
is an isomorphism for every $\gcstar$-algebra $A$. Here $A\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G$ is the minimal exact
and Morita compatible crossed product.
\end{definition}
When the group is exact, the reduced and $\mathcal{E}$-crossed products agree,
and thus the original and reformulated Baum-Connes conjectures agree. Our main
remaining goal is to show that known expander-based counterexamples to the original
Baum-Connes conjecture are confirming examples for the reformulated
conjecture. Indeed, our positive isomorphism results will hold in these examples for
\emph{every} exact and Morita compatible crossed product, in particular for
the reformulated conjecture involving the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product.
For the isomorphism results, we require an alternate description of
the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes assembly map, amenable to the standard
Dirac-dual Dirac method of proving the conjecture.
We recall the necessary background about $E$-theory. The
\emph{equivariant asymptotic category} is the category in which the
objects are the $\gcstar$-algebras and in which the morphisms are
homotopy classes of \emph{equivariant asymptotic morphisms}. We shall
denote the morphism sets in this category by $\leftam A,B \rightam_G$.
The \emph{equivariant $E$-theory groups} are defined as particular
morphism sets in this category:
\begin{equation*}
E^G(A,B) = \leftam \Sigma A \otimes\mathcal{K}_G,
\Sigma B \otimes \mathcal{K}_G \rightam_G ,
\end{equation*}
where $\Sigma A \otimes \mathcal{K}_G$ stands for $C_0(0,1)\otimes A \otimes \mathcal{K}_G$.
The \emph{equivariant $E$-theory category} is the category in which
the objects are the $\gcstar$-algebras and in which the morphism sets
are the equivariant $E$-theory groups.
The equivariant categories we have encountered are related by
functors: there is a functor from the category of $\gcstar$-algebras
to the equivariant asymptotic category which is the identity on
objects, and which views an equivariant $*$-homomorphism as a
`constant' asymptotic family; similarly there is a functor from the
equivariant asymptotic category to the equivariant $E$-theory category
which is the identity on objects and which `tensors' an asymptotic
morphism by the identity maps on $C_0(0,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_G$.
Finally, there is an ordinary (non-equivariant) theory parallel to the
equivariant theory described above: the \emph{asymptotic category} and
\emph{$E$-theory category} are categories in which the objects are
$C^*$-algebras and the morphisms are appropriate homotopy classes of
asymptotic morphisms; there are functors as above, which are the
identity on objects. See \cite{Guentner:2000fj} for further
background and details.
We start with two technical lemmas. For a $C^*$-algebra $B$, let $\mathcal{M}(B)$ denote its multiplier algebra. If $A$ is a $G$-$C^*$-algebra with $G$-action $\alpha$, recall that elements of $A\rtimes_\alg G$ are continuous compactly supported functions from $G$ to $A$; we denote such a function by $(a_g)_{g\in G}$. Consider the canonical action of $A$ on $A\rtimes_\alg G$ by multipliers defined by setting
\begin{equation}\label{multact}
b\cdot (a_g)_{g\in G}:=(ba_g)_{g\in G}~~ \text{ and } ~~(a_g)_{g\in G}\cdot b:=(a_g\alpha_g(b))_{g\in G}
\end{equation}
for all $(a_g)_{g\in G}\in A\rtimes_\alg G$ and $b\in A$.
This action extends to actions of $A$ on $A\rtimes_{\max} G$ and $A\rtimes_\red G$ by multipliers, i.e.\ there are $*$-homomorphisms $A\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\max G)$ and $A\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\red G)$ such that the image of $b\in A$ is the extension of the multiplier defined in line \eqref{multact} above to all of the relevant completion. Analogously, there is an action of $G$ on $A\rtimes_\alg G$ by multipliers defined for $h\in G$ by
\begin{equation}\label{gmult}
u_h\cdot (a_g)_{g\in G}:=(\alpha_h(a_{h^{-1}g}))_{g\in G}~~\text{ and } (a_g)_{g\in G} \cdot u_h:=\Delta(h^{-1})(a_{gh^{-1}})_{g\in G},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta:G\to \mathbb{R}_+$ is the modular function for a fixed choice of (left invariant) Haar measure on $G$.
This extends to a unitary representation
$$
G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_{\max} G)),~~~g\mapsto u_g
$$
from $G$ into the unitary group of $\mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_{\max} G)$, and similarly for $\mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\red G)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{multlem}
For any crossed product functor $\rtimes_\tau$ and any $G$-$C^*$-algebra $A$, the action of $A$ on $A\rtimes_\alg G$ in line \eqref{multact} extends to define an injective $*$-homomorphism
$$
A\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\tau G).
$$
This in turn extends to a $*$-homomorphism
$$
\mathcal{M}(A)\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\tau G)
$$
from the multiplier algebra of $A$ to that of $A\rtimes_\tau G$.
Moreover, the action of $G$ on $A\rtimes_\alg G$ in line \eqref{gmult} extends to define an injective unitary representation
$$
G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\tau G)).
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The desired $*$-homomorphism $A\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\tau G)$ can be defined as the composition
$$
A\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\max G)\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\tau G)
$$
of the canonical action of $A$ on the maximal crossed product by multipliers, and the $*$-homomorphism on multiplier algebras induced by the surjective natural transformation between the maximal and $\tau$-crossed products. Injectivity follows on considering the composition
$$
A\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\max G)\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\tau G)\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\red G),
$$
which is well known (and easily checked) to be injective. The $*$-homomorphism $A\to \mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\tau G)$ is easily seen to be non-degenerate, so extends to the multiplier algebra of $A$ as claimed. The existence and injectivity of the unitary representation $G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{M}(A\rtimes_\tau G))$ can be shown analogously.
\end{proof}
Let now `$\odot$' denote the algebraic tensor product (over $\mathbb{C}$) between two $*$-algebras, and as usual use `$\otimes$' for the spatial tensor product of $C^*$-algebras. Recall that we denote elements of $A\rtimes_\alg G$ by $(a_g)_{g\in G}$. Equip $C[0,1]$ with the trivial $G$-action, and consider the function defined by
\begin{equation}\label{c01homo}
\phi:C[0,1]\odot (A\rtimes_\alg G)\to (C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\alg G,~~~~~f\odot (a_g)_{g\in G}\mapsto (f\otimes a_g)_{g\in G}.
\end{equation}
It is not difficult to check that $\phi$ is a well-defined $*$-homomorphism.
\begin{lemma}\label{contlem}
Let $A$ be a $G$-$C^*$-algebra, and $\rtimes_\tau$ be any crossed product. Then the $*$-homomorphism $\phi$ defined in line \eqref{c01homo} above extends to a $*$-isomorphism
$$
\phi: C[0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G)\cong (C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G
$$
on $\tau$-crossed products.
If the $\tau$-crossed product is moreover exact, then the restriction of $\phi$ to $C_0(0,1)\odot (A\rtimes_\alg G)$ extends to a $*$-isomorphism
$$
\phi:C_0(0,1)\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G)\cong (C_0(0,1)\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The inclusion $A\to C[0,1]\otimes A$ defined by $a\mapsto 1\otimes a$ is equivariant, so gives rise to a $*$-homomorphism
$$
A\rtimes_\tau G\to (C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G
$$
by functoriality of the $\tau$-crossed product. Composing this with the canonical inclusion of the right-hand-side into its multiplier algebra gives a $*$-homomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{mult}
A\rtimes_\tau G\to \mathcal{M}((C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, composing the canonical $*$-homomorphism $C[0,1]\to \mathcal{M}(C[0,1]\otimes A)$ with the $*$-homomorphism on multiplier algebras from Lemma \ref{multlem} gives a $*$-homomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{mult2}
C[0,1]\to\mathcal{M}((C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G).
\end{equation}
Checking on the strictly dense $*$-subalgebra $(C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\alg G$ of $\mathcal{M}((C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G)$ shows that the image of $C[0,1]$ under the $*$-homomorphism in line \eqref{mult2} is central, whence combining it with the $*$-homomorphism in line \eqref{mult} defines a $*$-homomorphism
$$
C[0,1]\odot (A\rtimes_\tau G)\to \mathcal{M}((C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G),
$$
and nuclearity of $C[0,1]$ implies that this extends to a $*$-homomorphism
$$
C[0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G)\to \mathcal{M}((C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G).
$$
It is not difficult to see that this $*$-homomorphism agrees with the map $\phi$ from line \eqref{c01homo} on the dense $*$-subalgebra $C[0,1]\odot(A\rtimes_\alg G)$ of the left-hand-side and thus in particular has image in the $C^*$-subalgebra $(C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G$ of the right-hand-side. We have thus shown that the $*$-homomorphism $\phi$ from line \eqref{c01homo} extends to a $*$-homomorphism
$$
\phi:C[0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G)\to (C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G.
$$
It has dense image, and is thus surjective; in the $C[0,1]$ case it remains to show injectivity.
To this end, for each $t\in[0,1]$ let
$$
\epsilon_t:(C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G\to A\rtimes_\tau G
$$
be the $*$-homomorphism induced by the $G$-equivariant $*$-homomorphism $C[0,1]\otimes A\to A$ defined by evaluation at $t$. Let $F$ be an element of $C[0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G)$, which we may think of as a function from $[0,1]$ to $A\rtimes_\tau G$ via the canonical isomorphism
$$
C[0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G)\cong C([0,1],A\rtimes_\tau G).
$$
Checking directly on the dense $*$-subalgebra $C[0,1]\odot (A\rtimes_\alg G)$ of $C[0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G)$ shows that $\epsilon_t(\phi(F))=F(t)$ for any $t\in[0,1]$. Hence if $F$ is in the kernel of $\phi$, then $F(t)=0$ for all $t$ in $[0,1]$, whence $F=0$. Hence $\phi$ is injective as required.
Assume now that the $\tau$-crossed product is exact, and look at the $C_0(0,1)$ case. The short exact sequence
$$
0\to C_0(0,1]\to C[0,1]\to \mathbb{C}\to 0
$$
combined with exactness of the maximal tensor product, nuclearity of commutative $C^*$-algebras, and exactness of the $\tau$-crossed product gives rise to a commutative diagram
$$
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & C_0(0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G) \ar[d] \ar[r] & C[0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G) \ar[d]_{\phi}^{\cong} \ar[r] & A\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] \ar[d]^{=}& 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & (C_0(0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] & (C[0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] & A\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] & 0}
$$
with exact rows, and where the leftmost vertical arrow is the restriction of $\phi$. The restriction of $\phi$ to $C_0(0,1]\otimes (A\rtimes_\tau G)$ is thus an isomorphism onto $(C_0(0,1]\otimes A)\rtimes_\tau G$. Applying an analogous argument to the short exact sequence
$$
0\to C_0(0,1)\to C_0(0,1]\to \mathbb{C}\to 0
$$
completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Given this, the following result is an immediate
generalization of \cite[Theorem 4.12]{Guentner:2000fj}, which treats
the maximal crossed product. See also \cite[Theorem
4.16]{Guentner:2000fj} for comments on the reduced crossed product.
\begin{theorem}\label{descent}
If the $\tau$-crossed product is both exact and Morita compatible, then
there is a `descent functor' from the equivariant $E$-theory
category to the $E$-theory category which agrees with the
$\tau$-crossed product functor on objects and on those morphisms
which are \textup{(}represented by\textup{)} equivariant
$*$-homomorphisms.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We follow the proof of \cite[Theorem 6.22]{Guentner:2000fj}. It
follows from Lemma~\ref{contlem} that a crossed product
functor is always \emph{continuous} in the sense of
\cite[Definition~3.1]{Guentner:2000fj}. Applying (an obvious
analogue of) \cite[Theorem~3.5]{Guentner:2000fj}, an exact crossed
product functor admits descent from the equivariant asymptotic
category to the asymptotic category. Thus, we have maps on morphism
sets in the asymptotic categories
\begin{equation*}
E^G(A,B) = \leftam \Sigma A\otimes \mathcal{K}_G, \Sigma B\otimes \mathcal{K}_G \rightam_G \to
\leftam (\Sigma A \otimes\mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_\tau G, (\Sigma B\otimes \mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_\tau G \rightam
\end{equation*}
which agree with the $\tau$-crossed product on morphisms represented
by equivariant $*$-homomorphisms. It remains to identify the right
hand side with the $E$-theory group
$E(A\rtimes_\tau G,B\rtimes_\tau G)$. We do this by showing that
\begin{equation*}
\left( C_0(0,1)\otimes A \otimes \mathcal{K}_G \right)\rtimes_\tau G \cong
C_0(0,1) \otimes \left( A\rtimes_\tau G \right) \otimes \mathcal{K}_G.
\end{equation*}
This follows immediately from Morita compatibilty and Lemma~\ref{contlem}.
\end{proof}
We now have an alternate description of the $\tau$-Baum-Connes
assembly map in the case of an exact, Morita compatible crossed product
functor: we can descend directly to the $\tau$-crossed products and
compose with the basic projection. In detail, it follows from
Definition~\ref{cp} and the corresponding fact for the maximal and
reduced crossed products, that if $X$ is a proper, cocompact
$G$-space, then all crossed products of $C_0(X)$ by $G$ agree. We
view the basic projection as an element of $C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G$,
giving a class in $E(\mathbb{C},C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G)$. We form the
composition
\begin{equation}\label{tauass}
\xymatrix{
E^G(C_0(X),A)\ar[r] & E(C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G,A\rtimes_\tau G)\ar[r]
& E(\mathbb{C},A\rtimes_\tau G), }
\end{equation}
in which the first map is the $E$-theoretic $\tau$-descent and the
second is composition with the (class of the) basic projection.
Taking the direct limit over the cocompact subsets of $\underline{E}G$
we obtain a map
\begin{equation*}
K_*^{top}(G;A)\to K_*(A\rtimes_\tau G).
\end{equation*}
\begin{proposition}
The map just defined is the $\tau$-Baum-Connes assembly map.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have to show that applying
the maps (\ref{tauass}) to an element $\theta\in E^G(C_0(X),A)$
gives the same result as applying those in (\ref{ass}) followed by
the map on $K$-theory induced by the natural transformation $\psi_A:A\rtimes_\max G\to A\rtimes_\tau G$. Noting that $C_0(X)\rtimes_{\max}G=C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G$ (as all crossed products applied to a proper algebra give the same result), we have the class of the basic projection $[p]\in E(\mathbb{C},C_0(X)\rtimes_{\max}G)=E(\mathbb{C},C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G)$, and the above amounts to saying that the morphisms
\begin{equation}\label{m1}
\psi_A\circ (\theta \rtimes_{\max}G)\circ [p]~~~,~~~( \theta\rtimes_{\tau}G)\circ [p]~:~\mathbb{C}\to A\rtimes_\tau G
\end{equation}
in the $E$-theory category are the same.
As the functors defined by the $\tau$ and maximal crossed products are continuous and exact, \cite[Proposition~3.6]{Guentner:2000fj} shows that the natural transformation $A\rtimes_{\max}G \to A\rtimes_\tau G$ gives rise to a natural transformation between the corresponding functors on the asymptotic category. Hence if $\theta$ is any morphism in $\leftam C_0(X),A\rightam_G$ the diagram
\begin{equation}\label{nattrans}
\xymatrix{
C_0(X)\rtimes_\max G \ar@{=}[r]\ar[d]_{\theta\rtimes_\max G} &
C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G \ar[d]^{\theta\rtimes_\tau G} \\
A\rtimes_\max G \ar[r]^{\psi_A} & A\rtimes_\tau G }
\end{equation}
commutes in the asymptotic category. Hence by \cite[Theorem~4.6]{Guentner:2000fj} the diagram
$$
\xymatrix{
\Sigma (C_0(X)\rtimes_\max G)\otimes\mathcal{K} \ar@{=}[r]\ar[d]_{1\otimes\theta\rtimes_\max G\otimes 1} &
\Sigma (C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G)\otimes \mathcal{K} \ar[d]^{1\otimes \theta\rtimes_\tau G\otimes 1} \\
\Sigma (A\rtimes_\max G)\otimes \mathcal{K} \ar[r]^{1\otimes\psi_A\otimes 1} & \Sigma (A\rtimes_\tau G) \otimes \mathcal{K}}
$$
commutes in the asymptotic category, which says exactly that the diagram in line \eqref{nattrans} commutes in the $E$-theory category. In other words, as morphisms in the $E$-theory category
$$
\theta\rtimes_{\tau}G= \psi_A\circ (\theta \rtimes_{\max}G),
$$
whence the morphisms in line \eqref{m1} are the same.
\end{proof}
We close the section with the following `two out of three' result,
which will be our main tool for proving the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes
conjecture in cases of interest.
\begin{proposition}\label{bcses}
Assume $G$ is a countable discrete group. Let $\tau$ be an exact and Morita compatible crossed product. Let
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & B\ar[r] & 0}
\end{equation*}
be a short exact sequence of separable $\gcstar$-algebras. If the
$\tau$-Baum-Connes conjecture is valid with coefficients in two of
$I$, $A$ and $B$ then it is valid with coefficients in the third.
\end{proposition}
In the case that $G$ is exact (or just $K$-exact), the analogous result for the usual Baum-Connes conjecture was proved by Chabert and Echterhoff: see \cite[Proposition 4.2]{Chabert:2001hl}. However, the result does \emph{not} hold in general for the
usual Baum-Connes conjecture due to possible failures of exactness on
the right hand side; indeed, its failure is the reason behind the
known counterexamples.
We only prove Proposition \ref{bcses} in the case of a discrete group as this is technically much simpler, and all we need for our results. As pointed out by the referee, one could adapt the proof of \cite[Proposition 4.2]{Chabert:2001hl} to extend the result to the locally compact case; however, this would necessitate working in $KK$-theory. We give a direct $E$-theoretic proof here in order to keep our paper as self-contained as possible.
Before we start the proof, we recall the construction of the boundary map in equivariant $E$-theory associated to a short exact sequence
$$
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & B\ar[r] & 0}
$$
of $G$-$C^*$-algebras. See \cite[Chapter 5]{Guentner:2000fj} for more details. Let $\{u_t\}$ be an approximate identity for $I$ that is quasi-central for $A$, and asymptotically $G$-invariant; such exists by \cite[Lemma 5.3]{Guentner:2000fj}. Let $s:B\to A$ be a set-theoretic section. Then there is an asymptotic morphism
$$
\sigma:C_0(0,1)\otimes B\to \mathfrak{A}(I):=\frac{C_b([1,\infty),I)}{C_0([1,\infty),I)}
$$
which is asymptotic to the map defined on elementary tensors by
$$
f\otimes b\mapsto (~t\mapsto f(u_t)s(b)~)
$$
(see \cite[Proposition 5.5]{Guentner:2000fj}) such that the corresponding class $\sigma\in \leftam C_0(0,1)\otimes B,I\rightam_G$ does not depend on the choice of $\{u_t\}$ or $s$ (\cite[Lemma 5.7]{Guentner:2000fj}). We then set
$$
\gamma_I=1\otimes \sigma\otimes 1\in \leftam \Sigma(C_0(0,1)\otimes B)\otimes \mathcal{K}_G,\Sigma I\otimes \mathcal{K}_G\rightam_G=E_G(C_0(0,1)\otimes B,I)
$$
to be the $E$-theory class associated to this extension. This construction works precisely analogously in the non-equivariant setting.
\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a countable discrete group.
Given a short exact sequence of separable $\gcstar$-algebras
$$
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & B\ar[r] & 0}
$$
there is an element $\gamma_I\in E^G(C_0(0,1)\otimes B, I)$ as above. There is also a short exact sequence of $\cstar$-algebras
$$
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] & A\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] & B\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] & 0}
$$
giving rise to
$\gamma_{I\rtimes_\tau G}\in
E(C_0(0,1)\otimes \left( B\rtimes_\tau G \right),I\rtimes_\tau G)$.
The descent functor associated to the $\tau$ crossed product then takes $\gamma_I$ to $\gamma_{I\rtimes_\tau G}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Identify $A$ with the $C^*$-subalgebra $\{au_e~|~a\in A\}$ of $A\rtimes_\tau G$, and similarly for $B$ and $I$. Choose any set-theoretic section $s:B\rtimes_\tau G\to A\rtimes_\tau G$, which we may assume has the property that $s(Bu_g)\subseteq Au_g$ for all $g\in G$. We then have that $\sigma_I$ is asymptotic to the map
$$
f\otimes b\mapsto (t\mapsto f(u_t)s(b)).
$$
Checking directly, the image of $\sigma_I$ under descent agrees with the formula
\begin{equation}\label{sigmades}
f\otimes \sum_{g\in G}bu_g \mapsto \Big(t\mapsto f(u_t)s(b)u_g)\Big)
\end{equation}
on elements of the algebraic tensor product $C_0(0,1)\odot(B\rtimes_\alg G)$.
On the other hand, we may use $s$ and $\{u_t\}$ (which identifies with a quasi-central approximate unit for $I\rtimes_\tau G$ under the canonical inclusion $I\to I\rtimes_\tau G$) to define $\sigma_{I\rtimes_\tau G}$, in which case the formula in line \eqref{sigmades} agrees with that for $\sigma_{I\rtimes_\tau G}$ on the dense $*$-subalgebra $(C_0(0,1)\otimes B)\rtimes_\alg G$ of $(C_0(0,1)\otimes B)\rtimes_\tau G$. Thus up to the identification $(C_0(0,1)\otimes B)\rtimes_\tau G\cong C_0(0,1)\otimes (B\rtimes_\tau G)$ from Lemma \ref{contlem}, the image of $\sigma\in \leftam C_0(0,1)\otimes B,I\rightam_G$ under descent is the same as $\sigma_{I\rtimes_\tau G}\in \leftam C_0(0,1)\otimes (B\rtimes_\tau G) ,I\rtimes_\tau G\rightam$ and we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{bcses}]
Basic exactness properties of $K$-theory and exactness of the
$\tau$-crossed product give
a six-term exact sequence on the right hand side of the conjecture:
\begin{equation}\label{sixex1}
\xymatrix{
K_0(I\rtimes_\tau G) \ar[r] & K_0(A\rtimes_\tau G) \ar[r] & K_0(B\rtimes_\tau G) \ar[d] \\
K_1(B\rtimes_\tau G) \ar[u] & \ar[l] K_1(A\rtimes_\tau G) & \ar[l] K_1(I\rtimes_\tau G). }
\end{equation}
Similarly, basic exactness properties of equivariant $E$-theory give a
six-term sequence on the left hand side:
\begin{equation}\label{sixex2}
\xymatrix{
K_0^{top}(G;I) \ar[r] & K_0^{top}(G;A) \ar[r] & K_0^{top}(G;B) \ar[d] \\
K_1^{top}(G;B) \ar[u] & \ar[l] K_1^{top}(G;A) & \ar[l] K_1^{top}(G;I) .}
\end{equation}
The corresponding maps in these diagrams are given by composition with
elements of equivariant $E$-theory groups, and the corresponding
descended elements of $E$-theory groups; for example,
the left hand vertical map in (\ref{sixex2}) is induced by the equivariant
asymptotic morphism associated to the original short exact sequence of
$\gcstar$-algebras, and the corresponding map in (\ref{sixex1}) is
induced by its descended asymptotic morphism.
Further, the assignments
\begin{equation*}
A\mapsto K_*(A\rtimes_\tau G),~~~A\mapsto K_*^{top}(G;A)
\end{equation*}
define functors from $E^G$ to abelian groups, and functoriality
of descent together with associativity of $E$-theory compositions
imply the assembly map is a natural transformation between these
functors. Hence assembly induces compatible maps between the six-term
exact sequences in lines \eqref{sixex1} and \eqref{sixex2}. The
result now follows from the five lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Some properties of the minimal exact and Morita compatible crossed product}\label{minpropsec}
In this section, we study a natural class of exact and Morita compatible crossed products, and use these to deduce some properties of the minimal exact and Morita compatible crossed product. In particular, we show that the usual property (T) obstructions to surjectivity of the maximal Baum-Connes assembly map do not apply to our reformulated conjecture. We also give a concrete example of a crossed product that could be equal to the minimal one.
Throughout the section, $G$ denotes a locally compact, second countable group.
\begin{definition}\label{cps2}
Let $\tau$ be a crossed product, and $B$ a fixed unital $\gcstar$-algebra. For any $G$-$C^*$-algebra $A$, the \emph{$\tau$-$B$ completion} of $A\rtimes_{\alg}G$, denoted $A\rtimes_{\tau,B}G$, is defined to be the image of the map
$$
A\rtimes_\tau G \to (A\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_\tau G
$$
induced by the equivariant inclusion
$$
A\to A\otimes_{\max}B,~~~a\mapsto a\otimes 1.
$$
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{corfunc}
For any $\gcstar$-algebra $B$ and crossed product $\tau$, the family of completions $A\rtimes_{\tau,B} G$ defined above are a crossed product functor.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To see that $\rtimes_{\tau,B}$ dominates the reduced completion, note that as the $\tau$ completion dominates the reduced completion there is a commutative diagram
$$
\xymatrix{ A\rtimes_{\tau,B}G \ar@{-->}[r] \ar[d] & A\rtimes_\red G \ar[d] \\ (A\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r] & (A\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_\red G },
$$
where the vertical arrows are induced by the equivariant inclusion $a\mapsto a\otimes 1$, and the bottom horizontal arrow is the canonical natural transformation between the $\tau$ and reduced crossed products. We need to show the dashed horizontal arrow can be filled in. This follows as equivariant inclusions of $\gcstar$-algebras induce inclusions of reduced crossed products, whence the right vertical map is injective.
The fact that $\rtimes_{\tau,B}$ is a functor follows as the assignment $A\mapsto A\otimes_{\max} B$ defines a functor from the category of $G$-$C^*$-algebras to itself, and the $\tau$ crossed product is a functor.
\end{proof}
From now on, we refer to the construction in Definition \ref{cps2} as the \emph{$\tau$-$B$-crossed product}.
\begin{lemma}\label{corexmc}
Let $\tau$ be a crossed product, and $B$ a unital $\gcstar$-algebra. If the $\tau$-crossed product is Morita compatible \textup{(}respectively, exact\textup{)}, then the $\tau$-$B$-crossed product is Morita compatible \textup{(}exact\textup{)}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To see Morita compatibility, consider the commutative diagram
$$
\xymatrix{ (A\otimes\mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_{\tau,B} G \ar@{-->}[rr] \ar[d] & & (A\rtimes_{\tau,B}G)\otimes \mathcal{K}_G \ar[d] \\
((A\otimes \mathcal{K}_G)\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r]^\cong & ((A\otimes_{\max} B)\otimes \mathcal{K}_G)\rtimes_\tau G \ar[r]^\cong & ((A\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_\tau G)\otimes \mathcal{K}_G~, }
$$
where the left arrow on the bottom row comes from nuclearity of $\mathcal{K}_G$ and associativity of the maximal crossed product; the right arrow on the bottom row is the Morita compatibility isomorphism; and the vertical arrows are by definition of the $\tau$-$B$ crossed product. It suffices to show that the dashed arrow exists and is an isomorphism: this follows from the fact that the vertical arrows are injections.
To see exactness, consider a short exact sequence of $G$-$C^*$-algebras
$$
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & Q \ar[r] & 0 }
$$
and the corresponding commutative diagram
$$
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I\rtimes_{\tau,B} G \ar[r]^\iota \ar[d] & A\rtimes_{\tau,B} G \ar[r]^\pi \ar[d] & Q\rtimes_{\tau,B} G \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & (I\otimes_{\max}B)\rtimes_{\tau} G \ar[r] & (A\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_{\tau}G \ar[r] & (Q\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_{\tau}G \ar[r] & 0 }.
$$
Note that all the vertical maps are injections by definition. Moreover, the bottom row is exact by exactness of the maximal tensor product, and the assumed exactness of the $\tau$ crossed product. The only issue is thus to show that the kernel of $\pi$ is equal to the image of $\iota$.
The kernel of $\pi$ is $A\rtimes_{\tau,B} G\cap (I\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_{\tau} G$, so we must show that this is equal to $I\rtimes_{\tau,B} G$. The inclusion
$$
I\rtimes_{\tau,B} G\subseteq A\rtimes_{\tau,B} G\cap (I\otimes_{\max}B)\rtimes_{\tau} G
$$
is automatic, so it remains to show the reverse inclusion. Let $x$ be an element of the right hand side. Let $\{u_i\}$ be an approximate identity for $I$, and note that $\{v_i\}:=\{u_i\otimes1\}$ can be thought of as a net in the multiplier algebra of $(I\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_{\tau} G$ via Lemma \ref{multlem}. The net $\{v_i\}$ is an `approximate identity' in the sense that $v_iy$ converges to $y$ for all $y\in (I\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_{\tau} G$. Let $\{x_i\}$ be a (bounded) net in $A\rtimes_{\alg} G$ converging to $x$ in the $A\rtimes_{\tau,B}G$ norm, which we may assume has the same index set as $\{v_i\}$. Note that
$$
\|v_ix_i-x\|\leq \|v_ix_i-v_ix\|+\|v_ix-x\|\leq \|v_i\|\|x_i-x\|+\|v_ix-x\|,
$$
which tends to zero as $i$ tends to infinity. Note, however, that $v_ix_i$ belongs to $I\rtimes_{\alg}G$ (considered as a $*$-subalgebra of $(I\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_{\tau} G$), so we are done.
\end{proof}
We now specialize to the case when $\tau$ is $\mathcal{E}$, the minimal exact crossed product.
\begin{corollary}\label{equal}
For any unital $\gcstar$-algebra $B$, the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product and $\mathcal{E}$-$B$-crossed product are equal.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is immediate from the definition that the $\mathcal{E}$-$B$-crossed product is no larger than the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product. Lemma \ref{corexmc} implies that the $\mathcal{E}$-$B$-crossed product is exact and Morita compatible, however, so they are equal by minimality of the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{inc}
For any unital $\gcstar$-algebra $B$ and any $\gcstar$-algebra $A$, the map
$$
A\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G \to (A\otimes_{\max} B)\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G
$$
induced by the inclusion $a\mapsto a\otimes1$ is injective.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The image of the map $A\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G$ is (by definition) equal to $A\rtimes_{\mathcal{E},B}G$ so this is immediate from Corollary \ref{equal}.
\end{proof}
The following result implies that the usual property (T) obstructions to surjectivity of the maximal Baum-Connes assembly map do not apply to the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes conjecture: see Corollary \ref{no(t)} below. The proof is inspired by \cite[Proof of Theorem 2.6.8, part (7) $\Rightarrow$ (1)]{Brown:2008qy}.
\begin{proposition}\label{nofd}
Say the $C^*$-algebra $C^*_\mathcal{E}(G):=\mathbb{C}\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G$ admits a non-zero finite dimensional representation. Then $G$ is amenable.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $C_{ub}(G)$ denote the $C^*$-algebra of bounded, (left) uniformly continuous functions on $G$, and let $\alpha$ denote the (left) action of $G$ on this $C^*$-algebra, which is a continuous action by $*$-automorphisms. It will suffice (compare \cite[Section G.1]{Bekka:2000kx}) to show that if $C^*_\mathcal{E}(G)$ has a non-zero finite dimensional representation then there exists an \emph{invariant mean} on $C_{ub}(G)$: a state $\phi$ on $C_{ub}(G)$ such that $\phi(\alpha_g(f))=\phi(f)$ for all $g\in G$ and $f\in C_{ub}(G)$.
Assume then there is a non-zero representation $\pi:C^*_\mathcal{E}(G)\to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, where $\mathcal{H}$ is finite dimensional. Passing to a subrepresentation, we may assume $\pi$ is non-degenerate whence it comes from a unitary representation of $G$, which we also denote $\pi$. Applying Corollary \ref{inc} to the special case $A=\mathbb{C}$, $B=C_{ub}(G)$, we have that $C^*_\mathcal{E}(G)$ identifies canonically with a $C^*$-subalgebra of $C_{ub}(G)\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G$. Hence by Arveson's extension theorem (in the finite dimensional case - see \cite[Corollary 1.5.16]{Brown:2008qy}) there exists a contractive completely positive map
$$
\rho:C_{ub}(G)\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})
$$
extending $\pi$. As $\pi$ is non-degenerate, $\rho$ is, whence (\cite[Corollary 5.7]{Lance:1995ys}) it extends to a strictly continuous unital completely positive map on the multiplier algebra, which we denote
$$
\rho:\mathcal{M}(C_{ub}(G)\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G)\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}).
$$
Now, note that as $\pi$ is a representation, the $C^*$-subalgebra $C^*_\mathcal{E}(G)$ of $\mathcal{M}(C_{ub}(G)\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G)$ is in the multiplicative domain of $\rho$ (compare \cite[page 12]{Brown:2008qy}). Note that the image of $G$ inside $\mathcal{M}(C_{ub}(G)\rtimes_{\max}G)$ is in the strict closure of the $*$-subalgebra $C_c(G)$, whence the same is true in the image of $G$ in $\mathcal{M}(C_{ub}(G)\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G)$ given by Lemma \ref{multlem}; it follows from this and strict continuity of $\rho$ that the image of $G$ in $\mathcal{M}(C_{ub}(G)\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G)$ is also in the multiplicative domain of $\rho$. Hence for any $g\in G$ and $f\in C_{ub}(G)$,
$$
\rho(\alpha_g(f))=\rho(u_gfu_g^*)=\pi(g)\rho(f)\pi(g)^*.
$$
It follows that if $\tau:\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})\to \mathbb{C}$ is the canonical tracial state, then $\tau\circ \rho$ is an invariant mean on $C_{ub}(G)$, so $G$ is amenable.
\end{proof}
We now discuss the relevance of this proposition to the property (T) obstructions to the maximal Baum-Connes conjecture. Recall that if $G$ is a group with property (T), then for any finite dimensional unitary representation $\pi$ of $G$ (for example, the trivial representation), there is a central \emph{Kazhdan projection} $p_\pi$ in $C^*_{\max}(G)$ that maps to the orthogonal projection onto the $\pi$-isotypical component in any unitary representation of $G$. When $G$ is infinite and discrete\footnote{It is suspected that this is true in general, but we do not know of a proof in the literature.}, it is well-known \cite[Discussion below 5.1]{Higson:1998qd} that the class of $p_\pi$ in $K_0(C^*_{\max}(G))$ is not in the image of the maximal Baum-Connes assembly map. Thus, at least for infinite discrete groups, the projections $p_\pi$ obstruct the maximal version of the Baum-Connes conjecture.
The following corollary, which is immediate from the above proposition, shows that these obstructions do not apply to the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product.
\begin{corollary}\label{no(t)}
Let $G$ be a group with property (T), and $\pi$ be a finite dimensional representation of $G$. Write $C^*_\mathcal{E}(G):=\mathbb{C}\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G$. Then the canonical quotient map $C^*_{\max}(G)\to C^*_\mathcal{E}(G)$ sends $p_\pi$ to zero. \qed
\end{corollary}
Finally in this section, we specialize to the case of discrete groups and look at the particular example of the $\max$-$l^\infty(G)$-crossed product. We show below that this crossed product is actually equal to the reduced one when $G$ is exact. It is thus possible that the $\max$-$l^\infty(G)$-crossed product actually is the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product. As further evidence in this direction, note that for any \emph{commutative} unital $B$, there is a unital equivariant map from $B$ to $l^\infty(G)$ by restriction to any orbit. This shows that the $\max$-$l^\infty(G)$-crossed product is the greatest lower bound of the $\max$-$B$-crossed products as $B$ ranges over commutative unital $C^*$-algebras. We do not know what happens when $B$ is noncommutative: quite plausibly here one can get something strictly smaller. Of course, there could also be many other constructions of exact and Morita compatible crossed products that do not arise as above.
\begin{proposition}\label{exreduced}
Say $G$ is exact. Then the \emph{$\max$}-$l^\infty(G)$-crossed product equals the reduced crossed product.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a $\gcstar$-algebra. We will show that $(A\otimes l^\infty(G))\rtimes_{\max}G=(A\otimes l^\infty(G))\rtimes_\red G$, which will suffice to complete the proof. The main result of \cite{Ozawa:2000th} (compare also \cite{Guentner:2022hc}) shows that the action of $G$ on its Stone-\v{C}ech compactification $\beta G$ is amenable. However, the Stone-\v{C}ech compactification of $G$ is the spectrum of $l^\infty(G)$ and $A\otimes l^\infty(G)$ is a $G$-$l^\infty(G)$ algebra in the sense of \cite[Definition 5.2]{Anantharaman-Delaroche:2002ij}, so \cite[Theorem 5.3]{Anantharaman-Delaroche:2002ij} (see also \cite[Theorem 4.4.3]{Brown:2008qy} for a slightly easier proof specific to the case that $G$ is discrete) implies the desired result.
\end{proof}
We suspect a similar result holds for a general locally compact group (with $C_{ub}(G)$ replacing $l^\infty(G)$). To adapt the proof above, one would need an analog of the equivalence of exactness and amenability of the action of $G$ on the spectrum of $l^\infty(G)$ to hold in the non-discrete case; this seems likely, but is does not appear to be known at present.
\section{Proving the conjecture}\label{bcproof}
In this section, we consider conditions under which the
Baum-Connes conjecture with coefficients in a $\gcstar$-algebra
$A$ is true for exact and Morita compatible crossed products and, in
particular, when the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes conjecture is true. This is
certainly the case when $G$ is exact and the usual Baum-Connes
conjecture for $G$ with coefficients in $A$ is valid. However, we are
interested in the \emph{non-exact} Gromov monster groups. We shall
study actions of these groups with the Haagerup property as in the
following definition (adapted from work of Tu \cite[Section
3]{Tu:1999bq}).
\begin{definition}\label{actatmen}
Let $G$ be a locally compact group acting on the right on a locally
compact Hausdorff topological space $X$. A function $h:X\times G\to\mathbb{R}$ is
of \emph{conditionally negative type} if it satisfies the
following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item the restriction of $h$ to $X\times \{e\}$ is zero;
\item for every $x\in X$, $g\in G$, we have that $h(x,g)=h(xg,g^{-1})$;
\item for every $x$ in $X$ and any finite subsets
$\{g_1,...,g_n\}$ of $G$ and $\{t_1,...,t_n\}$ of $\mathbb{R}$ such that
$\sum_it_i=0$ we have that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i,j=1}^nt_it_jh(xg_i,g_i^{-1}g_j)\leq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
The action of $G$ on $X$ is \emph{a-T-menable} if there
exists a continuous conditionally negative type function $h$
that is \emph{locally proper}: for any compact $K\subseteq X$ the
restriction of $h$ to the set
\begin{equation*}
\{(x,g)\in X\times G~|~x\in K,xg\in K\}
\end{equation*}
is a proper function.
\end{definition}
In the precise form stated, the following theorem is essentially due
to Tu \cite{Tu:1999bq}. See also Higson and Guentner \cite[Theorem
3.12]{Higson:2004la}, Higson \cite[Theorem 3.4]{Higson:2000bl} and Yu
\cite[Theorem 1.1]{Yu:200ve} for closely related results.
\begin{theorem}\label{bccor}
Let $G$ be a second countable locally compact group acting
a-T-menably on a second countable locally compact space $X$.
The $\tau$-Baum-Connes assembly map
\begin{equation*}
K_*^{top}(G;C_0(X))\to K_*(C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G)
\end{equation*}
is an isomorphism for every exact and Morita compatible crossed product
$\tau$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In the terminology of \cite[Section 3]{Tu:1999bq}, Definition
\ref{actatmen} says that the transformation groupoid $X\rtimes G$
admits a locally proper, negative type function, and therefore by
\cite[Proposition 3.8]{Tu:1999bq} acts properly by isometries on a
field of Hilbert spaces. It then follows from \cite[Th\'{e}or\`{e}me
1.1]{Tu:1999bq} and the discussion in \cite[last paragraph of
introduction]{Tu:1999bq} that there exists a proper $X\rtimes G$ algebra\footnote{Precisely, this means that there is a locally compact proper $G$-space $Z$, an equivariant $*$-homomorphism from $C_0(Z)$ into the center of the multiplier algebra of $A$, and an equivariant, open, and continuous map $Z\to X$.} $\mathcal{A}$ built from this action on a field of Hilbert spaces and equivariant $E$-theory elements
\begin{equation*}
\alpha\in E^G(\mathcal{A}, C_0(X)),~~~\beta\in E^G(C_0(X), \mathcal{A})
\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{equation}\label{ddd}
\alpha\circ \beta=1~~ \text{ in } ~~E^G(C_0(X),C_0(X)).
\end{equation}
(Actually, Tu works in the framework of equivariant $KK$-theory in the reference \cite{Tu:1999bq} used above.
Using the natural transformation to equivariant $E$-theory, we obtain
the result as stated here.)
Consider now the following diagram, where the vertical maps are
induced by $\alpha$, $\beta$ above, $E$-theory compositions, and the
descent functor from Theorem \ref{descent}; and the horizontal maps are
assembly maps
$$
\xymatrix{ K_*^{top}(G;C_0(X)) \ar[d]^{\beta_*} \ar[r] & K_*(C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G) \ar[d]^{\beta_*} \\
K_*^{top}(G;\mathcal{A}) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\alpha_*} & K_*(\mathcal{A}\rtimes_\tau G) \ar[d]^{\alpha_*} \\
K_*^{top}(G;C_0(X)) \ar[r] & K_*(C_0(X)\rtimes_\tau G) }.
$$
The diagram commutes as descent is a functor and $E$-theory
compositions are associative. Moreover, the vertical compositions are
isomorphisms by line \eqref{ddd}. Further all crossed products are
the same for a proper action, whence the central horizontal map
identifies with the usual assembly map, and so is an isomorphism by
\cite[Th\'{e}or\`{e}me 2.2]{Chabert:2001ye}. Hence from a diagram
chase the top and bottom maps are isomorphisms, which is the desired
result.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{oldnewrem}
The Baum-Connes conjecture with coefficients is true for
a-T-menable groups when defined with either the maximal or reduced
crossed product \cite{Higson:2001eb}. The argument above shows that this extends to any exact and Morita compatible crossed product.
\end{rem}
Based on this remark, it may be tempting to believe that for
a-T-menable groups the Baum-Connes conjecture is true with values in
\emph{any} `intermediate completion' of the algebraic crossed product
$A\rtimes_{\alg} G$. This is false (even if $A=\mathbb{C}$), as the following example shows.
\begin{example}\label{intrem}
Let $G$ be an a-T-menable group that is not amenable, for example a free group or $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$. Let $C^*_S(G)$ denote the completion of $C_c(G)$ in the direct sum $\lambda\oplus 1$ of the regular and trivial representations.\footnote{$C^*_S(G)$ is the \emph{Brown-Guentner crossed product} $\mathbb{C}\rtimes_{BG,S}G$ associated to the subset $S=\widehat{G_r}\cup\{1\}$ of the unitary dual: see Appendix \ref{cpapp}.}
As $G$ is not amenable the trivial representation is isolated in
the spectrum of $C^*_S(G)$, whence this $C^*$-algebra splits as a
direct sum
$$
C^*_S(G)=C^*_\red(G)\oplus \mathbb{C}.
$$
Let
$p\in C^*_S(G)$ denote the unit of the copy of $\mathbb{C}$ in this decomposition, a so-called
\emph{Kazhdan projection}. The class $[p]\in K_0(C^*_r(G))$ generates a copy of $\mathbb{Z}$, which is precisely the kernel of the map on $K$-theory induced by the quotient map $C^*_S(G)\to C^*_\red(G)$.
The Baum-Connes conjecture is true for $G$ by a-T-menability whence $[p]$ is not in the image of the Baum-Connes assembly map
$$
\mu:K_*^\text{top}(G)\to K_*(C^*_S(G)),
$$
and so in particular the assembly map is not surjective. The discussion in Examples \ref{badex} develops this a little further.
\end{example}
\section{An example coming from Gromov monster groups}\label{hasec}
A Gromov monster group $G$ is a discrete group whose Cayley graph contains an expanding sequence of graphs (an \emph{expander}), in some weak sense. The geometric properties of expanders can be used to build a commutative $\gcstar$-algebra $A$ for which the Baum-Connes conjecture with coefficients fails. In fact, Gromov monster groups are the only known source of such failures.
In this section we show that for some Gromov monster groups there is a separable commutative
$\gcstar$-algebra $B$ for which the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes
conjecture is true, but the usual version using the reduced crossed product is false. The existence of such a $B$ can be attributed to two properties: failure of exactness, and the presence of a-T-menability. The main result of this section is Theorem \ref{hathe}, which proves a-T-menability of a certain action.
The ideas in this section draw on many sources. The existence of Gromov monster groups was indicated by Gromov
\cite{Gromov:2003gf}. More details were subsequently provided by
Arzhantseva and Delzant \cite{Arzhantseva:2008bv}, and Coulon \cite{Coulon:2013fk}. The version of the construction we use in this paper is due to Osajda \cite{Osajda:2014ys}.
The idea of using Gromov monsters to construct counterexamples to the Baum-Connes conjecture is due to Higson, Lafforgue and Skandalis \cite[Section~7]{Higson:2002la}. The construction of counterexamples we use in this section comes from work of Yu and the third author \cite[Section~8]{Willett:2010ud}, \cite{Willett:2010zh}. The present exposition is inspired by subsequent work of Finn-Sell and Wright \cite{Finn-Sell:2012fk}, of Chen, Wang and Yu \cite{Chen:2012uq}, and of Finn-Sell \cite{Finn-Sell:2013yq}. Note also that Finn-Sell \cite{Finn-Sell:2014uq} has obtained analogs of Theorem \ref{hathe} below using a different method.
In order to discuss a-T-menability, we will be interested in kernels with the properties in the next definition.
\begin{definition}\label{cnd}
Let $X$ be a set, and $k:X\times X\to \mathbb{R}_+$ a function (a \emph{kernel}).
The kernel $k$ is \emph{conditionally negative definite} if
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $k(x,x)=0$, for every $x\in X$;
\item $k(x,y)=k(y,x)$, for every $x$, $y\in X$;
\item for every subset $\{x_1,...,x_n\}$ of $X$ and every subset $\{t_1,...,t_n\}$ of $\mathbb{R}$ such that
$\sum_{i=1}^n t_i=0$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i,j=1}^nt_it_jk(x_i,x_j)\leq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
Assume now that $X$ is a metric space. The kernel $k$ is \emph{asymptotically conditionally negative definite} if conditions (i) and (ii) above hold, and the following weak version of condition (iii) holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(iii)'] for every $r>0$ there exists a bounded subset $K=K(r)$ of $X$ such that for every subset $\{x_1,...,x_n\}$ of $X\setminus K$ of diameter
at most $r$, and every subset $\{t_1,...,t_n\}$ of $\mathbb{R}$ such that
$\sum_{i=1}^n t_i=0$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i,j=1}^nt_it_jk(x_i,x_j)\leq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
Continuing to assume that $X$ is a metric space, a kernel $k$ is \emph{proper} if for each $r>0$
$$
\sup_{d(x,y)\leq r}k(x,y)
$$
is finite, and if
$$
\inf_{d(x,y)\geq r}k(x,y)
$$
tends to infinity as $r$ tends to infinity.
\end{definition}
\begin{rem}
Using techniques similar to those in \cite{Finn-Sell:2013yq} (compare also \cite{Willett:2014ab}), one can show that if $X$ admits a \emph{fibered coarse embedding into Hilbert space} as in \cite[Section 2]{Chen:2012uq}, then $X$ admits a proper, asymptotically conditionally negative definite kernel. One can also show directly that if $X$ admits a proper, asymptotically conditionally negative definite kernel, then the restriction to the boundary of the coarse groupoid of $X$ has the Haagerup property as studied in \cite{Finn-Sell:2012fk}. We will not need these properties, however, so do not pursue this further here.
\end{rem}
Let now $X$ and $Y$ be metric spaces. A map $f:X\to Y$ is a \emph{coarse
embedding} if there exist non-decreasing functions
$\rho_-$ and $\rho_+$ from $\mathbb{R}_+$ to $\mathbb{R}_+$ such that for all $x_1,x_2\in X$,
\begin{equation*}
\rho_-(d(x_1,x_2))\leq d(f(x_1),f(x_2))\leq
\rho_+(d(x_1,x_2))
\end{equation*}
and such that $\rho_-(t)$ tends to infinity as $t$ tends to infinity. A
coarse embedding $f:X\to Y$ is a \emph{coarse equivalence} if in
addition there exists $C\geq 0$ such that every point of $Y$ is
distance at most $C$ from a point of $f(X)$. Coarse equivalences have `approximate inverses': given a coarse equivalence $f:X\to Y$ there is a coarse equivalence $g:Y\to X$ such that $\sup_{x\in X}d(x,g(f(x)))$ and $\sup_{y\in Y}d(y,f(g(y)))$ are finite.
We record the following lemma for later use; the proof is a series of routine checks.
\begin{lemma}\label{cndlem}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be metric spaces, and $f:X\to Y$ a coarse embedding. If $k$ is a proper, asymptotically conditionally negative definite kernel on $Y$, then the pullback kernel $(f^*k)(x,y):=k(f(x),f(y))$ on $X$ is proper and asymptotically conditionally negative definite. \qed
\end{lemma}
We are mainly interested in metric spaces that are built from graphs. We identify a finite graph with its vertex set, and equip it with the edge metric: the distance between vertices $x$ and $y$
is the smallest number $n$ for which there exists a sequence
\begin{equation*}
x=x_0,x_1,...,x_n=y
\end{equation*}
in which consecutive pairs span an edge.
\begin{definition}\label{boxs}
Let $(X_n)$ be a sequence of finite graphs such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item each $X_n$ is non-empty, finite, and connected;
\item there exists a $D$ such that all vertices have degree at most $D$.
\end{enumerate}
Equip the disjoint union
$X=\sqcup_n X_n$ with a metric that restricts to the
edge metric on each $X_n$ and in addition satisfies
\begin{equation*}
d(X_n,\sqcup_{n\neq m}X_m)\to\infty \text{ as } n\to\infty.
\end{equation*}
The exact choice of metric does not matter for us: the identity map on $X$ is a coarse equivalence between any two choices of metric satisfying these conditions. The metric space $X$ is the \emph{box space} associated to the sequence $(X_n)$.
The \emph{girth} of a graph $X$ is the length of the shortest non-trivial cycle in $X$, and infinity if no non-trivial cycles exist. A box space $X$ built from a sequence $(X_n)$ as above has \emph{large girth} if the girth of $X_n$ tends to infinity as $n$ tends to infinity.
A box space $X$ associated to a sequence $(X_n)$ is an \emph{expander} if there exists $c>1$ such that for all $n$ and all subsets $A$ of $X_n$ with $|A|\leq |X_n|/2$, we have
$$
\frac{|\{x\in X_n~|~d(x,A)\leq 1\}|}{|A|}\geq c.
$$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{girthhaag}
Let $X$ be a large girth box space as in Definition \ref{boxs}. Then the distance function on $X$ is a proper, asymptotically conditionally negative definite kernel.
\end{theorem}
For the proof of this theorem, we shall require the following well
known lemma \cite[Section~2]{Julg:1984rr}. For convenience, we sketch
a proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{tree}
Let $T$ be \textup{(}the vertex set of\textup{)} a tree. The edge
metric is conditionally negative definite, when viewed as a kernel
$d:T\times T\to \mathbb{R}_+$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\ell^2$ denote the Hilbert space of square summable functions on the set of
\emph{edges} in $T$. Fix a base vertex $x_0$. For every vertex $x$
let $\xi(x)$ be the characteristic function of those edges along the
unique no-backtrack path from $x_0$ to $x$. The result is a routine
calculation starting from the observation that
\begin{equation*}
\|\xi(x)-\xi(y)\|^2=d(x,y),
\end{equation*}
for every two vertices $x$ and $y$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{girthhaag}]
Let $k(x,y)=d(x,y)$. Properness and conditions (i) and (ii) from the definition of asymptotically conditionally negative definite are trivially satisfied, so it remains to check condition (iii)'.
Given $r>0$, let $N$ be large enough that the following conditions
are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item if $n>N$ then $d(X_n,\sqcup_{m\neq n}X_m)>r$;
\item if $n>N$ then the girth of $X_n$ is at least $2r$.
\end{enumerate}
The force of (b) is that if $T_n$ is the universal cover of $X_n$
then the covering map $T_n\to X_n$ is an isometry on sets of diameter
$r$ or less. Let $K=X_1\sqcup \dots\sqcup X_N$. It now suffices to
show that $d$ is conditionally negative definite when restricted to a
finite subset $F$ of $X\setminus K$ of diameter at most $r$. But,
such a subset necessarily belongs entirely to some $X_n$, and the
covering map $T_n\to X_n$ admits an isometric splitting over $F$.
Thus, restricted to $F\times F$, the metric $d$ is the pullback of the
distance function on $T_n$ which is conditionally negative definite by
the previous lemma.
\end{proof}
Let $G$ be a finitely generated group. Fix a word length $\ell$
and associated left-invariant metric on $G$; the following definition
is independent of the choice of length function.
\begin{definition}\label{gm}
The group $G$ is a \emph{special Gromov monster} if there exists a large girth expander box space $X$ as in Definition \ref{boxs} and a coarse embedding from $X$ to $G$.
\end{definition}
Osajda \cite{Osajda:2014ys} has shown that special Gromov monsters in the sense above exist: in fact, he proves the existence of examples where the (large girth, expander) box space $X$ is isometrically embedded. Other constructions of Gromov monster groups, including Gromov's original one, produce maps of (expander, large girth) box spaces into groups which are not (obviously) coarse embeddings: see the remarks in Section \ref{wce} below. The restriction to coarsely embedded box spaces is the reason for the terminology `special Gromov monster' in the above.
For the remainder of this section, let $G$ be a special Gromov monster group, and let $f:X\to G$ be a coarse embedding of a large girth, expander box space into $G$.
Let $Z=f(X)\subset G$ be the image of $f$. For each natural number
$R$, let $N_R(Z)$ be the $R$-neighborhood of $Z$ in $G$.
\begin{lemma}\label{glem}
There exists a kernel $k$ on $G$ such that for any $R\in\mathbb{N}$ the restriction of $k$ to $N_R(Z)$ is proper and asymptotically conditionally negative definite.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $p_0:Z\to Z$ be the identity map. For $R\in\mathbb{N}$ inductively choose $p_R:N_R(Z)\to Z$ by stipulating that $p_{R+1}:N_{R+1}(Z)\to Z$ extends $p_R$, and satisfies $d(p_{R+1}(x),x)\leq R+1$ for all $x\in N_{R+1}(Z)$. Note that each $p_R$ is a coarse equivalence. Let $g:Z\to X$ be any choice of coarse equivalence, and let $d$ be the distance function on $X$, so $d$ has the properties in Theorem \ref{girthhaag}.
For each $R$, let $k_R$ be the pullback kernel $(g\circ p_R)^*d$, which Lemma \ref{cndlem} implies is proper and asymptotically conditionally negative definite. The choice of the functions $p_R$ implies that for $R>S$, the kernel $k_R$ extends $k_S$, and so these functions piece together to define a kernel $k$ on $\cup_R N_R(Z)=G$.
\end{proof}
We will now construct an a-T-menable action of $G$.
For each natural number $R$, let $\overline{N_R(Z)}$ be the closure of $N_R(Z)$ in the Stone-\v{C}ech
compactification $\beta G$ of $G$. Let
\begin{equation*}
Y=\left(\bigcup_{R\in\mathbb{N}}\overline{N_R(Z)}\right)\cap \partial G,
\end{equation*}
i.e.\ $Y$ is the intersection of the open subset
$\cup_{R\in\mathbb{N}}\overline{N_R(Z)}\subset\beta G$ with the Stone-\v{C}ech corona $\partial G$.
Next we define an action of $G$ on $Y$. This is best done by
considering the associated $C^*$-algebras of continuous functions.
The $C^*$-algebra of continuous functions on
$\cup_{R\in\mathbb{N}}\overline{N_R(Z)}$ naturally identifies with
\begin{equation*}
A=\overline{\bigcup_{R\in\mathbb{N}}\ell^\infty(N_R(Z))},
\end{equation*}
the $C^*$-subalgebra of $\ell^\infty(G)$ generated by all the bounded
functions on the $R$-neighbourhoods of $Z$. For every $x$ and
$g$ in $G$ we have
\begin{equation*}
d(x,xg)=\ell(g),
\end{equation*}
so that the right action of $G$ on itself gives rise to an action on
$\ell^\infty(G)$ that preserves $A$. In this way $A$ is a
$\gcstar$-algebra. Note that $A$ contains $C_0(G)$ as a $G$-invariant
ideal, and $Y$ identifies naturally with the maximal ideal space of
the $\gcstar$-algebra $A/C_0(G)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{hathe}
The action of $G$ on $Y$ is a-T-menable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $k$ be as in Lemma \ref{glem}. Say $g$ is an element of $G$ and $y$ is an element of $Y$, so contained in some $\overline{N_R(Z)}$. Note that the set $\{k(x,xg)\}_{x\in N_R(Z)}$ is bounded by properness of the restriction of $k$ to $N_{R+\ell(g)}(Z)$. Hence, thinking of $y$ as an ultrafilter on $N_R(Z)$, we may define
$$
h(y,g)=\lim_y k(x,xg).
$$
This definition does not depend on the choice of $R$. We claim that the function
$$
h:Y\times G\to\mathbb{R}_+
$$
thus defined has the properties from Definition \ref{actatmen}.
Indeed, condition (i) follows as
$$
h(y,e)=\lim_y k(x,x)=0
$$
for any $y$. For condition (ii), note that
$$
h(y,g)=\lim_y k(x,xg)=\lim_y k(xg,x)=h(xg,g^{-1}).
$$
For condition (iii), let $y$ be fixed, $\{g_1,...,g_n\}$ be a subset of $G$ and $\{t_1,...,t_n\}$ a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ such that $\sum t_i=0$. Then
$$
\sum_{i,j=1}^n t_it_jh(yg_i,g_i^{-1}g_j)=\lim_y \sum_{i,j=1}^n k(xg_i,xg_ig_i^{-1}g_j)=\lim_y \sum_{i,j=1}^n k(xg_i,xg_j).
$$
Let $r$ be larger than the diameter of $\{xg_1,...,xg_n\}$, and note that removing the finite set $K(r)$ as in the definition of asymptotic conditionally negative definite kernel from $N_R(Z)$ does not affect the ultralimit $\lim_y \sum k(xg_i,xg_j)$. We may thus think of this as an ultralimit over a set of non-positive numbers, and thus non-positive.
Finally, we check local properness. Let $K$ be a compact subset of $Y$. As $\{\overline{N_R(Z)}\cap Y~|~R\in \mathbb{N}\}$ is an open cover of $Y$, the set $K$ must be contained in some $\overline{N_R(Z)}$. Assume that $y$ and $yg$ are both in $K$. Choose any net $(x_i)$ in $N_R(Z)$ converging to $y$ and, passing to a subnet, assume that the elements $x_ig$ are all contained in $N_R(Z)$. Passing to another subnet, assume that $\lim_i k(x_i,x_ig)$ exists. We then have that
$$
h(y,g)=\lim_y k(x,xg)=\lim_i k(x_i,x_ig)\geq \inf\{k(x,y)~|~x,y\in N_R(Z),~d(x,y)\geq \ell(g)\}
$$
which tends to infinity as $\ell(g)$ tends to infinity (at a rate depending only on $R$, whence only on $K$) by properness of the restriction of $k$ to $N_R(Z)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to produce our example of a $C^*$-algebra $B$ for
which the usual Baum-Connes assembly map
\begin{equation*}
\mu:K_*^{top}(G;B)\to K_*(B\rtimes_\red G)
\end{equation*}
fails to be surjective, but for which the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes assembly map
\begin{equation*}
\mu:K_*^{top}(G;B)\to K_*(B\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G)
\end{equation*}
is an isomorphism.
Assume that $G$ is a special Gromov monster group. Then there exists a
\emph{Kazhdan projection} $p$ in some matrix algebra $M_n(A\rtimes_\red G)$ over $A\rtimes_\red G$ such that the
corresponding class $[p]\in K_0(A\rtimes _\red G)$ is not in the image of
the assembly map: see \cite[Section 8]{Willett:2010ud}. We may write
$$
p=\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{g\in F_n} \sum_{i,j=1}^n f_{ijg}^{(n)}e_{ij}[g]
$$
where $F_n$ is a finite subset of $G$, $\{e_{ij}\}_{i,j=1}^n$ are the standard matrix units for $M_n(\mathbb{C})$, and each $f^{(n)}_{gij}$ is an element of $A$.
Let $h:Y\times G\to\mathbb{R}_+$ be a function as in Definition \ref{actatmen}, and let $C_0(W)$ be the $C^*$-subalgebra of $C_0(Y)$ generated by the countably many functions $\{x\mapsto h(x,g)\}_{g\in G}$, the restriction of the countably many functions $f_{gij}^{(n)}$ to $Y$, and all translates of these elements by $G$. Let $B$ be the preimage of $C_0(W)$ in $A$. Then the following hold (compare \cite[Lemma 4.2]{Higson:2004la}):
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $B$ is separable;
\item the action of $G$ on $W$ is a-T-menable;
\item the Kazhdan projection is contained in a matrix algebra over the reduced crossed product $B\rtimes_\red G$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{corollary}\label{countcor}
The $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes assembly map with coefficients in the algebra $B$
is an isomorphism. On the other hand, the usual Baum-Connes assembly
map for $G$ with coefficients in $B$ is not surjective.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The $C^*$-algebra $B$ sits in a $G$-equivariant short exact sequence
of the form
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ 0\ar[r] & C_0(G) \ar[r] & B \ar[r] & C_0(W) \ar[r] & 0}.
\end{equation*}
The action of $G$ on the space $W$ is a-T-menable, so the
$\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes conjecture with coefficients in $C_0(W)$ is true by
Corollary \ref{bccor}. The $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes conjecture with
coefficients in $C_0(G)$ is true by properness of this algebra (which
also forces $C_0(G)\rtimes_{\mathcal{E}} G=C_0(G)\rtimes_\red G$). The result for
the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes conjecture now follows from Lemma \ref{bcses}.
On the other hand, the results of \cite{Willett:2010ud} show that the
class $[p]\in K_0(A\rtimes_\red G)$ is not in the image of the assembly
map; by naturality of the assembly map in the coefficient algebra, the
corresponding class $[p]\in K_0(B\rtimes_\red G)$ is not in the image of
the assembly map either.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{seprem}
It seems very likely that an analogous statement holds for $A$ itself.
However, here we pass to a separable $C^*$-subalgebra to avoid
technicalities that arise in the non-separable case.
\end{rem}
\section{Concluding remarks and questions}\label{countersec}
\subsection{The role of exactness}
Given the current state of knowledge on exactness and the Baum-Connes conjecture, we do not know which of the following (vague) statements is closer to the truth.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Failures of exactness are the fundamental reason for failure of the Baum-Connes conjecture (with coefficients, for groups).
\item Failures of exactness are a convenient way to detect counterexamples to the Baum-Connes conjecture, but counterexamples arise for more fundamental reasons.
\end{enumerate}
The statement that the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes conjecture is true is a precise version of statement (i), and the material in this paper provides some evidence for its validity. Playing devil's advocate, we outline some evidence for statement (ii) below.
\subsubsection{Groupoid counterexamples}
As well as the counterexamples to the Baum-Connes conjecture with
coefficients for groups that we have discussed,
Higson, Lafforgue and Skandalis \cite{Higson:2002la} also use failures of exactness to produce
counterexamples to the Baum-Connes conjecture for \emph{groupoids}.
One can use the precise analog of Definition \ref{cp} to define general groupoid crossed products, and then for a particular crossed product $\tau$ define the $\tau$-Baum-Connes assembly map as the composition of the maximal groupoid Baum-Connes assembly map and the map on $K$-theory induced by the quotient map from the maximal crossed product to the $\tau$-crossed product. It seems
(we did not check all the details) that the program of this paper can
also be carried out in this context: there is a minimal groupoid
crossed product with good properties, and one can reformulate the groupoid Baum-Connes
conjecture with coefficients accordingly. The work of Popescu on
groupoid-equivariant $E$-theory \cite{Popescu:2004fk} is relevant
here.
However, in the case of groupoids this method will \emph{not} obviate all known
counterexamples. In fact, the following result is not difficult to extrapolate from \cite[Section 2, $1^\text{st}$
counterexample]{Higson:2002la}. For any groupoid $G$ and groupoid crossed product $\tau$, let $C^*_\tau(G)$ denote $C_0(G^{(0)})\rtimes_\tau G$, a completion of the groupoid convolution algebra $C_c(G)$.
\begin{proposition*}\label{goid}
There exists a (locally compact, Hausdorff, second countable, \'{e}tale) groupoid $G$ such that for any groupoid crossed product $\tau$, there exists a projection $p_\tau\in C^*_\tau (G)$ whose $K$-theory class is not in the image of the $\tau$-assembly map.
\end{proposition*}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Gamma_\infty$ be the discrete group $SL(3,\mathbb{Z})$ and for each $n$ let $\Gamma_n=SL(3,\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$ and let $\pi_n:\Gamma_\infty\to\Gamma_n$ be the obvious quotient map. In \cite[Section 2]{Higson:2002la}, the authors show how to construct a locally compact, Hausdorff second countable groupoid $G$ out of this data: roughly, the base space of $G$ is $\mathbb{N}\cup \{\infty\}$, and $G$ is the bundle of groups with $\Gamma_n$ over the point $n$ in $\mathbb{N}\cup \{\infty\}$.
As explained in \cite[Section 2, $1^\text{st}$
counterexample]{Higson:2002la}, there is a projection $p_\red$ in $C^*_\red(G)$ whose $K$-theory class is not in the image of the reduced assembly map; roughly $p_\red$ exists as the trivial representation of $SL(3,\mathbb{Z})$ is isolated among the congruence representations. However, as $SL(3,\mathbb{Z})$ has property (T), the trivial representation is isolated among \emph{all} unitary representations of this group, and therefore there is a projection $p_\max$ in $C^*_\max(G)$ that maps to $p_\red$ under the canonical quotient map. Let $p_\tau$ denote the image of $p_\max$ under the canonical quotient map from the maximal crossed product to the $\tau$-crossed product. As the reduced assembly map factors through the $\tau$-assembly map, the fact that the class of $p_\red$ is not in the image of the reduced assembly map implies that the class of $p_\tau$ is not in the image of the $\tau$-assembly map.
\end{proof}
For groupoids, then, statement (ii) above seems the more reasonable one. Having said this, we think the methods of this paper can be used
to obviate some of the other groupoid counterexamples in
\cite{Higson:2002la}, and it is natural to try to describe the groupoids for which this can be done. This question seems interesting in its own right, and it might also suggest phenomena that could occur in the less directly accessible group case.
\subsubsection{Geometric property (T) for expanders}
As mentioned above, all current evidence suggests that statement (i) above might be the correct one for groups and group actions. It is crucial here that the only expanders anyone knows how to coarsely embed into a group are those with `large girth', as we exploited in Section \ref{hasec}.
In \cite[Section 7]{Willett:2010zh} and \cite{Willett:2013cr}, Yu and the third author study
a property of expanders called \emph{geometric property (T)}, which is a strong negation of the Haagerup-type properties used in Section \ref{hasec}. Say $G$ there is a group containing a coarsely embedded expander with geometric property (T) (it is not known whether such a group exists!). Then we may construct the analogue of the $C^*$-algebra $B$ used in Corollary \ref{countcor}. For this $B$ and any crossed product $\rtimes_\tau$ the $C^*$-algebra $B\rtimes_\tau G$ will contain a Kazhdan projection that (modulo a minor technical condition, which should be easy to check) will not be in the image of the $\tau$-assembly map. In particular, this would imply that the $\mathcal{E}$-Baum-Connes conjecture fails for the group $G$ and coefficient $C^*$-algebra $B$.
It is thus very natural to ask if one can embed an expander with geometric property (T) into a group. We currently do not know enough to speculate on this either way.
\subsection{Other exact crossed products}\label{others}
We use the crossed product $\rtimes_\mathcal{E}$ for our reformulation of the
Baum-Connes conjecture as it has the following two properties.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item It is exact and Morita compatible.
\item It is equal to the reduced crossed product when the group is exact.
\end{enumerate}
However, the results of Theorem \ref{bccor} and Corollary
\ref{countcor} are true for any exact and Morita compatible crossed product. It is thus
reasonable to consider other crossed products with properties (i) and
(ii) above.
For example, consider the family of crossed products introduced by Kaliszewski, Landstad and Quigg \cite{Kaliszewski:2012fr} that we discuss in the appendix. These are all Morita compatible, and one can consider the minimal exact crossed product from this smaller class. This minimal Kaliszewski-Landstad-Quigg crossed product would have particularly good properties: for example, it would be a functor on a natural Morita category of correspondences \cite[Section 2]{Buss:2013fk}. It is not clear to us if $\rtimes_{\mathcal{E}}$ has similarly good properties, or if it is equal to the `minimal exact Kaliszewski-Landstad-Quigg crossed product'.
Another natural example is the $\max$-$l^\infty(G)$-crossed product that we looked at in Proposition \ref{exreduced} above: it is possible that this is equal to the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product. If it is not equal to the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product, it would be interesting to know why.
\subsection{Consequences of the reformulated conjecture}
Most of the applications of the Baum-Connes conjecture to topology and geometry, for example to the Novikov and Gromov-Lawson conjectures (see \cite[Section 7]{Baum:1994pr}), follow from the \emph{strong Novikov conjecture}\footnote{Some authors use `strong Novikov conjecture' to refer to the stronger statement that the reduced assembly map with trivial coefficients is injective.}: the statement that the maximal assembly map with trivial coefficients
\begin{equation}\label{maxass}
\mu:K_*^{top}(G)\to K_*(C^*_{max}(G))
\end{equation}
is injective.
This is implied by injectivity of the $\mathcal{E}$-assembly map, so the reformulated conjecture still has these same consequences. Moreover, isomorphism of the $\mathcal{E}$-assembly map implies that the assembly map in line \eqref{maxass} is \emph{split} injective.
On the other hand, the Kadison-Kaplansky conjecture states that if $G$ is a torsion free discrete group, then there are no non-trivial projections in the reduced group $C^*$-algebra $C^*_\red(G)$. It is predicted by the classical form of the Baum-Connes conjecture. However, it is \emph{not} predicted by our reformulated conjecture for non-exact groups. The reformulated conjecture does not even predict that there are no non-trivial projections in the exotic group $C^*$-algebra $\mathbb{C}\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G$, essentially as this $C^*$-algebra does not (obviously) have a faithful trace.
It is thus natural to look for counterexamples to the Kadison-Kaplansky conjecture among non-exact groups.
\subsection{Weak coarse embeddings}\label{wce}
Let $X=\sqcup X_n$ be a box space as in Definition \ref{boxs} and $G$ be a finitely generated group equipped with a word metric. A collection of functions $f_n:X_n\to G$ is a \emph{weak coarse embedding} if:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item there is a constant $c>0$ such that
$$
d_G(f_n(x),f_n(y))\leq cd_{X_n}(x,y)
$$
for all $n$ and all $x,y\in X_n$;
\item the limit
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty} \max\Big\{\frac{|f_n^{-1}(x)|}{|X_n|}~|~x\in G\Big\}
$$
is zero.
\end{enumerate}
If $(X_n)$ is a sequence of graphs, and $f:X\to G$ is a coarse embedding from the associated box space into a group $G$, then the sequence of maps $(f_n:X_n\to G)$ defined by restricting $f$ is a weak coarse embedding. Some versions of the Gromov monster construction (for example, \cite{Gromov:2001bh,Arzhantseva:2008bv}) show that weak coarse embeddings of large girth, expander box spaces into groups exist\footnote{Arzhantseva and Delzant \cite{Arzhantseva:2008bv} show something much stronger than this: very roughly, they prove the existence of maps $f_n:X_n\to G$ that are `almost a quasi-isometry', and where the deviation from being a quasi-isometry is `small' relative to the girth. See \cite[Section 7]{Arzhantseva:2008bv} for detailed statements. There is no implication either way between the condition that a sequence of maps $(f:X_n\to G)$ be a coarse embedding, and the condition that it satisfy the `almost quasi-isometry' properties of \cite[Section 7]{Arzhantseva:2008bv}. We do not know if the existence of an `almost quasi-isometric' embedding of a box space into a group implies the existence of a coarse embedding.}, but it is not clear from these constructions that coarse embeddings are possible.
In their original construction of counterexamples to the Baum-Connes conjecture with coefficients \cite[Section 7]{Higson:2002la}, Higson, Lafforgue and Skandalis used the existence of a group $G$ and a weak coarse embedding of an expander $(f_n:X_n\to G)$. They use this data to construct $G$-spaces $Y$ and $Z$, and show that the Baum-Connes assembly map fails to be an isomorphism either with coefficients in $C_0(Y)$, or with coefficients in $C_0(Z)$. Their techniques do not show that the reformulated conjecture will fail for one of these coefficients, but we do not know if the reformulated conjecture is true under these assumptions either.
On the other hand, to produce our examples where the reformulated conjecture is true but the old conjecture fails (compare Corollary \ref{countcor}) we need to know the existence of a group $G$ and a coarse embedding $f:X\to G$ of a large girth, expander box space; such groups are the \emph{special Gromov monsters} of Definition \ref{gm}. We appeal to recent results of Osajda \cite{Osajda:2014ys} to see that appropriate examples exist.
\subsection{Further questions}
The following (related) questions seem natural; we do not currently
know the answer to any of them. Unfortunately, non-exact groups are
quite poorly understood (for example, there are no concrete
countable\footnote{Exactness passes to closed subgroups, so finding
concrete uncountable examples - like permutation groups on
infinitely many letters - is easy given that some countable non-exact group exists at all.} examples), so many of these
questions might be difficult to approach directly.
\begin{question}\label{eqs}
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Can one coarsely embed an expander with geometric property (T)
into a (finitely generated) discrete group?
\item Can one characterize exact crossed products in a natural way,
e.g.\ by a `slice map property'?
\item It is shown in \cite{Roe:2013rt} that for $G$ countable and
discrete, the reduced crossed product is exact if and
only if it preserves exactness of the sequence
$$
0\to C_0(G)\to l^\infty(G)\to l^\infty(G)/C_0(G)\to 0.
$$
Is this true for more general crossed products? Is there another natural `universal short exact sequence' that works for a general crossed product?
\item Say $G$ is a non-exact group, and let $C^*_{\mathcal{E}}(G)$ denote
$\mathbb{C}\rtimes_\mathcal{E} G$, a completion of the group algebra. Can this
completion be equal to $C^*_\red(G)$?
\item Is the ${\mathcal{E}}$-crossed product equal to the minimal exact Kaliszewski-Landstad-Quigg crossed product?
\item Is the $\mathcal{E}$-crossed product equal to the $\max$-$l^\infty(G)$ crossed product from Proposition \ref{exreduced}?
\item Does the ${\mathcal{E}}$-crossed product give rise to a descent functor on $KK$-theory?\footnote{Added in proof: the answer to this is `yes': see \cite[Sections 5 and 7]{Buss:2014aa}.}
\item Is the reformulated conjecture true for the counterexamples originally constructed by Higson, Lafforgue and Skandalis?
\end{enumerate}
\end{question}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{S-intro}
The concept of electromagnetic cloaking has now
been with us for more than five years
\cite{Pendry-SS-2006sci,Leonhardt-2006sci},
but has been recently revitalized by the introduction
of the concept of space-time cloaking
\cite{McCall-FKB-2011jo,Kinsler-M-2014adp-scast}.
Here,
in light of the many variants of spatial cloaking
that now exist --
ordinary cloaks,
carpet cloaks \cite{Li-P-2008prl},
exterior cloaks \cite{Lai-CZC-2009prl},
we extend the possible implementation
to include space-time \emph{carpet} cloaks.
Of course,
cloaking is not the only application of transformation theories,
as evidenced not only by spatial illusion devices
\cite{Lai-NCHXZC-2009prl,Zang-J-2011josab,Chen-C-2010jpd},
but also ideas for space-time illusion devices \cite{Kinsler-M-2014adp-scast}
that appear to trick --
but only trick --
causality \cite{Kinsler-2011ejp}.
Other applications
such as beam control \cite{Heiblum-H-1975jqe,Ginis-TDSV-2012njp}
geodesic lenses
\cite{Sarbort-T-2012jo,Kinsler-TTTK-2012ejp},
hyperbolic materials
\cite{Smolyaninov-2013jo,HypMetaM-2013oe},
and cosmological models
\cite{Faraoni-GN-1999fcp,Kinsler-M-2014adp-scast,Chen-ML-2010oe,Smolyaninov-YBS-2013oe}
are also possible.
Like a spatial carpet cloak,
the space-time ``event'' carpet cloak is one sided and reflective,
and is less singular than a traditional spatial cloaking implementation.
Rather than hide a region of space in perpetuity,
however,
the ``event'' carpet cloak allows the region
to always appear visible,
even though a finite segment of its timeline
is forced to take place in darkness.
This dark period means that events therein
are edited out of visible history.
However,
those missing events are covered up by clever manipulation of the
light signals that communicate to observers
their information about events.
Alternatively,
the transformation can be adapted
to temporarily include extra events,
rather than exclude them;
thus creating a space-time ``{periscope}''.
We might even relax our preference for invisibility devices,
and construct one that appears bigger on the inside than the outside --
a ``tardis''.
In this paper we deliberately use \emph{first order} equations
to model our wave mechanics \cite{Geroch-1996-PDE},
so that a pair of them are needed
(in concert with constitutive or state equations of some kind)
to generate wave behaviour.
If desired,
the first order equations can be substituted inside
one another to give a familiar second order form,
but in fact the first order formulation is both less restrictive
and more general.
Indeed,
we will see that it is suggestive of a generalization
to a \emph{Transformation Mechanics}
valid for any wave equations expressible in such a form,
being also related to a ``transformation media'' concept
addressing the material properties required by T-devices.
Notably,
here we apply the event carpet cloak and {periscope} transformations
to both electromagnetism (EM)
and a simple pressure-acoustics (p-acoustics) model,
demonstrating how specific wave models allow or restrict
the set of possible T-devices.
We introduce the ``wave mechanics'' models
for EM and our p-acoustics
in section \ref{S-waves},
and show how the two can be unified.
This then allows us to unify
transformation optics,
transformation p-acoustics,
and indeed any other compatible wave transformation theory
into a general transformation mechanics.
After this,
we specialize to ground-plane T-devices --
in section \ref{S-carpet} we investigate those
based on the (spatial) carpet cloak,
and in \ref{S-stcarpet} we generalize them into
space-time carpet T-devices.
In section \ref{S-implementation}
we explain the operation of space-time carpet cloaks,
and propose a scheme for implementing one for EM waves,
before concluding in section \ref{S-summary}.
\section{Waves and transformations}\label{S-waves}
In this paper we do not restrict ourselves to
a single type of wave mechanics in which to construct
ground plane T-devices.
Instead,
we will show that a unified procedure is possible,
encompassing both electromagnetism
and a simple pressure-acoustics model;
and indeed any linear wave mechanics that can be described
within a theory containing two second-rank field tensors and
one fourth-rank constitutive tensor.
We will start with the ordinary vector calculus descriptions,
and then show how they can be re-expressed in the tensor form;
and also describe how the tensor descriptions can
be abbreviated into a more accessible matrix form.
This process is of course well known for EM,
but here we use an unconventional tensorization
so that it more easily matches up with the p-acoustic description
and other possible generalisations,
as well as with straightforward matrix algebra versions.
A simpler 1D introduction to this description
can be seen in \cite{Kinsler-M-2014adp-scast}.
After the wave theory descriptions,
we show how transformations intended
to implement specific T-devices
affect the differential equations and constitutive relations.
\subsection{Electromagnetism}\label{SS-waves-optics}
Maxwell's equations \cite{Jackson-ClassicalED} are
often written as a set of vector differential equations
with two pairs of field types,
and two constitutive relations.
These are
~
\begin{align}
\partial_t D(\Vec{r},t)
&=
\grad \times \Vec{H}(\Vec{r},t)
-
\Vec{J}_f(\Vec{r},t)
\label{eqn-Maxwell-dt-D}
\\
\quad
\grad \cdot \Vec{D}
&=
\rho_f
;
\label{eqn-Maxwell-divD}
\\
\partial_t B(\Vec{r},t)
&=
-
\grad \times \Vec{E}(\Vec{r},t)
\label{eqn-Maxwell-dt-B}
,
\\
\grad \cdot \Vec{B}
&=
0,
\label{eqn-Maxwell-divB}
\end{align}
with constitutive relations
~
\begin{align}
\Vec{B} = \Mat{\mu}\Vec{H} - \Mat{\mu} \Mat{\beta}\Vec{E}
&\quad \rightarrow \quad
\Vec{H} = \Mat{\eta}\Vec{B} + \Mat{\beta}\Vec{E}
,
\label{eqn-Maxwell-constit-HB}
\\
\Vec{D} = \Mat{\epsilon}' \Vec{E} + \Mat{\mu} \Mat{\alpha} \Vec{H}
&\quad \rightarrow \quad
\Vec{D} = \Mat{\epsilon} \Vec{E} + \Mat{\alpha} \Vec{B}
\label{eqn-Maxwell-constit-DE}
,
\end{align}
where the permittivity matrix is
$\Mat{\epsilon}' = \Mat{\epsilon} - \Mat{\alpha} \Mat{\mu} \Mat{\beta}$,
and $\Mat{\eta}$ is the inverse of the
more common permeability matrix $\Mat{\mu}$.
Although in many circumstances the left hand (LH) form
is preferred,
for the tensor form discussed next the right hand (RH) form is used instead.
The matrices $\Mat{\alpha}$ and $\Mat{\beta}$
contain information about magnetoelectric coupling,
and follow $\Mat{\beta} = \Mat{\alpha}^\dagger$ \cite{Post-FSEM}.
Since we are interested primarily in freely propagating EM fields,
we will assume that
that there are no free electric charges
(i.e. $\rho_f=0$),
and as is usual,
we have already assumed in eqn. \eqref{eqn-Maxwell-divB}
that there are no magnetic charges or currents.
In tensor form the differential equations
have a remarkably simple form.
In order to emphasize their similarities,
we chose to use the usual $\Tensor{G}$ tensor density
(i.e. ${G}\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$)
but the dual of the $\Tensor{F}$ tensor
(i.e. $\Tensor{\dualF}$,
with components
$\dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}
= \frac{1}{2} F\indices{_{\mu\nu}}
\varepsilon\indices{^{\mu\nu\alpha \beta}}$),
where $\varepsilon\indices{^{\mu\nu\alpha \beta}}$
is the antisymmetrization symbol.
The equations can then be written as
~
\begin{align}
\partial\indices{_{\alpha}}
\dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}
=
0
,
\qquad
\partial\indices{_\beta}
G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}
=
J\indices{^{\alpha}}
.
\label{eqn-Maxwell-tensorial}
\end{align}
Using $\Tensor{G}$ and $\Tensor{\dualF}$ means that
we must then use
a mixed form for the dual $\Tensor{\dualchi}$
of the constitutive tensor $\Tensor{\chi}$
in the constitutive relations,
with
~
\begin{align}
G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}
&=
\frac{1}{2}
\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}
\dualF\indices{^{\gamma\delta}}
.
\end{align}
This use of $\dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$,
$G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$,
and $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$,
both generalizes better
and
maps onto the vector calculus representation more simply.
Note that since $J\indices{^{\alpha}}$
(and its vector counterpart $\Vec{J}$)
is a current density,
this means that $\Tensor{G}$ is also a density.
Likewise,
although the usual EM tensor $\Tensor{F}$ is not a density,
its dual $\Tensor{\dualF}$ is.
Thus
eqns. \eqref{eqn-Maxwell-tensorial}
must be transformed as densities.
Consequently,
the mixed-form
constitutive tensor $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$
is \emph{not} a density.
In terms of generating wave solutions,
the constitutive relations
connect the two tensor differential equations together
into a single system,
and so allow (wave) solutions to be found (i.e. exist).
This is most easily seen using the vector form,
where we can use the constitutive relations to allow us to substitute
one of the Maxwell curl equations into the other,
giving us one of the four \cite{Kinsler-FM-2009ejp}
possible electromagnetic second order wave equations.
Matrix representations of the antisymmetric
$\Tensor{\dualF}$ and $\Tensor{G}$
can be written out in $\MatrixB{t,x,y,z}$ coordinates,
as
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^{\alpha\beta}} }
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & B_x & B_y & B_z \\
-B_x & 0 & - E_z & E_y \\
-B_y & E_z & 0 & - E_x \\
-B_z & - E_y & E_x & 0
\end{bmatrix}
,
\\
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^{\alpha\beta}} }
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & D_x & D_y & D_z \\
-D_x & 0 & H_z & - H_y \\
-D_y & - H_z & 0 & H_x \\
-D_z & H_y & - H_x & 0
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
Here,
the $\partial\indices{_\alpha}$ has become
the row vector
$\MatrixB{ \partial_t, \partial_x, \partial_y, \partial_z }$;
and the current density $J\indices{^\alpha}$ also becomes a row vector.
The constitutive tensor $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$
is rank four so that a direct matrix representation is too big
to display.
Nevertheless, its
permittivity entries convert $E_i$ from $\dualF\indices{^{\gamma\delta}}$
into
$D_i$ from $G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$,
thus they will have the same units as permitivitty
(i.e. as $\epsilon$);
likewise
the permeability entries convert $B_i$ from $\dualF\indices{^{\gamma\delta}}$
into
$H_i$ from $G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$,
thus they will have the same units as inverse permeability
(i.e. as $\mu^{-1} = \eta$).
We can follow the usual method of achieving a convenient matrix-like
compacted representation for $\dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$
and $G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$,
using the fact that each tensor has only 6 unique entries.
For all combinations of indices,
we select out the relevant row and column coordinate pairs
$tx, ty, tz, yz, zx, xy$
in sequence,
so we can write $\dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$
and $G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$
as column vectors $\MatrixB{\dualF\indices{^A}}$ and $\MatrixB{G\indices{^B}}$ in turn,
being
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{\dualF\indices{^A}}
&=
\MatrixM{ ~B_x, ~B_y, ~B_z,-E_x,-E_y,-E_z}^T
,
\\
\MatrixM{G\indices{^B}}
&=
\MatrixM{ ~D_x, ~D_y, ~D_z, ~H_x, ~H_y, ~H_z}^T
.
\end{align}
As a result the rank-4 constitutive tensor
can also be compacted,
and so be represented by a $6 \times 6$ matrix.
Again the first (upper) index $A$ spans the matrix rows,
so that
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ \dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}} }
&=
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
~\Mat{\alpha} & -\Mat{\epsilon} \\
\textrm{----} & \textrm{----} \\
~\Mat{\eta} & -\Mat{\beta} \\
\end{array}
\right]
,
\label{eqn-EM-referencechi}
\end{align}
so that the constitutive relation now has a matrix form,
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^A} }
&=
\MatrixM{ \dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}} }
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^B} }
,
\end{align}
which is particularly convenient for manual calculation.
Normally when using this kind of representation,
the all-upper index tensor $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}}$
is used,
but here we are using the mixed tensor form
$\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$.
This means that our matrix expression looks different;
notably a simple isotropic non-magneto-electric medium,
with a diagonal $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}}$ (matrix)
is now block off-diagonal.
Note that
the matrix $\MatrixB{\dualchi}$ only includes half
of all the allowed elements of $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$,
but the missing elements are all duplicates of included
ones\footnote{This is why no 1/2 appears
in the \emph{matrix} constitutive relations.
However,
we must still account for this doubling up
when evaluating transformations later.}.
However,
each element of $\MatrixB{\dualchi}$ nevertheless independently links
any component of $\MatrixB{F}$ to any other of $\MatrixB{G}$;
there is no duplication,
or \emph{a priori} requirement that certain constitutive parameters
must be equal or otherwise closely related.
As a result,
each constitutive property of an electromagnetic material
can (at least mathematically) be adjusted independently,
meaning that any well specified T-device might be constructed.
\subsection{Pressure Acoustics}\label{SS-waves-acoustic}
Here we introduce a simplified
pressure acoustic (p-acoustic) theory,
equivalent to one
describing linear (perturbative) acoustic waves
on a stationary background fluid;
although it also encompasses many other types of wave
which contain a scalar component.
For linearized acoustic waves \cite{MorseIngard-Acoustics}
in pressure $p$ and fluid velocity $\Vec{u}$,
we have constitutive parameters
$\bar{\kappa}$ (compressibility)
and $\bar{\rho}$ (mass density).
As well as the traditional quantities,
we also specify both a scalar $\Co{\bar{p}}$,
and a momentum density $\Vec{\Co{v}}$,
giving a total of four quantities that in combination
emphasize both the similarities and differences
compared with the description of EM;
this can be compared to e.g. the treatment by Sklan \cite{Sklan-2010pre}.
It also means that
p-acoustics is also a more general model than the comparable
traditional ones,
which typically reduce the equations back down to
$p$ and $\Vec{u}$ --
or even just a second order wave equation in $p$.
Here,
however,
in order to maximize the similarity with the EM notation,
we will substitute the scalar $\Co{\bar{p}}$
with a number density $\Co{p}$,
the fluid velocity $\Vec{u}$
with a velocity density $\Vec{v}$,
and the constitutive parameters become
an inverse energy $\kappa$
and a particle mass $\rho$.
Since the background fluid is stationary,
for small amplitude waves the $(\Vec{v} \cdot \grad) \Vec{v}$ term
that would usually appear in acoustic wave equations
is second order,
and hence can be neglected.
For scalar quantities $\Co{p}$ and $p$,
and vectors $\Vec{\Co{v}}$ and $\Vec{v}$,
the wave equation pair,
here used to model p-acoustics,
is
~
\begin{align}
\partial_t \Co{p} (\Vec{r},t)
&=
-
\grad
\cdot
\Vec{v}(\Vec{r},t)
+
Q_{\Co{p}}(\Vec{r},t)
,
\label{eqn-wave-basic-p}
\\
\partial_t \Vec{\Co{v}} (\Vec{r},t)
&=
-
\grad
p(\Vec{r},t)
+
\Vec{Q}_{\Co{v}}(\Vec{r},t)
,
\label{eqn-wave-basic-P}
\\
\grad \times \Vec{\Co{v}} &= \Vec{\Sigma},
\qquad \qquad
\grad \times \Vec{v} = \Vec{\sigma}
,
\label{eqn-wave-basic-src}
\end{align}
where in simple cases
$\Co{p} = \kappa p$ is a number density related to the pressure $p$
by an inverse energy $\kappa$,
and the momentum density $\Vec{\Co{v}} = \Mat{\rho} \Vec{v}$
is related to the velocity-field density $\Vec{v}$
by a matrix of mass parameters $\Mat{\rho} = \MatrixB{\rho\indices{^i_j}}$.
There are two allowed types of source,
a particle number (density) source $Q_{\Co{p}}$,
and a momentum (density) source $\Vec{Q}_{\Co{v}}$.
The differential equation eqn. \eqref{eqn-wave-basic-p}
is related to the conservation of particle number
(and conservation of mass)
in a microscopic acoustic model,
and eqn. \eqref{eqn-wave-basic-P}
ensures conservation of momentum.
The third equation shows the p-acoustics analogue
of charge,
and just as for the EM case,
where we are interested primarily in freely propagating fields,
we set these to zero
($\Vec{\Sigma}=0, ~\Vec{\sigma}=0$).
The most general constitutive relations for
coupling between the scalar and vector fields,
can be written
~
\begin{align}
\Co{p} = \kappa^{-1} p - \kappa^{-1}\Vec{\alpha} \cdot \Vec{v}
&\quad \rightarrow \quad
{p} = \kappa \Co{p} + \Vec{\alpha} \cdot \Vec{v}
\label{eqn-pacoustic-constit-Pp}
\\
\Vec{\Co{v}} = \Vec{\beta} \kappa^{-1} p + \Mat{\rho}' \cdot \Vec{v}
&\quad \rightarrow \quad
\Vec{\Co{v}} = \Vec{\beta} P + \Mat{\rho} \cdot \Vec{v}
\label{eqn-pacoustic-constit-Vv}
,
\end{align}
where
$\Mat{\rho} \cdot \Vec{v}
= \Mat{\rho}' \cdot \Vec{v}
+ \Vec{\beta} (\Vec{\alpha} \cdot \Vec{v})/\kappa$.
Although in many circumstances the first (LH) form
might be used,
for the tensor form discussed next the second (RH) form is instead preferred.
The vector $\Vec{\alpha}$
parameterizes some kind of
a velocity $\rightarrow$ pressure coupling,
and $\Vec{\beta}$ parameterizes
a pressure $\rightarrow$ momentum density coupling.
Here the physical meanings of $\Vec{v}, ~\Vec{\Co{v}}$,
and $p, ~\Co{p}$
mean that both eqn. \eqref{eqn-wave-basic-p}
\eqref{eqn-wave-basic-P}
transform like densities,
but the constitutive relations
eqns. \eqref{eqn-pacoustic-constit-Pp}, \eqref{eqn-pacoustic-constit-Vv}
do not --
just as for EM.
Just as for EM,
we can now embed $\Co{p}, \Vec{v}$
into a tensor density,
which to ensure compatible notation we will call
$\Tensor{\dualF}$,
with contravariant components $\dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$.
We also embed the density fields
$p, \Vec{\Co{v}}$ into a tensor density $\Tensor{G}$
with components $G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$;
and populate a constitutive tensor $\dualchi$
with $\kappa, \Mat{\rho}, \Vec{\alpha}, \Vec{\beta}$
appropriately.
The p-acoustic differential equations now appear
in the same form as for EM,
being
~
\begin{align}
\partial\indices{_\alpha}
\dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}
=
J\indices{^{\beta}}
,
\qquad
\partial\indices{_\beta}
G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}
=
K\indices{^{\alpha}}
,
\end{align}
with source terms $J\indices{^\alpha}, K\indices{^\alpha}$.
The constitutive relations are
~
\begin{align}
G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}
&=
\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}
\dualF\indices{^{\gamma\delta}}
.
\end{align}
Here the only differences from EM are
the internal structure --
how the tensors are populated --
and no factor of one half in the constitutive relations.
Again,
the $\Tensor{G}$ and $\Tensor{\dualF}$ tensor densities
and their differential equation must transform like densities,
but the constitutive tensor $\Tensor{\dualchi}$ does not.
In $\MatrixB{t, x, y, z}$ coordinates
the tensor $\dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$
and
density tensor $G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$
can be written out
using field matrices
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^{\alpha \beta}} }
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\Co{p} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
~ v_x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
~ v_y & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
~ v_z & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{bmatrix}
,
\quad
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}} }
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
~\Co{v}_x & p & 0 & 0 \\
~\Co{v}_y & 0 & p & 0 \\
~\Co{v}_z & 0 & 0 & p \\
\end{bmatrix}
,
\end{align}
with
source terms $J^0 = Q_{\Co{p}}$
and $\Vec{K} = \MatrixB{K^i} = \Vec{Q}_{\Co{v}}$.
However,
both $\Vec{J} = \MatrixB{J^i} = 0$
and $K^0 = 0$.
Here the constitutive tensor $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$
relates the $P$ element from $\dualF\indices{^{\gamma\delta}}$
to the $p$ from $G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$,
and is thus $\sim \kappa$;
likewise the $v_i$ elements from $\dualF\indices{^{\gamma\delta}}$
are related to $\Co{v}_i$ from $G\indices{^{\alpha \beta}}$
by $\sim \rho$.
Note,
however,
that while this conveniently encodes the model of pressure acoustics
we consider here,
it is not the most general that might be formulated.
The most general theory would be to consider field tensors
that are symmetric,
to contrast with the EM representation using antisymmetric field tensors.
This would give not two sets of four amplitudes
(i.e. $P$ and $v_i$, with $p$ and $V_i$),
but two sets of 10 amplitudes.
However,
we leave discussion of such details to a later work;
including describing how pentamode acoustics \cite{Norris-2008rspa}
can be represented in this way.
As with EM,
the tensor constitutive representation can be compacted.
Here we use the fact that the elements $G^{xx}$, $G^{yy}$ and $G^{zz}$
are all just $p$,
and so write a compact vector for $\Tensor{G}$ using this knowledge;
similarly for $\Tensor{\dualF}$.
The
resulting field column vectors
$\MatrixB{G\indices{^A}}$, $\MatrixB{\dualF\indices{^B}}$
are
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^A} }
&=
\MatrixM{ p, \Co{v}_x, \Co{v}_y, \Co{v}_z }^T
\label{eqn-pAcou-referenceG-short}
\\
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^B} }
&=
\MatrixM{ \Co{p}, v_x, v_y, v_z }^T
.
\label{eqn-pAcou-referenceF-again}
\end{align}
The matrix representation of $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$
has the upper index denoting rows,
and the lower index denoting columns,
so that the $4 \times 4$ constitutive matrix is
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ \dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}} }
=
\MatrixM{ \dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}} }
&=
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
\kappa & \Vec{\alpha}^T \\
\textrm{------} & \textrm{------} \\
\Vec{\beta} & \Mat{\rho} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\label{eqn-pAcou-referencechi-short}
\end{align}
the matrix constitutive relation is
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^A} }
&=
\MatrixM{ \dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}} }
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^B} }
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
G^{ww} \\
G^{xt} \\
G^{yt} \\
G^{zt}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
~\kappa & ~\alpha_x & ~\alpha_y & ~\alpha_z \\
~\beta_x & ~\rho_{xx} & ~\rho_{xy} & ~\rho_{xz} \\
~\beta_x & ~\rho_{yx} & ~\rho_{yy} & ~\rho_{yz} \\
~\beta_x & ~\rho_{zx} & ~\rho_{zy} & ~\rho_{zz}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\dualF^{tt} \\
\dualF^{xt} \\
\dualF^{yt} \\
\dualF^{zt}
\end{bmatrix}
.
\label{eqn-pAcou-referenceConstEq-short}
\end{align}
Note that we \emph{must} remember that
the $G^{ww}$ element can be freely substituted
by any of $G^{xx}$, $G^{yy}$ or $G^{zz}$;
this acts as an implicit constraint on allowed transformations,
which are only allowed to transform
$x$, $y$, and $z$ equivalently\footnote{A
more explicit version of the $\MatrixB{G\indices{^A}}$ vector might
have six elements,
the first three of which would represent $G^{xx}$, $G^{yy}$ or $G^{zz}$
in turn,
but all being equal to $p$;
and with $\MatrixB{\dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}}}$ being a $6 \times 4$ matrix,
the top three rows being identical.
We must take care to allow for this multiplicity
when transforming $\MatrixB{G\indices{^A}}$.}.
{In a scalar wave theory such as p-acoustics,
all non-isotropic \emph{wave} behaviour has to
derive from the constitutive parameters
$\Vec{\alpha}$, $\Vec{\beta}$, or $\Mat{\rho}$,
and {not} from a transformation.}
\subsection{Transformations}\label{S-transformations}
With both of our preferred sorts of waves
having been expressed using the same mathematical machinery,
we can now investigate the effect of coordinate transformation
in either case simultaneously,
leaving any more specific details to a later stage.
Deforming transformations
(or, technically, diffeomorphisms \cite{Nakahara-GTP})
of the coordinates
(and hence of the matrix representations of the field
and constitutive tensors)
are simple to handle.
Transformations
between the original coordinates $x^\alpha$
and new ones $x^{\alpha'}$
are easily written down as
~
\begin{align}
T\indices{^{{\alpha}'}_{{\alpha}}}
&=
\MatrixM{
\frac{\partial {x^{\alpha'}}}{\partial {x^\alpha}}
}
,
\end{align}
so that the field density tensors
$\Tensor{G}$ and $\Tensor{F}$ transform as
~
\begin{align}
G\indices{^{\alpha'\beta'}}
&=
{\Delta}^{-1}
T\indices{^{{\alpha}'}_{{\alpha}}}
T\indices{^{{\beta}'}_{{\beta}}}
G\indices{^{\alpha\beta}}
\quad=
L\indices{^{\alpha'}_{\alpha}^{\beta'}_{\beta}}
G\indices{^{\alpha\beta}}
,
\\
\dualF\indices{^{\gamma'\delta'}}
&=
{\Delta}^{-1}
T\indices{^{\gamma}_{\gamma'}}
T\indices{^{\delta}_{\delta'}}
\dualF\indices{^{\gamma\delta}}
\quad=
M\indices{^{\gamma}_{\gamma'}^{\delta}_{\delta'}}
\dualF\indices{^{\gamma\delta}}
.
\end{align}
The factor $\Delta = \left|\det (T)\right|$ occurs because
the fields are represented by tensor \emph{densities}
rather than a pure tensor.
Using the modulus of the determinant ensures that
parity transformations changing the handedness
still preserve positive volumes.
Now we can address the transformation
of the constitutive tensor $\Tensor{\dualchi}$.
If for EM we set $a=2$,
and for p-Acoustics we set $a=1$,
then
~
\begin{align}
G\indices{^{\alpha'\beta'}}
&=
\frac{1}{a}
\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha'\beta'}_{\gamma'\delta'}}
\dualF\indices{^{\gamma'\delta'}}
,
\end{align}
where
~
\begin{align}
\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha'\beta'}_{\gamma'\delta'}}
&=
L\indices{^{\alpha'}_{\alpha}^{\beta'}_{\beta}}
~
\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}}
~
M\indices{^{\mu}_{\gamma'}^{\nu}_{\delta'}}
,\\
L\indices{^{\alpha'}_{\alpha}^{\beta'}_{\beta}}
&=
{\Delta}^{-1}
T\indices{^{\alpha'}_{\alpha}}
T\indices{^{\beta'}_{\beta}}
,
\\
M\indices{^{\gamma}_{\gamma'}^{\delta}_{\delta'}}
&=
T\indices{^{\gamma}_{\gamma'}}
T\indices{^{\delta}_{\delta'}}
.
\end{align}
Here we have seen how coordinate transformations can be
actualized by seeing how they affect the constitutive tensor.
However,
there is also another part to the wave mechanics --
the differential equations.
If our coordinate transformation is not just a deformation
of our existing \emph{Cartesian} coordinate system,
but e.g. a change to cylindrical or polar coordinates,
then the wave equations change their form.
Although such radical coordinate conversions can be very useful,
they are a re-parameterization of the host space-time,
and not a straightforward deformation:
hence the appearance of extra factors of $r$ when converting
from Cartesians to cylindrical coordinates.
For brevity,
we do not address this case here,
and focus instead on the deforming transformations
used to produce particular T-devices.
Since the two field tensors might be compacted differently,
as happens for p-acoustics,
we need to allow for
distinct compacted deformation matrices,
one for $\Tensor{\dualF}$,
and another for $\Tensor{G}$.
The compact deformation matrix equation
for the vector $\MatrixB{\dualF^{B}}$
depends on a compacted $M\indices{^{\alpha'}_{\alpha}^{\beta'}_{\beta}}$,
and is
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{\dualF\indices{^{B'}}}
&=
\MatrixM{M\indices{^{B'}_{B}}}
\MatrixM{\dualF\indices{^{B}}}
,
\end{align}
but for the $\MatrixB{G\indices{^{A}}}$ we instead compact
$L\indices{^{\alpha'}_{\alpha}^{\beta'}_{\beta}}$
to get
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{G\indices{^{A'}}}
&=
\MatrixM{L\indices{^{A'}_{A}}}
\MatrixM{G\indices{^{A}}}
.
\end{align}
The matrix representation
of $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$
also transforms,
and is
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{\dualchi'}
=
\MatrixM{\dualchi\indices{^{A'}_{B'}}}
&=
\MatrixM{L\indices{^{A'}_A}}
\MatrixM{\dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}}}
\MatrixM{M\indices{^{B'}_B}}^{-1}
.
\end{align}
So if we want to physically implement the transformation $T$
as a T-device,
for any possible states of the field tensors $\Tensor{\dualF}$ and $\Tensor{G}$,
we need to change the host material so that
its constitutive makeup is not simply the reference value $\dualchi$,
but that of the transformed constitutive makeup $\dualchi'$.
In what follows we will implement this for both
purely spatial and the more exotic space-time cloaks
in a ground-plane reference geometry.
In EM
we would typically start (as we do below)
with a reference material and solution
based on a vacuum or a uniform static non-dispersive refractive index
and -- for carpet T-devices --
a light reflective surface.
For acoustics we would pick a stationary
and featureless elastic medium or fluid
with an acoustically reflective surface.
After applying the deformation to the reference constitutive parameters,
we will have determined how the desired alterations
to the wave mechanics (the field propagation)
can be induced by appropriate changes to the propagation medium.
\section{Spatial Carpet T-devices}\label{S-carpet}
``Carpet'' or ground-plane transformation devices
are essentially surfaces that have been modified;
in their original conception they were engineered mirrors
that appeared to give simple reflections but
were actually hiding some predefined region \cite{Li-P-2008prl}.
More generally,
though,
it is not required for the surface to be a mirror;
the transformation respecifies the properties inside
a region where the light propagates,
not what happens outside that region.
To make it clearer how our general prescription can be applied,
we will first apply it to the familiar spatial carpet cloak,
although generalized to incorporate other related T-devices.
We start with a planar carpet that lies flat on the $y-z$ plane
at $x=0$,
and decide to transform a localized region of space --
the cloak ``halo'' --
reaching no higher than $x=-H$ above the plane
and no further than $y=\pm \Lambda$ sideways;
as shown by the shaded regions in Fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Sray}.
Firstly,
we can choose to restrict the space probed by incoming waves
to that between the maximum height $H$
and some lower height $x=h$,
but transform the material so that the \emph{apparent}
space is expanded and extends all the way from $x=0$ to $x=-H$.
This T-device is the usual \textbf{carpet cloak}
with an offset $h$ and scaling $R=(H-h)/H < 1$.
See Fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Sray}(a).
Secondly,
we might expand the actual space probed by incoming waves
to that between the maximum height $H$
and to a penetration depth below the plane of $x=h$,
but transform the material to shrink the \emph{apparent} space
to only that between $x=0$ to $x=-H$.
This T-device is a cloaked ``\textbf{{periscope}}''
with a negative offset $h<0$ and scaling $R=(H-h)/H > 1$.
See Fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Sray}(b),
where we see that the {periscope}
allows an observer to remain \emph{below} the ground plane
whilst allowing them an unrestricted view of their surroundings,
just as if they were exposed above it.
Thirdly,
we can define the actual space probed by incoming waves to be just the same
as if there were a flat plane,
but nevertheless transform the material so that the \emph{apparent}
space extends below the plane by $h$.
This T-device might be called a \textbf{tardis},
since it presents the illusion that it
contains a space bigger than it is on the outside;
it uses an offset $h>0$ and scaling $R=(H-h)/H < 1$.
Its diagram is shown in fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Sray}(c),
where the transformation is the reverse of that for the {periscope},
but in appearance it acts like a carpet cloak for when
the observer expects to see a \emph{dimple} on the plane.
Lastly,
we could define the space probed by incoming waves to be just the same
as if there were a flat plane,
but nevertheless transform the material so that the \emph{apparent}
space was shrunk back as if there were a bump.
This T-device might be called an \textbf{anti-tardis},
but for brevity we will not discuss such a device here.
Its diagram is not shown on fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Sray},
but note that its transformation is the reverse of that for the carpet cloak
but in appearance it would act like a {periscope} for when
the observer expects to see a \emph{bump} on the plane.
The deformation that stretches a uniform medium
(un-primed coordinates) into
these T-device designs (primed coordinates)
is applied (only) inside the shaded halo regions
on fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Sray},
and deforms only $x$ so that
~
\begin{align}
t' &= t,
\\
x' &= R x - C \frac{\Lambda - y.\sgn(y)}{\Lambda} h
\nonumber
\\
&= R x - C h + r s y,
\label{eqn-scarpet-deform}
\\
y' &= y,
\\
z' &= z
,
\end{align}
where the ratio of actual depth ($H-h$)
to apparent depth ($H$)
is $R=(H-h)/H$,
and $r=Ch/\Lambda$,
and $s=\sgn(y)$.
Here $C$ is set to one
for the carpet cloak and {periscope},
but for the tardis (where $R>1$)
it needs to be $C=R$.
Using a general viewpoint applicable to any of these three T-devices,
we see that
$R<1$ apparently expands the wave-accessible space,
as needed for a cloak or tardis,
whilst $R>1$ compresses it,
as needed for a {periscope} or anti-tardis.
The effect of this deformation from eqn. \eqref{eqn-scarpet-deform}
is given
by $T\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}$,
which specifies the differential relationships between the
primed and un-primed coordinates,
where $\alpha \in \{ t,x,y,z \}$ and $\alpha' \in \{ t',x',y',z' \}$.
If we let rows span the first (upper) index,
and columns the second (lower) index,
then
~
\begin{align}
T\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}
&=
\MatrixM{
\frac{\partial x^{\alpha'}}{\partial x^\alpha}
}
&=&
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
~0~ & ~R~ & rs & ~0~ \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
,
\end{align}
and note that $\det (T\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}) = R$.
For some column 4-vector $V^\alpha$,
we have that
~
\begin{align}
V\indices{^{\alpha '}}
&=
T\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}
V\indices{^{\alpha}},
\\
\textrm{i.e.}\qquad
\begin{bmatrix}
V\indices{^{t'}} \\
V\indices{^{x'}} \\
V\indices{^{y'}} \\
V\indices{^{z'}}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
~0~ & ~R~ & rs & ~0~ \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
V\indices{^t} \\
V\indices{^x} \\
V\indices{^y} \\
V\indices{^z}
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.30\columnwidth]{fig-01a-carpet-Sray}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.30\columnwidth]{fig-01b-peephole-Sray}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.30\columnwidth]{fig-01c-tardis-Sray}
\caption{
The (a) spatial carpet cloak,
(b) spatial {periscope},
(c) spatial tardis.
Continuous lines show the actual ray trajectories,
dotted lines the apparent (illusory) ray trajectories.
The {periscope} (b) needs to be embedded in a high-index
host medium to allow the internal rays to cover the
greater distance to the back surface
than it is to the apparent surface.
}
\label{fig-carpet-Sray}
\end{figure}
It is worth noting that inside the carpet cloak halo --
where the cloak affects the path of the rays,
but not inside the cloak core where objects are hidden,
the deformation consists solely of a constant rescaling of $x$;
the rest of the cloak design is defined by its spatial layout,
reversed properties in the upper and lower halves,
and its boundaries.
\subsection{EM carpets}\label{SS-carpet-EM}
We expressed the EM constitutive tensor
using a compact $6 \times 6$ matrix form,
therefore we also use compact $6 \times 6$
deformation (transformation) matrices $\MatrixB{L}, \MatrixB{M}$,
being versions of the product $L\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}
L\indices{^{\beta '}_{\beta}}$.
Note that the use of the unconventional choice
of (the dual) $\dualF\indices{^{\alpha\beta}}$
and (the mixed) $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$
allows us to calculate using straightforward matrix multiplication.
The
two dimensional matrix representation
of the transformation matrix,
as compressed for EM,
is best written as an explicit transformation between
the field 6-vectors to avoid error.
Thus the compressed column 6-vector $\MatrixB{G\indices{^{A}}}$
is transformed using\footnote{Remember that for EM,
each element of $\MatrixB{L}$
not only includes the obvious
contributions to $G\indices{^{{\alpha'}{\beta'}}}$
from $G\indices{^{\alpha\beta}}$,
but also has a sign-flipped one from $G\indices{^{\beta\alpha}}$.
This accounts for the $-rs$ entry in $\MatrixB{L}$.}
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^{A'}} }
&=
\MatrixM{ L\indices{^{A'}_{A}} }
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^{A}} }
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
G\indices{^{t'x'}} \\
G\indices{^{t'y'}} \\
G\indices{^{t'z'}} \\
G\indices{^{y'z'}} \\
G\indices{^{z'x'}} \\
G\indices{^{x'y'}}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\frac{1}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
R & +rs & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -rs & R & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & R
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
G\indices{^{tx}} \\
G\indices{^{ty}} \\
G\indices{^{tz}} \\
G\indices{^{yz}} \\
G\indices{^{zx}} \\
G\indices{^{xy}}
\end{bmatrix}
,
\end{align}
where the matrix $\MatrixB{M}$ that transforms $\MatrixB{\dualF^{B}}$
is the same.
To transform $\MatrixB{\dualchi}$,
we need the inverse of $\MatrixB{M}$,
which is
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ M\indices{^{A'}_{A}} }^{-1}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
~1~ & -rs & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ \\
0 & R & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & R & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & R & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & +rs & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
Starting from simple uniform background medium
described only by $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ --
perhaps a vacuum with $\epsilon=\epsilon_0$ and $\mu=\mu_0$ --
the transformed constitutive matrix
defining the EM carpet T-device is then
~
\begin{align}
&
\MatrixM{\dualchi\indices{^{A'}_{B'}}}
=
\MatrixM{ L\indices{^{A'}_{A}} }
\MatrixM{ \dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}} }
\MatrixM{ M\indices{^{B'}_{B}} }^{-1}
\\
&=
\frac{\epsilon}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ &-(R^2+r^2) & -rs & 0 \\
~0~ & ~0~ & 0 & -rs & 1 & 0 \\
~0~ & 0 & ~0~ & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
~c^2 & -rs c^2 & ~0~ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-rs c^2 & c^2 (R^2+r^2)& ~0~ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
~0~ & ~0~ & R^2 c^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
So we see a need for birefringence,
as defined by the off-diagonal permittivity elements $-\epsilon rs/R$,
and the off-diagonal permeability contributions $-\epsilon rs c^2/R$.
To get a $\mu$ matrix,
we need to invert the $\eta$ sub-matrix:
~
\begin{align}
[\mu]
=
\begin{bmatrix}
1/R & -rs/R & ~0~ \\
-rs/R & 1+r^2/R & ~0~ \\
~0~ & ~0~ & R \\
\end{bmatrix}^{-1}
&=
\frac{1}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
R^2+r^2 & +rs & ~0~ \\
+rs & ~1~ & ~0~ \\
~0~ & ~0~ & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
Note how the structure of the (sub)matrix $\MatrixB{\mu}$
matches up with that of the (sub)matrix $\MatrixB{\epsilon}$,
as we would expect as our transformation process
demands a preservation of impedance matching.
Numerical examples indicating how the EM fields are
distorted by the different carpet T-devices
are shown on fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Sray-FDTD}.
As is well known,
the requirement for impedance matching can be relaxed.
Since the simple nature of the transformation
of eqn. \eqref{eqn-scarpet-deform}
leads to a constitutive matrix with constant values,
this means that these carpet devices can be made
for a specified polarization
using the natural birefringence
of two correctly shaped and oriented pieces of calcite --
as already demonstrated for a carpet cloak
\cite{Chen-LZJPZ-2011nc,Zhang-LLB-2011prl}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.32\columnwidth]{fig-02a-image-dprism-ez-t}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.32\columnwidth]{fig-02b-image-dpeephole-ez-t}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.32\columnwidth]{fig-02c-image-dtardis-ez-t}
\caption{
EM finite difference time domain (FDTD) snapshots of
the (a) spatial carpet cloak,
(b) spatial {periscope},
(c) spatial tardis.
The cloak and {periscope} frames (a,b)
show a burst of exactly perpendicular plane waves
just as the leading edge hits the
mirror surface.
This makes it clear how the cloaking transformation
has ensured the wavefront conforms perfectly to the mirror profile.
In (c),
we see the burst of plane waves \emph{after} reflection,
where the extra virtual space created by the tardis
transformation has imprinted a dent on the wavefront.
}
\label{fig-carpet-Sray-FDTD}
\end{figure}
\subsection{p-Acoustics carpets}\label{SS-carpet-pA}
For p-acoustic transformations,
we need two compactified transformation matrices,
with correctly arranged ordering.
This is less straightforward than in EM,
where rows and columns are indexed by the same list of coordinate pairs.
The vector $\MatrixB{G\indices{^A}}$
is most compactly indexed by $ww,xt,yt,zt$,
where ``$w$'' stands in for one of $x, y$ or $z$.
Where this means that some elements may have multiple values,
we will indicate this using (e.g.) $\{R,1,1\}$
for $x$, $y$, and $z$ choices respectively.
To transform this we need $\MatrixB{L\indices{^{A'}_A}}$,
which is\footnote{Since $w$ represents multiple coordinate choices,
the $w'w'=x'x'$ element of $\MatrixB{L}$,
i.e. $L\indices{^{w'w'}_{ww}} = R^2+r^2$,
results from a sum over all possible $ww \in \{xx,yy,zz\}$,
in combination with $G\indices{^{xx}}=G\indices{^{yy}}=p$.}
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^{A'}} }
&=
\MatrixM{ L\indices{^{A'}_{A}} }
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^{A}} }
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
G\indices{^{w'w'}} \\
G\indices{^{x't'}} \\
G\indices{^{y't'}} \\
G\indices{^{z't'}}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\frac{1}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
\{R^2+r^2,1,1\} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & R & rs & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
G\indices{^{ww}} \\
G\indices{^{xt}} \\
G\indices{^{yt}} \\
G\indices{^{zt}}
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
To transform $\MatrixB{\dualF\indices{^B}}$,
compactly indexed by $tt, xt, yt, zt$,
we need $\MatrixB{M\indices{^{B'}_B}}$
(and also its inverse),
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^{B'}} }
&=
\MatrixM{ M\indices{^{B'}_{B}} }
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^{B}} }
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
F\indices{^{t't'}} \\
F\indices{^{x't'}} \\
F\indices{^{y't'}} \\
F\indices{^{z't'}}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\frac{1}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & R & rs & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
F\indices{^{tt}} \\
F\indices{^{xt}} \\
F\indices{^{yt}} \\
F\indices{^{zt}}
\end{bmatrix}
,
\end{align}
Starting from the simplest acoustic medium,
i.e. one for which $\Vec{\alpha}=\Vec{\beta}=\Vec{0}$
and $\Mat{\rho} \rightarrow \rho$,
the transformed constitutive matrix
defining the p-acoustic carpet T-device is then
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{\dualchi\indices{^{A'}_{B'}}}
&=
\MatrixM{L\indices{^{A'}_{A}}}
\MatrixM{\dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}}}
\MatrixM{M\indices{^{B'}_{B}}}^{-1}
\\
&=
\rho
\begin{bmatrix}
\{(R^2+r^2),1,1\}c^2 & ~~0~~ & ~~0~~ & ~~0~~ \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
,
\end{align}
since $c^2 = \kappa/\rho$.
Here we can immediately see that there is no way
of constructing a general carpet cloak
(or related T-device) with p-acoustic waves.
This is because the
transformed energy parameter $\kappa'$
is required to have mutually incompatible values:
i.e. both $(R^2+r^2)\rho c^2$ and $\rho c^2$ at the same time!
We can avoid this incompatibility
by restricting ourselves to only 1D $x$-axis propagation,
so that the waves need experience only one of these $\kappa'$ values.
Although such a 1D implementation might technically match
the original conception of a carpet cloak,
it is merely a static waveguide that appears longer than it really is.
However,
as we will see below,
a linear \emph{space-time} carpet T-device can be more interesting.
\section{Space-time carpet T-devices}\label{S-stcarpet}
The basic design used here is geometrically related
to that described above,
except that one of the two spatial coordinates
is replaced by the time coordinate.
This means that waves are not diverted around the event
in a spatial sense,
instead the leading waves
(in an optical cloak,
the ``illumination'')
are sped up,
and the latter slowed down,
creating a ``dark'' wave-free interval in which timed events are obscured
\cite{McCall-FKB-2011jo,Kinsler-M-2014adp-scast}.
After the event,
the leading part of the illumination (whether sound or light) is slowed,
and the latter sped up until the initial uniform,
seamless illumination has been perfectly reconstructed.
For an acoustics implementation,
we should think of sonar-using creatures such as bats or dolphins
who rely on incoming sound waves to locate and observe events;
an acoustic event cloak creates a quiet region
from which no sound reflections can be heard,
all without leaving any tell-tale distortion of
either the background soundscape or deliberate sonar ``pings''.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.32\columnwidth]{fig-03a-carpet-Tray}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.32\columnwidth]{fig-03b-peephole-Tray}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.32\columnwidth]{fig-03c-tardis-Tray}
\caption{
The (a) space-time ``event'' carpet cloak,
(b) space-time {periscope},
(c) space-time tardis.
Continuous lines show the actual ray trajectories,
dotted lines the apparent (illusory) ray trajectories.
The {periscope} (b) needs to be embedded in a high-index
host medium to allow the internal rays to cover the
greater distance to the back surface
than it is to the apparent surface.
For the carpet cloak diagram (a),
we have exaggerated the transformation so that
some rays are temporarily stopped --
but note that any realistic implementation
will involve much weaker speed modulations.
}
\label{fig-carpet-Tray}
\end{figure}
We assume a carpet that lies flat on the $y-z$ plane
at $x=0$,
and decide to cloak a region $h$ deep and $\tau$ in duration,
with the cloak's influence extending out as far as $H+h$ above the carpet.
The deformation that stretches a uniform and static medium
(un-primed coordinates) into
these T-device designs (primed coordinates)
is applied (only) inside the shaded ``halo'' regions
on fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Tray},
and deforms only $x$ so that
~
\begin{align}
t' &= t,
\\
x' &= \frac{H-h}{H} x - C \frac{\tau - t.\sgn(t)}{\tau} h
\nonumber
\\
&= R x - C h + r s t,
\label{eqn-tcarpet-deform}
\\
y' &= y,
\\
z' &= z
,
\end{align}
where $R=(H-h)/H$ is the ratio of actual depth to apparent depth,
and now $r=Ch/\tau$,
and $s=\sgn(t)$.
Here C is usually set to one;
except for the space-time tardis,
where it is $R$.
As in the spatial case,
as well as the cloak shown on Fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Tray}(a),
this deformation can also represent other T-devices,
such as
a \emph{space-time {periscope}},
as shown on Fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Tray}(b),
and a \emph{space-time tardis},
as shown on Fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Tray}(c),
or perhaps even a {space-time anti-tardis}.
The space-time {periscope}
allows an observer to remain always \emph{below} the ground plane
whilst temporarily allowing them an unrestricted view of their surroundings,
just as if they briefly put their head out above it;
it is specified using $h<0$.
Thus,
for example,
a sensor can be briefly exposed to take readings
whilst usually remaining in shelter below the plane.
The tardis gives the onlooker the temporary impression of a space
bigger than it actually is,
with the ground plane appearing to temporarily recede,
this requires that $C=R$.
Although in this carpet implementation the space-time tardis
is the same as a space-time carpet cloak for a dimple,
in a non-carpet radial implementation
the visual effect is decidedly more startling!
Using a general viewpoint applicable to any of these three T-devices,
we see that $H$ is the apparent depth detectable by an observer,
positive-valued $h$ apparently expands the accessible space,
and negative $h$ apparently shrinks it.
To ensure that the deformed solution includes no
waves travelling faster than the maximum wave speed $c$,
we also specify that the aspect ratio $(H-h)/c\tau$
is less than one.
As seen on fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Tray}(a),
this deformation pushes a small triangular space-time region --
the hidden cloaked region --
of the wave illumination away from the carpet plane,
However,
note that if \emph{only} the spatial extent is considered,
the entire ground plane itself moves out and then back
to temporarily hide a slab of space.
Despite all this trickery,
as the (incoming) waves approach the carpet plane from the (below) left,
any deviations from ordinary straight-line propagation
that occur within the shaded region
are compensated for,
so that when (outgoing) waves emerge travelling towards the (top) left,
they appear to have reflected from a flat carpet plane.
Note that the cloaking device reverses the speed changes
at $t=0$:
on the figure,
at early times $t<0$,
incoming waves are slowed or stopped and outgoing waves are unaffected,
but at late times $t>0$,
it is the outgoing waves that are slowed or stopped,
with incoming waves travelling normally.
For the practical situation,
i.e. cloaks where $(H-h)>h$,
waves are not stopped but slowed.
The effect of this deformation is given
by the transformation matrix
$T\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}$,
which specifies the differential relationships
between the deformed (primed)
and reference (unprimed) coordinates,
where $\alpha \in \{ t,x,y,z \}$ and $\alpha' \in \{ t',x',y',z' \}$.
If we let rows span the first (upper) index,
and columns the second (lower) index,
then
~
\begin{align}
T\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}
&=
\MatrixM{
\frac{\partial x^{\alpha'}}{\partial x^\alpha}
}
\quad =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
rs & R & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
,
\end{align}
and note that $\det (T\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}) = R$.
For some column 4-vector $V^\alpha$,
we have that
~
\begin{align}
V\indices{^{\alpha '}}
&=
T\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}
V\indices{^{\alpha}}
,
\\
\textrm{i.e.} \qquad
\begin{bmatrix}
V\indices{^{t'}} \\
V\indices{^{x'}} \\
V\indices{^{y'}} \\
V\indices{^{z'}}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
rs & R & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
V\indices{^t} \\
V\indices{^x} \\
V\indices{^y} \\
V\indices{^z}
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
Just as for the spatial carpet T-devices
in section \ref{S-carpet},
the deformation consists solely of a constant rescaling of $x$
and so the transformed constitutive parameters again have fixed values.
However,
in contrast to the spatial case,
in these space-time T-devices
the constitutive parameters toggle between fixed values,
and boundaries \emph{move}.
This will be discussed in section \ref{S-implementation}.
\subsection{EM event carpets}\label{SS-stcarpet-EM}
We expressed the EM constitutive tensor
using a compact $6 \times 6$ matrix form,
therefore we also use compact $6 \times 6$
deformation (transformation) matrices $\MatrixB{L}, \MatrixB{M}$,
being versions of the product $L\indices{^{\alpha '}_{\alpha}}
L\indices{^{\beta '}_{\beta}}$.
Note that the use of the unconventional choice
of (the dual) $\dualF\indices{^{\alpha\beta}}$
and (the mixed) $\dualchi\indices{^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}}$
allows us to calculate using straightforward matrix multiplication.
The two dimensional matrix representation of the transformation matrix,
as compressed for EM,
is best written as an explicit transformation between the field 6-vectors
to avoid error.
The compressed column 6-vector $\MatrixB{G\indices{^A}}$
is transformed using\footnote{Remember that for EM,
each element of $\MatrixB{L}$
not only includes the obvious
contributions to
$G\indices{^{{\alpha'}{\beta'}}}$ from $G\indices{^{\alpha\beta}}$,
but also has a sign-flipped one from $G\indices{^{\beta\alpha}}$.}
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{G\indices{^{A'}}}
&=
\MatrixM{L\indices{^{A'}_{A}}}
\MatrixM{G\indices{^{A}}}
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
G\indices{^{t'x'}} \\
G\indices{^{t'y'}} \\
G\indices{^{t'z'}} \\
G\indices{^{y'z'}} \\
G\indices{^{z'x'}} \\
G\indices{^{x'y'}}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\frac{1}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
~R~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -rs & 0 & R & 0 \\
0 & +rs & 0 & 0 & 0 & R
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
G\indices{^{tx}} \\
G\indices{^{ty}} \\
G\indices{^{tz}} \\
G\indices{^{yz}} \\
G\indices{^{zx}} \\
G\indices{^{xy}}
\end{bmatrix}
,
\end{align}
and
where the matrix $\MatrixB{M}$ that transforms $\MatrixB{\dualF^{B}}$
is the same.
To transform $\MatrixB{\dualchi}$,
we need the inverse of $\MatrixB{M}$,
which is
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{M\indices{^{B'}_{B}}}^{-1}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
~1~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ \\
0 & R & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & R & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & R & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & +rs & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & -rs & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
Starting from simple background medium
described only by scalar $\epsilon$ and $\mu$,
the transformed constitutive matrix
defining the EM space-time carpet T-device is then
~
\begin{align}
& \MatrixM{\dualchi\indices{^{A'}_{B'}}}
=
\MatrixM{ L\indices{^{A'}_{A}} }
\MatrixM{ \dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}}}
\MatrixM{ M\indices{^{B'}_{B}} }^{-1}
\\
&=
\frac{\epsilon}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & -R^2 & 0 & 0 \\
~0~ & ~0~ & -rs & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
~0~ & +rs & ~0~ & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
c^2 & ~0~ & ~0~ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
~0~ & R^2c^2-r^2 & ~0~ & 0 & 0 & +rs \\
~0~ & ~0~ & R^2c^2-r^2 & 0 & -rs & 0 \\
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
Here we see the slowing/speeding behaviour
of an ordinary space-time cloak \cite{McCall-FKB-2011jo},
but with a direction-sensitivity
caused by magneto-electric effects $\pm rs \epsilon /R$ in the material.
This direction-sensitivity reverses at $t=0$,
so that while the incoming light travels slower than outgoing light
when $t<0$,
the incoming light travels faster for $t>0$.
An implementation of this design,
will be discussed in section \ref{S-implementation}.
\subsection{p-Acoustics event carpets}\label{SS-stcarpet-pA}
For p-acoustic transformations,
we need two compactified transformation matrices,
with correctly arranged ordering.
Again,
and unlike EM,
the compacted
$\MatrixB{G\indices{^A}}$ is indexed by $ww,xt,yt,zt$,
where ``$w$'' stands in for one of $x, y$ or $z$;
and any multiple valued elements are indicated using
a set-like notation.
We need $\MatrixB{L\indices{^{A'}_A}}$
to transform $\MatrixB{G\indices{^A}}$,
and it is
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^{A'}} }
&=
\MatrixM{ L\indices{^{A'}_{A}} }
\MatrixM{ G\indices{^{A}} }
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
G\indices{^{w'w'}} \\
G\indices{^{x't'}} \\
G\indices{^{y't'}} \\
G\indices{^{z't'}}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\frac{1}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
\{R^2,1,1\} & \{rsR,0,0\} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & R & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
G\indices{^{ww}} \\
G\indices{^{xt}} \\
G\indices{^{yt}} \\
G\indices{^{zt}}
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
The compact $\MatrixB{\dualF\indices{^A}}$,
indexed by $tt, xt, yt, zt$,
is transformed using
$\MatrixB{M\indices{^{B'}_B}}$
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^{B'}} }
&=
\MatrixM{ M\indices{^{B'}_{B}} }
\MatrixM{ \dualF\indices{^{B}} }
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
F\indices{^{t't'}} \\
F\indices{^{x't'}} \\
F\indices{^{y't'}} \\
F\indices{^{z't'}}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\frac{1}{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
rs & R & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
F\indices{^{tt}} \\
F\indices{^{xt}} \\
F\indices{^{yt}} \\
F\indices{^{zt}}
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
where
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{ M\indices{^{B'}_{B}} }^{-1}
&=
\MatrixM{ M\indices{^{B}_{B'}} }
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
R & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-rs & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & R & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & R \\
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
Hence,
since $c^2=\kappa/\rho$,
and as usual starting with a simple background medium
described only by $\kappa$ and $\rho$,
the transformed constitutive matrix $\MatrixB{\dualchi'}$
defining the p-acoustic space-time carpet T-device is
~
\begin{align}
\MatrixM{L\indices{^{A'}_{A}}}
\MatrixM{\dualchi\indices{^{A}_{B}}}
\MatrixM{M\indices{^{B'}_{B}}}^{-1}
&=
\rho
\begin{bmatrix}
\{R^2-\frac{r^2}{c^{2}},1,1\}c^2 & \{rs,0,0\} & ~0~ & ~0~ \\
-rs & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
.
\end{align}
Again we can see that there is no way of constructing
a general space-time carpet cloak (or related T-device)
with p-acoustic waves,
which we can see from the fact that
the modulus $\kappa'$ and $\alpha'_x$ cross-coupling
are both required to have two incompatible values.
In contrast to the spatial carpet cloak,
a one dimensional (in $x$) space-time carpet cloak
can make sense;
just as the one dimensional space-time EM cloak
makes sense \cite{McCall-FKB-2011jo,Fridman-FOG-2012nat,Lukens-LW-2013n,Lerma-2012preprint}.
However,
the necessarily bi-directional nature of the design
means that we would require
a controllable coupling $\alpha'_x=rs\rho$
enabling the velocity field $v_x \equiv \dualF^{tx}$
to affect the pressure $p \equiv G^{xx}$,
as well as a $\beta'_x=-rs\rho$
enabling the density $P \equiv \dualF^{tt}$
to affect the momentum density $\Co{v}_x \equiv G^{xt}$.
\section{Implementation}\label{S-implementation}
Unlike the standard space-time cloak \cite{McCall-FKB-2011jo}
and related T-devices \cite{Kinsler-M-2014adp-scast},
these space-time carpet T-devices cannot easily be simplified by
choosing a preferred direction.
Although they also use speed control of the illumination
to operate,
a significant complication is that a carpet device
is unavoidably bi-directional
due to the reflection at the ground plane.
Each location within the cloak halo
needs to set the speed of incoming illumination
and outgoing illumination differently;
as can be seen in fig. \ref{fig-carpet-Tray}.
This makes it more demanding to implement than
either a purely spatial carpet device,
or an ordinary space-time cloak.
Conceptually,
the necessary properties could be achieved
by making the space-time carpet T-device using a moving medium,
but that would require material speeds comparable to the wave speed.
Given the problems of sourcing and sinking the medium
at its moving boundaries,
this is unlikely to be straightforward;
although we presume that it would be less difficult
for water waves than for EM.
Because of this,
the more obvious approach would seem to be to design
a switchable metamaterial system.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.92\columnwidth]{fig-04-DST}
\caption{(colour online)
A linear (1+1D) waveguide acting as a space-time carpet cloak.
Each horizontal bar represents the waveguide at a moment in time,
with early times at the bottom and later times at the top.
The changing state of the waveguide's metamaterial cells
is indicated by the different colours (shades),
with the small arrows indicating the direction sensitive
speed contrast.
}
\label{fig-1dstcarpet}
\end{figure}
As a simple case,
consider a space-time carpet cloak added
to the end of a 1D waveguide terminated by a reflector;
as depicted in fig. \ref{fig-1dstcarpet}.
If we break up the cloaking segment of the waveguide
into a chain of metamaterial cells,
we find that each cell will need to support either three or four states:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
a state that mimics or matches the properties of the rest of the waveguide,
i.e. the ``background''.
\item
a state that has a direction-dependent speed
as defined by the cloak design,
with incoming illumination slowed
and outgoing illumination sped up.
\item
a complementary state with the reverse direction-dependent speeds
to state 2.
\item
a state matching the behaviour of the end of the waveguide,
which in most cases would be imagined to be a reflector.
This capability is only needed
for cells that will at some stage form part of the inner boundary
of the cloaked region.
\end{enumerate}
For an EM carpet,
magneto-electric effects
are required in the design presented in section \ref{S-stcarpet}.
However this means of achieving direction-dependent speeds
is usually hard to engineer;
even having relaxed the requirement for impedance matching.
As an alternative,
we could distinguish ingoing from outgoing light by
altering its frequency
by some convenient mechanism (as for e.g. \cite{Fridman-FOG-2012nat}),
or by using the polarization.
In a 1D waveguide carpet we could control
ingoing light by making it plane polarized
in $y$ (hence controlling speed using $\epsilon_y$),
and with the help of an engineered polarization switching reflection
\cite{Zhu-FZHWJ-2010oe},
control the outgoing speed with $z$ polarization and $\epsilon_z$.
The necessary polarization conversion at the entry and exit of the carpet
can be applied using a Faraday rotator or comparable device.
However,
using plane polarized light means that the reflective state of those
carpet cells needs to also be polarization switching.
Since the engineering of a four-state metamaterial cell
is already a challenge,
we would prefer to avoid making one of those states more complicated
than necessary.
Therefore we could instead use chiral metamaterial cells
with incoming light distinguished by being
(e.g.) RH circularly polarized,
and outgoing light LH circularly polarized.
This scheme means that
an ordinary mirror-like cell state is sufficient
to reflect the outgoing light into the correct (opposite)
circular polarization.
A further advantage is that it can be implemented
as a purely dielectric device,
so avoiding any need to engineer a controllable magnetic response.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.32\columnwidth]{fig-05-bibicarpet}
\caption{
Incoming and outgoing fields
for a 1+2D EM space-time carpet cloak implementation;
but drawn as if for a spatial carpet cloak for clarity.
In the space-time carpet of section \ref{S-stcarpet},
the reflective carpet pushes out to $x=-L$ (dashed line)
and back for all $y$ equally.
Incoming fields are controlled by $\epsilon_z$ acting on $E_z$,
while
the outgoing fields are controlled
by $\mu_z$ acting on $H_z$;
the field polarization is switched on reflection from the carpet.
}
\label{fig-bibicarpet}
\end{figure}
For an all-angle 2D space-time carpet T-device,
the implementation gets harder --
we can no longer rely on using circularly polarized light and a chiral medium.
However,
if we revert to linear polarization,
and manage to implement the polarization-switching reflector state,
it can be achieved by means of a kind of novel birefringence
that creates the speed contrast
between incoming and outgoing illumination.
Here,
as depicted in fig. \ref{fig-bibicarpet},
we control the incoming illumination by making
the electric field component $z$-polarized
and modulating the speed using $\epsilon_z$.
Since the magnetic field component is then in the $xy$ plane,
we set $\mu_x$ and $\mu_y$ to a background value,
so that the inward speed will remain angle-independent.
Next,
the outgoing illumination is controlled by making the
magnetic field component $z$-polarized
and modulating the speed using $\mu_z$.
Since the electric field component is then in the $xy$ plane,
we set $\epsilon_x$ and $\epsilon_y$ to a background value,
so that the outward speed will remain angle-independent.
Whilst this will certainly be
challenging to construct,
one important simplification
is that the dynamic $\epsilon_z$ and $\mu_z$ properties required
are matched in strength to each other,
which will hopefully simplify the necessary technology.
In p-acoustics,
the scalar nature of the wave's pressure component
prohibits us from accessing a similar trick,
and so there is no alternative but to consider how we might
achieve the unconventional coupling
where the velocity field would be able to cause
changes to the pressure.
Once again,
although the general nature of the mathematical formalism
has enabled us to unify the transformation aspects of our chosen T-device,
the specific physics of a given type of wave
nevertheless restricts what can be done in principle,
as well as in practice.
\section{Summary}\label{S-summary}
We have derived the material parameters needed
for new kind of event cloak --
the space-time carpet cloak --
and shown what material properties are required to implement it.
By unifying the mathematical treatment of EM and a scalar wave theory
such as pressure acoustics,
we have also shown the way towards a means of unifying
transformation theories for different wave types.
The unified transformation mechanics theory was applied
to a range of spatial T-devices based on the ordinary carpet cloak,
e.g. the {periscope} and the tardis.
As noted in the original event cloak paper \cite{McCall-FKB-2011jo},
a covariant wave notation greatly facilitates
the design of space-time T-devices \cite{Kinsler-M-2014adp-scast},
which is further emphasized here,
with a
scalar wave theory being
matched up with the usual covariant formulation of EM,
and the subsequent ease of
comparison and contrast
between the spatial carpet T-devices
from section \ref{S-carpet},
with the space-time carpet T-devices from section \ref{S-stcarpet}.
We also proposed (in section \ref{S-implementation})
a scheme laying out the required metamaterial properties
needed when implementing
an electromagnetic space-time carpet T-device.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge financial support from EPSRC
grant number EP/K003305/1.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the last two decades, Instrumented Indentation Technique (IIT) has become a widespread procedure that is used to probe mechanical properties for samples of nearly any size or nature. However, the intrinsic heterogeneity of the mechanical fields underneath the indenter prevents from establishing straightforward relationships between the measured load \textit{vs.} displacement curve and any expected mechanical properties as it would be the case for a tensile test. Many models have been published in the literature in order to enable the measurement of properties such as an elastic modulus, hardness or various plastic properties. Despite their diversity, most of these models deeply rely on the accurate measurement of the projected contact area between the indenter and the sample's surface. The existing methods that are dedicated to estimating the true contact area can be classified into two subcategories: the direct methods which rely on the sole load \textit{vs.} displacement curve \cite{JMR:7931088, ISI:000222316100002, ISI:A1984SQ59800006} and the \textit{post mortem} methods that use additional data extracted from the residual imprint left on the sample's surface. For example, Vickers, Brinell and Knoop hardness scales rely on \textit{post mortem} measurements of the geometric size of the residual imprint. However, in the case of Vickers hardness, the contact area is only estimated through the diagonals of the imprint, the possible effect of piling-up or sinking-in is then neglected. Other \textit{post mortem} methods use indent cross sections to estimate the projected contact area \cite{Beegan2004,Zhou2008}. In the 1990s, the development of nanoindentation led to a growing interest in direct methods because they do not require time consuming \textit{post mortem} measurement of micrometer or even nanometer scale imprints, typically using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) or Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Uncertainty level on direct measurements remains high, mainly because of the difficulty to predict the occurrence of piling-up and sinking-in. Oliver and Pharr have eventually considered this issue as one of the \textit{"holy grails"} in IIT \cite{ISI:000222316100002}. Recent development in Scanning Probe Microscopy (SPM) using the Indentation Tip (ITSPM) brought new interest in \textit{post mortem} measurements. Indeed, ITSPM allows systematic imprint imaging without manipulating the sample or facing repositioning issues to find back the imprint to be imaged. Yet ITSPM imaging technique suffers from drawbacks when compared to AFM: it is slower, it uses a blunter tip associated with a much wider pyramidal geometry and a higher force applied to the surface while scanning. While the later may damage delicate material surfaces, the formers will introduce artifacts. Nonetheless, these artifacts will not affect the present method. In addition, ITSPM only allows for contact mode imaging, non contact or intermittent contact modes are not possible. As a consequence, only the techniques based on altitude images can be used with ITSPM and there is a need for new methods as very recently reviewed by Marteau \textit{et al.} \cite{Marteau2013}. This article introduces a new \textit{post mortem} procedure that relies only on the altitude image and that is therefore valid for most types of SPM images, including ITSPM. In this paper, a benchmark based on both numerical indentation tests as well as experimental indentation tests on properly chosen materials to span all possible behaviors is first introduced. Then, the existing direct methods are reviewed and a complete description of the proposed method is given. These methods are then confronted using the above mentioned benchmark and the results are finally discussed.
\section{Numerical and experimental benchmark}
A typical instrumented indentation test features a loading step where the load $P$ is increased up to a maximum value $P_{max}$, then held constant in order to detect creep and finally decreased during the unloading step until contact is lost between the indenter and the sample. A residual imprint is left on the initially flat surface of the sample. During the test, the load $P$ as well as the penetration of the indenter into the surface of the sample $h$ is continuously recorded and can be plotted as shown in Figure \ref{fig:figure_1}. For most materials, the unloading step can be cycled with only minor hysteresis, it is then assumed that only elastic strains develop in the sample. As a consequence, the initial slope $S$ of the unloading step is called the elastic contact stiffness. Useful data can potentially be extracted from both the load \textit{vs.} displacement curve and the residual imprint. The contact area $A_c$ is defined as the projection of the contact zone between the indenter and the sample at maximum load on the plane of the initially flat surface of the sample.
\subsection{Numerical approach}
Finite element modeling (FEM) simulations are performed using a two-dimensional axisymmetrical model represented in Figure \ref{fig:figure_2}. The sample is meshed with 3316 four-noded quadrilateral elements. The indenter is considered as a rigid cone exhibiting an half-angle $\Psi = 70.29$\degr~to match the theoretical area function of the Vickers and modified Berkovich indenters \cite{Fischer-Cripps2011}. The displacement of the indenter $h$ is controlled and the force $P$ is recorded. The dimensions of the mesh are chosen to minimize the effect of the far-field boundary conditions. The typical ratio of the maximum contact radius and the sample size is about $2\times10^3$. The problem is solved using the commercial software ABAQUS (version 6.11,~\href{3ds.com}{3ds.com}). The numerical model is compared to the elastic solution from \cite{love} (see \cite{Hanson1992, Sneddon1965}) using a blunt conical indenter ($\Psi = 89.5$\degr) to respect the purely axial contact pressure hypothesis used in the elastic solution. The relative error is computed from the load \textit{vs.} penetration curve and is below $0.1\%$. Pre-processing, post-processing and data storage tasks are performed using a dedicated framework based on the open source programming language Python 2.7 \cite{VanRossum1991, Hunter2007, Oliphant2007} and the database engine SQLite 3.7 \cite{Owens2006}. The indented material is assumed to be isotropic, linearly elastic. The Poisson's ratio $\nu$ has a fixed value of $0.3$ and the Young's modulus is referred to as $E$. The contact between the indenter and the sample's surface is taken as frictionless. Two sets of constitutive equations (CE1 and CE2) are investigated in order to cover a very wide range of contact geometries and materials:
\begin{description}
\item[CE1] This first constitutive equation used in this benchmark is commonly used in industrial studies and in research papers on metallic alloys \cite{Bucaille2003, Dao2001, Ma2011, ISI:000235223500006}. It uses $J_2$-type associated plasticity and an isotropic Hollomon power law strain hardening driven by the tensile behavior (stress $\sigma_T$, strain $\epsilon_T$) given by Eq. \ref{eq:hollomon}:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_T = \left\lbrace
\begin{split}
E \epsilon_T, \qquad \mbox{for: } \sigma_T \leq \sigma_{YT}\\
\sigma_{YT}\left( \dfrac{E \epsilon_T}{\sigma_{YT}}\right)^n,\qquad \mbox{for: } \sigma_T > \sigma_{YT}
\end{split}\right.
\label{eq:hollomon}
\end{equation}
Plastic parameters are the tensile yield stress $\sigma_{YT}$ and the strain hardening exponent $n$.
\item[CE2] The second constitutive equation is the Drucker-Prager law \cite{Drucker1952} which was originally dedicated to soil mechanics but was also found to be relevant on Bulk Metallic Glasses (BMGs)\cite{ISI:000254173700030,Patnaik2004,ISI:000247980200005,Keryvin2007} and some polymers \cite{Prasad2009}. The yield surface is given by Eq. \ref{eq:drucker-prager} where $q$ is the von Mises equivalent stress in tension and $p$ the hydrostatic pressure. Perfect plasticity is used in conjunction with an associated plastic flow. The plastic behavior is controlled by the compressive yield stress $\sigma_{YC}$ and the friction angle $\beta$ that tunes the pressure sensitivity.
\begin{equation}
q - p \tan \beta - \left(1 - 1/3 \tan \beta \right) \sigma_{YC} = 0
\label{eq:drucker-prager}
\end{equation}
\end{description}
Dimensional analysis \cite{buckingham,Buckingham1915, ISI:000075294600019} is used to determine the influence of elastic and plastic parameters on the contact area $A_c$:
\begin{equation}
A_c = \left\lbrace\begin{split}
h_{max}^2 \Pi_{CE1}(\nu,\sigma_{YT}/E, n) \\
h_{max}^2 \Pi_{CE2}(\nu,\sigma_{YC}/E, \beta)
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
In this equation, $h_{max}$ is the maximum value of penetration of the indenter into the sample's surface. In both cases, the dimensionless functions show that, since the Poisson's ratio has a fixed value ($\nu = 0.3$), only the yield strains ($\epsilon_{YT} = \sigma_{YT}/E$, in the case of CE1 and $\epsilon_{YC} = \sigma_{YC}/E$, in the case of CE2) and the dimensionless plastic parameters ($n$ in the case of CE1 and $\beta$ in the case of CE2) have an influence on the contact area $A_c$. As a consequence, the value of the Young's modulus $E$ has a fixed arbitrary value $E = 1$ Pa and only the values of the yield stresses $\sigma_{YT}$ and $\sigma_{YC}$, the hardening exponent $n$ and the friction angle $\beta$ are modified. The simulated range of these parameters are given in Tables \ref{tab:hollomon_params} and \ref{tab:dp_params}. After each simulation, a load \textit{vs.} displacement into surface curve and an altitude SPM like image using the Gwyddion (\href{http://gwyddion.net/}{http://gwyddion.net/}) GSF format are extracted. The use of such a procedure allows one to consider both numerical and experimental tests in the benchmark and to derive mechanical properties in the same way. Since the simulations are two-dimensional axisymmetric, the contact area is computed as $A_c = \pi r_c^2$ where $r_c$ stands for the contact radius of the contact zone (see Fig. \ref{fig:figure_2}).
\subsection{Experimental testing}
\label{subsec:expe_testing}
The tested materials (see Table \ref{tab:samples}) are chosen in order to cover a very wide range of contact geometries, from sinking-in (FQ), intermediate behavior (WG), and to piling-up (BMG). Glasses are chosen over metallic alloys because they exhibit negligible creep for temperatures well below the glass transition temperature, no visible size effect and are very homogeneous and isotropic in the test conditions. The FQ and WG samples are tested as received (please note the WG sample was test on it's "air" side) whereas the BMG sample is polished. Nanoindentation testing is performed using a commercial Hysitron TI950 triboindenter. During each test, the load is increased up to $P_{max} = 10$ mN with a constant loading rate $ d P / d t = 5 \; \times \; 10^{-5}$ N/s. The load is then held for 10 s and relieved with a constant unloading rate $ d P / d t = -1 \; \times \; 10^{-4}$ N/s. Four tests are performed on each sample and each residual imprint is scanned with the built-in ITSPM device with an applied normal force of 2 $\muup$N as summarized in Figure \ref{fig:figure_3}. Tests are load controlled and the maximum load is set to $P_{max} = 10$ mN. The true contact area $A_c$ is not known as in the case of the numerical simulations. It is then estimated through the Sneddon's Eq. \ref{eq:sneddon} \cite{Sneddon1965, ISI:000222316100002} and is called $A_{c,SN}$. Young's moduli $E$, and the Poisson's ratios $\nu$ of each sample are known prior to indentation testing from the literature or from ultrasonic echography measurements (\textit{cf.} Table \ref{tab:samples}). Recalling that $S$ is the initial unloading contact stiffness (cf. Figure \ref{fig:figure_1}), we have:
\begin{equation}
A_{c,SN} = \frac{\pi}{4} \frac{S^2}{\beta^2 E_{eq}^2} \qquad \mbox{where: } \left\lbrace\begin{split}
E_{eq} = \frac{E}{1-\nu^2}\\
\beta = 1.05
\end{split}\right.
\label{eq:sneddon}
\end{equation}
\section{Methodology review}
\subsection{Direct methods}
Direct methods rely on the sole load vs. penetration curve $(P,h)$ to determine the contact height $h_c$ using equations given in Table \ref{tab:direct_methods}. Let us recall that $h_c < h$ in the case of sinking-in (as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:figure_2}) and $h_c>h$ for piling-up. Three direct methods are investigated in this paper :
\begin{description}
\item[DN] The Doerner and Nix method \cite{JMR:7931088} was one of the first to be published (along with similar work done by Bulyshev \textit{et al.} \cite{Bulychev1975}) and it provided the basic relationships later improved by the two other methods.
\item [OP] The Oliver and Pharr method \cite{op1,ISI:000222316100002} is an all-purpose method that is widely used in the literature, commercial software and standards. The main drawback of this method is that it cannot take piling-up into account.
\item [LO] The Loubet method \cite{ISI:A1984SQ59800006} is an alternative to the OP method, especially for materials exhibiting piling-up.
\end{description}
Regardless of the chosen method, the value of $h_c$ is used to compute the value of the contact area $A_c$ thanks to the Indenter Area Function $A_c(h_c)$ (IAF). The IAF depends on the theoretical shape of the indenter as well and on its actual defects which are measured during a calibration procedure. Different tip calibration methods are used in the literature:
\begin{itemize}
\item Measurement either of the indenter geometry or the imprint geometry made on soft materials for multiple loads using AFM or other microscopy techniques \cite{pethica1983}.
\item The IAF introduced by Oliver and Pharr \cite{op1, ISI:000222316100002} requires a calibration procedure on a reference material using only the $(P,h)$ curve:
\begin{equation}
A_{c,OP}(h_c) =C_0 h_c^2 + C_1 h_c + C_2 h_c^{1/2} + C_3 h_c^{1/4} + \ldots + C_8 h_c^{1/128}
\label{eq:hc_op}
\end{equation}
Where the $(C_i)_{0\leq i \leq 8}$ factors are fitting coefficients obtained from a calibration procedure on fused quartz. For a given indenter, the value of the $C_i$ coefficients depend on the penetration depth range used for the calibration procedure. In the case of a perfect modified Berkovich tip, $C_0 = 24.5$ and $C_{i>0} =0$.
\item The method introduced by Loubet (see \cite{ISI:A1984SQ59800006}) :
\begin{equation}
A_{c,LO}(h) = k \left( h_c + \Delta h\right)^2
\label{eq:hc_loubet}
\end{equation}
It is assumed that the only origin of the defects is tip blunting. Then, $k$ comes from the indenter's theoretical shape ($k=24.5$ here) and $\Delta h$ is the offset caused by the tip defect and is calibrated using a linear fit made on the upper portion of the $(\sqrt P,h)$ curve. This procedure can be performed on any material exhibiting neither significant creep nor size effect, typically fused quartz. This method is intrinsically very efficient when the penetration is high compared to $\Delta h$.
\end{itemize}
In the experimental benchmark, all tests are performed at $h_{max} \geq 250$ nm using a diamond modified Berkovich tip that exhibits a truncated length $\Delta h = 17.8\pm1.74$ nm\footnote{This value is the average value of $\Delta h$ on all the twelve tests performed on the three samples used in the experimental benchmark and the error is the represented $\pm$ one standard deviation.}. Theses values were calibrated on the FQ sample. As a consequence, the IAF introduced by Loubet is used on every direct method. By contrast, numerical simulations use a perfect tip so that the IAF is $A_{c}(h) = 24.5 h^2$.
\subsection{Proposed Method (PM)}
\label{sec:method}
SPM imaging grants access to a mapping of the altitude of the residual imprint. It is assumed that the surface of the sample is initially plane and remains unaffected far from the residual imprint. This plane is extracted from the raw image using a disk shaped mask centered on the imprint and a scan by scan linear fit on the remaining zone. It is considered as the reference surface and is subtracted to the raw image to remove the tilt of the initial surface. Under maximum load, the contact contour can exhibit either sinking-in and piling-up. In the first case, its altitude is decreased \textit{vis-à-vis} the reference surface. This behavior is typical of high yield strength materials such as fused quartz. On the opposite, piling-up occurs when the the increased and is typically triggered by unconfined plastic flow around the indenter as usually observed on low strain hardening metallic alloys. When the indenter is not axisymmetric (as it is the case for pyramids), both sinking-in and piling-up may occur simultaneously. For example, pyramidal indenters can produce piling-up on their faces and sinking on their edges (or no piling-up to the least). During the unloading step, the whole contact contour is pushed upward with only minor radial displacement. A residual piling-up may form even if sinking-in initially occurred under maximum load. We now focus on a half cross-section of the imprint starting at the bottom of the imprint and formulate two assumptions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The highest point of any half cross-section is the summit of the residual piling-up.
\item The summit of the residual piling-up indicates the position of the contact contour.
\end{enumerate}
As a consequence, the highest point of the cross-section gives the radial position of the contact zone boundary. However, from an experimental point of view, the roughness of the sample's surface may make the true position of the residual piling-up's summit unclear. This issue is particularly true for materials exhibiting high levels of sinking-in such as fused quartz but also for most materials along the edges of pyramidal indenters. In order to limit the effect of surface roughness on the radial localization of the contact zone boundary, each profile is slightly rotated by a small angle value $\alpha$ along an axis perpendicular to the cross-section plane and running through the bottom of the imprint (\textit{i. e.} the lowest point of the profile). The whole contact contour is then determined by repeating the process in all directions ($\theta = 0$\degr~to $360$\degr) then the contact area $A_{c,PM}$ is calculated. A graphical representation of key steps of the method is made in Figure \ref{fig:figure_4}.
\noindent[PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE]
\textcolor{blue}{
The optimum tilt value of the tilt angle $\alpha$ is chosen in order to deal with three potential artifacts detailed below and emphasized using three experimental residual imprints in Fig. \ref{fig:figure_8}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Materials exhibiting low or no residual piling-up such as FQ cannot be treated with the proposed method when $\alpha = 0$\degr ~because the positions the highest points of each the extracted half cross sections are driven by the roughness. In this case, positive values of the tilt angle ($\alpha \geq 2.5$\degr) fully address the issue.
\item The surface roughness of the sample affects the accuracy of the method, especially on materials that show no residual piling-up because there is a competition between the is a competition between piling-up and roughness in the highest point identification (see FQ and BMG on Fig. \ref{fig:figure_8}. Again, positive values of the tilt angle ($\alpha \geq 2.5$\degr) solve the problem by lowering the roughness peaks located outside the imprint as visible.
\item A particular artifact is visible in the directions of the indenter's edges. Indeed, the residual piling-up is always very low in these directions because the displacement field tends to push the material towards the faces of the indenter. The attack angle between the edges and the sample's surface is also very low\footnote{ The angle is $13$\degr~ in the case a of modified Berkovich tip.} As a consequence, a high value of the tilt angle such as $\alpha \geq 5$\degr~ creates artifacts in this zone as clearly visible on FQ and WG.
\end{enumerate}
Given the three above points, the optimum value of the tilt angle is found to be $\alpha = 2.5$\degr . The three values of the tilt angle have also been tested in on the numerical simulations. Even if the overall effect of the tilt angle is lower in this case because the simulations are two dimensional and also because the numerical samples have no roughness, only the first issue is observed and the optimum value is the same the one found experimentally.
}
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{FEM benchmark results}
The four methods are confronted on the numerical benchmark and their ability to accurately compute the contact area $A_c$ is challenged. The results focus on the relative error $e$ between $A_c$ and the contact area predicted by each method. Please note that a $10\%$ relative error on the contact area means roughly a $\approx 10\%$ relative error on hardness but only $\approx 5\%$ on the elastic modulus (see Eq. \ref{eq:sneddon}). The results are plotted in Figures \ref{fig:figure_5} and \ref{fig:figure_6} for constitutive equations CE1 and CE2 respectively and a summary of the key statistics is given in Table \ref{tab:num_bench}. For Fig. \ref{fig:figure_5} and \ref{fig:figure_6}, \textbf{(a)} and \textbf{(b)} represent the relative error and its absolute value respectively. The later was chose to emphasize the magnitude of the error while \textbf{(c)} indicates whether piling-up or sinking-in occurs. It is also chosen to measure the success rate of the methods through their ability to match $A_c$ within a $\pm 10\%$ error. This value was chosen since even if challenging, it is still realistic from an experimental point of view. These data can be discussed individually for each method:
\begin{itemize}
\item The DN method systematically tends to underestimate $A_c$ regardless of the type of constitutive equation and of the occurrence of piling-up or sinking-in. The magnitude of the relative error is the highest among the four tested methods. This lack of accuracy can be put into perspective by recalling that the DN method states that the contact between the indenter and the sample behaves as if the indenter was a flat punch during the first stages of the unloading process. This approach was later proved to be too restrictive by Oliver and Pharr \cite{op1} who improved it by taking into account the actual shape of the indenter through the $\epsilon$ coefficient. As $\epsilon < 1$ in the case of the modified Berkovich tip, the value of the contact depth $h_c$ is systematically increased (see Table \ref{tab:direct_methods}).
\item As stated above, the OP method drastically improves the overall performances of the DN method. However, its error level depends strongly on the type of contact behavior (\textit{i. e.} piling-up or sinking-in) and the mechanical properties of the tested material. Typically, it performs well for the CE1 law when the strain hardening exponent $n$ verifies $n>0.2$. It also performs well (relative errors below $10\%$) on materials exhibiting very high yield strains (higher than $4\%)$ in the case of CE2. The main drawback of the method is its intrinsic inability to cope with piling-up since $h_c/h$ can never be higher than 1. This is particularly visible for low values of the strain hardening exponent (CE1: $n\leq 0.1$) and with CE2 when the compressive yield strain $\sigma_C/E$ is lower than $3\%$. The OP method has a low success rate (see Table \ref{tab:num_bench}) but this tendency has to be mitigated by the fact that it is very efficient for a large number of metallic alloys, which can be described by CE1 and exhibit moderate values of hardening exponents.
\item The LO method allows $h_c/h > 1$ values and is then recommended for piling-up materials; it is overall very efficient with CE2 type materials. The drawback is that it tends to overestimate the contact area when sinking-in occurs; this is particularly true in the case of CE1 with moderate to high hardening exponents ($n \geq 0.1$). These observations are in agreement with the results of Cheng and Cheng \cite{cheng22} regarding the influence of piling-up and sinking-in on the direct estimation of the contact depth. The success rate of this method is the highest among the direct methods and it is clearly the best available direct method for CE2 type materials and for low hardening CE1 type materials.
\item The proposed method exhibits a $100\%$ success rate (with the $\pm 10\; \%$ relative error target) and an average absolute relative error of $2.5 \%$. The error level remains stable regardless of both the type of constitutive equation and its parameters. This result highlights the fact that when experimentally possible, the use of such a \textit{post mortem} method will improve drastically the overall error level of the contact area measurement.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Experimental benchmark results}
The results of the experimental benchmark are represented in Fig. \ref{fig:figure_7}. The tendencies observed in the numerical benchmark are confirmed. The DN method systematically underestimates the contact area. The OP and LO methods perform well only on a given spectrum of contact behaviors: both methods give accurate results on the FQ sample; this is consistent with the fact that both of them were optimized to use this material as a reference. While the LO method also exhibits a low error level on the WG sample, the OP method leads to an unexpected high error level. It is supposed that even if the WG sample has a very high yield strain, it has no strain hardening mechanism and it is then out of the scope of the OP method. The BMG which exhibits a large residual piling-up obviously leads the OP method to underestimate drastically the contact area. The LO method performs better although it also underestimates the contact area. This later method systematically exhibits relative errors of $\pm 10\%$ while the method proposed in this paper is even more reliable with errors lower than $5\%$. We observe that the direct methods overall performances are better than in the case of the numerical benchmark. The contact friction, which is neglected in the numerical benchmark, may improve the accuracy of the direct methods without affecting the proposed method.
\subsection{Pros and cons}
Both benchmarks highlight the precision gap between the new method and the existing direct methods. However, the proposed method differs by nature from the three direct methods it is compared to. This section emphasizes the pros and cons of this method:
\begin{description}
\item[Disadvantages:]
\begin{itemize}
\item The proposed method relies on SPM imaging of the residual imprint while direct methods do not. However, indentation devices tend to be equipped with ITSPM capability that can be used automatically in conjunction with the indentation testing itself with only a small increase in test duration.
\item \textcolor{blue}{The method relies on the assumption that the imprint is unchanged between the end of the test and the imaging procedure. This means that the proposed method should not be applied to materials exhibiting time-dependent mechanical behavior such as polymers (see \cite{Chatel2012}) and even pure metals. In order to demonstrate this limitation, nanoindentation tests have been run an electropolished pure single crystal aluminum sample (Al) and a mechanically polished pure tungsten sample (W). Those two materials were chosen because of their low elastic anisotropy \cite{Hirth1982}. A loading function similar to the one used in \cite{op1} was used to limit the effect of creep on the unloading stiffness $S$. The method appears to work flawlessly on both samples as none of the three artifacts mentioned in part \ref{sec:method} are observed. However, the value of the contact area is systematically overestimated by a factor $\approx 1.6$ and $\approx 2.7$ respectively on the Al and W samples. The evolution of the residual imprint after the indentation test is made possible by creep caused by residual stress.}
\end{itemize}
\item[Advantages:]
\begin{itemize}
\item The proposed method can be run automatically, it requires no adjustable parameters and is user independent.
\item Sample holder and machine stiffness affect the measurement of the penetration into surface $h$ as well as the measured contact stiffness $S$ and, as a consequence, they also affect all direct methods. The value of the machine stiffness can be measured once and for all while the sample holder's stiffness may change between two samples and requires systematic calibration. This concern is particularly true in the case of small samples such as fibers as well as very hard materials (such as carbides). The contact area measurement provided by the proposed method does not rely on $h$ and is then insensitive to the effect of those spurious stiffness issues. Yet, let us note that while the value of the contact area $A_{c,PM}$ is unaffected by stiffness issues, the value of the contact stiffness $S$ is of course affected. As a consequence, the value of the hardness probed with the proposed method is free from any stiffness concern (as $H = P_{max}/A_c$) while the value of the reduced modulus $E^*$ still requires stiffness calibration (as $E^*\propto S/\sqrt{A_c}$).
\item The method does not require any tip calibration procedure and is compatible with all tip shapes.
\item The method is unaffected by erroneous surface detection also because it does not rely on $h$.
\end{itemize}
\end{description}
\section{Conclusion}
We have proposed a new procedure to estimate the indentation contact area based on the residual imprint observation using altitude images produced by SPM. This area is the key component of instrumented indentation testing for extracting mechanical properties such as hardness or elastic modulus. For the estimation of this contact area, the method has been confronted with three widely used direct methods. We have showed, by means of an experimental and numerical benchmark covering a large range of contact geometries and materials, that the proposed method is far more accurate than its direct counterparts regardless of the type of material. We have also discussed the fact that such \textit{post mortem} procedures are indeed more time consuming than direct methods; yet they are the future alternative to direct methods with the development of indentation tip scanning probe microscopy techniques. We have also emphasized the fact that this new method has numerous advantages: it can be automated, it is user independent, it is unaffected by stiffness issues and does not require any indenter calibration.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank the Brittany Region for its support through the CPER PRIN2TAN project and the European University of Brittany (UEB) through the BRESMAT RTR project. Vincent Keryvin also acknowledges the support of the UEB (EPT COMPDYNVER).
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
Recent experimental results at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) would revisit
the gauge hierarchy problem~\cite{GH1,GH2},
because the Higgs boson has been found
with $m_{\rm h} \doteqdot 126$GeV~\cite{LHC1,LHC2},
and evidences from new physics
such as spacetime supersymmtry (SUSY), compositeness and extra dimensions
have not yet been discovered.
The gauge hierarchy problem is related to the feature that
{\it an effective field theory becomes unnatural,
because fine tuning is required to obtain the weak scale
and/or to stabilize it against radiative corrections,
if there is a high-energy physics such as a grand unified theory (GUT)
relevant to the standard model (SM)}.
It is summarized as the following questions.
What generates the weak scale or the Higgs boson mass?
How is it stabilized?
For example, logarithmic divergences in radiative corrections due to heavy particles
can ruin the stability of the weak scale.
There are at least three possibilities for the problem.
First one is that there is a new physics at the terascale
with a new concept such as SUSY, compositeness
and/or extra dimensions, to solve the problem completely.
Second one is that there is a new physics at the terascale to derive the weak scale,
and the scale is stabilized by some excellent mechanism and/or symmetry
at a high-energy scale $M_{\rm U}$ such as the Planck scale $M_{\rm Pl}$.
Third one is that there is no new physics concerning the Higgs boson mass at the terascale,
and a high-energy physics solves the problem completely.
In this paper, we reconsider one side of the problem
$\lq\lq${\it how is the weak scale stabilized?}'',
from the viewpoint of effective field theories and a high-energy physics.
Our study is motivated by the alternative scenario
that the SM (modified with massive neutrinos)
holds up to $M_{\rm Pl}$~\cite{Shaposhnikov,Nielsen}
and the guiding principle that the gauge hierarchy is stabilized by a symmetry
that should be unbroken in the SM~\cite{Dienes}.
Based on a reinterpretation of the problem from the perspective of a high-energy physics,
we give a conjecture that
theories with fermionic symmetries different from spacetime SUSY
can be free from the gauge hierarchy problem
and become candidates of the physics beyond and/or behind the SM,
and present toy models with particle-ghost symmetries
as illustrative examples and
a prototype model to explain the unification of the SM gauge coupling constants,
the triplet-doublet splitting of Higgs boson, and the longevity of proton.
The outline of this paper is as follows.
In the next section, we review the gauge hierarchy problem
and discuss it in relation to masslessness.
We reconsider the problem from the viewpoint of a high-energy physics,
point out that specific fermionic symmetries
can play the important role to stabilize a mass hierarchy,
and propose a grand unification scenario based on the conjecture, in Sect. 3.
In the last section, we give conclusions and discussions.
\section{Gauge hierarchy problem and masslessness}
\label{Gauge hierarchy problem and masslessness}
\subsection{Gauge hierarchy problem}
\label{Gauge hierarchy problem}
We discuss a fine tuning among parameters,
from the viewpoint of effective field theories.
After subtracting quadratic and quartic divergences if exist,
radiative corrections on parameters $a_i$, up to finite corrections, are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta a_i = \sum_j \frac{c_{ij}}{(4\pi)^2} a_j \ln \frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}~,~~ (i, j = 1, \cdots, n)~,
\label{delta-a}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{ij}$ are functions of parameters,
$\Lambda$ is a cutoff scale, and $\mu$ is a renormalization point.
From the feature that $\delta a_i \to 0$ in the limit of $a_i \to 0$,
the smallness of $a_i$ is understood, if the magnitude of $a_i$ is small enough.
If physical parameters are determined without fine tuning,
the condition $c_{ij} a_j \le O(a_i)$ is roughly imposed on $a_i$.
Fine tuning is, in general, necessary,
if there is a physics relevant to the SM
at a higher energy scale beyond the terascale.
For instance, in the presence of heavy particles with masses $M_I$
and some SM gauge quantum numbers,
the radiative corrections on the Higgs mass squared are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta m_{\rm h}^2 = \tilde{c}_{\rm h} \Lambda^2
+ c'_{\rm h} m_{\rm h}^2 \ln \frac{\Lambda^2}{m_{\rm h}^2}
+ \sum_{I} c''_{{\rm h}I} M_{I}^2 \ln \frac{\Lambda^2}{M_{I}^2} + \cdots~,
\label{deltamhMI}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{c}_{\rm h}$, $c'_{\rm h}$ and $c''_{{\rm h}I}$ are functions of parameters.
From (\ref{deltamhMI}), we find that the fine tuning is indispensable
for $c''_{{\rm h}I} M_{I}^2 \gg m_{\rm h}^2$
due to the appearance of the quadratic terms of $M_{I}$ (part of the logarithmic divergences),
even if the quadratic divergence $\tilde{c}_{\rm h} \Lambda^2$ is removed and
unless some miraculous cancellation mechanism works among corrections due to heavy particles.
This induces the technical side of the gauge hierarchy problem~\cite{GH1,GH2}, i.e.,
{\it an unnatural fine tuning is required to stabilize the weak scale
against radiative corrections,
if there is a high-energy physics such as a GUT relevant to the SM.}
\subsection{Possible solutions}
\label{Possible solutions}
If nature dislikes fine tuning among parameters,
there must exist a reasonable explanation about the absence of fine tuning.
Here, we review some possibilities.\\
~~(1) The concept of the first one is $\lq\lq$compositeness'', i.e.,
some particles are not elementary but composite, made of a more fundamental constituents.
We assume that there is a new dynamics at the terascale, to compose some SM particles.
The typical example is a model that the Higgs doublet is made of new fermions \cite{TC1,Susskind,tHooft}.
The existence of new particles and strong dynamics among them is predicted at the terascale.\\
~~(2) The concept of the second one is $\lq\lq$symmetry'',
that protects physical parameters against large radiative corrections.
As a new symmetry appearing at the terascale, we enumerate three candidates.\\
~~~(2.1) Supersymmetry~\cite{Veltman,SUSY2}.~~
The SUSY must be realized in a broken phase if exists.
In the presence of soft SUSY breaking terms, $\delta m_{\rm h}^2$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta m_{\rm h}^2 = \hat{c}'_{\rm h} m_{\rm h}^2 \ln \frac{\Lambda^2}{m_{\rm h}^2}
+ \hat{c}''_{\rm h} m_{\rm soft}^2 \ln \frac{\Lambda^2}{m_{\rm soft}^2} + \cdots~,
\label{deltamh-soft}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{c}'_{\rm h}$ and $\hat{c}''_{\rm h}$ are functions of parameters,
and $m_{\rm soft}$ is a typical mass parameter representing the soft SUSY breaking.
The magnitude of $m_{\rm soft}$ is a same order of masses of superpartners for the SM particles.
The absence of fine tuning requires roughly $m_{\rm soft} \le O(1)$TeV,
and then the existence of superpartners concerning the SM particles is predicted at the terascale.\\
~~~(2.2) Global symmetry.~~
The Higgs boson can be a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson
relating a spontaneous breakdown of a global symmetry~\cite{IK&T}.
The smallness and the stability of the Higgs boson mass
and the smallness of Yukawa coupling constants
arise from the nature of Nambu-Goldstone particle.\\
~~~(2.3) Conformal symmetry~\cite{Frampton}.~~
The quantum conformal invariance in collaboration with finiteness,
which is called $\lq\lq$conformality'', can solve the problem.
In the appearance of new particles at the terascale,
the theory becomes scale invariant with the vanishing $\beta$ functions.
Then, physical parameters do not run beyond the scale, and
the concept of scale becomes vague.\\
~~(3) The concept of the third one is $\lq\lq$extra dimensions'', i.e.,
there exists extra spatial dimensions other than 4-dimensional spacetime.
We assume that there is a fundamental theory at the terascale with a fundamental mass
parameter of $O(1)$TeV, concerning extra dimensions.
The typical examples are models with large extra dimensions~\cite{ED1,ED2}.
The combination of $\lq\lq$extra dimensions'' and $\lq\lq$symmetry''
produces a new solution, which is called $\lq\lq$gauge-higgs unification''~\cite{GHU1,GHU2}.
The extra-dimensional component $(A_y)$ of gauge field is massless at the tree level
due to the gauge invariance,
and receives a finite correction on its mass upon compactification~\cite{HIL}.
By the identification of $A_y$ with the Higgs boson, $m_{\rm h}$ becomes a natural parameter
because gauge symmetry enhances on the higher-dimensional one in the limit of $m_{\rm h} \to 0$,
and the weak scale is stabilized
in the case with a large compactification scale of $O(1)$TeV$^{-1}$.
The stabilization of the extra-dimensional space is crucial
for the solution to the gauge hierarchy problem
in theories on a higher-dimensional space-time,
including the Randall-Sundrum model~\cite{R&S}.\\
~~(4) There is a new physics at a higher energy scale $M_I$
than the terascale, but the interaction with the SM is extremely weak.
Or large radiative corrections are not induced,
if the mixing among parameters of the physics
at $M_I$ and the SM is tiny enough such that $c''_{{\rm h}I} \le O(m_{\rm h}^2/M_I^2)$.\\
~~(5) The SM (or an extension of the SM with new particles around the terascale)
holds up to a high energy scale $M_{\rm U}$,
without a new concept to stabilize the Higgs boson mass at the terascale.
We assume that a new physics appears at $M_{\rm U}$,
which is described by an ultimate theory,
the initial value of $m_{\rm h}$ is fixed by the new physics,
and some mechanism and/or symmetry protects $m_{\rm h}^2$ against large radiative corrections~\cite{Dienes,A&I,K}.
There is a possibility that a new physics and/or concept is hidden behind the SM, too.
\subsection{Masslessness and finiteness}
\label{Masslessness and finiteness}
Before we reexamine the gauge hierarchy problem from a different angle,
we discuss its related topics on a basis of an ultimate theory.
First, we assume that the physics at $M_{\rm U}$ is described by an ultimate theory,
which has $\lq\lq$finiteness'', i.e., physical quantities are calculated as finite values.
At a rough guess, the magnitude of quantities
with mass dimension $d$ is estimated as $O(M_{\rm U}^d)$,
and natural initial conditions for masses of particles in low-energy physics
would be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
m_i(M_{\rm U}) = 0~,
\label{m(M)}
\end{eqnarray}
as far as a mechanism to generate a tiny value does not work in the ultimate theory.
We refer to the relations $m_i(M_{\rm U}) = 0$ as $\lq\lq$masslessness''.\footnote{
Masslessness could be related to the vanishment of bare Higgs boson mass around $M_{\rm Pl}$~\cite{HK&O}.
}
Non-zero masses and scales are expected to be dynamically generated
by quantum effects, in the effective field theory.
In other words,
it might be a natural choice that every particle in a low-energy theory is massless at $M_{\rm U}$,
the effective theory has the classical conformal symmetry in addition to
chiral symmetry and gauge symmetry, and masses are induced after the breakdown of relevant
symmetries by some dynamics.
The typical examples are the Higgs mechanism in electroweak theory
and the dimensional transmutation in quantum chromodynamics.
At this stage, the following questions arise.
{\it What is the origin of masslessness and finiteness?
How is masslessness protected against quantum effects?}
We need to specify an ultimate theory, in order to answer the above questions.
Here, we take string theory as a possible candidate.\footnote{
As a candidate of field theory version,
the theories called finite unified theories, which have a large predictive power,
have been proposed \cite{FUT}.
They are based on the finiteness and the principle of reduction of coupling constants.
}
In string theory, the world-sheet conformal invariance induces the massless string states,
and the world-sheet modular invariance guarantees finiteness of physical quantities.
Hence, it can be said that the world-sheet modular invariance
is responsible for the protection of masslessness against quantum corrections.
Concretely, from the world-sheet modular invariance for the closed string,
the correction $\delta m_{\phi}^2$ (radiative corrections of the scalar mass squared
including contributions from innumerable string states)
should be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta m_{\phi}^2 =
\int_{\mathcal{F}} \frac{d^2\tau}{\tau_2^2} G(\tau)~,
\label{deltamphi-st}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau = \tau_1 + i \tau_2$ is a modular parameter,
$G(\tau)$ is a worldsheet modular invariant function, i.e., $G(\tau) = G(\tau+1)$
and $G(\tau) = G(-1/\tau)$,
and $\mathcal{F}$ stands for the fundamental region defined by
$\mathcal{F} = \{\tau: |\mbox{Re}\tau| \le {1}/{2}, 1 \le |\tau|\}$.
In cases where SUSY holds exactly, $G(\tau)$ vanishes, and then $\delta m_{\phi}^2 = 0$.
Even if SUSY is broken down, there is a possibility that $G(\tau)$ vanishes in conspiracy with
infinite towers of massive particles,
as suggested in Ref.~\cite{Dienes}.
From the viewpoint of effective field theories, symmetries relevant to
naturalness such as chiral symmetry, gauge symmetry and conformal symmetry
become useful tools for realistic model-building, that is,
naturalness becomes a powerful guiding principle
to construct an effective theory~\cite{tHooft}.
The relation of naturalness and conformal symmetry
has been reexamined by Bardeen~\cite{Bardeen}.\footnote{
Extensions of the SM have been proposed
by adopting the classical conformal invariance as a guiding principle~\cite{M&N,FKM&V,H&K,IO&O,I&O,EJK&S,HRRS&T,H&S,C&R}.
}
On the other hand, from the viewpoint of an ultimate theory,
masslessness is more essential than naturalness or symmetries that make parameters natural.
In other words, naturalness or the relevant symmetry
is regarded as a secondary concept, originated from masslessness.
Also, there is a possibility that an ultimate theory provides constraints on its effective theory.
For instance, the ultimate theory possesses a duality like the world-sheet modular invariance.
If this symmetry or its remnant could be imposed on the effective theory,
only logarithmic divergent parts might be picked out
and the Higgs boson mass could become a natural parameter,
as discussed in \cite{K2}.
For the gauge hierarchy problem,
the fine tuning of order $(m_{\phi}/M_{\rm U})^2$ is required
for the scalar mass squared $m_{\phi}^2 (\ll M_{\rm U}^2)$
from the viewpoint of effective field theories.
In the ultimate theory, there must be symmetries
such as world-sheet conformal symmetry, modular invariance and SUSY in string theory,
to generate masslessness and protect it against radiative corrections of $O(M_{\rm U}^2)$.
Hence, we expect that
such fine tuning might also be an artifact in its effective field theory,
and it could be improved if features of the ultimate theory
are taken in and the ingredients of the effective theory are enriched.
\section{Supersymmetry and fermionic symmetry}
\label{Supersymmetry and fermionic symmetry}
Let us reconsider the technical side of the gauge hierarchy problem, based on the last possibility
presented in Sect. \ref{Possible solutions},
because it is plausible on the basis of recent experimental results at LHC.
Evidences from SUSY, compositeness and extra dimensions have not yet been discovered,
and a definite discrepancy has not yet been observed
between the predictions in the SM (modified with massive neutrinos) and experimental results.
These suggest that, even if new particles and/or new dynamics exist,
those effects must be adequately suppressed.
Our consideration is based on the following assumptions,
relating a physics beyond and/or behind the SM.\\
(a) There is an ultimate theory at a high-energy scale $M_{\rm U}$,
and it contains particles with masses of $O(M_{\rm U})$ and massless ones.
The physical sector of massless particles is described by
the SM (or an extension of the SM with new particles around the terascale).
We denote it by SM + $\alpha$.
This model holds up to $M_{\rm U}$,
and the Higgs boson is described as an elementary particle.\\
(b) There exists a new physics with a new concept $\mathcal{X}$
beyond and/or behind SM + $\alpha$,
which is one of characteristics in the ultimate theory.
The new physics can be formulated by an effective field theory possessing $\mathcal{X}$.\\
(c) The full effective theory consists of three parts,
the part $X_{\rm heavy}$ describing heavy particles
with masses of $O(M_{\rm U})$,
the part $X_{\rm light}$ ($\supset {\rm SM} + \alpha$)
including light (or massless at $M_{\rm U}$) particles
that survive at a lower-energy scale,
and the part $X_{\rm mix}$
describing the interactions between particles in $X_{\rm high}$ and those in $X_{\rm light}$.
The gauge hierarchy problem does not occur,
and the physical sector can be described by an effective theory
without $X_{\rm heavy}$ and $X_{\rm mix}$.
This feature consists of the following ingredients.\\
(c1) The physical parameters in SM + $\alpha$ do not receive large quantum corrections,
in the presence of $X_{\rm heavy}$ and $X_{\rm mix}$.\\
(c2) The concept $\mathcal{X}$ is preserved in the full effective theory,
independent of the behavior of the particles in SM + $\alpha$.
In the following, we search for $\mathcal{X}$ to realize (a) -- (c),
and explore theories with $\mathcal{X}$ beyond and/or behind SM + $\alpha$.
\subsection{Fragility of supersymmetry and gauge hierarchy problem}
\label{Fragility of supersymmetry and gauge hierarchy problem}
For the sake of completeness, we examine whether spacetime SUSY
is suitable as $\mathcal{X}$ or not,
by making clear the strong and weak points of SUSY, using a toy model.
Let us begin with the Lagrangian density given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm SUSY} = \mathcal{L}_{(0)} + \mathcal{L}_{(1,2)} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}~,
\label{L-SUSY}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{(0)}
= \left|\partial_\mu \phi_0\right|^2 + \overline{\psi}_0 i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi_0~,
\label{L0}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{(1,2)} = \left|\partial_\mu \phi_1\right|^2 - M^2 \left|\phi_1\right|^2
+ \left|\partial_\mu \phi_2\right|^2 - M^2 \left|\phi_2\right|^2
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \overline{\psi}_1 i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi_1
+ \overline{\psi}_2 i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi_2
- M \psi_1 \psi_2 - M \overline{\psi}_1 \overline{\psi}_2~,
\label{L12}\\
&~&
\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix} = - f^2 \left|\phi_0\right|^2 \left(\left|\phi_1\right|^2 + \left|\phi_2\right|^2\right)
- f^2 \left|\phi_1\right|^2 \left|\phi_2\right|^2
- f M \left(\phi_0 + \phi^*_0\right) \left(\left|\phi_1\right|^2 + \left|\phi_2\right|^2\right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~
- f \phi_0 \psi_1 \psi_2 - f \psi_0 \phi_1 \psi_2 - f \psi_0 \psi_1 \phi_2
- f \phi^*_0 \overline{\psi}_1 \overline{\psi}_2
- f \overline{\psi}_0 \phi^*_1 \overline{\psi}_2
- f \overline{\psi}_0 \overline{\psi}_1 \phi^*_2 ~,
\label{Lmix}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi_k$ and $\psi_k$ $(k=0,1,2)$ are complex scalar bosons and Weyl fermions, respectively,
and parameters $M$ and $f$ are chosen as real, for simplicity.
The SUSY invariance of $\mathcal{L}_{\rm SUSY}$ is understood
from the rewritten version,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm SUSY} = \sum_k \left(\left|\partial_\mu \phi_k\right|^2
+ \overline{\psi}_k i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi_k
- \left|\frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_k}\right|^2\right)
- \left(\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k,l} \frac{\partial^2 W}{\partial \phi_k \partial \phi_l} \psi_k \psi_l
+ {\rm h.c.}\right)~,
\label{L-SUSY2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $W= M \phi_1 \phi_2 + f \phi_0 \phi_1 \phi_2$ and h.c. represents the hermitian conjugate.
From (\ref{L0}) and (\ref{L12}),
we find that, at the tree level,
both $\phi_0$ and $\psi_0$ are massless,
both $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ have a mass $M$, and
$\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ form a Dirac fermion with a mass $M$.
Let us suppose that the sectors described by $\mathcal{L}_{(0)}$, $\mathcal{L}_{(1,2)}$
and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$ are counterparts to
a SUSY extension of SM + $\alpha$, $X_{\rm heavy}$ and $X_{\rm mix}$, respectively.
Although the second term in $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$ contains only heavy fields,
we assume that it belongs to $X_{\rm mix}$
because it originates from the mixing of light and heavy fields in $W$.
The non-renormalization theorem states
that both $M$ and $f$ do not receive any radiative corrections perturbatively,
and hence the mass spectrum remains unchanged
and the hierarchical structure holds at the quantum level.
This is the strong point of SUSY, and
SUSY extensions of GUTs become candidates of a theory with $\mathcal{X}$~\cite{Sakai,D&G}.
However, SUSY has not yet been found in particle physics.
Hence, if SUSY exists in nature, it is realized in a broken form.
There are at least two possibilities to explain the current status.
One is that superpartners of the SM particles exist,
but they are too heavy to observe through the present collider experiments.
Then, naturalness of $m_{\rm h}$ would be viewed with suspicion
because of the necessity for a (mild) fine tuning,
as superpartners become heavier~\cite{EEN&Z,B&G}.
The other one is that there are no superpartners of the SM particles at all.
Then, a weakness of SUSY would become apparent (as will be shown below)
because of the missing of SUSY in the low-energy physics
after the reduction of SUSY and the elimination of superpartners,
even if SUSY exists at an ultimate theory.
In the following, we hit a sensitive point of SUSY by answering the question
what happens if superpartners are missing,
considering the case that $\psi_0$ is eliminated in the above toy model.
Or we show that the parameters receive radiative corrections in the absence of $\psi_0$,
and the mass hierarchy is spoiled.
Concretely,
at the one-loop level, the mass squared of $\phi_0$, $m_{\phi_0}^2$,
does not receive any radiative corrections.
This is due to the fact that $\phi_0$ couples with heavy fields in a SUSY invariant form.
The mass squareds of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$
receive the radiative corrections of $O(M^2)$,
even if quadratic divergences are removed.
On the other hand, $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ do not receive mass corrections at the one-loop level,
and the mass degeneracy of heavy fields is lost.
Hence $m_{\phi_0}^2$
receives large radiative corrections of $O(M^2)$ up to some suppression factors
at the two-loop level,
and the mass hierarchy is destroyed.
Although we have considered the toy model
where the system with $\mathcal{L}'_{(0)}=\left|\partial_\mu \phi_0\right|^2$
corresponds to SM + $\alpha$,
it is easily understood that a similar thing happens
in any SUSY extensions of the SM
and the gauge hierarchy problem occurs.\footnote{
In SUSY extensions of the SM,
quadratic divergences appear in radiative corrections on scalar masses
in the absence of (part of) superpartners, even if we neglect the contributions from heavy particles.
To avoid such a complication and extract effects of heavy particles,
the toy model is considered.
}
In this way, SUSY makes a strong showing in the presence of superpartners,
but it is fragile if missing.
We rethink what happened, from the viewpoint of heavy particles.
Let light fields introduce without their superpartners
into a SUSY invariant system including heavy fields.
The structure of SUSY invariant system is broken down through the coupling to the system
without superpartners,
and it induces large radiative corrections on masses of light scalar fields.
This is a root or might be an essence of the gauge hierarchy problem.
In other words, the gauge hierarchy problem can be restated as
$\lq\lq${\it without upsetting the structure of a high-energy physics
under cover of an excellent concept,
is it possible to formulate a low-energy effective theory
and the interaction with heavy particles?}"
\subsection{Fermionic symmetry with a charmed life}
First, we speculate a theory whose structure is stabilized by some symmetry $\mathcal{X}$.
The strong point of SUSY provides a useful hint.
It is that the cancellation on radiative corrections
works very well due to contributions from particles with different statistics,
that form supermultiplets, if SUSY holds exactly.
The spacetime SUSY pairs every particle with its superpartner
whose helicity is one-half different from,
because SUSY charges $(Q_{\alpha}, \overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha}})$ have helicity $\pm 1/2$
and satisfy the relation
$\{Q_{\alpha}, \overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha}}\} = 2 \sigma_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}^{\mu} P_{\mu}$.
Here, we consider $N=1$ SUSY for simplicity.
Note that $Q_{\alpha}$ and $\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha}}$-singlets satisfying
$Q_{\alpha} \psi(x) = 0$ and $\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha}} \psi(x) = 0$ are not allowed
because of $P_{\mu} \psi(x) = i \partial_{\mu} \psi(x) \ne 0$.
This fact leads to a weak point of SUSY
in case that some superpartners are missing.
From this observation, we anticipate that something quite interesting can happen,
if there is a symmetry
such that the SM particles are singlets and heavy particles form doublets
under the transformation group,
and quantum corrections from each component in the doublet are canceled out each other.
Then, a possible candidate of $\mathcal{X}$ is a fermionic symmetry
that transforms an ordinary particle into its ghost partner.
Here, an ordinary particle means a particle that obeys the spin-statistics theorem.
The ghost partner has same spacetime and internal quantum numbers
with the corresponding ordinary particle, but yields a different statistics.
We refer to this type of fermionic symmetry as a $\lq\lq$particle-ghost symmetry''.
We explore theories with ghost fields, in the expectation that
the particle-ghost symmetry can play the vital role
to stabilize the Higgs boson mass, although it is hidden behind the SM.
Let us consider a toy model with a complex scalar particle $\phi$ with a light mass $m_{\phi}$
and a pair of complex scalar particles $(\varphi, c_{\varphi})$ with a heavy mass $M_{\varphi}$.
Here, $\varphi$ is an ordinary scalar field yielding the commutation relations
and $c_{\varphi}$ is its ghost partner yielding the anti-commutation relations.
If both $\varphi$ and $c_{\varphi}$ interacts with $\phi$ in the same way,
radiative corrections on $m_{\phi}$ due to heavy fields would vanish
because of the cancellation between contributions from $\varphi$ and $c_{\varphi}$.
Note that the extra minus sign appears for the virtual ghost field running in the loop.
Furthermore, the mass of $c_{\varphi}$ would receive the same size of radiative corrections
with that of $\varphi$ through the interactions with $\phi$.
Hence we expect that the particle-ghost symmetry is unbroken at the quantum level,
and the mass hierarchy is stabilized.
Next, we embody our speculation, using the Lagrangian density,
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm T}
= \mathcal{L}_{\phi} + \mathcal{L}_{\varphi, c} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}~,
\label{L-T}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\phi} = \partial_\mu \phi^{\dagger} \partial^{\mu} \phi
- m_{\phi}^2 \phi^{\dagger}\phi
- \lambda_{\phi} \left(\phi^{\dagger}\phi\right)^2~,
\label{L-phi}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\varphi, c}
= \partial_\mu \varphi^{\dagger} \partial^{\mu} \varphi
+ \partial_\mu c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} \partial^{\mu} c_\varphi
- M_{\varphi}^2 \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi\right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- \lambda_{\varphi} \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi\right)
\star \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi\right)~,
\label{L-varpsi}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}
= - \lambda' \phi^{\dagger} \phi \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi\right)~,
\label{L-mix-varpsi}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_{\phi}$ is the quartic self-coupling constant of $\phi$,
$\lambda_{\varphi}$ and $\lambda'$ are other quartic coupling constants,
and the star product ($\star$) represents a non-local interaction.
The self-interactions of heavy fields are indispensable,
because they are induced radiatively via the couplings between light and heavy fields.
Features of interaction terms are given in the Appendix A.
The sectors described by $\mathcal{L}_{\phi}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\varphi, c}$
and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$ are counterparts to SM + $\alpha$,
$X_{\rm heavy}$ and $X_{\rm mix}$, respectively.
Here, we outline radiative corrections on parameters.
Details are presented in the Appendix A.
At the one-loop level, the mass squared of $\phi$ does not receive any radiative corrections
from heavy fields, because the contributions from $\varphi$ and $c_{\varphi}$
are exactly canceled out.
On the other hand, the parameters $M_{\varphi}$, $\lambda_{\varphi}$ and $\lambda'$
receive radiative corrections through $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$ and the interactions in $\mathcal{L}_{\varphi, c}$.
If both $\varphi$ and $c_{\varphi}$ receive exactly the same size of contributions,
the structure of $\mathcal{L}_{\varphi, c}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$ remain unchanged.
This can be shown at the one-loop level if interaction terms satisfy some features.
If the stabilization of $\mathcal{L}_{\varphi, c}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$
hold at the all order of perturbation and
the quadratic divergence in the mass squared of $\phi$,
originated from the self-interaction of $\phi$,
is subtracted, the system is free from fine tuning.
Then, the mass hierarchy can be stabilized
against quantum corrections.
Now, we study a characteristics $\mathcal{X}$ to stabilize the theory.
From (\ref{L-varpsi}) and (\ref{L-mix-varpsi}),
we guess that the quardratic form $\mathcal{I}= \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi$
is a key and a symmetry relating transformations
which leave $\mathcal{I}$ invariant can be $\mathcal{X}$.
It is equivalent to $OSp(2|2)$.\footnote{
The $OSp(2|2)$ is the group whose elements are generators of transformations
(corresponding (a), (b) and (d))
which leave the inner product of two vectors such as
$x_1 x_2 + y_1 y_2 + (\overline{\theta}_1 {\theta}_2 - {\theta}_1 \overline{\theta}_2)/2$
invariant, where $x_i$ and $y_i$ $(i=1, 2)$
are bosonic variables, and $\theta_i$ and $\overline{\theta}_i$ are fermionic ones.
Note that the innner product is given by
$x^2 + y^2 + \overline{\theta} \theta (= |z|^2 + \overline{\theta} \theta)$ for a same vector,
where $z=x+iy$.
}
The transformations are classified into following four types.\\
(a) $U(1)$ transformation for a particle:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\rm o} \varphi = i \epsilon_{\rm o} \varphi~,~~
\delta_{\rm o} \varphi^{\dagger} = -i \epsilon_{\rm o} \varphi^{\dagger}~,~~
\delta_{\rm o} c_{\varphi} = 0~,~~ \delta_{\rm o} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} = 0~,
\label{delta-o}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{\rm o}$ is an infinitesimal real number.\\
(b) $U(1)$ transformation for a ghost:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\rm g} \varphi = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm g} \varphi^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm g} c_{\varphi} = i \epsilon_{\rm g} c_{\varphi}~,~~
\delta_{\rm g} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} = -i \epsilon_{\rm g} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger}~,
\label{delta-g}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{\rm g}$ is an infinitesimal real number.\\
(c) Transformation that $c_{\varphi}$ changes into $c_{\varphi}^{\dagger}$
and its hermitian conjugation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \delta_{\rm c} \varphi = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm c} \varphi^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm c} c_{\varphi} = \epsilon_{\rm c} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger}~,~~
\delta_{\rm c} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} = 0~,
\label{delta-c}\\
&~& \delta_{\rm c}^{\dagger} \varphi = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm c}^{\dagger} \varphi^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm c}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi} = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm c}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} = \epsilon_{\rm c}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}~,
\label{delta-cdagger}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{\rm c}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm c}^{\dagger}$
are Grassman numbers.\\
(d) Fermionic transformations (particle-ghost transformations):
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \delta_{\rm F} \varphi = -\zeta c_{\varphi}~,~~\delta_{\rm F} \varphi^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm F} c_{\varphi} = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm F} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} = \zeta \varphi^{\dagger}~,
\label{delta-F} \\
&~& \delta_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \varphi = 0~,~~
\delta_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \varphi^{\dagger} = \zeta^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger}~,~~
\delta_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi} = \zeta^{\dagger} \varphi~,~~
\delta_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} = 0~,
\label{delta-Fdagger}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\zeta$ and $\zeta^{\dagger}$ are Grassman numbers.
Note that $\delta_{\rm F}$ is not generated by a hermitian operator,
different from the generator of the BRST transformation
in systems with first class constraints~\cite{BRST}
and that of the topological symmetry~\cite{W,Top}.
From the above transformation properties,
we see that ${\bm \delta}_{\rm c}$, ${\bm \delta}_{\rm c}^{\dagger}$,
${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}$ and ${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$ are nilpotent, i.e.,
${\bm \delta}_{\rm c}^2 = 0$, ${\bm \delta}_{\rm c}^{\dagger2}=0$, ${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^2= 0$
and ${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger2}=0$,
where ${\bm \delta}_{\rm c}$, ${\bm \delta}_{\rm c}^{\dagger}$,
${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}$ and ${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$ are
defined by $\delta_{\rm c} = \epsilon_{\rm c} {\bm \delta}_{\rm c}$,
$\delta_{\rm c}^{\dagger} = \epsilon_{\rm c}^{\dagger} {\bm \delta}_{\rm c}^{\dagger}$
$\delta_{\rm F} = \zeta {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}$
and $\delta_{\rm F}^{\dagger} = \zeta^{\dagger} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$, respectively.
Furthermore, we find the algebraic relations,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{Q_{\rm c}, Q_{\rm c}^{\dagger}\right\} = N_{\rm g}~,~~
\left\{Q_{\rm F}, Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}\right\} = N_{\rm o} + N_{\rm g} \equiv N_{\rm D}~,
\label{QQdagger}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_{\rm o}$, $N_{\rm g}$, $Q_{\rm c}$, $Q_{\rm c}^{\dagger}$, $Q_{\rm F}$ and $Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$ are the corresponding generators (charges)
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \delta_{\rm o} \Phi = i\left[\epsilon_{\rm o} N_{\rm o}, \Phi\right]~,~~
\delta_{\rm g} \Phi = i\left[\epsilon_{\rm g} N_{\rm g}, \Phi\right]~,~~
\delta_{\rm c} \Phi = i\left[\epsilon_{\rm c} Q_{\rm c}, \Phi\right]~,~~
\nonumber \\
&~& \delta_{\rm c}^{\dagger} \Phi
= i\left[\epsilon_{\rm c}^{\dagger} Q_{\rm c}^{\dagger}, \Phi\right]~,~~
\delta_{\rm F} \Phi = i\left[\zeta Q_{\rm F}, \Phi\right]~,~~
\delta_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \Phi = i\left[Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}\zeta^{\dagger}, \Phi\right]~.
\label{Qs}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easily understood that $\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi$ is invariant
under the transformations (\ref{delta-F}) and (\ref{delta-Fdagger}),
from the nilpotency of ${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}$ and ${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$ and the relations,
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi
= {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}\left(c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} \varphi\right)
= {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}\left(\varphi^{\dagger} c_\varphi\right)
= {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi\right)
= -{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}
\left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi\right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
= -{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}
\left(c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}\right)
= {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}
\left(c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}\right)~.
\label{delta-rel}
\end{eqnarray}
Using them, the Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{\rm T}$ is rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm T}
= \mathcal{L}_{\phi}
+ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}
\left[\partial_\mu \varphi^{\dagger} \partial^{\mu} \varphi
- M_{\varphi}^2 \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi
- \frac{\lambda_{\varphi}}{2} \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi \star \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi
- c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi \star c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi\right)
- \lambda' \phi^{\dagger} \phi \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi\right]~.
\label{L-T-again}
\end{eqnarray}
The theory is specified by the fermionic charges $Q_{\rm F}$ and $Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$
and the bosonic charge $N_{\rm D}$ of the doublet $(\varphi, c_{\varphi})$
with the relation $\displaystyle{\left\{Q_{\rm F}, Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}\right\} = N_{\rm D}}$.
In the case that $\phi$ is invariant under $OSp(2|2)$ transformation,
i.e., $\phi$ is $Q_{\rm F}$ and $Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$-singlet
satisfying $\delta_{\rm F} \phi = 0$ and $\delta_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \phi = 0$,
the full system described by $\mathcal{L}_{\rm T}$ has $OSp(2|2)$ invariance.
Note that $Q_{\rm F}$ and $Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$-singlets are allowed,
because $N_{\rm D}$ is irrelevant to spacetime symmetries,
different from the case of spacetime SUSY.
To formulate our model in a consistent manner,
we use a feature
that {\it a conserved charge can, in general, be set to be zero as a subsidiary condition}.
We impose the following subsidiary conditions on states to select physical states
$|{\rm phys}\rangle$ can be selected,\footnote{
The conditions (\ref{Phys}) are interpreted as counterparts of the Kugo-Ojima subsidiary condition
in BRST quantization~\cite{K&O}.
It is shown that the system containing both free ordinary fields and their ghost partners
is quantized consistently, though it becomes empty leaving the vacuum state alone~\cite{YK3}.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{\rm F} |{\rm phys}\rangle = 0~,~~Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger} |{\rm phys}\rangle = 0~,~~
N_{\rm D} |{\rm phys}\rangle = 0~,
\label{Phys}
\end{eqnarray}
and then heavy fields $\varphi$ and $c_{\varphi}$ are expected to be unphysical
and not to give any quantum effects on the light field $\phi$.
This is regarded as a field theoretical version of the Parisi-Sourlas mechanism~\cite{P&S}.
Hence, there is a possibility that
$\varphi$ and $c_{\varphi}$ are not dangerous for $\phi$,
and vice versa, and the structure of theory is stabilized
owing to the fermionic symmetries with a charmed life.
If we take $\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi$
in place of $\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi \star \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi$ in (\ref{L-T-again}),
the self-interactions of $Q_{\rm F}$-doublet
$\lambda_{\varphi} \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi\right)
\star \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi + c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi\right)$
in $\mathcal{L}_{\varphi, c}$ is replaced by
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{\varphi} \left(\varphi^{\dagger} \varphi \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi
+ \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi
+ c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} \varphi \varphi^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}
+ \varphi^{\dagger} \varphi \star c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_\varphi
- c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} \varphi \star \varphi^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}
+ c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi} \star c_{\varphi}^{\dagger} c_{\varphi}\right)~.
\label{L-varphi-c-ordinary}
\end{eqnarray}
Hereafter, we do not consider self-interactions containing both local and non-local ones
such as (\ref{L-varphi-c-ordinary}),
because the form of these interactions could not be stable
against radiative corrections in the framework of effective field theory.
More powerful fermionic symmetries might be needed to construct a realistic model.
We, however, do not specify them,
because we have not known what an ultimate theory is
and what underlying symmetries are.
Hence, in the following, we use particle-ghost symmetries
as an illustrative example.
We consider theories with
fermionic symmetries (whose generators are denoted by
$Q_{\rm F}$ and $Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}$)
that relate particles to their ghost partners
and the bosonic symmetry relating the charge $N_{\rm D}$ for the doublets
(pairs of particles and their ghost partners)
with the relation $\displaystyle{\left\{Q_{\rm F}, Q_{\rm F}^{\dagger}\right\} = N_{\rm D}}$,
and assume that those symmetries are not broken down at the quantum level,
and ghost fields are unphysical and harmless.
Then we arrive at the conjecture that
{\it the gauge hierarchy problem does not occur
and the physical low-energy theory can be described by SM + $\alpha$,
if a full effective theory has fermionic symmetries with an eternal life,
the SM particles and some extra light fields are $Q_{\rm F}$-singlets
and others including heavy fields are $Q_{\rm F}$-doublets}.
A theory beyond and behind the SM
is expected to be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm BSM} = \mathcal{L}_{\rm light}
+ \mathcal{L}_{\rm heavy} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}~,~~
\mathcal{L}_{\rm light}
= \mathcal{L}_{{\rm SM}+\alpha}
+ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \Delta\mathcal{L}~,
\label{L-BSM}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{L}_{\rm light}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\rm heavy}$
and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$ stand for the Lagrangian densities of
the parts $X_{\rm light}$, $X_{\rm heavy}$
and $X_{\rm mix}$, respectively.
The $\mathcal{L}_{{\rm SM}+\alpha}$ represents the Lagrangian densities of SM + $\alpha$,
and ${\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \Delta\mathcal{L}$
contains light $Q_{\rm F}$-doublet fields.
Both $\mathcal{L}_{\rm heavy}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$ are
also written in the ${\bm \delta}_{\rm F}$-exact form,
for instance,
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm heavy} =
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}\left[\sum_k \left({c}_{{\rm L}k}^{\dagger} i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu}
D_{\mu} \psi_{{\rm L}k}
+ {c}_{{\rm R}k}^{\dagger} i \sigma^{\mu} D_{\mu} \psi_{{\rm R}k}
-M_k {c}_{{\rm L}k}^{\dagger} \psi_{{\rm R}k} -
M_k {c}_{{\rm R}k}^{\dagger} \psi_{{\rm L}k}\right) \right.
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\left. + \sum_l \left(\left(D^{\mu} {c}_{l}\right)^{\dagger} \left(D_{\mu} \varphi_{l}\right)
- M_l^2 c_{l}^{\dagger} \varphi_{l}\right)
+ \cdots\right]
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
= {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}
\left[\sum_k \left({\psi}_{{\rm L}k}^{\dagger} i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu}
D_{\mu} \psi_{{\rm L}k}
+ {\psi}_{{\rm R}k}^{\dagger} i \sigma^{\mu} D_{\mu} \psi_{{\rm R}k}
- M_k {\psi}_{{\rm L}k}^{\dagger} \psi_{{\rm R}k}
- M_k {\psi}_{{\rm R}k}^{\dagger} \psi_{{\rm L}k}\right) \right.
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\left. + \sum_l \left(\left(D^{\mu} \varphi_{l}\right)^{\dagger} \left(D_{\mu} \varphi_{l}\right)
- M_l^2 \varphi_{l}^{\dagger} \varphi_{l}\right)+ \cdots\right]~,
\label{L-High2}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}
= {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}\left[-\sum_l \lambda_{l} H^{\dagger} H {c}_{l}^{\dagger}\varphi_{l}
+ \cdots\right]
= {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}
\left[-\sum_l \lambda_{l} H^{\dagger} H \varphi_{l}^{\dagger}\varphi_{l} + \cdots\right]~,
\label{L-int2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\psi_{{\rm L}k}, c_{{\rm L}k})$ and $(\psi_{{\rm R}k}, c_{{\rm R}k})$
are heavy Weyl spinor $Q_{\rm F}$-doublets,
and $(\varphi_l, c_{l})$ are complex scalar $Q_{\rm F}$-doublets,
and $H$ is the Higgs boson in the SM that is a $Q_{\rm F}$-singlet.
Note that both $\mathcal{L}_{\rm heavy}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix}$ are also
expressed in the ${\bm \delta}^{\dagger}_{\rm F}$-exact form.
\subsection{Grand unification and fermionic symmetry}
First, let us start with a conjecture relating an ultimate theory.
The ultimate theory must explain the birth of our physical world as follows.
{\it Our world comes into existence from $\lq\lq$nothing''.
Here, nothing means not an empty but a world
whose constituents are unphysical objects
and/or fundamental objects including only gauge bosons (and their superpartners, i.e., gauginos),
that form multiplets of a large gauge symmetry.
$\lq\lq$Beings'' including matter fields are generated at $M_{\rm U}$,
after reducing the large symmetry
into a smaller one, by some mechanism.
The constituents after the reduction
are massless particles and massive unphysical ones.
The massless particles contain GUT multiplets and incomplete ones.
Parts of the GUT multiplets
become unphysical in collaboration with ghost partners belonging to incomplete ones.
After all, the SM particles and extra particles survive as physical ones or $\lq\lq$beings'',
in a lower-energy world.}\footnote{
Based on this conjecture, a toy model has been proposed
that physical modes are released from unobservable fields~\cite{YK4}.
}
Note that, in our scenario, extra components of GUT multiplets can remain massless and decouple to the SM particles
because they become unphysical,
which is different from the ordinary case that they decouple to the SM particles
because they become heavy on the breakdown of GUT symmetry.
Next, we discuss the verifiability and predictions of our conjecture.
Although unphysical particles do not give any dynamical effects on the physical sector,
there are at least two predictions, which can be indirect proofs of unphysical sector.
First one is that physical quantities calculated in the SM + $\alpha$ should precisely
match with the experimental values at the terascale, up to any gravitational effects,
because radiative corrections from unphysical particles are canceled out.
Second one is that parameters in the SM + $\alpha$ should satisfy specific relations
at $M_{\rm U}$, reflecting on a large symmetry realized in the ultimate theory.
In the following subsections, we explain that the second prediction can be realized,
in the appearance of new particles ($Q_{\rm F}$-singlets) around the terascale
and light $Q_{\rm F}$-doublets,
under a situation with following features.\\
(i) An ultimate theory has a large gauge symmetry potentially.
Gauge bosons originate from an object
such as $D$-brane in string theory.\\
(ii) Other particles including matter fields appear
with changing the structure of space-time and/or object at a high-energy scale $M_{\rm U}$.
All massive fields form $Q_{\rm F}$-doublets and become unphysical.
Massless fields consist of ordinary fields and ghost fields.
Most ordinary fields including the gauge bosons form multiplets of a gauge group $G_{\rm o}$,
other ordinary fields form multiplets of a smaller gauge group $G'_{\rm o}$
and ghost fields form multiplets of a gauge group $G_{\rm g}$.
The gauge symmetry of the system could increase
from $G'_{\rm o}$ or $G_{\rm g}$ to $G_{\rm o}$,
if other ordinary fields and massless ghost fields were removed,
i.e., $G_{\rm o} \supset G'_{\rm o}, G_{\rm g}$.\\
(iii) The system survives in a consistent manner, thanks to fermionic symmetries.
The fermionic symmetries are unbroken at the quantum level,
and all ghost fields are unphysical and harmless.
\subsubsection{Symmetry reduction with ghost administration}
\label{Symmetry reduction with ghost administration}
Let us demonstrate that the gauge symmetry is reduced
in the appearance of incomplete multiplets at $M_{\rm U}$,
using toy models with the $SU(2)$ Yang-Mills field.
We assume that the ultimate theory possesses many solutions
corresponding multiverse
such as the string landscape
and some solutions contain ghost fields.
Their low-energy effective field theories are constructed
from the massless spectra.
In the following, we write down the Lagrangian densities
with particle-ghost symmetries if ghost fields exist,
in several cases
for a given set of massless particles.
First we consider an ordinary case that there are no ghost fields.\\
(A) Case with $Q_{\rm F}$ singlets matter fields\\
Let the set $(A_{\mu}^a, \phi, \psi_{\rm L}, \psi_{\rm R})$
be given as the massless ones.
Here, $A_{\mu}^a$ are $SU(2)$ gauge bosons $(a=1,2,3)$,
$\phi =(\phi^1, \phi^2)^T$ is a scalar field of $SU(2)$ doublet
(the superscript $T$ represents the operation of transposition),
$\psi_{\rm L} =(\psi_{\rm L}^1, \psi_{\rm L}^2)^T$
and $\psi_{\rm R}=(\psi_{\rm R}^1, \psi_{\rm R}^2)^T$
are left-handed and right-handed chiral fermions of $SU(2)$ doublets, respectively.
From the $SU(2)$ gauge invariance, the Lagrangian density is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{SU(2)}^{\rm (A)} = - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}
+ \mathcal{L}_{\rm m}~,
\label{L-SU2-A}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm m}
= (D_{\mu} \phi)^{\dagger} (D^{\mu} \phi)
+ {\psi}_{\rm L}^{\dagger} i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} D_{\mu} \psi_{\rm L}
+ {\psi}_{\rm R}^{\dagger} i \sigma^{\mu} D_{\mu} \psi_{\rm R}~,
\label{L-M}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{\mu\nu}^{a} = \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu}^a - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}^a
- g \varepsilon^{abc} A_{\mu}^{b} A_{\nu}^{c}$,
$D_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} + igA_{\mu}^a \tau^a/2$,
and $g$ is a gauge coupling constant, $\tau^a$ are Pauli matrices.
For simplicity, we omit interactions other than gauge interactions.
The system is described by an ordinary $SU(2)$ Yang-Mills theory
with a complex scalar field and two Weyl spinors (a Dirac spinor).
Next we consider the extremal case that all matter fields company with their ghost partners.\\
(B) Case with $Q_{\rm F}$ doublets matter fields\\
Let the set $(A_{\mu}^a; \phi, c_{\phi}; \psi_{\rm L}, c_{\rm L}; \psi_{\rm R}, c_{\rm R})$
be given as the massless ones.
Here, $c_{\phi}$ is the ghost partner of $\phi$,
and $c_{\rm L}$ and $c_{\rm R}$ are the ghost partners of
$\psi_{\rm L}$ and $\psi_{\rm R}$, respectively.
To formulate a theory consistently, we require the $SU(2)$ gauge invariance
and the invariance
under the fermionic transformations,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-1.4cm} &~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \phi = - c_{\phi}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \phi^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\phi} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\phi}^{\dagger} = \phi^{\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm L}= -c_{\rm L}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm L}^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.4cm} &~&
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\rm L} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\rm L}^{\dagger} = -\psi_{\rm L}^{\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm R} = -c_{\rm R}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm R}^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\rm R} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\rm R}^{\dagger} = -\psi_{\rm R}^{\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} A_{\mu}^a = 0
\label{delta-F-B}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-1.4cm} &~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \phi = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \phi^{\dagger} =c_{\phi}^{\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\phi} = \phi~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\phi}^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm L}= 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm L}^{\dagger} = -c_{\rm L}^{\dagger}~,~~
\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.4cm} &~&
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\rm L} = \psi_{\rm L}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\rm L}^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm R} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm R}^{\dagger} = -c_{\rm R}^{\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\rm R} = \psi_{\rm R}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\rm R}^{\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} A_{\mu}^a = 0~.
\label{delta-F-dagger-B}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we obtain the Lagrangian density
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{SU(2)}^{\rm (B)} = - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}
+ \mathcal{L}_{\rm m} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm gh}^{\rm (B)}
= - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}
+ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \mathcal{L}_{\rm m}~,
\label{L-SU2-B}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm gh}^{\rm (B)}
= (D_{\mu} c_{\phi})^{\dagger} (D^{\mu} c_{\phi})
+ {c}_{\rm L}^{\dagger} i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} D_{\mu} c_{\rm L}
+ {c}_{\rm R}^{\dagger} i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} D_{\mu} c_{\rm R} ~.
\label{L-gh-B}
\end{eqnarray}
For simplicity, we omit interactions other than gauge interactions.
The system is essentially identical to that described by the pure $SU(2)$ Yang-Mills theory,
because $Q_{\rm F}$ doublets are unphysical under the subsidiary conditions (\ref{Phys}).
Here, we give a comment on a SUSY extension of the system.
Let the set $(A_{\mu}^a; \lambda^a, c^a)$ be given as the massless ones.
Here, $\lambda^a$ are $SU(2)$ gauginos and $c^a$ are their ghost partners.
We obtain the Lagrangian density
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{SU(2)}^{\rm (B')} = - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}
+ \frac{1}{2} \overline{\lambda}^{a} i \gamma^{\mu} (D_{\mu} \lambda)^a
+ \frac{1}{2} \overline{c}^{a} i \gamma^{\mu} (D_{\mu} c)^a
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ = - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}
+ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger}
\left(\frac{1}{2} \overline{\lambda}^{a} i \gamma^{\mu} (D_{\mu} \lambda)^a\right)~.
\label{L-SU2-B'}
\end{eqnarray}
This system is also identical to that described by the pure $SU(2)$ Yang-Mills theory,
under the subsidiary conditions (\ref{Phys}).
Finally, we consider an exotic case such that incomplete ghost fields exist.\\
(C) Case with incomplete $Q_{\rm F}$ singlets matter fields\\
Let us obtain the set of particles $A_{\mu}^a$, $\phi$,
$\psi_{\rm L}$, $\psi_{\rm R}$
and the ghost fields which do not form $SU(2)$ multiplets
such as $C_{\mu}^{+}$, $C_{\mu}^{-}$, $c_{\phi}^1$, $c_{\rm L}^1$ and $c_{\rm R}^1$,
as the massless ones.
The gauge quantum numbers of ghost fields are same as those of
$A_{\mu}^{+}=(A_{\mu}^1 - i A_{\mu}^2)/\sqrt{2}$,
$A_{\mu}^{-}=(A_{\mu}^1 + i A_{\mu}^2)/\sqrt{2}$, ${\phi}^1$,
$\psi_{\rm L}^1$ and $\psi_{\rm R}^1$, respectively,
but they obey statistics different from ordinary counterparts.
To formulate a theory, we require the $U(1)$ gauge invariance
and the invariance
under the fermionic transformations,
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \phi^1 = - c_{\phi}^1~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \phi^{1\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\phi}^1 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\phi}^{1\dagger} = \phi^{1\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm L}^1
= -c_{\rm L}^1~,~~{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm L}^{1\dagger} = 0~,~~
\nonumber \\
&~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\rm L}^1 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\rm L}^{1\dagger} = -\psi_{\rm L}^{1\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm R}^1
= -c_{\rm R}^1~,~~{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm R}^{1\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\rm R}^1 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} c_{\rm R}^{1\dagger} = -\psi_{\rm R}^{1\dagger}~,~~
\nonumber \\
&~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} A_{\mu}^+
= - C_{\mu}^+~,~~{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} A_{\mu}^{-} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} C_{\mu}^+ = 0~,~~ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} C_{\mu}^{-} = A_{\mu}^{-}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \phi^2 = 0~,~~ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \phi^{2\dagger} = 0~,~~
\nonumber \\
&~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm L}^2 = 0~,~~ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm L}^{2\dagger}=0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm R}^2 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} \psi_{\rm R}^{2\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F} A_{\mu}^{3} = 0
\label{delta-F-C}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \phi^1 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \phi^{1\dagger} = c_{\phi}^{1\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\phi}^1 = \phi^1~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\phi}^{1\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm L}^1 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm L}^{1\dagger} = -c_{\rm L}^{1\dagger}~,~~
\nonumber \\
&~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\rm L}^1 = \psi_{\rm L}^{1}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\rm L}^{1\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm R}^1 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm R}^{1\dagger} = -c_{\rm R}^{1\dagger}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\rm R}^1 = \psi_{\rm R}^{1}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} c_{\rm R}^{1\dagger} = 0~,~~
\nonumber \\
&~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} A_{\mu}^+ = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} A_{\mu}^{-} = C_{\mu}^{-}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} C_{\mu}^+ = A_{\mu}^{+}~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} C_{\mu}^{-} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \phi^2 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \phi^{2\dagger} = 0~,~~
\nonumber \\
&~& {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm L}^2 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm L}^{2\dagger}=0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm R}^2 = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \psi_{\rm R}^{2\dagger} = 0~,~~
{\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} A_{\mu}^{3} = 0~.
\label{delta-F-dagger-C}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we obtain the Lagrangian density,
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{SU(2)}^{\rm (C)} = - \frac{1}{4} [F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}]_{\star}
+ \mathcal{L}_{\rm m} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm gh}^{\rm (C)} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm int}^{\rm (C)}~,
\label{L-SU2-C}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$[F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}]_{\star}$ is the gauge kinetic term
that $(g^2/4) (A_{\nu}^- A_{\mu}^+ - A_{\mu}^- A_{\nu}^+)
(A^{-\nu}A^{+\mu} - A^{-\mu}A^{+\nu})$
is replaced by the non-local one
$(g^2/4) (A_{\nu}^- A_{\mu}^+ - A_{\mu}^- A_{\nu}^+) \star
(A^{-\nu}A^{+\mu} - A^{-\mu}A^{+\nu})$ in $F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}$,
and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm gh}^{\rm (C)}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}^{\rm (C)}$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm gh}^{\rm (C)} =
- (D'_{\mu} C_{\nu}^-)(D'^{\mu} C^{+\nu}) + (D'_{\mu} C_{\nu}^-)(D'^{\nu} C^{+\mu})
+ (D'_{\mu} c_{\phi}^1)^{\dagger} (D'^{\mu} c_{\phi}^1)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ c_{\rm L}^{1\dagger} i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} D'_{\mu} c_{\rm L}^1
+ c_{\rm R}^{1\dagger} i \sigma^{\mu} D'_{\mu} c_{\rm R}^1 ~,
\label{L-gh-C}\\
&~& \mathcal{L}_{\rm int}^{\rm (C)}
= - \frac{ig}{2}\left(\partial_{\mu} A_{\nu}^3 - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}^3\right)
\left(C^{-\nu}C^{+\mu} - C^{-\mu}C^{+\nu}\right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{g^2}{2}\left(A_{\nu}^- A_{\mu}^+ - A_{\mu}^- A_{\nu}^+\right) \star
\left(C^{-\nu}C^{+\mu} - C^{-\mu}C^{+\nu}\right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{g^2}{4}\left(C_{\nu}^- C_{\mu}^+ - C_{\mu}^- C_{\nu}^+\right) \star
\left(C^{-\nu}C^{+\mu} - C^{-\mu}C^{+\nu}\right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{g^2}{2} \left(-\phi^{1\dagger}C_{\mu}^+ C^{-\mu}\phi^1
+ \phi^{2\dagger} C_{\mu}^- C^{+\mu}\phi^2 \right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{g^2}{2} c_{\phi}^{1\dagger}\left(A_{\mu}^+ A^{-\mu} - C_{\mu}^+ C^{-\mu}\right)c_{\phi}^1
+ \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}} (D'_{\mu} c_{\phi}^1)^{\dagger} C^{+\mu} {\phi}^2
- \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}} {\phi}^{2\dagger}C_{\mu}^- (D'^{\mu} c_{\phi}^1)
\nonumber\\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}} (D'_{\mu} {\phi}^2)^{\dagger} C^{-\mu} c_{\phi}^1
- \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}} c_{\phi}^{1\dagger}C_{\mu}^+ (D'^{\mu} {\phi}^2)
+ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} c_{\rm L}^{1\dagger} \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} C_{\mu}^+ \psi_{\rm L}^2
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \psi_{\rm L}^{2\dagger} \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} C_{\mu}^- c_{\rm L}^1
+ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} c_{\rm R}^{1\dagger} \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} C_{\mu}^+ \psi_{\rm R}^2
+ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \psi_{\rm R}^{2\dagger} \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} C_{\mu}^- c_{\rm R}^1~,
\label{L-int-C}
\end{eqnarray}
where $D'_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} + i g A_{\mu}^3 T^3$
($T^3$ is the third component of $su(2)$ algebra),
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm gh}^{\rm (C)}$ are kinetic terms of ghost fields
including a minimal coupling with the $U(1)$ gauge boson $A_{\mu}^3$,
and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}$ contains interactions between ordinary matters and ghosts.
The total Lagrangian density is rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{SU(2)}^{\rm (C)} = - \frac{1}{4} [F_{\mu\nu}^{a} F^{a\mu\nu}]_{\star}
+ \mathcal{L}_{\rm m} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm gh}^{\rm (C)} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm int}^{\rm (C)}
= \mathcal{L}_{U(1)}
+ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \Delta\mathcal{L}^{\rm (C)}~,
\label{L-T2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{L}_{U(1)}$ and $\Delta\mathcal{L}^{\rm (C)}$ are given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
&~& \mathcal{L}_{U(1)} = - \frac{1}{4} (\partial_{\mu} A_{\nu}^3 - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}^3)
(\partial^{\mu} A^{3\nu} - \partial^{\nu} A^{3\mu})
+ (D'_{\mu} \phi^2)^{\dagger} (D'^{\mu} \phi^2)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ {\psi}_{\rm L}^{2\dagger} i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} D'_{\mu} \psi_{\rm L}^2
+ {\psi}_{\rm R}^{2\dagger} i \sigma^{\mu} D'_{\mu} \psi_{\rm R}^2~,
\label{L-U1}\\
&~& \Delta\mathcal{L}^{\rm (C)} =
- (D'_{\mu} A_{\nu}^-)(D'^{\mu} A^{+\nu}) + (D'_{\mu} A_{\nu}^-)(D'^{\nu} A^{+\mu})
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~
- \frac{ig}{2}\left(\partial_{\mu} A_{\nu}^3 - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}^3\right)
\left(A^{-\nu}A^{+\mu} - A^{-\mu}A^{+\nu}\right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{g^2}{8}\left(A_{\nu}^- A_{\mu}^+ - A_{\mu}^- A_{\nu}^+\right) \star
\left(A^{-\nu}A^{+\mu} - A^{-\mu}A^{+\nu}\right)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~
- \frac{g^2}{8}\left(C_{\nu}^- C_{\mu}^+ - C_{\mu}^- C_{\nu}^+\right) \star
\left(C^{-\nu}C^{+\mu} - C^{-\mu}C^{+\nu}\right)
+ (D'_{\mu} {\phi}^1)^{\dagger} (D'^{\mu} {\phi}^1)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{g^2}{4} \left(\phi^{1\dagger} A_{\mu}^+ A^{-\mu} \phi^1
+ c_{\phi}^{1\dagger} C_{\mu}^+ C^{-\mu} c_{\phi}^1\right)
+ \frac{g^2}{2} \phi^{2\dagger} A^{-\mu} A_{\mu}^+ \phi^2
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}(D'_{\mu} {\phi}^1)^{\dagger} A^{+\mu} {\phi}^2
- \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}} {\phi}^{2\dagger} A_{\mu}^- (D'^{\mu} \phi^1)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~ + \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}} (D'_{\mu} {\phi}^2)^{\dagger} A^{-\mu} {\phi}^1
- \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}} {\phi}^{1\dagger} A_{\mu}^+ (D'^{\mu} {\phi}^2)
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~
+ \psi_{\rm L}^{1\dagger} i \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} D'_{\mu} \psi_{\rm L}^1
- \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \psi_{\rm L}^{1\dagger} \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} A_{\mu}^+ \psi_{\rm L}^2
- \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \psi_{\rm L}^{2\dagger} \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} A_{\mu}^- \psi_{\rm L}^1
\nonumber \\
&~& ~~~~~~~~~
+ \psi_{\rm R}^{1\dagger} i {\sigma}^{\mu} D'_{\mu} \psi_{\rm R}^1
- \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \psi_{\rm R}^{1\dagger} {\sigma}^{\mu} A_{\mu}^+ \psi_{\rm R}^2
- \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \psi_{\rm R}^{2\dagger} {\sigma}^{\mu} A_{\mu}^- \psi_{\rm R}^1~.
\label{DeltaL}
\end{eqnarray}
The system is essentially identical to the $U(1)$ gauge theory
described by $\mathcal{L}_{U(1)}$ under the subsidiary conditions (\ref{Phys}).
From (\ref{L-T2}), we find that
$SU(2)$ gauge symmetry is hidden in the form that it emerges after removing ghost fields
and replacing the non-local self-interactions among $A_{\mu}^{\pm}$
by the local ones.
The $A_{\mu}^+$ and $A_{\mu}^-$ behave as charged matters
and change their phase under the $U(1)$ gauge transformation.
The time-components of $A_{\mu}^{\pm}$ generate negative norm states,
but they can be unphysical and harmless with the help of those of $C_{\mu}^{\pm}$.
Hence the theory would not encounter inconsistency,
so far as the $U(1)$ gauge invariance and particle-ghost symmetries are respected.
To treat the non-local interactions
and formulate the system consistently,
the framework beyond the effective field theory might be necessary.
Furthermore, (\ref{L-T2}) can be regarded as a matching condition
between a system with $SU(2)$ gauge bosons and that with the reduced $U(1)$
symmetry at a high-energy scale $M_{\rm U}$, where matters and ghosts are administrated.
Hence, we expect that specific relations among physical parameters,
reflecting a larger gauge symmetry, are revived at $M_{\rm U}$,
and they are tested by analyzing renormalization group flows of parameters
in a system with a reduced gauge symmetry.
\subsubsection{Grand unification scenario}
We take the following viewpoint and scenario for a physics
beyond and behind the SM.
The gauge coupling constants precisely measured
at the Large Electron-Positron collider (LEP)~\cite{LEP}
suggest that the SM gauge interactions are unified at $M_{\rm U}$ in SM + $\alpha$.
An ultimate theory has a grand unified gauge symmetry potentially,
and contains both massless and massive states.
All massive states form doublets of $Q_{\rm F}$, and they become unphysical.
Massless states consist of three types of constituents,
ordinary fields (collectively denoted by $\Phi_{\rm U}$) including the gauge bosons
which belong to multiplets of a unified gauge group $G_{\rm U}$,
ordinary fields (collectively denoted by $\Phi'_{\rm o}$)
which belong to those of a smaller gauge symmetry $G'_{\rm o}$,
and ghost fields (collectively denoted by $\Phi_{\rm g}$)
which belong to those of a gauge symmetry $G_{\rm g}$.
The physics of $\Phi_{\rm U}$ is effectively described by a GUT.
If $G'_{\rm o}$ and/or $G_{\rm g}$ is the gauge group of SM + $\alpha$,
the GUT symmetry is broken down into the SM + $\alpha$ one at $M_{\rm U}$,
in the presence of $\Phi'_{\rm o}$ and $\Phi_{\rm g}$.
Then the theory turns out to be SM + $\alpha$ with specific relations
among parameters reflecting on the unified symmetry, at $M_{\rm U}$.
Or specific initial conditions are imposed on parameters of SM + $\alpha$, at $M_{\rm U}$.
Note that there are no contributions such as threshold corrections due to heavy particles,
in case that they are unphysical and do not give any quantum effects.
With the help of the toy model (C)
in Sect. \ref{Symmetry reduction with ghost administration},
our scenario is summarized as\footnote{
The basic idea of our scenario is same as those in Refs.~\cite{YK1,YK2}.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \mathcal{L}_{\rm light} = \mathcal{L}_{{\rm GUT}\star} + \mathcal{L}'_{\rm o}
+ \mathcal{L}_{\rm gh} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm int}
= \mathcal{L}_{{\rm SM}+\alpha}
+ {\bm \delta}_{\rm F} {\bm \delta}_{\rm F}^{\dagger} \Delta\mathcal{L}~~\right|_{M_{\rm U}}~,
\label{L-lihgt}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{L}_{{\rm GUT}\star}$ is the Lagrangian density
describing the GUT concerning $\Phi_{\rm U}$,
$\mathcal{L}'_{\rm o}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm gh}$ contain
kinetic terms of $\Phi'_{\rm o}$ and $\Phi_{\rm g}$
including minimal couplings with the gauge bosons in SM + $\alpha$,
and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}$ contains interactions between ordinary particles and ghosts.
We present a prototype model describing the grand unification, in the Appendix B.
The theory has following excellent features.
\begin{itemize}
\item The Lagrangian density in SM + $\alpha$ is obtained with the following
conditions for gauge coupling constants,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. g_3 = g_2 = g_1 = g_{\rm U}~~\right|_{M_{\rm U}}~,~~ g_1 = \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} g'~,
\label{SM-ICs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_3$, $g_2$ and $g'$ are the gauge coupling constants
for $SU(3)_{\rm C}$, $SU(2)_{\rm L}$ and $U(1)_{\rm Y}$, respectively,
and $g_{\rm U}$ is the unified gauge coupling constant.
\item The triplet-doublet splitting of Higgs boson is realized,
if extra colored components are unphysical with the advent of their ghost partners.
\item The SM gauge interactions are unified under a large gauge group,
but the proton can be stabilized
if extra colored particles such as $X$ gauge bosons are unphysical,
in the presence of their ghost partners,
and do not give any quantum effects on physical particles.
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, new particles around the terascale in SM + $\alpha$ can provide useful hints
to the physics such as the grand unification and SUSY at $M_{\rm U}$.
For instance, if (part of) new particles form hypermultiplets as remnants of SUSY,
it can be an evidence of (the reduction of) $N=2$ SUSY through the analysis of
renormalization group evolutions
of parameters~\cite{K}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Conclusions}
We have reconsidered the gauge hierarchy problem
from the viewpoint of effective field theories and a high-energy physics,
motivated by the alternative scenario that the SM (modified with massive neutrinos)
holds up to a high-energy scale such as the Planck scale
and the principle that the hierarchy is stabilized by a symmetry
that should be unbroken in the SM.
We have given a conjecture that
theories with specific internal fermionic symmetries
can be free from the gauge hierarchy problem
and become candidates of the physics beyond and/or behind the SM,
and presented a grand unification scenario and its prototype model.
Our consideration is based on the reinterpretation of the gauge hierarchy problem
such that $\lq\lq${\it without spoiling the structure of a high-energy physics
supported by an excellent concept,
is it possible to construct a low-energy effective theory
and the interaction with heavy particles?}"
It is also based on following thoughts.
A large symmetry is, in general, broken down to the smaller one,
if two systems with different size of symmetries interact with each other.
The spacetime SUSY is no exception.
A requirement of large and manifest symmetries causes strict laws of physics,
and often leads to an unrealistic system.
Diversity of nature might be a result of a partial breakdown or reduction of such symmetries,
keeping its inner beauty.
It would be attractive that the SM particles behave liberally
to the extent permitted by the laws of physics including hidden symmetries.
In this way, spacetime SUSY seems not to be within reach of our direct measurements,
because it is too beautiful and prominent.
However, it does not mean that SUSY is absent in our world, at all.
It is just contrary, and SUSY must exist at an ultimate level,
because it achieves the unification of bosons and fermions,
and it is deeply connected to the consistency of the theory such as superstring theory.
Then, it can be said that
the existence of fermions is a proof for SUSY.
It is also possible to gain information on SUSY realized at $M_{\rm U}$
from new particles around the terascale~\cite{K}.
A magical ability would be required to keep an inner beauty eternally.
If fermionic symmetries such as the particle-ghost symmetries remain unbroken,
the SM particles could behave liberally as singlets.
In this situation, even if the SM gauge interactions are unified under a large gauge group,
proton can be stable because
extra colored particles such as $X$ gauge bosons become unphysical.
In other words, proton acquires an eternal life
as a result of the fact that extra colored particles sell their souls to the ghosts.
Furthermore, a definite discrepancy has not yet been observed between the predictions
in the SM (modified with massive neutrinos) and experimental results,
and this fact might be a proof for the existence of hidden fermionic symmetries
and its related unphysical particles.
The theory can be tested indirectly, using features of symmetries.
In particular,
physical quantities calculated in the SM + $\alpha$ should precisely
match with the experimental values at the terascale, because radiative corrections
from unphysical particles are canceled out.
Parameters in the SM + $\alpha$ should satisfy specific relations at $M_U$,
reflecting on a large symmetry realized in the ultimate theory.
Our scenario offers a system where the vacuum energy vanishes at $M_{\rm U}$,
because contributions from heavy particles are canceled out
and those from massless particles turn out to be zero
after the quartic divergences are removed.
Our scenario could also have a long life if consistent,
because both spacetime SUSY and internal fermionic symmetry can coexist.
That is, in case that superpartners are discovered,
they can be treated as new particles in SM + $\alpha$.
If some of superpartners were absent,
our fermionic symmetry would have a chance to show up.
In our formulation, there appear
non-local interactions among unphysical particles.
This fact might suggest that fundamental objects are
not point particles but extended objects,
and a formulation using extended objects should be
required to describe the interactions consistently.
Even if our particle-ghost symmetries have a weak point,
our conjecture would be survive
that a magical symmetry can play the central role to solve the gauge hierarchy problem,
if the SM particles are singlets and heavy particles belong to non-singlets
of the transformation group,
and the symmetry is unbroken and hidden in the low-energy theory.
It is important to examine whether theories with internal fermionic symmetries
are consistently formulated in a manner to satisfy unitarity and causality.
It is also challenging to study the structure of ultimate theory
and to derive its low-energy effective theory.
If our world originated from only unphysical objects,
more powerful symmetries would be needed to formulate unphysical theories
including gauge bosons and gravitons,
and the concept of orbifold grand unification~\cite{OGUT1,OGUT2} would be useful
on the reduction of relevant symmetries.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by scientific grants from the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology under Grant Nos.~22540272.
|
\section{Introduction}
The total cross section of the Higgs-strahlung
process ($\sigma_{Zh})$ can be measured model independently
using the recoil mass technique at a future $e^+e^-$ collider.
The $ZZh$ coupling strength derived from this measurement
is a crucial input for investigating physics beyond the standard model
though Higgs properties.
Previously, the recoil mass of the Higgs-strahlung process were studied for the case
where $Z$ decays to $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs; $Z$ momentum can be measured
precisely thanks to a high precision tracking detector
and a good signal to noise ratio in the recoil mass measurement has been reported ( see ref.\cite{Baer:2013cma}
and reference therein ).
In the case of ILC, 2.6\% of the measurement precision
for the total cross section, $\Delta\sigma_{Zh} / \sigma_{Zh}$, was
expected from the recoil mass measurement by combining $e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$
channel at $\sqrt{s}=250$ GeV with 250~fb$^{-1}$ data\cite{Baer:2013cma,higgs-LC-white-paper}.
At 350 GeV, the recoil mass resolution is worse than the 250~GeV case, but
similar precision\footnote{
About 10\% worse precision would be expected
because the result on $\mu^+\mu^-h$ in ref.\cite{HengneLi:2010} could be scaled by ILC TDR luminosity to
$\Delta\sigma_{Zh}/\sigma_{Zh}$ of 3.4\% for 250 fb$^{-1}$ at 250 GeV
and 3.7\% 330 fb$^{-1}$ at 350 GeV, respectively.
}
of the total cross section measurement is expected from a fast simulation study of $\mu^+\mu^-h$
channel\cite{HengneLi:2010} thanks to the better signal selection efficiency and the higher luminosity
provided by ILC.
At 500 GeV, the performance is degraded by further worse recoil mass resolution and increased standard model
background, still a preliminary result of $\Delta\sigma_{Zh}/\sigma_{Zh}$=4.8\% combining $e^{+}e^{-}$ and
$\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ channels were reported assuming 500 fb$^{-1}$ data with -80\%(+30\%) $e^{-}(e^{+})$ beam
polarization\cite{Taikan-llh-500,higgs-LC-white-paper}.
The recoil mass measurement by using the leptonic decay mode of $Z$ is limited by the
small branching ratio of $Z$. In order to achieve a precision close to 1\%,
a measurement with higher luminosity has been proposed\cite{higgs-LC-white-paper}.
The branching ratio of $Z$ to quark pair is about factor 10 larger than the sum of $e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$ mode.
In this paper, we study a feasibility of recoil mass measurement using hadronic decay mode of $Z$.
The detectors for ILC are equipped with a particle flow calorimeter, aiming
to achieve the jet energy resolution($\Delta E/E$) better than $30\%/\sqrt{E({\rm GeV})}$.
The high precision jet energy measurement is crucial for this study.
Note that the recoil mass of Higgs-strahlung process is given by
$m_{h}^2=E_{cm}^2 - 2E_{cm}E_{Z} + m_{Z}^2$ when the effect of beamstrahlung and bremsstrahlung is neglected,
where $m_h$, $m_Z$, $E_{cm}$, and $E_{Z}$ are the mass of higgs, $Z$, the center of mass energy and
the energy of $Z$. Therefore, the recoil mass resolution, $\Delta m_{h}$, is given by
$\Delta m_{h} = { ( E_{cm} / m_{h} ) } \Delta E_{Z}$.
If $E_{Z}$ is measured by a PFO calorimeter, the relative energy resolution of jet is
almost independent of the jet energy; in the case of ILD, $\Delta E_{Z}/E_{Z} \sim 3\%$ for $E_{Z}$
from 90 to 500 GeV is expected\cite{Behnke:2013lya}.
Therefore, $\Delta m_h \propto E_{cm}^2 / 2 m_{h}$, approximating $E_{Z} \sim E_{CM}/2$ and
the recoil mass resolution gets worse at higher energy.
On the other hand,
the jet clustering is challenging near $Zh$ threshold due to jet overlap, which limits
the mass resolution of $Z$ in jet mode. In this paper, we concentrate on the study
at $\sqrt{s}=350$ GeV and 500 GeV, where jet are relatively sharp and separated.
We used events generated by Whizard 1.95 with ILC beam parameter\cite{Behnke:2013lya}.
ILD full detector simulation and reconstruction were used in order to take into account
signal smearing by detector effects. The underlying low $p_{t}$ hadron background events
with an average number of events of 0.33 (1.7) at $\sqrt{s}=350 (500)$ GeV
and the beam crossing of 7mrad were taken into account as well.
\section{Recoil mass measurement at $\sqrt{s}=350$ GeV}
For the inclusive jet selection, the $k_t$ jet algorithm implemented in Fastjet\cite{fastjet:242} was employed
with the jet radius of 1.2 and $p_{t,min}=1.0$ GeV/c$^2$ without restricting the number of reconstructed jets.
Then all combinations of jet pairs were tried to find a jet pair of mass
consistent with $Z$. A good $Z$ jet pair was selected by following conditions;
(1) Squared transverse momentum($kt_2$) of first jet was between 4000 to 6000 (GeV/c$^2$)$^2$;
(2) $k_t^2$ of second jet was greater than 500 (GeV/c$^2$)$^2$ ;
(3) Jet pair energy was between 140 to 180 GeV;
(4) Corrected mass of jet pair was between 85 to 100 GeV/c$^2$;
(5) No photon with energy greater than 80 GeV in the event.
With the selection (1) and (2), the clusters of $Z$ and $h$ in the scatter plot of
the mass and the energy are clearly seen in the case of $q\bar{q}h$ events
as shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:jetpair-mass-rm}a.
In order to remove the observed correlation between the energy and the mass seen in the Fig.~\ref{figure:jetpair-mass-rm}a
the four vector of the jet pair was multiplied by a factor, which was determined to remove
the linear correlation between the energy and the mass.
The corrected four vector was used to calculate the recoil mass.
The scatter plot of the mass and the recoil mass after the correction is shown in
Fig.~\ref{figure:jetpair-mass-rm}b. The recoil mass of $Z$ pair clustered
near the input Higgs mass of 125 GeV/c$^{2}$, while those for $h$ pair
were shifted from the right position because the correction factor was determined
by $Z$ candidate alone, which does not affect the result of this analysis.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/qqh-m-vs-e-paper.png} &
\hspace{0.0001\columnwidth} &
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/qqh-mecor-vs-rm-paper.png} \\
(a) & & (b)
\end{tabular}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.85\columnwidth}
\caption{The scatter plot of the energy and the mass of jet pairs before the energy correction (a)
and that for the recoil mass and the mass after the energy correction. The signals of
$q\bar{q}h$ events are plotted with the $k_t^2$ cuts described in the text.
\label{figure:jetpair-mass-rm}}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The last cut (5) was to remove one of the major background, $e^+e^-\rightarrow q\bar{q}\gamma$.
If more than one $Z$ candidate was found, only first candidate was selected. Note that the output of Fastjet
is sorted by descending order of jet $p_t$.
For the background processes, following processes were considered; $e^+e^-\rightarrow
q\bar{q}$, $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$, $q\bar{q}\ell\nu$, $\ell\bar{\ell}\nu\bar{\nu}$, $t\bar{t}$, Higgs process other than
$q\bar{q}h$, and $2f$ and $4f$ processes created by $\gamma\gamma$, and $3f$ and $5f$ processes created by $e\gamma$ collisions. They were produced for the Snowmass study using the software tools prepared for the ILC DBD\cite{Snowmass:MCSamples2013}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:qqh-recoil-mass-350}a shows the recoil mass distribution of selected events. The red is the
standard model background and the black is the signal contribution. Fig.\ref{fig:qqh-recoil-mass-350}b
is the distribution after subtracting the standard model background.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/hsum-eL80-pR30-wcom-paper.png} &
\hspace{0.0001\columnwidth} &
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/subplot_eL80_pR30-paper.png} \\
(a) & & (b)
\end{tabular}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.85\columnwidth}
\caption{The left figure, (a), is the recoil mass distribution of the inclusive jet pair at
$\sqrt{s}=350$ GeV, the integrated luminosity of 300 fb$^{-1}$ and
the $e^{-}/e^{+}$ beam polarization of -80\%/+30\%. The red histogram is the background only and
the black histogram is with the signal. The right figure, (b), is the same histogram as (a), but
the standard model background being subtracted.
\label{fig:qqh-recoil-mass-350}}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally $q\bar{q}h$ events were selected by requiring the recoil mass between 123 and 133 GeV/c$^2$.
The number of signal and background events selected is summarized in Tab.~\ref{tab:selection350}
signal to noise ratio (S/N) was 0.049 for -80\%(+30\%) $e^{-}(e^{+})$ beam polarization,
and 0.153 for +80\%(-30\%) $e^{-}(e^{+})$ polarization. Assuming 165 fb$^{-1}$ data taking for
each beam polarization configuration, the number of signal events was 6194/4169
for -80\%(+30\%)/+80\%(-30\%)
beam polarization. $q\bar{q}$, $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$, and $q\bar{q}\ell\nu$ were major backgrounds
while $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ contribution dominated in the case of -80\%(+30\%) beam polarization case.
The expected accuracy of the $Zh$ total cross section measurement was 5.9\% and 4.3\% for -80\%/+30\% and
+80\%/-30\% beam polarization, respectively. Combining two measurement, 3.4\% accuracy was expected
from the inclusive jet pair measurement.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| l | r | r | }
\hline
process & +80\%/-30\% & -80\%/+30\% \\
\hline
$q\bar{q}h$ & 4169 & 6194 \\
$q\bar{q}$ & 7176 & 18329 \\
$q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ & 8649 & 59956 \\
$\ell\bar{\ell} q\bar{q}$ & 5921 & 36284 \\
$\ell\bar{\ell}\ell\bar{\ell}$ & 328 & 965 \\
$\ell\bar{\ell}h$ & 722 & 1086 \\
$t\bar{t}$ & 2268 & 4642 \\
$\gamma\gamma/\gamma e^{\pm} \rightarrow 2f/4f$ & 2184 & 4026 \\
\hline
S/$\sqrt{S+N}$ & 23.5 & 17.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.8\columnwidth}
\caption{The number of signal and background events after the final selection.
The second and the third row show the number of events with 165 fb$^{-1}$ each for
+80\%(-30\%) and -80\%(+30\%) $e^{-}(e^{+})$ beam polarization.
\label{tab:selection350}}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The recoil mass study using $\mu\bar{\mu}$ channel at 350 GeV was reported in ref.\cite{HengneLi:2010}
using LOI ILD full simulation and the Higgs mass of 120 GeV/c$^{2}$. This study compared the accuracy at 250 GeV and 350 GeV
and concluded that the expected accuracy of the $Zh$ total cross section ad 250 GeV
and 350 GeV were similar. As described previously, at 250 GeV, $\Delta\sigma/\sigma=2.6\%$
is expected from the recoil mass measurement of $\mu\bar{\mu}$ and $e\bar{e}$ channel.
Assuming the same accuracy of 2.6\% can be obtained at 350 GeV using $\mu\bar{\mu}$ and $e\bar{e}$
channel, we can expect $\Delta\sigma/\sigma=2.1\%$ by combining the result of the recoil mass
measurement of inclusive two jet. If this measurement is combined with the 2.6\% measurement
at 250 GeV, we could expect $\Delta\sigma/\sigma=1.6\%$ combining 250 GeV and 350 GeV data taking.
\section{Recoil mass measurement at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV}
At $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV, the total cross section of $e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow q\bar{q}h$ process is about 70~fb
when the $e^{-}(e^{+})$ beam polarization is -80\%(+30\%). About 35k such events are produced for 500 fb$^{-1}$
integrated luminosity. The resolution of jet energy and recoil mass are not as good as a lower energy
measurement and leptonic channel, still, we could study this channel thanks to the relatively larger event statistics
and the monotonic $Z$ and $H$ energy due to $s$-channel 2 body production
The major background processes
are those by 4-fermion $W^{+}W^{-}$, $Z^0Z^0$, and 2-fermion $q\bar{q}$ processes and it is not easy to
get good S/N.
The energy of $Z$ from $Zh$ process at this energy is more than 200 GeV and jets from $Z$
are well collimated. Therefore, we reconstructed hadronically decayed $Z$ as a single jet by
$k_t$ jet algorithm with a jet radius 1.2. From reconstructed jets, candidate jets were pre-selected
requiring the jet p$_{t}$ is greater than 50 GeV, the jet mass between 70 and 150 GeV/c$^{2}$
and the jet energy between 210 and 300 GeV. The scatter plot of the mass and the energy of
the selected jet in $q\bar{q}h$ events are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:jet-mass500}a.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/qqh500-m-vs-e-paper.png} &
\hspace{0.0001\columnwidth} &
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/qqh500-mcor-vs-rmcor-paper.png} \\
(a) & & (b)
\end{tabular}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.85\columnwidth}
\caption{The scatter plot of the energy and the mass of candidate jets before the energy correction (a)
and that for the recoil mass and the mass after the correction.
\label{figure:jet-mass500}}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
With a fixed jet radius, both jet mass and jet energy were reduced if particles from $Z$ escaped
from the jet radius, thus a positive correlation between mass and energy was seen as shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:jet-mass500}.
This correlation was removed by scaling jet momenta with a factor which linearly depended on jet energy.
After the correction, a better separation between $Z$ jet and non-$Z$ jet were
achieved as seen in Fig.~\ref{figure:jet-mass500}b.
For the final selection,
we further required (1) the corrected jet mass between 87 and 105 GeV/c$^{2}$, (2) the maximum
energy of $\gamma$ in the event is less than 100 GeV ( to suppress $q\bar{q}\gamma$ background events),
(3) Number of particles in the jet is greater than 20,
(4) Jet angle satisfies $|\cos\theta_{jet}|<0.7$.
The recoil mass distribution of selected events without/with background subtraction are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:incjet-recoil-mass-500}. In this figure, the jet momenta before the correction was used to calculate the recoil mass.
As background processes, the standard model samples produced for the
ILC DBD study\cite{Behnke:2013lya} were considered. They included $2f/4f/6f$ standard model processes
$4f/5f$ final states produced by $\gamma\gamma$ and $\gamma e^{\pm}$ collisions,
and $f\bar{f}h$ process except $q\bar{q}h$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/figure-myplot-500.png} &
\hspace{0.0001\columnwidth} &
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/subplot-500.png} \\
(a) & & (b)
\end{tabular}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.85\columnwidth}
\caption{The left figure is the recoil mass distribution of selected events at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV
with $e^{-}(e^{+})$ beam polarization of -80\%(+30\%) and 500 fb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity. The red histogram
is for the standard model processes and the black histogram is with the $q\bar{q}h$ events added.
The right figure is the distribution after subtracting the background contribution. Note that the jet momenta
before the correction is used for the recoil mass calculation in this figure.
\label{fig:incjet-recoil-mass-500}}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/figure-myplot-500-withMassCorrec.png} &
\hspace{0.0001\columnwidth} &
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{figures/subplot-500-withMassCorrec.png} \\
(a) & & (b)
\end{tabular}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.85\columnwidth}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:incjet-recoil-mass-500}, but the corrected jet momenta were used
for the recoil mass calculation.
\label{fig:incjet-recoil-mass-500-withMassCorrec}}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As the final selection, events with the recoil mass between 100 and 210 GeV/c$^{2}$ were selected.
The S/N of this selection was 11113/175437=0.063. 43\% backgrounds were due to 4-quark events through $ZZ$ and $WW$ processes. Other 4-fermion
processes and 2-fermion hadron events constitutes 26\% and 27\% of background events, respectively.
The number of events selected are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:500selection}.
The signal significance for 500 fb$^{-1}$ is 3.9\%.
The $e^{+}(e^{-})$ beam polarization opposite to this analysis, namely +80\%(-30\%),
could reduce some of the $4f$ background which comes from $W^{+}W^{-}$ process,
still there remains significant background events due to $ZZ\rightarrow 4q$ and $2q$ processes.
The distribution of the recoil mass calculated from the corrected jet momenta is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:incjet-recoil-mass-500-withMassCorrec}. The S/N is similar to the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:incjet-recoil-mass-500}. From the events
with the mass between 130 to 170 GeV/c$^{2}$, we obtained the signal significance of 3.9\% for
500 fb$^{-1}$ with $-80\%(+30\%)$ $e^{-}(e^{+})$ beam polarization.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| l | r | }
\hline
process & No. of events \\
\hline
$q\bar{q}h$ & 11113 \\
$f\bar{f}h$ & 338 \\
$q\bar{q}$ & 47377 \\
$q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ & 121086 \\
$q\bar{q}q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ & 6357 \\
$\gamma\gamma/\gamma e^{\pm} \rightarrow 2f/4f$ & 277 \\
\hline
S/$\sqrt{S+N}$ & 25.7 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The number of signal and background events after selection.\label{tab:500selection}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, a feasibility to measure the total cross section of the Higgs-strahlung process using
the hadronic decay mode of $Z$ was studied. At $\sqrt{s}=350$ GeV, Higgs peak in jet recoil mass
distribution could be seen; Combining 165 fb$^{-1}$ measurements with the $e^{+}(e^{-})$ beam polarization
of -80\%(+30\%) and +80\%(-30\%),respectively, $\Delta\sigma_{Zh}/\sigma_{Zh} = 3.4\%$
was expected. At 500 GeV, it was hard to see a clear Higgs peak in the jet recoil mass
distribution. However, from the excess of events in $q\bar{q}h$ like events,
$\Delta\sigma_{Zh}/\sigma_{Zh} = 3.9\%$ was expected for 500 fb$^{-1}$ measurements
with $e^-(e^+)$ beam polarization of -80\%(+30\%).
The analysis was based on a cut base event selection. Further improvement would be possible
with more sophisticated analysis.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank Keisuke Fujii, Timothy Barklow, Junping Tian and Taikan Suehara
for encouragement and discussion for this analysis, and ILD group where this study is based on.
This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid
for Specially Promoted Research No. 23000002.
\bibliographystyle{utphys}
|
\section{Introduction}
Nuclear Lattice Effective Field Theory (NLEFT) is a first-principles approach, in which Chiral EFT for nucleons is combined with
numerical Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC) lattice simulations. NLEFT differs from other \textit{ab initio}
methods~\cite{Hagen:2012fb,Jurgenson:2013yya,Roth:2011ar,Hergert:2012nb,Lovato:2013cua,Duguet} in that it is an
unconstrained Monte Carlo calculation, which does not rely on truncated basis expansions or many-body perturbation theory, nor on prior
information about the structure of the nuclear wave function.
\section{Nuclear Lattice EFT at NNLO}
As in Chiral EFT, our calculations are organized in powers of a generic soft scale $Q$ associated with factors of momenta and the
pion mass~\cite{Epelbaum:2008ga}.
We denote $\mathcal{O}(Q^0)$ as leading order (LO), $\mathcal{O}(Q^2)$ as next-to-leading order (NLO), and $\mathcal{O}(Q^3)$
as next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) contributions. The present calculations are performed up to NNLO.
We define $H_\mathrm{LO}^{}$ as the LO lattice Hamiltonian, and $H_\mathrm{SU(4)}^{}$ as the equivalent Hamiltonian with
the pion-nucleon coupling $g_A^{} = 0$ and contact interactions that respect Wigner's SU(4) symmetry.
In our NLEFT calculations (see Ref.~\cite{Dean_QMC} for a review), $H_\mathrm{LO}^{}$ is treated non-perturbatively.
The NLO contribution to the two-nucleon force (2NF), the electromagnetic and strong isospin-breaking contributions (EMIB),
and the three-nucleon force (3NF) which first enters at NNLO, are all treated as perturbations. It should be noted that our ``LO'' calculations
use smeared short-range interactions that capture much of the corrections usually treated at NLO~\cite{Borasoy:2006qn}.
The 3NF at NNLO over-binds
nuclei with $A > 4$ due to a clustering instability which involves four nucleons on the same lattice site. The long-term objective of NLEFT is to
remedy this problem by decreasing the lattice spacing and including the N3LO corrections in Chiral EFT. In the mean time, the over-binding problem
has been rectified by means of a 4N contact interaction, tuned to the empirical binding energy of either $^4$He or
$^8$Be~\cite{Epelbaum:2009pd}. While this provides a good description of the alpha nuclei up to $A = 12$ including the Hoyle
state~\cite{Epelbaum:2009pd,Epelbaum:2011md,Epelbaum:2012qn}, the
over-binding is found to increase more rapidly for $A \geq 16$.
Therefore, in Ref.~\cite{A28_letter} a non-local 4N interaction which accounts for all possible configurations of four nucleons on adjacent lattice sites was
introduced, and adjusted to the empirical binding energy of $^{24}$Mg.
A detailed study of the spectrum of $^{16}$O will be reported separately~\cite{16O_spectrum}.
\section{Euclidean time projection}
The NLEFT calculations reported here (see also Ref.~\cite{A28_letter}) are performed with a (spatial) lattice spacing of $a=1.97$~fm
in a periodic cube of length $L = 11.8$~fm. Our trial wave function
$|\Psi_{A}^\mathrm{init}\rangle$ is a Slater-determinant state composed of delocalized standing waves,
with $A$ nucleons and the desired spin and isospin. First, we
project $|\Psi_{A}^\mathrm{init}\rangle$ for a time $t^\prime$ using the Euclidean-time evolution operator of the
SU(4) Hamiltonian, giving the ``trial state''
$|\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})\rangle \equiv \exp(-H_\mathrm{SU(4)}^{} t^\prime_{}) |\Psi_{A}^\mathrm{init}\rangle$.
Second, we use the full Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{LO}^{}$ to construct the Euclidean-time projection amplitude
\begin{equation}
Z_A^{}(t) \equiv \langle\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})| \exp(-H_\mathrm{LO}^{} t) |\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})\rangle,
\qquad
E_A^{}(t) = -\partial[\ln Z_A^{}(t)]/\partial t,
\label{EAt}
\end{equation}
and the ``transient energy'' $E_A^{}(t)$. If we denote
by $|\Psi_{A,0}^{}\rangle$ the lowest (normalizable) eigenstate of $H_\mathrm{LO}^{}$
which has a non-vanishing overlap with the trial state $|\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})\rangle$,
we obtain the corresponding energy $E_{A,0}^{}$ as the ${t\to\infty}$ limit of $E_A^{}(t)$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.92\columnwidth]{16O_plot_big.eps}
\vspace{-.7cm}
\end{center}
\caption{NLEFT results for $^{16}$O. The LO energy is $E_\mathrm{LO}^{} = -147.3(5)$~MeV, and the result
at NNLO including 4N interactions is $E_\mathrm{NNLO+4N}^{} = -131.3(5)$~MeV. The empirical binding energy is
$-127.62$~MeV.
\label{16O}}
\end{figure}
The NLO and NNLO contributions are evaluated in perturbation theory. We compute
operator expectation values using
\begin{equation}
Z_A^\mathcal{O}(t) \equiv \langle\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})| \exp(-H_\mathrm{LO}^{} t/2)
\mathcal{O} \exp(-H_\mathrm{LO}^{} t/2) |\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})\rangle,
\label{OP}
\end{equation}
for any operator $\mathcal{O}$. Given the ratio $X_A^\mathcal{O}(t) = Z_A^\mathcal{O}(t)/Z_A^{}(t)$, the expectation value
of $\mathcal{O}$ for the desired state $|\Psi_{A,0}^{}\rangle$ is obtained as
$X_{A,0}^\mathcal{O} \equiv \langle\Psi_{A,0}^{}| \mathcal{O} |\Psi_{A,0}^{}\rangle = \lim_{t \to \infty}X_A^\mathcal{O}(t)$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.92\columnwidth]{20Ne_plot_big.eps}
\vspace{-.7cm}
\end{center}
\caption{NLEFT results for $^{20}$Ne. The LO energy is $E_\mathrm{LO}^{} = -199.7(9)$~MeV, and the result
at NNLO including 4N interactions is $E_\mathrm{NNLO+4N}^{} = -165.9(9)$~MeV. The empirical binding energy is
$-160.64$~MeV.
\label{20Ne}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.92\columnwidth]{24Mg_plot_big.eps}
\vspace{-.7cm}
\end{center}
\caption{NLEFT results for $^{24}$Mg. The LO energy is $E_\mathrm{LO}^{} = -253(2)$~MeV, and the result
at NNLO including 4N interactions is $E_\mathrm{NNLO+4N}^{} = -198(2)$~MeV. The empirical binding energy is
$-198.26$~MeV.
\label{24Mg}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.92\columnwidth]{28Si_plot_big.eps}
\vspace{-.7cm}
\end{center}
\caption{NLEFT results for $^{28}$Si. The LO energy is $E_\mathrm{LO}^{} = -330(3)$~MeV, and the result
at NNLO including 4N interactions is $E_\mathrm{NNLO+4N}^{} = -233(3)$~MeV. The empirical binding energy is
$-236.54$~MeV.
\label{28Si}}
\end{figure}
Sign oscillations make it difficult to reach sufficiently large values of the
projection time~$t$. It is helpful to note that the closer the trial state $|\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})\rangle$ is to $|\Psi_{A,0}^{}\rangle$,
the less the necessary projection time $t$.
$|\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})\rangle$ can be optimized by adjusting both the SU(4) projection time $t^\prime_{}$ and the strength
of the coupling $C_\mathrm{SU(4)}^{}$ of $H_\mathrm{SU(4)}$.
The accuracy of the extrapolation $t\to\infty$ can be further improved by simultaneously incorporating data from trial states that differ in
$C_\mathrm{SU(4)}^{}$.
The large-time behavior of $Z_A^{}(t)$ and $Z_A^{\mathcal{O}}(t)$ is controlled by the low-energy spectrum of $H_\mathrm{LO}^{}$.
Let $| E\rangle$ label the eigenstates of $H_\mathrm{LO}^{}$ with energy $E$, and let $\rho_{A}^{}(E)$ denote the density of states for a system
of $A$~nucleons. We then express $Z_A^{}(t)$ and $Z_A^{\mathcal{O}}(t)$ in terms of their spectral representations,
\begin{align}
Z_A^{}(t) = & \int dE \: \rho_A^{}(E) \:
\big| \langle E |\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})\rangle\big|^2_{}
\exp(-Et), \\
Z_A^{\mathcal{O}}(t) = & \int dE\,dE^\prime_{} \, \rho_A^{}(E)\,\rho_A^{}(E^\prime_{})
\langle\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})|E\rangle \,
\langle E|\mathcal{O}|E^\prime_{}\rangle \,
\langle E^\prime_{}|\Psi_A^{}(t^\prime_{})\rangle \, \exp(-(E+E^\prime_{})t/2),
\end{align}
from which we construct the spectral representations of $E_A^{}(t)$ and $X_A^{\mathcal{O}}(t)$.
We can approximate these to arbitrary accuracy over any finite range of $t$ by taking $\rho_{A}^{}(E)$ to be a sum of energy delta functions,
$\rho_{A}^{}(E) \approx \sum_{i=0}^{i_\mathrm{max}}\delta(E-E_{A,i}^{})$,
where we take $i_\mathrm{max} = 4$ for the $^4$He ground state,
and $i_\mathrm{max} = 3$ for $A \geq 8$. Using data obtained for
different values of $C_\mathrm{SU(4)}^{}$, we perform a correlated fit of $E_A^{}(t)$ and $X_A^{\mathcal{O}}(t)$ for all operators $\mathcal{O}$
that contribute to the NLO and NNLO energy corrections. We find that the use of $2-6$ trial states allows for a much more precise
determination of $E_{A,0}^{}$ and $X_{A,0}^{\mathcal{O}}$ than hitherto possible. In particular, we may ``triangulate''
$X_{A,0}^{\mathcal{O}}$ using trial states that correspond to functions $X_A^{\mathcal{O}}(t)$ which converge both from above and below,
thereby bracketing $X_{A,0}^{\mathcal{O}}$.
\section{Results}
The NLEFT results for $^{16}$O are given in Fig.~\ref{16O}, for $^{20}$Ne in Fig.~\ref{20Ne},
for $^{24}$Mg in Fig.~\ref{24Mg}, and for $^{28}$Si in Fig.~\ref{28Si}. The curves show a correlated fit for all trial states, using the same
spectral density $\rho_A^{}(E)$. The upper row in each figure shows the LO energy, the total isospin-symmetric
2NF correction (NLO), the electromagnetic and isospin-breaking corrections (EMIB) and the total 3NF correction.
The remaining panels show the matrix elements $X_A^{\mathcal{O}}(t)$ that form part of the NLO and 3NF terms.
The operators $\partial E_{A}^{}/\partial C_i^{}$ give the contributions of the NLO contact interactions, and
$\Delta E_{A}^{} (\Delta x_\pi^{})$ denotes the energy shift due the $\mathcal{O}(a^2)$-improved pion-nucleon coupling.
The operators $\partial E_{A}^{}/\partial D_i^{}$ give the individual contributions to the total 3NF correction.
To summarize, we have reported on the extension of NLEFT to the regime of medium-mass nuclei.
While the NNLO results are good up to $A = 12$, an increasing
over-binding (associated with the momentum-cutoff scale and neglected
higher-order contributions) manifests itself for $A \geq 16$. While the
long-term objectives of NLEFT are to decrease the lattice spacing and include higher orders in the EFT expansion, we also find that the missing
physics can be approximated by an effective 4N interaction.
The current exploratory results represent an important step
towards more comprehensive NLEFT simulations of medium-mass nuclei in the future.
\acknowledgments
We are grateful for the help in automated data collection by Thomas Luu.
Partial financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Sino-German CRC 110), the Helmholtz Association (Contract No.\ VH-VI-417),
BMBF (Grant No.\ 06BN9006), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FG02-03ER41260) is acknowledged. This work was further supported
by the EU HadronPhysics3 project, and funds provided by the ERC Project No.\ 259218 NUCLEAREFT. The computational resources
were provided by the J\"{u}lich Supercomputing Centre at the Forschungszentrum J\"{u}lich and by RWTH Aachen.
|
\section{Introduction}
The quantum Hall bilayer with total Landau level filling fraction $\nu_{tot} = 1$ is a particularly rich system for studying quantum Hall physics.\cite{dassarma_book97,eisenstein04} In this system, two parallel two-dimensional electron gases, separated by a distance $d$, are placed in a perpendicular magnetic field $B$ such that the total electron density of the two layers is that of a filled Landau level for a single layer. For the symmetrically doped case, each layer then has Landau level filling fraction $\nu=1/2$. If interlayer electron tunneling can be ignored, the only coupling between layers is through the Coulomb repulsion. The scale of this coupling, relative to the scale of interactions within each layer, is then set by the dimensionless ratio $d/l_0$, where $l_0 = (\hbar c/(eB))^{1/2}$ is the magnetic length.
In the limit of small $d/l_0$ (strong interlayer coupling) this system enters a remarkable bilayer quantum Hall state in which electrons develop spontaneous interlayer phase coherence.\cite{moon95} This state can be viewed as an exciton condensate formed by electron-hole pairs in the two layers.\cite{dassarma_book97,eisenstein04} In the opposite limit of large $d/l_0$ (weak interlayer coupling) the correlations within each layer presumably give rise to two separate $\nu=1/2$ composite fermion metals, compressible states in which physical electrons are represented by new particles, composite fermions, attached to two fictitious (Chern-Simons) flux quanta.\cite{jain89,jainbook,halperin93} These composite fermions then move in zero effective magnetic field, forming two Fermi surfaces, one in each layer.\cite{halperin93} Despite a great deal of experimental\cite{kellogg03,spielman05,kumada05,luin05,giudici08,karmakar09,finck10,giudici10} and theoretical\cite{cote92,bonesteel93,bonesteel96,kim01,schliemann01,stern02,simon03,shibata06,moeller08,moeller09,milovanovic09,zou10} work devoted to studying the crossover between these two limiting cases, the nature of this crossover is still poorly understood.
Alicea et al.\cite{alicea09} have made the interesting proposal that short-range interlayer repulsion in the $\nu_{tot}=1$ bilayer could lead to a state for intermediate $d/l_0$ in which composite fermions, rather than physical electrons, undergo excitonic condensation and thus develop spontaneous interlayer phase coherence. The starting point for understanding this interlayer coherent composite fermion state is the large $d/l_0$ limit of two decoupled composite fermion metals. As $d/l_0$ is decreased, the interlayer Coulomb repulsion grows and, when strong enough, can lead to excitonic condensation of composite fermions. If this occurs, the composite fermions become liberated from their layers and are able to tunnel coherently between them, even though physical electrons do not. This tunneling leads to the formation of well-defined bonding and antibonding composite fermion bands that are split in energy, with one composite fermion Fermi surface growing and the other shrinking. As shown in Ref.~\onlinecite{alicea09}, the resulting state is compressible in the in-phase sector and incompressible in the out-of-phase sector, where excitations in the in-phase (out-of-phase) sector involve currents with the same (opposite) sign in the two layers. Incompressibility in the out-of-phase sector then implies a quantized Hall effect in the counterflow channel. Despite plausible arguments for the favorability of this state over a range of $d/l_0$,\cite{alicea09} there is currently no experimental evidence for it forming in $\nu_{tot}=1$ quantum Hall bilayers. One purpose of the present work is to provide a possible explanation for this.
In this paper we study the effect of the gauge fields associated with the Chern-Simons flux attached to composite fermions on the transition from two decoupled composite fermion metals to an interlayer coherent composite fermion state. These gauge fields lead to strongly fluctuating layer-dependent Aharonov-Bohm phases experienced by composite fermions as they propagate through the system, and so it is natural to suspect they will strongly suppress any interlayer coherence these composite fermions may have. Here we find that this is, in fact, the case. Our analysis is based on treating the fluctuating gauge fields within the random-phase approximation (RPA) and calculating their contribution to the energy cost for forming an interlayer coherent composite fermion state. This energy cost results in a significant increase in the interlayer repulsion strength required to drive the transition to this state. In addition, the energy gaps to out-of-phase excitations, which are found to open continuously at the transition when gauge fluctuations are ignored, jump discontinuously at the transition when gauge fluctuations are included.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{secII} we review the bilayer model studied in Ref.~\onlinecite{alicea09} and the mean-field theory of the transition from two decoupled composite fermion metals to the interlayer coherent composite fermion state. In Sec.~\ref{secIII} we argue that gauge fluctuations should play an important role in determining the nature of this transition and carry out an RPA analysis of these fluctuations. This analysis allows us to calculate how the collective modes of the system are affected by the formation of the interlayer coherent composite fermion state. We then compute the RPA contribution to the correlation energy in this state due to gauge fluctuations and analyze the effect this contribution has on the transition. Finally, our conclusions are summarized in Sec.~\ref{secIV}.
\section{Spontaneous Interlayer Phase Coherence of Composite Fermions}
\label{secII}
We consider the idealized case of a disorder free, fully spin-polarized,\cite{spin_note} symmetrically doped bilayer with zero interlayer tunneling and total filling fraction $\nu_{tot}=1/p$ where $p$ is an integer. Each layer then has even denominator filling fraction $\nu=1/(2p)$. When these layers are well-separated we assume that each can be described as a composite fermion metal. In this description physical electrons are represented as composite fermions with $2p$ Chern-Simons flux quanta attached to them,\cite{jain89,jainbook,halperin93} where the flux attached to particles in a given layer is seen only by composite fermions in that same layer.\cite{bonesteel93} At the mean-field level, the fictitious magnetic field associated with this flux exactly cancels the applied magnetic field and the composite fermions in each layer move in zero effective magnetic field.\cite{halperin93}
The specific model studied here was introduced in Ref.~\onlinecite{alicea09}. In this model it is assumed that the primary role of the Coulomb interaction within each layer is to induce the formation of the two composite fermion metals. The only interaction included explicitly is then an interlayer delta-function repulsion, $u\delta({\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2)$, meant to describe the short-range part of the Coulomb interaction between layers. The Euclidean-time action for this model at temperature $T$ is $S = \int_0^\beta d \tau \int d^2 r {\cal L}({\bf r},\tau)$ where $\beta = (k_B T)^{-1}$ and the Lagrangian density is ${\cal L} = {\cal L}_0 + {\cal L}_{int} + {\cal L}_{CS}$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_0 = \sum_{\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow} \overline{\psi}_\alpha \Bigl(\partial_\tau - i a_0^\alpha - \frac{1}{2m^*}(\nabla
- i {\bf a}^\alpha)^2 \Bigr) \psi_\alpha,
\label{L0}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{int} = u \overline{\psi}_\uparrow\overline{\psi}_\downarrow\psi_\downarrow \psi_\uparrow,
\label{Lint}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{CS} = -\frac{i}{2\pi\lambda} \sum_{\alpha = \uparrow,\downarrow} a_0^\alpha {\hat {\bf z}} \cdot \left(\nabla \times \left({\bf a}^\alpha + e{\bf A}_{ext}\right)\right).
\label{LCS}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\psi_\alpha$ is the composite fermion field in layer $\alpha$ where $\alpha = \uparrow,\downarrow$ is a pseudospin label for the layers, ${\bf A}_{ext}$ is the vector potential for the external applied magnetic field ${\bf B} = \nabla \times {\bf A}_{ext} = {\bf \hat z} 2\pi\lambda n/e$ where $n$ is the electron density in each layer, $\lambda = 2p$ is the number of flux quanta attached to each composite fermion ($\lambda = 2$ for the case $\nu_{tot}=1$), $m^*$ is the effective mass of the composite fermions, and $(a_0^\alpha, {\bf a}^\alpha)$ is the Chern-Simons gauge field seen by composite fermions in layer $\alpha$ (here, and in what follows, we take $\hbar = c = 1$). ${\cal L}_{CS}$ is a Chern-Simons term in the Coulomb gauge for which $\nabla \cdot {\bf a}^\alpha = 0$. The only gauge degrees of freedom in each layer are then the time component, $a^\alpha_0$, and (after Fourier transforming to momentum space) the transverse component, $a^\alpha_1({\bf q},\tau) = {\bf {\hat z}} \cdot ({\bf {\hat q}} \times {\bf a}^\alpha ({\bf q}, \tau))$, of the Chern-Simons gauge fields. The partition function is then ${\cal Z} = \int \prod_{\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow} D\psi_\alpha D a^\alpha_0 D a^\alpha_1 e^{-S}$.
Integrating out the time components of the Chern-Simons gauge fields enforces the constraint $\nabla \times {\bf a}^\alpha = \hat{\bf z} 2\pi\lambda \delta \rho_\alpha$ where $\delta\rho_\alpha = \bar\psi_\alpha \psi_\alpha - n$ is the fluctuation of the density in layer $\alpha$ about its mean value. Gauge field fluctuations in each layer are thus tied to density fluctuations in that layer. As a first approximation, if we ignore these fluctuations (and so set $a_0^\alpha=0$ and ${\bf a}^\alpha=0$), then, at the mean-field level, the instability to the interlayer coherent composite fermion state discussed by Alicea et al.\cite{alicea09} is a simple Stoner instability. In pseudospin language the instability is to a pseudospin ferromagnet in which the layer pseudospins are polarized along a certain direction in the $xy$ plane. A similar instability to the formation of spontaneous interlayer coherence for electrons in bilayers in zero magnetic field was studied in Ref.~\onlinecite{zheng97}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=2.7in]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Symmetrically doped $\nu_{tot}=1$ quantum Hall bilayer (the case $\lambda =2$ in the text). Layers are labeled by pseudospin indices $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$. $d$ is the layer spacing and $B = 4\pi n/e$ is the external magnetic field, where $n$ is the electron density in each layer ($\hbar = c = 1$). The filling factor in each layer is $\nu = 1/2$ and electrons are represented as composite fermions bound to two flux quanta, as shown in the top layer. The interlayer coherent composite fermion state proposed in Ref.~\onlinecite{alicea09} is characterized by a nonzero interlayer tunneling amplitude $\Phi$ for composite fermions even though there is no interlayer tunneling for electrons.} \label{bilayer}
\end{figure}
This instability can be studied by first carrying out a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. This is accomplished by multiplying the partition function ${\cal Z}$ by the constant factor $\int D\Phi~ e^{-S_{HS}}$, where $S_{HS} = \int_0^\beta d\tau \int d^2 {\bf r} {\cal L}_{HS}$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{HS} = \overline{c}({\bf r},\tau) c({\bf r},\tau),
\label{hs1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
c({\bf r},\tau) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{u}} \Phi({\bf r},\tau) - \sqrt{u}~ \overline{\psi}_\downarrow ({\bf r},\tau) \psi_\uparrow ({\bf r},\tau).
\label{hs2}
\end{eqnarray}
${\cal L}_{HS}$ can then be added to the Lagrangian density for the interlayer interaction to give,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{int} + {\cal L}_{HS} = \frac{1}{u} |\Phi|^2 - \Phi~\overline{\psi}_\uparrow \psi_\downarrow
- \Phi^*~\overline{\psi}_\downarrow \psi_\uparrow.
\label{Linths}
\end{eqnarray}
At the mean-field level we take the Hubbard-Stratonovich field $\Phi$ to be uniform in space and constant in time. $\Phi$ is then the order parameter for the interlayer coherent composite fermion state and acts as a fixed effective interlayer tunneling amplitude for composite fermions (see Fig.~\ref{bilayer}). Without loss of generality we take $\Phi$ to be real and positive in what follows. The system is then diagonalized by the following change of variables to fields which describe composite fermions in symmetric ($S$) and antisymmetric ($A$) interlayer states,
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_S &=& \left(\psi_\uparrow + \psi_\downarrow\right)/\sqrt{2},\label{psiS}\\
\psi_A &=& \left(\psi_\uparrow - \psi_\downarrow\right)/\sqrt{2}.\label{psiA}
\end{eqnarray}
After this transformation the mean-field Lagrangian density becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{MF} &=& \frac{\Phi^2}{u^2} + \overline{\psi}_S\left(\partial_\tau -\Phi - \frac{1}{2m^*}\nabla ^2 \right) \psi_S\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~ + \overline{\psi}_A\left(\partial_\tau + \Phi - \frac{1}{2m^*}\nabla ^2 \right) \psi_A.
\label{LMF}
\end{eqnarray}
Fourier transforming from real space to momentum space then yields the dispersions of the symmetric and antisymmetric bands, which are simply those of noninteracting particles shifted by $\pm \Phi$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal E}_{\bf k}^{S} &=& {\cal E}_{\bf k} - \Phi,\label{dispS}\\
{\cal E}_{\bf k}^{A} &=& {\cal E}_{\bf k} + \Phi,\label{dispA}
\label{eq:}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal E}_{\bf k} = k^2/(2m^*)$.
Because of this splitting, the Fermi surfaces for symmetric and antisymmetric composite fermions have different Fermi wavevectors. If we define $E_F = k_F^2/(2m^*)$ to be the Fermi energy when $\Phi = 0$ then the two Fermi wavevectors for $\Phi < E_F$ are,
\begin{eqnarray}
k_F^S &=& k_F \left(1+\frac{\Phi}{E_F}\right)^{1/2},\label{kfS}\\
k_F^A &=& k_F \left(1-\frac{\Phi}{E_F}\right)^{1/2}.\label{kfA}
\end{eqnarray}
As $\Phi$ increases from 0 the Fermi energy is initially fixed at $E_F$. There are then two Fermi surfaces, and $k_F^S$ increases while $k_F^A$ decreases until, when $\Phi = E_F$ and for $\Phi > E_F$, the Fermi energy is given by $2 E_F - \Phi$, $k_F^A = 0$ and there is only a single Fermi surface with Fermi wavevector $k_F^S = \sqrt{2} k_F$. The density of states for the symmetric and antisymmetric bands and the corresponding Fermi surfaces when $\Phi = 0$, $0 < \Phi < E_F$, and $\Phi > E_F$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{dos}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Density of states and Fermi surfaces for the symmetric and antisymmetric composite fermion bands when (a) $\Phi = 0$, (b) $0 < \Phi < E_F$, and (c) $\Phi > E_F$. Here $\rho_S$ and $\rho_A$ are, respectively, the densities of states for the symmetric and antisymmetric band and $E_F$ is the Fermi energy for $\Phi = 0$. The Fermi energy remains fixed and equal to $E_F$ for $0 < \Phi < E_F$ and is equal to $2E_F - \Phi$ for $\Phi > E_F$. Expressions for $k_F^S$ and $k_F^A$ are given in the text.} \label{dos}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Upon integrating out the composite fermion fields while keeping $\Phi$ fixed and taking the $T \rightarrow 0$ limit of the free energy $F = -\beta^{-1} \ln {\cal Z}$ one obtains the following expression for the ground state energy density as a function of $\Phi$ measured with respect to the energy density of the system when $\Phi = 0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{E_S(\Phi)}{\nu_0 E_F^2} = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\left(\frac{1}{g}-1\right)\frac{\Phi^2}{E_F^2},& \Phi < E_F,\\
\left(\frac{1}{g}-1\right)\frac{\Phi^2}{E_F^2} +
\left(\frac{\Phi}{E_F}-1\right)^2,& \Phi> E_F.
\end{array}\right.
\label{estoner}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\nu_0 = m^*/(2\pi)$ is the density of states per band and
$g = u \frac{m^*}{2\pi} = u \nu_0$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. The two cases in (\ref{estoner}) correspond to either having two Fermi surfaces ($\Phi < E_F$) or a single Fermi surface ($\Phi > E_F$). The fact that the energy density is a purely quadratic function of $\Phi$ for $\Phi < E_F$ is due to the flat density of states for free particles in two dimensions.
At this level of approximation the Stoner instability occurs when $g = 1$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{stoner}. For $g<1$ the energy density, $E_S(\Phi)$, is minimized for $\Phi = 0$. At the critical point, $g=1$ and $E_S(\Phi)$ is independent of $\Phi$ for $\Phi < E_F$. Then, for $g=1+\epsilon$, the order parameter minimizing $E_S(\Phi)$ jumps from $\Phi = 0$ to $\Phi = E_F$, signaling the formation of an exciton condensate of composite fermions with $\langle \bar\psi_\uparrow \psi_\downarrow \rangle \ne 0$, and establishing the interlayer coherent composite fermion state. We see that the transition is directly to a {\it fully} polarized pseudospin ferromagnet, i.e., a state in which {\it all} composite fermions are in the symmetric band. This is a consequence of the purely quadratic behavior of $E_{S}(\Phi)$ for $\Phi < E_F$ due to the flat density of states described above. Note that for $g=1+\epsilon$ the energy gap for interband particle-hole excitations is zero; when $\Phi = E_F$ there are zero energy excitations with wavevector $q = \sqrt{2} k_F$ in which a composite fermion is promoted from the Fermi surface of the symmetric band at $k_F^S = \sqrt{2} k_F$ to the bottom of the (empty) antisymmetric band at $k=0$. For $\Phi > E_F$ an energy gap, $\Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F}$, opens for these $q=\sqrt{2} k_F$ interband excitations where,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F} = 2(\Phi -E_F).\label{deltaqs2}
\end{eqnarray}
For $g>1$, the Stoner energy $E_{S}(\Phi)$ is minimized when $\Phi = g E_F$ and so this gap opens continuously at the transition as $\Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F} = 2(g-1)E_F$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Energy density as a function of the order parameter $\Phi$ for different values of the coupling constant $g$ showing the mean field Stoner instability to the interlayer coherent composite fermion state. Here $g =1$ is the critical value of the coupling constant and the plots are for $g=0.9, 1$, and $1.1$. } \label{stoner}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The simplified model considered here is best viewed as an effective low-energy theory for a bilayer composite fermion metal. Here and in what follows we take this model at face value, particularly because, as we will see in the next Section, the RPA analysis of gauge fluctuations can be carried out essentially analytically. Following Alicea et al.\cite{alicea09} we can use the renormalized effective mass $m^* \simeq 6/(e^2 l_0)$ from Ref.~\onlinecite{murthy03} for $\lambda = 2$. This effective mass is set by the intralayer Coulomb interaction energy (the only energy scale in the lowest Landau level) and is independent of the bare band mass of the electrons. If, also following Alicea et al.,\cite{alicea09} we take $u \simeq (e^2/d)(\pi l_0^2)$ to roughly model the short-range part of the interlayer Coulomb interaction, then the dimensionless coupling constant is $g \simeq 3 l_0/d$ and the critical layer spacing for the Stoner instability is $\left(d/l_0\right)_c \simeq 3$.
\section{Effect of Gauge Fluctuations}
\label{secIII}
The Stoner instability analysis described in the previous section does not take into account the effect of fluctuations in the Chern-Simons gauge fields attached to the composite fermions. There are good reasons for thinking these fluctuations will be important. Fluctuations in these gauge fields lead to fluctuations in the Aharonov-Bohm phases experienced by composite fermions. Because these fluctuations are different in the two layers, any interlayer phase coherence these composite fermions may have will quickly be lost as a they propagate through this wildly fluctuating ``gauge sea.''
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Effect of in-phase and out-of-phase gauge fluctuations on a composite fermion as it propagates through the bilayer starting in the symmetric band. In-phase gauge fluctuations are tied to in-phase density fluctuations, represented schematically in green. These fluctuations give the propagating composite fermion a layer-independent Aharonov-Bohm phase $\phi$. This phase does not affect interlayer coherence and leads only to intraband scattering within the $S$ and $A$ bands. Out-of-phase gauge fluctuations are likewise tied to out-of-phase density fluctuations, shown in red. These fluctuations give the propagating composite fermion opposite Aharonov-Bohm phases $\pm \phi$ in the two layers. These fluctuations strongly inhibit interlayer phase coherence and lead to interband scattering between the $S$ and $A$ bands.} \label{gauge}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This effect can be seen clearly by introducing in-phase ($a^+$) and out-of-phase ($a^-$) gauge fields,\cite{bonesteel93}
\begin{eqnarray}
a^+_\mu &=& (a^\uparrow_\mu + a^\downarrow_\mu)/\sqrt{2}, \label{ap}\\
a^-_\mu &=& (a^\uparrow_\mu - a^\downarrow_\mu)/\sqrt{2}. \label{am}
\end{eqnarray}
Figure \ref{gauge} shows the effect fluctuations in $a^+$ and $a^-$ have on a composite fermion as it propagates through the bilayer. Assume the composite fermion starts in either a symmetric state $\psi_S$ or antisymmetric state $\psi_A$ (Fig.~\ref{gauge} shows the $\psi_S$ case). As this composite fermion moves, in-phase gauge fluctuations result in the same Aharonov-Bohm phase regardless of which layer the composite fermion is in. Thus these fluctuations do not suppress interlayer coherence; a composite fermion that starts in either the symmetric or antisymmetric band will stay in that band as it scatters off of fluctuations of $a^+$. By contrast, the out-of-phase gauge fluctuations give opposite Aharonov-Bohm phases to composite fermions in layer $\uparrow$ and layer $\downarrow$. Fluctuations in $a^-$ therefore strongly suppress interlayer coherence and lead to interband scattering between the symmetric and antisymmetric bands. It is interesting to note that while fluctuations in $a^-$ suppress interlayer coherence of composite fermions in the particle-hole channel, these same fluctuations are known to enhance interlayer BCS pairing of composite fermions in the particle-particle channel.\cite{bonesteel93,bonesteel96}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Feynman diagrams for ${\cal K}_{00}^\pm({\bf q},\i\omega;\Phi)$ and ${\cal K}_{11}^\pm({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi)$. $S$ and $A$ label composite fermion propagators (blue) in the symmetric $(+)$ and antisymmetric $(-)$ bands, respectively. In-phase gauge fields (green) lead to intraband scattering $(S\leftrightarrow S)$, $(A\leftrightarrow A)$, while out-of-phase gauge fields (red) lead to interband scattering $(S \leftrightarrow A)$ (see Fig.~\ref{gauge}). The seagull diagrams only contribute to ${\cal K}_{11}^\pm$ where they give the diamagnetic contribution $-n/m^*$.} \label{response}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The suppression of interlayer coherence by $a^-$ fluctuations is similar to the suppression of BCS pairing of composite fermions in a single-layer $\nu=1/2$ system studied in Ref.~\onlinecite{bonesteel99}. The main result of this earlier work was the observation that, while in an ordinary BCS transition {\it any} attractive interaction strength, however small, is sufficient for a pairing instability to occur, when the effect of the gauge fluctuations are included a finite interaction strength is required to induce a transition. This resistance to pairing can be understood as a consequence of singular pair breaking due to the strongly fluctuating effective magnetic field seen by the composite fermions.\cite{bonesteel99} The role of similar gauge fluctuations in preventing the Kohn-Luttinger pairing instability of the Fermi surface in three dimensions has been studied in Ref.~\onlinecite{schafer06} (in the context of high-density quantum chromodynamics) and, more recently, in Ref.~\onlinecite{chung13}. The Stoner instability studied here differs from BCS paring in that a finite coupling strength is required for the transition to occur even in the absence of gauge fluctuations. However, as we will see below, the inclusion of gauge fluctuations leads to similar qualitative changes in the nature of the transition. Thus the model studied here provides another example of the nontrivial effect gauge fluctuations can have on phase transitions in dense Fermi systems.
To analyze the effect of gauge fluctuations on the interlayer coherent composite fermion state within the RPA we begin with the full action defined in Sec.~\ref{secII}, integrate out the fermions for fixed constant $\Phi$, and expand the resulting effective action to second order in $a^+$ and $a^-$. This expanded action decouples into in-phase and out-of-phase sectors,\cite{bonesteel99} and has the form $S_{RPA} = S_{RPA}^+ + S_{RPA}^-$ where,
\begin{eqnarray}
S^\pm_{RPA} &=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\omega_n} \sum_{\bf q} \nonumber \\
&&\sum_{{{\mu=0,1\atop{\nu=0,1}}}} {a^\pm_\mu}^*({\bf q},i\omega_n) {{{\cal D}^\pm}}^{-1}_{\mu\nu} ({\bf q},i\omega_n;\Phi) a^\pm_\nu({\bf q},i\omega_n).\nonumber \\
\label{RPA_action}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, as in Sec.~\ref{secII}, $a^\pm_0({\bf q},i\omega_n)$ and $a^\pm_1({\bf q},i\omega_n) = {\bf{\hat z}} \cdot ({\bf \hat q} \times {\bf a}^\pm({\bf q},i\omega_n))$ are, respectively, the time and transverse components of the gauge fields,
\begin{eqnarray}
{{\cal D}^\pm}^{-1}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) = \left(\begin{array}{cc} {\cal K}_{00}^{\pm}({\bf q},i \omega;\Phi) & i q/(2\pi\lambda) \\
-i q/(2\pi\lambda) & {\cal K}_{11}^{\pm}({\bf q},i \omega;\Phi)\end{array} \right),\nonumber\\
\label{Dinverse}
\end{eqnarray}
is the inverse of the $2\times 2$ matrix formed by the gauge field propagators evaluated on the imaginary frequency axis, ${\cal D}_{\mu\nu}^{\pm}({\bf q},i\omega_n) = \langle {a^{\pm}_\mu}^*({\bf q},i\omega_n) a^{\pm}_\nu({\bf q},i\omega_n)\rangle$ where $\langle \cdots \rangle = {\cal Z}^{-1}\int D a_0^\alpha a_1^\alpha \cdots e^{-S_{RPA}}$, and $\omega_n = 2n\pi/\beta$ is the $n$th bosonic Matsubara frequency.
The functions ${\cal K}_{00}^{\pm}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi)$ and ${\cal K}_{11}^{\pm}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi)$ appearing in the expression for ${{\cal D}^\pm}^{-1}$ are obtained by evaluating the Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{response}. The vertices in the bubble diagrams for ${\cal K}_{00}^\pm$ and ${\cal K}_{11}^\pm$ correspond, respectively, to the density $\rho^\pm = \rho_\uparrow \pm \rho_\downarrow$ and transverse paramagnetic current (in momentum space) $j_{p,1}^\pm({\bf q},\tau) = {\hat {\bf z}}\cdot({\hat {\bf q}} \times ({\bf j}_{p,\uparrow}({\bf q},\tau) \pm {\bf j}_{p,\downarrow}({\bf q},\tau)))$ where ${\bf j}_{p,\alpha}({\bf q},\tau) = \frac{1}{2m^*}\sum_{{\bf k}} (2{\bf k} + {\bf q}) {\bar\psi}_\alpha({\bf q} + {\bf k},\tau) \psi_\alpha({\bf k},\tau)$, in the in-phase ($+$) and out-of-phase ($-$) sectors. We then find
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}^\pm_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) = \Pi^\pm_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) - \delta_{\mu,1}\delta_{\nu,1} \frac{n}{m*},\label{kpm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n= k_F^2/(4\pi)$ is the electron density per layer,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{+}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) = \frac{1}{2} \left(\Pi^{SS}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) +
\Pi^{AA}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi)\right),\nonumber\\
\label{pi+}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{-}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) = \frac{1}{2} \left(\Pi^{SA}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) + \Pi^{AS}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi)\right).\nonumber\\
\label{pi-}
\end{eqnarray}
Here
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{\alpha\beta}_{00}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) = \int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}
\frac{f({\cal E}^\alpha_{{\bf k} + {\bf q}}) - f({\cal E}^\beta_{\bf k})}{i\omega - {\cal E}^\alpha_{{\bf k} + {\bf q}} + {\cal E}^\beta_{\bf k}},
\label{pi00}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{\alpha\beta}_{11}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) = \int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}
\left(\frac{\hat{\bf q}\times {\bf k}}{m^*}\right)^2
\frac{f({\cal E}^\alpha_{{\bf k} + {\bf q}}) - f({\cal E}^\beta_{\bf k})}{i\omega - {\cal E}^\alpha_{{\bf k} + {\bf q}} + {\cal E}^\beta_{\bf k}},\nonumber\\
\label{pi11}
\end{eqnarray}
$\Pi^{\alpha\beta}_{10} = \Pi^{\alpha\beta}_{01} = 0$, the indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can be either $S$ or $A$, and ${\cal E}^S_{\bf k}$ and ${\cal E}^A_{\bf k}$ are the shifted energy dispersions given in (\ref{dispS}) and (\ref{dispA}). At $T=0$ the integrals (\ref{pi00}) and (\ref{pi11}) can be performed analytically to give closed-form expressions for ${\cal K}^\pm_{00}$ and ${\cal K}^\pm_{11}$ (see Appendix).
There is a qualitative change in the $\Phi$ dependence of ${\cal K}_{00}^\pm$ and ${\cal K}_{11}^\pm$ when $\Phi = E_F$ (here, as in Sec.~\ref{secII}, $E_F = k_F^2/(2m^*)$ is the Fermi energy when $\Phi = 0$). As noted in Sec.~\ref{secII}, for $\Phi < E_F$ there are two Fermi surfaces and for $\Phi > E_F$ there is one Fermi surface. In the latter case the antisymmetric band is empty and, at $T=0$, the Fermi function $f(E_k^A) = 0$ for all ${\bf k}$. Thus, while the out-of-phase response functions continue to evolve with $\Phi$ for $\Phi > E_F$ due to virtual transitions from the symmetric band to the antisymmetric band, the in-phase response functions, which only involve intraband transitions, become $\Phi$ independent for $\Phi > E_F$.
Using the RPA action (\ref{RPA_action}) we can study the effect that introducing the order parameter $\Phi$ has on the collective modes of the system. These modes naturally decouple into in-phase and out-of-phase sectors and their dispersions are determined by the poles of the gauge field propagators after analytic continuation to the real frequency axis. These poles occur when the determinant of the inverse of the matrix formed by the analytically continued gauge field propagators, ${D^{\pm}}^{-1} ({\bf q},\omega;\Phi) \equiv {\cal D^{\pm}}^{-1}({\bf q},i\omega \rightarrow \omega + i\epsilon;\Phi)$, vanishes, and are thus obtained by solving the equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\det {D^{\pm}}^{-1} = K_{00}^\pm({\bf q},\omega;\Phi) K_{11}^\pm({\bf q},\omega;\Phi) - \frac{q^2}{(2\pi\lambda)^2} = 0,\nonumber\\
\label{collective}
\end{eqnarray}
in the in-phase $(+)$ and out-of-phase $(-)$ sectors. Here $K_{00}^\pm({\bf q},\omega;\Phi) = {\cal K}_{00}^\pm({\bf q},i\omega \rightarrow \omega+i\epsilon;\Phi)$ and $K_{11}^\pm({\bf q},\omega;\Phi) = {\cal K}_{11}^\pm({\bf q},i\omega \rightarrow \omega+i\epsilon;\Phi)$ are, respectively, the bare density and transverse-current response functions in these two sectors.
When $\Phi = 0$, the two layers are decoupled and the bare response functions, and hence the collective mode dispersions, are the same in the in-phase and the out-of-phase sectors. In the limit $\omega \gg v_F q$, these response functions are given approximately by
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{00}^\pm({\bf q},\omega;0) &\simeq& - \frac{E_F}{2\pi} \frac{q^2}{\omega^2},\label{k00+}\\
K_{11}^\pm({\bf q},\omega;0) &\simeq& -\frac{E_F}{2\pi},\label{k11+}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be expressed in a more familiar form using the fact that $E_F/(2\pi) = n/m^*$. The solution to (\ref{collective}) in the $q\rightarrow 0$ limit then yields modes with frequency,
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega^{\pm} &\simeq& \lambda E_F,\label{cyclotron}
\end{eqnarray}
in the in-phase $(\omega^+)$ and out-of-phase $(\omega^-)$ sectors. Note that $\lambda E_F = e B/m^*$ is the cyclotron frequency for particles of mass $m^*$, consistent with with Kohn's theorem,\cite{kohn61,kohn_note} and indicating that these modes are the $q \rightarrow 0$ in-phase and out-of-phase cyclotron modes.\cite{halperin93}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2\columnwidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Regions in $q, \omega$ space where the imaginary parts of the RPA gauge field propagators (after analytic continuation to the real frequency axis) are nonzero, showing the particle-hole continuum and collective mode excitations in the in-phase (top row) and out-of-phase (bottom row) sectors for different values of the order parameter $\Phi$. For $\Phi = 0$, the excitation spectra are identical in both sectors and show the usual particle-hole continuum and the $q\rightarrow 0$ cyclotron mode. For $\Phi = 0.5 E_F$, in the in-phase sector the spectrum is only slightly changed (with the particle-hole continuum broadening in $q$ due to the growing symmetric Fermi surface), while in the out-of-phase sector the particle-hole continuum is significantly modified, and both a diverging and a gapless collective mode can be seen as $q\rightarrow 0$. For $\Phi = E_F$, the point at which the antisymmetric Fermi surface vanishes, in the in-phase sector the spectrum is again only slightly changed, and in the out-of-phase sector the low-energy collective mode is still gapless and the particle-hole continuum touches the $\omega = 0$ axis at the point $q = \sqrt{2} k_F$. For $\Phi = 1.5 E_F$, in the in-phase sector the spectrum is identical to the case $\Phi = E_F$ (as it is for all $\Phi > E_F$), and in the out-of-phase sector the particle-hole continuum and low-energy collective mode are now fully gapped (as they are for all $\Phi > E_F$). Results are for $\lambda = 2$. } \label{ph_continuum}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
When $\Phi \ne 0$, in the $\omega \gg v_F q$ limit the leading contributions to the in-phase response functions given above are unchanged. As a consequence, the energy of the in-phase cyclotron mode at $q=0$ is also unchanged, again consistent with Kohn's theorem, although the leading $O(q^2)$ contribution to the dispersion (obtained by solving (\ref{collective}) using the expressions given in the Appendix for $K_{00}^+$ and $K_{11}^+$ which include the $O(q^4)$ and $O(q^2)$ contributions, respectively) is modified as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\omega^+}^2 \simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}\lambda^2 E_F^2 + 4 (E_F^2 + \Phi^2) \frac{q^2}{k_F^2}, & ~\Phi < E_F,\\
\lambda^2 E_F^2 + 8 E_F^2 \frac{q^2}{k_F^2}, & ~\Phi > E_F.
\end{array}\right.
\label{wp}
\end{eqnarray}
The out-of-phase response functions, however, are significantly altered. In the $|\omega - 2\Phi| \gg v_F q$ limit we find for $\Phi < E_F$,
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{00}^-({\bf q},\omega;\Phi<E_F) &\simeq& \frac{2m^*}{\pi} \frac{\Phi^2}{4\Phi^2-\omega^2},\\
K_{11}^-({\bf q},\omega;\Phi<E_F) &\simeq& \frac{E_F}{2\pi} \frac{\omega^2}{4\Phi^2 -\omega^2},
\label{krm1}
\end{eqnarray}
and for $\Phi > E_F$,
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{00}^-({\bf q},\omega;\Phi>E_F) &\simeq& \frac{2m^*}{\pi} \frac{E_F\Phi}{4\Phi^2-\omega^2},\label{krm1}\\
K_{11}^-({\bf q},\omega;\Phi>E_F) &\simeq& \frac{E_F}{2\pi} \frac{\omega^2 - 4\Phi(\Phi - E_F) }{4\Phi^2 -\omega^2}.
\label{krm2}
\end{eqnarray}
The long wavelength pole in these response functions at $\omega = 2\Phi$ corresponds to the $q\rightarrow 0$ interband transition from the symmetric band to the antisymmertic band. Using these response functions (including $O(q^2)$ contributions omitted above but given in the Appendix) to solve (\ref{collective}) we find {\it two} out-of-phase collective modes in the long wavelength limit, one low-energy mode, and one high-energy mode.
For $\Phi < E_F$ the low-energy mode is gapless with linear dispersion,
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega^-_1 \simeq \left(\frac{2}{3} \Phi^2 + 8 \frac{\Phi^2}{\lambda^2}\right)^{1/2} \frac{q}{k_F}.\label{wm1}
\end{eqnarray}
This mode couples to the composite fermions as an effective gapless out-of-phase photon. Even when the order parameter $\Phi$ is finite, provided it is less than $E_F$ in magnitude, this mode remains gapless. This is due to the fact that the $q \rightarrow 0$ limit of the bare out-of-phase static transverse current response function is $\lim_{q\rightarrow 0} K^-_{11}({\bf q},\omega=0;\Phi< E_F) = 0$. Thus there is no out-of-phase Meissner effect for composite fermions when $\Phi < E_F$. This in turn implies the system is compressible to out-of-phase density perturbations (which appear to composite fermions as an out-of-phase magnetic field). This lack of an out-of-phase Meissner effect for $\Phi < E_F$ can be traced back to the flat density of states, which, as noted above, is also the reason the Stoner energy density $E_S(\Phi)$ is a purely quadratic function of $\Phi$ for $\Phi < E_F$.
For $\Phi > E_F$, there {\it is} an out-of-phase Meissner effect for composite fermions, with $\lim_{q\rightarrow 0} K_{11}({\bf q},\omega=0;\Phi > E_F) = -\frac{E_F}{2\pi \Phi} (\Phi - E_F)$. This leads to a gap opening up in the out-of-phase photon dispersion. For this dispersion we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega^-_1 \simeq \left(\Delta_{q=0}^2 + \left(2 E_F^2 - \frac{4}{3} \Phi E_F +8\frac{\Phi^2}{\lambda^2} \right)\frac{q^2}{k_F^2}\right)^{1/2},\label{wo1lp}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $q=0$ energy gap is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{q=0} = 2 (\Phi(\Phi - E_F))^{1/2}.\label{deltaq0}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that the transition to the interlayer coherent state is always to a state with $\Phi \ge E_F$ (both at the Stoner level, for which $\Phi$ jumps to $E_F$ at the transition as described in Sec.~\ref{secII}, and when gauge fluctuations are included, for which $\Phi$ jumps to a value larger than $E_F$, see below). The transition is therefore always to a state which is incompressible in the out-of-phase sector, and thus behaves like a quantum Hall state in the counterflow channel. This, together with compressibility in the in-phase sector, is the hallmark of the interlayer coherent composite fermion state.\cite{alicea09}
For $\Phi \ne 0$ the layers are coupled and Kohn's theorem no longer holds for the out-of-phase cyclotron mode. For both $\Phi < E_F$ and $\Phi > E_F$ we find the dispersion of this mode diverges as $q\rightarrow 0$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\omega^-_2}^2 \simeq \left\{\begin{array}{cl} 2 \lambda^2 \Phi^2 \frac{k_F^2}{q^2} + \lambda^2 E_F^2 + 8 \Phi^2, & \Phi < E_F,\\
2\lambda^2\Phi E_F\frac{k_F^2}{q^2} + \lambda^2 E_F^2 + 4 \Phi^2 + 4 \Phi E_F, & \Phi > E_F.\end{array}\right. \nonumber \\
\label{wo2}
\end{eqnarray}
The collective modes described above, along with the continuum of particle-hole excitations in the in-phase and out-of-phase sectors, are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{ph_continuum}. This figure shows the regions in $q$ and $\omega$ space where the analytically continued gauge field propagators $D^\pm_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},\omega;\Phi) = {\cal D}^\pm_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},i\omega \rightarrow \omega + i \epsilon; \Phi)$, evaluated for the case $\lambda = 2$, have nonzero imaginary part for different values of $\Phi$. For $\Phi = 0$ the layers are decoupled and the excitations are identical in the two sectors, consisting of the usual particle-hole continuum and the cyclotron mode. For $0 < \Phi < E_F$, in the in-phase sector the particle-hole continuum, which consists entirely of intraband excitations, grows broader in $q$ due to the increasing size of the symmetric Fermi surface, but is otherwise only mildly affected, and the cyclotron mode is likewise only slightly modified. By contrast, in the out-of-phase sector the particle-hole continuum, which consists entirely of interband excitations, is altered significantly and both the diverging out-of-phase cyclotron mode and gapless out-of-phase ``photon" mode described above can be seen. For $\Phi > E_F$ the in-phase excitations are independent of $\Phi$ (due to the fact that there is only one Fermi surface) while the out-of-phase excitations continue to evolve, with gaps appearing both in the interband particle-hole continuum at $q = \sqrt{2} k_F$ ($\Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F}$, see (\ref{deltaqs2})) and the out-of-phase photon mode at $q=0$ ($\Delta_{q=0}$, see (\ref{deltaq0})).
It is apparent that the order parameter $\Phi$ has a much stronger effect on the out-of-phase gauge propagators than on the in-phase gauge propagators. This is consistent with our expectation that it is the out-of-phase gauge fluctuations which strongly suppress the formation of the interlayer coherent composite fermion state. To analyze this suppression we use an approach introduced by Ubbens and Lee\cite{ubbens94_1} to study BCS pairing of spinons in an effective gauge-theory description of the $t$-$J$ model. In this approach, we calculate the gauge fluctuation contribution to the correlation energy within the RPA in the presence of the order parameter $\Phi$. While this calculation does not go beyond mean-field theory in $\Phi$, which we continue to assume is constant in time and independent of position, it does go beyond the composite fermion mean-field theory by including gaussian fluctuations of the gauge fields.
Integrating out the gauge fields in (\ref{RPA_action}) and taking the $T \rightarrow 0$ limit of the free energy we obtain the following contribution to the energy density of the in-phase and out-of-phase gauge fluctuations,
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{CS}^{\pm}(\Phi) &=& \frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \int \frac{d^2 q}{(2\pi)^2} \ln \det {{\cal D}^\pm}^{-1}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi).\nonumber\\
\label{ECS}
\end{eqnarray}
The change in energy density due to introducing the order parameter, $\Delta E_{CS}^{\pm}(\Phi) = E_{CS}^{\pm}(\Phi) - E_{CS}^\pm(0)$, can then be expressed as the following integral over dimensionless variables $\bar q = q/k_F$ and $\bar \omega = \omega/E_F$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta E_{CS}^{\pm}(\Phi)}{\nu_0 E_F^2} &=& \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^\infty d\bar\omega \int_0^\infty \bar q d \bar q \nonumber \\
&&\ln\frac{\bar q^2-(2\pi \lambda)^2 \bar {\cal K}^{\pm}_{00}(\bar q,\bar \omega;\bar \Phi) \bar {\cal K}^{\pm}_{11}(\bar q,\bar\omega;\bar\Phi)}{\bar q^2-(2\pi \lambda)^2 \bar {\cal K}^{\pm}_{00}(\bar q,\bar\omega;0) \bar {\cal K}^{\pm}_{11}(\bar q,\bar\omega;0)},\nonumber\\
\label{rpa_integral}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar\Phi = \Phi/E_F$ and, as in Sec.~\ref{secII}, $\nu_0 = m^*/(2\pi)$ is the density of states per layer and $E_F = k_F^2/(2m^*)$ is the Fermi energy for $\Phi = 0$. Here we have used the fact that ${\cal K}_{00}^\pm$ and ${\cal K}_{11}^\pm$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{00}^{\pm}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) &=& m^* {\bar {\cal K}}_{00}^{\pm}(\bar q,i\bar\omega,\bar \Phi),\label{k00pmbar}\\
{\cal K}_{11}^{\pm}({\bf q},i\omega;\Phi) &=& \frac{k_F^2}{m^*} {\bar {\cal K}}_{11}^{\pm}(\bar q,i\bar\omega;\bar\Phi),\label{k11pmbar}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar {\cal K}_{00}^{\pm}$ and $\bar {\cal K}_{11}^\pm$ are dimensionless functions of $\bar q$, $\bar\omega$, and $\bar\Phi$. Using the analytic expressions for ${\cal K}^\pm_{00}$ and ${\cal K}^\pm_{11}$ given in the Appendix, we need only numerically perform a single two-dimensional integral to determine $\Delta E^+_{CS}(\Phi)$ or $\Delta E^-_{CS}(\Phi)$ for a given value of $\Phi$ and $\lambda$.
Before presenting the results of this full integration, it is instructive to analyze the behavior of $\Delta E^+_{CS}(\Phi)$ and $\Delta E^-_{CS}(\Phi)$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow 0$ limit. In both cases the integrand in (\ref{rpa_integral}) can be Taylor expanded to second order in $\Phi$ using our analytic expressions for ${\cal K}^\pm_{00}$ and ${\cal K}^\pm_{11}$. For $\Delta E_{CS}^+(\Phi)$ the integral over $q$ and $\omega$ can then be carried out to yield a finite coefficient of the $O(\Phi^2)$ contribution. Performing this integration numerically for $\lambda = 2$ we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta E_{CS}^+(\Phi)}{\nu_0 E_F^2} \simeq - 0.57 \frac{\Phi^2}{E_F^2}.\label{DECSP}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the in-phase gauge fluctuations contribute a term to the total energy which is analytic in $\Phi$ and, because it is negative, favors the formation of the interlayer coherent composite fermion state. While it is not possible to analytically determine the $\lambda$ dependence of $\Delta E_{CS}^+(\Phi)$, even in the small $\Phi$ limit, if we expand the integrand in (\ref{rpa_integral}) to second order in both $\lambda$ and $\Phi$ and carry out the integration we find that $\Delta E_{CS}^+(\Phi)/(\nu_0 E_F^2) \simeq -0.14 \lambda^2 \Phi^2$ for small $\lambda$. The fact that the magnitude of this contribution grows with increasing $\lambda$ is consistent with $\lambda$ being a measure of the strength of the gauge fluctuations in the system.
By contrast, when the integrand in (\ref{rpa_integral}) for $\Delta E_{CS}^-(\Phi)$ is expanded to second order in $\Phi$ and integrated over $q$ and $\omega$ the coefficient of the $O(\Phi^2)$ term diverges, indicating that $\Delta E_{CS}^-(\Phi)$ is not analytic in $\Phi$. We find that this divergence arises from the $\bar q \ll 1$ region of the $q,\omega$ integration. The leading nonanalytic behavior in $\Delta E_{CS}^-(\Phi)$ can then be isolated by expressing the integral (\ref{rpa_integral}) as a sum of two integrals, one where $q$ is integrated from 0 to a cutoff $q_c$ and a second where $q$ is integrated from $q_c$ to infinity. Regardless of the value of the cutoff $q_c$ the second integral will be analytic in $\Phi$ and contribute a term of $O(\Phi^2)$ to the energy. The leading nonanalytic behavior of $\Delta E_{CS}^-(\Phi)$ for small $\Phi$ is thus contained in the first integral. For this integral, rather than expanding the integrand, we can expand the argument of the logarithm in the integrand, first to second order in $\Phi$ and then in powers of $q$. After doing so, using the expressions for ${\cal K}_{00}^-$ and ${\cal K}_{11}^-$ from the Appendix, we find,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta E^{-}_{CS}(\Phi)}{\nu_0 E_F^2}
&\simeq& \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\infty d\bar\omega \int_0^{q_c} \bar q d\bar q
\ln\left(1+ \frac{2\lambda^2}{\lambda^2 + {\bar \omega}^2} \frac{\bar\Phi^2}{{\bar q}^2}\right).\nonumber\\ \label{deltaecs_approx}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig7.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). RPA contribution to the correlation energy density from in-phase (green) and out-of-phase (red) gauge fluctuations, and their total (blue) as a function of the order parameter $\Phi$. Results are for $\lambda = 2$.} \label{delta_Ecs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The $\bar \omega$ integration in (\ref{deltaecs_approx}) can be performed to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta E^{-}_{CS}(\Phi)}
{\nu_0 E_F^2} &\simeq& \int_0^{q_c} {\bar q} d {\bar q} \left(\left(\frac{2 \lambda^2 {\bar \Phi}^2}{{\bar q}^2} + \lambda^2 \right)^{1/2} - \lambda\right).\label{zpe}
\end{eqnarray}
This integral has a clear physical meaning; it is the difference in the zero-point energies associated with the out-of-phase cyclotron mode $\omega_2^-$ for the case $\Phi \ne 0$ (which diverges as $q \rightarrow 0$) and $\Phi = 0$ (which remains finite as $q\rightarrow 0$). The singular contribution to (\ref{zpe}) can be found by carrying out the $\bar q$ integration to leading logarithmic accuracy with the result
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta E^{-}_{CS}(\Phi)}{\nu_0 E_F^2} &\simeq& \lambda~ \frac{\Phi^2}{E_F^2} \left|\ln \frac{\Phi}{E_F}\right|,\label{DECSM}
\end{eqnarray}
which is asymptotically exact in the $\Phi \rightarrow 0$ limit for all values of $\lambda$. Because it is singular, this positive energy cost for introducing a nonzero $\Phi$ will always dominate the total energy of the system for small enough $\Phi$, regardless of the value of the coupling constant $g$. This reflects the fact that the out-of-phase gauge fluctuations strongly inhibit the formation of the interlayer coherent composite fermion state. Note that, like $\Delta E^{+}_{CS}(\Phi)$, $\Delta E^{-}_{CS}(\Phi)$ grows in magnitude with increasing $\lambda$, again consistent with $\lambda$ being a measure of the strength of the gauge fluctuations in the system.
Results for numerically performing the full integral (\ref{rpa_integral}) for the case $\lambda = 2$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{delta_Ecs}. This plot shows the dependence of the in-phase, $\Delta E_{CS}^+(\Phi)$, and out-of-phase, $\Delta E_{CS}^-(\Phi)$, contributions to the energy on $\Phi$, as well as their sum, $\Delta E_{CS}(\Phi) = \Delta E^+_{CS}(\Phi) + \Delta E^-_{CS}(\Phi)$. For $\Phi < E_F$ the in-phase contribution is negative and decreases with increasing $\Phi$, consistent with the small $\Phi$ behavior found above, and confirming that this contribution favors the formation of an interlayer coherent composite fermion state. The out-of-phase contribution is significantly larger in magnitude than the in-phase contribution and increases with increasing $\Phi$, indicating that this contribution strongly suppresses the formation of the interlayer coherent composite fermion state, again consistent with the above small $\Phi$ analysis. Note that for $\Phi > E_F$ the in-phase contribution becomes independent of $\Phi$, because the in-phase response functions do not change once $\Phi$ exceeds $E_F$, while the out-of-phase contribution continues to grow. Thus, for all values of $\Phi$, the out-of-phase contribution dominates and the total gauge field contribution to the energy density, $\Delta E_{CS} (\Phi)$, grows monotonically with increasing $\Phi$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig8.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Total energy density obtained by adding the Stoner $(E_S(\Phi))$ and gauge field $(\Delta E_{CS}(\Phi))$ contributions, plotted as a function of the order parameter $\Phi$ for coupling strengths $g=0.9 g_c, g_c$ and $1.1 g_c$ where $g_c \simeq 2.9$ is the critical value of the coupling constant. Results are for $\lambda = 2$.} \label{etotal}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The total energy density for the system is obtained by adding the RPA gauge fluctuation contribution to the Stoner energy found in Sec.~\ref{secII} to give $E_{\rm Total}(\Phi) = E_{S}(\Phi) + \Delta E_{CS}(\Phi)$. Figure \ref{etotal} shows $E_{\rm Total}(\Phi)$ plotted as a function of $\Phi$ for different values of the dimensionless coupling constant $g$ as the system undergoes a first-order phase transition from decoupled bilayers ($\Phi = 0$) to the interlayer coherent composite fermion state ($\Phi \ne 0$) for the case $\lambda = 2$. For a given $g$ the order parameter is found by minimizing the energy as a function of $\Phi$. When gauge fluctuations are included, as the coupling constant $g$ is increased from 0, the energy is minimized by a nonzero $\Phi$ at the critical value $g = g_c \simeq 2.9$, which should be compared to the critical value $g = 1$ for the Stoner analysis when gauge fluctuations are ignored (see Fig.~\ref{stoner}). If we assume the relation $g \simeq 3 l_0/d$ holds this implies that the gauge fluctuations have shifted the critical layer spacing from $(d/l_0)_c\sim 3$ down to $(d/l_0)_c\sim 1$ which, we note, is below the critical layer spacing for the $\nu_{tot}=1$ bilayer quantum Hall state, theoretical estimates of which range from $d/l_0 \simeq 1.3$ (Refs.~\onlinecite{moon95,schliemann01}) to $d/l_0 \simeq 1.6$ (Ref.~\onlinecite{shibata06}). This shifting down of $(d/l_0)_c$ may account for the fact that the interlayer coherent composite fermion state has not yet been observed experimentally.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig9.pdf}
\caption{(Color online).
(a) $q$,$\omega$ plot showing the energy dispersion of the low-energy collective mode and particle-hole continuum in the out-of-phase sector immediately after the transition into the interlayer coherent composite fermion state at $g = g_c \simeq 2.9$ where $\Phi \simeq 2.1 E_F$. The energy gaps in the collective mode at $q=0$ ($\bar \Delta_{q=0} = \Delta_{q=0}/E_F$) and in the particle-hole spectrum at $q=\sqrt{2} k_F$ ($\bar \Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F} = \Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F}/E_F$) are indicated. (b) Energy gaps $\Delta_{q=0}$ and $\Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F}$ as a function of the coupling constant $g$. Results are shown both for the simple Stoner analysis of Sec.~\ref{secII} where the gaps (with superscript 0) open continuously at the transition, and for when the gauge fluctuation contribution to the energy is included where the gaps (without superscript 0) jump discontinuously at the transition. Results are for $\lambda = 2$.} \label{gaps}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In addition to increasing the coupling strength required to produce the transition to the interlayer coherent composite fermion state, the gauge fluctuations lead to a qualitative change in the nature of this transition. This change is seen in the dependence of the energy gaps in the out-of-phase sector when the transition occurs, both for the interband particle-hole excitations at $q = \sqrt{2} k_F$ ($\Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F} \propto (\Phi - E_F)$ for $\Phi -E_F>0$, see (\ref{deltaqs2})) and for the long wavelength out-of-phase photon mode at $q=0$ ($\Delta_{q=0} \propto (\Phi - E_F)^{1/2}$ for small $\Phi -E_F >0$, see (\ref{deltaq0})). As shown in Sec.~\ref{secII}, when gauge fluctuations are ignored the value the order parameter takes immediately after the transition at $g=1$ is $\Phi = E_F$. The order parameter then grows continuously for $g>1$ and the out-of-phase energy gaps open continuously. When gauge fluctuations are included, not only does the critical coupling constant increase from $g=1$ to $g_c \simeq 2.9$ for $\lambda = 2$, but the value the order parameter takes immediately after the transition occurs increases from $\Phi = E_F$ to $\Phi \simeq 2.1 E_F$. Figure \ref{gaps}(a) shows the excitation spectrum in the out-of-phase sector for $\Phi \simeq 2.1 E_F$. Because $\Phi > E_F$ this spectrum is fully gapped, both at $q=0$ and $q=\sqrt{2} k_F$. Thus we see there is a discontinuous jump in $\Delta_{q=0}$ and $\Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F}$ at the transition when gauge fluctuations are included. Figure \ref{gaps}(b) shows plots of $\Delta_{q=0}$ and $\Delta_{q=\sqrt{2} k_F}$ as a function of $g$. Results are shown both for the case when gauge fluctuations are ignored and the gaps open continuously at the Stoner critical coupling $g=1$, and when gauge fluctuations are included and the gaps jump discontinuously at the increased critical coupling $g_c \simeq 2.9$. We believe the result that gauge fluctuations lead to a discontinuous jump in the out-of-phase energy gaps at this transition is likely to be valid beyond the level of the RPA calculation presented here. Thus, if a transition to an interlayer coherent composite fermion state is observed, the measurement of such a jump would provide indirect experimental evidence for the presence of gauge fluctuations in the system.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{secIV}
We have studied the effect of fluctuations in the Chern-Simons gauge fields on the possible formation of the interlayer coherent composite fermion state proposed in Ref.~\onlinecite{alicea09} in a symmetrically doped $\nu_{tot} = 1$ quantum Hall bilayer. Scattering from these gauge fields leads to layer-dependent fluctuations in the Aharonov-Bohm phase experienced by composite fermions as they propagate through the bilayer, strongly suppressing any interlayer phase coherence these composite fermions may have. This suppression manifests itself through the appearance of a contribution to the ground state energy from gauge fluctuations which is logarithmically singular in the order parameter characterizing interlayer coherence, and which grows monotonically as this order parameter increases from zero.
If the gauge field contribution to the energy is ignored, the transition from two decoupled single-layer composite fermion metals to an interlayer coherent composite fermion state with increasing interlayer coupling is a simple Stoner instability, and the energy gaps to out-of-phase excitations open continuously from zero at the transition. When the gauge field contribution to the energy is included there are two main effects: (1) the interlayer coupling strength required to drive the transition grows substantially (contrast Fig.~\ref{etotal} with Fig.~\ref{stoner}); and (2) the out-of-phase energy gaps jump discontinuously from zero to a finite value at the transition (see Fig.~\ref{gaps}). The first effect may account for the fact that the interlayer coherent state has not yet been observed experimentally in $\nu_{tot}=1$ bilayers. The second effect suggests that if such a transition were to be observed, the detection of a discontinuous jump in the out-of-phase energy gaps would provide indirect experimental evidence for the presence of gauge fluctuations in the system. Of more general interest, we believe that the model studied here provides a novel example of the qualitative effects that gauge fluctuations can have on quantum phase transitions in dense Fermi systems.
\acknowledgments
The authors thank Yafis Barlas and Yong Baek Kim for helpful discussions. This work was supported by US DOE Grant DE-FG02-97ER45639.
\onecolumngrid
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Over the past decade a number of observational results have pointed to a link between the growth of galactic bulges and that of the super-massive black holes in galactic centres. Relationships were first found between central black hole mass ($M_{BH}$) and the host spheroid luminosity \citep[$L_{\rm bulge}$, e.g.,][]{Kormendy,McLure,Marconi}. Later, the relationship between the black hole mass and the stellar velocity dispersion ($\sigma_\star$), the so-called $M_{BH}$-$\sigma_\star$ relation, was found in both active and inactive galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{Ferrarese,Gebhardt,Tremaine,Nelson,Ferrarese2001,Onken}. These observations strongly suggest a physical mechanism linking the growth of the central black hole with the growth of the spheroid.
It is now thought that much of the growth of the central black hole and the formation of the galactic bulge are fueled by the dissipative collapse of cool gas, often triggered by the merger of two galaxies. Ultra-luminous Infrared Galaxies (ULIRGs) were suggested by \cite{KormendySanders} to be the sites of intense star formation resulting from major mergers. This hypothesis was grounded by the fact that the red stellar populations of elliptical galaxies are best explained by a single, massive star-forming event of this magnitude. Ground-based optical imaging later confirmed that many ULIRGs are disturbed or interacting, and millimetre observations have shown them to be gas rich \citep{Sanders}, bolstering this hypothesis. An additional confirmation comes from \cite{Netzer2007}, who report that the far-infrared excess in ULIRGs is due to vigorous star-forming activity.
A connection between quasars and ULIRGs was suggested by \cite{Sanders} and later confirmed by \cite{Veilleux2006}, who identified several Palomar Green Quasars as ULIRGs and pointed out that the two populations are statistically indistinguishable. In this paradigm, ULIRGs are viewed as precursors to quasars, before much of the galaxy's gas is driven out and the star formation has been partly quenched. High resolution optical imaging of quasar hosts \citep{Guyon,Cales,Veilleux2009,Bahcall,Disney} supports this line of reasoning by establishing that many quasar hosts show signs of interaction or disturbance. At the same time, Herschel observations of outflows in ULIRGs \citep{Sturm2011} indicate that ULIRGs are capable of driving out their gas supply in $10^6-10^8$ years, again suggesting that ULIRGs and quasars fit into the same family of objects.
Nevertheless, the paradigm of quasars quenching their own growth and the star-formation in their host galaxies remains uncertain. \cite{Rosario2013} use Chandra, Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and Herschel observations to show that UV-to-optical colors of galaxies with active galactic nuclei (hereafter AGNs) match those of equally massive inactive galaxies. They conclude that AGNs are more likely to be found in normal massive star-forming galaxies than in quenched galaxies transitioning from the blue to red sequences. Likewise, \cite{Mullaney2012} report no correlation between Herschel far-infrared and and Chandra X-ray luminosities of low-level AGN host galaxies, indicating that global star formation is decoupled from nuclear activity for this class of objects. Supporting this conjecture, \cite{Santini2012} use Chandra and Herschel observations to show that nuclear activity in low-level AGN is decoupled from star formation while indicating that nuclear activity in high-luminosity AGN is contemporaneous with star formation.
The issue is further complicate by works, such as as \cite{Cisternas}, which report that low redshift quasars hosts are no more likely to show signs of interaction than inactive galaxies, suggesting that internal secular processes and minor mergers are primarily responsible for black hole accretion and the attendant buildup of stellar populations. Likewise, \cite{Tacconi} find evidence from stellar dynamics that ULIRGs are unlikely to evolve into quasars, and \cite{Dasyra} report that PG quasars may have a different formation mechanism than quasars with black holes more massive than $5\times10^8{\rm M}_\odot$. Furthermore, \cite{Ho} finds the \ionl{O}{2}{3727} doublet, another star-formation indicator, to be very weak or absent in long-slit spectra of PG quasars and suggests that star formation may be suppressed, calling into question that quasar hosts are the sites of star-formation. \bluetext{The view that quasars suppress star formation in their host galaxies is supported by \citet{Page} who find that star-formation activity declines with increasing X-ray luminosity among AGN at $z=1$--3.}
Indications of intense star-forming activity in the host galaxies of quasars, albeit at lower levels than those seen in ULIRGs, support the hypothesis that central black hole growth and stellar spheroid formation are causally connected. For instance, mid-infrared spectra taken with the Spitzer Space Telescope reveal 7.7$\mu$m polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emission in quasars at $z\sim0.1$ \citep{Schweitzer} and $z\sim2$ \citep{Lutz2008}, which several authors \citep[e.g.,][]{Calzetti2007,Forster} link with star-forming activity. \bluetext{In the same spirit, \citet{Rigopoulou} find evidence of vigorous star formation in the host galaxies of type 2 quasars based on their FIR/sub-mm spectral energy distributions.} The connection between nuclear activity and star formation is underscored by the presence of extremely active star-forming complexes in the host galaxies of AGNs. UV images \citep[e.g.,][]{Heckman1995,Heckman1997,Colina} and spectra \citep[e.g.,][]{CidFernandez,GonzalezDelgado} of Seyfert galaxies reveal young stellar populations, suggesting that star-forming complexes are characteristic of galaxies whose central black holes are accreting at high rates. There are also several less direct lines of evidence linking quasars to star formation. For example, a number of authors \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{Hammann} identify super-solar metallicity in the broad line regions of quasars, while \cite{Shemmer} report a correlation between metallicity and the Eddington ratio over three orders of magnitude in luminosity. Finally, \cite{Cales} focus on post-starburst quasars, finding evidence that many are evolving toward E+A galaxies with morphological evidence to suggest that the outbursts are triggered by interactions or disturbances.
At the same time, other works address the physical mechanism for the correlation between star formation and black hole growth. Disturbed and interacting galaxies typically show enhanced star-forming activity \cite[e.g.,][]{Schombert,Hibbard}, suggesting that tidal torques drive gas to the centres of galaxies, fueling both stellar spheroid and black hole growth. Approaching the problem from a different direction, \cite{Kauffmann} use semi-analytic models to suggest a link between galactic mergers and black hole growth. They follow the mergers of dark matter halos and assume that central black holes consume a few percent of their host's gas during each merger. Their work is able to reproduce the observed $M_{BH}$-$L_{\rm bulge}$ relationship as well as evolution in the quasar luminosity function over redshift. Volonteri et al. (2003a) and Volonteri et al. (2003b)\nocite{Volonteri2003a}\nocite{Volonteri2003b} follow the growth and merging of super-massive black holes through galactic merger trees from primordial seed black holes all the way to the central black holes of large elliptical galaxies. They strengthen the argument by finding that, in their simulation, most of a central black hole's mass results from accretion during mergers rather than the merger of two central black holes. Simulation based studies that consider galaxy mergers and subsequent star formation and black hole accretion \citep[e.g.,][]{DiMatteo,Springel,Hopkins2005,Hopkins2006,Cox,Debuhr} can reproduce the observed $M_{BH}$-$\sigma_\star$ relationship. Moreover, such simulations explain the quasar luminosity versus stellar population correlations mentioned above, and cleanly recreate the transition from late-type to early-type galaxies. However, given the many and varied assumptions involved in these simulations, further guidance from observations is needed.
Yet another complexity arises in \cite{Bennert}, who find a correlation between quasar luminosities and the sizes of AGN narrow-line regions. However, \cite{Netzer2004} point out that the AGN narrow-line region-size relationship described by \cite{Bennert} would predict extremely large AGN narrow-line regions (exceeding 70 kpc for some quasars), AGN narrow-line region gas masses (up to $10^{10}M_\odot$), and gas ejection rates (approaching $10^6R_{10}\;{\rm M}_\odot\;{\rm yr}^{-1}$, where $R_{10}$ is radial distance in units of 10 kpc). The existence of such large gas masses in the vicinity of quasars would have significant ramifications for the link between black hole and galaxy growth; but \cite{Netzer2004} argue this scenario is not compatible with AGN theory, and any correlation between luminosity and AGN narrow-line region size must break down at the luminosities of quasars.
Because of their importance, the theoretical scenarios for galaxy and quasar co-evolution have been subjected to a variety of observational tests. \cite{Boyce1} study three IRAS selected quasar hosts in the optical and find all three to be violently interacting, but later \cite{Boyce2} find that only those three out of a larger sample of fourteen quasar hosts, selected to have a broader range of properties, are engaged in violent interactions. Meanwhile, \cite{Gabor} use HST ACS images and COSMOS spectroscopy to demonstrate that AGN hosts are no more likely to be suffering strong interactions than normal galaxies. Conversely, \cite{Guyon} use near-IR adaptive optics to survey 32 PG quasars and find that 30\% show obvious signs of disturbance. This fraction is high enough to suggest a relationship between quasar ignition and galaxy interaction, but they also point out that either signs of disturbed morphology fade sooner than black hole accretion and star formation are quenched, or that not all quasars are triggered by external disturbances. The latter possibility is supported by \cite{Weinzirl} and \cite{Genzel2008}, who find that secular processes are capable of driving gas in disks toward the galactic centres. Complicating the physical picture further, \cite{Hopkins} and \cite{Governato} demonstrate that galaxies may reform disks in the wake of even violent mergers, casting doubt on the simple model of ellipticals as the ubiquitous end products of mergers.
One approach to these open questions is to image quasar host galaxies and use multiple narrow-band images to unambiguously map out star-forming regions while simultaneously surveying the objects signs of morphological disturbances resulting from mergers. The large contrast between the luminosity of a high accretion rate quasar and a typical host galaxy makes detailed observations of these most interesting and most active examples of this class difficult. The problem is exacerbated by the proximity of star-forming complexes to the central black hole in typical AGN hosts. For example, the UV luminous star-forming knots and rings found in nearby Seyfert galaxies by \cite{Colina} were within 1-2 kpc of the nuclei of their respective hosts. \cite{Bennert} find the AGN narrow-line regions of six of seven quasar hosts in H$\beta$ images have galactocentric radii less than 6 kpc. Thus, adaptive optics or imaging from space are needed to resolve quasar hosts. In this work we employ the latter method, using the WFPC2 and NICMOS instruments on the HST to observe eight nearby ($z\sim 0.1$) quasar host galaxies and to map star-forming regions and make measurements of star-formation rates (hereafter SFRs). The feasibility of this approach has been demonstrated by earlier works; for example, using broadband WFPC2 images \cite{Bahcall} detect host galaxies around all 20 quasars in their sample, and \cite{McLeod} use NICMOS to detect host galaxies of 16 quasars in the near-IR.
As discussed above, narrow-band filters centred around emission lines, such as \ionl{O}{3}{5007}, profit from better galaxy to quasar contrast; this benefit is seen in \cite{Bennert}, where the AGN narrow-line regions of seven quasars are observed with WFPC2 in ramp filters centred on \ionl{O}{3}{5007}. We expand upon this strategy by observing our quasars in \ionl{O}{3}{5007}, \ionl{O}{2}{3727}, H$\beta$, and Pa$\alpha$ in ramp and narrow-band filters. This combination of emission lines also enables us to address the question of suppressed star formation discussed in \cite{Ho} by distinguishing star-forming regions from AGN narrow-line regions through the use of line diagnostic diagrams.
In Section \ref{sec:selection} we describe our observations and observing strategy. In Section \ref{sec:reduction} we outline the data reduction steps, including the use of the software package MultiDrizzle to combine subexposures. In Section \ref{sec:psf} we detail our novel PSF subtraction technique, which we verify in Section \ref{sec:simulation} through an analysis of simulated quasar+galaxy images to confirm the reliability of this method. In Section \ref{sec:analysis} we analyze the PSF-subtracted quasar host galaxies, including removal of stellar continuum an extinction correction. In Section \ref{sec:uncertainties} we discuss the contributions of different sources of measurement error to our final uncertainties. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:results} we report on the content and analysis of the processed host galaxy images, and in Section \ref{sec:discussion} we discuss the implications of these findings. For this work, we assume $H_0$ = 69.32 ${\rm km}\;{\rm s}^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ with $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.27$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$.
\section{Sample Selection and Observing Strategy}
\label{sec:selection}
We drew our targets from the Spitzer IRS sample of \cite{Schweitzer}, selecting objects with redshifts such that the Pa$\alpha$ line fell within one of the narrow-band NICMOS filters. Among the objects that meet these criteria, the eight nearest ($z<0.15$) and brightest (V $<$ 16.5) quasars are the targets for this project. These are listed in Table \ref{tbl:base} along with their basic properties. The PAH luminosities of our targets span a range of two orders of magnitude.
Our work focuses on narrow-band images centred on the Pa$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and \ionl{O}{3}{5007}, and \ionl{O}{2}{3727} lines. By selection, the Pa$\alpha$ lines of our targets fell within one of the NICMOS narrow-band filters, listed in Table \ref{tbl:filters}. To observe our targets in the optical bands, we used the WFPC2 camera. Typical exposure times in the emission-line filters were on the order of several thousand seconds. By using the ramp filters, we were able to select narrow-bands centred at the observed wavelengths of the desired emission lines. The ramp filters chosen are also listed in Table \ref{tbl:filters}. Since the wavelength range of a ramp filter is set by the position of the object on the detector, most of our observations had to be made with one of the WF detectors rather than the PC detector. In several cases, one of the emission lines serendipitously fell within the FQUVN redshifted \ion{O}{2} quadrant filter (central wavelength depends on quadrant but ranges from 3763 \AA$\,$to 3992 \AA); this filter was used in these cases. In two cases our quasar had previously been observed for a similar project \citep{Bennert}. For these objects, \pg{0026+129} and \pg{1307+085}, we used archival \ionl{O}{3}{5007} images. The observation dates for all the images of our eight quasars are listed in Table \ref{tbl:observations}.
Observing both the Pa$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines allows us to correct for reddening. Also, with the use of the line-ratio diagnostic methods first described in \cite{BPT} and developed further by other authors in later papers \citep[e.g.,][see Section \ref{sec:lineratios}]{KewleyBPT,Groves2004a,Groves2004b,Dopita2006}, the relative intensities of the \ionl{O}{3}{5007}, \ionl{O}{2}{3727}, and H$\beta$ lines allow us to distinguish between line emission produced by star-forming activity and line emission stimulated by the ionizing radiation of the quasars themselves, as well as composite systems where both star-formation and quasar photoionization contribute to the line emission. Although the diagnostic line ratios involving H$\alpha$ are often used in spectroscopic studies \citep[e.g.,][]{Veilleux1987,Kewley2006}, this was not possible in our narrow-band imaging study because the available filters could not separate the H$\alpha$ and \ion{N}{2}$\lambda\lambda6548,6583$ lines. Finally, after star-forming regions are identified, their Pa$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ luminosities give us two fairly direct measures of SFRs.
Additionally, we observed the quasars in medium-band filters, giving us continuum images of the host galaxies. To obtain the infrared continuum images, we observed each quasar in a medium band filter centred on a wavelength near the Pa$\alpha$ line. Specifically, we used the NICMOS2 F237M and NICMOS3 F222M filters. Due to the failure of the NICMOS instrument, \pg{1626+554} was not observed in the near-IR. To obtain the optical continuum images of our targets, we observed each of them in the F467M filter. This filter covers a region of the continuum free of strong emission lines between the \ionl{O}{2}{3727} and H$\beta$ lines and provides suitable continuum measurements for both lines.
Because our targets are located at redshifts $\approx 0.1$, the plate scales of our images are typically 2~kpc$\;\rightarrow\;$1\arcsec. At this scale, these quasar host galaxies are generously contained within the fields of view of the PC, WF2-4, NICMOS2, and NICMOS3 detectors (36\arcsec$\times$36\arcsec, 80\arcsec$\times$80\arcsec, \arcsecond{19}{2}$\times$\arcsecond{19}{2}, and \arcsecond{51}{2}$\times$\arcsecond{51}{2}, respectively).
Additionally, we observed the star GS~60200264 as a PSF template in a number of the filters. Due to the large number of filters used in this project, we could not observe the PSF star in each of the filters in which we observed the quasars; in some cases the PSF star was only observed in a filter close to the wavelength range used for a quasar. The observation dates for the PSF star images used with each of the quasar images are also listed in Table \ref{tbl:observations}.
The PC, WF, NICMOS2, and NICMOS3 detectors have plate scales of \arcsecond{0}{0455}, \arcsecond{0}{0995}, \arcsecond{0}{0756}, and \arcsecond{0}{202845}, respectively, leaving the PSF of the HST undersampled in all of our images. Sub-pixel dithering allows the recovery of some of this lost angular resolution using the method described in \cite{FruchterDrizzle} and \cite{KoekemoerMultidrizzle}. We broke up each of our observations, both of the quasars and of the PSF star, into subexposures dithered by sub-pixel amounts using the default WFPC2-BOX pattern. This is a standard dither pattern with half-pixel sampling in both directions in the PC and WF detectors, and with dithers that are large enough to optimize hot pixel and bad column rejection while minimizing the field of view loss. In all cases the subexposures were combined using the MultiDrizzle software package described in Section \ref{sec:drizzling} and in \cite{FruchterDrizzle} and \cite{KoekemoerMultidrizzle}.
\section{Reduction of Images}
\label{sec:reduction}
In addition to providing the raw data, STScI also processes WFPC2 data through a standard calibration pipeline\footnotemark[7]. For this project, we chose to use the data products calibrated by this pipeline, after verifying that the reduction steps were suitable for our purposes. In most cases, this pipeline performs bias subtraction, dark subtraction, shutter correction, and flat-field division, and writes photometric keywords to the image headers. The ramp filter images are an exception to this; prior to 2009, ramp filter images were not flat fielded by the standard pipeline. Following the instructions given by the instrument team\footnotemark[8], we multiplied our ramp filter images by a flat field image taken in a nearby narrow- or medium-band filter. In practice, the narrow- or medium-band filters with wavelengths closest to those used by our ramp filter observations were the FQUVN and F467M filters.
\footnotetext[8]{HST Calibration of LRF Data:\\
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/wfpc2/analysis/lrf{\textunderscore}calibration.html}
The STScI pipeline is not, however, able to correct for charge transfer inefficiency in the WFPC2 instrument. The visible effect is that bright sources have a comet-like streak in the direction of charge transfer; this direction is different for different detectors, but remains the same between subexposures. This phenomenon is well documented \citep{Whitmore1997,Whitmore1999}, but cannot be corrected in images. Instead, we note with an arrow the orientation of the streak in all of our images to avoid confusion with morphological features. Additionally, all of the image processing steps described in Sections \ref{sec:psf}, \ref{sec:analysis}, and \ref{sec:uncertainties} were designed to exclude pixels within a $5^\circ$ sector around the streak.
STScI provides an analogous pipeline for NICMOS data\footnotemark[9]; we chose to use post calibrated NICMOS data as well. This pipeline performed the bias subtraction, dark subtraction, and flat fielding, computed the noise and data quality images, and added photometric keywords to the image header. The only additional calibration step that we performed was removing the time variable quadrant bias or pedestal effect from the images using the ``pedsky'' software\footnotemark[9] provided by STScI. This effect is constant within a quadrant but varies from one readout to the next in an unpredictable way; it can be effectively removed using ``pedsky''.
With the images reduced, the only processing step that remained before PSF subtraction was combining of the dithered subexposures, which we describe below.
\subsection{MultiDrizzling}
\label{sec:drizzling}
As noted above, to improve the sampling rate of the final images, the observations were dithered by subpixel increments, and the calibrated data products were combined using the MultiDrizzle software provided by STScI \citep{FruchterDrizzle,KoekemoerMultidrizzle}. MultiDrizzle attempts to regain the sampling of the HST PSF lost because of the large pixels of WFPC2. Optimally, MultiDrizzle combines subexposures at a sampling rate of twice their intrinsic pixel scale. For example, the PC detector has a pixel scale of 0\farcs0455 per pixel\footnotemark[7]. MultiDrizzling PC images taken with the correct drizzling pattern would allow one to create images with a pixel scale of approximately 0\farcs02 per pixel.
Our WFPC2 data include images taken with the PC detector as well as all three of the WF detectors (0\farcs0995 per pixel\footnotemark[7]); our NICMOS data were taken with NICMOS2 (0\farcs075 per pixel\footnotemark[9]) and NICMOS3 (0\farcs20 per pixel\footnotemark[9]).\footnotetext[7]{WFPC2 Instrument Handbook:\\http://www.stsci.edu/instruments/wfpc2}\footnotetext[9]{NICMOS Instrument Handbook:\\http://www.stsci.edu/hst/nicmos/documents/handbooks/} Each set of subexposures was drizzled more than once at different sampling rates (i.e. pixel scales) to produce different drizzle products that we use at different stages of the analysis. Experimentation with PSF subtraction (see Section \ref{sec:psf}) suggested that the most accurate PSF estimation was achieved with each image drizzled to the angular resolution of the detector from which it came. For instance, NICMOS images drizzled to the resolution of the PC detector are oversampled by a factor of 2-4, yielding spurious brightness gradients and miscalculated PSF scale factors. With the PSF scale factors calculated using images drizzled to their native resolutions, each image was then redrizzled to the resolution of the PC detector for systematic comparison (see Section \ref{sec:analysis}).
One of the most crucial parts of this work was the PSF scale factor determination (described below in detail in Section \ref{sec:psf}). Because the light profile of a typical galaxy at $z\approx$0.1 is only slightly broader than the WFPC2 PSF, it is essential that the subexposures be aligned with extreme precision. Any misalignment will result in artificial broadening of the quasar PSF. To achieve this end, we ran MultiDrizzle iteratively every time we produced a drizzle product. In each iteration the subexposures were drizzled, the centroids of the quasars in the separately drizzled images were checked, corrections were made to the astrometry, and the images were drizzled again. This cycle was repeated until all the centroids fell within $10^{-3}$ pixels of their target coordinates. Experimentation showed that the PSF subtraction was far more effective using these drizzle products than using products drizzled only once. Below we describe in detail the procedures we used to determine the PSF scale factor and remove the unresolved quasar image from the image of the host galaxy.
With the multidrizzling complete, the image processing steps were concluded, allowing the subtraction of the PSF of the quasars from the combined images.
\section{PSF Subtraction}
\label{sec:psf}
Historically, different methods have been used to correctly map the normalized HST PSF. \cite{Bahcall} and \cite{McLeod} observed a field star and used that as a PSF template. \cite{Bennert} did the same, but also used continuum images of the quasars themselves as the PSF template in some cases. This approach was motivated by the realization that the quasar-to-galaxy contrast is so high in the continuum that rescaling the \cite{Bahcall} continuum images to the shorter exposure times used in \cite{Bennert} left essentially quasar-PSF-only images with very little light from the host galaxy. Both of these methods have the significant advantage that they exactly map the HST PSF at the same epoch and detector position of the quasar observations, rather than relying on theoretical PSF models. For this reason, we also observed a PSF star in many of the ramp and narrow-band filters in which we made quasar observations, and we observed each quasar in a continuum filter in the optical and near-IR.
Earlier works \citep[e.g.,][]{Bahcall} iteratively align and scale the PSF images in a three parametre fit: an x-axis alignment, a y-axis alignment, and a PSF intensity scale factor. As described above, our iterative drizzling ensures that the PSF image as well as the quasar images are aligned with the image centres. This leaves the PSF scale factor as the only undetermined parametre.
The decomposition of the observed light profile is represented in the upper half of Figure \ref{fig:profile} with a schematic quasar PSF, host galaxy, and combined (observed) light profile. The goal of this processing step is to find a scale factor that rescales the model (star) PSF to match the height of the quasar PSF component of the observed quasar image. The primary challenges are that the relative contributions of the quasar PSF and the galaxy light profile are not known a priori, and that the width of the WFPC2 PSF is only slightly sharper than the expected typical galaxy profile at $z\approx$0.1.
Determining the scale factor with absolute certainty without prior knowledge of the galaxy light profile is impossible. Instead, the best solution is to make as few assumptions about the galaxy light profile as possible, and use those assumptions to place a lower limit on the galaxy luminosity. Utilizing the fact that the central black holes that power quasars are found in the nuclei of galaxies, \cite{Bennert} assume that the galaxy light profile decreases monotonically outwards in the central few pixels around the quasar PSF; their residual light profiles may not have a central, local minimum.
The limiting case imposed by this assumption is a flat-topped profile. To achieve this limiting case, \cite{Bennert} adopt a scale factor which makes the central pixel in the residual image have the same value as the average of the surrounding pixels. \cite{McLeod} make the same basic assumption, that the galaxy's light profile must decrease monotonically, and they construct a model of a quasar PSF + host galaxy, which they fit to the data. In these cases the residual (galaxy) image after PSF removal is a lower limit on the galaxy flux; if the PSF scale factor were increased, it would violate the monotonicity condition.
In this work we present a PSF subtraction method which also yields a lower limit on the galaxy flux, but which comes closer to the true galaxy light profile than the methods presented in \cite{Bennert} and \cite{McLeod}. We assume that the underlying galaxy light profile is cuspy; that is, as one moves away from the centre, the post-subtraction residual descends no more rapidly than it did in more central pixels. Essentially, we assume that absolute value of the first derivative decreases moving outward from the centre of the light profile. The PSF scale factor used for each of the quasar images is the value which just guarantees that this constraint of cuspyness is enforced. This method is graphically represented in the sketch of Figure \ref{fig:profile}.
The assumption that the light profiles of the centres of our galaxies are cuspy is well justified by the radial light profiles of nearby galaxies; \cite{Lauer} find that ``Nuker'' light profiles fit a broad range of galaxies, even galaxies with core profiles in their centres. For all the Nuker-law parametres that \cite{Lauer} report, the radial flux profiles have positive second derivatives. Our method would break down for an extreme morphology, such as the interacting and double nuclei objects reported in \cite{Disney} and \cite{Bahcall}, but to visual inspection none of our objects fall into this category.
To compute this scale factor, we first compute a numerical radial second derivative for each location in the quasar+galaxy and the corresponding derivative in the PSF star image. The desired PSF scale factor is then just the ratio of the second derivative in the quasar+galaxy image to the second derivative in the PSF star image. In this manner, we construct the PSF scale factor for each radial direction. Then, we characterize this population of potential scale factors with a median and a standard deviation around the median. We adopt the median minus the standard deviation as our chosen scale factor; by choosing the scale factor in this manner we obtain the lowest upper limit on the scale factor, hence a lower limit on the flux of the host galaxy light. We then adopt the standard deviation around the median as the uncertainty in the scale factor.
Our results are shown graphically in Figure \ref{fig:radial_plots}, which displays a gallery of azimuthally averaged light profiles of quasars prior to PSF subtraction, their corresponding PSF stars, and the residual light profiles. The light profiles of the quasars before PSF subtraction are only slightly broader than the profiles of the PSF stars. The key element of our technique is visible in lack of inflection points in the residual light profiles; that is, they do not flatten near their centres.
Of course, star-forming clumps, spiral arms, or any other lumpiness in the light profile would cause a galaxy to violate this condition at some point. For this reason, the cuspyness condition is imposed only in the central portions of the galaxy where the light profile is likely to be dominated by a combination of a bulge and, in the case of late-type galaxies, an exponential disk. The best estimate of the sizes of quasar host bulges comes from \cite{McLeod}, who deconvolved their quasar/galaxy pairs with least-squares fit that included an exponential profile to account for the bulges of their galaxies. They find scale radii that range from 0.5 to 1.5 kpc with an average of 1.0 kpc (excluding their one object with uncertain detection). We only demand that the cuspiness condition be satisfied within a radius of three pixels from the centre of the object. This corresponds to a radius of 0.73 kpc for the nearest quasar (\pg{2214+139}) in the coarsest camera (NICMOS3). Disk-bulge or disk-dominated galaxies present even less of a challenge since their light profiles are shallower. Thus, in all cases our cuspiness condition only is imposed in areas of the galaxy expected to be dominated by regular cuspy morphology.
Additionally, we also note here that pixels in the quasar image and the PSF star image within the $5^\circ$ sector affected by charge transfer inefficiency (described in detail in Section \ref{sec:reduction} were excluded from the PSF scale factor calculation.
Having observed both PSF stars and quasar continuum images, we experimented with both types of PSF templates. Our experiments showed that the PSF star images consistently produced superior results. In particular, while the PSF-subtracted images produced with these two different templates were qualitatively similar, the use of the quasar continuum images as PSF templates is more prone to over estimate the PSF scale factor, as evidenced by large areas of negative pixels. This result is not surprising given that we detect the host galaxies even in the continuum images (see Section \ref{sec:discussion} for details of the detections), indicating that the continuum-image light profiles are broader than, and thus poor analogs for, quasar PSFs themselves.
PSF-subtracted images of each of our quasar host galaxies in each of the filters used are shown in Figure \ref{fig:gallery}. In Table \ref{tbl:quasarlum} we list the luminosity corresponding to the PSF (unresolved) that we subtracted from each quasar in each filter. In Section \ref{sec:groundspec} we compare these luminosities with measurements from ground based spectra as a consistency check.
\section{Artificial Galaxy Simulations}
\label{sec:simulation}
As seen in Figure \ref{fig:gallery}, the PSF subtraction technique described above produces visually plausible galaxy residuals. Nevertheless, visual inspection is, by itself, an insufficient diagnostic. Because the quasar is so much brighter than the galaxy \citep{Bahcall,McLeod,Bennert}, especially in the central pixels of the optical images, there is typically a wide range of PSF scale values that produce visually and physically plausible residuals.
To this end, we repeated the PSF subtraction procedure, described above in Section \ref{sec:psf}, with 2000 simulated quasar+galaxy images in each of the continuum filters, 1000 using an observed PSF star image as a template and 1000 using an artificial PSF generated using Tiny Tim \citep{TinyTim}. In each simulation we constructed an image by combining a quasar PSF component and a galaxy component (described in detail below), varying the quasar and galaxy brightness and galaxy morphology over the range of physically plausible values to ensure that our technique is applicable over a range of parametres that bracket our eight objects. Then, we verified our technique by applying it to the artificial images and comparing the PSF scale factor computed using our method to the scale factor used to generate the images.
The primary component of our simulated data are the light profiles of the quasars themselves. For this, we used an image of the PSF star in the WFPC2 and NICMOS filters rescaled to a magnitude chosen randomly from the range of actual magnitudes of the quasars in Johnson filters similar to the filters used for our continuum observations. The quasars in our sample range from Vega magnitude 14.5 to 16.5 in the B filter, so we adopted that as the range for the simulated quasars in the WFPC2 F467M filter. Similarly, our quasars range from Vega magnitude 14 to 15.5 in the K filter, so we adopted that range for our simulated quasars in the NICMOS2 F237M and NICMOS3 F222M filters.
We used the IRAF task ``mkobjects'' to generate artificial galaxy light profiles. The ``mkobjects'' task allows the user to vary the functional form of the light profile, as well as a range of light profile parametres, such as scale radius, ellipticity, position angle, and overall brightness. To ensure that this technique is effective for all reasonable galaxy profiles, we varied the profile parametre values over ranges large enough to encompass all likely possibilities.
For this work we created galaxies with both exponential disk and de Vaucouleurs \citep{deVaucouleurs} profiles superimposed on each other to simulate the bulges and the disks of host galaxies. We varied the intensities of the bulge and disk components, ranging from bulge-dominated galaxies (ellipticals, the most likely quasar host morphology) to disk-dominated galaxies.
We varied the scale radius for the bulge of each galaxy over the range that is physically plausible. For our most distant quasar, \pg{1307+085}, 7 pixels on the PC detector corresponds to 0.9 kpc; for our nearest quasar, \pg{1244+026}, 250 pixels on the PC detector corresponds to 10.3 kpc. Therefore, we chose 7 to 250 pixels as the range for the scale radii of the bulges of our simulated galaxies. The disk component was assigned a scale radius randomly in the range from one half to twice the scale radius of the bulge. The axis ratio of the bulge was chosen randomly between 0.6 and 1, and for the disk between 0.3 and 1. The position angle of the bulge and the disk were chosen randomly but were always equal (i.e., they were always aligned).
Our analysis presented in Section \ref{sec:uncertainties} indicates that the dominant source of noise in these high surface brightness regions is source photon counting noise rather than sky or read noise. To emulate this, ``mkobjects'' employs a stochastic algorithm which ensures that the images are not just perfectly smooth light profiles.
The bulge magnitude of each simulated galaxy was set based on its simulated quasar's magnitude. First, we assume that the central black holes are accreting at the Eddington limit. Although the accretion rate can be substantially smaller, the Eddington limit represents a pessimistic scenario for the PSF subtraction because it results in a low galaxy-to-quasar contrast. Next, we connect the black hole mass to the spheroid magnitude using known central black hole mass to host spheroid magnitude relations \citep{Bettoni} and a ``standard'' quasar spectral energy distribution (SED)\footnote{We have considered the SEDs and bolometric corrections of \citep{Elvis} and \citep{Richards}, which yield bolometric luminosities that differ by approximately 17\%. This difference is not significant given that we apply a scatter of $\pm 1\;$ magnitude in the luminosity of the bulge of the host galaxy.}. Then, a uniform random number from -1 to 1, based on the rms scatter in the \cite{Bettoni} relationship, was added to the bulge magnitude to simulate actual scatter in the relation between quasar magnitude and bulge magnitude. Finally, the galaxy disk magnitude was set to be the bulge magnitude plus a uniform random number from -1 to 1. Thus, our simulated galaxies range from bulge-dominated to disk-dominated systems, in keeping with the observed properties of quasar host galaxies \citep{Guyon,McLeod}.
We applied the PSF subtraction procedure, described in Section \ref{sec:psf}, to our simulated quasar+galaxy light profiles. In this analysis the quantity of merit is the ratio of the PSF scale factor, computed using the method described in Section \ref{sec:psf}, to the true scale factor, seeded into the simulated image. In Figure \ref{fig:histogram} we plot histograms of this ratio for the three continuum filters used (WFPC2 F467M, NICMOS2 F237M, and NICMOS3 F222M). These histograms peak strongly around a value of unity, indicating that in most of the simulations this procedure comes very close to recovering the true PSF scale factors.
There are two ways that a poorly estimated PSF scale factor can impact our results. Primarily, since underestimated scale factors cause PSF light to remain in the residual image, a severely underestimated scale factor could result in a false detection. We estimate our galaxy detection confidence from the median value of the underestimated scale factors (ratios less than one): 0.99, 0.99, and 0.98 for the F222M, F237M, and F467M images, respectively.
Secondarily, an overestimated or underestimated scale factor affects the apparent brightness of a galaxy. We can estimate the impact that errors in the PSF subtraction have on our photometric measurements from the overall spread in the histograms. Since they are asymmetric with a broader tail toward higher values, we conclude that the primary source of photometric uncertainty is from over subtraction. Given that, we derive our photometric confidence from the median values of the over estimated scale factors, which are 1.006, 1.03, and 1.1 for the F222M, F237M, and F467M images, respectively.
We stress here that these uncertainty estimates are worst-case-scenarios because of the assumptions in our simulations, namely Eddington accretion rates and continuum instead of emission-line filters. Therefore, the contribution to the uncertainty for each real image from the PSF subtraction process is computed on a case-by-case basis based on the statistics of each image, as described in Section \ref{sec:psf}.
\section{Analysis of Host Galaxies After PSF Subtraction}
\label{sec:analysis}
\subsection{Continuum Subtraction}
\label{sec:continuum}
Because the analysis in the following sections utilizes emission-line strengths and line ratios, it is necessary to remove any stellar continuum contribution in our PSF-subtracted images. Since the NICMOS continuum filters were chosen to be adjacent to the Pa$\alpha$ emission line, the flux density in those images was scaled by the Pa$\alpha$ filter width and subtracted from the Pa$\alpha$ images.
The optical continuum filter, F467M, is not immediately adjacent to the optical narrow-band filters used for the emission-line images ($\delta\lambda/\lambda$ is a factor of ten larger than for the infrared continuum filters). We use the optical continuum images only as intensity maps for the optical continuum underneath the emission-line flux in the emission-line images. To properly scale the optical continuum images to match the continuum component of the emission-line images, we compute continuum scale factors by imposing the constraint that there be no negative residuals (to within noise) after continuum subtraction. \bluetext{By scaling up the continuum image as much as possible without creating negative residuals, prior to subtracting it from the emission-line images, we establish a lower limit on the emission-line flux.} This technique is robust in the sense that it guarantees that the remaining flux is line emission, however it is technically a lower limit to the emission-line flux. In practice, the fluxes we report are highly likely to be close to the true values since even before continuum removal there is relatively little flux in at least some areas of each of the host galaxies. We estimate the uncertainty in this continuum-subtraction scale factor from the background noise in the images, since the noise represents the limit to which we can demand non-negative pixel values. In practice, the continuum contribution, integrated over the area of the host galaxy, was very small in the optical emission-line images, considerably less than 1\% on average.
\subsection{Extinction Correction}
\label{sec:extinction}
To estimate dust extinction, we employed maps of the ratio of H$\beta$/Pa$\alpha$ in the PSF- and continuum-subtracted images to create maps of $A_V$ using the dust extinction law described in \cite{Cardelli}, adopting the recommended extinction curve of $R_V=3.1$. For each pixel that was above the background noise in both the H$\beta$ and Pa$\alpha$ images we computed the H$\beta$/Pa$\alpha$ ratio. The background noise was computed as the standard deviation of regions of the image far from even the most extended of our targets and not occupied by known image defects.
The values were then averaged using a circular top-hat kernel \bluetext{(this is the simplest choice of kernel since it weighs all pixels equally)}. For each pixel in each $A_V$ map, the radius of the kernel was initially set to the size of the pixels of the NICMOS camera used to create the Pa$\alpha$ image. For quasars whose Pa$\alpha$ image was taken with NICMOS2, this is 1.7 PC-chip pixels; for NICMOS3, 4.6 PC-chip pixels. The kernel was then expanded until the signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) of the average exceeded unity, and the measured H$\beta$ /Pa$\alpha$ line ratio was at or below the intrinsic $T=10$,000~K value of 2.146 \citep{Brocklehurst}. We also rejected pixels in the H$\beta$ image that fell within the $5^\circ$ sector affected by the charge transfer inefficiency. Although this strategy degrades the angular resolution of the H$\beta$/Pa$\alpha$ map, it is absolutely necessary because the emission-line images, and thereby every measured quantity in the sections that follow, depend on the extinction correction, especially near the heavily extinguished galactic centres.
Maps of $A_V$ for each of the seven objects for which we have NICMOS imaging are shown in Figure \ref{fig:reddening}. The values of $A_V$ that we find for the centres of our quasars range from 1.1 in \pg{0026+129} to 2.7 in \pg{1448+273}, with a median value of 1.9. We note that that \pg{0026+129} is our most luminous quasar, while our least luminous quasar, \pg{1244+026}, has the third highest extinction value of 1.7.
Because we were not able to obtain Pa$\alpha$ images of \pg{1626+554} we resorted to performing extinction correction on the \pg{1626+554} images with a typical $A_V$ map produced using the seven quasar hosts for which we posses Pa$\alpha$ images. After plotting azimuthally averaged values of $A_V$ against radial distance from quasar centre (in kpc), we determined, by visual inspection, that a typical quasar host had $A_V \approx 0.3$ out to 1 kpc, $A_V \approx 0$ beyond 1.6 kpc, with a linear interpolation between 1.0 and 1.6 kpc. We emphasize here that, for reasons that will be discussed in Section \ref{sec:lineratios}, assuming a typical $A_V$ map does not significantly impact our line-ratio analysis nor our detection for star-forming regions in \pg{1626+554}.
\section{Analysis of Uncertainties}
\label{sec:uncertainties}
The uncertainty map in each final science image depends on the uncertainty maps of as many as ten drizzled images, each propagated through all the processing steps needed to produce the final science images, namely quasar PSF subtraction, continuum subtraction, and reddening correction. Prior to any of these processing steps, the typical photometric uncertainties associated with counting statistics are the primary source of uncertainty in the raw images. Our narrow-band space-based observations are relatively background free, making background noise and errors from background subtraction a small component of our net uncertainties. The process of drizzling the raw images creates correlated noise, making simple Poissonian estimators of uncertainties inapplicable. Because the effective exposure time of a pixel in a drizzled image depends on the relative alignments of the undrizzled images, the change in plate scale from before and after drizzling, and the choice of drizzle kernel used, MultiDrizzle produces a weight map which is essentially an exposure time map of the drizzled image \citep{FruchterDrizzle,KoekemoerMultidrizzle}. Formally, the uncertainty for an image is its variance; in units of counts, the uncertainty is the square root of each pixel value plus the read noise. Since this project's images are in counts-per-second, we assign to each pixel in the uncertainty map the square root of the ratio of that pixel in counts-per-second to the value of the corresponding pixel in the exposure time map, added in quadrature with the read noise, as the value in an uncertainty map image. Quasar-image pixels which are negative have been primarily affected by the read noise; for these pixels, their values in the error map are just the read noise. With the above considerations in mind, we propagated the uncertainties through all the steps of data reduction and ensuing analysis to produce an error map for each image.
The extinction correction is the only processing step for which the propagation of uncertainties was not straightforward. Because each pixel in the $A_V$ map is the result of smoothing with a circular top-hat kernel (see Section \ref{sec:extinction}), the uncertainty in $A_V$ is, for most pixels, related to the uncertainty in the average of several values of H$\beta$/Pa$\alpha$. The uncertainties for each pixel in the $A_V$ map were then propagated to the pixels in the extinction-corrected images through the \cite{Cardelli} extinction law and used to compute the uncertainties in final extinction-corrected fluxes.
\bluetext{Of particular interest are the uncertainties on the diagnostic line ratios, \ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2} and \ion{O}{3}/H$\beta$, since these affect our identification of star-forming regions, as well as the uncertainties in the emission-line luminosities, which lead to uncertainties in the SFRs. The uncertainties in the line ratios resulting from a combination of photometric errors and errors in extinction corrections based on the \cite{Cardelli} extinction law range between 0.1 and 0.18 dex. The uncertainties in the integrated line luminosities are considerably smaller and do not contribute appreciably to the final uncertainties in the SFRs. We discuss these uncertainties further in Section~\ref{sec:lineratios} and indicate their magnitude in the relevant figures.}
\bluetext{In addition to the photometric uncertainties and the uncertainties in the determination of $A_V$, there is an additional uncertainty stemming from the lack of knowledge of the extinction law in the centers of quasar host galaxies. While we have adopted the extinction law from \cite{Cardelli}, we also quantify the impact of this uncertainty on our results in Table~\ref{tbl:extinctionlaws} by translating our lowest, median, and highest central H$\beta$/Pa$\alpha$ ratios through a number of different extinction laws. In particular, we experimented with the Milky Way extinction laws of \citep{Cardelli} and \cite{Seaton1979}, the Small and Large Magellanic Cloud extinction laws of \cite{Bouchet1985} and \cite{Koornneef1981}, respectively, and the starburst galaxy extinction law for nebular emission lines by \cite{Calzetti1994}. For each law and each value of H$\beta$/Pa$\alpha$ we report in Table~\ref{tbl:extinctionlaws} the values of $A_V$ and $\Delta\log\left({\rm\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}}\right)$, the amount by which $\log\left({\rm\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}}\right)$ would change as a result of extinction. The quantity of merit in Table~\ref{tbl:extinctionlaws} is the variation of $\Delta\log\left({\rm\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}}\right)$\ between extinction laws for a given value of H$\beta$/Pa$\alpha$. The \cite{Cardelli} extinction law, which we adopt here, results in values of $A_V$ and $\Delta\log\left({\rm\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}}\right)$\ in the middle of the range spanned by all the extinction laws. The maximum variation about the value of $\log\left({\rm\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}}\right)$ inferred based on the \cite{Cardelli} law is 0.22. Thus, the choice of extinction law has a relatively small effect on the identification of star-forming regions through diagnostic diagrams. We return to these uncertainties in Sections~\ref{sec:lineratios} and \ref{sec:sfr}, where we describe their effect on the derived SFRs.}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Comparison of Unresolved Fluxes to Measurements from Ground Based Spectra}
\label{sec:groundspec}
We have compared the emission-line fluxes measured from our images with those measured from spectra taken from the ground. We have used the spectra presented by \citet{Boroson1992}, which were taken between 1990 February and 1991 April and cover the rest-frame wavelength range from H$\gamma$ to \ionl{O}{3}{5007}. The spectra were taken through a \arcsecond{1}{5} slit, which encompasses the flux from the extended line-emitting regions that we detect in our images. Accordingly, we have measured the flux in these spectra that falls within the bandpass of the corresponding H$\beta$ and \ion{O}{3} narrow-band filters and compared it to the total fluxes measured from the images (before PSF subtraction).
The comparison is complicated by the fact that the fluxes measured from the spectra in the narrow filter bands are dominated by the continuum and broad H$\beta$ line, which are variable by a factor of $\sim 2$ on time scales of months to a year. The continuum and broad H$\beta$ line contribute at least 90\% of the flux in the H$\beta$ filter while the continuum contributes $\sim 70$--90\% of the flux in the \ion{O}{3} filter. Moreover the broad H$\beta$ flux is comparable to the continuum flux in the H$\beta$ filter and the two do not vary in phase; the broad H$\beta$ variations lag the continuum variations by 1--3 months \citep{Kaspi2000}. In view of the variability, the only meaningful comparison we are able to make is between the ratios of fluxes in the two filters as measured from the spectra and as measured from the images (the sum of the values in Tables~\ref{tbl:quasarlum} and \ref{tbl:lum}). We find that the flux ratios agree to 10\% in four objects and to 25\% in another two objects. This agreement is reasonable in view of the variability characteristics of the broad H$\beta$ line reported by \citet{Kaspi2000}. For the remaining two objects, the \ion{O}{3} images were taken by \cite{Bennert} seven years before our own observations thus allowing continuum variability to distort the flux ratios.
\subsection{Line Ratios}
\label{sec:lineratios}
Using the images of the quasar hosts after continuum subtraction and extinction correction, we characterize the power source of line emission in the host galaxies on a region-by-region basis through the use of emission-line ratio diagnostics. Specifically, we determine whether the line emission in a region is powered by the hard ultraviolet and X-ray flux from the central quasar or the softer ultraviolet flux from young stellar populations \citep{BPT,Netzer2004,Osterbrock} by placing emission from that region in a \ion{O}{3}/H$\beta$ versus \ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2} plot in Figure \ref{fig:bpt}, a variant of the diagnostic line-ratio diagram in Figures 1 and 2 of \cite{BPT}. We combine these with the predictions of recent photoionization models, as we detail below.
In Figure~\ref{fig:bpt} we show a separate diagnostic diagram for each object in our sample, in which we plot a point for each pixel location in our emission-line images. The thin, solid, black line in each diagram represents the track followed by \ionp{H}{2} regions according to \cite{BPT}. The area of the diagram bounded by a thick, solid line (cyan in the colour version of the figure) represents the location of \ionp{H}{2} regions according to the models of \citet{Dopita2006} and the compilation of data therein. Young \ionp{H}{2} regions, $\approx 0.2\;$Myr old, are found at the centre of the diagram while older \ionp{H}{2} regions, up to $\approx 4\;$Myr old, are found progressively further from the centre, towards the lower left. The area of the diagram bounded by a thick, dashed line (magenta in the colour version of the figure) represents the location of AGN narrow-line regions, i.e., those photoionized by a power-law continuum. This area is defined by a combination of photoionization models by \citet{Groves2004a,Groves2004b}, which include the effects of dust and depletion of heavy elements in the gas, and measurements taken from the compilations of \citet{Nagao2001,Nagao2002}, and \citet{Groves2004a,Groves2004b}. These models are also parametrized by the dimensionless ionization parameter, $U$, which is the ratio of the atomic density to the photon density; we adopt models with $\log U\ge -3$ since these are the models that match the observations. The ionization parameter increases from $\log U =-3$ at the centre of the diagram to $\log U = 0$ at the right edge.
Shown along side each line-ratio diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:bpt} is a line-ratio map of the host galaxy. These maps were created by multiplying a greyscale \ion{O}{3} image of the host galaxy by the colour corresponding to each pixel's location in the diagnostic diagram. Specifically, points that fall in the \ionp{H}{2} region area of the diagnostic diagram, {\it but not in the AGN narrow-line region area} are in cyan. Similarly, points that fall the in AGN narrow-line region area of the diagnostic diagram, {\it even if they are in the \ionp{H}{2} region area}, are in magenta. Points that are outside these two areas of the diagnostic diagram are indicated in grey scale. In this manner, we map out the emission-line morphology of each host galaxy.
\bluetext{Points with uncertainties greater than 0.5 in the log of the line-ratio} were excluded both from the line-ratio diagrams and the line-ratio maps. Pixels that fell within the 5$^\circ$ sector of the WFPC2 charge transfer inefficiency streak in either the H$\beta$, \ion{O}{2}, \ion{O}{3}, or optical continuum image, or any of their respective PSF star images, were not plotted in the diagnostic diagrams, although those pixels are still shaded by the appropriate colour in the corresponding image. In principle, if none of the $5^\circ$ sectors overlapped this could have excluded 40$^\circ$ or 11\% of the host galaxy image area; in practice, the streaks often overlap, and the largest fraction of excluded area is only 7\%.
We plot, in the upper left corner of each diagnostic diagram, \bluetext{median} error bars for all the pixels included on the plot. \bluetext{These error bars include contributions from photometric uncertainties and uncertainties in the extinction correction based on \cite{Cardelli}. The magnitudes of these error bars are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:bpterrorbars}. As we noted in Section~\ref{sec:uncertainties}, the choice of extinction law also results in an uncertainty in the line ratios, with a maximum value of $\Delta\log\left({\rm\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}}\right)$\ of 0.22 (see Table~\ref{tbl:extinctionlaws}). We illustrate this uncertainty with a pair of arrows in the lower right corner of each diagnostic diagram. The arrows indicate the maximum shift of the data points (in magnitude and direction) in the diagram resulting from a change in the extinction law. Because the \ion{O}{3}/H$\beta$ ratio is much less sensitive to extinction than \ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}, the arrows are approximately parallel to the star-formation tracks. Therefore, the uncertainty arising from the choice of extinction law has a relatively small effect in our identification of star-forming regions.}
\bluetext{Combining the uncertainties arising from photometric errors and extinction corrections, the error bars on $\log\left({\rm\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}}\right)$ are $\le 0.25$ and the error bars on $\log\left({\rm\ion{O}{3}/H\beta}\right)$ are $\le 0.18$. Thus, the combined uncertainties are not large enough to shift a significant number of points out of the locus of \ionp{H}{2} regions, although they do result in a modest uncertainty in the inferred SFRs, which we quantify in Section~\ref{sec:sfr}. Moreover, our conclusions with regard to \pg{1626+554}, the object for which we have not been able to measure extinction values, appear to be robust.}
It is noteworthy that in five of our eight quasars, the vast majority of points in the diagnostic diagrams are in the \ionp{H}{2} region area and not in the AGN narrow-line region area. In the remaining three objects, \pg{0026+129}, \pg{0838+770}, and \pg{1448+273}, about half of the points fall in the overlap between the \ionp{H}{2} region area and the AGN narrow-line region area, suggesting that we are either observing \ionp{H}{2} regions distributed {\it within} the AGN narrow-line region or we are observing star-forming regions only but with a range of ages (i.e., ages that increase towards the centre of the host galaxy). We consider the former interpretation less likely because (a) the candidate AGN narrow-line region pixels correspond to uncharacteristically low values of log\,(\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}) (the distribution of observed values of log\,(\ion{O}{3}/\ion{O}{2}) for AGN narrow-line regions peaks between 0.4 and 1.0), and (b) the candidate AGN narrow-line region pixels are typically further away from the quasar than the star-forming regions, where the intensity of the ionizing radiation from the quasar is low (the line ratio map of \pg{1448+273} in Figure~\ref{fig:bpt} is a good example). \bluetext{Nonetheless, we take this issue into consideration when we estimate the uncertainties on the SFRs in Section~\ref{sec:sfr}.}
Additionally, we also plot azimuthally averaged (averaged within concentric annuli) line-ratios as a function of radius from the centre of each galaxy in Figure \ref{fig:azimuthallineratios}. The azimuthal average has the merit of bearing out any radial trends in harder {\it vs}\ softer ionizing radiation with greater $S/N$ than a direct line-ratio map, as in Figure~\ref{fig:bpt}. Our findings based on these figures are also discussed in Section~\ref{sec:discussion}.
\subsection{The AGN Narrow-Line Regions}
\label{sec:nlr}
The results of the previous section suggest very strongly that the AGN narrow-line regions of our targets are very compact and they are contained within the PSF region that we subtracted, i.e., their extent is a few hundred pc or less. With this in mind, we have estimated the fraction of the \ionl{O}{3}{5007} that falls in the extended emission-line region (reported in Table~\ref{tbl:lum}) by comparing it to the total \ionl{O}{3}{5007} flux measured from the spectra (see Section~\ref{sec:groundspec}). In the process, we have also taken into account the fraction of the extended emission-line flux that can be attributed to star formation (based on the diagnostic diagrams of Section~\ref{sec:lineratios}) and we have assumed that the emission-line flux contained within the PSF can be ascribed to the AGN narrow-line region. Thus, we find that the AGN narrow-line regions contribute approximately 50--90\% of the \ionl{O}{3}{5007} flux but this fraction should be regarded with caution since the flux measured from the spectrum suffers from uncertain slit losses.
\subsection{Star-Formation Rates}
\label{sec:sfr}
We compute SFRs from the H$\beta$ and Pa$\alpha$ line images. Specifically, we apply the prescription from Section 2.3 of \citet[][derived for a Salpeter initial mass function]{Kennicutt} to the H$\beta$ and Pa$\alpha$ emission-line luminosities. In the spirit of our discussion in Section~\ref{sec:lineratios} we compute the star formation rate using the line luminosity from securely identified star-forming regions and from the total extended line luminosity and we treat these as lower and upper bounds to the SFR. We list the total line luminosities and resulting SFRs in Table~\ref{tbl:lum}. For each pixel, the SFR is computed independently from the H$\beta$ and Pa$\alpha$ luminosities. Because the extinction correction forces them to a constant ratio, they are essentially the same measurement; therefore, in most cases they are simply averaged. When they differ by more than their mutual error bars, we defer to the Pa$\alpha$ derived SFR because the H$\beta$ SFRs are more sensitive to errors in the extinction calculation.
In particular, the disparity in angular resolution between the WFPC2 instrument used to observe the H$\beta$ line and the NICMOS camera used to observe the Pa$\alpha$ line (as much as a factor of four) artificially reduces the perceived Pa$\alpha$ surface brightness of features that are bright in H$\beta$ and Pa$\alpha$ but smaller than the NICMOS pixel size. This causes an artificially low value of $A_V$ to be applied to the compact H$\beta$ region, and the H$\beta$ SFR to be underestimated. Careful inspection of the H$\beta$ images indicates that only several pixels in the \pg{1448+273} and \pg{2214+139} images are affected.
\bluetext{To determine the uncertainties in SFRs we consider how points in the diagnostic diagrams of Figure~\ref{fig:bpt} would move around as a result of uncertainties in photometry, the value of $A_V$, and the choice of extinction law (see discussion in Sections~~\ref{sec:uncertainties} and \ref{sec:lineratios}). Thus, we apply apropriate shifts to these points in different directions and compute the SFR each time from the points that fall within the locus of \ionp{H}{2} regions. In each case we also re-compute the SFR after excluding the points that fall in the overlap region between the \ionp{H}{2} region locus and the AGN narrow-line region locus of the diagnostic diagrams (see discussion in Section~\ref{sec:lineratios}). As a result of the last issue, the lower error bar is often larger than the upper error bar. We report the resulting SFRs and their error bars in Table~\ref{tbl:lum}.}
To verify the above results we compare the SFRs obtained from the hydrogen lines to other star-formation indicators. In Table~\ref{tbl:lum}, we list SFRs computed from the \ion{O}{2} luminosities and the prescription from equations (10) and (11) of \citet{KewleyOII}, which take into account the metallicity of the gas (we obtain error bars by the method described above). The metallicities we employ are derived from equation (11) of \citet{KewleyOII} and turn out to be close to the solar value. The \ion{O}{2} SFRs we obtain, listed in Table 5, are, on average, a factor of 2 lower than those obtained from the hydrogen lines. If instead we used metallicities that are twice the solar value \citep[see, for example,][]{Storchi1998}, the \ion{O}{2} SFRs would be in good agreement with the hydrogen line SFRs. \footnote{\bluetext{All the star-formation indicators used here adopt the Salpeter stellar initial mass function (IMF) for the calibration. \citet{KewleyOII} assume an upper limit of 120~M$_\odot$ for the IMF while all other indicators are calibrated assuming an upper limit of 100~M$_\odot$ \citep{Kennicutt}. This difference contributes somewhat to the lower SFRs obtained from the luminosity of the \ion{O}{2} luminosities.}} Given the uncertainty in metallicity, we prefer the SFRs derived from the hydrogen lines. \bluetext{For comparison, we also list in Table~\ref{tbl:lum} SFRs based on two other indicators: (a) the FIR luminosities from Table~\ref{tbl:base} \citep[the prescription of Section 2.5 of ][]{Kennicutt}, and (b) the luminosity of the \ion{Ne}{2}$\;12.8\mu$m line from Table~\ref{tbl:base} \citep[following the prescription of][]{HoKeto}. The SFRs derived from the FIR luminosity are on a par with or somewhat higher (by a factor of approximately 2) than those obtained from our measurements, which may be a result of contamination by FIR emission from the quasar central engine. The SFRs derived from the \ion{Ne}{2} luminosity are on a par with or somewhat lower than those obtained from our measurements. These two indicators yield a higher dispersion in SFRs but they still give approximately the same range in SFRs as our measurements, specifically, \pg{1626+554} consistently has the highest SFR by all indicators, \pg{1244+026} appears to have the lowest SFR, and all other objects have SFRs of a few tens of ${\rm M_\odot\;yr^{-1}}$.}
\subsection{Line-Emitting Region Sizes}
The spatially resolved host galaxy images enable this study to test the AGN narrow-line region size versus luminosity relation reported by \cite{Bennert}; this is based on the assumption that the extended line-emitting regions are, in fact, AGN narrow-line regions. The reported relation spans almost three orders of magnitude in luminosity and includes Seyfert galaxies and nearby quasars. However, \cite{Netzer2004} fail to find extended \ion{O}{3} emission in their set of high luminosity quasars, and argue that the extended emission-line luminosity reported in \cite{Bennert} is most likely powered by star formation at large distances from the quasar on the grounds that extrapolating this relationship to large quasar luminosities yields AGN narrow-line regions larger than many galaxies, and much larger than any observed. Here we describe the procedure used to determine the size of the line-emitting region in each host galaxy and we use our results in Section~\ref{sec:discussion:region} to evaluate the report by \cite{Bennert}.
We report the 90\% and 95\% light radii in Tables \ref{tbl:light90} and \ref{tbl:light95}, respectively. The values were determined by taking successively larger apertures around the quasar host galaxies and finding the asymptotic (i.e. total) emission-line flux, and then repeating the exercise to find the aperture size that encloses 90\% and 95\% percent of the total flux. The sizes we measure range from several tenths to several kpc, and are generally very similar for 90\% and 95\% light radii, indicating that these estimates of size are convergent and represent reasonable metrics for the size of the line-emitting region within each quasar host galaxy. In each of the emission-line images we see the extended line-emitting regions centred on the location of the quasar.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Host Galaxies}
\label{sec:discussion:host}
We measure at least some galaxy light in each filter for each quasar. The host galaxies are typically bright and easily seen in the infrared images, and faintest in the optical continuum images. With a few exceptions, we see little evidence of structure other than smooth, azimuthally symmetric light profiles. The charge transfer inefficiency streak is visible in many of the WFPC2 images, even after removal of the quasar PSF. Near the centre of the majority of the images there is noise from the PSF subtraction, visible as mottled dark and light pixels. Even with a correctly aligned PSF and a correctly computed PSF scale factor, counting noise in the PSF image as well as minute variations in the telescope optics\footnotemark[9] still unavoidably cause some differences between the quasar and model PSF, resulting in imperfect subtraction in some pixels.
Through the process of computing and removing the continuum from the optical narrow-band images, we find that the continuum is not a significant contribution. We expected relative faintness of the galaxies in the optical continuum because the galaxy flux density is much higher in the emission lines. The flux density of the infrared continuum is much higher compared to the Pa$\alpha$ emission line than the optical continuum is compared to the optical emission lines, making it a larger contamination, though still a small contribution to the Pa$\alpha$ emission-line flux.
The morphological character of the galaxies is typically unaffected by extinction correction. Even though the computed whole-galaxy line luminosities are larger after extinction correction, the $S/N$ is lower due to the large uncertainty in the extinction correction (as described in Section \ref{sec:uncertainties}). The background noise in the images takes on a cobbled appearance, partly due to the larger NICMOS pixels in the Pa$\alpha$ images, and partly due to the need to bin and average the line-ratio maps (as described in Section \ref{sec:extinction}).
With visual inspection, we can confidently attribute late-type morphology to only \pg{0838+770}, which is an edge-on disk whose late-type morphology was not specifically known until these observations. The disk structure of \pg{0838+770} is clearly visible in the Pa$\alpha$ and the infrared continuum image, and the Pa$\alpha$ brightness indicates star-forming activity along the disk as well as in the nucleus. The remaining host galaxies we have observed do not exhibit clear spiral or disk morphology. To visual inspection, they are broadly consistent either with early-type galaxies or the bulges of late-type galaxies. We see patchy extinction and line emission in some objects; for instance, the $A_V$ maps for \pg{1448+273} and \pg{2214+139} in Figure \ref{fig:reddening} show localized patchy clumps of higher extinction less than a kpc in size scattered around the core. As discussed in Section \ref{sec:sfr}, \pg{1448+273} has an extremely compact region of H$\beta$ emission approximately \arcsecond{0}{2} from its centre. This H$\beta$ knot coincides with a region of relatively high extinction ($A_V \approx 2$ in Figure \ref{fig:reddening}) with line ratios that indicate star formation (see Figure \ref{fig:bpt}). Interestingly, it is also embedded in a larger plume in the \ion{O}{3} image.
Additionally, a galaxy near \pg{1613+658} reported by \cite{Yee1987} is easily visible in the infrared continuum image and the Pa$\alpha$ image prior to continuum removal. Without redshift information neither we nor \cite{Yee1987} can confirm an association between these objects. The separation is quite close 1\arcsec) and the angular size is comparable (\arcsecond{0}{5} {\it vs}\ \arcsecond{0}{8}), suggesting that the two galaxies are indeed related. Additionally, \cite{Yee1987} report that \pg{1613+658} is coincident with a poor cluster of galaxies at the same redshift, providing a pool of potential interaction partners, and that there is a tidal tail to the East of \pg{1613+658}, suggesting recent interaction. However, after removing the continuum contribution to the Pa$\alpha$ images (see Section \ref{sec:continuum}), the companion nearly disappears. This suggests that either it is intrinsically Pa$\alpha$ faint, or it is at a different redshift.
\subsection{The Extended Line-Emitting Regions}
\label{sec:discussion:region}
As described in Section \ref{sec:lineratios}, we use emission-line diagnostics, shown in Figure \ref{fig:bpt}, to determine whether the line emission is powered by AGN photoionization or star formation at each point in the host galaxy. The observed line ratios imply that most of the emission-line flux from the extended line-emitting regions is powered by star formation. Moreover, only a few small sections, less than a few hundred pc in size, near the nuclei of several of the objects have \ion{O}{3}/H$\beta$ ratios greater than 10, which is an unambiguous signature of AGN narrow-line regions. In particular, we see high \ion{O}{3}/H$\beta$ ratios near the nucleus of \pg{0026+129}, our most luminous quasar (see below for further discussion). Based on these results and the estimates presented in Section~\ref{sec:nlr}, the AGN narrow-line region is very compact and is unresolved by our images.
This finding, that the majority of the line emission is from star-forming regions and that the AGN narrow-line regions are less than a few hundred pc in size, favors the interpretation of quasar host galaxy line emission discussed in \cite{Netzer2004}, and suggests that the narrow-line region size to luminosity relation put forth in \cite{Bennert} does not extend into the high luminosity regime of quasars. We do see sizes and luminosities consistent with the relations reported in \cite{Bennert}, plotted in Figure \ref{fig:sizelum}, but we conclude that only small portions of these line-emitting regions are AGN narrow-line regions. Azimuthally averaged line-ratios (Figure \ref{fig:azimuthallineratios}), which have a much higher $S/N$ than the line-ratio diagnostic diagrams and maps in Figure \ref{fig:bpt}, also indicate \ion{O}{3}/H$\beta$ ratios which are too low for AGN narrow-line regions but consistent with star-formation. The exception is near the very centres of several objects, where the line ratios are consistent with AGN narrow-line regions.
\subsection{Star Formation Rates and Their Implications}
\label{sec:discussion:sfr}
We list the host galaxy emission-line luminosities along with the implied SFRs, determined as described in Section \ref{sec:sfr}, in Table \ref{tbl:lum}. We find typical rates of a few to several tens of M$_\odot\;$yr$^{-1}$, but ranging from 2 to 65~M$_\odot\;$yr$^{-1}$.
Our results are not in agreement with the results of \cite{Ho}, who infers low SFRs (typically around a few M$_\odot\;$yr$^{-1}$). In particular, \cite{Ho} reports SFRs of 6.0 and 0.57 M$_\odot\;$yr$^{-1}$ for \pg{1613+658} and \pg{2214+139}, respectively, while we find values an order of magnitude or more higher. The disagreement between our \ion{O}{2} SFRs and those of \cite{Ho} is primarily a result of different extinction corrections. \cite{Ho} assumes $A_V=1$ for all the objects in his sample, whereas we determine $A_V$ from our measurements. We obtain an average value of $A_V=1.9$, which leads to a correction that is 3 times higher than that applied by \cite{Ho}. Moreover, in a substantial fraction of our objects we obtain higher values of $A_V$ than the average. Another factor potentially contributing to the disagreement is the assumption made by \cite{Ho} than only 1/3 of the observed \ion{O}{2} luminosity should be attributed to star formation. Since we find that a substantial fraction of the \ionl{O}{3}{5007} luminosity originates in the extended, star-forming regions around the nucleus, a higher fraction of the \ion{O}{2} luminosity can also be attributed to star formation.
We plot the measured SFRs against quasar (blue) continuum luminosity in Figure~\ref{fig:sfrlum}, where we see a clear trend of increasing SFR with increasing quasar luminosity. This re-affirms findings by other authors that black hole growth is closely tied to star-formation in the host galaxy and growth of its stellar mass \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{Netzer2007,Netzer2009,Mullaney2012,Rosario2013}. We illustrate our results further in Figure~\ref{fig:sfrmass}, where we plot SFR against host galaxy stellar mass. The stellar masses are determined from our galaxy-only NICMOS continuum luminosities using established mass-to-light ratios \citep{Bell2003}, and are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:lum}. \bluetext{To verify the stellar masses obtained above, we have also used the $H$-band magnitudes of the host galaxies of six of the eight quasars in our sample \citep[from][]{Veilleux2009} to compute the stellar masses, using the method of \cite{Bell2001}\footnote{\bluetext{For the host galaxies in our sample we have used $B-V=0.75$, assuming that they are similar to the nearby galaxies in the gatalog of \cite{GildePaz2007,GildePaz}. The $H$-band mass-to-light ratio is more sensitive to the $B-V$ color of the host galaxy than the $K$-band mass-to-light ratio. Therefore, we prefer the masses derived from the $K$-band luminosity. Moreover, the samples that we compare with in later sections of this paper have galaxy masses derived from the $K$-band luminosity.}}, and we list those results in Table~\ref{tbl:lum} as well. The values from the two different methods agree to a factor of 2.5 or better.} We see a trend of increasing SFR with increasing stellar mass, which reinforces the paradigm of galaxy growth tied to black hole growth. We also plot in this figure the star-formation mass sequence \citep[or main sequence of star-forming galaxies; see, for example,][]{ELbaz2007} using the equations of \citet{Whitaker2012} for the redshift of our targets. Our targets lie systematically above this relation in the region occupied by AGNs and/or starbursts, according to \citet{Whitaker2012}.
To put these SFRs in the broader context of galaxy evolution, we plot in Figure \ref{fig:sfrcompare} specific SFR (SFR per unit stellar mass) against stellar mass for each of the seven of our quasar host galaxies for which we have NICMOS imaging, as well as for nearby galaxies \citep{GildePaz2007,GildePaz}, H$\alpha$ selected galaxies \citep{Young1}, low surface brightness galaxies \citep{KuziodeNarray}, LIRGs \citep{Lehmer}, the Milky Way \citep{Hammer,McKee}, M82 \citep{Heckman1990}, and typical ULIRGs \citep{Feruglio}. In the same figure we also indicate the star-formation mass sequence, as we did in Figure~\ref{fig:sfrmass}.
\bluetext{The quasar host galaxies from our sample plotted in this figure have specific SFRs on a par with that of the starburst galaxy M82 and comparable to those of many Luminous Infrared Galaxies (LIRGs).} However, their specific SFRs are not as high as those of ULIRGs of the same stellar mass\citep[e.g.,][]{Sanders,Veilleux2006}. Their location just above the star-formation mass sequence suggests that they are in a starburst mode \citep[see discussion in][]{Elbaz2011}. The exception is \pg{1244+026}, whose mass-specific SFR is well within the locus of normal galaxies. Not surprisingly, this object also has the least luminous quasar and the lowest SFR.
\bluetext{While the quasar host galaxies in our sample have higher SFRs than typical star-forming galaxies, their rates are at the low end of theoretical predictions for peak SFRs for quasar-host galaxies. This may be a consequence of the galaxies being past their star-formation peaks, which would be consistent with a delay between the peak of star-formation and the peak of black hole accretion as suggested by other observations that find star-formaiton episodes that ended a few hundred Myr ago in local, moderately to very luminous active galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{Schawinski,Wild,Davies}. However, a substantially larger sample of objects and spectroscopic data accompanied by a more sophisticated analysis \citep[such as that of][]{Cales2013} are needed to verify this picture.}
Finally, in Figure \ref{fig:sfredd} we plot SFR per galaxy stellar mass versus the Eddington Ratio for the central black holes. To compute the Eddington Luminosities, we utilized the central black hole masses listed in Table \ref{tbl:base}. To compute the bolometric luminosities, we used the optical continuum luminosity densities of the quasars which were derived from the fluxes of the scaled PSF in the F467M filter. By using these quasar-only images, we are assured that the bolometric luminosities are not contaminated with galaxy light. We converted the luminosity densities to bolometric luminosities using an average quasar SED \citep{Richards}, and applying the bolometric correction corresponding to the B filter (similar to the F467M filter). The fact that no trend is evident in this figure indicates that these quasar host galaxies are not simply scaled versions of each other; the black hole growth rate spans two orders of magnitude in a very narrow range of specific SFR. This may be the result of these object being in different relative phases in the quasar life-cycle.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
The eight quasar host galaxies presented in this work have extended line-emitting regions with sizes ranging from 0.5 to 5~kpc. We conclude, based on a study of the emission-line ratios, that these are star-forming regions. We measure SFRs of a few tens to several tens of M$_\odot\;$yr$^{-1}$, substantially higher than those determined by \citet{Ho} from spectroscopic observations of the \ion{O}{2} lines. We have traced the difference in our results to different extinction corrections. \pg{1244+026} has the lowest SFR, around 2 M$_\odot\;$yr$^{-1}$; this is a small galaxy, with a stellar mass around $10^{10}$ M$_\odot$. There is a strong trend between SFR and quasar luminosity, and also between SFR and galaxy stellar mass, reinforcing the paradigm that stellar populations and central black holes grow together. The host galaxies of our target quasars are located above the star-formation mass sequence in the specific star formation {\it vs}\ stellar mass diagram, which suggests a similarity with (U)LIRGs. However, we do not find any trend between the specific SFR and the black hole Eddington ratio, which indicates that the quasars are not just scaled versions of each other; this may be an indication that our target quasars are at varying stages in their life cycles. Finally, we note that, in view our results that the extended line-emitting regions in the quasar host galaxies are, in fact, dominated star-forming regions, \bluetext{any correlation between quasar luminosity and AGN narrow-line region size proposed should be considerably flatter than what was proposed by \citet{Bennert}. Indeed, later works find a flatter slope for this relation \citep{Greene2011,Liu2013} and hint that it levels off at quasar luminosities \citep{Hainline2013}.}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\bluetext{We thank the anonymous referee for many thoughtful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Todd Boroson for providing us with the spectra of our targets published by \cite{Boroson1992} in a convenient digital form.}
Support for program GO-11222 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
The Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos is supported by the Eberly College of Science and the Office of the Senior Vice President for Research at the Pennsylvania State University.
\bluetext{This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant No.\ NSF PHY11-25915. M.E. acknowledges the warm hospitality of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics where he was based dring the final stages of this work. This paper is report NSF-KITP-13-210.}
|
\section*{Introduction}
In the seminal paper \cite{BGS} Beilinson, Ginzburg and Soergel revealed deep Koszul duality phenomena in the representation theory of
complex Lie algebras. They showed that certain categories of representations admit a natural grading, that was hidden before.
More precisely let $B_{\mathbb{C}} \subset G_{\mathbb{C}}$ be a complex connected, simply connected reductive group, along with a Borel.
Then they constructed a Koszul ring whose finite dimensional modules are equivalent to $\mathcal O_0$ the principal block of category $\mathcal O$.
Where does this mysterious grading come from? The marvelous answer deserves to be recalled.
The idea is, that the grading comes from ``weights'' alias Frobenius eigenvalues.
Frobenius eigenvalues?! We are dealing with complex representations of a complex Lie-algebra... how on earth is this
connected to the Frobenius homomorphism?
Well, the Beilinson Bernstein localization theorem combined with the Riemann Hilbert correspondence
and a technical result of Soergel yields an equivalence of categories:
$$\mathcal O_0 \cong \cal P_{(B_{\mathbb{C}})}(X_{\mathbb{C}},\mathbb{C})$$
The latter is the category of
perverse sheaves on the complex flag variety $X_{\mathbb{C}}=G_{\mathbb{C}} /B_{\mathbb{C}}$ which are constant along $B_{\mathbb{C}}$-orbits.
Now reductive groups and flag varieties admit incarnations over any field. For example we could consider
the cousin of our flag variety over the algebraic closure of a finite field $X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q}=G_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q} /B_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q}$
and study perverse sheaves on it.
For technical reasons $\mathbb{Q}_l$ or $\overline \mathbb{Q}_l$ coefficients are preferable
to complex coefficients in this setting.
Anyway it turns out, that there is an equivalence of categories:
$$\cal P_{(B_{\mathbb{C}})}(X_{\mathbb{C}},\mathbb{C}) \cong \cal P_{(B_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q})}(X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q},\overline \mathbb{Q}_l)$$
Now the situation looks much more Frobenius friendly than in the beginning.
And indeed a general philosophy asserts that things (varieties, sheaves,...) defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$
are equivalent to Frobenius equivariant things over $\overline \mathbb{F}_q$.
For example if we want to produce a grading on the set of homomorphisms $\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)$ between
two representations $M,N$ we proceed as follows:
We consider the corresponding perverse sheaves $\cal M_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q},\cal N_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q}$ on $X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q}$ and
investigate avatars $\cal M_{\mathbb{F}_q},\cal N_{\mathbb{F}_q}$ on $X_{\mathbb{F}_q}$ of them (``mixed sheaves'').
These avatars are very non-unique and various choices of avatar pairs give rise to various Frobenius actions on
$\mathrm{Hom}(M,N) \cong \mathrm{Hom}(\cal M_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q},\cal N_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q})$.
However with a bit of luck and dexterity, we can arrange all Frobenius eigenvalues to be powers of $q$ and
hence produce a grading on $\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)$. Applying this recipe to $M=N$ a projective generator of $\cal O_0$,
one gets the Koszul grading of \cite{BGS}.
An important and widely open task is to extend the above to positive characteristics.
From the geometric viewpoint this means, that we want to replace $\cal P_{(B_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q})}(X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q},\mathbb{Q}_l)$
by
$$\cal P_{(B_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q})}(X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q},\mathbb{F}_l)$$
But this screws up the grading! Over $\mathbb{Q}_l$ the possible eigenvalues $q^k , k\in \mathbb{Z}$ were all distinct, but
now we have for example $q=q^l$.
Nevertheless a first breakthrough was recently obtained by Riche, Soergel and Williamson \cite{RSW}. In this article, we establish another more modest result.
While the approach of \cite{RSW} is tailored towards the most complicated setup
(full flag variety and no parity assumptions),
our strategy is designed with easier situations in mind (low dimension or special partial flag varieties).
Benefits are better bounds on the characteristic and more flexibility on the input space, at the cost of a
severe parity assumption. This flexibility makes it easier to adapt to the equivariant situation \cite{janEquivariant},
which was in fact the author's original motivation.
Also our line of argumentation is different from \cite{RSW}. While Riche, Soergel and Williamson essentially have to build
up from scratch, the luxury of parity allows us to argue by comparison with characteristic zero.
Without further ado, let us come to the actual result.
Let $B_{\mathbb{C}}\subset P_{\mathbb{C}} \subset G_{\mathbb{C}}$ be a complex connected reductive group, along with a Borel and a parabolic subgroup.
Let $X_{\mathbb{C}}=G_{\mathbb{C}}/P_{\mathbb{C}}$ be the corresponding partial flag variety, stratified by $B_{\mathbb{C}}$-orbits.
Denote by $\cal P_{(B_{\mathbb{C}})}(X_{\mathbb{C}},\mathbb{F}_l)$ the category of perverse sheaves, which are constant along these orbits.
\begin{thm}\label{MainThmIntro}
Suppose that all $B_{\mathbb{C}}$-constructible $\mathbb Z_l$-intersection
cohomology complexes $IC_w^{\mathbb{Z}_l}$ are parity sheaves. If $l>\mathrm wr(X)$\footnote{This is a mild and explicit condition on $l$ to be explained later \ref{defiWr}.}
then there exists a Koszul algebra $A$ and an equivalence of categories
between perverse sheaves and finite dimensional modules over $A$:
$$\cal P_{(B_{\mathbb{C}})}(X_{\mathbb{C}},\mathbb{F}_l) \cong \mod \-A$$
\end{thm}
A concrete space where the above assumptions can be checked are the complex Grassmannians $\mathrm{Gr}(k,n)$ of $k$-planes inside $n$-space:
\begin{cor}
Let $X_{\mathbb{C}}:=\mathrm{Gr}(k,n)$ be a Grassmannian and $l>\min(k,n-k)+1$ be a prime. Then there exists a Koszul algebra $A$ and an equivalence of categories:
$$\cal P_{(B_{\mathbb{C}})}(X_{\mathbb{C}},\mathbb{F}_l) \cong \mod \-A$$
\end{cor}
\subsection*{Outline}
Let us give an outline of the proof of \ref{MainThmIntro}.
First of all, there are techniques to pass between objects (varieties, sheaves, etc) over $\mathbb{C}$ and their analogues over $\overline {\mathbb{F}}_q$.
The latter has the advantage, that one can bring the Frobenius into the picture, whose eigenspaces will ultimately
yield the desired gradings. Hence we will work with varieties over $\overline \mathbb{F}_q$
and replace verbose notations $X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q},\cal F_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q},\ldots$ by $X,\cal F,\ldots$ from now on.
Let $X=\bigsqcup_{\l \in \Lambda }X_\l$ be a nice cell stratified variety, for example a partial flag variety.
For $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{Q}_l,\mathbb{Z}_l,\mathbb{F}_l$ consider the category $\P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{E})$ of perverse sheaves.
We construct projective covers $P_\l^\mathbb{E}\twoheadrightarrow IC_\l^\mathbb{E}$, which can be assembled into a minimal projective generator $P^\mathbb{E}:=\bigoplus P_\l^\mathbb{E}$.
By abstract nonsense we have an equivalence
$$\P_\Lambda(X,{\mathbb{E}})\cong \mod \- \mathrm{End}(P^\mathbb{E})$$
Now if $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{Q}_l$ then the main statement \cite[4.4.4]{BGS} essentially says that $\mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{Q}_l})$ admits a Koszul grading coming from Frobenius eigenvalues.
Our goal is to show, that (under strong assumptions on $X$!) the analogue is
true in the modular situation.
The general idea of the proof is to use the bridge
$$
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{ & \mathrm{D}_{\Lambda}^b(X,\mathbb{Z}_l) \ar[rd]^{\mathbb{Q}_l\otimes \_} \ar[ld]_{\mathbb{F}_l\otimes\-} & \\
\mathrm{D}_{\Lambda}^b(X,{\mathbb{F}_l}) & & \mathrm{D}_{\Lambda}^b(X,\mathbb{Q}_l)
}
\end{xy}
$$
between constructible derived categories, to pass results between modular characteristic and characteristic zero.
One always has $P^{\mathbb{Z}_l} \otimes \mathbb{F}_l=P^{\mathbb{F}_l}$ and under a (severe!) parity assumption, we deduce $P^{\mathbb{Z}_l} \otimes {\mathbb{Q}_l}=P^{\mathbb{Q}_l}$.
In this case we have the following relation between our endomorphism rings:
$$\mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{F}_l})={\mathbb{F}_l}\otimes \mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{Z}_l}) \text{ and } \mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{Q}_l})={\mathbb{Q}_l}\otimes \mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{Z}_l})$$
which we depict as
$$
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
\mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{F}_l}) & \ar@{~>}[l]_{{\mathbb{F}_l} \otimes } \mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{Z}_l}) \ar@{~>}[r]^{{\mathbb{Q}_l} \otimes } & \mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{Q}_l})\\
}
\end{xy}
$$
We already know that the right hand side admits a Koszul grading coming from Frobenius eigenvalues and we want to transfer it to the left.
In order to do so, we will observe the following:
For a graded ${\mathbb{Z}_l}$-algebra $A$ satisfying some assumptions,
its base-change to $\mathbb{F}_l$ is Koszul if and only if its base-change to ${\mathbb{Q}_l}$ is. We will call such an algebra ${\mathbb{Z}_l}$-Koszul.
$$\text{$A\otimes {\mathbb{F}_l}$ is Koszul} \Leftrightarrow \text{$A$ is ${\mathbb{Z}_l}$-Koszul} \Leftrightarrow \text{$A\otimes {\mathbb{Q}_l}$ is Koszul} $$
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
I want to thank Wolfgang Soergel, Catharina Stroppel and Geordie Williamson for interest and helpful discussions.
Special thanks goes to an anonymous reviewer for spotting many typos and flaws in an older variant of this work.
This work was supported by the DFG via SPP 1388.
\section{The category of $\O$-perverse sheaves}
Let us introduce the categories of sheaves we work with.
\subsubsection*{Basic notations}
Let $l \neq p$ be primes and $q$ be a power of $p$.
Let $\mathbb{K}$ be a finite extension of $\mathbb{Q}_l$ and denote by $\O$ its ring of integers. Let $\varpi \in \O$ be a
uniformizing parameter and $\mathbb{F}:=\O/\varpi$ be
the residue field.
For instance $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{Q}_l$ and $\O=\mathbb{Z}_l$ and $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{F}_l$.
By $\mathbb{E}$ we denote any of $\mathbb{K},\O,\mathbb{F}$.
The typical situation is that we are interested in $\mathbb{F}$-linear objects (representations, sheaves, $\ldots$) and
we want to use $\O$ to connect them to their better understood counterparts over $\mathbb{K}$.
For a right (resp. left) noetherian ring $R$ we denote by $\mod \-R$ (resp. $R\-\mod$) the category
of finitely generated right (resp. left) modules over $R$.
\subsubsection*{The six functors}
By $\mathrm{D}^b_c(X,\mathbb{E})$ we denote the constructible derived category of a variety $X$
over a perfect field of characteristic different from $l$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{E}$.
We will refer to objects of $\mathrm{D}^b_c(X,\mathbb{E})$ as constructible complexes.
These categories fit into a six functor formalism\footnote{From now on, we will often use
the same notation for a functor and its derived counterpart. For example $\otimes$ means $\overset{L}{\otimes}$ etc.}
$$f_*,f^*,f_!,f^!,\cal Hom,\otimes$$
The six functors commute with extension of scalars and pullback from varieties $X_0$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to their basechange $X$ over $\overline \mathbb{F}_q$.
For example we have a canonical isomorphism
$$\mathbb{F} \otimes \cal \mathrm{Hom}(\cal F, f_! \cal G)=\cal \mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{F}\otimes \cal F, f_! (\mathbb{F}\otimes\cal G))$$
where every functor is derived by our convention.
References for the six functor formalism are for example:
\begin{itemize}
\item \cite{SGA4} for $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{F}$.
\item \cite{Ekedahl} for the passage from $\mathbb{F}$ to $\O$.
\item \cite{Weil2} for the passage from $\O$ to $\mathbb{K}$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Acyclically stratified varieties}
We adapt some basic definitions and notation from \cite{RSW}.
Let $X$ be a variety over a field $k$, together with a finite decomposition into locally closed smooth irreducible affine subvarieties
$$X=\bigsqcup_{\l \in \Lambda} X_{\l}$$
such that the closure of each $X_{\l}$ is a union of some $X_{\mu}$.
We will denote the dimension of $X_\l$ by $d_\l$ and the inclusion by $l_\l:X_\l \hookrightarrow X$.
The inclusion of the closure of a stratum will be denoted by $\overline l_\l : \overline X_\l \hookrightarrow X$.
If $k$ is algebraically closed, we say that $X=\bigsqcup_{\l \in \Lambda} X_\l$ is a stratification if
$$l^*_\l l_{\mu*} \mathbb{E}$$
has constant cohomology sheaves for all $\l,\mu$
\footnote{This definition is bad in general, usually one would only impose that the cohomology sheaves are local systems.
However for our purposes it is the most convenient.
}. Here we also introduced the notation $\mathbb{E}$ for the constant sheaf
on a space (in this case $X_\mu$).
A cell stratification is a stratification, such that
$X_\l \cong \mathbb{A}^{d_\l}$ for all $\l$.
An acyclic stratification is a stratification, such that all strata are acyclic. Recall that a space $X_\l$ is called acyclic if
its cohomology ring is simply $\O$:
$$\H^\bullet(X_\l,\O)=\H^\bullet(pt,\O)=\O$$
Typical examples of cell stratified varieties are partial flag varieties $X:=G/P$ equipped with their decomposition into Bruhat cells:
$$G/P=\bigsqcup BwP/P$$
Examples of acyclically stratified varieties arise by taking suitable
fiberbundles whose fibers and base are cell stratified.
Given an acyclically stratified variety $X=\bigsqcup X_\l$, we denote by $\mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ the category of all constructible complexes $\cal F$ such that
$l_\l^*\cal F$ and $l_\l^! \cal F$ both have constant cohomology sheaves for all $\l$.
It is an idempotent complete triangulated category.
We will be sloppy and usually refer to objects of $\mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ as sheaves.
By $\cal P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})\subset \mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$
we denote the full subcategory of perverse sheaves\footnote{In the case $\mathbb{E}=\O$ there are two dual categories,
which one might call ``perverse sheaves''. We choose the one which is equivalent to the category of finitely generated $\O$-modules for $X=pt$.
More precisely we use the $t$-structure $p_{1/2}$ and not $p_{1/2}^+$ in the terminology of \cite[3.3.4.]{BBD}.}.
From now on we work with objects (varieties, sheaves, \ldots) defined over a field $k$, where $k$ is either $\mathbb{F}_q$ or its algebraic closure $\overline \mathbb{F}_q$.
As usual objects over $\mathbb{F}_q$ are denoted by $X_0,\cal F_0,\ldots$, while their
base-change to $\overline \mathbb{F}_q$ is denoted by $X,\cal F,\ldots$.
We say that a locally closed decomposition $X_0=\bigsqcup_{\l \in \Lambda} X_{\l,0}$ is a (acylcic/cell) stratification if its basechange
$X=\bigsqcup_{\l \in \Lambda} X_{\l}$ is. In this case
we denote by $\mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E})$ all constructible complexes whose base-change lands in $\mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$.
Again this is an idempotent complete triangulated category.
The category $\cal P_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E})\subset \mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E})$ is defined in a similar way.
\begin{ex}
Suppose that $X=X_\l=\mathbb A^n$ consists of a single cell. Then we have
$$\mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E}) \cong \mathrm{D}^b(\mod\-\mathbb{E}) \text{ and } \cal P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E}) \cong \mod\-\mathbb{E}$$
The key point is that $\mathrm{RHom}(\mathbb{E},\mathbb{E})=\H^\bullet(X,\mathbb{E})=\mathbb{E}$.
\end{ex}
\begin{notation}
Let $X$ be an acyclically stratified variety, and $X_\l$ be a stratum. Then there are a couple of canonically associated perverse sheaves
on $X$. We will introduce notation for them here:
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\Delta_\l:=\Delta^{\mathbb{E}}_\l:={l_\l}_! \mathbb{E}[d_\l]$ denote the standard perverse sheaf.
\item Let $\nabla_\l:=\nabla^{\mathbb{E}}_\l:={l_\l}_* \mathbb{E}[d_\l]$ denote the costandard perverse sheaf.
\item Let $\mathrm{IC}_\l:=\mathrm{IC}^{\mathbb{E}}_\l:={l_\l}_{!*} \mathbb{E}[d_\l]$ denote the intersection cohomology complex.
\end{itemize}
If the stratification is defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$, the same formulas define $\Delta_{\l,0},\nabla_{\l,0},\mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}$.
\end{notation}
\subsection{Basic properties of sheaves on acyclically stratified varieties}
A good reference for perverse sheaves in general is \cite{BBD}. For $\O$-linear perverse sheaves
on acyclically stratified varieties \cite{RSW} contains foundational information.
Let $\cal T$ be a triangulated category equipped with a $t$-structure and heart $\cal A$.
In this generality there is no natural functor $\mathrm{D}^b(\cal A)\rightarrow \cal T$.
However in every ``natural'' situation, for example in the case of the perverse $t$-structure,
there is a canonical realization functor
$$\mathrm{real}: \mathrm{D}^b(\cal A)\rightarrow \cal T$$
see \cite[3.1.9]{BBD}, \cite{DbPerv}.
\begin{thm}\label{thmRealEquiv}
Let $X_0=\bigsqcup X_{\l,0}$ be an acyclically stratified variety. Then the realization functors
are equivalences of categories, commuting with the forgetful functor:
$$
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
\mathrm{D}^b(\P_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E})) \ar[d] \ar[r]^{\mathrm{real}} & \mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E}) \ar[d] \\
\mathrm{D}^b(\P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})) \ar[r]^{\mathrm{real}} & \mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})
}
\end{xy}
$$
\begin{proof}
\cite[3.4.1.]{RSW}, \cite[2.3.4]{RSW}
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
\begin{prop}\label{thmFiniteCohoDim}
Let $X=\bigsqcup X_{\l}$ be an acyclically stratified variety. Then the following assertions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The category $\P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ has enough projectives.
\item The category $\P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ has finite projective dimension.
\item The category $\P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ is noetherian. If $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{F},\mathbb{K}$ it is also artinian.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \cite[2.3.3]{RSW}
\item \cite[2.3.4]{RSW}
\item \cite[4.3.1]{BBD} , \cite[4.0.(b)]{BBD}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\end{prop}
\subsubsection*{Perverse sheaves as modules}
It is often useful to know, that the category of perverse sheaves can be realized as modules over a ring:
\begin{thm}\label{thmMoritaProj}
Let $\cal A$ be a noetherian
abelian category and $P\in \cal A$ be a projective generator. Then $\mathrm{End}(P)$ is right noetherian and
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\cal A &\to \mod \-\mathrm{End}(P) \\
M & \mapsto \cal A(P,M)
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
defines an equivalence between $\cal A$ and the category of finitely generated right modules over $\mathrm{End}(P)$.
Furthermore if $P=\bigoplus P_\l$ is a decomposition, then projection onto $P_\l$ gives an idempotent $e_\l$ in $A:=\mathrm{End}(P)$
and under the above equivalence we have
$$P_\l \mapsto P_\l:=e_\l A$$
\begin{proof}
\cite[page 55]{BassKtheo}
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
\subsubsection*{Perverse sheaves as $(A,\phi)$-modules}
Theorem \ref{thmMoritaProj} enables us to realize $\P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ as a category of modules. However it does not apply to
$\P_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E})$ since there are not enough projectives in this category.
The solution is to interpret $\P_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E})$ as Frobenius equivariant objects in $\P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$
and translate Frobenius equivariance into the language of modules. This strategy was carried out in \cite{RSW}.
Let us quickly recall what we need.
\begin{defi}
Let $A$ be an $\mathbb{E}$-algebra equipped with an automorphism $\phi$.
We denote by $\mathrm{Mod} \-(A,\phi)$ the category of pairs $(M,\phi)$
where $M$ is a right $A$-module and $\phi:M\rightarrow M$ is an $\mathbb{E}$-linear bijection
satisfying $\phi(m\cdot a)=\phi(m) \cdot \phi(a)$.
A morphism $f:(M,\phi)\rightarrow (N,\phi)$ is an $A$-linear map that commutes with $\phi$.
\end{defi}
If $A$ is right noetherian we denote by $\mod \-(A,\phi)\subset \mathrm{Mod} \-(A,\phi)$ the subcategory
of objects $(M,\phi)$ for which $M$ is noetherian.
\begin{lem}
Let $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{F},\O$. Then the functor $\P_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E})\rightarrow \P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ induces an equivalence
between $\P_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{E})$ and the category of pairs $(\cal F,F_{\cal F})$, where $\cal F \in \P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ and
$F_{\cal F}:\mathrm{Fr}^* \cal F \rightarrow \cal F$ is an isomorphism.
Here $\mathrm{Fr}$ is the geometric Frobenius.
\begin{proof}
\cite[5.1.2]{BBD}
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{ex}
Let $\cal F,\cal G \in \P_\Lambda(X,\O)$ be two perverse sheaves equipped with lifts $\cal F_0,\cal G_0$ to $X_0$.
Then $\mathrm{Hom}(\cal F,\cal G)$ is equipped with a Frobenius automorphism constructed as follows:
$$
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
\mathrm{Hom}(\cal F,\cal G) \ar[r]^{\mathrm{Fr}^*} & \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Fr}^* \cal F,\mathrm{Fr}^* \cal G) \ar[rr]^{F_{\cal G} \circ \_ \circ F_{\cal F}^{-1}} && \mathrm{Hom}(\cal F,\cal G)
}
\end{xy}
$$
In particular let $P\in \P_\Lambda(X,\O)$ be a projective generator with lift $P_0$. Then $\mathrm{End}(P)$ is equipped with a
Frobenius automorphism.
\end{ex}
\begin{prop}
Let $X_0=\bigsqcup X_{\l,0}$ be an acyclically stratified variety, $P\in \P_\Lambda(X,\O)$ be a projective generator
and $P_0$ be a lift. Let $(A,\phi)$ be $\mathrm{End}(P)$ equipped with the Frobenius action.
Then $\mathrm{Hom}(P,\_)$ induces an equivalence:
$$\P_\Lambda(X_0,\O) \rightarrow \mod \-(A,\phi)$$
which commutes with the ``forgetful'' functors on both sides.
\begin{proof}
\cite[3.3.7]{RSW}
\end{proof}
\end{prop}
\subsection{Parity sheaves}
The reference on parity sheaves is \cite{JMWparity}.
An object $\cal F\in \mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ is called
even (odd) if for all $\l$ the objects $l^*_\l(\cal F)$ and $l^!_\l(\cal F)$
have constant torsion free cohomology sheaves, which vanish in odd (even) degrees.
An object $\cal F\in \mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$ is called parity, if it is a direct sum of an even and an odd object.
Let $X=\bigsqcup X_\l$ be a stratified variety. We say that $X$ satisfies $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-parity, if for all $\l$ the object $\mathrm{IC}^\O_\l$ is parity.
\begin{lem}
We have $\mathbb{K}\otimes \mathrm{IC}^\O_\l=\mathrm{IC}_\l^\mathbb{K}$. If $\mathrm{IC}^\O_\l$ is parity, then we also have $\mathbb{F} \otimes \mathrm{IC}^\O_\l=\mathrm{IC}^\mathbb{F}_\l$ and the latter is also parity.
\begin{proof}
Since the (co)stalks of parity sheaves are free over $\O$, we see that
$\mathbb{F} \otimes \mathrm{IC}^\O_\l$ satisfies the (co)stalk conditions for being an $\mathrm{IC}$-sheaf.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{LemExtGrpsTheSame}
Let $X$ be a cell stratified variety such that $\mathrm{IC}_\l^\O,\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\O$ are parity. Then for all $i$ the module
$$\mathrm{Ext}^i(\mathrm{IC}_\l^\O,\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\O)$$
is free over $\O$. We obtain in particular
$$\mathrm{Ext}^i(\mathrm{IC}_\l^\mathbb{F},\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F} \otimes \mathrm{Ext}^i(\mathrm{IC}_\l^\O,\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\O) \text{ and } \mathrm{Ext}^i(\mathrm{IC}_\l^\mathbb{K},\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{K})=\mathbb{K} \otimes \mathrm{Ext}^i(\mathrm{IC}_\l^\O,\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\O)$$
\begin{proof}
\cite[2.6]{JMWparity}
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\section{$\O$-Koszul algebras}
Recall that a non-positively\footnote{Actually most authors consider non-negatively graded rings $A=\bigoplus A^i$
with $\mathrm{Ext}^i$ in degree $i$.} graded ring $A=\bigoplus A_i$ such that
$A_0$ is semisimple is called Koszul if for all $i\in \mathbb{N}$ the graded module $\mathrm{Ext}^i(A_0,A_0)$ is concentrated in degree $-i$.
Suppose now that $A^\mathbb{F}=A\otimes \mathbb{F}$ is an $\mathbb{F}$-algebra, which admits an ``integral form'' $A$ over $\O$
such that $A\otimes \mathbb{K}$ is Koszul.
Is it true that $A^\mathbb{F}$ is Koszul as well? The answer is positive, if $A$ satisfies some reasonable assumptions.
\begin{setup}\label{setupGraded}
Let $A$ be a right noetherian non-positively graded $\mathbb{E}$-algebra, which is free as an $\mathbb{E}$-module. Suppose that
$$A_0=\prod_{\l \in \Lambda} \mathbb{E}$$
as an $\mathbb{E}$-algebra for some finite index set $\Lambda$.
Denote by $e_{\l}$ the idempotent corresponding to the $\l$-th copy of $\mathbb{E}$.
Let us define the following graded right modules:
$$
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{P_\l:=e_\l A & P:=\underset{\l \in \Lambda}{\bigoplus} P_\l \\
L_\l:=P_\l / P_\l^{<0} & L:=\underset{\l \in \Lambda}{\bigoplus} L_\l
}
\end{xy}
$$
Here $M^{<0}:=\bigoplus_{i<0} M_i$ for a graded module $M$.
We think of $L_\l$ as simple modules and $P_\l$ as their projective covers.
\end{setup}
\begin{rem}
If $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{F},\mathbb{K}$ is a field, then the $L_\l$ are precisely the simple graded modules.
If $\mathbb{E}=\O$, then the $L_\l$ are not simple objects in the abelian category of graded $A$-modules.
However they are still simple in less naive sense:
Let $\cal A$ be an exact category. We say that an object $M\in \cal A$ is simple if
it is non-zero and its only admissible quotients are $M$ and $0$.
Now the $L_\l$ are indeed the simple objects in the exact category of graded $A$-modules, which are free over $\O$.
\end{rem}
For two graded modules $M,N$ over a graded ring there is a grading on $\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)$,
the space of module homomorphisms. We will call it ``internal grading'',
as well as its cousin on $\mathrm{Ext}^i(M,N)$.
Given a (graded) ring $R$, we denote by $R\-\mathrm{(gr)Mod}$ its category of (graded) left modules.
We also make use of variants of this notation. For instance if $R$ is a graded right noetherian ring,
we denote by $\mathrm{grmod}\-R$ the category of finitely generated graded right modules over $R$.
\begin{lem}\label{lemExtensionOfScalars}
Let $A$ be a graded right noetherian $\O$-algebra, which is free as an $\O$-module. Let $M,N \in \mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{grmod}\-A)$
be two objects of the bounded derived category. Then there are canonical isomorphisms:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbb{F} \overset{L}{\otimes} \mathrm{RHom}_A(M,N) = \mathrm{RHom}_{A\otimes \mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{F}\overset{L}{\otimes} M, \mathbb{F}\overset{L}{\otimes} N)$
\item $\mathbb{K} \overset{L}{\otimes} \mathrm{RHom}_A(M,N) = \mathrm{RHom}_{A\otimes \mathbb{K}}(\mathbb{K}\overset{L}{\otimes} M, \mathbb{K}\overset{L}{\otimes} N)$
\end{itemize}
\begin{proof}
Let us focus on the $\mathbb{F}$-case. Observe that for $M,N$ graded free of finite rank, on the one hand
$\mathrm{RHom}_A(M,N)$ is free over $\O$. On the other hand $\mathbb{F} \overset{L}{\otimes} M$ and $\mathbb{F}\overset{L}{\otimes} N$
are graded free modules again.
This shows that the functors on both sides can be computed in the naive way on complexes of graded free modules.
Hence one can write down a natural isomorphism $\mathbb{F} \overset{L}{\otimes} \mathrm{RHom}_A(M,N) \rightarrow \mathrm{RHom}_{A\otimes \mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{F}\overset{L}{\otimes} M, \mathbb{F}\overset{L}{\otimes} N)$
for such complexes in the naive way.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
Let us consider the ext-algebra $E:=\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L,L)$. It is equipped with two gradings, the cohomological and the internal one.
\begin{defi}
Let $A$ be as in \ref{setupGraded}. Assume that $E$ is free as an $\mathbb{E}$-module.
We say that $A$ is $\mathbb{E}$-Koszul, if the internal grading on $E$ is the
negative of the cohomological grading on $E$. In other words, we demand that $\mathrm{Ext}^i(A_0,A_0)$ is concentrated in internal degree $-i$.
\end{defi}
If $\mathbb{E}$ is a field, than $A$ is $\mathbb{E}$-Koszul, if and only if it is Koszul in the usual sense (after inverting the sign of the grading).
\begin{thm}\label{thmOKoszul}
Let $A$ be an $\O$-algebra as in \ref{setupGraded} and suppose that $\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L,L)$ is free over $\O$. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $A$ is $\O$-Koszul.
\item $A\otimes \mathbb{F}$ is $\mathbb{F}$-Koszul.
\item $A\otimes \mathbb{K}$ is $\mathbb{K}$-Koszul.
\end{itemize}
\begin{proof}
By \ref{lemExtensionOfScalars} we have $\mathrm{Ext}^i(\mathbb{F}\otimes L,\mathbb{F}\otimes L)=\mathbb{F}\otimes \mathrm{Ext}^i(L,L)$ and $\mathrm{Ext}^i(\mathbb{K}\otimes L,\mathbb{K}\otimes L)=\mathbb{K}\otimes \mathrm{Ext}^i(L,L)$.
Now it remains to observe that for a free graded $\O$-module the property of being concentrated in degree $-i$
is reflected and conserved by tensoring with $\mathbb{F},\mathbb{K}$.
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Let $A$ be $\mathbb{E}$-Koszul, say of finite cohomological dimension. Using standard techniques \cite[Chapter 2]{OlafThesis}, one can show that
there is an equivalence of categories
$$\mod \-A \cong \mathrm{per} \-\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L)$$
Here we consider $\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L):=(\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L,L),0 )$ as a dg-algebra with trivial differential and
$\mathrm{per} \-\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L)$ denotes the perfect derived category. In other words $\mathrm{per} \-\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L)$
is the smallest full idempotent complete triangulated subcategory of the derived category of dg-modules over $\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L)$ which contains
$\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L)$.
\end{rem}
\section{Projectives in $\P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{E})$}
\subsection{Multiplicities}
We start with some general remarks on multiplicities in abelian categories.
Let $\cal A$ be an abelian category linear over a field $k$. Then we are interested in its Grothendieck group $K(\cal A)$.
For any basis $(L_i)$ of $K(\cal A)$ and an element $M\in K(\cal A)$ we define the multiplicity of
$L_i$ in $M$ by the formula
$$M=\sum [M:L_i] \cdot L_i$$
Assume that $\cal A$ is also of finite cohomological dimension and with finite dimensional
morphism spaces. Then we have a pairing $K(\cal A) \times K(\cal A) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$
induced by taking the Euler characteristic of the $\mathrm{Hom}$-complex:
$$h([x],[y]):=\chi_{\mathrm{RHom}(x,y)}:= \sum (-1)^i \dim \mathrm{Ext}^i(x,y) \text{ for } x,y\in \cal A$$
In this setting we have BGG-reciprocity:
\begin{lem}\label{lemBGG}
Let $(P_i),(L_j)$ and $(\Delta_i),(\nabla_j)$ be two collections of dual bases of $K(\cal A)$, in the sense that
$$h(P_i,L_j)=h(\Delta_i,\nabla_j)=\delta_{ij}$$
Then we have
$$[P_i:\Delta_j]=[\nabla_j:L_i]$$
\begin{proof}
For any $M,N$ we have $[M:L_i]=h(P_i,M)$ and $h(M,\nabla_j)=[M:\Delta_j]$.
Hence we may compute:
$$[\nabla_j:L_i]=h(P_i,\nabla_j)=[P_i:\Delta_j]$$
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\subsection{Projectives in $\P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{E})$}
In \cite{RSW} it was shown, that there always exist indecomposable projectives and maps $P_\l^\O\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_\l^\O$ in
the category $\P_{\Lambda}(X,\O)$. However in this generality $P_\l^\O$ is not very explicit.
For example there is no description of $\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\O)$! The situation is much more transparent if
the $\mathrm{IC}$-sheaves are parity:
\begin{prop}\label{ThmProjX}
Let $X$ be an acyclically stratified variety which satisfies $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-parity.
Let $X_\l$ be any stratum.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Then there exists a projective object $P_\l^\mathbb{E} \in \P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{E})$ such that
$$\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\mathbb{E},\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{E})\cong\mathbb{E}^{\delta_{\l,\mu}}$$
In particular $P_\l^\mathbb{E}$ is indecomposable.
\item We have
$$P_\l^\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{F} \otimes P_\l^\O \text{ and } P_\l^\mathbb{K} = \mathbb{K} \otimes P_\l^\O $$
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
The explicit construction of the projectives in \ref{ThmProjX} will be important. It is a variant of \cite[2.3.1]{RSW}.
We will give it in a moment and justify it (e.g. show that it indeed gives projectives etc.) afterwards.
\begin{construction}\label{constrproj}
The construction goes by recursion on the number of strata of $X$. If $X= \emptyset$, there is nothing to do.
Now assume that $X$ consists of $n$ strata and we already constructed projectives for smaller varieties.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $X_\l$ is an open stratum, we put $P_\l^\mathbb{E}:=\Delta^\mathbb{E}_\l$ and see by adjunction that $P_\l^\mathbb{E}$ is projective:
Indeed $\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\mathbb{E},\_)=\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{E}[d_\l],l_\l^! \_)$ is exact since $l_\l$ is an open inclusion.
This description also shows $\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\mathbb{E},\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{E})=\mathbb{E}^{\delta_{\l,\mu}}$.
\item If $X_\l$ is not open, let $U:=X_\mu$ be an open stratum and $Y$ be its complement.
By assumption we have already constructed a projective $P_{Y,\l}^\mathbb{E}$ with the desired properties on $Y$. Let
$$E:=E^\mathbb{E}:=\mathrm{Ext}^1(P_{Y,\l}^\mathbb{E},\Delta^\mathbb{E}_\mu)$$
\end{itemize}
\begin{claim}\label{ClaimEoFree}
$E^\mathbb{E}$ is free over $\mathbb{E}$.
\end{claim}
The claim is obvious for $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{F},\mathbb{K}$ and we will see later that it holds also for $\mathbb{E}=\O$.
Hence it makes sense to consider the (naive) dual $E^*:=\mathrm{Hom}(E,\mathbb{E})$ of $E$. The identity
element in $E^*\otimes E=\mathrm{Ext}^1(P_{Y,\l}^\mathbb{E},E^*\otimes\Delta^\mathbb{E}_\mu)$ gives rise to a canonical extension, which defines $P_{\l}^\mathbb{E}$:
\begin{equation}\label{EqnProjDefSeq}
0 \rightarrow E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu \rightarrow P_{\l}^\mathbb{E} \rightarrow P_{Y,\l}^\mathbb{E} \rightarrow 0
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \ref{ClaimEoFree}]
We want to show that $E^\O$ is also free.
By structure theory of modules over a principal ideal domain, we know that $E$ is of the form
$$E^\O\cong \O^n \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^d \O/\varpi^{n_i}$$
Since extension of scalars commutes with $\mathrm{RHom}$, we have $\dim E^\mathbb{K}=n$ and $\dim E^\mathbb{F} \geq n+d$.
Here we used that any complex of modules over a principal ideal domain is quasi-isomorphic to its cohomology.
If we can show $\dim E^\mathbb{F}=\dim E^\mathbb{K}$ we are done.
Copying the proof of \cite[3.2.1]{BGS}, we know that
$$\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\mathbb{K},\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{K})=\mathbb{K}^{\delta_{\l,\mu}} \text{ and } \mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\mathbb{F},\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}^{\delta_{\l,\mu}}$$
Now using \ref{lemBGG},\ref{lemParityGoodMult} we compute:
\begin{align*}
\dim E^\mathbb{F} &= [P^\mathbb{F}_\l:\Delta^\mathbb{F}_\mu]\\
&=[\nabla^\mathbb{F}_\mu : \mathrm{IC}^\mathbb{F}_\l]\\
&=[\nabla^\mathbb{K}_\mu : \mathrm{IC}^\mathbb{K}_\l]\\
&=[P^\mathbb{K}_\l:\Delta^\mathbb{K}_\mu] \\
&=\dim E^\mathbb{K}
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
$P_{\l}^\mathbb{E}$ is projective
\begin{proof}
This can be shown as in \cite[2.3.1]{RSW}.
\end{proof}
\end{claim}
We now have our projectives and freeness of $E$ implies
$$P_\l^\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{F} \otimes P_\l^\O \text{ and } P_\l^\mathbb{K} = \mathbb{K} \otimes P_\l^\O $$
It remains to check the ``orthonormality`` relation between projectives and $IC$-sheaves:
\begin{claim}
$\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\mathbb{E},\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{E})=\mathbb{E}^{\delta_{\l,\mu}}$
\begin{proof}
If $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{K},\mathbb{F}$, this can be shown as in the proof of \cite[3.2.1]{BGS}.
Since
$$\mathbb{F}^{\delta_{\l,\mu}}=\mathrm{RHom}(P_\l^\mathbb{F},\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F} \overset{L}{\otimes} \mathrm{RHom}(P_\l^\O,\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\O)$$
it holds also for $\mathbb{E}=\O$. Here we used parity.
\end{proof}
\end{claim}
\end{construction}
\begin{lem}\label{lemParityGoodMult}
Let $X$ be an acyclically stratified variety, which satisfies $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-parity. Then for all $\l,\mu$
the multiplicities
$$[\Delta_\l^\mathbb{F}:\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{F}]=[\Delta_\l^\mathbb{K} : \mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{K}]$$
coincide.
\begin{proof}
For the duration of this proof let $\mathbb{E}$ be a field (i.e. $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{K}$ or $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{F}$).
Both the $\mathrm{IC}$-sheaves and the standard sheaves form a basis of the Grothendieck group of
$\cal P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{E})$. We only need to check that the ``inverse multiplicities''
$$[\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{F}:\Delta_\l^\mathbb{F}]\overset{!}{=}[\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{K}:\Delta^\mathbb{K}_\l]$$
coincide. Using $h(\Delta_\l,\nabla_\mu)=\delta_{\l,\mu}$ we compute:
\begin{align*}
[\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{E}:\Delta_\l^\mathbb{E}]&=h(\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{E},\nabla_\l^\mathbb{E}) \\
&=\chi_{\mathrm{RHom}(\mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{E},\nabla_\l^\mathbb{E})} \\
&=\chi_{\mathrm{RHom}(l_\l^* \mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{E},\mathbb{E}[d_\l])}
\end{align*}
Hence it suffices to show that
$$\dim \mathrm{Ext}^i(l_\l^* \mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{F},\mathbb{F}[d_\l])\overset{!}{=}\dim \mathrm{Ext}^i(l_\l^* \mathrm{IC}_\mu^\mathbb{K},\mathbb{K}[d_\l])$$
By parity we know that $\mathrm{Ext}^i(l_\l^* \mathrm{IC}_\mu^\O,\O[d_\l])$ is free (\ref{LemExtGrpsTheSame}) and $\mathbb{E}\otimes \mathrm{IC}^\O=\mathrm{IC}^\mathbb{E}$.
Since the six functors commute with extension of scalars we are done.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}\label{remGenerator}
Note for later use, that in the situation of \ref{ThmProjX} the map $P_\l\twoheadrightarrow \Delta_\l \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_\l$ generates $\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l,\mathrm{IC}_\l)$.
We have just seen, that this space is always free of rank $1$. Now if $\mathbb{E}$ is a field, the assertion follows since the map is non-zero.
The case $\mathbb{E}=\O$ is a consequence of the case $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{F}$ by a Nakayama style argument.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
In \cite[2.4.2.]{RSW} uniqueness properties of projective perverse sheaves are discussed. It follows
that the $P_\l^\mathbb{E}$ are the only indecomposable projective objects in $\P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{E})$.
With additional effort, one can even show that $P_\l^\mathbb{E}\rightarrow \mathrm{IC}_\l^\mathbb{E}$ is a projective cover in $\P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{E})$.
\end{rem}
\begin{lem}\label{lemHomProjFree}
Let $X$ be an acyclically stratified variety. Then for all $\l,\mu$
$$\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)$$
is a free $\O$-module.
\begin{proof}
This is proven in \cite[2.4.1]{RSW}. Under the assumption of $\mathrm{IC}_\l^\O$-parity
one can alternatively exploit coincidence of multiplicities and deduce
$$\dim \mathbb{K} \otimes \mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O) = \dim \mathbb{F} \otimes \mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)$$
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\section{Graded categories}
We recall some notions and results from \cite{BGS}.
\begin{defi}
Let $\widetilde {\cal C}, \cal C$ be abelian categories, linear over a field $k$, with finite dimensional $\mathrm{Hom}$ spaces
and in which every object has finite length.
\begin{itemize}
\item We say that $\widetilde {\cal C}$ is a mixed category if it is equipped with
an assignment of an integer to each isomorphism class of irreducibles
$$w:\mathrm{Irr} \,\widetilde {\cal C}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$$
such that $\mathrm{Ext}^1(M,N)=0$ if $w(M) \leq w(N)$. We call $w(M)$ the weight of $M$.
\item A degree $d$ Tate-twist on a mixed category $\widetilde{\cal C}$ is an auto-equivalence $\langle d \rangle$ with the property
that $w(M\langle d \rangle )=w(M)+d$. We will denote the $n$-fold iteration of $\langle d \rangle$ by $\langle nd \rangle$
\item Let $\widetilde {\cal C}$ be a mixed category with degree $d$ Tate-twist. Then a functor
$v:\widetilde {\cal C} \rightarrow \cal C$
together with a natural isomorphism $v\cong v \circ \langle d \rangle$ is called degrading functor
if it is exact, faithful and preserves semisimple objects.
\item A grading on $\cal C$ is a degrading $v:\widetilde {\cal C} \rightarrow \cal C$ such that every simple object of $\cal C$
lies in the essential image of $v$ and the natural map
\begin{equation}
\bigoplus_n \mathrm{Ext}^i_{\widetilde {\cal C}}(M,N \langle nd\rangle ) \rightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^i_{\cal C}(vM,vN)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism for all $M,N \in \widetilde {\cal C}$ and $i\in \mathbb{N}$.
\item A grading $v:\widetilde {\cal C} \rightarrow \cal C$ is called Koszul, if
$$\mathrm{Ext}^i_{\widetilde {\cal C}}(M,N)=0$$
for $M,N\in \mathrm{Irr} \,\widetilde {\cal C}$ such that $w(M)\neq w(N)+i$.
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
Let us explain, where the name grading comes from. Given a mixed category with degree $d$ Tate-twist we can massage it into a
category enriched over $d\mathbb{Z}$-graded vector spaces by defining $\mathrm{grHom}_{nd}(M,N):=\widetilde {\cal C}(M\langle nd \rangle,N)$.
Similarly we define $\mathrm{grExt}^i_{nd}(M,N):=\mathrm{Ext}^i_{\widetilde {\cal C}}(M\langle nd \rangle,N)$. The grading condition
can then be phrased as
\begin{equation}
v \text{ }\mathrm{grExt}^i(M,N)=\mathrm{Ext}^i(vM,vN) \text{ for all $i$}
\end{equation}
where the $v$ on the left hand side means taking the underlying vector space.
\begin{ex}
Typical examples of gradings can be obtained as follows:
Let $A$ be a finite dimensional non-positively graded algebra over a field $k$ with semisimple $A_0$.
Then any simple graded module is annihilated by $A_{<0}$ and hence
concentrated in a single degree. We define its weight to be this degree.
This turns $A\-\mathrm{grmod}$ into a mixed category with degree $1$ Tate-twist by the rule
$$M\langle 1 \rangle _k=M_{k-1}$$
The forgetful functor
$$v:A\-\mathrm{grmod}\rightarrow A\- \mod$$
is a grading. It is Koszul, if and only if the grading on the ring $A$ is Koszul in the usual sense (after reversing the sign of the grading) \cite[2.1.3]{BGS}.
In fact any grading is equivalent to a profinite-dimensional variant of this example \cite[4.1.6]{BGS}.
\end{ex}
Given an abelian category $\cal A$ we denote by $\mathrm{Irr} \,\cal A$ (resp. $\mathrm{Proj} \, \cal A$) the class of irreducible objects
(resp. indecomposable projective objects) modulo isomorphism.
If $\widetilde{\cal C}\rightarrow \cal C$ is a grading, $\mathrm{Irr} \,\widetilde{\cal C}$ (resp. $\mathrm{Proj} \, \widetilde{\cal C}$)
carries a $d\mathbb{Z}$-operation. We denote the quotient by $\mathrm{Irr} \,\widetilde{\cal C}/{d\mathbb{Z}}$ (resp. $\mathrm{Proj} \, \widetilde{\cal C}/d\mathbb{Z}$).
\begin{facts}\label{factsgradings}
Let $v:\widetilde {\cal C} \rightarrow \cal C$ be a grading. Then $v$ induces bijections
$$\mathrm{Irr} \,\widetilde {\cal C} /d\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathrm{Irr} \,\cal C \text{ and } \mathrm{Proj} \, \widetilde {\cal C} /d\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathrm{Proj} \, \cal C$$
\begin{proof}
\cite[4.3.2]{BGS} .
\end{proof}
\end{facts}
\subsection{Graded multiplicities}\label{SubsecGradedMult}
Given a grading $\widetilde {\cal C} \rightarrow \cal C$ one can refine multiplicity formulas into equations between Laurent polynomials.
We fix some notation:
\begin{notation}
Let $V=\bigoplus V_n$ be a $\mathbb{Z}$-graded vector space, whose total dimension $\sum \dim V_n$ is finite. Then we denote its graded dimension by
$$\mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, V:= \sum (\dim V_n) \v^n \in \mathbb{Z}[\v,\v^{-1}]$$
We denote the graded dual of $V$ by $V^*$ and the involution of $\mathbb{Z}[\v,\v^{-1}]$ which exchanges $\v$ and $\v^{-1}$ by $(\_)^*$ as well.
Hence we obtain formulas $(\mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, V)^*=\mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, (V^*)$ and $\mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, (V\otimes W)= \mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, V \cdot \mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, W$.
\end{notation}
Now let $v:\widetilde {\cal C} \rightarrow \cal C$ be a grading with degree $d$ Tate-twist. Then the Grothendieck group $K(\widetilde {\cal C})$
is a graded $\mathbb{Z}[\v^d,\v^{-d}]$-module, where $\v^d\cdot [M]:=[M\langle d \rangle]$ and $\deg \v^d=d$.
By \ref{factsgradings} we know that $K(\widetilde {\cal C})$ is graded free:
$$K(\widetilde {\cal C}) \cong \mathbb{Z}[\v^d,\v^{-d}] \underset{\mathbb{Z}}{\otimes} K (\cal C) $$
For any $\mathbb{Z}[\v^d,\v^{-d}]$-basis $(L_i)$ of $K(\widetilde {\cal C})$ and an element $M\in K(\widetilde {\cal C})$, we define the multiplicity of
$L_i$ in $M$ by the formula
$$M=\sum [M:L_i] \cdot L_i$$
So multiplicities are Laurent polynomials $[M:L_i]\in \mathbb{Z}[\v^d,\v^{-d}]$.
Assume that $\widetilde {\cal C}$ is also of finite cohomological dimension. Then we have a pairing
$K(\widetilde {\cal C}) \times K(\widetilde {\cal C}) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}[\v^d,\v^{-d}]$
induced by
$$h([x],[y]):= \sum (-1)^i \mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, \mathrm{grExt}^i(x,y) \text{ for } x,y\in \cal A$$
We note the following rules for computation with graded multiplicities:
\begin{lem}\label{lemGradedComputation}
\begin{itemize}
\item We have $h(f M ,g N)= f^* g \cdot h(M,N)$ for $f,g \in \mathbb{Z}[\v^d,\v^{-d}]$.
\item Let $(P_i),(L_j)$ be two dual bases in the sense that $h(P_i,L_j) = \delta_{ij}$. Then we have
$$[M:L_i]=h(P_i,M)$$
\item Let $(\Delta_i),(\nabla_j)$ be two dual bases in the sense that $h(\Delta_i,\nabla_j) = \delta_{ij}$. Then we have
$$[M:\Delta_i]=h(M,\nabla_i)^*$$
\item Let $( \_ )^* :\cal A^{op} \rightarrow \cal A$ be an equivalence such that $(M \langle d \rangle)^* \cong M^* \langle -d\rangle$
for all $M\in \cal A$. Then we have
$$[M:L_i]^*=[M^*:L_i^*]$$
\item Let $(P_i),(L_j)$ and $(\Delta_i),(\nabla_j)$ be two pairs of dual $\mathbb{Z}[\v^d,\v^{-d}]$-bases of $K(\widetilde {\cal C})$, in the sense that
$$h(P_i,L_j)=h(\Delta_i,\nabla_j)=\delta_{ij}$$
Then we have the following identities of Laurent polynomials
$$ [P_i:\Delta_j]=h(P_i,\nabla_j)^*=[\nabla_j:L_i]^*$$
\end{itemize}
\begin{proof}
The proof is straightforward.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\subsection{Gradings from geometry}
We will work in a more geometric situation from now on. Let $X_0$ be a stratified variety over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
Following \cite{BGS}, we would like to turn the functor
$$\cal P_{\Lambda}(X_0,\mathbb{K})\rightarrow \cal P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{K})$$
into a grading.
\begin{ex}
Let $X_0=pt_0:=\mathrm{spec}\, \mathbb{F}_q$. Then $\cal P_{\Lambda}(pt_0,\mathbb{K})$
is equivalent to the category of finite-dimensional $\mathbb{K}$-vector spaces equipped with an automorphism,
which can be represented by a matrix with entries in $\O$.
The functor
$$\cal P_{\Lambda}(pt_0,\mathbb{K})\rightarrow \cal P_{\Lambda}(pt,\mathbb{K})$$
is the forgetful functor to vector spaces. Observe that we don't have a grading for two reasons:
\begin{itemize}
\item There are far too many possible eigenvalues.
\item Nontrivial Jordan normal forms give rise to extensions and hence $\mathrm{grExt}^1(\cal F_0,\cal G_0)$ is bigger then $\mathrm{Ext}^1(\cal F,\cal G)=0$.
\end{itemize}
In order to fix the first problem, we should only allow eigenvalues of the form $q^i$.
To fix the second problem, we should only allow semisimple automorphisms.
\end{ex}
The generalization of these fixes to varieties $X=\bigsqcup X_\l$ is to
only allow those mixed perverse sheaves, all of whose weight pieces are semisimple and Tate.
This notion is however only well behaved if one imposes a purity condition on the variety:
\begin{defi}\label{condTate}
Let $X_0=\bigsqcup X_{\l,0}$ be a stratification.
We say that it satisfies the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition or that it is $\mathrm{BGS}$, if
for all $i\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\l, \mu \in \Lambda$ the sheaf $\cal \H^i(l_\mu^* {l_\l}_{!*}\cal \mathbb{K} [d_\l])$
vanishes if $i+d_\l$ is odd and is isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of $\mathbb{K}(\frac{-d_\l-i}{2})$ if $i+d_\l$ is even.
\end{defi}
We will often abuse language and say that $X=\bigsqcup X_\l$ is $\mathrm{BGS}$, leaving $X_0=\bigsqcup X_{\l,0}$
implicit.
\begin{ex}
By \cite[4.4.3]{BGS} the full flag variety is $\mathrm{BGS}$. Using the
same techniques one can check that partial flag varieties are also $\mathrm{BGS}$.
\end{ex}
Let $X_0$ be an acyclically stratified variety satisfying the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition.
Denote by $\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}:=\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{\Lambda}(X_0,\mathbb{K})$ the category of mixed perverse sheaves on $X_0$ with the property,
that the graded pieces of the weight filtration $\mathrm{Gr}^W_i$ are semisimple and Tate. More precisely this means, that they are
isomorphic to a direct sum of $\mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}(\frac{-d_\l-i}{2})$ for even $d_\l+i$.
We will often denote objects of $\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}$ by $\cal F^{\mathrm{BGS}},\cal G^{\mathrm{BGS}},\ldots$ and their base-change to $X$ by $\cal F,\cal G,\ldots$.
\begin{thm}\label{thmBGSMAIN}
Let $X_0$ be an acyclically stratified variety satisfying the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition. Then the functor
$$\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{\Lambda}(X_0,\mathbb{K})\rightarrow \cal P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{K})$$
is a Koszul grading with degree $-2$ Tate-twist given by $\langle -2 \rangle:= \mathbb{K}(1)\otimes \_$ the usual Tate-twist.
\begin{proof}
\cite[4.4.4]{BGS}.
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
In particular the Grothendieck group $K(\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}})$ becomes a graded
free $\mathbb{Z}[\textbf{q},\textbf{q}^{-1}]$-module, where we use the notation
$$\textbf{q}:=\v^{2}$$
In this geometric context one can see the grading on the $\mathrm{Hom}$-spaces directly in terms of Frobenius eigenvalues:
\begin{lem}\label{LemGradingFrobCorres}
Let $\cal F_0,\cal G_0 \in \cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}$. Then there is a canonical identification
$$\mathrm{grHom}(\cal F_0,\cal G_0)=\mathrm{Hom}(\cal F,\cal G)$$
which identifies the degree $k$-space on the left hand side with the $q^{k/2}$ Frobenius-eigenspace on the right hand side.
In particular the Frobenius operation on $\mathrm{Hom}_{\cal P}(\cal F,\cal G)$ is semisimple and all eigenvalues are of the form $q^k$ for some $k\in \mathbb{Z}$.
\begin{proof}
Indeed using \cite[5.1.2.5]{BBD}, we compute:
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{grHom}(\cal F_0,\cal G_0)_{-2n} &= \mathrm{Hom}_{\P^{\mathrm{BGS}}}(\cal F_0 \langle -2n \rangle,\cal G_0) \\
&=\mathrm{Hom}_{\P_\Lambda(X_0,\mathbb{K})}(\cal F_0 (n),\cal G_0) \\
&=(\mathrm{Hom}(\cal F,\cal G)(-n))^{\mathrm{Fr}} \\
&=\{f \in \mathrm{Hom}(\cal F,\cal G)| \mathrm{Fr}.f =q^{-n} \cdot f \}
\end{align*}
Here $(\_)^{\mathrm{Fr}}$ stands for taking Frobenius invariants.
Hence we have an injection $\mathrm{grHom}(\cal F_0,\cal G_0) \hookrightarrow \mathrm{Hom}(\cal F,\cal G)$ which is a bijection
by dimension-coincidence.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
The category $\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{\Lambda}(X_0,\mathbb{K})$ is closed under duality and contains incarnations of the usual suspects
which are unique up to isomorphism (after normalization to a suitable weight):
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have
$$\mathrm{IC}^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l:=\mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}\in \cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{\Lambda}(X_0,\mathbb{K})$$
\item There exists a unique lift of $P_\l\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_\l$ to a projective cover in $\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{\Lambda}(X_0,\mathbb{K})$:
$$P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_{\l}^{\mathrm{BGS}}$$
\item There exists a unique lift of $\Delta_\l\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_\l$ to a map
$$\Delta^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_{\l}^{\mathrm{BGS}}$$
\item There exists a unique lift of $\mathrm{IC}_\l\hookrightarrow \nabla_\l$ to a map
$$\mathrm{IC}_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}\hookrightarrow \nabla_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}$$
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item True by definition.
\item True by \ref{factsgradings}.
\item Follows after passing to $\overline X_\l$ from the second point.
\item Dual to the third point.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\end{rem}
In fact we can describe $\Delta^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l$ more naturally as $l_{\l!} \mathbb{K}[d_\l]$:
\begin{prop}\label{PropVermaInBGS}
We have $\Delta_{\l,0}=\Delta^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l$
\begin{proof}
Since closed immersions commute with the weight filtration, we may assume that $X_\l$ is open.
Since a map $\cal F_0\rightarrow \cal G_0$ is an isomorphism if and only if the induced map
$\cal F \rightarrow \cal G$ is one, we only need to show that the natural map
$$\mathrm{Hom}(\Delta_{\l,0},\Delta^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l) \rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}(\Delta_\l,\Delta_\l)$$
is an isomorphism. This map is always injective and hence it suffices to check that both sides have the same dimension.
The right hand side is one dimensional and for the left hand side we compute:
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Hom}(\Delta_{\l,0},\Delta^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l)&=\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{K}[d_\l],j^! \Delta^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l) \\
&=\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{K}[d_\l],\mathbb{K}[d_\l]) \\
&=\mathbb{K}
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{prop}
\subsection{Koszulity of $\mathrm{End}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}})$}
Consider the category $\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}$. We want to rephrase \ref{thmBGSMAIN} into the statement, that
$\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}$ is equivalent to the category of finitely generated modules
over a Koszul ring. Strictly speaking, this is wrong however. For example the latter category admits a degree $1$ Tate-twist, while
the former only admits a degree $-2$ Tate-twist.
One can overcome this normalization problem by general nonsense. Indeed one can adjoin a square root of the Tate-twist to $\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}$, see \cite[below 4.1.4]{BGS}.
We denote the resulting grading by
$$\widetilde \P:=(\P^{\mathrm{BGS}})^{\frac{1}{2}} \rightarrow \P$$
It is a Koszul grading with degree $1$ Tate-twist, in particular its Grothendieck group becomes a module over $\mathbb{Z}[\v,\v^{-1}]$.
The category $\widetilde \P$ has the bookkeeping advantage, that there exist lifts of important objects
``normalized to weight 0'':
\begin{lem}\label{LemKeyPos}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\widetilde { \mathrm{IC}_{\l}}:=\mathrm{IC}_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}} \langle -d_\l \rangle$ is pure of weight $0$.
\item $\widetilde { P_{\l}}:=P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}} \langle -d_\l \rangle$ is of weight $\leq 0$. Even better,
there is a short exact sequence
$$0\rightarrow \ker \rightarrow \widetilde{P_\l}\rightarrow \widetilde{\mathrm{IC}_\l}\rightarrow 0$$
such that $\ker$ is of weight $<0$.
\item $\widetilde { \Delta_{\l}}:=\Delta_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}} \langle -d_\l \rangle$ is of weight $\leq 0$. Even better,
there is a short exact sequence
$$0\rightarrow \ker \rightarrow \widetilde{\Delta_\l}\rightarrow \widetilde{\mathrm{IC}_\l}\rightarrow 0$$
such that $\ker$ is of weight $<0$.
\item $\widetilde { \nabla_{\l}}:=\nabla_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}} \langle -d_\l \rangle$ is of weight $\geq 0$. Even better,
there is a short exact sequence
$$0\rightarrow \widetilde{\mathrm{IC}_\l} \rightarrow \widetilde{\nabla_\l}\rightarrow \mathrm{cok} \rightarrow 0$$
such that $\mathrm{cok}$ is of weight $>0$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion is clear. The second is a consequence of \ref{LemProjWeightRad}.
The third is a special case of the second, since $\Delta_\l$ becomes projective after passage to a smaller variety.
The fourth point is dual to the third.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{LemProjWeightRad}
The radical and the weight filtration on the projective cover $P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}$ coincide.
\begin{proof}
This is a consequence of the explicit construction of $P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}$ in \cite[proof 4.4.8]{BGS}.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{lemWeightsEndP}
Let $X_0$ be an acyclically stratified variety, such that the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition holds.
Then we have
$$\mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, \mathrm{Hom}(\widetilde P_\l, \widetilde P_\mu)=\sum_\nu [\widetilde \Delta_\nu: \widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\mu][\widetilde \Delta_\nu:\widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\l] $$
\begin{proof}
This follows from \ref{lemGradedComputation}:
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, \mathrm{Hom}(\widetilde P_\l, \widetilde P_\mu)&=[\widetilde P_\mu:\widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\l]\\
&= \sum_\nu [\widetilde P_\mu:\widetilde \Delta_\nu][\widetilde \Delta_\nu:\widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\l]\\
&=\sum_\nu [\widetilde \nabla_\nu: \widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\mu]^*[\widetilde \Delta_\nu:\widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\l] \\
&=\sum_\nu [\widetilde \Delta_\nu: \widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\mu][\widetilde \Delta_\nu:\widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\l]
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{prop}\label{PropPBGSkoszul}
Let $X$ be an acyclically stratified variety satisfying the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition.
Let $\widetilde P:= \bigoplus \widetilde P_\l$. Then $\mathrm{grEnd}(\widetilde P)$ is $\mathbb{K}$-Koszul.
\begin{proof}
By \ref{thmBGSMAIN} and \cite[2.1.3]{BGS} we only need to show that
the grading on $\mathrm{grEnd}(\widetilde P)$ is non-positive and that the degree zero part is isomorphic to the ring $\bigoplus_{\l \in \Lambda} \mathbb{K}$.
We know from \ref{lemWeightsEndP} that
$$\mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, \mathrm{Hom}(\widetilde P_\l, \widetilde P_\mu)=\sum_\nu [\widetilde \Delta_\nu: \widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\mu][\widetilde \Delta_\nu:\widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\l] $$
But now \ref{LemKeyPos} gives us the following information:
\begin{itemize}
\item $[\widetilde\Delta_\nu:\widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\nu] \in 1+\v^{-1}\cdot \mathbb{N}[\v^{-1}]$
\item $[\widetilde\Delta_\nu:\widetilde{\mathrm{IC}}_\mu] \in \v^{-1}\cdot \mathbb{N}[\v^{-1}]$ for $\nu \neq \mu$.
\end{itemize}
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\end{prop}
\subsection{Lifts of projectives and extension of scalars}
We are now able to lift the projectives $P_\l^\O$ to $X_0$ such that $\mathbb{K}\otimes P^\O_{\l,0}=P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l$.
\begin{construction}\label{constrprojQlss}
Let $X_0=\bigsqcup X_{\l,0}$ be an acyclically stratified variety satisfying the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition and $X_\l$ be a stratum.
Then the construction \ref{constrproj} of $P_\l^{\mathbb{K}} \in \cal P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{K})$ can be lifted to a construction of
$P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}} \in \cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{\Lambda}(X_0,\mathbb{K})$.
\begin{proof}
We just tweak the construction \ref{constrproj}:
If $X_{\l,0}$ is open, we put $P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l:=\Delta_{\l,0}$. This is allowed by \ref{PropVermaInBGS}.
If $X_{\l,0}$ is not open, we construct $P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l$ again inductively by forming maximal extensions
$$0 \rightarrow E^*\otimes \Delta_{\mu,0} \rightarrow P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l \rightarrow P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{Y,\l}\rightarrow 0$$
But this time we interpret $E=\mathrm{grExt}_{\cal P^{\mathrm{BGS}}}^1(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{Y,\l},\Delta_{\mu,0})$
as a graded vector space and $E^*\otimes M$ is defined to be a representative of the functor $E^*\otimes \mathrm{grHom}(\_,M)$
to graded vector spaces. More explicitly this means that the object $E^*\otimes M$ is a direct sum of shifted copies of
$M$ and we fix once and for all an iso-transformation of functors valued in graded vectorspaces:
$$E^*\otimes \mathrm{grHom}(\_,M)=\mathrm{grHom}(\_,E^*\otimes M)$$
By definition we have $v P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l=P_\l$ hence it is the desired projective cover by \ref{factsgradings}.
\end{proof}
\end{construction}
In the case $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{K}$ we just constructed some nice lifts to $X_0$. However we do not yet know about the cases
$\mathbb{E}=\O,\mathbb{F}$. We show that lifts exist in all cases and identify the possible ambiguity.
\begin{construction}\label{constrproj0}
Let $X_0=\bigsqcup X_{\l,0}$ be an acyclically stratified variety satisfying $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-parity and $X_\l$ be a stratum.
Then the construction \ref{constrproj} of $P_\l^{\mathbb{E}} \in \cal P_{\Lambda}(X,\mathbb{E})$ can be lifted to a construction of
objects $P^\mathbb{E}_{\l,0} \in \cal P_{\Lambda}(X_0,\mathbb{E})$.
\begin{proof}
We adjust again the construction \ref{constrproj}:
If $X_{\l,0}$ is open, we put $P_{\l,0}:=\Delta_{\l,0}$.
If $X_{\l,0}$ is not open, we need to check that the extension class $e$ of
$$0 \rightarrow E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu \rightarrow P_\l \rightarrow P_{Y,\l}\rightarrow 0$$
admits a preimage under the map
$$\eta:\mathrm{Ext}^1_{X_0}(P_{Y,\l,0},E^*\otimes \Delta_{\mu,0}) \rightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^1_{X}(P_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu)$$
By \cite[(5.1.2.5)]{BBD}, we know that $\eta$ fits into a short exact sequence
$$\mathrm{Hom}_X(P_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes {\Delta_\mu})_{\mathrm{Fr}} \hookrightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^1_{X_0}(P_{Y,\l,0},E^*\otimes \Delta_{\mu,0}) \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^1_{X}(P_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu)^{\mathrm{Fr}} $$
Here $(\_)^{\mathrm{Fr}}$ (resp. $(\_)_{\mathrm{Fr}}$) stands for taking Frobenius invariants (resp. coinvariants).
But $e \leftrightarrow id_E$ is Frobenius invariant by construction, hence it can be lifted.
\end{proof}
\end{construction}
Note that the obstruction to uniqueness of $P_{\l,0}$ is $\mathrm{Hom}_X(P_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes {\Delta_\mu})_{\mathrm{Fr}}$.
While this space does not vanish in general, it is at least torsion:
\begin{lem}\label{keylemHomPED}
Let $X_0$ be an acyclically stratified variety satisfying the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition. Then
$$\mathrm{Hom}(P^\mathbb{K}_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes {\Delta_\mu^\mathbb{K}})_{\mathrm{Fr}}=0$$
In particular there are no choices in our construction of $P^\mathbb{K}_{\l,0}$ and hence
$$P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}} \cong P^\mathbb{K}_{\l,0}$$
\begin{proof}
Let us write $\cal F$ instead of $\cal F^\mathbb{K}$ for the duration of this proof.
In the case of one stratum (i.e. $Y= \emptyset$) there is nothing to show.
Now assume that the assertions are true in the case of $n$ strata, let
$X_0$ be stratified by $n+1$ strata, $U_0=X_{\mu,0}$ be an open stratum and $Y_0$ its closed complement.
We need to show that the weights on
$$\mathrm{Hom}(P_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes {\Delta_\mu})$$
are all different from zero.
By our induction assumption, we already know that $P_{Y,\l,0} \cong P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_{Y,\l}$. Hence there is a short exact sequence by \ref{constrprojQlss}:
$$0 \rightarrow E^*\otimes \Delta_{\mu,0}\rightarrow P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l \rightarrow P_{Y,\l,0} \rightarrow 0$$
Now it is time to compare the characteristic polynomials $\chi_V=\chi_V(t)$ of Frobenius on various spaces $V$.
We have that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\chi_{\mathrm{End}(P_{Y,\l})}$ divides $\chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l,P_{Y,\l})}$
\item $\chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu)}$ divides $\chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l,E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu)}$
\item $\chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l,P_{Y,\l})} \cdot \chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l,E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu)} = \chi_{\mathrm{End}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l)}$ by projectivity.
\end{itemize}
By \ref{LemProjWeightRad}, we know that the top of $P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l$ is $\mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}$
and that there occur no other (untwisted!) copies of $\mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}$ in a composition series of $P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l$.
Since
$$\mathrm{\underline{dim }}\, \mathrm{grHom}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l,\cal F^{\mathrm{BGS}})=[\cal F^{\mathrm{BGS}}:\mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}]$$
it follows from \ref{LemGradingFrobCorres} that $1$ is an isolated zero of $\chi_{\mathrm{End}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l)}$.
On the other hand the Frobenius acts also with eigenvalue $1$ on the element $id \in \mathrm{End}(P_{Y,\l})$.
$$
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{ & \ar@{-}[ld] \chi_{\mathrm{End}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l)} \ar@{-}[rd] & \\
\chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l,P_{Y,\l})} \ar@{-}[d]& & \chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}}_\l,E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu)} \ar@{-}[d] \\
\chi_{\mathrm{End}(P_{Y,\l})} \ar@{-}[d] & & \chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu)} \\
t-1 & &
}
\end{xy}
$$
Hence $1$ is not a zero of $\chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(P_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu)}$. In other words $\mathrm{Fr}-1$ acts
bijectively on
$\mathrm{Hom}(P_{Y,\l}^\mathbb{K},E^*\otimes \Delta_\mu^\mathbb{K})$ and hence $\mathrm{Hom}_X(P^\mathbb{K}_{Y,\l},E^*\otimes {\Delta_\mu^\mathbb{K}})_{\mathrm{Fr}}=0$.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{cor}\label{corProjCoincide}
If the $\mathrm{IC}$-sheaves over $\O$ are parity, then we have
$$\mathbb K \otimes P_{\l,0}^\O \cong P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}$$
\end{cor}
\section{Modular Koszul Duality}
\subsection{$\phi$-decomposability}
We have our Frobenius action on $\mathrm{End}(P^\O)$.
However this does not automatically lead to a grading by generalized eigenspaces, since $\O$ is not a field.
In order to obtain a grading we need to make sure, that the eigenvalues are all distinct in $\mathbb{F}$.
To this end, we recall a notion from \cite{RSW}.
\begin{defi}
Let $M$ be an $\O$-module and $\phi:M\rightarrow M$ be an $\O$-linear map.
\begin{itemize}
\item We say that $M$ is $\phi$-decomposable,
if the inclusion
$$\bigoplus_{i \in \mathbb{Z}} M_i \hookrightarrow M$$
is an isomorphism. Here we use the notation
$$M_i:=\{m\in M | \exists n\in \mathbb{N} : (\phi-q^i)^n m=0\}$$
\item Let $I \subset \mathbb{Z}$. We say that $M$ has weights in $I$, if there exist natural numbers $n_i \in \mathbb{N}$
such that
$$\prod_{i \in I} (\phi-q^i)^{n_i} =0$$
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
Let us recall an instructive example from \cite{RSW}:
\begin{ex}\label{exNotPhiDec}
Not every $\O$-module is $\phi$-decomposable, not even
if all eigenvalues in sight are of the form $q^i$. For example suppose $q=l+1$ and let $M=\O^2$
be equipped with the automorphism
$$\left( \begin{array}{c c}
1 & 1 \\
0 & q
\end{array}
\right)$$
It has the property, that $\mathbb{K}\otimes M$ is diagonalizable, while $\mathbb{F}\otimes M$ is not.
Clearly this feature is incompatible with $\phi$-decomposability.
\end{ex}
\begin{lem}\label{lemWeightsEV}
Let $M$ be a free $\O$-module with automorphism $\phi$. Then $M$ has weights in $I$, if and only
if the eigenvalues of $\overline \mathbb{Q}_l \underset{\O}{\otimes} \phi$ are contained in the set $\{q^i| i \in I \}$.
\begin{proof}
If the weights are contained in $I$, the minimal polynomial of $\overline \mathbb{Q}_l\otimes \phi$ has to divide $\prod_{i\in I} (t-q^i)^{n_i}$.
Hence all eigenvalues are contained in $\{q^i| i \in I \}$.
On the other hand, if all eigenvalues are contained in $\{q^i| i \in I \}$, the minimal polynomial of $\overline \mathbb{Q}_l\otimes \phi$ is of the form
$\prod_{i\in I} (t-q^i)^{n_i}$ and we see $\prod_{i\in I} (\phi-q^i)^{n_i} =0$.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{lemPhiDec}
Let $M$ be a free $\O$-module with automorphism $\phi$, whose weights lie in $I$. Assume that the elements $\{q^i| i \in I \}$ are all distinct in $\mathbb{F}$.
Then $M$ is $\phi$-decomposable.
\begin{proof}
\cite[3.1.1]{RSW}
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\subsection{Separating Weights}
In this subsection we investigate which Frobenius eigenvalues occur in $\mathrm{End}(P^\O)$ for various spaces.
Let $\mathrm{Mon} \subset \mathbb{Z}[\textbf{q}]$ be the set of monomials in the variable $\textbf{q}$.
\begin{defi}\label{defWtX}
Let $V$ be a finite dimensional $\mathbb{K}$-vector space, along with an automorphism $F$. Assume further that
all eigenvalues of $\overline \mathbb{Q}_l \otimes F$ are of the form $q^n$ for some $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $V$
is equipped with a $F$-stable decomposition:
$$V=\bigoplus V_i$$
Then we define $ \mathrm{wt}(V)=\{\textbf{q}^{n_1},\ldots , \textbf{q}^{n_k}\}\subset \mathrm{Mon}$ to be the smallest subset, satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We have $1\in \mathrm{wt}(V)$
\item For all $i$ there exists $k_i\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that the eigenvalues of $\overline \mathbb{Q}_l \otimes F$ restricted to $V_i$
are contained in $\{q^{n_1+k_i},\ldots , q^{n_k+k_i}\}$
\end{itemize}
If $X$ is an acyclically stratified variety satisfying the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition, then
$$ \mathrm{wt}(X):= \mathrm{wt}(\mathrm{End}(P^\mathbb{K}))$$
where $\mathrm{End}(P^\mathbb{K})$ is equipped with the Frobenius action (induced by the lift $P^{\mathrm{BGS}}$) and the decomposition
$$\mathrm{End}(P^\mathbb{K})=\bigoplus \mathrm{Hom}(P^\mathbb{K}_\l,P^\mathbb{K}_\mu)$$
\end{defi}
Note that $[P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}:\mathrm{IC}_\mu^{\mathrm{BGS}}]$ records $ \mathrm{wt}(\mathrm{Hom}(P^\mathbb{K}_{\mu},P^\mathbb{K}_\l))$. Since in addition
$[P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}:\mathrm{IC}_\mu^{\mathrm{BGS}}]=\sum_\nu [\nabla_{\nu,0}:\mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}]^*[\Delta_{\nu,0}:\mathrm{IC}_{\mu,0}]$
one can compute $ \mathrm{wt}(G/P)$ in terms of Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials.
\begin{defi}\label{defiWr}
Let $M=\{\textbf{q}^{n_1},\ldots ,{\textbf{q}^{n_k}} \}$ be a set of monomials, such that $n_1 < n_2 < \ldots < n_k$ and fix a prime $l$.
\begin{itemize}
\item We say that $M$ is separated (with respect to $l,q$), if $q^{n_1},\ldots , q^{n_k}$ are pairwise distinct elements of $\mathbb{F}$.
\item We define the weight range of $M$ to be
$$ \mathrm{wr}(M):=n_k-n_1+1$$
For a variety $X$ we also use the notation $ \mathrm{wr}(X):= \mathrm{wr}( \mathrm{wt}(X))$.
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
\begin{ex}\label{exbd}
Computations with Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials yield the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $X=\mathbb P^n$ is the projective space, say for $n>0$, then we have
$$ \mathrm{wt}(X)=\{1,\textbf{q}\} \text{ and } \mathrm{wr}(X)=2$$
Observe that $ \mathrm{wt}(X)$ is independent of $n$.
\item If $X=\mathrm{SL}_{3}/B$ is the full flag variety of $SL_3$, then we have
$$ \mathrm{wt}(X)=\{1,\textbf{q},\textbf{q}^2,\textbf{q}^3 \} \text{ and } \mathrm{wr}(X)=4$$
\item More generally, if $X=G/B$ is any full flag variety, then we have
$$ \mathrm{wt}(X)=\{1,\textbf{q},\ldots, \textbf{q}^{\dim X} \} \text{ and } \mathrm{wr}(X)=\dim X+1$$
A complete proof can be found in the appendix \ref{propWeightsFullFlag}.
\item If $X=\mathrm{Gr}(k,n)$ is a Grassmannian, then we have
$$ \mathrm{wt}(X)=\{1,\textbf{q},\ldots, \textbf{q}^{\min(k,n-k)} \} \text{ and } \mathrm{wr}(X)=\min(k,n-k)+1$$
A complete proof can be found in the appendix \ref{CorWeightsOnGrass}.
Observe again that $ \mathrm{wt}(X)$ stabilizes if we fix $k$, but let $n$ go to infinity!
\end{itemize}
\end{ex}
By Dirichlet's theorem, for every $l> \mathrm{wr}(M)$ there exists a $p$ such that $ \mathrm{wt}(M)$ is separated.
Let us now formulate a criterion which guarantees Frobenius eigenvalues to give a grading:
\begin{prop}\label{propGradingFullFlag}
Let $X$ be an acyclically stratified variety which satisfies the $\mathrm{BGS}$-condition and $\mathrm{IC}_\l^\O$-parity.
If $ \mathrm{wt}(X)$ is separated, then $\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)$ is $\mathrm{Fr}$-decomposable for all $\l,\mu$.
\begin{proof}
By \ref{lemHomProjFree} we know that $\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)$ is free.
By \ref{corProjCoincide} we know that $P^\O_{\l,0}\otimes \mathbb{K}=P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}}$.
Hence the weights of
$$\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)$$
are recorded by $ \mathrm{wt}(X)$ and we can apply \ref{lemPhiDec}.
\end{proof}
\end{prop}
\subsection{Koszulity and formality theorems}
We are now able to prove our main result:
\begin{thm}\label{thmMainModKoszul}
Let $X_0$ be an acyclically stratified variety. Suppose that the $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-sheaves are parity and that
the $\\mathrm{BGS}$-condition holds.
Let $P^\mathbb{E}=\bigoplus P_\l$. If $ \mathrm{wt}(X)$ is separated, then
$$A:=\mathrm{End}(P^\mathbb{E})$$
admits an $\mathbb{E}$-Koszul grading.
\begin{proof}
We need to define a grading on $A=\mathrm{End}(P^\O)$. From \ref{propGradingFullFlag} we get a grading by Frobenius eigenvalues on each $\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)$.
By \ref{corProjCoincide} we have $\mathbb{K}\otimes \mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)=\mathrm{grHom}(P_\l^{\mathrm{BGS}},P_\mu^{\mathrm{BGS}})$.
Since $\mathrm{grEnd}(P^{\mathrm{BGS}})$ needs to be normalized to become Koszul, we need to do the same thing with the grading on $\mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)$.
We shift it by $d_\mu-d_\l$ and hence get
$$\mathbb{K}\otimes \mathrm{Hom}(P_\l^\O,P_\mu^\O)=\mathrm{grHom}(\widetilde P_\l,\widetilde P_\mu)$$
The grading on $\mathrm{End}(P^\O)$ is defined to be the direct sum of these gradings. Hence we have
$$\mathbb{K}\otimes \mathrm{End}(P^\O)=\mathrm{grEnd}(\widetilde P)$$
as graded rings.
The latter is $\mathbb{K}$-Koszul by \ref{PropPBGSkoszul}.
We now want to apply \ref{thmOKoszul} to $A=\mathrm{End}(P^\O)$, which means we have to check the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We need to find orthogonal idempotents $e_\l$ for $\l\in \Lambda$, which exhibit $A_0$ as
$$ A_0=\prod_{\l\in\Lambda} \O $$
\item We need to check that
$$\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(L,L)$$
is a free $\O$-module, where $L:=\bigoplus L_\l$ and $L_\l=e_\l A /{ e_\l A}^{<0} $.
\end{enumerate}
So let us verify these two points.
\begin{enumerate}
\item By \ref{PropPBGSkoszul} we know,
that the degree $0$ part of $\mathrm{grEnd}(\widetilde P)$ has a basis $e_\l$ consisting of the projections onto the $\l$-th projective.
Let us show that the $e_\l$ are also an $\O$-basis of $A_0$.
Clearly they are linearly independent.
Suppose that $\phi$ is a degree $0$ morphism, which does not lie in the span of the $e_\l$.
Since it does after tensoring with $\mathbb{K}$, there exist $a_\l \in \O$ and $n >0$ such that
$$l^n \cdot \phi = \sum a_\l e_\l $$
and say $a_\mu$ is not divisible by $l$. Multiplying the equation by $e_\mu$
shows that there exists a $\psi \in \mathrm{End}(P_\mu^\O)$ such that $l\cdot \psi = id_{P_\mu^\O}$.
This implies that the $\O$-module $\mathrm{End}(P_\mu^\O)$ is divisible. On the other hand it is also free.
A contradiction.
\item By \ref{LemExtGrpsTheSame}, we know that
$$\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(\mathrm{IC}^\O,\mathrm{IC}^\O)$$
is free. Hence we only need to check that $\mathrm{IC}_\l$ is mapped to $L_\l$ under \ref{thmMoritaProj}.
Consider the short exact sequence
$${\ker}_0 \hookrightarrow P_{\l,0}\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}$$
Here the surjection is defined to be the composition $P_{\l,0}\twoheadrightarrow \Delta_{\l,0} \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IC}_{\l,0}$
and the injection is by definition its kernel.
Using our separatedness condition, the application of $\mathrm{Hom}(P,\_)$ yields a short exact sequence of graded modules
looking as follows:
$$\ker \hookrightarrow e_\l A \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{Hom}(P,\mathrm{IC}_\l)$$
Since $\mathrm{Hom}(P,\mathrm{IC}_\l)$ is spanned (\ref{remGenerator}) by the map $P\rightarrow P_\l\rightarrow \Delta_\l \rightarrow \mathrm{IC}_\l$, which exists over $\mathbb{F}_q$,
we see that $\mathrm{Hom}(P,\mathrm{IC}_\l)$ is concentrated in degree $0$. On the other hand we know by construction and \ref{LemKeyPos}
that $e_\l A$ has a degree $0$ part of rank $1$. It follows that $\ker={e_\l A}^{<0}$.
Hence $\mathrm{IC}_\l$ corresponds to $e_\l A/{e_\l A}^{<0}=L_\l$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Note that the method of proof also gives a very transparent comparison between modular and zero characteristic:
In the situation of \ref{thmMainModKoszul} let $A^\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{E}\otimes A$. Then the diagram
$$
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
\P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{K}) \ar[rr]^{\mathrm{Hom}(P^\mathbb{K},\_)} && \mod \-A^\mathbb{K} \\
\P_\Lambda(X,\O) \ar[rr]^{\mathrm{Hom}(P^\O,\_)} \ar[d]_{\_ \otimes {\mathbb{F}}} \ar[u]^{\_ \otimes {\mathbb{K}}} && \mod \-A^\O \ar[d]^{\_ \otimes {\mathbb{F}}} \ar[u]_{\_ \otimes {\mathbb{K}}} \\
\mathrm{D}^b_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{F}) \ar[rr]^{\mathrm{Hom}(P^\mathbb{F},\_)} && \mathrm{D}^b(\mod \-A^\mathbb{F}) \\
}
\end{xy}
$$
commutes. Note the abuse of notation in the lower horizontal.
A priori $\mathrm{Hom}(P^\mathbb{F},\_)$ is a functor $\mathrm{D}^b(\P_\Lambda(X,\mathbb{F}))\rightarrow \mathrm{D}^b(\mod \-A^\mathbb{F})$.
We composed it tacitly with the inverse of the realization functor.
In order to check that the squares commute, one exploits that the six functors commute with extension of scalars
and that $P^\O \otimes \mathbb{E} = P^\mathbb{E}$.
\end{rem}
\section{Examples and applications}
If one wishes to apply \ref{thmMainModKoszul} in practice, one needs to calculate $ \mathrm{wt}(X)$ and
decide whether the $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-sheaves are parity.
Calculating $ \mathrm{wt}(X)$, say in the case of flag varieties, can be done in terms of Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials.
So this task is (in theory) straightforward though tedious.
Whether the $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-sheaves are parity is in general a very hard question.
\begin{rem}
Let us remark, that $\mathrm{IC}^\O$ is always parity and $ \mathrm{wt}(X)$ is always separated for $l>>0$.
The reason is, that there is only $l$-torsion for finitely many $l$ in the stalks of the sheaf
$\mathrm{IC}^\mathbb{Z}$ over $X_\mathbb{C}$. Hence in huge characteristics $\P_\Lambda(X,\O)$ is always Koszul.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Passage to complex numbers}
Let $X_\mathbb{C}$ be a partial flag variety over the complex numbers and $X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q}$ the corresponding
flag variety over $\overline \mathbb{F}_q$. As in \cite[7.1.4]{RSW} there is an equivalence
of categories
$$\mathrm{D}^b_{(B)}(X_\mathbb{C},\mathbb{E})\cong \mathrm{D}^b_{(B)}(X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_q},\mathbb{E})$$
By \cite[6.1.10]{BBD} it preserves standard objects, $\mathrm{IC}$-sheaves, the perverse $t$-structure, etc.
Furthermore by Dirichlet's theorem, if $l> \mathrm{wr}(X)$ then there exists always a $p$ such that $ \mathrm{wt}(X_{\overline \mathbb{F}_p})$ is separated.
Hence we obtain the result \ref{MainThmIntro} announced in the introduction:
\begin{thm}\label{MainThmPartial}
Let $B\subset P \subset G$ be a complex semisimple group, along with a Borel and a parabolic subgroup.
Let $X=G/P$ be the corresponding partial flag variety, stratified by $B$ orbits.
Suppose that all $\mathrm{IC}^\O_w$ are parity. If $l> \mathrm{wr}(X)$
then there exists a Koszul ring $A$ and an equivalence of categories
between perverse sheaves and finite dimensional modules over $A$:
$$\cal P_{(B)}(X,\mathbb{F}) \cong \mod \-A$$
\end{thm}
\subsection{Grassmannians}
In the case of Grassmannians \ref{MainThmPartial} applies nicely. The key point is that all $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-sheaves are parity since
the relevant singularities admit small resolutions.
\begin{lem}
Let $X$ be a cell stratified variety. Let $X_\l$ be a stratum and $\overline X_\l$ be its closure.
Assume that there exists an even\footnote{A map between cell stratified varieties is even,
if the preimage of each stratum is a union of strata and when restricted to strata, $\pi$ is a projection $\mathbb A^{n+k}\rightarrow \mathbb A^k$
in suitable coordinates.} small resolution of singularities
$$\pi:\widetilde X_\l\rightarrow \overline X_\l$$
Then $\mathrm{IC}^\O_\l$ is parity.
\begin{proof}
We have $\mathrm{IC}^\O_\l= \pi_* \O[d_\l]$ by smallness and even morphisms preserve parity by \cite{JMWparity}.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
Using the resolutions constructed in \cite{SmallResGrass} we obtain:
\begin{lem}
If $X$ is a Grassmannian, then all $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-sheaves are parity.
\end{lem}
Hence we can apply \ref{MainThmPartial} to the category
$\P_{(B)}(\mathrm{Gr}(k,n),\O)$
of perverse sheaves on a complex Grassmannian equipped with the usual stratification by Bruhat cells:
\begin{thm}
Suppose that $l>\min(k,n-k)+1$ and let $P^{\O}$ be our usual projective generator of $\P_{(B)}(\mathrm{Gr}(k,n),\O)$.
Then $\mathrm{End}(P^\O)$ admits an $\O$-Koszul grading.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
In the case of characteristic zero coefficients perverse sheaves on Grassmannians were heavily investigated.
Braden gave an explicit quiver description of $\P_{(B)}(\mathrm{Gr}(k,n),\mathbb{C})$ using microlocalization techniques in
\cite{bradenPerverseOnGrass}.
In the case $k=n-k$ Stroppel \cite{stroppelPerverseOnGrass} realized that Braden's algebra is isomorphic to $K^k_{n-k}$, the quasi hereditary cover
of the Khovanov algebra. Later Brundan and Stroppel showed $\mathrm{End}(P^{\mathbb{C}})$ is isomorphic to $K^k_{n-k}$ using
category $\cal O$ techniques.
They studied this algebra thoroughly \cite{BrundanStroppel1},\cite{BrundanStroppel2},\cite{BrundanStroppel3},\cite{BrundanStroppel4} and obtained in particular
that it is Koszul.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Flag varieties of small dimension}
In \cite{GeordieModInt} the $\mathrm{IC}$-sheaves on flag varieties of small dimension are examined.
In particular it is shown there, that all $\mathrm{IC}^\O$-sheaves are parity for the following Dynkin diagrams:
\begin{itemize}
\item Type $A_n$ for $n \leq 6$ and any $l$.
\item Type $B_2$ and $l\neq 2$.
\item Type $D_4$ and $l\neq 2$.
\item Type $G_2$ and $l\neq 2,3$.
\end{itemize}
Hence \ref{MainThmPartial} can be applied in all of these cases.
\subsection{Category $\cal O$}
Let $G \supset B \supset T$ be a semisimple simply connected split algebraic group over $\mathbb{F}$, along with a Borel and a maximal torus.
Assume that $l$ is bigger than the Coxeter number.
Recall from \cite{SoergelPosChar} that we have the following objects in this setting:
\begin{itemize}
\item A category $\cal O$. It is a certain subquotient of the category of rational $G$-representations.
The simple representations $L_w$ in $\cal O$ are parametrized by the Weyl group $W$.
They admit projective covers $P^{\cal O}_w$.
\item The algebra $C = \mathrm{Sym}(\mathfrak h)\otimes_{ \mathrm{Sym}(\mathfrak h)^W} \mathbb{F}$ of coinvariants. If
we give it a grading by setting $\deg \mathfrak h=2$, then
it is canonically isomorphic
to the cohomology ring of the complex flag variety of the Langlands dual to $G$.
$$\H^\bullet(G^L/B^L,\mathbb{F})\cong C$$
\item A Soergel functor $\mathbb{V}:\cal O \rightarrow C\-\mod$.
\item The hypercohomology functor $\mathbb H:\cal P_{(B^L)}(G^L/B^L,\mathbb{F})\rightarrow C\-\mathrm{grmod}$.
\item The subcategory $\cal C \subset C\-\mathrm{grmod}$ of graded Soergel modules. Its indecomposables up to shift are parametrized by $W$ and denoted by $D_w$.
By $|.|:\cal C \rightarrow |\cal C|$ we denote the functor which forgets the grading.
\end{itemize}
The core of \cite{SoergelPosChar} is following:
\begin{thm}\label{thmSoergelPosCharMain}
In the above situation we have $\mathbb{V}(P_w^{\cal O})=|D_w|$ and $\mathbb H(\cal E_w)=D_w$, where $\cal E_w$ denotes the parity sheaf corresponding
to the Bruhat cell $X_w$.
$$
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
\mathcal O \ar[rr]^{\mathbb V} && C\-\mod & \ar[l] C\-\mathrm{grmod} && \ar[ll]_{\mathbb H} \cal P_{(B^L)}(G^L/B^L,\mathbb{F}) \\
P_w^{\cal O} \ar@{|->}[rr] && |D_w| & \ar@{|->}[l] D_w && \ar@{|->}[ll] \cal E_w
}
\end{xy}
$$
In addition $\mathbb{V}$ is fully faithful, when restricted to projectives and $\mathbb H$ is fully faithful on parity sheaves.
In particular for $P^{\cal O}:=\bigoplus P_w^{\cal O}$ and $\cal E:=\bigoplus \cal E_w$ we have:
$$\mathrm{End}(P^{\cal O}) \cong \mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(\cal E)$$
\begin{proof}
\cite[2.6.1 and 4.2.1 and 2.8.2]{SoergelPosChar}
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}
Assume that $l>\mathrm{wr}(G^L/B^L)$ and that the $IC_w^\O \in \P_{(B^L)}(G^L/B^L,\O)$ are all parity.
Then there exist Koszul dual rings $A,A^!$ such that
$$\mod\-A \cong \P_{(B^L)}(G^L/B^L,\mathbb{F}) \text{ and } A^!\-\mod \cong \cal O$$
\begin{proof}
By \ref{thmMainModKoszul} we know, that $A:=\mathrm{End}(P^\mathbb{F})$ admits a Koszul grading. Its Koszul dual ring is
by definition $A^!=\mathrm{Ext}^\bullet(IC^\mathbb{F})^{op}$, which coincides with $\mathrm{End}(P^{\cal O})^{op}$ by \ref{thmSoergelPosCharMain}.
\end{proof}
\end{cor}
A very similar statement was obtained in \cite[7.3.2.]{RSW}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Blind quantum computation (BQC) is a new type of quantum computation model which
can release the client who does not have enough knowledge and sophisticated technology
to perform the universal quantum computation \cite{blind1,blind2,blind3,blind4,blind5,blind6,blind7,blind8,blind9,blind10,blind11,bllind12}. A complete quantum computation comprises two
parts. One is the client, say Alice, who has a classical computer and some ability of
quantum operation, or she may be completely classical. The other is the fully-fledged quantum computer server owned by Bob.
The first BQC protocol was proposed by Childs in 2005 \cite{blind1}. It requires the standard quantum circuit model. In his protocol,
Bob needs to perform the quantum gates and Alice requires the quantum memory. In 2006, Arrighi and Salvail proposed another
BQC protocol where Alice needs to prepare and measure multiqubit entangled states. It is cheat sensitive for Bob obtaining
some information, if he does not mind being caught \cite{blind2}. In 2009, Broadbent, Fitzsimons, and Kashefi proposed a different BQC model (BFK protocol) based on the one-way quantum computation \cite{blind3,one-way}. In their protocol,
Alice only requires to generate the single-qubit quantum state and a classical computer. She does not need the quantum memory. Moreover,
Bob cannot learn anything from Alice's input, output and her algorithm, which makes it unconditionally secure. Inspired by the BFK protocol, several BQC protocols have been proposed. For instance, Morimae \emph{et al.} proposed two BQC protocols based on the Affleck-Kennedy-Lieb-Tasaki state \cite{blind4}. Fitzsimons and Kashefi
constructed
a new verifiable BQC protocol based on a new class of resource states \cite{bllind12}. Recently, Morimae and Fujii proposed a BQC protocol in which
Alice only makes measurements \cite{blind8}. The experimental realization of the BFK protocol based on the optical system was also reported \cite{blind10}.
Actually, the aim of the BQC is to let the client who does not have enough sophisticated quantum technology and knowledge perform the quantum computation.
Therefore, the Alice's device and operation is more classical, the protocol is more successful. In BFK protocol, if Bob only has one service, Alice still needs some
quantum technology. On the other hand, if two servers are provided which are owned by Bob1 and Bob2, respectively, Alice does not require any quantum
technology. She can complete the quantum computation task with a classical computation, resorting to the classical communication. This protocol is called double-server BQC protocol. In double-server BQC protocol, Bob1 and Bob2 should obey a
strong assumption that they cannot communicate with each other. If not, they can learn the computation information from Alice and make the computation insecure. Before starting the BQC protocol, they should share the maximally entangled Bell states. Unfortunately, in a realistic environment, the noisy channel will greatly degrade the quality of the entanglement and it will make the whole protocol become a failure. Therefore, they should recover the mixed entangled states into the maximally entangled states.
Entanglement purification is the standard way for distilling the high quality entangled state from low quality entangled state, which has been widely discussed
in current quantum communication \cite{Bennett1,Bennett2,Deutsch,pan1,simon,shengpra1,shengpra2,lixh,wang1,loock,deng1}. In 1996, Bennett \emph{et al.} proposed the entanglement purification protocol (EPP) based on the controlled-not gate \cite{Bennett1}.
In 2001, Pan \emph{et al.} proposed a novel EPP
with linear optics \cite{pan1}. There are some EPPs based on the nonlinear optics and hyperentanglement \cite{simon,shengpra1,shengpra2,deng1,lixh}. Unfortunately, in a standard EPP, they all need the local operation and classical communication. As pointed out by Morimae and Fujii \cite{blind11}, it is not sevi-evident
that the security of the double-server BQC protocol is guaranteed, when use the entanglement distillation protocol into the double-server blind protocol.
\begin{figure}[!h
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0]{spatial.eps}
\caption{Schematic of the principle of the quantum nondemolition (QND)
measurement constructed by the cross-Kerr nonlinearity. HWP is the half wave plate which can make $|H\rangle\leftrightarrow |V\rangle$. PBS is
the polarization beam splitter. It can transmit the $|H\rangle$ polarized photon and reflect the $|V\rangle$ polarized photon. $|\alpha\rangle$ is the coherent state.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Recently, Morimae and Fujii presented a secure entanglement distillation protocol based on the
one-way hashing distillation method \cite{blind11}. In their protocol, Alice first randomly chooses a $2n$-bit
string $s_{1}$ and sends it to two Bobs, respectively. Then each Bob performs certain local unitary operation determined by $s_{1}$.
By measuring a qubit of the single pair, Alice can obtain a bit information from the remained mixed state ensembles. Therefore, by repeating this protocol,
they can obtain $nS(\rho)$ bits of information about the mixed states ensembles. At the end of distillation, they can share about $n-nS(\rho)$ pairs.
\begin{figure}[!h
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0]{blind.eps}
\caption{Schematic of the principle of the double-sever BQC protocol combined with entanglement distillation. Bob1 and Bob2 can exchange the classical communication with Alice, respectively. But they cannot communicate with each other. CC is a classical computer. Both Bobs own the distillation equipment as shown in Fig. 1.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we will present another deterministic entanglement distillation protocol for secure double-server BQC protocol. The whole protocol is based on the optical system, as the photons are well controlled and manipulated \cite{blind10}. \textbf{This protocol is quite different from the one-way hashing distillation model and we resort to the hyperentanglement to complete the distillation \cite{hyper1,hyper2,hyper3}.} After performing the protocol, Alice can obtain the exact Bell state deterministically, with the success probability of 100\%, in principle, according to the Bobs's measurement results, while she does not feedback any information to Bobs, which makes this distillation absolutely secure.
\section{Deterministic entanglement distillation with hyperentanglement}
Before we start to explain this protocol, let us introduce the distillation
equipment shown in Fig. 1. It is the quantum nondemolition (QND) measurement with the cross-Kerr nonlinearity. As pointed out by Refs. \cite{QND1,QND2}, the Hamiltonian of the system is $H=\hbar\chi a^{\dagger}_{s}a_{s}a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{p}$. Here the $a^{\dagger}_{s}$,$a_{s}$($a^{\dagger}_{p}$, $a_{p}$) are the creation and destruction operators of the signal (probe) mode. From Fig. 1, if a single photon with vertical polarization ($|V\rangle$) in the spatial mode $a1$ passes through the equipment, the polarization of the photon will be flipped to horizonal polarization ($|H\rangle$) by half-wave plate (HWP) and transmit through the polarization beam splitter (PBS). The single photon combined with the coherent state $|H\rangle|\alpha\rangle$ will interact with the cross-Kerr nonlinearity and become $|H\rangle|\alpha e^{i\theta}\rangle$. It is shown that the single photon state $|H\rangle$ is unaffected but the coherent state picks up a phase shift directly proportional to the number of the photons. By measuring the phase of the coherent state, one can construct a QND measurement for the single photons.
The basic principle of the double-server BQC protocol combined with distillation model is shown in Fig. 2. The source (trust center) first generates a pair of hyperentangled state in both polarization and
spatial modes, which can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi\rangle=\frac{1}{2}(|H\rangle|H\rangle+|V\rangle|V\rangle)\otimes(|a_{1}\rangle|b_{1}\rangle+|a_{2}\rangle|b_{2}\rangle).\label{hyper}
\end{eqnarray}
Such state is distributed to Bob1 and Bob2 through the spatial modes $a1$, $a2$, $b1$ and $b2$, respectively. \textbf{As pointed out by Refs.\cite{simon,shengpra2,deng1}, during the transmission,
the spatial entanglement is more robust than polarization entanglement. Certainly, as pointed out by Simon and Pan \cite{simon}, the energy-time entanglement, which is more robust than the polarization entanglement and allows one to go to longer distances can also be used to perform this protocol.} The noisy channel will lead
the polarization part become a mixed state as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{P}&=&F|\Phi^{+}\rangle\langle\Phi^{+}|+F_{1}|\Phi^{-}\rangle\langle\Phi^{-}|\nonumber\\
&+&F_{2}|\Psi^{+}\rangle\langle\Psi^{+}|+F_{3}|\Psi^{-}\rangle\langle\Psi^{-}|.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $F+F_{1}+F_{2}+F_{3}=1$. $|\Phi^{\pm}\rangle$ and $|\Psi^{\pm}\rangle$ are the polarized Bell states with
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Phi^{\pm}\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H\rangle|H\rangle\pm|V\rangle|V\rangle),\nonumber\\
|\Psi^{\pm}\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H\rangle|V\rangle\pm|V\rangle|H\rangle).
\end{eqnarray}
The whole system $\rho=\rho_{P}\otimes\rho_{S}$ can be described as a probabilistic mixture of four pure states:
with a probability of $F$, pair is in the state $|\Phi^{+}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}$, with a probability $F_{1}$,
in the state $|\Phi^{-}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}$, with a probability of $F_{2}$, in the state $|\Psi^{+}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}$,
and with a probability of $F_{3}$, in the state $|\Psi^{-}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}$. Here $\rho_{S}=|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}\langle\Phi^{+}|$ with $|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|a_{1}\rangle|b_{1}\rangle+|a_{2}\rangle|b_{2}\rangle)$. After passing through the QNDs, the state $|\Phi^{+}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}$ combined
with two coherent states $|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}$ and $|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}$ evolves as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& |\Phi^{+}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}(|H\rangle|H\rangle+|V\rangle|V\rangle)
\otimes(|a_{1}\rangle|b_{1}\rangle+|a_{2}\rangle|b_{2}\rangle)|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&\rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}(|H\rangle_{a_{1}}|H\rangle_{b_{1}}+|V\rangle_{a_{1}}|V\rangle_{b_{1}}\nonumber\\
&+&|H\rangle_{a_{2}}|H\rangle_{b_{2}}+|V\rangle_{a_{2}}|V\rangle_{b_{2}})|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&\rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}(|H\rangle_{a_{3}}|H\rangle_{b_{3}}|\alpha e^{i\theta}\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha e^{i\theta}\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&+&|V\rangle_{a_{3}}|V\rangle_{b_{3}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}
+|H\rangle_{a_{4}}|H\rangle_{b_{4}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&+&|V\rangle_{a_{4}}|V\rangle_{b_{4}}|\alpha e^{-i\theta}\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha e^{-i\theta}\rangle_{B_{2}}).
\end{eqnarray}
The $|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}$ and $|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}$ are the coherent states used in the QND for Bob1 and Bob2, respectively. On the other hand, the state $|\Psi^{+}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}$ combined
with two coherent states $|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}$ and $|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}$ evolves as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& |\Psi^{+}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}(|H\rangle|V\rangle+|V\rangle|H\rangle)
\otimes(|a_{1}\rangle|b_{1}\rangle+|a_{2}\rangle|b_{2}\rangle)|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&\rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}(|H\rangle_{a_{1}}|V\rangle_{b_{1}}+|V\rangle_{a_{1}}|H\rangle_{b_{1}}\nonumber\\
&+&|H\rangle_{a_{2}}|V\rangle_{b_{2}}+|V\rangle_{a_{2}}|H\rangle_{b_{2}})|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&\rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}(|H\rangle_{a_{3}}|V\rangle_{b_{3}}|\alpha e^{i\theta}\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&+&|V\rangle_{a_{3}}|H\rangle_{b_{3}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha e^{i\theta}\rangle_{B_{2}}
+|H\rangle_{a_{4}}|V\rangle_{b_{4}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha e^{-i\theta}\rangle_{B_{2}}\nonumber\\
&+&|V\rangle_{a_{4}}|H\rangle_{b_{4}}|\alpha e^{-i\theta}\rangle_{B_{1}}|\alpha\rangle_{B_{2}}).
\end{eqnarray}
If they consider the other items $ |\Phi^{-}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}$ and $|\Psi^{-}\rangle|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}$, they can obtain the similar results.
Then Bob1 and Bob2 both measure the phase of the coherent state with the X quadrature measurement, which makes the $|\alpha e^{\pm i\theta}\rangle$ indistinguishable \cite{QND1}. Therefore, both Bobs only have two different results, say $\theta$ or 0. After the measurement, they both send their measurement results to Alice by classical communication. Finally, Alice can judge the exact Bell state according to the measurement results. In detail, if the measurement results are the same, say both $\theta$ or 0, they will obtain $|\Phi^{+}\rangle$, with the probability of $F+F_{1}$. Otherwise, if the measurement results are different, say Bob1 is $\theta$ and Bob2 is 0, or Bob1 is 0 and Bob2 is $\theta$, they will obtain $|\Psi^{+}\rangle$, with the probability of $F_{2}+F_{3}$. During the whole protocol, two Bobs do not require to exchange their measurement results and they even do not know the information of the remained Bell state. They can only judge the output modes according to the different phase shift. If the coherent state picks up no phase shift, the photon must be in the upper output modes $a_{5}(b_{5})$. Otherwise, if the
coherent state picks up $\theta$ phase shift, the photon must be in the lower output modes $a_{6}(b_{6})$.
Combined with the entanglement distillation, the double-server BQC protocol runs as follows:
Step 1: The entanglement source emits the hyperentangled pairs $|\psi\rangle$ to Bob1 and Bob2. They share $m$
pairs of mixed states $\rho^{\otimes m}$, because of the noise.
Step 2: Both Bobs perform the distillation protocol and send the measurement results to Alice. The purified states are $|\Phi^{+}\rangle^{\otimes[(F+F_{1})m]}$ and $|\Psi^{+}\rangle^{\otimes[(F_{2}+F_{3})m]}$.
Step 3: The following steps are the same as the traditional BQC protocol \cite{blind1,blind11}. Alice sends Bob1 classical messages $\{\theta_{j}\}^{m}_{j=1}$, where $\theta_{j}$ is randomly chosen by Alice from $\{\frac{k\pi}{4}|k=0,1,\cdots,7\}$. In detail, if Alice obtains $|\Phi^{+}\rangle$, she randomly sends Bob1 $\theta_{j}$, and if she obtains $|\Psi^{+}\rangle$, she randomly sends $-\theta_{j}$.
Step 4: Bob measures his qubit in the $j$th Bell states in the basis $\{|0\rangle\pm e^{-j\theta_{j}}|1\rangle\}$ $(j=1,\cdots,m)$. Here we denote
$|H\rangle\equiv|0\rangle$ and $|V\rangle\equiv|1\rangle$. After Bob1 performing the measurement, he tells Alice the results $\{a_{j}\}^{m}_{j=1}$ with
$a_{j}\in\{0,1\}^{m}$.
Step 5: Alice and Bob2 start the single-server BQC protocol.
The traditional entanglement distillation protocols are unsuitable for double-server BQC protocol, because
message exchanges between two Bobs must be done through Alice's mediation. In this way, Bob1 can indirectly send a message to Bob2, which will make the computation insecure \cite{blind11}. Interestingly, this protocol does not require mediation. Alice can judge the deterministic Bell state according to the measurements results coming from two Bobs and start the BQC protocol subsequently. During the total distillation, Alice does not feedback any messages to both Bobs. Once two Bobs learn nothing from Alice and cannot exchange the message with each other, it essentially means that distillation is absolutely secure.
On the other hand, both Bobs may have the evil intention and send wrong messages to Alice. In this way, Alice will
obtain the wrong information about the Bell state, and it will induce the error computation. However, both Bobs still learn nothing from Alice.
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
Using spatial entanglement to purify the polarization entanglement has been studied for several groups \cite{simon,lixh,deng1}. However, their protocols
are all unsuitable for BQC protocol. In Ref. \cite{simon}, the bit-flip error can be well corrected by choosing the same output modes. However, they should require the traditional entanglement purification to correct the phase-flip error. In Refs. \cite{lixh,deng1}, with local operation and classical communication, both bit-flip error and phase-flip error can be corrected in one step. But the photon pair is destroyed because of the post-selection principle. In this protocol, the purified photon pair can be remained, resorting to the QND measurement. Moreover, both Bobs do not require to exchange the classical information, which makes it extremely suitable for double-server BQC protocol.
In a practical realization, they should generate the hyperentanglement and make the spatial entanglement stable. The generation of the hyperentanglement with both spatial and polarization degrees of freedom can be well solved with the spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) source \cite{simon,pan1}. The pump
pulse of ultraviolet light passes through a $\beta$-barium borate
crystal (BBO). It can produce one pair of polarization entangled pairs with probability of $p$, and is
reflected and traverses the crystal a second time and can produce the same photon pairs with the same order of magnitude. \textbf{This protocol realizes on the hypothesis that the spatial entanglement does not suffer from the noise. Though the spatial entanglement is robust than polarization entanglement, it still will be polluted in noisy channel. Interestingly, it usually suffers from the phase-noise, while the phase-noise can also be well controlled in current technology \cite{simon,pan1}. Moreover, the experiment for phase-noise measurements showed that the phase in long fibers (several
tens of km) remains stable, which is an acceptable level for
time on the order of 100 $\mu s$ \cite{phasenoise}.}
The other technology challenge may come from the cross-Kerr nonlinearity. Though many quantum information processes based on the cross-Kerr nonlinearity were proposed \cite{QND1,QND2,he1,lin1,shengpra1}, it is still a controversial topic \cite{Shapiro1,Gea}. Shapiro showed that single-photon Kerr nonlinearity may
do not help quantum computation \cite{Shapiro1}. Gea-Banacloche also argued that a large phase shift
via a "giant" Kerr effect with single-photon wave packets is
impossible\cite{Gea}. As pointed out by Kok \emph{et al.}, Kerr
phase shift is only $\tau\approx 10^{-18}$ in the optical single-photon
regime and a clean cross-Kerr nonlinearity is quite a
controversial assumption with current technology \cite{kok1}. Fortunately, Hofmann showed that a large phase shift of
$\pi$ can be obtained with a single
two-level atom in a one-sided cavity \cite{hofmann}. Using weak measurement, it is possible to amplify a cross-Kerr phase shift to an
observable value \cite{weak_meaurement}. The theoretical work of Zhu and Huang also showed that giant cross-Kerr nonlinearities
were also obtained in a double-quantum-well
structure with a four-level, double-type configuration \cite{oe}. The "giant" cross-Kerr effect with phase shift of 20 degrees per photon has been observed in current experiment \cite{gaint}.
In conclusion, we have presented a deterministic entanglement distillation protocol for double-server BQC protocol. After performing the protocol, they can obtain the pure maximally entangled state with the success probability
of 100\% in principle. Bob1 and Bob2 do not communicate with each other and they also learn nothing from Alice. It makes the protocol unconditionally secure.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant No. 11104159, University Natural Science Research Project of Jiangsu Province
under Grant No. 13KJB140010, the open research fund of Key Lab of Broadband Wireless Communication and Sensor Network Technology, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Ministry of Education (No. NYKL201303), Scientific
Research Foundation of Nanjing University of Posts and
Telecommunications under Grant No. NY213054, and a Project Funded by the Priority
Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education
Institutions.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is commonly believed that Single Parton Scattering (SPS) exerts the dominant role in hadronic collisions. In this kind of process one gluon from the hadron target scatters with one gluon from the hadron projectile, generating e.g. one heavy quark pair $Q\bar{Q}$ in the final state of the collision. However, the huge density of gluons present in the hadrons in the high energy regime increases the probability of multiple-scatterings to take place in a single proton-proton collision. For example, in one hadron-hadron collision we can have two gluons from the target scattering with two gluons from the projectile, each gluon-gluon fusion happening almost independently. This kind of process is called Double Parton Scattering (DPS). The DPS was recognized and discussed in the 1970's and 1980's \cite{70_80}, but it was soon realized that the cross section for the DPS process is negligible at the energies available at that time. In the last decade several works have been dedicated to the study of the DPS due to its importance in the kinematic regime of the LHC. In particular, in the recent work \cite{Marta_Rafal} (see also \cite{liko_prd86}) the authors obtained the surprising result that at the energies of the LHC the $c\bar{c}c\bar{c}$ production cross section in DPS processes is of the same order of magnitude as the $c\bar{c}$ production cross section in SPS, with the $c\bar{c}c\bar{c}$ production cross section in SPS being strongly suppressed. In Ref. \cite{dps_nos} we confirmed that this result remains valid when saturation effects in the gluon distribution are taken into account. In this work we review some of the results that we obtained in Ref. \cite{dps_nos} and add a new comparison of the DPS cross sections for three final states, namely $c\bar{c}c\bar{c}$, $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ and $c\bar{c}b\bar{b}$.
\section{The heavy quark production in DPS}
\label{sig_dps}
In a rigorous treatment one should consider non-trivial correlations between the gluons involved in the DPS process. Several works have been dedicated to study different kinds of correlations (See, e.g., Ref. \cite{wouter1}), however it has been shown to be very difficult to make a precise estimate of their magnitude. As a consequence, in practical calculations, the authors disregard any correlation between the gluons and factorize the DPS cross section as a product of two completely independent SPS cross sections. With this assumption the DPS cross section for $Q_1\bar{Q}_1Q_2\bar{Q}_2$ production is given by (See, e.g., Ref. \cite{diehl_jhep}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{h_1 h_2 \rightarrow Q_1\bar{Q}_1Q_2\bar{Q}_2}^{DPS} = \left( \frac{m}{2} \right) \frac{\sigma^{SPS}_{h_1 h_2 \rightarrow Q_1\bar{Q}_1}
\sigma^{SPS}_{h_1 h_2 \rightarrow Q_2\bar{Q}_2}}{\sigma_{eff}} \,\,,
\label{dps_fac}
\end{eqnarray}
where $m/2$ is a combinatorial factor which accounts for the indistinguishable or distinguishable final states, i.e., $m=1$ when $Q_1=Q_2$ and $m=2$ when $Q_1 \neq Q_2$. The free parameter $\sigma_{eff}$ was determined by CDF collaboration through a fit to experimental data and it was estimated to be $\sigma _{eff} = (14.5 \pm 1.7_{-2.3}^{+1.7})$ mb \cite{cdf}. In what follows we will use Eq. (\ref{dps_fac}) to estimate the $Q_1\bar{Q}_1Q_2\bar{Q}_2$ production cross section in DPS processes with $\sigma _{eff} = 15$ mb.
Saturation effects in the gluon distribution are naturally described in the color dipole formalism (See \cite{hqp_nos} and references therein). This formalism makes use of the fact that, before interacting with the gluon target, the gluon emitted by the projectile fluctuates into a color octet pair $Q\bar{Q}$. In this approach we have to choose a model for the color dipole-target cross section. This model contains all the information about the QCD dynamics at high energies, including the presence of non-linear corrections that leads to the gluon saturation. We will use two saturation models and compare their results. The first model is a numerical solution of the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) equation \cite{bkrunning}, which will be labeled as ``rcBK''. The second model is the one proposed by Golec - Biernat and Wusthoff in Ref. \cite{gbw}, which will be labeled as ``GBW''.
Our motivation to use the GBW model is that it allows us to easily obtain its linear limit. Consequently, by using the two models, ``GBW'' and ``GBW Linear'', in the calculations we can compare its results and quantify the contribution of the saturation effects in the observable under analysis.
\section{Results and discussions}
\label{results}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{sig_tot_e_dps_charm.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{sig_tot_e_dps_bottom.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Charm (left) and bottom (right) production cross sections in Single Parton Scattering (SPS) and Double Parton Scattering (DPS) as a function of the c.m.s. energy ($\sqrt{s}$). Data points from PHENIX \cite{phenix} (circles) and from ALICE \cite{ALICE_pp} (squares).}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
Since the models that we are using have their parameters already fixed, in our calculation the only free parameter is the heavy quark mass. So the first step is to constrain the heavy quark mass by adjusting its value to fit the available experimental data. To describe at the same time the data from PHENIX \cite{phenix} and the recent data from ALICE \cite{ALICE_pp} on charm production we fixed the charm mass in $m_c = 1.5$ GeV (Fig. \ref{fig:2} - Left). It is interesting to observe how the ALICE data were able to reduce the freedom of choice of $m_c$. Before their appearance, the existing data could be fitted with values of $m_c$ in the range $1.2$ GeV $\leq m_c \leq 1.5$ GeV, as shown in \cite{hqp_nos}. Now, the lowest value ($m_c=1.2$ GeV) is excluded. For bottom production we do not have available high energy data from LHC, so we used $m_b = 4.5$ GeV for the bottom mass and compared our results with the data from PHENIX (Fig. \ref{fig:2} - Right).
In Fig. \ref{fig:2} we see that the DPS cross section for charm production becomes comparable with the SPS one at the energies of LHC. This result was first obtained in Ref. \cite{Marta_Rafal}, where saturation effects were neglected. Now we are confirming that this result remains valid when saturation is taken into account. For bottom production we see that the DPS cross section is negligible when compared with the SPS one in the whole range of energy. Note that the rcBK prediction for charm production practically coincides with the GBW one. So from now on we will use only the GBW model to make the predictions of saturation physics.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{razao_gbw_por_linear.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{razoes_dps_por_sps.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Left: The ratio $\, \sigma^{GBW} / \sigma^{GBW Linear} \,$ in SPS and DPS processes as a function of the c.m.s. energy ($\sqrt{s}$); Right: The ratio $\sigma ^{DPS}/\sigma ^{SPS}$ as a function of the c.m.s. energy ($\sqrt{s}$).}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
In order to estimate more precisely the magnitude of saturation effects in SPS as well as in DPS processes we plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:3} - Left the ratio $\, \sigma^{GBW} / \sigma^{GBW Linear} \,$. As we can see the production of bottom in SPS as well as in DPS is practically insensitive to saturation effects, the ratio being approximately 1 in the whole range of energy. On the other hand, the charm production is very sensitive to saturation effects in the considered range of energy. In particular, at $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV the charm production in SPS is decreased by $\approx 15\%$ whereas the charm production in DPS is decreased by $\approx 28\%$. We also considered the production of $c\bar{c}b\bar{b}$ in DPS process (``DPS bc'' in the legend). We can see that the corresponding curve is very close to the curve of charm production in SPS process. This is a consequence of the fact that the sensitiveness of this process to saturation effects comes from the charm sector, whose production is much more sensitive to saturation effects than the production of bottom.
We have also investigated the importance of DPS processes when compared with SPS ones. In Fig. \ref{fig:3} - Right we plotted the ratio $\sigma ^{DPS}/\sigma ^{SPS}$. The legend `` bc / b '' means that we are taking $b\bar{b}c\bar{c}$ production in DPS divided by $b\bar{b}$ production in SPS, and so on. The larger ratio (full black line) is the one corresponding to `` bc / b ''. At $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV this ratio becomes $\approx 1$, what means that the DPS cross section of $b\bar{b}c\bar{c}$ production becomes equal the SPS cross section of $b\bar{b}$ production. In other words, half of the total amount of bottom produced at the LHC in $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV will come from the DPS channel. The second curve in magnitude is the one labeled as `` cc / c ''. This curve reaches $\approx 0.6$ in $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV, which means that $\approx 1/3$ of the total amount of charm that will be produced at the LHC in this energy will come from the DPS channel.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{dps_lhc.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{DPS production cross section for three final states: $c\bar{c}c\bar{c}$, $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ and $c\bar{c}b\bar{b}$.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
Finally, in Fig. (\ref{fig:4}) we show our results for the DPS production cross section for three final states, namely $c\bar{c}c\bar{c}$, $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ and $c\bar{c}b\bar{b}$. We can see that all the curves follow the same behavior. This is a consequence of the fact that the only free parameter in our calculation is the quark mass. So, by increasing the mass of the final state we just lower the curve.
The DPS approach has been successfully applied to the study of several observables, as discussed, for example, in \cite{diehl_jhep}. However it grows too fast with energy $\sqrt{s}$. One of our motivations to include saturation effects in DPS was to tame this fast rise of the cross section. However the observed reduction of the growth of $\sigma _{DPS}$ is not very pronounced and at higher energies some unitarization procedure will be required.
\bigskip \bigskip \begin{center} \begin{large
This work was partially financed by the Brazilian funding agencies FAPESP, CNPq, CAPES and FAPERGS.
|
\section{Introduction}
From time to time models with derivatives of superior order in the field variables have been studied in the literature. As far as the authors know, one of the first models of this kind was proposed by B. Podolsky \cite{Podolsky42,Podolsky44,Podolsky48} and T. Lee and G. Wick \cite{LW69,LW70} and some of its technical features are the fact that, in 3+1 dimensions, the self energy for a point-like electric charge is finite, and it exhibits gauge invariance as well as a non vanishing pole for the gauge field propagator in momenta space. Nowadays we can find a vast literature about those kinds of models, where they are usually referred to as Lee-Wick models
Recently, after the propose of the so called Lee-Wick Standard Model (LWSM) \cite{Grinstein2008}, some interest in Lee-Wick type models has been aroused in many contexts. We can cite, for instance, possible experimental signatures of LWSM as well as experimental and/or theoretical constraints on its parameters \cite{Espinosa2008,Underwood2009,CaronePRD2009,RizzoJHEP2008,RizzoJHEP2007,Schat2008,KraussPRD2008,CuzinattoIJMPA2011,AcciolyMPLA2010,AcciolyMPLA2011,Accioly2010}. Some effort has also been spend in theoretical aspects of the LWSM, as the treatment of the ghosts states \cite{Shalaby2009}, possible minimal LWSM \cite{CaronePLB2008}, models with higher derivatives \cite{CaronePLB2009,CaroneJHEP2009}, the renormalization of Lee-Wick gauge theories \cite{GrinsteinPRD2008,gc} and finite temperature Lee-Wick theories \cite{FornalPLB2009,BoninPRD2010,BoninPRD2011}.
In what concerns Lee-Wick type field theories with higher degrees of freedom, the study of non-Abelian Lee-Wick gauge theories \cite{Alekseev,BallNPB83,Baskal93,GOWPRD2008,GrinsteinPRD2008} and peculiarities of Lee-Wick type theories for gravity \cite{StellePRD77,StelleGRG77,WuPLB2008,WuPRD2008,Rodigast2009,Accioly2003} are subjects studied since a long time. In this context we would like to call attention to some cosmological implications of Lee-Wick scalar field \cite{Cai2009,ChoEPJC2013,ChoJCAP2011} and its use for describing the dark energy \cite{LeeIJMP2008}.
Many other interesting studies of Lee-Wick theories can be found in the literature, among them we can cite, for instance, the fact that Lee-Wick electrodynamics also leads to a finite self force for a point-like electric charge \cite{Frankel,Zayats}, the study of waves propagation in Lee-Wick theories \cite{SantosMPLA2011}, the role of Lee-Wick models in dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry \cite{GabrielliPRD2008}, the quantization of Lee-Wick electrodynamics \cite{GalvaoCJP,Bufalocan,BufaloPRD83}, the connection between electrodynamics with minimal length and Lee-Wick electrodynamics \cite{Moyaedi}, theta term generalization in connection with non-commutative electrodynamics \cite{GaeteJPA2012}, formalism of second order gauge theories for Lee-Wick theories \cite{CuzinattoAP2007}, first order formalism for Lee-Wick electrodynamics \cite{KruglovJPA2010}, generalizations with auxiliary fields with higher derivatives \cite{ChoPRD2010} and so on.
One of the most fundamental questions one can make, about gauge field models with higher derivatives concerns on the physical phenomena produced by the presence of field sources, mainly on the phenomena with no counterpart in the standard theories with no superior derivatives \cite{AcciolyPRD2004}. This paper is devoted to this subject in the context of Lee-Wick Electrodynamics, where we search for effects produced by the presence of field sources not present in the Maxwell theory. For completeness we consider also the extension of the Lee-Wick Electrodynamics for the massive scalar field. This last model leads to interesting peculiarities once we can have two mass parameters.
In section (\ref{secaocargas}) we study the interaction between stationary sources for the vector field in the Lee-Wick Electrodynamics. The sources are taken to be distributed along parallel branes with arbitrary dimensions. We focus on the case where the sources describe uniform and stationary distributions of electric charges along the branes. For completeness, we also discuss the case of sources which describe uniform distributions of electric dipoles. From the computed results we investigate the behavior of the energy between two electric charges when the distance between them is small. The results indicate that, for spatial dimensions higher than 3, the self energy of a point-like electric charge diverges in the Lee-Wick Electrodynamics. In section (\ref{secaoDirac}) we investigate some peculiarities of Lee-Wick Electrodynamics (in comparison with the Maxwell theory) in the vicinity of one or two Dirac strings. In section (\ref{secaoescalar}) we consider the massive Lee-Wick scalar field, mainly in what concerns the interaction between point-like field sources. Once we can have two mass parameters, we can obtain results with no counterpart in comparison with Klein-Gordon theory. Section (\ref{secaoconc}) is dedicated for the conclusions and final remarks.
Along this paper we work in Minkowsky space-time, with diagonal metric $\eta^{\mu\nu}=(1,-1,...,-1)$, $D+d$ spatial dimensions and one time dimension. The time coordinate shall be represented by $x^{0}$ and the $(D+d+1)$-vector position shall be designated by
\begin{equation}
\label{def4vetor}
x=(x^{0},x^{1},...,x^{d},x^{d+1},...,x^{d+D})\ .
\end{equation}
We shall also use the following notations for spatial coordinates perpendicular and parallel to the branes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{defxperpx|}
{\bf x}_{\perp}&=&(x^{1},...,x^{d})\nonumber\\
{\bf x}_{\|}&=&(x^{d+1},...,x^{d+D})\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
and similar ones for the momentums $p$.
\section{Charged stationary branes}
\label{secaocargas}
In this section we investigate some aspects of the interactions between stationary sources for the vector field in the Lee-Wick Electrodynamics in an arbitrary number of spatial dimensions. For simplicity, the sources are taken to be concentrated along stationary parallel branes.
The abelian Lee-Wick Electrodynamics is described by the lagrangian density \cite{LW69,LW70}
\begin{equation}
\label{defL}
{\cal L}=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{4m^{2}}F_{\mu\nu}\partial_{\alpha}{\partial}^{\alpha}F^{\mu\nu}-\frac{{(\partial_{\mu}A^{\mu})}^2}{2\xi}-J_{\mu}A^{\mu}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $J^{\mu}$ is the vector external source,
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\mu\nu}&=&\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}
\end{eqnarray}
is the field strength, $A^{\mu}$ is the vector potential and $m$ is a parameter with mass dimension. The third term on the right hand side of (\ref{defL}) was introduced in order to fix the gauge and $\xi$ is a gauge fixing parameter
Neglecting surface terms, one can write
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}A_{\mu}{\cal O}^{\mu\nu}A_{\nu}-J_{\mu}A^{\mu}
\end{equation}
where we defined the differential operator
\begin{equation}
\label{defO}
{\cal O}^{\mu\nu}={\eta}^{\mu\nu}\Biggl(1+\frac{\partial^{\beta}\partial_{\beta}}{m^{2}}\Biggr)\partial^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha}
-\Biggl(1-\frac{1}{\xi}+\frac{\partial^{\beta}\partial_{\beta}}{m^{2}}\Biggr){\partial}^{\mu}{\partial}^{\nu}\ .
\end{equation}
The propagator $D^{\mu\nu}(x,y)$ is the inverse of the operator ${\cal O}^{\mu\nu}$ in the sense that
\begin{equation}
\label{defD}
{\cal O}^{\mu\nu}D_{\nu\lambda}(x,y)=\eta^{\mu}_{\ \lambda}\delta^{4}(x-y)\ .
\end{equation}
One can get the propagator by using standard field theory methods. Searching for a Fourier representation for $D_{\nu\lambda}(x,y)$ one can show that
\begin{equation}
\label{propagador}
D_{\mu\nu}(x,y)=\int \frac{{d^{d+D+1}p}}{(2\pi)^{d+D+1}}
\Biggl(\frac{1}{p^{2}-m^{2}}-\frac{1}{p^{2}}\Biggr)
\left\{{\eta}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{p^{2}}\biggl[1+\xi\biggl(\frac{p^{2}}{m^{2}}-1\biggr) \biggr]\right\}\exp \biggl[-ip(x-y)\biggr].
\end{equation}
Once we have a quadratic lagrangian in the field variables $A^{\mu}$, the energy of the system due to the presence of the sources is given by \cite{Zee}
\begin{equation}
\label{Egeral}
E=\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{2T}\int d^{d+D+1}x\ d^{d+D+1}y\ J^{\mu}(x)D_{\mu\nu}(x,y)J^{\nu}(y)\ .
\end{equation}
As discussed in references \cite{BaroneHidalgo1,BaroneHidalgo2}, the presence of stationary uniform distributions of charges along $D$-dimensional parallel branes can be described by the external source
\begin{equation}
\label{defJ}
J_{\mu}=\eta_{\mu0}\sum^{N}_{k=1}\lambda_{k}\delta^{d}(\bf{x}_{\bot}-\bf{a}_{k})\ .
\end{equation}
In expression (\ref{defJ}), $N$ is the number of branes, $\lambda_{k}$ is the charge density for the $k$-th brane (charge per unity of brane area), ${\bf a}_{k}$ designates the $k$-th brane position and ${\bf x}_{\bot}$ are the coordinates perpendicular to the branes. It is important to notice that the vectors ${\bf a}_{k}$ have only perpendicular coordinates, {\it i.e.}, ${\bf a}_{k}=(a_{k}^{1},\dots,a_{k}^{d},0,0,\dots)$.
Substituting the source (\ref{defJ}) into (\ref{Egeral}) and using the propagator (\ref{propagador}), identifying the area of a given brane $L^{D}=\int d^{D}{\bf y}_{\|}$, and neglecting the contributions due to the self interactions of each brane with itself (the self energy of the branes), we have for the energy per unit brane area
\begin{equation}
\label{Eintermediario2}
{\cal E}=\frac{E}{L^{D}}=\sum^{N}_{k=1}{\sum^{N}_{s=1}}\lambda_{k}\lambda_{s}(1-\delta_{k,s})\frac{1}{2}
\Biggl(\int \frac{d^{d}{\bf p}_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}}\exp(i{\bf p}_{\bot}.{\bf a}_{ks})
-
\int \frac{d^{d}{\bf p}_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}+m^2}\exp(i{\bf p}_{\bot}.{\bf a}_{ks})\Biggr)
\ ,
\end{equation}
where ${\bf a}_{ks}={\bf a}_{k}-{\bf a}_{s}$
Notice that the energy splits into two contributions. The first one comes from the massless sector of the model, and does not involve the parameter $m$. The other one comes from the massive sector. The first contribution leads to a Coulomb-like interaction, as discussed in reference \cite{BaroneHidalgo1}, with repulsive behavior (charges with the same signal repel each other). The second contribution produces a Yukawa-like interaction with attractive behavior. One can see this fact by solving the integrals in (\ref{Eintermediario2}). For this task we can use the results of reference \cite{BaroneHidalgo1},
\begin{equation}
\label{intm}
\int \frac{d^{d}{\bf p}_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}+m^2}\exp(i{\bf p}_{\bot}.{\bf a})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}}m^{d-2}(ma)^{1-(d/2)}K_{(d/2)-1}(ma)\ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{intdnot=2}
\int \frac{d^{d}{\bf p}_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}}\exp(i{\bf p}_{\bot}.{\bf a})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}}2^{(d/2)-2}\Gamma\Biggl(\frac{d}{2}-1\Biggr)a^{2-d}\ d\not=2\ ,
\end{equation}
where $K$ stands for the $K$-Bessel function \cite{Arfken}, $\Gamma$ is the gamma function and $a=|{\bf a}|$.
When $d=2$ and $m=0$ we insert a regulator parameter, $\mu$, with mass dimension, as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{intd=2}
\int \frac{d^{2}{\bf p}_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}}\exp(i{\bf p}_{\bot}.{\bf a})&=&
\lim_{\mu\to0}\int \frac{d^{2}{\bf p}_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}+\mu^2}\exp(i{\bf p}_{\bot}.{\bf a})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)}K_{0}(\mu a)\cr\cr
&=&-\frac{1}{(2\pi)}\Biggl[\ln\Biggl(\frac{ma}{2}\Biggr)+\gamma\Biggr]+\frac{1}{(2\pi)}\ln\Biggl(\frac{m}{\mu}\Biggr)\cr\cr
&\to& -\frac{1}{(2\pi)}\Biggl[\ln\Biggl(\frac{ma}{2}\Biggr)+\gamma\Biggr]
\end{eqnarray}
where in the second line we used the expansion $K_{0}(z)\stackrel{z\to 0}{\longrightarrow}-\ln(z/2)-\gamma$ ($\gamma$ stands for the Euler constant) and in the third line we discarded an $a$-independent term, which does not contribute to the interaction energy between the branes and, so, to the force between them.
Now, using equations (\ref{intd=2}), (\ref{intdnot=2}) and (\ref{intm}) in (\ref{Eintermediario2}), so
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{zxc3}
{\cal E}=\frac{1}{2}{\sum}_{k\neq s}\lambda_{k}\lambda_{s}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}}
\biggl[2^{(\frac{d}{2}-2)}\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}-1)(a_{ks})^{2-d}-m^{d-2}(ma_{ks})^{1-(d/2)}K_{(d/2)-1}(ma_{ks})\biggr]\ d\neq2\cr
\frac{1}{(2\pi)}
\biggl[-\ln(\frac{ma_{ks}}{2})-\gamma-K_{0}(ma_{ks})\biggr]\ d=2
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray}
When we have two point-like branes in $3+1$ dimensions we must take $D=0$ and $d=3$ in (\ref{zxc3}). In this case we have the well known result obtained previously in the literature (see, for instance \cite{AcciolyPRD2004})
\begin{equation}
E(D=0,d=3)=\frac{\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}{4\pi}\frac{1-\exp(-ma)}{a}\ .
\end{equation}
The force density on the brane $a$ (force per unit of brane area) can be obtained by differentiation of (\ref{zxc3}), as follows
\begin{equation}
{{\cal F}_{a}}=-\sum_{b\not=a}\biggl(\frac{\partial\cal{E}}{\partial a_{ab}}\biggr)\frac{{\bf a}_{ab}}{a_{ab}}\ \ ,\ \ {\bf a}_{ab}={\bf a}_{a}-{\bf a}_{b},
\end{equation}
what leads to a single and general expression
\begin{equation}
\label{zxc4}
{{\cal F}_{a}}=\sum_{b\not=a}\frac{{\lambda}_{a}{\lambda}_{b}}{(2\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}(a_{ab})^{d-1}}
\biggl[2^{(\frac{d}{2}-1)}\Gamma\Biggl(\frac{d}{2}\Biggr)-(ma_{ab})^{\frac{d}{2}}K_{\frac{d}{2}}(ma_{ab})\biggr]\frac{{\bf a}_{ab}}{a_{ab}}\ \ d=1,2,3,...
\end{equation}
The results (\ref{zxc3}) and (\ref{zxc4}) show that the interaction between the sources are given by a Coulomb-like contribution with repulsive behavior (charges with the same signal repel each other) due to the massless modes and an Yukawa-like contribution with attractive behavior.
For completeness we point out that the interaction between dipole distributions along parallel $D$-dimensional branes can be obtained by using the same methods employed to compute (\ref{zxc3}). As discussed in reference \cite{BaroneHidalgo1}, the source which describes this kind of dipole distributions is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Jdipolos}
J_{\mu}=\eta_{\mu0}\sum^{N}_{k=1}V^{\nu}_{(k)}\partial_{\nu}[\delta^{d}(\bf{x}_{\bot}-\bf{a}_{k})]
\end{equation}
where the the four vectors $V^{\nu}_{(k)}$ are taken to be constant and uniform in the reference frame we are performing the calculations.
Substituting (\ref{Jdipolos}) in (\ref{Egeral}) and performing the calculations analogously to the previous ones, one can show that
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal E}=\frac{E}{L^{D}}&=&\sum^{N}_{k=1}{\sum^{N}_{s=1}}
\frac{2^{(\frac{d}{2}-2)}\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}{(2\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}{a_{ks}}^{d}}\biggr[d\biggr(\frac{{{\bf{V}}_{k}}_{\bot}.\bf{a}_{ks}}{a_{ks}}\biggl)\biggr(\frac{{{\bf{V}}_{s}}_{\bot}.\bf{a}_{ks}}{a_{ks}}\biggl)-{{\bf{V}}_{k}}_{\bot}.{{\bf{V}}_{s}}_{\bot}\biggl]+\cr\cr
&-&\frac{m^{d}}{(2\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}}\biggr[(ma_{ks})^{-\frac{d}{2}}K_{\frac{d}{2}}(ma_{ks})\biggl({{\bf{V}}_{k}}_{\bot}.{{\bf{V}}_{s}}_{\bot}\biggr)\cr\cr
&-&(ma_{ks})^{-1-\frac{d}{2}}K_{1+\frac{d}{2}}(ma_{ks})\biggl({{\bf{V}}_{k}}_{\bot}.(m{\bf{a}}_{ks})\biggr)\biggl({{\bf{V}}_{s}}_{\bot}.(m{\bf{a}}_{ks})\biggr)\biggl]
\end{eqnarray}
To conclude this section we study the interaction energy between two point-like branes (what corresponds to $D=0$) at small distances and for higher dimensions.
Taking the space-time dimensions as $1+1$, $2+1$, $3+1$, $4+1$ or $5+1$ we have respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{zxc5}
E(d=1)&=&-\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\Biggl(\frac{1}{2m}+\frac{m}{4}a^2+{\cal O}(a^{3})\Biggr)\cr\cr
E(d=2)&=&\frac{\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}{16\pi}\Biggl[\ln\Biggl(\frac{ma}{2}\Biggr)+(\gamma-1)\Biggr](ma)^2+{\cal O}[a^{4}\ln(ma)]\cr\cr
E(d=3)&=&\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\frac{m}{4\pi}\Biggl(1-\frac{1}{2}ma+O(a^2)\Biggr)\cr\cr
E(d=4)&=&-\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\frac{m^2}{16\pi^2}\Biggl[2\ln\Biggl(\frac{ma}{2}\Biggr)+(2\gamma-1)\Biggr]+{\cal O}[a^{2}\ln(ma)]\cr\cr
E(d=5)&=&\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\Biggl(\frac{m^2}{16\pi^2}\frac{1}{a}-\frac{m^3}{24\pi^{2}}+\frac{m^4}{64\pi^{2}}a+O(a^2)\Biggr)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that for $d=1,2,3$, the energies (\ref{zxc5}) are finite for $a=0$. For $d=4,5$ we have a divergent behavior for $a=0$, which is a general feature for $d\geq 4$. It is worth mentioning that the limit $a=0$ of the interaction energy between two point charges can be related to the self energy of a given point-like electric charge. This subject is not trivial and is under investigation \cite{Barone}. Some preliminary results indicate that, for higher dimensions, the self energy of a point charge may be rendered finite, via dimensional regularization, only for an odd number of spatial dimensions.
\section{Dirac string in the Lee-Wick electrodynamics}
\label{secaoDirac}
In this section we investigate the field strength produced by a Dirac string in the Lee-Wick electrodynamics. For this task we start by considering the field configuration of a Dirac string, lying on the $z$ axis, with magnetic flux $\Phi$ (positive along $\hat z$ direction), in the Maxwell electrodynamics
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{defAABM}
A^{\mu}_{Dirac(M)}(x)=
\frac{\Phi}{2\pi(x^{2}+y^{2})}(0,-y,x,0)
\end{eqnarray}
whose Fourier transform is \cite{Fernanda}
\begin{equation}
\label{Fo}
{\tilde{A}}^{\mu}_{Dirac(M)}(p)=(2\pi)^{2}\delta(p^{0})\delta(p^{3})\frac{i\Phi}{{\bf{p}}_{\bot}^{2}}(0,p_{y},-p_{x},0)\ ,
\end{equation}
where we defined the spatial perpendicular momentum to the string, ${\bf p}_{\bot}=(p_{x},p_{y},0)$ and the sub-index $M$ stands for quantities related to the Maxwell theory.
One can show that the external source of a Dirac string $J^{\mu}_{Dirac}(x)$, which produces the field (\ref{Fo}), has the Fourier transform \cite{Fernanda,Anderson}
\begin{equation}
\label{Je}
{\tilde{J}}^{\nu}_{Dirac}(p)=-p^{2}{\tilde{A}}^{\nu}_{Dirac,M}(p).
\end{equation}
The vector field produced by the Dirac string source (\ref{Je}) in the Lee-Wick electrodynamics is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Ah}
{A}^{\mu}_{Dirac}(x)&=&\int d^{4}y D^{\mu}_{\ \nu}(x,y)J_{Dirac}^{\nu}(y)\cr\cr
&=&\int \frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}{\tilde{D}}^{\mu}_{\ \nu}(p){\tilde{J}}_{Dirac}^{\nu}(p)e^{-ip x}.
\end{eqnarray}
where the Lee-Wick propagator $D^{\mu\nu}(x,y)$ as well as its Fourier counterpart ${\tilde{D}}^{\mu\nu}(p)$ can be obtained from (\ref{propagador}). Taking the gauge parameter $\xi=1$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{asd2}
{\tilde{D}}^{\mu\nu}(p)=\Biggl(\frac{1}{p^{2}-m^{2}}-\frac{1}{p^{2}}\Biggr)\left\{{\eta}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{m^{2}}\right\}\ .
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{asd2}), (\ref{Je}) and (\ref{Fo}) one can show that Eq. (\ref{Ah}) leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{asd5}
{A}^{\mu}_{Dirac}({\bf x}_{\bot})=i\Phi\int\frac{d^{2}\bf{p}_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\Biggl(\frac{1}{{\bf{p}_{\bot}}^{2}}-\frac{1}{{\bf{p}_{\bot}}^{2}+m^{2}}\Biggr)(0,p_{y},-p_{x},0)\exp(i\bf{p}_{\bot}.\bf{x}_{\bot}).
\end{equation}
The first integral in (\ref{asd5}) is the vector potential produced by a Dirac string in Maxwell Electrodynamics (\ref{defAABM}), what can be verified with (\ref{Fo}). So, taking into account that the vector potential (\ref{asd5}) has only spatial components, we can write
\begin{equation}
{\bf A}_{Dirac}({\bf x}_{\bot})={\bf A}_{Dirac(M)}({\bf x}_{\bot})+\Phi({\hat z}\times{\vec\nabla})\int\frac{d^{2}\bf{p}_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\frac{1}{{\bf{p}_{\bot}}^{2}+m^{2}}\exp(i\bf{p}_{\bot}.\bf{x}_{\bot}),\ .
\end{equation}
From (\ref{intm}) one can get the result of the above integral and write
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Adirac}
{\bf A}_{Dirac}({\bf x}_{\bot})&=&{\bf A}_{Dirac(M)}({\bf x}_{\bot})+\frac{\Phi}{2\pi}({\hat z}\times{\vec \nabla})K_{0}(m\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}})\cr\cr
&=&{\bf A}_{Dirac(M)}({\bf x}_{\bot})\Bigl[1-m\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}K_{1}\Bigl(m\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}\Bigr)\Bigr]\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where, in the second line, we performed some simple manipulations.
Taking the rotational operator of (\ref{Adirac}) we have the magnetic field produced by a Dirac string in the Lee-Wick electrodynamics \footnote{We are neglecting the contribution for the magnetic field which come from ${\bf A}_{Dirac(M)}({\bf x}_{\bot})$. This contribution is divergent on the $z$ axis and vanishes in any other point of space.}
\begin{equation}
\label{BLW}
{\bf B}_{Dirac}({\bf x}_{\bot})=\frac{\Phi}{2\pi}mK_{0}(m\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}})\hat{z}.
\end{equation}
It is interesting to notice that magnetic field (\ref{BLW}) points in the same direction of the magnetic flux inside the Dirac string. It diverges on the Dirac string and falls down quickly as we move away from it as
\begin{equation}
\label{BLW,mgrande}
{\bf B}_{Dirac}({\bf x}_{\bot}) \cong \frac{\Phi\ m}{2(2\pi)^{1/2}}\frac{\exp(-m\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}})}{(m\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}})^{1/2}}\hat{z},\ (m\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}<<1)\ ,
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that $K_{0}(x)\cong [(2\pi)^{1/2}/2]\exp(-x)/x^{1/2}$ for $x>>1$.
Once we have an exterior magnetic field to the string it is natural to search for effects with no counterpart in the Maxwell theory. Let us start by taking two distinct Dirac strings. To simplify, we restrict to the case where they are parallel each other. One of them is taken to be lying on the $z$ axis and the other one, is parallel to the $z$ axis a distance $a$ apart. This system is described by the sources
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{fontesdirac}
J^{\mu}_{Dirac(1)}({\bf x})&=&\int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}{\tilde J}^{\mu}_{Dirac}(p)e^{-ipx}\cr\cr
J^{\mu}_{Dirac(2)}({\bf x})&=&\int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}{\tilde J}^{\mu}_{Dirac}(p)e^{-ipx}e^{i{\bf p}_{\bot}\cdot{\bf a}}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf a}=(a_{x},a_{y},0)$ is a space vector for the string position and ${\tilde J}^{\mu}_{Dirac}(p)$ is defined in (\ref{Je}).
Using the same arguments exposed in section (\ref{secaocargas}), one can show that the interaction energy between the two sources (\ref{fontesdirac}) is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{intsole2a}
E=\frac{1}{T}\int d^{4}xd^{4}y J^{\mu}_{Dirac(1)}({\bf x})D_{\mu\nu}(x,y)J^{\nu}_{Dirac(2)}({\bf y})
\end{equation}
where we discarded contributions due to self interactions of the branes and used the fact that $D_{\mu\nu}(x,y)=D_{\mu\nu}(y,x)$.
It is more convenient to work in the momenta space. For this task we substitute (\ref{fontesdirac}) and (\ref{propagador}), with the gauge $\xi=1$, in (\ref{intsole2a}) and use definitions (\ref{asd2}), (\ref{Je}) and (\ref{Fo}), what leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{iop1}
E&=&L\Phi_{1}\Phi_{2}\int\frac{d^{2}{\bf p}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\Biggl(\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}+m^{2}}-\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}}\Biggr){\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}e^{i{\bf p}_{\bot}\cdot{\bf a}}\cr\cr
&=&-L\Phi_{1}\Phi_{2}{\vec\nabla}_{\bf a}^{2}\int\frac{d^{2}{\bf p}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\Biggl(\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}+m^{2}}-\frac{1}{{\bf p}_{\bot}^{2}}\Biggr)e^{i{\bf p}_{\bot}\cdot{\bf a}}
\end{eqnarray}
where $L=\int dx^{3}$ is the string length and we defined the differential operator ${\vec\nabla}_{\bf a}^{2}=\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial a_{x}^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial a_{y}^{2}}$.
The above integrals are performed in (\ref{intdnot=2}) and (\ref{intd=2}). So, the energy (\ref{iop1}), after some simple manipulations, reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{E}{L}=-\frac{m^{2}\Phi_{1}\Phi_{2}}{(2\pi)^{2}}K_{0}(ma)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding force between the two solenoids is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{forcadirac}
F=-\frac{dE}{da}=-L\frac{\Phi_{1}\Phi_{2}}{(2\pi)^{2}}m^3K_{1}(ma).
\end{equation}
The force above is attractive if the two magnetic fluxes flow in the same direction, and repulsive otherwise. It is important to point out that this force falls down as fast as the distance between the solenoids, $a$, increases. This fact can be verified if one takes into account that the Bessel function $K_{1}(x)$ behaves like $K_{1}(x)\cong\exp(-x)/x^{1/2}$ for large $x$.
\section{Lee-Wick-like scalar model}
\label{secaoescalar}
For completeness, in this section we investigate some classical properties of a Lee-Wick-like model for the scalar field. To simplify, we restrict to $3+1$ dimensions. The corresponding lagrangian density is
\begin{equation}
\label{modeloescalar}
{\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\frac{\partial_{\gamma}\partial^{\gamma}}{m^{2}}\partial^{\mu}\phi-\frac{1}{2}M^{2}\phi^{2}+J\phi
\end{equation}
with the corresponding propagator
\begin{equation}
\label{propescalar}
D(x,y)=\int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}\frac{m^{2}}{p^{4}-m^{2}p^{2}+M^{2}m^{2}}\exp[-ip(x-y)]\ ,
\end{equation}
and dynamical equation
\begin{equation}
\Biggl(1+\frac{\partial_{\gamma}\partial^{\gamma}}{m^{2}}\Biggr)\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\phi+M^{2}\phi=J\ .
\end{equation}
In (\ref{modeloescalar}), $\phi$ is the scalar field and $J$ is an external source.
From (\ref{propescalar}) one can show that this model exhibits two massive poles for momentum square, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{defm+-}
m_{\pm}^{2}=\frac{m^{2}}{2}\Biggl(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{4M^{2}}{m^{2}}}\Biggr).
\end{equation}
In order to avoid tachyonic modes, one must take the restriction
\begin{equation}
0\leq\frac{4M^2}{m^{2}}\leq1\ .
\end{equation}
If $M=0$, we have a theory similar to the one studied in the previous section, for the electromagnetic field, with one massive mode, with mass $m$, and a massless one. This case is very similar to the one studied previously and has no novel physical properties.
If $0<4M^{2}/m^{2}<1$ we have two field modes with different non vanishing masses, $m_{+}$ and $m_{-}$, both of them lower than $m$ and $M$. In this case the propagator can be rewritten in the form
\begin{equation}
D(x,y)=\int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}\Biggl(\frac{1}{p^{2}-m_{+}^{2}}-\frac{1}{p^{2}-m_{-}^{2}}\Biggr)\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{4M^{2}}{m^{2}}}}\exp[-ip(x-y)]\ .
\end{equation}
It is interesting to consider the interaction energy between two time independent Dirac delta-like sources for the field concentrated at distinct points of space. This set-up is described by taking $J(x)=\sigma_{1}\delta^{3}({\bf x}-{\bf a}_{1})+\sigma_{2}\delta^{3}({\bf x}-{\bf a}_{2})$, where $\sigma_{1}$ and $\sigma_{2}$ are constants which, in some sense, stand for some kind of point-like charge for the scalar field. If one proceeds as in the previous section, one can show that the interaction energy between the sources is given by an attractive Yukawa-like potential with mass $m_{+}$ plus a repulsive Yukawa-like potential with mass $m_{-}$.
\begin{equation}
\label{escalardif}
E=\frac{\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}}{4\pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{4M^{2}}{m^{2}}}}\Biggl(\frac{\exp{(-m_{+}a)}}{a}-\frac{\exp{(-m_{-}a)}}{a}\Biggr)
\end{equation}
Once $m_{-}<m_{+}$, the energy (\ref{escalardif}) is always negative for $a\not=0$ and the interaction between the sources exhibits an attractive behavior, similarly to the Klein-Gordon field \cite{BaroneHidalgo1}, for which charges with the same signal attract each other. Notice that
in the limit $a\to0$ the energy (\ref{escalardif}) is finite.
When $4M^{2}=m^{2}$ we have two massive poles for the momentum square at $m^{2}/2$. The propagator, now, reads
\begin{equation}
D(x,y)=\int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}\frac{m^{2}}{[p^{2}-(m^{2}/2)]^{2}}\exp[-ip(x-y)]\ ,
\end{equation}
and the interaction energy between the point-like sources is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{escalarig}
E=-\frac{\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}}{4\pi}\frac{m}{\sqrt{2}}\exp{(-ma/\sqrt{2})}\ .
\end{equation}
In what concerns the above result we notice two interesting points. The first one is the fact that the energy (\ref{escalarig}) dominates for large distances in comparison with the single Yukawa potential, which would be obtained if we had used only one mass parameter in the model (\ref{modeloescalar}), $m$ or $M$. The second point is the attractive behavior of the interaction energy (\ref{escalarig}), {\it i.e}, charges with the same signal, $\sigma_{1}$ and $\sigma_{2}$, attract each other.
\section{Conclusions and Final Remarks}
\label{secaoconc}
In this paper we investigated some aspects of the interactions between stationary sources for fields in Lee-Wick-like abelian models. We studied the interactions between sources distributed along parallel branes with arbitrary dimension in the Lee-Wick electrodynamics in a space-time with an arbitrary number of spatial dimensions. We argued that, for point-like branes, the energy between them is finite when they are arbitrarily close to each other just for 1, 2 and 3 space dimensions. The obtained results indicate that for higher dimensions this energy diverges for charges infinitely close to each other. This fact deserves more investigations and it is an indication that the self energy of a point-like charge is finite, in Lee-Wick Electrodynamics, only for dimensions up to $3+1$.
Also in the context of Lee-Wick electrodynamics, we showed that a Dirac string, in $3+1$ dimensions, produces a magnetic field throughout the space which points in the same direction its internal magnetic flux flows. As an immediate consequence, we showed that two parallel stationary Dirac string in the Lee-Wick electrodynamics attract each other if their magnetic fluxes are in the same direction, and repel otherwise. The existence of a magnetic field exterior to the solenoid, as far as the authors know, were not explored in the literature since now. This fact can lead to other physical phenomena, like corrections to the Aharonov-Bohm effect, for instance, and is a subject which might be explored in other contexts.
We studied a Lee-Wick-like model for the scalar field with two independent mass parameters. For simplicity, we considered only a $3+1$ spacetime, but the results can be generalized to an arbitrary number of spatial dimensions. By choosing conveniently the mass parameters, the interactions between point-like sources for the field can exhibit two distinct behaviors: a (double) Yukawa behavior or a single attractive exponential behavior, which falls down slower with the distance in comparison with the Yukawa interaction. In both cases the attractive behavior of the interactions still remains (scalar charges with the same signal attract each other) and the energy is finite if the distance between the charges is taken to be zero.
These results may be important mainly in the context of the Lee-Wick Standard Model \cite{Grinstein2008}, in what concerns the Higgs field \cite{CaronePRD2009,CaroneJHEP2009}, and in the use of scalar Lee-Wick field in cosmological models \cite{Cai2009,ChoEPJC2013,ChoJCAP2011,LeeIJMP2008}.
\
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments}
\noindent
F.A Barone, A.A.Nogueira and G. Flores-Hidalgo are very grateful, respectively, to CNPq, CAPES and FAPEMIG (Brazilian agencies) for financial support. The authors would like to thank J.A. Helay\"el-Neto and B.M. Pimentel for reading the paper suggestions to improve it.
|
\section{Introduction}
Vega ($\alpha$ Lyr, A0V) is one of the brightest and most familiar stars in the night sky, termed by astronomers as 'arguably the next most important star in the sky after the Sun' (Gulliver et al. \cite{gulliver94}). Vega demonstrates a low projected rotational velocity ($v$sin$i$ < 22 km/s), but it is a rapidly rotating star seen nearly pole-on. The rapid rotation is causing the equator to bulge outward because of centrifugal effects, and, as a result, there is a latitude variation of temperature that reaches a maximum at the poles.
No consensus has yet been reached as to how fast Vega is rotating. Different authors propose the different rotation period: 0.525 d (Aufdenberg et al. \cite{aufdenberg06}, interferometry), 0.662 d (Hill et al. \cite{hill10}, high resolution spectral line profiles), 0.732 d (Petit et al. \cite{petit10}, magnetic maps), 0.733 d (Takeda et al. \cite{takeda08}, modelling of individual spectral lines and the spectral energy distribution).
Butkovskaya et al. \cite{butk11} using own spectropolarimetric data have confirmed the 21-year variability of Vega discovered by Vasil'ev et al. \cite{vasil89} from spectrophotometry. They found that the equivalent widths of the four spectral lines Mg I 5167.321, Mg I 5172.684, Mg I 5183.604, and Fe II 5169.033 vary with the 21-year period.
Recent spectropolarimetric observations of Vega have revealed the presence of a weak magnetic field of 0.6 $\pm$ 0.2 G (Lignieres et al. \cite{lignieres09}, Petit et al. \cite{petit10}). Alina et al. \cite{alina11} noted the stability of the weak magnetic field on timescale of 3 years. A potentially significant fraction of A stars might display a similar type of magnetism, but the geometry of these fields is poorly constrained. To answer this question it is crucial to accumulate more information about surface magnetic structures. Therefore, the long-term spectropolarimetric observations of Vega are needed. We present here the results of spectropolarimetric study of Vega during 37 nights in 1997-2012.
\section{Observations}\label{obs}
High-accuracy spectropolarimetric study of Vega has been performed in the spectral region 5170 \AA ~during 37 nights from 1997 to 2012. The star was observed using coude spectrograph at the 2.6-m Shajn telescope mounted at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory (CrAO, Ukraine). Over 2700 circularly polarized high-resolved spectra with total signal-to-noise ratio per pixel about 37500 were recorded. The resolving power of the spectra is approximately 25000. The effective magnetic field was calculated using the technique which is described in detail by Plachinda \cite{plach04}, and Butkovskaya \& Plachinda \cite{butk07}. We calculated Zeeman splitting for each single line marked at Figure~\ref{spectra}. For each single line the 1353 single values of the longitudinal magnetic field were obtained. Then we calculated 1353 mean longitudinal magnetic field values averaged by all four lines. To ensure an optimal data quality we used Law of Large Numbers (LLN). Due to LLN magnetic field values which exceeded the mean value by 3$\sigma$ were eliminated from our dataset. The final time-string consists of the 1312 mean longitudinal magnetic field measurements.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\hbox{
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{butkovskaya/butkovskaya_fig1.eps}
}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption[]{The normalized observed spectrum of Vega,
$g$ -- effective Lande factor of the spectral lines.
}
\label{spectra}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}\label{results}
Search for a periodicity in the longitudinal magnetic field data was performed using the Period04 code. The range of the analyzed frequencies encompasses the rotation periods already proposed in the literature (Aufdenberg et al. \cite{aufdenberg06}, Takeda et al. \cite{takeda08}, Hill et al. \cite{hill10}, Petit et al. \cite{petit10}). The power spectrum of the longitudinal magnetic field (Figure~\ref{power}, black line) revealed the most prominent peak at frequency 1.6062959 $d^{-1}$ (signal-to-noise is 3.07) which corresponds to the period 0.62255 d. The period is very close to the rotation period 0.622 d estimated by Hill et al. \cite{hill10}. The power spectrum of the 'null' field (Figure~\ref{power}, gray line) revealed no any significant peaks in this frequency range.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\hbox{
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{butkovskaya/butkovskaya_fig2.eps}
}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption[]{The power spectra of the longitudinal magnetic field (\textit{black}), and the 'null' field which characterizes the spurious magnetic signal (\textit{gray}). The maximal peak corresponds to the frequency 1.6062959 $d^{-1}$. The arrow marks the frequency 1.3663 $d^{-1}$ which corresponds to rotation period proposed by Petit et al. \cite{petit10}.
}
\label{power}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We adopt the Julian date $JD$ = 2450658.427 as phase origin, and phased the longitudinal magnetic field of Vega with the 0.62255-day period. In the left panel of Figure~\ref{field} the longitudinal magnetic field of Vega averaged within 10 bins is presented. The estimated by Fisher test statistical reliability of the magnetic field curve vs phased 'null' field is 99.8\%.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\hbox{
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{butkovskaya/butkovskaya_fig3.eps}
}
\vspace{-25mm}
\caption[]{\textbf{Left}: the longitudinal magnetic field (\textit{black circles}) and 'null' field (\textit{crosses}) of Vega phased with the rotation period 0.62255 d, and averaged within 10 bins. \textbf{Right}: the longitudinal magnetic field (\textit{black circles}) and 'null' field (\textit{crosses}) phased with the rotation period 0.7319 d (Petit et al. \cite{petit10}), and averaged within 10 bins. Least-square sinusoidal fit is shown by strong line.
}
\label{field}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In attempt to reconstruct a relevant topology of the surface field on Vega, Petit et al. \cite{petit10} calculated the set of magnetic maps, assuming for each map a different value for the rotation period. They adopt a value of 0.7319 d for the rotation period, and choose the Julian date $JD$ = 2454101.5 as phase origin. We tested the agreement of our long-term magnetic field measurements with the period proposed by Petit et al. \cite{petit10}. The frequency 1.3663 $d^{-1}$ (signal-to-noise is 1.28) is marked in Figure~\ref{power} by arrow. We phased the longitudinal magnetic field of Vega with the 0.7319-day period. In the right panel of Figure~\ref{field} the longitudinal magnetic field of Vega averaged within 10 bins is presented. The estimated by Fisher test statistical reliability of the magnetic field curve vs phased 'null' field is 91.5\%.
Our long-term longitudinal magnetic field measurements do not confirm the rotation period proposed by Petit et al. \cite{petit10}. On the other hand, the different periods can be caused by different bulk of spectral lines used by us and by Petit et al. \cite{petit10}. The lines can be formed in the different physical conditions at different latitudes.
\bigskip
{\it Acknowledgements.} The author thanks S. Plachinda for useful discussions, and D. Baklanova and S. Plachinda for the help in observations.
|
\section{Introduction}
AFGL~2591, located at a distance of 3.3~kpc (Rygl et al. 2012), is one of the
most extensively studied and more luminous high-mass star forming regions (e.g., van der Tak et
al. 2006; Jim\'enez-Serra et al. 2012; Sanna et al. 2012; Johnston et al. 2013; Trinidad et al. 2013). It contains
several massive young stellar objects (YSOs) over a region of $\sim$ 6$''$
($\sim$ 0.1 pc) detected at infrared and radio continuum wavelengths (VLA~1,
VLA~2, and VLA~3), but completely obscured at optical wavelengths (e.g.,
Campbell 1984; Trinidad et al. 2003). Water maser emission, which is one of the
first observed signposts of high-mass star formation, has been detected toward
VLA~2, VLA~3, and $\sim$ 0.5$''$ ($\sim$ 1650~AU) north of VLA~3 (Tofani et
al. 1995; Trinidad et al. 2003). Very recent works by Sanna et al. (2012) and
Trinidad et al. (2013) show that the cluster of masers observed to the
north of VLA 3 (named as VLA 3-N) is formed by two bow shocks separated by
$\sim$ 0.1$''$ ($\sim$ 330~AU), and moving away from each other with velocities
of $\sim$ 20~km~s$^{-1}$. These authors conclude that in between the two bow
shocks lie one or two still unseen YSO(s) driving the H$_2$O masers.
VLA~3 is probably the most massive object
($\sim$ 30--40 M$_{\odot}$) dominating the infrared and mm wavelength
emission in the AFGL 2591 star-forming region (Tofani et al. 1995;
Doty et al. 2002; St\"auber et al. 2005; Jim\'enez-Serra et al.
2012; Sanna et al. 2012). VLA~3 is embedded within a high-density
($\sim$ 10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$), hot ($\sim$ 200~K) core as observed in
dust continuum and different molecular species (van der Tak 1999;
Jim\'enez-Serra et al. 2012). The molecular core shows a chemical
segregation (Jim\'enez-Serra et al. 2012), with species like H$_2$S
and $^{13}$CS peaking close ($\sim$ 0.2$''$, or $\sim$ 600 AU) to
the massive YSO, and species like HC$_3$N, OCS, SO$_2$, SO, and
CH$_3$OH peaking at larger distances ($\sim$ 0.4$''$, or 1100 AU).
Jim\'enez-Serra et al. (2012) modelled these results through the
combination of molecular UV photodissociation and high-temperature
gas-phase chemistry within a molecular region of $\sim$ 600~AU
radius, with an innermost cavity of 120~AU radius around the central
massive object. The presence of a cavity extending westwards
of VLA~3 has also been inferred from ammonia molecular lines and
near and mid-infrared data, showing in particular an IR-loop with
the YSO at one edge (Forrest \& Shure 1986; Torrelles et al. 1989;
Preibisch et al. 2003). It is believed that this cavity has been
evacuated by the extended east-west bipolar outflow associated with
VLA~3 and seen in CO and H$_2$, with the blueshifted outflowing
molecular gas found westwards of VLA~3 (Mitchell et al. 1992;
Tamura \& Yamashita 1992).
Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) techniques for
observing H$_2$O maser emission allow the study of the three-dimensional
velocity distribution (proper motions and radial velocity) of the
masing gas very close to the massive YSOs, with an angular resolution
better than $\sim$ 1~mas (e.g., Goddi et al. 2006; Torrelles et.
al. 2011; Chibueze et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2013). Sanna
et al. (2012) carried out multi-epoch VLBI H$_2$O maser observations
in 2008-2009, revealing the kinematics
of the masers toward AFGL~2591 VLA~3. These observations indicate
that the masers trace the edges of a blueshifted expanding cavity
created by an outflow from the central massive object.
In this work we present Very Long Baseline Array
(VLBA) H$_2$O maser observations toward the high-mass star forming
region of AFGL2591 obtained in 2001-2002 over three epochs,
with an angular resolution of $\sim$ 0.45 mas (Section 2).
As part of these observations, we
have already presented and discussed in a previous paper the results obtained
toward AFGL2591 VLA~3-N (Trinidad et al. 2013; hereafter Paper I).
We now concentrate on the spatio-kinematical distribution of the
cluster of masers detected toward the massive objects AFGL2591 VLA~2
and VLA~3, extending the study of the evolution of these masers
from 1999 (VLA data; Trinidad et al. 2003), 2001-2002
(VLBA data; this paper), to 2008-2009 (VLBA data; Sanna et al.
2012), covering a time span of $\sim$ 10 years of their
evolution (Section 3). The main conclusions of our studies are
presented in Section 4.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=176mm, clip=true]{FIGSPECTRUM.eps}
\caption{VLA 3.6~cm continuum contour map of the VLA~1, VLA~2, and
VLA~3 sources (top left panel). Plus symbols indicate the positions of the 22~GHz
H$_2$O masers detected in the region with the VLA in epoch 1999
June 29 (from Trinidad et al. 2003). The H$_2$O maser spectra
obtained with the VLBA toward the regions of VLA~2, VLA~3, and
VLA~3-N (regions indicated in the top left panel by dashed squares)
are also shown in the other panels for epoch 2001 December 02 (this paper). These spectra were obtained by adding components from the clean images of the regions with the task ISPEC (AIPS).
The spatio-kinematical distribution of the H$_2$O masers as
observed with the VLBA toward VLA~3-N is discussed by Sanna et
al. (2012) and Paper I. These authors infer the presence there
of a still unseen YSO(s) driving two observed H$_2$O maser bow-shock
structures (see Section 1).
The spatio-kinematical distribution of the masers around VLA~2 and
VLA~3 is the subject of this present paper.}
\end{figure*}
\section{Observations}
The $6_{16}$--$5_{23}$ H$_2$O maser transition (rest frequency =
22235.08~MHz) was observed with the VLBA of the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)\footnote{The NRAO is a facility of the
National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement
by Associated Universities, Inc.} toward AFGL~2591 at three epochs,
2001 December 2, 2002 February 11, and 2002 March 5. A bandwidth
of 8~MHz sampled over 512 channels (spectral resolution of 15.625~kHz
= 0.21~km s$^{-1}$) and centred on $V_\mathrm{LSR} = -7.6$~km~s$^{-1}$
was used, covering a radial velocity range from $V_\mathrm{LSR}
\simeq -61$~km~s$^{-1}$ to 46~km~s$^{-1}$.
A full description of the set-up of the VLBA observations,
amplitude and phase calibration of the observed visibilities, and further imaging of
the maser emission using the NRAO Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS) package are extensively explained in our previous Paper I.
Several clusters of masers were detected in
the three epochs of VLBA observations with a beam of $\sim$ 0.45~mas toward VLA~2, VLA~3, and $\sim$ 0.5$''$
north of VLA~3 (named as VLA~3-N after Paper I). As a reference, in Figure 1 we
show a 3.6 cm wavelength continuum contour map of the sources in the region
obtained with the Very Large Array (Trinidad et al. 2003). In Figure 1 we also
show the H$_2$O maser spectra observed with the VLBA toward VLA~2, VLA~3, and
VLA~3-N in 2001 December 02 (the spectra observed with the VLBA in the two other
epochs are similar to those shown here for the first epoch). The H$_2$O maser
emission in all the AFGL~2591 region spans a radial velocity range from
$V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq -31$ to $-2$~km~s$^{-1}$.
More specifically, the H$_2$O maser emission is detected
in the radial velocity ranges from $V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq -12$ to
$-$6~km~s$^{-1}$ in VLA~2, $-$31 to $-16$~km~s$^{-1}$ in VLA~3, and $-13$ to
$-2$~km~s$^{-1}$ in VLA~3-N (see Figure 1). The rms noise level of the images
is in the range of $\sim5$~mJy~beam$^{-1}$ (channels without emission) to
$\sim$~300~mJy~beam$^{-1}$ (channel with the strongest emission, $\sim$ 196~Jy~beam$^{-1}$ at
$V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq -24$~km~s$^{-1}$).
We determined the position, intensity, and radial velocity of all
the maser spots in the region for the three observed epochs by
means of two-dimensional elliptical Gaussian fits. We refer to a maser
spot as emission that appears at a given velocity channel with a
signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio $\ga$ 8 and with a distinct spatial
position for a particular epoch. The 1$\sigma$ accuracy in the
relative positions of the maser spots at each epoch is better than
$\sim$ 0.01~mas, estimated from the S/N ratio of the maser spots
and the beam size (Meehan et al. 1998). From these maser spots, we
then identified maser features in each of the observed epochs for
proper motion measurements. Here we refer to a maser feature as a
group of maser spots coinciding simultaneously in both, position within a beam size of
$\sim$ 0.5~mas, and radial velocity within $\sim$
1~km~s$^{-1}$.
We chose an isolated maser spot, with a point-like morphology and high intensity ($\simeq$ 10~Jy) in all our three observed epochs to self-calibrate the data and to obtain
a first and preliminary coordinate alignment between the three epochs.
This maser, with $V_\mathrm{LSR}=-18.8$~km s$^{-1}$ and associated with
VLA~3, has absolute coordinates
$\alpha$(J2000.0) = {\rm 20$^h$29$^m$24.879$^s$}, $\delta$(J2000.0)
= 40$^{\circ}$11$'$19.47$''$ ($\pm$ 0.01$''$). The procedure to align our set of VLBA epochs with the data set of Sanna et al. (2012) (epoch 2008-2009) is explained with detail in Paper I, and a brief summary is given here. We identified a maser clearly persisting in the two sets of data (maser S17 listed by Sanna
et al. 2012, which has a relatively small proper motion, and identified in our
data set as maser ID28, as listed in Table 1 of Paper I). Then, we corrected the positions of the maser ID28 as a function of time (and therefore to all our data set of 2001-2002), assigning them to the expected locations of the maser S17, from a extrapolation of its position and proper motions (Sanna et al. 2012), assuming that it has moved with constant velocity through the time span of $\sim$ 7 yr. As mentioned in Paper I, the fact that after this alignment, the whole maser structure observed in epochs 2001-2002 in VLA~3-N (formed by two bow shocks separated by $\sim$ 0.1$''$) is within that reported by Sanna et al. (2012) (epochs 2008-2009), and that the estimated shift in position of our observed masers in VLA~3-N for a time span of seven years coincide with
the angular separation between the structures observed in 2001-2002 and those of 2008-2009, gave this alignment an additional measure of robustness.
All the offset positions of the maser features shown
in the different figures of this paper (Figures 2--5) are relative
to the maser spot position (0,0) used for self-calibrating the data
of the first epoch of our VLBA observations ($\alpha$(J2000.0) = {\rm 20$^h$29$^m$24.879$^s$}, $\delta$(J2000.0)
= 40$^{\circ}$11$'$19.47$''$ ($\pm$ 0.01$''$). As mentioned above, this reference maser
is associated with VLA 3, which has a 3.6 cm continuum
peak position
RA (J2000) = $20^\mathrm{h}29^\mathrm{m}24.878^\mathrm{s}$,
DEC (J2000) = $40^{\circ}11'19.49''$
(Trinidad et al. 2003).
In the following Section 3 we present the spatio-kinematical
distribution of the H$_2$O masers associated with VLA~2 and VLA~3.
The results on VLA~3-N were presented and discussed in Paper I.
\section{Results and discussion}
\subsection{AFGL~2591~VLA 3}
VLA~3, detected at
infrared (Tamura et al. 1991; de Wit et al. 2009),
mm (van der Tak et al. 1999; Jim\'enez-Serra et al. 2012),
and
cm wavelengths (Campbell 1984; Trinidad et al. 2003; van der Tak \& Menten 2005),
is believed to be the most massive and young object
in the AFGL 2591 star-forming region (Jim\'enez-Serra et al. 2012;
Sanna et al. 2012). This source is elongated east-west at cm continuum
wavelengths, suggesting the presence of an ionised wind driving
the east-west bipolar molecular outflow observed at large scales
($\sim$ arcminutes; Mitchell et al. 1992; Tamura \& Yamashita 1992;
Trinidad et al. 2003; van der Tak \& Menten 2005; Sanna et al.
2012; Johnston et al. 2013). The source is deeply embedded in a hot core (visual extinction
A$_V$ $\ga$ 20 mag), with molecular gas exhibiting signatures of
Keplerian motions consistent with a mass of $\sim$ 40~M$_{\odot}$ of the
central object (van de Wiel et al. 2011; Jim\'enez-Serra et al. 2012).
We detected a cluster of masers associated with VLA~3 in our
three epochs of VLBA observations (2001 Dec 02, 2002 Feb 11, and
2002 Mar 05). The cluster is extended north-south over a scale of
$\sim$ 20~mas ($\sim$ 66~AU), with a few features detected to the
north-west. In Figure 2 we show the positions of the maser features
together with their LSR radial velocity (colour scale) for our three
epochs of VLBA observations. All the velocities of the maser emission
associated with VLA~3 ($V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq $ $-$31 to
$-16$~km~s$^{-1}$) are considerably blueshifted with respect to the
systemic velocity of the ambient molecular gas of the AFGL~2591
star-forming region ($V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq -8$ to $-6$ km~s$^{-1}$;
van der Tak et al. 1989; Jim\'enez-Serra et al. 2012). This behaviour
differs significantly from that of the H$_2$O maser emission toward
VLA~2 and VLA~3-N, where their velocities do not have such large
blueshifted components ($V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq -12$ to $-$6~km~s$^{-1}$
in VLA~2, and $-13$ to $-2$~km~s$^{-1}$ in VLA~3-N; see H$_2$O
maser spectra of these regions shown in Figure 1). The large
blueshifted components in the maser emission associated with VLA~3
were also seen in 1999 (VLA data; Trinidad et al.
2003) and 2008-2009 (VLBA data; Sanna et al. 2012), although the
maser emission detected in the 1999 and 2008-2009 epochs is found over a somewhat
more extended region ($\sim$ 40~mas) than ours. This is shown in
Figure 2, where we also plot the positions and radial velocities
of the H$_2$O maser features detected in 1999 (Trinidad et
al. 2003) and 2008-2009 (Sanna et al. 2012). The predominance of blueshifted (as opposed to redshifted) maser outflows has
been discussed recently by Caswell \& Phillips (2008), who conclude that the
mechanism responsible needs further exploration. Motogi et al. (2013)
propose a disc-masking scenario as the origin of the strong blue-shift dominance,
where an optically thick disc obscures a red-shifted lobe of a compact jet.
In the case of VLA 3, the blueshift predominance could be due to the fact that
the free-free continuum appears to be optically thick at 22 GHz (Trinidad et
al. 2003).
The spatial alignment between our three
epochs of VLBA H$_2$O maser observations and the VLBA observations
from Sanna et al. (2012) was well determined for proper motion measurements between these two set of data, and has been extensively explained in our Paper I.
The alignment with the VLA data shown in Figure
2 (top left panel) was made by matching the centre of the cluster
of masers observed with the VLA (epoch 1999 June 29) with the centre
of the cluster observed with the VLBA in the closest epoch (2001
December 02). However, this geometrical centre may have suffered a
spatial displacement between these two epochs due to proper motions
of the masers. For this reason, we emphasise that the VLA maser
alignment with the VLBA data shown in all figures of this paper is only valid for
a qualitative comparison of the different data sets, but not for
detailed studies of the proper motions.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\epsfig{file=vla3_epochv_new.eps,width=82mm,clip=true} &
\epsfig{file=vla3_epoch123.eps,width=82mm,clip=true} \\
\epsfig{file=vla3_epocha.eps,width=82mm,clip=true} &
\epsfig{file=vla3_epoch123a.eps,width=82mm,clip=true}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Positions of the H$_2$O maser features measured with the VLA ({\it
top left:} epoch 1999 Nov 10; from Trinidad et al. 2003), VLBA ({\it
top right:} epochs 2001-2002; this paper), and VLBA ({\it bottom
left:} epoch 2008 Nov 10; from Sanna et al. 2012) in AFGL~2591~VLA~3 (see \S~3.1).
The positions measured with the VLBA in all epochs are also shown
all together ({\it bottom right}). The colour scale represents the
radial velocity of the masers, and is the same for all the panels.
Offset positions are relative to
the (0,0) position,
RA(J2000) = $20^\mathrm{h}29^\mathrm{m}24.879^\mathrm{s}$,
DEC(J2000)= $40^{\circ}11'19.47''$
(error $\pm0.01''$), which coincides within
the errors with the 3.6~cm continuum peak of VLA~3.} \end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.90, clip=true]{vla3_proper_motions.eps}
\caption{Positions of the H$_2$O maser features measured with the VLBA in
AFGL~2591~VLA~3 for the epochs 2001 Dec 02 (plus signs), 2002 Feb
11 (cross signs), and 2002 Mar 05 (filled circle signs). Solid
arrows represent the proper motion vectors of the maser features
measured with the VLBA in these three epochs. The position of the
H$_2$O masers (filled triangles) and proper motions (dashed arrows)
of the features measured with the VLBA by Sanna et al. (2012) in
epochs 2008-2009 are also shown. The colour scale represents the radial
velocity of the masers, and is the same as shown in Figure 2. The scale of the proper motion vector
magnitude is indicated.} \end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{vla3_dec_vel.eps}
\caption{Radial velocity as a function of declination offset of
the H$_2$O maser features measured with the VLA and VLBA from 1999 to 2008,
showing a north-south velocity gradient (see \S\S~2 and 3.1 for the alignment of the different epochs). All the maser emission is
significantly blueshifted with respect to the velocity of the ambient molecular
gas, $V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq -6$ to $-8$ km~s$^{-1}$ (van der Tak et al. 1989;
Jim\'enez-Serra et al. 2012).}
\end{figure*}
From Figure 2 we see that there is a displacement of the H$_2$O
maser structure as a whole toward the west between the 2001-2002
and 2008-2009 epochs. The observed displacement of $\sim$ 9~mas
corresponds to a proper motion of $\sim$ 1.2~mas~yr$^{-1}$ ($\sim$
20~km~s$^{-1}$) in a time span of seven years. On the other hand,
from about 80 H$_2$O maser features that we have found in each of
our three observed epochs (2001-2002), we have only been able
to identify 11 maser features that persist in the three epochs to
measure their individual proper motions. With persisting masers we
refer to those having similar positions (within a few mas) and radial
velocities (within 1$-$2~km~s$^{-1}$) in the three different observed
epochs. The resulting proper motions of these 11 persisting
maser features are shown in Figure 3 with solid arrows. In
Figure 3 we also show the proper motion vectors of 13 H$_2$O maser
features measured by Sanna et al. (2012) for epochs 2008-2009 (dashed
arrows). We have not been able to identify any individual maser feature persisting from epochs 2001-2002 to 2008-2009 epochs (in contrast to what we find in VLA 3-N, with individual maser features persisting over seven years; Paper I).
The magnitudes of the individual proper motions of the
maser features range from $\sim$ 0.5 to 3.6~mas~yr$^{-1}$ ($\sim$
8 to 60~km~s$^{-1}$). However, we find that these vectors do not
show a preferential motion direction in the sky. This indicates
that while the whole structure of masers is moving westwards,
within it there are individual H$_2$O masers moving in
a chaotic way, with a very short lifetime in comparison to the scale
of seven years, when the motion of the full structure becomes apparent.
This would be consistent with the fact that only a small percentage
of the maser features identified in the region have been found to
persist in our three consecutive epochs of observations, implying
lifetimes for most of them of $\lesssim$ 3~months (see also below).
Sanna et al. (2012) identified in their VLBA data (epochs 2008-2009) a V-shaped
structure of the H$_2$O maser distribution opening toward the west, with its
vertex close to the peak of the radio continuum emission of VLA~3 (position
$[0,0]$ in Figure 2; bottom left panel). This structure is not observed
in our VLBA observations (2001-2002), where the cluster of masers is
concentrated closer to VLA~3 (see Figure 2; top right panel).
However, we think that the V-shaped structure is
not a new structure that has appeared after a
time span of seven years. In fact, the VLA H$_2$O maser observations
by Trinidad et al. (2003) also shows signs that it
was already there in 1999, as indicated by the masers
detected then with positions $\sim$ ($-15$~mas, +35~mas) and radial
velocities $V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq -$11~km~s$^{-1}$ (see Figure 2;
top left panel). These masers have similar positions and velocities
than the VLBA masers of epochs 2008-2009 that constitute the northern
part of the V-shaped structure (see Figure 2; bottom left panel). We therefore
think that the absence of the V-shaped structure in the
2001-2002 epochs is just due to the well known high time
variability of the flux density of the H$_2$O masers.
An additional, important result is that the masers in all the
observed epochs present a radial velocity gradient from north
to south, from $V_\mathrm{LSR} \simeq -$12~km~s$^{-1}$ (northern
regions) to $-$30~km~s$^{-1}$ (southern regions), as shown in
Figure 4. This velocity gradient ($\sim$ 0.12~km~s$^{-1}$~AU$^{-1}$) was also noticed by Trinidad et
al. (2003) and Sanna et al. (2012) in their respective epochs of
observations, although by combining all the masers detected in all
the epochs as shown in Figure 4, this gradient is seen more clearly. However, we notice that the VLBA data do not show the peculiar velocity-position helical distribution seen with the VLA in 1999 (Trinidad et al. 2003).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=176mm, clip=true]{vla2_proper_motions.eps}
\caption{Positions of the H$_2$O maser features measured with the VLBA
toward
AFGL~2591~VLA~2 (see Fig. 1) for the epochs 2001 Dec 02 (plus
signs), 2002 Feb 11 (cross signs), and 2002 Mar 05 (filled circles). Solid arrows represent the proper motion vectors of the
maser features measured with the VLBA in these three epochs. The
position of the H$_2$O maser features measured with the VLA by
Trinidad et al. (2003) in epoch 1999 Jun 29 are also shown (asterisks; see \S\S ~2 and 3.1 for the alignment of the different epochs). The colour scale represents the radial velocity of the masers.
The scale of the proper motion vector magnitude is indicated. VLA~2
is at the offset position $\sim$ ($-$3945~mas, $+$672~mas), this
is $\sim$ 0.7$''$ ($\sim$ 2310~AU) south from the detected masers shown here.}
\end{figure*}
The large values of the velocities that we find in the H$_2$O masing
region of VLA~3 with respect to the ambient cloud velocity, with total velocities (tangential + radial velocities)
$\gtrsim$ 40~km~s$^{-1}$, indicate that the masers are tracing
outflowing material. In fact, the central mass required to gravitationally
bind these motions would exceed 200~M$_{\odot}$,
which is not observed. The westward proper motion of the
whole H$_2$O maser structure associated with VLA~3, in a time span of seven years (Figure 2), together with their
large blueshifted velocities with respect to the ambient local medium,
suggest a physical relationship between the masers and the blueshifted
motions of the large-scale outflow seen in CO and H$_2$, found also
toward the west (Mitchell et al. 1992; Tamura \& Yamashita 1992).
Furthermore, the H$_2$O masers are spatially distributed within a
region of $\sim$ 40~mas around the radio continuum emission peak of VLA~3
(Figures 1 and 2), which is located at the edge of the cavity
observed through molecular lines and infrared images extending
$\sim$ 10$''$ ($\sim$ 3.3$\times$10$^3$~AU) toward the west (Forrest \& Shure 1986; Torrelles et
al. 1989; Preibisch et al. 2003). Due to all this, we propose that
the H$_2$O masers are tracing the inner parts of the molecular
walls of that cavity, very close ($\lesssim$ 130 AU) to the massive
YSO, and shock excited and evacuated by the east-west outflow,
marking a strong interaction between the outflowing gas from VLA3 and
the surrounding molecular gas (the H$_2$O maser emission would occur behind shocks propagating in dense regions; Hollenbach, Elitzur, \& McKee 2013). This strong interaction could also
contribute to the high temperatures observed toward VLA~3 ($\gtrsim$
200~K) and measured through ammonia emission (Torrelles et al.
1989).
A rough estimate of upper limits for the coherent path of the maser emission could be derived if we assume unsaturated tubular masers with beaming angles $\Delta$$\Omega$ $= (d/l)^2$, where $d$ and $l$ are the maser transverse and longitudinal sizes, respectively (e.g., Vlemmings et al. 2006; Surcis et al. 2011; Hollenbach et al. 2013). As pointed out by Hollenbach et al. (2013), beaming angles themselves are unmeasurable and can only be inferred indirectly using different approaches. In this sense, Vlemmings et al. (2006) and Surcis et al. (2011), through polarisation measurements of the H$_2$O maser emission and using full radiative transfer codes (based on the models for H$_2$O masers of Nedoluha \& Watson 1992), obtain beaming angles 10$^{-2}$ $\lesssim$ $\Delta$$\Omega$ $\lesssim$ 0.5 in different high-mass star-forming regions. Assuming these beaming angles, and a transverse size $d$ $\lesssim$ 0.45~mas ($\lesssim$ 1.5~AU, unresolved masers) we obtain a path length $l$ $\lesssim$ 15~AU. Considering that the size of the cavity in VLA~3 is $\sim$ 3.3$\times$10$^3$~AU, we think that the cavity walls could have enough thickness to provide such a path of coherent velocities (see also Uscanga et al. 2005).
As mentioned above, all the data available and presented in this
work reveal a radial velocity gradient in the H$_2$O masers along
the north-south direction, with higher blueshifted velocities to
the south with respect to the velocity of the ambient molecular gas
(Figure 4). Interestingly, Tamura \& Yamashita (1992) also
find an extinction gradient along the north-south direction of the
IR-loop delineating the cavity of VLA~3 (Forrest \& Shure 1986),
with a higher extinction in the north part of the IR-loop. We think
that this north-south asymmetry, with a lower amount of gas to the
south relative to the north, could produce higher expansion velocities
to the south due to the interaction of outflowing material from
VLA~3 with this non-uniform ambient medium, explaining in this way
the observed radial velocity gradient in the masers. However, we
cannot rule out other effects that could produce
the observed north-south velocity gradient in the H$_2$O masers
(e.g., shock-excited ambient molecular gas accelerated by a wind
from a precessing source, as suggested by Trinidad et al. 2003).
\subsection{AFGL~2591~VLA 2}
We detected H$_2$O maser emission toward VLA~2 in our three
epochs of VLBA observations. The VLBA H$_2$O maser observations
reported by Sanna et al. (2012) did not cover the region of VLA~2,
so unfortunately in this case we are not able to extend the study
of the evolution of the masers beyond our epochs of 2001-2002, as
it was done in the case of VLA~3 (Section 3.1).
In Figure 5 we show the positions of the H$_2$O maser features
together with their proper motions as measured with our VLBA
observations. The detected H$_2$O masers are located $\sim$ 0.7$''$
($\sim$ 2300~AU) north from the peak position of the 3.6~cm continuum
emission of VLA~2. The proper motions of the H$_2$O masers are
toward the south, with values of $\sim$ 20--40~km~s$^{-1}$.
We identify the clusters of masers detected with the VLBA with those
found with the VLA in 1999 (see Figures 5 and 1).
The radio continuum emission of VLA~2 is consistent with a partially
optically thick HII region excited by an early B-type star (Trinidad
et al. 2003). The lack of any symmetry in the spatio-kinematical
distribution of the H$_2$O masers detected in this region, together
with the lack of additional physical information on the characteristics
of VLA~2 (e.g., there is no apparent outflow activity associated
with this source), makes difficult to establish a firm conclusion
on a possible H$_2$O maser-VLA~2 physical association. A possibility
would be that the H$_2$O masers moving southwards are tracing
infalling gas motions around VLA~2, but this would require a central mass of $\gtrsim$
10$^{3}$~M$_{\odot}$ to bind motions of $\gtrsim$~20~km~s$^{-1}$
at distances of $\sim$ 2300~AU. This is the reason why we rather
favour that the observed H$_2$O masers in this region are excited
by a nearby YSO that has yet to be identified.
We think that new high-sensitive cm
and (sub)mm wavelength continuum observations in the region could
clarify this issue.
\section{Conclusions}
We present and analyse multi-epoch VLBA H$_2$O maser observations
toward the massive YSOs AFGL~2591 VLA~2 and VLA~3. By comparing our
data with those previously reported by Trinidad et al. (2003) and
Sanna et al. (2012), we have extended the study of the kinematics
of the H$_2$O masers in these two regions up to a time span of
$\sim$ 10~yrs. The cluster of masers found within $\sim$ 40~mas
($\sim$ 130~AU) from the most massive object in this star-forming
region, VLA~3 ($\sim$ 30--40~M$_{\odot}$), is significantly blueshifted
with respect to the ambient molecular cloud, and moving as a whole
toward the west of VLA~3 with a proper motion of $\sim$
20~km~s$^{-1}$. VLA~3 and its associated H$_2$O masers are located
at the edge of a cavity of $\sim$ 10$''$ size extending toward the
west and seen previously through ammonia lines and infrared images.
We propose that the masers are tracing blueshifted outflowing
material, shock excited at the inner parts of that cavity
evacuated by the outflow of VLA~3. This interpretation is fully
consistent with the one proposed previously by Sanna and collaborators.
In addition, we find a radial velocity gradient in the H$_2$O masers
along the north-south direction, with higher blueshifted velocities
to the south. We interpret this radial velocity gradient as due to
the decrease of the amount of gas to the south, needed to explain
the observed lower extinction in the southern parts.
On the other
hand, the spatio-kinematical distribution of the H$_2$O masers in
the region of VLA~2 favours that these masers are excited by a YSO
other than VLA~2. Future, sensitive radio continuum observations
could help to discover this new driving source, as well as the exciting source of the VLA~3-N system (Sanna
et al 2012; Trinidad et al. 2013).
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank our referee for the very useful report on our manuscript.
We also acknowledge Wouter Vlemmings and Moshe Elitzur for very helpful comments.
GA, CC-G, RE, JFG, and JMT acknowledge support from MICINN (Spain)
AYA2008-06189-C03 and AYA2011-30228-C03 grants (co-funded with FEDER funds). JC and ACR
acknowledge support from CONACyT grant 61547. SC acknowledges
the support of DGAPA, UNAM, CONACyT (M\'exico) and CSIC (Spain).
LFR acknowledges the
support of DGAPA, UNAM, and of CONACyT (M\'exico). MAT acknowledges
support from CONACyT grant 82543. RE and JMT acknowledge support
from AGAUR (Catalonia) 2009SGR1172 grant. JMT acknowledges the hospitality offered by the Science Operations Center of the NRAO (Socorro, NM; USA) where part of the data reduction was carried out (June-July, 2013). The ICC (UB) is a
CSIC-Associated Unit through the ICE (CSIC).
|
\section{Introduction}\label{s1}
Variational approaches
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tikh2}
\frac{1}{p}\|Ax-y^\delta\|_Y^p+\alpha\|x\|_\1\to\min_{x\in\1},\qquad 1 \le p < \infty,\quad \alpha>0,
\end{equation}
have become a standard tool for solving ill-posed operator equations,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Axy}
Ax=y,
\end{equation}
for a bounded linear operator $A:X:=\1 \to Y$ mapping absolutely summable infinite sequences $x=(x_1,x_2,...)$ of real numbers $x_k,\;k \in \N$, into a Banach space $Y$, if the solutions are known to be \emph{sparse} or if the \emph{sparsity constraints are narrowly missed}. This means that either only a finite number of nonzero components $x_k$ occurs or that the remaining nonzero components are negligibly small for large $k$.
We assume that the exact right-hand side $y$ is in the range $\range(A):=\{Ax:\;x \in \1\}$ of $A$, which is a nonclosed subset of $Y$ due to the ill-posedness of equation (\ref{eq:Axy}), and that $y$ is not directly accessible. Instead one only has some measured noisy version $\yd\in Y$ at hand with a deterministic noise model $\|y-\yd\|_Y\leq\delta$ using the given noise level $\delta\geq 0$.
Moreover, we assume that $\xdag \in \1$ denotes a solution of (\ref{eq:Axy}). In particular, let us suppose weak convergence
\begin{equation} \label{eq:weak}
Ae^{(k)} \rightharpoonup 0 \quad \mbox{in} \quad Y \quad \mbox{as} \quad k \to \infty,
\end{equation}
where $e^{(k)}=(0,0,...,0,1,0,...)$
denotes the infinite unit sequence with $1$ at the $k$-th position and $0$ else.
For successful application of $\ell^1$-regularization existence of minimizers $\xad$ to \eqref{eq:tikh2}
and their stability with respect to perturbations in the data $\yd$ have to be ensured.
Further, by choosing the regularization parameter $\alpha>0$ in dependence on the noise level $\delta$ and
the given data $y^\delta$ one has to guarantee that corresponding minimizers converge to
a solution $\xdag$ of \eqref{eq:Axy} if the noise level goes to zero.
Such existence, stability, and convergence results can be found in the literature.
Also the verification of convergence rates has been addressed, but mostly in the case of sparse solutions (cf.~\cite{AR2,BreLor09,Daub03,Grasm09,Gras11,GrasHaltSch08,GrasHaltSch11,Lorenz08,Ramlau08,RamRes10,RamTe10,Scherzetal09}). For non-sparse solutions a first convergence rate result can be found in \cite{BFH13}.
The aim of the present article is to formulate convergence rates results under assumptions which are weaker than those in \cite{BFH13} and
to obtain in this context further insights into the structure of $\ell^1$-regularization.
By the way we should mention that under condition (\ref{eq:weak}) in \cite{BFH13} the weak$^*$-to-weak continuity of $A$ was shown by employing the space $c_0$ of infinite sequences tending to zero, which is a predual space of $\1$, i.e., $(c_0)^*=\1$. Furthermore, we have for the range $\range(A^*)$ of the adjoint operator $A^*: Y^* \to \3$ that $\range(A^*) \subseteq c_0$ (cf.~\cite[Proposition~2.4 and Lemma~2.7]{BFH13}). These
facts, which are essentially based on (\ref{eq:weak}), ensure existence of regularized solutions $\xad$ for all $\alpha>0$ and norm convergence $\|\xad-\xdag\|_{\1} \to 0$ as $\delta \to 0$ if the
regularization parameter $\alpha=\alpha(\delta,\yd)$ is chosen in an appropriate manner, for example according to the sequential discrepancy principle (cf.~\cite{AnzHofMath12,HofMat12}). A sufficient condition to derive
(\ref{eq:weak}) is the existence of an extension of $A$ to $\2$ such that $A:\2 \to Y$ is a bounded linear operator. Then, taking into account the continuity of the embedding from $\1$ to $\2$, condition (\ref{eq:weak}) directly follows from the facts that $\{e^{(k)}\}_{k \in \N}$ is an orthogonal basis in
$\2$ with $e^{(k)} \rightharpoonup 0$ in $\2$ as $k \to \infty$ and that every bounded linear operator is weak-to-weak continuous.
\section{Convergence rates for smooth bases and a counter example} \label{s2}
As important ingredient and crucial condition for proving convergence rates the authors of \cite{BFH13} assumed that the following assumption holds true.
\begin{assumption}\label{as:range}
For all $k \in \N$ there exist $f^{(k)} \in Y^*$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:(c)}
e^{(k)}=A^*f^{(k)}, \qquad k=1,2, ... \;.
\end{equation}
\end{assumption}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:injective}
The countable set of \emph{range conditions} (\ref{eq:(c)}) concerning the unit elements $e^{(k)}$, which form a \emph{Schauder basis} in all Banach spaces $\ell^q(\N),\;1 \le q<\infty,$ with their usual norms as well as in $c_0$ with the supremum norm,
can by using duality pairings $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{\3 \times \1}$ be equivalently rewritten as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cont}
|\langle e^{(k)},x \rangle_{\3 \times \1}| \le C_k \|Ax\|_Y, \qquad k=1,2,...\;,
\end{equation}
where, for fixed $k \in \N$, (\ref{eq:cont}) must hold for some constant $C_k>0$ and all $x \in \1$
(cf.~\cite[Lemma~8.21]{Scherzetal09}). Since we have $|x_k|=|\langle e^{(k)},x \rangle_{\3 \times \1}|$, for all $k \in \N$, Assumption~\ref{as:range} implies that $A:\1 \to Y$ is an \emph{injective} operator.
Moreover, it can be easily verified that the following Assumption~\ref{as:smooth} is equivalent to Assumption~\ref{as:range}.
\end{remark}
\begin{assumption}\label{as:smooth}
For all $k \in \N$ there exist $f^{(k)} \in Y^*$ such that, for all $j \in \N$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:(cH)}
\langle f^{(k)},Ae^{(j)}\rangle_{Y^* \times Y} = \left\{\begin{array}{lcl} 1 & \mbox{if} & k=j\\0 & \mbox{if}& k \not=j \end{array}\right..
\end{equation}
\end{assumption}
The next proposition shows that the requirement (\ref{eq:(cH)}) cannot hold if one of the elements $Ae^{(j)}$ equals the sum of a convergent series $\sum _{k \in \N,\,k \not=j}\lambda_k e^{(k)}$.
\begin{proposition} \label{pro:not}
From an equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lambda}
\sum \limits _{k \in \N} \lambda_k Ae^{(k)}=0, \quad \mbox{where} \quad\lambda_k \in \R,\quad (\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots)\neq 0,
\end{equation}
it follows that condition (\ref{eq:(cH)}) is violated.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality let $Ae^{(1)}=\sum \limits_{j=2}^\infty \mu_j Ae^{(j)}$ and let there exist $f^{(1)}\in Y^*$ such that (\ref{eq:(cH)}) holds. Then it follows that
$$1=\langle f^{(1)},Ae^{(1)}\rangle_{Y^* \times Y}= \sum \limits_{j=2}^\infty \mu_j\langle f^{(1)},Ae^{(j)}\rangle_{Y^* \times Y}=\sum \limits_{j=2}^\infty 0 =0,$$
which yields a contradiction and proves the proposition.\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:smooth}
As always if range conditions occur in the context of ill-posed problems, the requirement (\ref{eq:(c)}) characterizes a specific kind of smoothness. In our case, (\ref{eq:(c)}) refers to the \emph{smoothness of the basis elements} $e^{(k)}$. Precisely, since $\range(A)$ is not a closed subset of $Y$, as a conclusion of the Closed Range Theorem (cf., e.g.,~\cite{Yos80}) we have that the range $\range(A^*)$ is also not a closed subset of $\3$ or $c_0$, and
only a sufficiently smooth basis $\{e^{(k)}\}_{k \in \N}$ can satisfy Assumption~\ref{as:range} and hence Assumption~\ref{as:smooth}. If the $\ell^1$-regularization to equation (\ref{eq:Axy}) with infinite sequences $x=(x_1,x_2,...)$ is associated to elements $Lx:=\sum \limits_{k=1}^\infty x_k u^{(k)} \in \widetilde X$ with some \emph{synthesis operator} $L:\1 \to \widetilde X$ and some Schauder basis $\{u^{(k)}\}_{k \in \N}$ in a Banach space $\widetilde X$ (see, e.g.,~\cite[Section~2]{BFH13} and \cite{Grasm09}), Assumption~\ref{as:range} refers to the smoothness of the basis elements $u^{(k)} \in \widetilde X$. The paper \cite{AnzHofRam13} illustrates this
matter by means of various linear inverse problems with practical relevance in the context of Gelfand triples. On the other hand, Example~2.6 in \cite{BFH13} indicates that operators $A$ with \emph{diagonal structure} in general satisfy Assumption~\ref{as:range}.
However, the following example will show that already for a \emph{bidiagonal structure} this is not always the case.
\end{remark}
We give an example of an injective operator $A$ where the basis is not smooth enough to satisfy Assumption~\ref{as:smooth}, because (\ref{eq:lambda}) is fulfilled and hence by Proposition~\ref{pro:not} condition (\ref{eq:(cH)}) is violated.
\begin{example}[bidiagonal operator] \label{ex:Hegland}
{\rm For this example we consider the bounded linear operator $A:\2 \to Y:=\2$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exA}
[Ax]_k:=\frac{x_k-x_{k+1}}{k},\quad k=1,2,...,
\end{equation}
with a bidiagonal structure. This operator is evidently injective, moreover a Hilbert-Schmidt operator due to
$$Ae^{(1)}=e^{(1)};\quad Ae^{(k)}=\frac{e^{(k)}}{k}-\frac{e^{(k-1)}}{k-1},\;k=2,3,...;$$ $$\|A\|_{HS}:=\left(\sum \limits_{k=1}^\infty \|Ae^{(k)}\|_Y^2\right)^{1/2}\le \left(2 \sum \limits_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k^2} \right)^{1/2} <\infty,$$
and therefore a compact operator. Its restriction to $X:=\1$ in the sense of equation (\ref{eq:Axy}) is also injective, bounded and even compact, because the embedding operator from $\1$ to $\2$ is injective and bounded. One immediately sees that with
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Hlambda}
\sum \limits_{k=1}^\infty Ae^{(k)} =0
\end{equation}
an equation (\ref{eq:lambda}) for $\lambda_k=1,\;k\in\N$ is fulfilled.
The adjoint operator $A^*:\2 \to \2$ has the explicit representation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Astern}
[A^\ast\eta]_1=\eta_1\qquad\text{and}\qquad[A^\ast\eta]_k=\frac{\eta_k}{k}-\frac{\eta_{k-1}}{k-1},\quad k\geq 2,
\end{equation}
and the condition (\ref{eq:(c)}) cannot hold, which also follows from the general conclusion. To satisfy, for example, the range condition
$e^{(1)}=A^*\eta$ we find successively from (\ref{eq:Astern}) $\eta_1=1,\;\eta_2=2,\;...,\;\eta_k=k,\;...$, which violates the requirement $\eta \in \2$.
}\end{example}
\section{Convergence rates if the basis is not smooth enough}
If the basis is not smooth enough, as for example when Proposition~\ref{pro:not} applies, for proving convergence rates in $\ell^1$-regularization a weaker assumption has to be established that replaces the stronger
Assumption~\ref{as:range}. We will do this in the following.
\begin{definition}[collection of source sets]\label{df:s}
For prescribed $c\in[0,1)$ we say that a sequence $\left\{S^{(n)}(c)\right\}_{n\in\N}$ of subsets
$S^{(n)}(c)\subseteq(Y^\ast)^n$ is a \emph{collection of source sets} to $c$ if, for arbitrary $n \in \N$, $S^{(n)}(c)$ contains all elements
$(f^{(n,1)},\ldots,f^{(n,n)})\in(Y^\ast)^n$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
For each $k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ we have $[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_l=0$ for $l\in\{1,\ldots,n\}\setminus k$ and
$[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_k=1$.
\item[(ii)]
$\sum\limits_{k=1}^n\bigl\vert[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_l\bigr\vert\leq c$ for all $l>n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The properties of the $A^\ast f^{(n,k)}$ in items (i) and (ii) of the definition are visualized in
Figure~\ref{fg:f}.
\begin{figure}[h]
$$
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
A^\ast f^{(n,1)}&=&(&1&0&0&\ldots&0&0&\ast&\ast&\ldots&)\\
&&&&&&&&&+&+&&\\
A^\ast f^{(n,2)}&=&(&0&1&0&\ldots&0&0&\ast&\ast&\ldots&)\\
&&&&&&&&&+&+&&\\
\vdots&&&&&&&&&\vdots&\vdots&&\\
&&&&&&&&&+&+&&\\
A^\ast f^{(n,n)}&=&(&0&0&0&\ldots&0&1&\ast&\ast&\ldots&)\\
&&&&&&&&&\leq&\leq&&\\
&&&&&&&&&c&c&&
\end{array}
$$
\caption{\label{fg:f}Structure of the vectors $(A^\ast f^{(n,1)},\ldots,A^\ast f^{(n,n)})$ in Definition~\ref{df:s}.
The sums of the absolute values of the stars in each column have to be bounded by $c$.}
\end{figure}
One easily verifies that each single source set $S^{(n)}(c)$ is convex but not necessarily closed.
It is also not clear whether the source sets are nonempty.
Thus, we will claim in the sequel the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}\label{as:source}
For some $c\in[0,1)$ there exists a collection of source sets $\left\{S^{(n)}(c)\right\}_{n\in\N}$ which contains
only nonempty sets $S^{(n)}(c)$.
\end{assumption}
Assumption~\ref{as:source} (with $c=0$) follows from Assumption~\ref{as:range}
by observing that $(f^{(1)},\ldots,f^{(n)})\in S^{(n)}(0)$.
The construction in Definition~\ref{df:s} may look a bit technical, but the elements $f^{(n,k)}$ define
a type of approximate inverse as we will now show.
\begin{remark}
Let the linear operator $F^{(n)}:Y\rightarrow\1$ be defined as
\begin{equation}
[F^{(n)}y]_k=\begin{cases}\la f^{(n,k)},y\ra_{Y^\ast\times Y},&k=1,\ldots,n,\\0,&k=n+1,\ldots.\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The composition
\begin{equation}
Q^{(n)}:=F^{(n)}A
\end{equation}
is then a bounded linear map from $\1$ into $\1$.
The range of $Q^{(n)}$ is the set of sequences $x$ with $x_k=0$ for $k>n$.
Furthermore, one has
$$\bigl(Q^{(n)}\bigr)^2=Q^{(n)}$$
and
$$\|Q^{(n)}-P^{(n)}\|_{\1\rightarrow\1}\leq c<1,$$
where $P^{(n)}$ is the canonical projection of $\1$ onto the set of sequences $x$ with $x_k=0$ for $k>n$.
From this it follows that $Q^{(n)}$ has the infinite matrix (cf.\ Figure~\ref{fg:f})
$$\begin{pmatrix}I_n&R_n\\0&0\end{pmatrix},$$
where $I_n$ is the $n$-dimensional identity and where $\|R_n\|_{\1\rightarrow\1}\leq c$.
\end{remark}
As already noted in Remark~\ref{rem:injective}, Assumption~\ref{as:range} implies the
injectivity of the operator $A$. The subsequent proposition shows that injectivity is also necessary for fulfilling Assumption~\ref{as:source}.
\begin{proposition} \label{pro:unique}
If Assumption~\ref{as:source} is satisfied, then $A$ is injective.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume $Ax=0$ for some $x\in\1$. By Assumption~\ref{as:source} there exists some $c\in[0,1)$ such that for each $n\in\N$ there
is an element $(f^{(n,1)},\ldots,f^{(n,n)})\in S^{(n)}(c)$, where $\left\{S^{(n)}(c)\right\}_{n\in\N}$
denotes the collection of source sets corresponding to $c$.
For fixed $k\in\N$ and all $n\geq k$ we have
\begin{align*}
\vert x_k\vert
&=\left\vert\la A^\ast f^{(n,k)},x\ra_{\3\times\1}-\sum_{l=n+1}^\infty[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_lx_l\right\vert\\
&\leq\vert\la f^{(n,k)},Ax\ra_{Y^\ast\times Y}\vert+\left(\sup_{l>n}\vert[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_l\vert\right)\sum_{l=n+1}^\infty\vert x_l\vert\\
&\leq c\sum_{l=n+1}^\infty\vert x_l\vert.
\end{align*}
The last expression goes to zero if $n$ tends to infinity. Thus, $x_k=0$ for arbitrary $k\in\N$ and therefore $x=0$.
Note that we did not need the bound $c<1$ to prove the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Assumption~\ref{as:source} can be seen as an approximate variant of Assumption~\ref{as:range}.
If $\{S^{(n)}(c)\}_{n\in\N}$ is a collection of nonempty source sets and if $(f^{(n,1)},\ldots,f^{(n,n)})\in S^{(n)}(c)$,
then $A^\ast f^{(n,k)}$ converges weakly in $\3$ to $e^{(k)}$ for each $k$.
\end{remark}
For deducing convergence rates from Assumption~\ref{as:source} we use variational inequalities, which represent an up-to-date tool
for deriving convergence rates in Banach space regularization (cf., e.g., \cite{BoHo10,Flemmingbuch12,Grasm10,HKPS07,HofYam10,SKHK12})
even if no explicit source conditions or approximate source conditions are available.
Here our focus is on convergence rates of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:convrate}
\|x_{\alpha(\delta,y^\delta)}^\delta-\xdag\|_\1=\cO(\varphi(\delta))\quad\text{as $\delta\to 0$}
\end{equation}
for concave rate functions $\varphi$.
{\parindent0em {\bf Condition (VIE).}}
There is a constant $\beta\in(0,1]$ and a non-decreasing, concave, and continuous function
$\varphi:[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ with $\varphi(0)=0$ such that a variational inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vi}
\beta\|x-\xdag\|_\1\leq\|x\|_\1-\|\xdag\|_\1+\varphi(\|Ax-A\xdag\|_Y)
\end{equation}
holds for all $x\in\1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:vi}
Under Assumption~\ref{as:source} Condition (VIE) is satisfied.
More precisely, we have (VIE) for $\beta=\frac{1-c}{1+c}$ with $c$ from Assumption~\ref{as:source} and for the
concave function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phi}
\varphi(t)=2\inf_{n\in\N}\left(\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty\vert\xdag_k\vert
+\frac{t}{1+c}\inf_{f^{(n,\bullet)}\in S^{(n)}(c)}\left(\sum_{k=1}^n\|f^{(n,k)}\|_{Y^\ast}\right)\right)
\end{equation}
for $t\geq 0$, where $S^{(n)}$ is defined in Definition~\ref{df:s}. As a consequence we have the corresponding convergence rate
(\ref{eq:convrate}) for that rate function $\varphi$ when the regularization parameter is chosen according to the discrepancy principle.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $n\in\N$ define projections $P_n:\1\rightarrow\1$ by $[P_nx]_k:=x_k$ if $k\leq n$ and $[P_nx]_k=0$ else.
Further, set $Q_n:=I-P_n$. Then
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\beta\|x-\xdag\|_\1-\|x\|_\1+\|\xdag\|_\1}\\
&\qquad=\beta\|P_n(x-\xdag)\|_\1+\beta\|Q_n(x-\xdag)\|_\1-\|P_nx\|_\1-\|Q_nx\|_\1\\
&\qquad\qquad+\|P_n\xdag\|_\1+\|Q_n\xdag\|_\1.
\end{align*}
The triangle inequality yields $\|Q_n(x-\xdag)\|_\1\leq\|Q_nx\|_\1+\|Q_n\xdag\|_\1$ and
$\|P_n\xdag\|_\1\leq\|P_n(x-\xdag)\|_\1+\|P_nx\|_\1$
and therefore
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\beta\|x-\xdag\|_\1-\|x\|_\1+\|\xdag\|_\1}\\
&\qquad\leq(1+\beta)\|P_n(x-\xdag)\|_\1-(1-\beta)\|Q_nx\|_\1+(1+\beta)\|Q_n\xdag\|_\1\\
&\qquad=2\|Q_n\xdag\|_\1+(1+\beta)\|P_n(x-\xdag)\|_\1\\
&\qquad\qquad-(1-\beta)(\|Q_nx\|_\1+\|Q_n\xdag\|_\1).
\end{align*}
\par
Now choose $\beta=\frac{1-c}{1+c}$, which is equivalent to $c=\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}$,
and let $(f^{(n,1)},\ldots,f^{(n,n)})\in S^{(n)}(c)$ be arbitrary. Then
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\|P_n(x-\xdag)\|_\1}\\
&\qquad=\sum_{k=1}^n\left\vert\la A^\ast f^{(n,k)},x-\xdag\ra_{\3\times\1}-\sum_{l=n+1}^\infty[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_l(x_l-\xdag_l)\right\vert\\
&\qquad\leq\|Ax-A\xdag\|_Y\sum_{k=1}^n\|f^{(n,k)}\|_{Y^\ast}+\sum_{k=1}^n\sum_{l=n+1}^\infty\vert[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_l\vert\vert x_l-\xdag_l\vert
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=1}^n\sum_{l=n+1}^\infty\vert[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_l\vert\vert x_l-\xdag_l\vert
&=\sum_{l=n+1}^\infty\left(\sum_{k=1}^n\vert[A^\ast f^{(n,k)}]_l\vert\right)\vert x_l-\xdag_l\vert\\
&\leq c\|Q_n(x-\xdag)\|_\1\\
&\leq\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}(\|Q_nx\|_\1+\|Q_n\xdag\|_\1).
\end{align*}
Combining the estimates yields
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\beta\|x-\xdag\|_\1-\|x\|_\1+\|\xdag\|_\1}\\
&\qquad\leq 2\|Q_n\xdag\|_\1+(1+\beta)\|Ax-A\xdag\|_Y\sum_{k=1}^n\|f^{(n,k)}\|_{Y^\ast}\\
&\qquad=2\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty\vert\xdag_k\vert+\frac{2\|Ax-A\xdag\|_Y}{1+c}\sum_{k=1}^n\|f^{(n,k)}\|_{Y^\ast}
\end{align*}
for arbitrary $n\in\N$ and arbitrary $(f^{(n,1)},\ldots,f^{(n,n)})\in S^{(n)}(c)$.
The convergence rate result then immediately follows from Theorem~2 in \cite{HofMat12}.
\end{proof}
Now we are going to show that Theorem~\ref{th:vi} applies to the operator $A$ from Example~\ref{ex:Hegland} which does not
meet Assumption~\ref{as:range}. In this context, we see that even if a variational
inequality \eqref{eq:vi} holds for all $\beta\in(0,1)$, with possibly different functions $\varphi$, it does not
automatically hold for $\beta=1$.
\begin{proposition}
Let the operator $A$ be defined by Example~\ref{ex:Hegland} according to formula \eqref{eq:exA}. If there is a function $\varphi:[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ with
$\lim \limits_{t\to 0}\varphi(t)=0$ such that Condition (VIE) with \eqref{eq:vi} holds for $\beta=1$, then we have $\xdag=0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we assume that at least one component of $\xdag$ is positive.
For $n\in\N$ define $x^{(n)}\in\1$ by
$$x^{(n)}_k:=\begin{cases}
\xdag_k-\|\xdag\|_\3,&\text{if $k\leq n$},\\
\xdag_k,&\text{if $k>n$}
\end{cases}$$
for $k\in\N$ (if $\xdag$ has only nonpositive components, use plus instead of minus).
Then
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\|x^{(n)}-\xdag\|_\1-\|x^{(n)}\|_\1+\|\xdag\|_\1}\\
&=n\|\xdag\|_\3-\left(\sum_{k=1}^n\vert \xdag_k-\|\xdag\|_\3\vert
+\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty\vert \xdag_k\vert\right)+\|\xdag\|_\1\\
&=n\|\xdag\|_\3+\sum_{k=1}^n\vert \xdag_k\vert
-\sum_{\substack{k=1\\\xdag_k>0}}^n\left(\|\xdag\|_\3-\vert \xdag_k\vert\right)
-\sum_{\substack{k=1\\\xdag_k\leq 0}}^n\left(\|\xdag\|_\3+\vert \xdag_k\vert\right)\\
&=2\sum_{\substack{k=1\\\xdag_k>0}}^n\vert \xdag_k\vert
\end{align*}
and
$$\|Ax^{(n)}-A\xdag\|_Y=\frac{1}{n}\|\xdag\|_\3.$$
Thus, the variational inequality \eqref{eq:vi} implies
$$2\sum_{\substack{k=1\\\xdag_k>0}}^n\vert \xdag_k\vert\leq\frac{1}{n}\|\xdag\|_\3$$
for all $n\in\N$, which is a contradiction since the left-hand side is bounded away from zero but the right-hand
side approaches zero for large $n$.
\end{proof}
The next proposition together with Theorem~\ref{th:vi} shows that for each $\beta\in(0,1)$ a
variational inequality is valid and hence a corresponding convergence rate (\ref{eq:convrate}) can be established for $A$ from Example~\ref{ex:Hegland},
where the rate function $\varphi$ arises from properties of $A$ in combination with the decay rate of $|\xdag_k| \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$.
\begin{proposition}
For the operator $A$ from Example~\ref{ex:Hegland} the Assumption~\ref{as:source} holds for all $c\in(0,1)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $c\in(0,1)$ and set
$$a:=\left\lfloor\frac{1}{c}\right\rfloor\qquad\text{and}\qquad b:=1-ca.$$
Then $a\in\N$, $b\in[0,c)$, and $ca+b=1$.
For $n\in\N$ and $k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ define $e^{(n,k)}\in\3$ by
$$e^{(n,k)}_{ln+p}:=\begin{cases}
1,&\text{if $l=0$, $p=k$},\\
-c,&\text{if $l\in\{1,\ldots,a\}$, $p=k$},\\
-b,&\text{if $l=a+1$, $p=k$},\\
0,&\text{else}\\
\end{cases}$$
for $l\in\N_{0}$ and $p\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$.
Then $\sum_{l=1}^Ne^{(n,k)}_l=0$ for all $N>(a+2)n$.
Thus, the sequence $f^{(n,k)}$ defined by
$$f^{(n,k)}_l:=l\sum_{m=1}^le^{(n,k)}_m,\quad l\in\N,$$
belongs to $Y^\ast=\2$ and we have $e^{(n,k)}=A^\ast f^{(n,k)}$.
Item (i) in Definition~\ref{df:s} is obviously satisfied and item (ii)
can be easily deduced from the fact that for fixed
$n\in\N$ the elements $e^{(n,1)},\ldots,e^{(n,n)}$ have mutually disjoint supports.
Since for each $n\in\N$ we found $(f^{(n,1)},\ldots,f^{(n,n)})\in S^{(n)}$, the source sets
$S^{(n)}$ are nonempty.
\end{proof}
\section{Another example: integration operator and Haar wavelets}\label{sc:example}
In addition to Example~\ref{ex:Hegland} we now provide another, less artificial, example for a situation
where Assumption~\ref{as:source} is satisfied but Assumption~\ref{as:range} is violated.
For $\tilde{X}:=L^2(0,1)$ and $Y:=L^2(0,1)$ define $\tilde{A}:\tilde{X}\rightarrow Y$ by
\begin{equation}
(\tilde{A}\tilde{x})(s):=\int_0^s\tilde{x}(t)\diff t,\quad s\in(0,1).
\end{equation}
Then $\tilde{X}^\ast=L^2(0,1)$ and $Y^\ast=L^2(0,1)$, too, and
$\tilde{A}^\ast:Y^\ast\rightarrow\tilde{X}^\ast$ is given by
\begin{equation}
(\tilde{A}^\ast y)(t)=\int_{t}^1y(s)\diff s,\quad t\in(0,1).
\end{equation}
Suppose we know that the unknown solution to $\tilde{A}\tilde{x}=y$ is sparse or at least nearly sparse with respect to the Haar
basis and denote the synthesis operator of the Haar system by $L:\2\rightarrow L^2(0,1)$.
Then for given noisy data $y^\delta$ we would like to find approximate solutions $\tilde{x}_\alpha^\delta:=Lx_\alpha^\delta$,
where $x_\alpha^\delta\in\1$ is the minimizer of \eqref{eq:tikh2} with $A:=\tilde{A}L$.
To obtain convergence rates for that method we have to verify Assumption~\ref{as:range} or Assumption~\ref{as:source}.
But first let us recall the definition of the Haar basis.
The first element of the Haar system is given by $u^{(1)}(s):=1$ for $s\in(0,1)$. All other elements are scaled and
translated versions of the function
$$\psi(s):=\begin{cases}1,&s\in(0,\frac{1}{2}),\\-1,&s\in(\frac{1}{2},1).\end{cases}$$
More precisely
$$u^{(1+2^l+k)}(s):=\psi_{l,k}(s):=2^{\frac{l}{2}}\psi(2^ls-k),\quad s\in(0,1),$$
for $l=0,1,2\ldots$ and $k=0,1,\ldots,2^l-1$.
The following proposition shows that Assumption~\ref{as:range} is not satisfied in this setting, that is,
the basis $\{e^{(k)}\}_{k\in\N}$ in $\1$, and thus the Haar basis in $L^2(0,1)$, is not smooth enough with respect
to $A$ to obtain convergence rates via Assumption~\ref{as:range}.
\begin{proposition}
The element $e^{(1)}$ does not belong to $\range(A^\ast)$ and, thus, Assumption~\ref{as:range} does not hold.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that there is some $f^{(1)}\in Y^\ast$ such that $e^{(1)}=A^\ast f^{(1)}$.
Then $1=(\tilde{A}^\ast f^{(1)})(s)$ for all $s$, but elements from $\range(\tilde{A}^\ast)$
always belong to the Sobolev space $H^1(0,1)$ and are zero at $s=1$.
Thus, $1=(\tilde{A}^\ast f^{(1)})(1)$ cannot be true and $e^{(1)}=A^\ast f^{(1)}$ is not possible.
\end{proof}
The second proposition states that Assumption~\ref{as:source} is satisfied and thus convergence rates
can be obtained for our example.
\begin{proposition}
There is a nonempty collection of source sets $S^{(n)}(c)$ with $c=(4-\sqrt{8})^{-1}<1$.
For $n=1$ the element $f^{(1,1)}:=2$ belongs to $S^{(n)}(c)$.
For $n=2^m$ with $m\in\N$ the vector $(f^{(2^m,1)},\ldots,f^{(2^m,2^m)})$ given by
\begin{equation}
f^{(2^m,1+q)}:=-2^{\frac{m}{2}+2}\sum_{p=0}^{2^m-1}c^{(m)}_{1+q,1+p}\psi_{m,p},\quad q=0,\ldots,2^m-1,
\end{equation}
belongs to $S^{(n)}(c)$.
Here,
$$c^{(m)}_{1,1+p}=1$$
and
$$c^{(m)}_{1+2^r+s,1+p}:=\begin{cases}2^{\frac{r}{2}},&2^{m-r}s\leq p\leq 2^{m-r}(s+\frac{1}{2})-1,\\
-2^{\frac{r}{2}},&2^{m-r}(s+\frac{1}{2})\leq p\leq 2^{m-r}(s+1)-1\\
0,&\text{else},\end{cases}$$
for $r=0,\ldots,m-1$ and $s=0,\ldots,2^r-1$ and $p=0,\ldots,2^m-1$.
For all other values of $n$ an element contained in $S^{(n)}(c)$ can be obtained by truncating a vector
from $S^{(2^m)}(c)$ with $2^m\geq n$ after $n$ components.
\par
The sum in \eqref{eq:phi} can be estimated for $n\leq 2^m$ by
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=1}^n\|f^{(n,k)}\|_{Y^\ast}\leq 2+2^{2m+2}-2^{m+2}
\end{equation}
where equality holds if $n=2^m$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proposition can be proven by elementary but lengthy calculations.
We only provide the elements $A^\ast f^{(n,k)}$ and the estimate for $c$.
\par
For $n=1$ we have
$$[A^\ast f^{(1,1)}]_1=1\quad\text{and}\quad
[A^\ast f^{(1,1)}]_{1+2^l+k}=2^{-\frac{3}{2}l-1},$$
where $l\in\N_0$ and $k=0,\ldots,2^l-1$.
\par
For $n=2^m$ with $m\in\N$ the element $A^\ast f^{(2^m,1+q)}$ has zeros in the first $2^{m+1}$ components
except for position $q$, where a one appears.
The absolute values of the remaining components are given by
$$\bigl\vert[A^\ast f^{(2^m,1)}]_{1+2^l+k}\bigr\vert=2^{m-\frac{3}{2}l}$$
and
$$\bigl\vert[A^\ast f^{(2^m,1+2^r+s)}]_{1+2^l+k}\bigr\vert
=\begin{cases}2^{\frac{1}{2}r+m-\frac{3}{2}l},&2^{-(l-r)}(k+1)-1\leq s\leq 2^{-(l-r)}\leq k,\\
0,&\text{else},\end{cases}$$
where $l>m$, $k=0,1,\ldots,2^l-1$, $r=0,1,\ldots,m-1$, $s=0,1,\ldots,2^r-1$.
\par
Now we come to the estimate of the constant $c$.
First, note that for fixed $m$, $r$, $l$, $k$ there is at most one $s$ such that $[A^\ast f^{(2^m,1+2^r+s)}]_{1+2^l+k}\neq 0$.
Then for fixed $m$, $l$, $k$ with $l>m$ we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\kappa=0}^{2^m-1}\bigl\vert[A^\ast f^{(2^m,\kappa)}]_{1+2^l+k}\bigr\vert
&=\bigl\vert[A^\ast f^{(2^m,1)}]_{1+2^l+k}\bigr\vert+\sum_{r=0}^{m-1}\sum_{s=0}^{2^r-1}\bigl\vert[A^\ast f^{(2^m,1+2^r+s)}]_{1+2^l+k}\bigr\vert\\
&\leq 2^{m-\frac{3}{2}l}+\sum_{r=0}^{m-1}2^{\frac{1}{2}r+m-\frac{3}{2}l}
=2^{m-\frac{3}{2}l}\left(1+\sum_{r=0}^{m-1}\bigl(\sqrt{2}\bigr)^r\right)\\
&=2^{m-\frac{3}{2}l}\left(1+\frac{\bigl(\sqrt{2}\bigr)^m-1}{\sqrt{2}-1}\right).
\end{align*}
Using $l\geq m+1$ we further estimate
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\kappa=0}^{2^m-1}\bigl\vert[A^\ast f^{(2^m,\kappa)}]_{1+2^l+k}\bigr\vert
&\leq 2^{-\frac{1}{2}m-\frac{3}{2}}\left(1+\frac{\bigl(\sqrt{2}\bigr)^m-1}{\sqrt{2}-1}\right)\\
&=2^{-\frac{3}{2}}\left(2^{-\frac{1}{2}m}+\frac{1-2^{-\frac{1}{2}m}}{\sqrt{2}-1}\right)\\
&=\frac{2^{-\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{2}-1}\left(1-\bigl(2-\sqrt{2}\bigr)2^{-\frac{1}{2}m}\right)\\
&\leq\frac{2^{-\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{2}-1}
=\frac{1}{4-\sqrt{8}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that the source condition $e^{(k)}\in\range(A^\ast)$ for all $k$, as published in \cite{BFH13}
for obtaining convergence rates in $\ell^1$-regularization, is rather strong.
A weaker assumption yields a comparable rate result and covers a wider field of settings.
Especially nonsmooth bases, e.g.\ the Haar basis, can be handled even if the forward operator is smoothing
and the basis elements do not belong to the range of the adjoint.
A major drawback of our new approach (and of the previous one in \cite{BFH13}) is that
the assumptions automatically imply injectivity of the operator.
Sufficient condition for convergence rates in $\ell^1$-regularization if the operator is not
injective and if the solution is not sparse are not known up to now.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank Bernd Hofmann for many valuable comments on a draft of this article and for fruitful discussions on the subject.
J.\ Flemming was supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) under grant FL~832/1-1.
M.\ Hegland was partially supported by the Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen Institute of Advanced Study,
funded by the German Excellence Initiative.
Work on this article was partially conducted during a stay of M.\ Hegland at TU Chemnitz, supported by the German Science
Foundation (DFG) under grant HO~1454/8-1.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{SecIntro}
Topological semantics for modal logic was developed by McKinsey and Tarski in 1930s and 1940s. They proved that if we interpret modal diamond as topological closure, and hence modal box as topological interior, then {\bf S4} is the logic of the class of all topological spaces. Their celebrated topological completeness result states that {\bf S4} is the logic of any dense-in-itself separable metrizable space \cite{MT44}. In particular, {\bf S4} is the logic of the real line $\mathbf R$, rational line $\mathbf Q$, or Cantor space $\mathbf C$.
In 1950s and 1960s, Kripke semantics for modal logic was introduced \cite{Kri59,Kri63} and it started to play a dominant role in the studies of modal logic. In 1970s it was realized that there exist Kripke incomplete logics \cite{Tho72}. To remedy this, general Kripke semantics was developed, and it was shown that each normal modal logic is complete with respect to the corresponding class of descriptive Kripke frames (see, e.g., \cite{Gol76a}).
Kripke frames for {\bf S4} can be viewed as special topological spaces, the so-called Alexandroff spaces, in which each point has a least open neighborhood. So topological semantics for {\bf S4} is stronger than Kripke semantics for {\bf S4}, but as with Kripke semantics, there are topologically incomplete logics above {\bf S4} \cite{Ger75}. It is only natural to generalize topological semantics along the same lines as Kripke semantics.
For a topological space $X$, let $X^+$ be the closure algebra associated with $X$; that is, $X^+=(\wp(X),{\bf c})$, where $\wp(X)$ is the powerset of $X$ and {\bf c} is the closure operator of $X$. We define a general space to be a pair $(X,\mathcal P)$, where $X$ is a topological space and $\mathcal P$ is a subalgebra of the closure algebra $X^+$; that is, $\mathcal P$ is a field of sets over $X$ closed under topological closure. As in general frame semantics, we introduce descriptive general spaces and prove that the category of descriptive spaces is isomorphic to the category of descriptive frames for {\bf S4}. This yields completeness of each logic above {\bf S4} with respect to the corresponding class of descriptive spaces.
Since descriptive spaces are in 1-1 correspondence with descriptive frames for {\bf S4}, it is natural to ask whether we gain much by developing general topological semantics. One of the main goals of this paper is to demonstrate some substantial gains. For a general space $(X,\mathcal P)$, we have that $\mathcal P$ is a subalgebra of the closure algebra $X^+$, thus general spaces over $X$ correspond to subalgebras of $X^+$. In \cite{BG11} it was shown that if $X$ is taken to be $\mathbf Q$ or $\mathbf C$, then every logic above {\bf S4} with the finite model property (FMP) is the logic of some subalgebra of $X^+$. In this paper, we strengthen this result by showing that all logics above {\bf S4} can be captured this way. Put differently, each logic above {\bf S4} is the logic of a general space over either $\mathbf Q$ or $\mathbf C$. Thus, such natural spaces as $\mathbf Q$ or $\mathbf C$ determine entirely the lattice of logics above {\bf S4} in that each such logic is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf Q$ or $\mathbf C$.
We are not aware of similar natural examples of Kripke frames. In fact, one of the most natural examples would be the infinite binary tree $\T_2$. We introduce the concept of a well-connected logic above {\bf S4} and prove that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is the logic of a general frame over $\T_2$ iff $L$ is well-connected, so $\T_2$ is capable of capturing well-connected logics above {\bf S4}.
We recall \cite{BG11} that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is connected if $L$ is the logic of a connected closure algebra. The main result of \cite{BG11} establishes that each connected logic above {\bf S4} with the FMP is the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$. Put differently, a connected logic $L$ above {\bf S4} with the FMP is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf R$. We strengthen this result by proving that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is connected iff $L$ is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf R$. This is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$, which solves \cite[p.~306, Open Problem 2]{BG11}. We conclude the paper by transferring our results to the setting of intermediate logics.
We discuss briefly the methodology we developed to obtain our results. It is well known (see, e.g., \cite{CZ97}) that many modal logics have neither the FMP nor the countable frame property (CFP). We introduce a weaker concept of the countable general frame property (CGFP) and prove that each normal modal logic has the CGFP. This together with the fact \cite{BLB12a} that countable rooted {\bf S4}-frames are interior images of $\mathbf Q$ yields that a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf Q$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf Q^+$.
Every countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame is also a p-morphic image of $\T_2$. However, in the case of $\T_2$, only a weaker result holds. Namely, a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a subalgebra of a homomorphic image of $\T_2^+$. Homomorphic images can be dropped from the theorem only for well-connected logics above {\bf S4}. In this case we obtain that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is well-connected iff it is the logic of a subalgebra of $\T_2^+$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a general frame over $\T_2$.
Since $\T_2$ is not an interior image of $\mathbf C$, in order to obtain our completeness results for general spaces over $\mathbf C$, we work with the infinite binary tree with limits $\LL_2$. This uncountable tree has been an object of recent interest \cite{Lan12,Kre13}. In particular, Kremer \cite{Kre13} proved that if we equip $\LL_2$ with the Scott topology, and denote the result by ${\bf L}_2$, then $\T_2^+$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of ${\bf L}_2^+$. Utilizing Kremer's theorem and the CGFP yields that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is well-connected iff it is the logic of a general space over ${\bf L}_2$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of ${\bf L}_2^+$. Since ${\bf L}_2$ is an interior image of $\mathbf C$ and the one-point compactification of the countable sum of homeomorphic copies of ${\bf C}$ is homeomorphic to ${\bf C}$, we further obtain that a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf C$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf C^+$.
For $\mathbf R$, only a weaker result holds. Namely, a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a subalgebra of a homomorphic image of $\mathbf R^+$. Homomorphic images can be dropped from the theorem only for connected logics above {\bf S4}. In this case we obtain that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is connected iff it is the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a general space over $\mathbf R$. To prove this result we again use the CGFP, a theorem of Kremer that $\T_2^+$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of ${\bf L}_2^+$, the fact that certain quotients of ${\bf L}_2$ are interior images of $\mathbf R$, and a generalization of the gluing technique developed in \cite{BG11}.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{SecPrelims} we provide all the necessary preliminaries. In Section~\ref{SecGenTopSem} we introduce general topological semantics, and show that the category of descriptive spaces is isomorphic to the category of descriptive frames for {\bf S4}. In Section~\ref{SecRationals} we introduce the CGFP, and prove that each normal modal logic has the CGFP. This paves the way for our first general completeness result: a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf Q$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf Q^+$. In Section~\ref{BinaryTreeSection} we prove our second general completeness result: a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a subalgebra of a homomorphic image of $\T_2^+$. We also introduce well-connected logics above {\bf S4} and prove that a logic above {\bf S4} is well-connected iff it is the logic of a general frame over $\T_2$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of $\T_2^+$. In Section~\ref{SecL2} we give several characterizations of ${\bf L}_2$ and prove our third general completeness result: a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a subalgebra of a homomorphic image of $\mathbf L_2^+$. We also show that a logic above {\bf S4} is well-connected iff it is the logic of a general space over ${\bf L}_2$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of ${\bf L}_2^+$. In Section~\ref{CantorSection} we prove that ${\bf L}_2$ is an interior image of $\mathbf C$. This yields our fourth general completeness result: a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf C$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf C^+$. In Section~\ref{SecOpenSubspacesOfRealLine} we prove that ${\bf L}_2$ is an interior image of $\mathbf R$. From this we derive our fifth general completeness result: a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a subalgebra of a homomorphic image of $\mathbf R^+$. In Section~\ref{SecRealLineAndConnLogs} we generalize the gluing technique of \cite{BG11} and prove the main result of the paper: a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is connected iff it is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf R$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$. This solves \cite[p.~306, Open~Problem~2]{BG11}. Finally, in Section~\ref{SecIntLogs} we transfer our results to the setting of intermediate logics.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{SecPrelims}
In this section we recall some of the basic definitions and facts, and fix the notation. Some familiarity with modal logic and its Kripke semantics is assumed; see, e.g., \cite{CZ97} or \cite{BRV01}.
Modal formulas are built recursively from the countable set of propositional letters $\textrm{Prop}=\{p_1,p_2,\dots\}$ with the help of usual Boolean connectives $\land, \lor, \neg, \to, \leftrightarrow$, the constants $\top,\bot$, and the unary modal operators $\Diamond, \Box$. We denote the set of all modal formulas by $\mathfrak{Form}$. A set of modal formulas $L\subseteq\mathfrak{Form}$ is called a \emph{normal modal logic} if it contains all tautologies, the schemata $\Diamond(\varphi\vee\psi)\leftrightarrow(\Diamond\varphi\vee\Diamond\psi)$ and $\Box\varphi\leftrightarrow\neg\Diamond\neg\varphi$, the formula $\Diamond\bot\leftrightarrow\bot$, and is closed under Modus Ponens and Necessitation $\varphi / \Box\varphi$. The least normal modal logic is denoted by ${\mathbf K}$. Among the many normal extensions of $\mathbf K$, our primary interest is in {\bf S4} and its normal extensions. The logic $\mathbf{S4}$ is axiomatized by adding the following schemata to $\mathbf K$:
\[
\Diamond\Diamond \varphi\to\Diamond \varphi\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \varphi\to\Diamond \varphi.
\]
We will refer to normal extensions of {\bf S4} as {\em logics above ${\bf S4}$}.
The algebraic semantics for modal logic is provided by modal algebras. A \emph{modal algebra} is a structure $\mathfrak A=(A,\Diamond)$, where $A$ is a Boolean algebra and $\Diamond: A\to A$ is a unary function satisfying $\Diamond (a\vee b)=\Diamond a\vee\Diamond b$ and $\Diamond 0=0$. The unary function $\Box:A\to A$ is defined as $\Box a=\neg\Diamond\neg a$. It is quite obvious how modal formulas can be seen as polynomials over a modal algebra (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~5.2]{BRV01} wherein polynomials are referred to as terms). We will say that a modal formula $\varphi(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ is \emph{universally true} (or \emph{valid}) in a modal algebra $\mathfrak A$ if $\varphi(a_1,\dots,a_n)=1$ for any tuple of elements $a_1,\dots,a_n\in A$ (in other words, when the polynomial $\varphi$ always evaluates to $1$ in $\mathfrak A$). In such a case, we may write $\mathfrak A\models\varphi$. We may also view an equation $\varphi=\psi$ in the signature of modal algebras as the corresponding modal formula $\varphi\leftrightarrow\psi$. Then the equation holds in a modal algebra $\mathfrak A$ iff the corresponding modal formula is valid in $\mathfrak A$. This yields a standard fact in (algebraic) modal logic that normal modal logics correspond to \emph{equational classes} of modal algebras, i.e.~classes of modal algebras defined by equations. By the celebrated Birkhoff theorem (see, e.g., \cite[Thm.~11.9]{BS81}), equational classes correspond to \emph{varieties}, i.e.~classes of algebras closed under homomorphic images, subalgebras, and products. For a normal modal logic $L$, we denote by $\mathcal V(L)$ the corresponding variety of modal algebras: $\mathcal V(L)=\{\mathfrak A : \mathfrak A\models L\}$. Conversely, for a class $\mathcal K$ of modal algebras, we denote by $L(\mathcal K)$ the modal logic corresponding to this class: $L(\mathcal K)=\{\varphi : \mathcal K\models \varphi\}$. The adequacy of algebraic semantics for modal logic can then be succinctly expressed as the equality $L=L(\mathcal V(L))$.
Of particular importance for us are modal algebras corresponding to {\bf S4}. These are known as closure algebras (or interior algebras or topological Boolean algebras or {\bf S4}-algebras). A modal algebra $\mathfrak A=(A,\Diamond)$ is a \emph{closure algebra} if $a\leq \Diamond a$ and $\Diamond\Diamond a\le\Diamond a$ for each $a\in A$.
Natural examples of modal algebras are provided by Kripke frames. A \emph{Kripke frame} is a pair $\F=(W,R)$, where $W$ is a set and $R$ is a binary relation on $W$. The binary relation $R$ gives rise to the modal operator acting on the Boolean algebra $\wp(W)$: for $U\subseteq W$, set $R^{-1}(U)=\{w\in W : wRv\textrm{ for some }v\in U\}$. We denote the modal algebra $(\wp(W), R^{-1})$ arising from $\F$ by $\F^+$. This enables one to interpret modal formulas in Kripke frames. Namely, to compute the meaning of a modal formula $\varphi(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ in a Kripke frame $\mathfrak F$, when the meaning of the propositional letters is specified by assigning a subset $U_i$ to the letter $p_i$, we simply compute the corresponding element $\varphi(U_1,\dots,U_n)$ in the modal algebra $\F^+$. A mapping $\nu:\textrm{Prop}\to\wp(W)$ is called a \emph{valuation} and the tuple $\mathfrak M=(\mathfrak F,\nu)$ is called a \emph{Kripke model}. A valuation $\nu$ extends naturally to $\mathfrak{Form}$, specifically $\nu(\varphi(p_1,\dots,p_n))$ is the element $\varphi(\nu(p_1),\dots,\nu(p_n))$ in $\F^+$. The notion of validity in a frame is defined as dictated by the corresponding notion for algebras. Given a normal modal logic $L$, we say that a frame $\mathfrak F$ is a \emph{frame for $L$} if all theorems of $L$ are valid in $\mathfrak F$ (notation: $\mathfrak F\models L$). It is easy to check that $\F^+$ is a closure algebra exactly when $R$ is a quasi-order; that is, when $R$ is reflexive and transitive.
It is well known that Kripke semantics is not fully adequate for modal logic. There exist modal logics (including logics above $\mathbf{S4}$) that are not complete with respect to Kripke frames (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~6]{CZ97}). Algebraically this means that some varieties of modal algebras are not generated by their members of the form $\F^+$. To overcome this shortcoming, it is customary to augment Kripke frames with additional structure by specifying a subalgebra $\mathcal P$ of $\mathfrak F^+$. This brings us to the notion of a general frame. We recall that a \emph{general frame} is a tuple $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ consisting of a Kripke frame $(W,R)$ and a set of possible values $\mathcal P\subseteq \wp(W)$ which forms a subalgebra of $(W,R)^+$. In particular, a Kripke frame $(W,R)$ is also viewed as the general frame $(W,R,\wp(W))$, and so we use the same notation $\F,\G,\HH,\dots$ for both Kripke frames and general frames. Valuations in general frames take values in the modal algebra $\mathcal P$ of possible values, so for a general frame $\F$ and a modal formula $\varphi$, we have $\F\models\varphi$ iff $\mathcal P\models\varphi$. We say that $\F$ is a \emph{general frame for} a normal modal logic $L$ if $\F\models L$. If $L$ is exactly the set of formulas valid in $\F$, we write $L=L(\F)$. It is well known that general frames provide a fully adequate semantics for modal logic (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~8]{CZ97}). Namely, for every normal modal logic $L$, there is a general frame $\F$ such that $L=L(\F)$.
The gist of this theorem becomes evident once we extend the celebrated Stone duality to modal algebras. Let $\mathfrak A=(A,\Diamond)$ be a modal algebra and let $X$ be the Stone space of $A$ (i.e.~$X$ is the set of ultrafilters of $A$ topologized by the basis $A^*=\{a^*:a\in A\}$, where $a^*=\{x\in X : a\in x\}$). Define $R$ on $X$ by
\[
xRy \ \ \ \ \mathrm{ iff }\ \ \ \ (\forall a\in A)(a\in y\Rightarrow \Diamond a\in x).
\]
Then $(X,R,A^*)$ is a general frame. It is a special kind of general frame, called \emph{descriptive}.
For a set $X$, we recall that a {\em field} of sets over $X$ is a Boolean subalgebra $\mathcal P$ of the powerset $\wp(X)$. A field of sets $\mathcal P$ is {\em reduced} provided $x\ne y$ implies there is $A\in\mathcal P$ with $x\in A$ and $y\notin A$ and {\em perfect} provided for each family $\mathcal F\subseteq\mathcal P$ with the finite intersection property, $\bigcap\mathcal F\ne\varnothing$ (see, e.g., \cite{Sik60}).
\begin{definition} [see, e.g., \cite{CZ97}]
{\em
Let $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ be a general frame.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We call $\F$ \emph{differentiated} if $\mathcal P$ is reduced.
\item We call $\F$ \emph{compact} if $\mathcal P$ is perfect.
\item We call $\F$ \emph{tight} if $w\nR v$ implies there is $A\in\mathcal P$ with $v\in A$ and $w\notin R^{-1}(A)$.
\item We call $\F$ \emph{descriptive} if $\F$ is differentiated, compact, and tight.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{definition}
It is well known that descriptive frames provide a full duality for modal algebras much as in the case of Stone spaces and Boolean algebras. In fact, if we generate the topology $\tau_{\mathcal P}$ on $W$ from $\mathcal P$, then $(W,\tau_{\mathcal P})$ becomes the Stone space of $\mathcal P$ precisely when $(W,R,\mathcal P)$ is differentiated and compact. Thus, a descriptive frame $(W,R,\mathcal P)$ can be viewed as the Stone space of $\mathcal P$ equipped with a binary relation $R$ which satisfies the condition of tightness. This is equivalent to the $R$-image $R(w)=\{v\in W:wRv\}$ of each $w\in W$ being closed in the Stone topology. Consequently, descriptive frames can equivalently be viewed as pairs $(W,R)$ such that $W$ is a Stone space, $R(w)$ is closed for each $w\in W$, and $R^{-1}(A)$ is clopen for each clopen $A$ of $W$.
Given general frames $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ and $\G=(V,S,\mathcal Q)$, a map $f:W\to V$ is called a \emph{p-morphism} if (a)~$wRw'$ implies $f(w)Sf(w')$; (b)~$f(w)S v$ implies there exists $w'$ with $wRw'$ and $f(w'){=}v$; and (c)~$A\in\mathcal Q$ implies $f^{-1}(A)\in\mathcal P$. It is well known that conditions (a) and (b) are equivalent to the condition $f^{-1}\left(S^{-1}(v)\right)=R^{-1}\left(f^{-1}(v)\right)$ for each $v\in V$. It is also well known that $f$ is a p-morphism between descriptive frames iff $f^{-1}:\mathcal Q\to\mathcal P$ is a modal algebra homomorphism. In fact, the category of modal algebras and modal algebra homomorphisms is dually equivalent to the category of descriptive frames and p-morphisms (see, e.g.~\cite[Sec.~8]{CZ97}).
Part of this duality survives when we switch to a broader class of general frames. Namely, p-morphic images, generated subframes, and disjoint unions give rise to subalgebras, homomorphic images, and products, respectively. Given general frames $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ and $\G=(V,S,\mathcal Q)$, we say that $\G$ is a \emph{p-morphic} image of $\F$ if there is an onto p-morphism $f:W\to V$. If $f$ is 1-1, then we call the $f$-image of $\F$ a \emph{generated subframe} of $\G$. Generated subframes of $\G$ are characterized by the property that when they contain a world $v$, then they contain $S(v)$. If $f:W\to V$ is a p-morphism, then $f^{-1}:\mathcal Q\to\mathcal P$ is a modal algebra homomorphism. Moreover, if $f$ is onto, then $f^{-1}$ is 1-1 and if $f$ is 1-1, then $f^{-1}$ is onto. Thus, if $\G$ is a p-morphic image of $\F$, then $\mathcal Q$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $\mathcal P$, and if $\G$ is a generated subframe of $\F$, then $\mathcal Q$ is a homomorphic image of $\mathcal P$. Lastly, suppose $\F_i=(W_i,R_i,\mathcal P_i)$ are general frames indexed by some set $I$. For convenience, we assume that the $W_i$ are pairwise disjoint (otherwise we can always work with disjoint copies of the $W_i$). The \emph{disjoint union} $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ of the $\F_i$ is defined by setting $W=\bigcup_{i\in I}W_i$, $R=\bigcup_{i\in I}R_i$, and $A\in \mathcal P$ iff $A\cap W_i\in\mathcal P_i$. Then the modal algebra $\mathcal P$ is isomorphic to the product of the modal algebras $\mathcal P_i$. We will utilize these well-known throughout the paper.
\section{General topological semantics}\label{SecGenTopSem}
As we pointed out in the introduction, topological semantics predates Kripke semantics. Moreover, Kripke semantics for {\bf S4} is subsumed in topological semantics. To see this, let $\F=(W,R)$ be an {\bf S4}-frame; that is, $\F$ is a Kripke frame and $R$ is reflexive and transitive. We call an underlying set of a generated subframe $\G$ of $\F$ an \emph{$R$-upset}. So $V\subseteq W$ is an $R$-upset if $w\in V$ and $wRv$ imply $v\in V$. The $R$-upsets form a topology $\tau_R$ on $W$, in which each point $w$ has a least open neighborhood $R(w)$. This topology is called an \emph{Alexandroff topology}, and can equivalently be described as a topology in which the intersection of any family of opens is again open. Thus, {\bf S4}-frames correspond to Alexandroff spaces. Consequently, each logic above {\bf S4} that is Kripke complete is also topologically complete. But as with Kripke semantics, topological semantics is not fully adequate since there exist logics above {\bf S4} that are topologically incomplete \cite{Ger75}.
As we saw in Section~\ref{SecPrelims}, Kripke incompleteness is remedied by introducing general Kripke semantics, and proving that each normal modal logic is complete with respect to this more general semantics. In this section we do the same with topological semantics. Namely, we introduce general topological spaces, their subclass of descriptive spaces, and prove that the category of descriptive spaces is isomorphic to the category of descriptive frames for {\bf S4}. This yields that general spaces provide a fully adequate semantics for logics above {\bf S4}.
For a topological space $X$, we recall that $X^+$ is the closure algebra $(\wp(X),{\bf c})$, where {\bf c} is the closure operator of $X$.
\begin{definition}
{\em
We call a pair $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ a \emph{general topological space} or simply a \emph{general space} if $X$ is a topological space and $\mathcal P$ is a subalgebra of the closure algebra $X^+$.
}
\end{definition}
In other words, $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ is a general space if $X$ is a topological space and $\mathcal P$ is a field of sets over $X$ that is closed under topological closure. In particular, we may view each topological space $X$ as the general space $(X,X^+)$. The definition of a general space is clearly analogous to the definition of a general frame. We continue this analogy in the next definition. In the remainder of the paper, when we need to emphasize or specify a certain topology $\tau$ on $X$, we will write $(X,\tau)$ as well as $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:3.2}
{\em
Let $\X=(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ be a general space.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We call $\X$ \emph{differentiated} if $\mathcal P$ is reduced.
\item We call $\X$ \emph{compact} if $\mathcal P$ is perfect.
\item Let $\mathcal P_\tau=\mathcal P\cap\tau$. We call $\X$ \emph{tight} if $\mathcal P_\tau$ is a basis for $\tau$.
\item We call $\X$ \emph{descriptive} if $\X$ is differentiated, compact, and tight.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
{\em
Since $X\in\mathcal P_\tau$ and $\mathcal P_\tau$ is closed under finite intersections, $\mathcal P_\tau$ is a basis for some topology, and Definition~\ref{def:3.2}(3) says that this topology is $\tau$.
}
\end{remark}
For a topological space $(X,\tau)$, we let $R_\tau$ denote the \emph{specialization order} of $(X,\tau)$. We recall that $x R_\tau y$ iff $x\in{\bf c}(y)$, and that $R_\tau$ is reflexive and transitive, so $(X,R_\tau)$ is an {\bf S4}-frame.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:3.3}
Let $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ be a compact tight general space. Then $R_\tau(x)=\bigcap\{A\in\mathcal P_\tau:x\in A\}$. Moreover, for each $A\in\mathcal P$ we have ${\bf c}(A)=R_\tau^{-1}(A)$. Consequently, $(X,R_\tau,\mathcal P)$ is a compact tight general {\bf S4}-frame. In particular, if $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive space, then $(X,R_\tau,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive {\bf S4}-frame.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $A\in\mathcal P_\tau$ it is obvious that $x\in A$ implies $R_\tau(x)\subseteq A$, so $R_\tau(x)\subseteq\bigcap\{A\in\mathcal P_\tau:x\in A\}$. If $y\notin R_\tau(x)$, then $x\notin{\bf c}(y)$. Since $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ is tight, there exists $A\in\mathcal P_\tau$ such that $x\in A$ and $y\notin A$. Thus, $R_\tau(x)=\bigcap\{A\in\mathcal P_\tau:x\in A\}$. Next, if $x\in R_\tau^{-1}(A)$, then there is $y\in A$ with $x R_\tau y$, so $x\in{\bf c}(y)\subseteq{\bf c}(A)$, and so $R_\tau^{-1}(A)\subseteq{\bf c}(A)$ for each $A\subseteq X$. Conversely, if $A\in\mathcal P$ and $x\notin R_\tau^{-1}(A)$, then $R_\tau(x)\cap A=\varnothing$. Therefore, $\bigcap\{U\in\mathcal P_\tau:x\in U\}\cap A=\varnothing$. Thus, by compactness, there are $U_1,\dots,U_n\in\mathcal P_\tau$ such that $x\in U_1\cap\dots\cap U_n$ and $U_1\cap\dots\cap U_n\cap A=\varnothing$. Let $U=U_1\cap\dots\cap U_n$. Then $U$ is an open neighborhood of $x$ missing $A$, so $x\notin{\bf c}(A)$. This yields that ${\bf c}(A)=R_\tau^{-1}(A)$ for each $A\in\mathcal P$. Consequently, $(X,R_\tau,\mathcal P)$ is a compact general {\bf S4}-frame. To see that it is tight, let $x\nR_\tau y$. Then there is $A\in\mathcal P_\tau$ such that $x\in A$ and $y\notin A$. Let $B=-A$, where we use $-$ to denote set-theoretic complement. Clearly $B$ is closed, so ${\bf c}(B)=B$. Therefore, since $A\in\mathcal P$, we have $R_\tau^{-1}(B)=B$. Thus, there is $B\in\mathcal P$ with $y\in B$ and $x\notin R_\tau^{-1}(B)$, and hence $(X,R_\tau,\mathcal P)$ is tight. In particular, if $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive space, then $(X,R_\tau,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive {\bf S4}-frame.
\end{proof}
For a general {\bf S4}-frame $(X,R,\mathcal P)$, let $\mathcal P_R=\{A\in\mathcal P:A$ is an $R$-upset$\}$, and let $\tau_R$ be the topology generated by the basis $\mathcal P_R$. That $\mathcal P_R$ forms a basis is clear because $X\in\mathcal P_R$ and $\mathcal P_R$ is closed under finite intersections. We let ${\bf c}_R$ denote the closure operator in $(X,\tau_R)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:3.4}
Let $(X,R,\mathcal P)$ be a compact tight general {\bf S4}-frame. Then $xRy$ iff $x\in{\bf c}_R(y)$. Moreover, for each $A\in\mathcal P$ we have $R^{-1}(A)={\bf c}_R(A)$. Consequently, $(X,\tau_R,\mathcal P)$ is a compact tight general space. In particular, if $(X,R,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive {\bf S4}-frame, then $(X,\tau_R,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive space.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $(X,R,\mathcal P)$ is tight, then $R(x)=\bigcap\{A\in\mathcal P_R:x\in A\}$ for each $x\in X$. Thus, $xRy$ iff $x\in{\bf c}_R(y)$. Let $x\notin{\bf c}_R(A)$. Then there is $U\in\mathcal P_R$ such that $x\in U$ and $U\cap A=\varnothing$. As $R(x)\subseteq U$, we have $R(x)\cap A=\varnothing$, which means that $x\notin R^{-1}(A)$. Thus, $R^{-1}(A)\subseteq{\bf c}_R(A)$ for each $A\subseteq X$. Conversely, if $A\in\mathcal P$ and $x\notin R^{-1}(A)$, then $R(x)\cap A=\varnothing$. Since $(X,R,\mathcal P)$ is tight, $R(x)=\bigcap\{U\in\mathcal P_R:x\in U\}$ and so $\bigcap\{U\in\mathcal P_R:x\in U\}\cap A=\varnothing$. By compactness, there exist $U_1,\dots,U_n\in\mathcal P_R$ such that $x\in U_1\cap\dots\cap U_n$ and $U_1\cap\dots\cap U_n\cap A=\varnothing$. Let $U=U_1\cap\dots\cap U_n$. Then $U\in\mathcal P_R$, $x\in U$, and $U\cap A=\varnothing$. Thus, there is an open $\tau_R$-neighborhood of $x$ missing $A$, so $x\notin{\bf c}_R(A)$. This proves that $R^{-1}(A)={\bf c}_R(A)$ for each $A\in\mathcal P$. Consequently, $(X,\tau_R,\mathcal P)$ is a compact general space, and it is tight because $\mathcal P_R \subseteq \mathcal P \cap \tau_R \subseteq \tau_R$. In particular, if $(X,R,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive {\bf S4}-frame, then $(X,\tau_R,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive space.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:3.5}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[]
\item If $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ is a compact tight general space, then $\tau=\tau_{R_\tau}$.
\item If $(X,R,\mathcal P)$ is a compact tight general {\bf S4}-frame, then $R=R_{\tau_R}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) It follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:3.3} that $\mathcal P_\tau=\mathcal P_{R_\tau}$ because $\mathbf c(A)=R_\tau^{-1}(A)$ for $A\in\mathcal P$. Since $\mathcal P_\tau$ is a basis for $\tau$ and $\mathcal P_{R_\tau}$ is a basis for $\tau_{R_\tau}$, we obtain that $\tau=\tau_{R_\tau}$.
(2) By definition, $xR_{\tau_R}y$ iff $x\in{\bf c}_R(y)$, and by Lemma~\ref{lem:3.4}, $x\in{\bf c}_R(y)$ iff $xRy$. Thus, $R=R_{\tau_R}$.
\end{proof}
Let {\bf DS} denote the category whose objects are descriptive spaces and whose morphisms are maps $f:X\to Y$ between descriptive spaces $\X=(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ and $\Y=(Y,\tau,\mathcal Q)$ such that $A\in\mathcal Q$ implies $f^{-1}(A)\in\mathcal P$ and $f^{-1}{\bf c}(y)={\bf c}f^{-1}(y)$ for each $y\in Y$. We also let {\bf DF} denote the category whose objects are descriptive {\bf S4}-frames and whose morphisms are p-morphisms between them.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:3.7}
{\bf DS} is isomorphic to {\bf DF}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Define a functor $F:{\bf DS}\to{\bf DF}$ as follows. For a descriptive space $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$, let $F(X,\tau,\mathcal P)=(X,R_\tau,\mathcal P)$. For a {\bf DS}-morphism $f:X\to Y$, let $F(f)=f$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:3.3}, $F(X,\tau,\mathcal P)\in{\bf DF}$. Moreover, since $R_\tau^{-1}(x)={\bf c}(x)$, it follows that $F(f)$ is a p-morphism. Thus, $F$ is well-defined.
Define a functor $G:{\bf DF}\to{\bf DS}$ as follows. For a descriptive frame $(X,R,\mathcal P)$, let $G(X,R,\mathcal P)=(X,\tau_R,\mathcal P)$. For a p-morphism $f:X\to Y$, let $G(f)=f$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:3.4}, $G(X,R,\mathcal P)\in{\bf DS}$. Lemma~\ref{lem:3.4} also implies that ${\bf c}_R(x)=R^{-1}(x)$, and hence it follows that $G(f)$ is a {\bf DS}-morphism. Thus, $G$ is well-defined.
Now apply Lemma~\ref{lem:3.5} to conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\em
Theorem~\ref{thm:3.7} holds true in a more general setting, between the categories of compact tight general spaces and compact tight general {\bf S4}-frames. However, we will not need it in such generality.
}
\end{remark}
Since each logic above {\bf S4} is complete with respect to the corresponding class of descriptive {\bf S4}-frames, as an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:3.7}, we obtain:
\begin{corollary}
Each logic above {\bf S4} is complete with respect to the corresponding class of descriptive spaces.
\end{corollary}
Since the category {\bf CA} of closure algebras is dually equivalent to {\bf DF}, another immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:3.7} is the following:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:3.10}
{\bf DS} is dually equivalent to {\bf CA}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
{\em
As we already pointed out, by Stone duality, having a reduced and perfect field of sets amounts to having a Stone space. Therefore, having a descriptive frame amounts to having a Stone space with a binary relation that satisfies the following two conditions: $R(x)$ is closed for each $x\in X$ and $R^{-1}(U)$ is clopen for each clopen $U$ of $X$.
Descriptive spaces can also be treated similarly. Namely, if $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive space, then announcing $\mathcal P$ as a basis yields a Stone topology on $X$, which we denote by $\tau_S$. Thus, we arrive at the bitopological space $(X,\tau_S,\tau)$, where $(X,\tau_S)$ is a Stone space. Moreover, since $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ is tight, $\mathcal P_\tau$ is a basis for $\tau$, so $\tau\subseteq\tau_S$. As $\mathcal P$ is the clopens of $(X,\tau_S)$, each member of $\mathcal P$ is compact in $(X,\tau_S)$, hence compact in the weaker topology $(X,\tau)$. Consequently, the members of $\mathcal P_\tau$ are compact open in $(X,\tau)$. Conversely, if $U$ is compact open in $(X,\tau)$, then since $\mathcal P_\tau$ is a basis for $\tau$ that is closed under finite unions, it follows easily that $U\in\mathcal P_\tau$. Thus, $\mathcal P_\tau$ is exactly the compact open subsets of $(X,\tau)$, and so the compact opens of $(X,\tau)$ are closed under finite intersections and form a basis for $\tau$. As $\mathcal P_\tau\subseteq\mathcal P$, we see that the compact opens of $(X,\tau)$ are clopens in $(X,\tau_S)$. Finally, $U$ clopen in $(X,\tau_S)$ implies that ${\bf c}(U)$ is clopen in $(X,\tau_S)$.
These considerations yield an equivalent description of descriptive spaces as bitopological spaces $(X,\tau_S,\tau)$ such that $(X,\tau_S)$ is a Stone space, $\tau\subseteq\tau_S$, the compact opens of $(X,\tau)$ are closed under finite intersections and form a basis for $\tau$, the compact opens of $(X,\tau)$ are clopens in $(X,\tau_S)$, and $U$ clopen in $(X,\tau_S)$ implies that ${\bf c}(U)$ is clopen in $(X,\tau_S)$. Thus, our notion of a descriptive space corresponds to the bitopological spaces defined in \cite[Def.~3.7]{BMM08}, Theorem~\ref{thm:3.7} corresponds to \cite[Thm.~3.8(2)]{BMM08}, and Corollary~\ref{cor:3.10} to \cite[Cor.~3.9(1)]{BMM08}. In fact, for a descriptive space $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$, the closure algebra $X^+$ is the topo-canonical completion of the closure algebra $\mathcal P$ \cite{BMM08}.
}
\end{remark}
We recall that the basic truth-preserving operations for general frames are the operations of taking generated subframes, p-morphic images, and disjoint unions (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~8.5]{CZ97}). We conclude this section by discussing analogous operations for general spaces. Recall (see, e.g., \cite{Gab01,vBBG03}) that for topological spaces interior maps are analogues of p-morphisms, where a map $f:X\rightarrow Y$ between topological spaces is an \emph{interior map} if it is continuous (inverse images of opens are open) and open (direct images of opens are open). It is well known that $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is an interior map iff $f^{-1}:Y^+\to X^+$ is a homomorphism of closure algebras. Moreover, if $f$ is onto, then $f^{-1}$ is 1-1 and if $f$ is 1-1, then $f^{-1}$ is onto. It follows that for topological spaces, open subspaces correspond to generated subframes and interior images correspond to p-morphic images. In addition, topological sums correspond to disjoint unions.
\begin{definition}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[]
\item Let $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ and $\Y=(Y,\mathcal Q)$ be general spaces.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We say that a map $f:X\to Y$ is an \emph{interior map between $\X$ and $\Y$} if $f:X\to Y$ is an interior map and $A\in\mathcal Q$ implies $f^{-1}(A)\in\mathcal P$.
\item We call \emph{$\Y$ an open subspace of $\X$} if $Y$ is an open subspace of $X$ and the inclusion map $Y\to X$ is an interior map between the general spaces $\Y$ and $\X$.
\item We say that \emph{$\Y$ is an interior image of $\X$} if there is an onto interior map between the general spaces $\X$ and $\Y$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Let $\X_i=(X_i,\mathcal P_i)$ be general spaces indexed by some set $I$, and for convenience, we assume that the $X_i$ are pairwise disjoint. Let $X$ be the topological sum of the $X_i$. Define $\mathcal P\subseteq\wp(X)$ by $A\in\mathcal P$ iff $A\cap X_i\in\mathcal P_i$. Then it is straightforward to see that $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ is a general space, which we call the \emph{sum of the general spaces $\X_i=(X_i,\mathcal P_i)$}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Observe that an interior map $f$ between descriptive spaces is a {\bf DS}-map because it satisfies $f^{-1}{\bf c}(y)={\bf c}f^{-1}(y)$. Also, given general spaces $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ and $\Y=(Y,\mathcal Q)$, if $\Y$ is an interior image of $\X$, then $\mathcal Q$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $\mathcal P$, and if $\Y$ is an open subspace of $\X$, then $\mathcal Q$ is a homomorphic image of $\mathcal P$. It is also clear that if a general space $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ is the sum of a family of general spaces $\X_i=(X_i,\mathcal P_i)$, $i\in I$, then $\mathcal P$ is isomorphic to the product $\prod_{i\in I}\mathcal P_i$.
The definitions of a valuation in a general space $\X$, of $\X\models L$, and of $L(\X)$ are the same as in the case of general frames. So if a general space $\Y$ is an interior image of a general space $\X$, then $L(\X)\subseteq L(\Y)$. Similarly, if $\Y$ is an open subspace of $\X$, then $L(\X)\subseteq L(\Y)$. Finally, if $\X$ is the sum of the $\X_i$, then $L(\X)=\bigcap_{i\in I}L(\X_i)$.
\section{Countable general frame property and completeness for general spaces over $\mathbf Q$}\label{SecRationals}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:3.7}, descriptive spaces are the same as descriptive {\bf S4}-frames, but as we will see in what follows, it is the perspective of general spaces (rather than general {\bf S4}-frames) that allows us to obtain some strong general completeness results for logics above {\bf S4}. In this section we introduce one of our key tools for yielding these general completeness results, the countable general frame property. We then consider the rational line $\mathbf Q$, and prove our first general completeness result: a normal modal logic is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of some general space over $\mathbf Q$, which is equivalent to being the logic of some subalgebra of~$\mathbf Q^+$.
Let $L$ be a normal modal logic. We recall that $L$ has the \emph{finite model property} (FMP) if each non-theorem of $L$ is refuted on a finite frame for $L$. This property has proved to be extremely useful in modal logic. The existence of sufficiently many finite models makes the study of a particular modal system easier. Unfortunately, a large number of modal logics do not have this property. This can be a major obstacle for investigating a particular modal system, as well as for proving general theorems encompassing all modal logics. A natural weakening of FMP is the \emph{countable frame property} (CFP): each non-theorem is refuted on a countable frame for the logic. But there are modal logics that do not have CFP either (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~6]{CZ97}). We weaken further CFP to the \emph{countable general frame property} (CGFP) and show that all normal modal logics possess the CGFP.
\begin{definition}
{\em
Let $L$ be a normal modal logic. We say that $L$ has the {\em countable general frame property} (CGFP) provided for each non-theorem $\varphi$ of $L$ there exists a countable general frame $\mathfrak F$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi$.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{CGFP}
Each normal modal logic $L$ has the {\em CGFP}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\varphi\notin L$. Then there is a general frame $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi$. Therefore, there is a valuation $\nu$ on $\F$ and $w\in W$ such that $w\not\in\nu(\varphi)$. We next select a countable subframe $\G$ of $\F$ that refutes $\varphi$. Our selection procedure is basically the same as the one found in \cite[Thm.~6.29]{CZ97}, where the L\"owenheim-Skolem Theorem for modal logic is proved. Set $V_0=\{w\}$. Suppose $V_n$ is defined. For each $\psi\in\mathfrak{Form}$ and $v\in V_n$ with $v\in\nu(\Diamond\psi)$, there is $u_{v,\Diamond\psi}\in R(v)$ with $u_{v,\Diamond\psi}\in\nu(\psi)$. We select one such $u_{v,\Diamond\psi}$ and let $V_{n+1}$ be the set of the selected $u_{v,\Diamond\psi}$. Finally, set $V=\bigcup_{n\in\omega} V_n$. Clearly $V$ is countable. Let $S$ be the restriction of $R$ to $V$ and $\mu$ be the restriction of $\nu$ to $V$. An easy induction on the complexity of modal formulas gives that for each $\psi\in\mathfrak{Form}$ and $v\in V$,
$$
v\in\nu(\psi)\text{ iff }v\in\mu(\psi).
$$
Therefore, $\mathfrak N=(V,S,\mu)$ is a countable submodel of $\mathfrak M=(W,R,\nu)$ such that $\mathfrak N$ is a model for $L$ and $\mathfrak N$ refutes $\varphi$. In fact, $\varphi$ is refuted at $w$. Set $\mathcal Q=\{\mu(\psi):\psi\in\mathfrak{Form}\}$ and $\G=(V,S,\mathcal Q)$. Then $\G$ is a countable general frame, and as $\mathfrak N$ refutes $\varphi$, so does $\G$. It remains to show that $\G$ is a frame for $L$. Let $\lambda$ be an arbitrary valuation on $\G$. It is sufficient to show that each theorem $\chi(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ of $L$ is true in $(\G,\lambda)$. Since each $\lambda(p_i)\in\mathcal Q$, there is $\psi_i\in\mathfrak{Form}$ such that $\lambda(p_i)=\mu(\psi_i)$. As $\chi(p_1,\dots,p_n)\in L$, we have $\chi(\psi_1,\dots,\psi_n)\in L$. Because $\mathfrak N$ is a model for $L$, it follows that $\chi(\psi_1,\dots,\psi_n)$ is true in $\mathfrak N$. Therefore, $\chi(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ is true in $(\G,\lambda)$. Thus, $\G$ is a frame for $L$, and so $L$ has the CGFP.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{EnlargingV0forCountableSet}
{\em
In the proof of Theorem~\ref{CGFP}, if we start the selection procedure by adding to $V_0$ a fixed countable subset $U$ of $W$, then the resulting countable general frame $\G$ will contain $U$. The details are provided in Theorem~\ref{LowSklWithSet}(1).
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{EnlargingV0forL}
{\em
If we start the proof of Theorem~\ref{CGFP} with a general frame $\F$ such that $L=L(\F)$, then it is possible to perform the selection procedure in such a way that we obtain a countable general frame $\G$ with $L=L(\G)$. The details are provided in Theorem~\ref{LowSklWithSet}(2).
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
{\em
Since descriptive frames provide adequate semantics, one may wish to introduce the \emph{countable descriptive frame property} (CDFP), which could be stated as follows: A normal modal logic $L$ has the CDFP provided every non-theorem of $L$ is refuted on a countable descriptive frame for $L$. We leave it as an open problem whether every normal modal logic has the CDFP.
}
\end{remark}
We now turn our attention to $\mathbf Q$. This is our first example of how we can use the CGFP to obtain some general completeness results about logics above {\bf S4}. In fact, we prove that a normal modal logic $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4} iff $L$ is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf Q$, which is equivalent to being the logic of a subalgebra of the closure algebra $\mathbf Q^+$. This is achieved by combining the CGFP with known results concerning interior images of $\mathbf Q$.
\begin{lemma}\label{GenTopFromGFAndIntMap}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and let $f:X\rightarrow Y$ be an onto interior map. For a general space $\mathfrak Y=(Y,\mathcal P)$ over $Y$, set $\mathcal Q=\{f^{-1}(A):A\in\mathcal P\}$. Then $\X=(X,\mathcal Q)$ is a general space over $X$ such that $L(\X)=L(\Y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $f:X\to Y$ is an onto interior map, $f^{-1}:Y^+\to X^+$ is a closure algebra embedding, so the restriction of $f^{-1}$ to $\mathcal P$ is a closure algebra isomorphism from $\mathcal P$ onto $\mathcal Q$. Thus, $\X=(X,\mathcal Q)$ is a general space over $X$ such that $L(\X)=L(\Y)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\em
We will frequently use a special case of the lemma, when $Y$ is the Alexandroff space of an {\bf S4}-frame.
}
\end{remark}
Let $\F=(W,R)$ be an {\bf S4}-frame. We recall that $\F$ is {\em rooted} if there is $w\in W$ such that $W=R(w)$, and that such a $w$ is called a {\em root} of $\F$. A general frame $(W,R,\mathcal P)$ is rooted iff $(W,R)$ is rooted. We next show that the {\bf S4}-version of the Main Lemma in \cite[Lem.~3.1]{BLB12a} gives that each countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame is an interior image of $\mathbf Q$. The lemma is well-known in the finite case (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~2]{BBCS06}).
\begin{lemma}\label{InteriorImageOfQ}
Each countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame is an interior image of $\mathbf Q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(Sketch) Let $\F=(W,R)$ be a countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame. We briefly describe the recursive construction from \cite{BLB12a}. Since $\F$ is reflexive, the construction yields a homeomorphic copy $X$ of $\mathbf Q$ (rather than of a subspace of $\mathbf Q$, as happens in \cite{BLB12a}) and an onto interior map $f:X\to W$.
Let $l$ be a (horizontal) line in the plane and let $P$ be the open lower half plane below $l$. For each $p\in P$, consider the right isosceles triangle in $P\cup l$ such that the vertex at the right angle is $p$ and the hypotenuse lies along $l$. Viewing the hypotenuse as a closed interval in $l$ gives a bijective correspondence between $P$ and the closed (non-trivial) intervals in $l$.
We start our construction with any fixed $p_0\in P$ together with its corresponding triangle. Orthogonally project $p_0$ to the point $l(p_0)$ in $l$. Using successive triangles we now build two sequences (in $l$) converging to $l(p_0)$ (one increasing and one decreasing). Figure~\ref{FigDefining f from X to F} demonstrates this recursive step in which these sequences are built (notice the orthogonal projection of the vertices into $l$). Since $\F$ is reflexive, this recursive process does not terminate (unlike the setting of \cite{BLB12a}). Let $X$ be the set of points in $l$ that are projections of vertices. Induce an ordering of $X$ by restricting the ordering of $l$ (which one may now wish to view as $\mathbf R$). Since $\F$ is reflexive, $X$ is a countable dense linear ordering without endpoints. By Cantor's theorem (see, e.g., \cite[p.~217,~Thm.~2]{KM76}), $X$ is order-isomorphic to $\mathbf Q$, and hence when equipped with the interval topology, $X$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbf Q$. We now define $f:X\to W$.
It is convenient to identify $l(p)$ in $X$ with the point $p\in P$. Set $f(p_0)$ to be a root of $\F$. Assuming that $f(p)=w$, the vertices of the `next' triangles (shown in the dashed box in the picture below) are mapped onto $R(w)$ so that for each $v\in R(w)$ the set $f^{-1}(v)$ is infinite. This can be achieved by utilizing that $R(w)$ is countable and that there is a sequence $\theta:\omega\to\omega$ such that $\theta^{-1}(n)$ is infinite for each $n\in\omega$. It follows from \cite[Lem.~3.1]{BLB12a} that $f:X\to W$ is an onto interior map. Since $X$ and $\mathbf Q$ are homeomorphic, we conclude that $\F$ is an interior image of $\mathbf Q$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\[
\begin{picture}(320,200)(0,0)
\put(42,122){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(42,162){\makebox(0,0){{\tiny$\bullet$}}}
\put(102,142){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(102,162){\makebox(0,0){{\tiny$\bullet$}}}
\put(132,152){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(132,162){\makebox(0,0){{\tiny$\bullet$}}}
\put(162,162){\makebox(0,0){{\tiny$\bullet$}}}
\put(158,170){$l(p)$}
\put(162,2){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(150,0){$p$}
\put(170,0){$\longrightarrow w$}
\put(192,152){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(192,162){\makebox(0,0){{\tiny$\bullet$}}}
\put(222,142){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(222,162){\makebox(0,0){{\tiny$\bullet$}}}
\put(282,122){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(282,162){\makebox(0,0){{\tiny$\bullet$}}}
\put(144,153){$\ldots$}
\put(168,153){$\ldots$}
\put(164,162){\vector(-1,0){174}}
\put(-18,160){$l$}
\put(-18,80){$P$}
\put(164,162){\vector(1,0){170}}
\put(162,2){\line(-1,1){160}}
\put(162,2){\line(1,1){160}}
\put(42,122){\line(1,1){40}}
\put(102,142){\line(-1,1){20}}
\put(102,142){\line(1,1){20}}
\put(222,142){\line(-1,1){20}}
\put(222,142){\line(1,1){20}}
\put(282,122){\line(-1,1){40}}
\put(132,152){\line(-1,1){10}}
\put(132,152){\line(1,1){10}}
\put(192,152){\line(-1,1){10}}
\put(192,152){\line(1,1){10}}
\put(37,117){\dashbox{2}(250,40){}}
\put(295,115){$\longrightarrow R(w)$}
\end{picture}
\]
\caption{Defining $X$ and $f:X\to \F$}
\label{FigDefining f from X to F}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{RefutingOneFormInGenTopQ}
Let $L$ be a logic above ${\bf S4}$. If $\varphi\notin L$, then there is a general space over $\mathbf Q$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the proof of Theorem~\ref{CGFP} that there is a countable rooted general frame $\mathfrak F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ for $L$ that refutes $\varphi$. Lemma~\ref{InteriorImageOfQ} gives an onto interior map $f:\mathbf Q\rightarrow W$. Set $\mathcal S=\{f^{-1}(A):A\in\mathcal P\}$. By Lemma~\ref{GenTopFromGFAndIntMap}, $(\mathbf Q,\mathcal S)$ is a general space for $L$ that refutes $\varphi$.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove our first general completeness result for logics above {\bf S4}. For a closure algebra $\mathfrak A$, let ${\bf S}(\mathfrak A)$ be the collection of all subalgebras of $\mathfrak A$.
\begin{theorem}\label{OneLogicOneGenTopOnQ}
Let $L$ be a normal modal logic. The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4}.
\item There is a general space over $\mathbf Q$ whose logic is $L$.
\item There is $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}(\mathbf Q^+)$ such that $L=L(\mathfrak A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2): Let $\{\varphi_n:n\in\omega\}$ be an enumeration of the non-theorems of $L$. By Lemma~\ref{RefutingOneFormInGenTopQ}, for each $n\in\omega$, there is a general space over $\mathbf Q$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi_n$. Let $\X_n=(X_n,\mathcal P_n)$ be a copy of this general space, and without loss of generality we assume that $X_n\cap X_m=\varnothing$ whenever $n\ne m$. Let $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ be the sum of the $\X_n$. Then $\X$ is a general space. As sums preserve validity, $\X$ validates $L$. Because $\varphi_n$ is refuted in $\X_n$, it is clear that $\varphi_n$ is refuted in the sum $\X$. Therefore, $L=L(\X)$. Since the countable sum of $\mathbf Q$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbf Q$, we have that $X$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbf Q$. Thus, up to homeomorphism, $\X$ is a general space over $\mathbf Q$. Consequently, $L$ is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf Q$.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3): If $L=L(\mathbf Q,\mathcal P)$, then $L=L(\mathcal P)$ and $\mathcal P$ is a subalgebra of $\mathbf Q^+$.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1): This is clear since a subalgebra of $\mathbf Q^+$ is a closure algebra and the logic of a closure algebra is a logic above {\bf S4}.
\end{proof}
A key ingredient in the proof of Theorem~\ref{OneLogicOneGenTopOnQ} is the interior mapping provided by Lemma~\ref{InteriorImageOfQ}. An alternative proof, sketched in Section~\ref{BinaryTreeSection}, can be realized by an interior map which factors through the infinite binary tree. With this in mind, we ask whether Theorem~\ref{OneLogicOneGenTopOnQ} holds for the infinite binary tree. Section~\ref{BinaryTreeSection} is dedicated to answering this question.
\section{Well-connected logics and completeness for general frames over $\T_2$}\label{BinaryTreeSection}
For each nonzero $\alpha\in\omega+1$, we view the infinite $\alpha$-ary tree $T_\alpha$ as the set of finite $\alpha$-valued sequences, including the empty sequence. Thus, if $\downn=\{m\in\omega\ : m\leq n\}$, then
$$
T_\alpha = \left\{a:S\rightarrow\alpha\ :\ S=\varnothing \mbox{ or } S=\downn \mbox{ for some } n\in\omega\right\}.
$$
We also consider the infinite $\alpha$-ary tree with limits $L_\alpha$ by setting
$$
L_\alpha = \left\{a:S\rightarrow\alpha\ :\ S=\varnothing, \ S=\downn \mbox{ for some } n\in\omega, \mbox{ or } S=\omega\right\}.
$$
That is, $L_\alpha = T_\alpha\cup\left\{a:\omega\rightarrow\alpha\right\}$. Define a partial order on $L_\alpha$ by
$$
a\le b \text{ iff } \mathrm{dom}(a)\subseteq\mathrm{dom}(b) \text{ and } a(n)=b(n) \text{ for all } n\in\mathrm{dom}(a).
$$
Since $T_\alpha\subseteq L_\alpha$, we also use $\le$ to denote the restriction of this order to $T_\alpha$. We let $\T_\alpha=(T_\alpha,\le)$ and $\LL_\alpha=(L_\alpha,\le)$. We call $\T_\alpha$ the {\em infinite $\alpha$-ary tree}, and we call $\LL_\alpha$ the {\em infinite $\alpha$-ary tree with limits}.
\begin{remark}
{\em
\begin{enumerate}
\item[]
\item The empty sequence, i.e.~the sequence whose domain is empty, is the root of both $\T_\alpha$ and $\LL_\alpha$.
\item In $\LL_\alpha$ each infinite sequence is a leaf.
\item $\T_\alpha$ has no leaves.
\item Each $T_\alpha$ is countable.
\item If $\alpha>1$, then $L_\alpha$ is uncountable.
\item $L_\alpha-T_\alpha$ consists of exactly the infinite $\alpha$-valued sequences.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{remark}
In this section we are primarily interested in $\T_2$, although our results hold true for any $\alpha\ge 2$. Let $a\leq b$ in $\T_2$. Suppose that $\mathrm{dom}(b)$ has exactly one more element than $\mathrm{dom}(a)$. Call $b$ the {\em left child} of $a$ if the last occurring value in $b$ is $0$, and the {\em right child} of $a$ if the last occurring value in $b$ is $1$. In these cases, we write $b=l(a)$ and $b=r(a)$, respectively. We also put $l^0(a)=a$ and $l^{k+1}(a)=l(l^k(a))$ for $k\in\omega$, as well as $r^0(a)=a$ and $r^{k+1}(a)=r(r^k(a))$.
The next lemma is well known. The finite version of it was proved independently by Gabbay and van Benthem (see, e.g., \cite{gol:dio80}). The countable version of it can be found in Kremer \cite{Kre13}. We give our own proof of the lemma since the technique is useful in later considerations. It is based on the $t$-comb labeling of \cite[Sec.~4]{ABB03}. With careful unpacking, one may realize that our proof is a condensed version of Kremer's proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{ImagesOfT2}
Any countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame $\mathfrak F$ is a p-morphic image of $\T_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathfrak F=(W,R)$ be a countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame. For each $w\in W$ let $\theta_w:\omega\rightarrow R(w)$ be an onto map. Label the elements of $T_2$ as follows. Denote the label of $a\in T_2$ by $L(a)$. Label the root of $\T_2$ by a root of $\mathfrak F$. Suppose $L(a)=w$. For all $n\in\omega$ label $l^n(a)$ by $w$ and $r(l^n(a))$ by $\theta_w(n)$ provided such elements of $T_2$ are not yet labeled; see Figure~\ref{figCombWithLabels}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(100,100)(0,0)
\put(70,0){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(70,0){\line(-1,1){50}}
\put(70,0){\line(1,1){20}}
\put(90,20){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(50,20){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(50,20){\line(1,1){20}}
\put(70,40){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(30,40){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(30,40){\line(1,1){20}}
\put(50,60){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(60,0){\makebox(0,0){$w$}}
\put(40,20){\makebox(0,0){$w$}}
\put(20,40){\makebox(0,0){$w$}}
\put(110,20){\makebox(0,0){$\theta_w(0)$}}
\put(90,40){\makebox(0,0){$\theta_w(1)$}}
\put(70,60){\makebox(0,0){$\theta_w(2)$}}
\put(30,60){\makebox(0,0){.}}
\put(27,63){\makebox(0,0){.}}
\put(24,66){\makebox(0,0){.}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Labeling scheme for a $t$-comb}
\label{figCombWithLabels}
\end{figure}
This labeling induces an onto p-morphism, namely $L:T_2\rightarrow W$. To see that $L$ is a p-morphism, observe that $L(l(a)),L(r(a))\in R(L(a))$ for each $a\in T_2$. Therefore, $a\le b$ in $\T_2$ implies $L(a)RL(b)$ in $\mathfrak F$. Suppose $L(a)Rw$. Then $w\in R(L(a))$ and there is $n\in\omega$ such that $\theta_{L(a)}(n)=w$. Thus, $a\le r(l^n(a))$ and $L(r(l^n(a)))=w$. This shows that $L$ is a p-morphism. That $L$ is onto is obvious because if $w$ is a root of $\mathfrak F$, then $W=R(w)$ and $\theta_w:\omega\to R(w)$ is onto. Consequently, $\mathfrak F$ is a p-morphic image of $\T_2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\em
As promised at the end of Section~\ref{SecRationals}, we give an alternative proof of Lemma~\ref{InteriorImageOfQ}. Let $\mathfrak F=(W,R)$ be a countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame. By Lemma~\ref{ImagesOfT2}, there is an onto p-morphism $f:T_2\rightarrow W$. By \cite[Claim 2.6]{BBCS06}, there is an onto interior map $g:\mathbf Q\rightarrow T_2$. Thus, the composition $f\circ g:\mathbf Q\rightarrow W$ is an onto interior map that factors through $T_2$.
}
\end{remark}
We now show that an analogue of Theorem~\ref{OneLogicOneGenTopOnQ} does not hold for $\T_2$. For this we recall the notion of a connected logic from \cite{BG11}. Let $\mathfrak A=(A,\Diamond)$ be a closure algebra. Call $a\in A$ {\em clopen} if $\Box a=a=\Diamond a$ (that is, $a$ is both open and closed). We say $\mathfrak A$ is {\em connected} provided the only clopen elements are $0$ and $1$, and that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is {\em connected} provided $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some connected closure algebra $\mathfrak A$.
For a topological space $X$, it is clear that $X^+$ is connected iff $X$ is connected. For an {\bf S4}-frame $\mathfrak F$, it is also well known that $\mathfrak F^+$ is connected iff $\mathfrak F$ is path-connected (see, e.g., \cite[Lem.~3.4]{BG11}). Because $\T_2$ is rooted, $\T_2$ is path-connected. Therefore, $\T_2^+$ is a connected closure algebra, and hence each subalgebra of $\T_2^+$ is also connected. Thus, the logic of any subalgebra of $\T_2^+$ is a connected logic (we will strengthen this result at the end of this section). Since there exist logics above {\bf S4} that are not connected \cite[p.~306]{BG11}, it follows that subalgebras of $\T_2^+$ do not give rise to all logics above {\bf S4}. Therefore, the direct analogue of Theorem~\ref{OneLogicOneGenTopOnQ} obtained by substituting $\T_2$ for $\mathbf Q$ does not hold. But there is a weaker analogue that does hold for $\T_2$.
\begin{lemma}\label{RefuteOneFormInGenFrmOnT2}
Let $L$ be a logic above {\bf S4}. If $\varphi\notin L$, then there is a general frame over $\T_2$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is the same as the proof of Lemma~\ref{RefutingOneFormInGenTopQ}, with the only differences being $\mathbf Q$ should be replaced with $\T_2$ and Lemma~\ref{InteriorImageOfQ} should be replaced with Lemma~\ref{ImagesOfT2}.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is a weaker version for $\T_2$ of the fact that a countable sum of $\mathbf Q$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbf Q$.
\begin{lemma}\label{CountableDisUnionT2inItself}
A countable disjoint union of $\T_2$ is isomorphic to a generated subframe of $\T_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define $a_n:{\downarrow}n\to 2$ by
\[
a_n(k)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 & k < n,\\
1 & k=n.
\end{array}\right.
\]
Then $\{a_n:n\in\omega\}\subset T_2$. Clearly $\bigcup\nolimits_{n\in\omega}{\uparrow}a_n$ is a generated subframe of $\T_2$ and the family $\{{\uparrow}a_n:n\in\omega\}$ is pairwise disjoint; see Figure~\ref{figCombForDisjointUnion}. Furthermore, the generated subframe of $\T_2$ whose underlying set is ${\uparrow}a_n$ is isomorphic to $\T_2$. To see this observe that the following recursively defined function is a bijective p-morphism from $\T_2$ onto ${\uparrow}a_n$:
$$f(a)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
a_n & a\text{ is the root of }\T_2,\\
l(f(b)) & a=l(b),\\
r(f(b)) & a=r(b).
\end{array}\right.$$
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(100,100)(0,0)
\put(70,0){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(70,0){\line(-1,1){50}}
\put(70,0){\line(1,1){20}}
\put(90,20){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(94,12){\makebox(0,0){$a_0$}}
\put(50,20){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(50,20){\line(1,1){20}}
\put(70,40){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(74,32){\makebox(0,0){$a_1$}}
\put(30,40){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(30,40){\line(1,1){20}}
\put(50,60){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(54,52){\makebox(0,0){$a_2$}}
\put(90,20){\line(1,4){10}}
\put(90,20){\line(-1,4){10}}
\put(70,40){\line(1,4){10}}
\put(70,40){\line(-1,4){10}}
\put(50,60){\line(1,4){10}}
\put(50,60){\line(-1,4){10}}
\put(30,60){\makebox(0,0){.}}
\put(27,63){\makebox(0,0){.}}
\put(24,66){\makebox(0,0){.}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Depicting ${\uparrow}a_n$'s}\label{figCombForDisjointUnion}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
Let $\mathfrak A$ be a closure algebra. We recall that ${\bf S}(\mathfrak A)$ is the collection of all subalgebras of $\mathfrak A$. We also let ${\bf H}(\mathfrak A)$ be the collection of all homomorphic images of $\mathfrak A$, and ${\bf SH}(\mathfrak A)$ be the collection of all subalgebras of homomorphic images of $\mathfrak A$.
\begin{theorem}\label{OneLogicOneGenSubInT2}
For a normal modal logic $L$, the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4}.
\item There is a general {\bf S4}-frame $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ such that $(W,R)$ is a generated subframe of $\T_2$ and $L=L(\F)$.
\item There is a closure algebra $\mathfrak A\in{\bf SH}(\T_2^+)$ such that $L=L(\mathfrak A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2): Let $L$ be a logic above {\bf S4}, and let $\{\varphi_n:n\in\omega\}$ be an enumeration of the non-theorems of $L$. By Lemma~\ref{RefuteOneFormInGenFrmOnT2}, for each $n\in\omega$, there is a general frame over $\T_2$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi_n$. Let $\F_n=(W_n,\mathcal P_n)$ be a copy of this general frame, and without loss of generality we assume that $W_n\cap W_m=\varnothing$ whenever $n\ne m$. Let $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ be the disjoint union of the $\F_n$. Because disjoint unions of general frames preserve validity, $\F$ is a general frame for $L$, and clearly $\F$ refutes each $\varphi_n$. Thus, $L=L(\F)$, and by Lemma~\ref{CountableDisUnionT2inItself}, $(W,R)$ is isomorphic to a generated subframe of $\T_2$.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3): Since $(W,R)$ is a generated subframe of $\T_2$, we have $(W,R)^+\in{\bf H}(\T_2^+)$. As $\mathcal P$ is a subalgebra of $(W,R)^+$, we have $\mathcal P\in{\bf SH}(\T_2^+)$. Finally, $L=L(\F)$ yields $L=L(\mathcal P)$.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1): This is clear since $\mathfrak A$ is a closure algebra and $L=L(\mathfrak A)$.
\end{proof}
The next natural question is to characterize those logics above {\bf S4} which arise from subalgebras of $\T_2^+$. We recall \cite[Def.~1.10]{MT44} that a closure algebra $\mathfrak A=(A,\Diamond)$ is {\em well-connected} if $\Diamond a\wedge\Diamond b=0$ implies $a=0$ or $b=0$. Equivalently, $\Box a \vee \Box b = 1$ implies $a=1$ or $b=1$. It is easy to see that a well-connected closure algebra is connected, and that a subalgebra of a well-connected closure algebra is also well-connected.
For an example of a connected closure algebra that is not well-connected, let $\F=(W,R)$ be a finite {\bf S4}-frame. Then $\F^+$ is connected iff $\F$ is path-connected and $\F^+$ is well-connected iff $\F$ is rooted (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~2]{BG05a}). So a finite path-connected $\F$ that is not rooted gives rise to a connected closure algebra that is not well-connected.
\begin{definition}
{\em
We call a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} {\em well-connected} if $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some well-connected closure algebra $\mathfrak A$.
}
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that if $\F=(W,R)$ is a rooted {\bf S4}-frame, then $\F^+$ is a well-connected closure algebra. Therefore, since $\T_2$ is rooted, it follows that $\T_2^+$ is well-connected. Thus, each $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}(\T_2^+)$ is well-connected. This implies that $L(\mathfrak A)$ is a well-connected logic above {\bf S4} for each $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}(\T_2^+)$. To prove the converse, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{revariablizing}
Let $\{\varphi_n:n\in\omega\}$ be a set of formulas, $\F=(W,R)$ be a frame, and $w\in W$. Suppose that for each $n\in\omega$ there is a valuation $\nu_n$ on $\F$ such that $w\notin\nu_n(\varphi_n)$. Then there is a single valuation $\nu$ on $\F$ such that $w\notin\nu\left(\widehat{\varphi_n}\right)$ for each $n\in\omega$, where $\widehat{\varphi_n}$ is obtained from $\varphi_n$ via substitution involving only propositional letters.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We build $\widehat{\varphi_n}$ so that distinct formulas in $\{\widehat{\varphi_n}:n\in\omega\}$ have no propositional letters in common. Let $\mathrm P_n$ be the set of propositional letters occurring in $\varphi_n$. Since the disjoint union of countably many finite sets is countably infinite, there is a bijection $\sigma:\bigcup\nolimits_{n\in\omega}\mathrm P_n\times\{\varphi_n\}\to\mathrm{Prop}$. Thus, $\sigma$ assigns each propositional letter $p$ in $\varphi_n$ to a new propositional letter so that no letter in $\varphi_n$ is assigned to the same letter, and no two occurrences of $p$ in distinct formulas are assigned to the same letter. We let $\widehat{\varphi_n}$ be the substitution instance of $\varphi_n$ obtained by substituting each occurrence of $p$ in $\varphi_n$ with $\sigma(p,\varphi_n)$. Then distinct formulas in $\{\widehat{\varphi_n}:n\in\omega\}$ have no propositional letters in common.
Define $\nu$ by $\nu(\sigma(p,\varphi_n))=\nu_n(p)$. Then for any $v\in W$ we have
$$
v\in\nu_n(\varphi_n)\text{ iff }v\in\nu\left(\widehat{\varphi_n}\right).
$$
In particular, $w\notin\nu\left(\widehat{\varphi_n}\right)$ for each $n\in\omega$.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{WellConLogAndT2}
Let $L$ be a logic above {\bf S4}. The following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is well-connected.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general frame over $\T_2$.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}(\T_2^+)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2): Let $L$ be well-connected. Then $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some well-connected closure algebra $\mathfrak A=(A,\Diamond)$. Let $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ be the dual descriptive frame of $\mathfrak A$. Then $L(\F)=L(\mathfrak A)=L$. Since $\mathfrak A$ is well-connected, $\F$ is rooted (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~3]{Esa79}). Let $w$ be a root of $\F$. Suppose $\{\varphi_n:n\in\omega\}$ is an enumeration of the non-theorems of $L$. For each $n\in\omega$, there is a valuation $\nu_n$ on $\F$ refuting $\varphi_n$. Since $w$ is a root, $w\notin\nu_n(\Box\varphi_n)$. By Lemma~\ref{revariablizing}, there are a valuation $\nu$ on $\F$ and the set $\{\widehat{\Box\varphi_n}:n\in\omega\}$ such that $w\notin\nu\left(\widehat{\Box\varphi_n}\right)$ for each $n\in\omega$. By Theorem~\ref{CGFP}, there is a general frame $\G=(V,S,\mathcal Q)$ such that $\G$ is a frame for $L$, $V\subseteq W$ is countable and contains $w$, $S$ is the restriction of $R$ to $V$, $\mathcal Q=\{\mu(\varphi):\varphi\in\mathfrak{Form}\}$, where $\mu(p)=\nu(p)\cap V$ for each $p\in\mathrm{Prop}$, and $w\notin\mu\left(\widehat{\Box\varphi_n}\right)$ for each $n\in\omega$. For each propositional letter $p$ occurring in $\varphi_n$, set $\lambda(p)=\mu(\sigma(p,\varphi_n))$. Then $\lambda(\Box\varphi_n)=\mu\left(\widehat{\Box\varphi_n}\right)$, so $w\notin\lambda(\Box\varphi_n)$ since $w\notin\mu\left(\widehat{\Box\varphi_n}\right)$. Thus, each $\varphi_n$ is refuted on $\G$, so $L=L(\G)$. Since $(V,S)$ is a countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame, Lemma~\ref{ImagesOfT2} gives that there is an onto p-morphism $f:T_2\to V$. By Lemma~\ref{GenTopFromGFAndIntMap}, there is a general frame over $\T_2$ whose logic is $L$.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3): Let $L=L(\T_2,\mathcal P)$. Then $L=L(\mathcal P)$ and $\mathcal P\in{\bf S}(\T_2^+)$.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1): This is obvious since each $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}(\T_2^+)$ is well-connected.
\end{proof}
\section{Completeness for general spaces over ${\bf L}_2$}\label{SecL2}
In this section we take a more careful look at the infinite binary tree with limits $\LL_2$, equip it with the Scott topology, denote the result by ${\bf L}_2$, and show that in the completeness results of Section~\ref{BinaryTreeSection}, $\T_2$ can be replaced by ${\bf L}_2$.
We begin by pointing out that $\LL_2$ is obtained from $\T_2$ by adding leaves, which we realize as limit points via multiple topologies, the first of which is the Scott topology for a directed complete partial order (DCPO). Recall (see, e.g., \cite{GHKLMS03}) that a poset is a DCPO if every directed subset has a sup, and that an upset $U$ in a DCPO is \emph{Scott open} provided for each directed set $S$, we have $S\cap U\ne\varnothing$ whenever $\sup(S)\in U$. The collection of Scott open sets forms the \emph{Scott topology}.
For each $\alpha$, it is easy to see that a directed set in $\LL_\alpha$ is a chain whose sup exists in $\LL_\alpha$. Therefore, each $\LL_\alpha$ is a DCPO. Moreover, since ${\downarrow}a$ is a finite chain for each $a\in T_\alpha$, we have that ${\uparrow}a$ is Scott open for each $a\in T_\alpha$, and so $\{{\uparrow}a:a\in T_\alpha\}$ forms a basis for the Scott topology $\tau$ on $L_\alpha$. We denote $(L_\alpha,\tau)$ by ${\bf L}_\alpha$. Kremer \cite{Kre13} proved that ${\bf S4}$ is strongly complete with respect to ${\bf L}_2$.
\begin{lemma}\label{CantorInL2}
The Cantor space ${\bf C}$ is homeomorphic to the subspace $L_2-T_2$ of ${\bf L}_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is well known that $\bf C$ is homeomorphic to the space whose underlying set $X$ consists of infinite sequences $s=\{s_n:n\in\omega\}$ in $\T_2$ such that $s_0$ is the root and $s_{n+1}$ is a child of $s_n$, and whose topology is generated by the basic open sets $B_s^n=\{t\in X:s_k=t_k \ \ \forall k\in\downn\}$ for $s\in X$ and $n\in\omega$. With each $a\in L_2-T_2$ we associate $s\in X$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
s_0&=&\varnothing\text{ (the sequence with empty domain; i.e.~the root),}\\
s_{n+1}&=&a|_{\downarrow n}\text{ (the restriction of } a\text{ to } {\downarrow}n).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then the correspondence $a\mapsto s$ is a well-defined bijection from $L_2-T_2$ to {\bf C}, under which the basic open of $L_2-T_2$ arising from the Scott open set ${\uparrow}(a|_{\downarrow n})$ corresponds to $B_s^n$. Thus, $L_2-T_2$ is homeomorphic to ${\bf C}$.
\end{proof}
Utilizing the technique similar to the one presented in Section~\ref{SecRationals}, it is convenient to embed $L_2$ in the lower half plane as shown in Figure~\ref{figL2inPlane}, where the closed intervals formed in constructing ${\bf C}$ are depicted at the top of Figure~\ref{figL2inPlane}. The elements of $T_2$ are realized as vertices of isosceles right triangles whose hypotenuse coincides with the closed intervals and whose other sides depict the relation $\le$. Projecting the picture onto the line with arrows gives a realization of $L_2$ as a subset of $\mathbf R$ by adding to ${\bf C}$ the midpoint of each open middle third that is removed in constructing ${\bf C}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(270,200)
\put(135,0,){\line(1,1){135}}
\put(135,0){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(135,0){\line(-1,1){135}}
\put(225,90){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(225,90){\line(-1,1){45}}
\put(45,90){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(45,90){\line(1,1){45}}
\put(15,120){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(15,120){\line(1,1){15}}
\put(75,120){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(75,120){\line(-1,1){15}}
\put(195,120){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(195,120){\line(1,1){15}}
\put(255,120){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(255,120){\line(-1,1){15}}
\put(135,135){\vector(-1,0){150}}
\put(135,135){\vector(1,0){150}}
\put(0,200){\line(1,0){270}}
\put(0,200){\makebox(0,0){[}}
\put(270,200){\makebox(0,0){]}}
\put(0,185){\line(1,0){90}}
\put(0,185){\makebox(0,0){[}}
\put(90,185){\makebox(0,0){]}}
\put(180,185){\line(1,0){90}}
\put(180,185){\makebox(0,0){[}}
\put(270,185){\makebox(0,0){]}}
\put(0,170){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(0,170){\makebox(0,0){[}}
\put(30,170){\makebox(0,0){]}}
\put(60,170){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(60,170){\makebox(0,0){[}}
\put(90,170){\makebox(0,0){]}}
\put(180,170){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(180,170){\makebox(0,0){[}}
\put(210,170){\makebox(0,0){]}}
\put(240,170){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(240,170){\makebox(0,0){[}}
\put(270,170){\makebox(0,0){]}}
\put(30,185){\makebox(0,0){(}}
\put(90,200){\makebox(0,0){(}}
\put(210,185){\makebox(0,0){(}}
\put(60,185){\makebox(0,0){)}}
\put(180,200){\makebox(0,0){)}}
\put(240,185){\makebox(0,0){)}}
\put(15,155){\makebox(0,0){$\vdots$}}
\put(75,155){\makebox(0,0){$\vdots$}}
\put(195,155){\makebox(0,0){$\vdots$}}
\put(255,155){\makebox(0,0){$\vdots$}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Embedding $\mathfrak L_2$ in the lower half plane}\label{figL2inPlane}
\end{figure}
Since the Pelczynski compactification \cite{Pel65} of a countable discrete space $X$ is the compactification of $X$ whose remainder is homeomorphic to {\bf C}, we can realize $L_2$ as the Pelczynski compactification of $T_2$ viewed as a discrete space.
\begin{lemma}
Viewing $L_2$ as a subspace of $\mathbf R^2$ (or equivalently as a subspace of $\mathbf R$) gives the Pelczynski compactification of the discrete space $T_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly the image of $L_2$ under the above described embedding into the plane (or line) is closed and bounded. Therefore, if we give the image of $L_2$ the subspace topology, then it is a compact Hausdorff space. It is also clear that each point of $T_2$ is isolated in the image, and that the image of $L_2$ is the closure of the image of $T_2$. Thus, the image of $L_2$ is a compactification of the image of $T_2$, which is a countable discrete space. Finally, by Lemma~\ref{CantorInL2}, the remainder is homeomorphic to {\bf C}, so the image of $L_2$ is the Pelczynski compactification of the image of $T_2$.
\end{proof}
We denote this new topology on $L_2$ by $\tau_S$. Since the Pelczynski compactification of a countable discrete space is a Stone space, $(L_2,\tau_S)$ is a Stone space. It is clear from the figure that for $a\in T_2$, both ${\uparrow}a$ and $\{a\}$ are clopen in $(L_2,\tau_S)$, and that each open set of $(L_2,\tau_S)$ is the union of clopen sets of this form. As $\{a\}={\uparrow}a-\left({\uparrow}l(a)\cup{\uparrow}r(a)\right)$, we also see that the Boolean algebra $\mathcal P$ of all clopens of $(L_2,\tau_S)$ is generated by $\{{\uparrow}a:a\in T_2\}$, which is a basis for the Scott topology $\tau$ on $L_2$. Moreover, since for each $a\in T_2$, we have that ${\downarrow}a$ is finite and ${\downarrow}({\uparrow}a)={\uparrow}a\cup{\downarrow}a$, we see that $(\mathcal P,{\downarrow})$ is a closure algebra. Consequently, $(L_2,\le,\mathcal P)$ is a descriptive frame. Let $\tau_\le$ be the Alexandroff topology on $\LL_2$. Then, by \cite[Thm. 2.12]{BMM08}, $\tau=\tau_S\cap\tau_\le$.
\begin{remark}
{\em
As a result, we have several ways of thinking about $\LL_2$. The first way is to think about $\LL_2$ as a DCPO leading to the Scott topology $\tau$. The second way is a geometrically motivated approach that realizes $\LL_2$ as a subspace of $\mathbf R^2$, which gives the Stone topology $\tau_S$. The third way connects the first and second ways by realizing the Scott topology (which, by the way is the McKinsey-Tarski topology introduced in \cite{BMM08}) as the intersection of the Stone and Alexandroff topologies. Moreover, the Stone topology is the patch topology of the Scott topology. In fact, there is also a forth way of thinking about $\LL_2$. Let $D$ be the bounded distributive lattice generated by $\{{\uparrow}a:a\in T_2\}$. Then $(L_2,\tau_S,\le)$ is (up to homeomorphism) the Priestley space of $D$. Consequently, $(L_2,\tau_S,\le)$ is a Priestley order-compactification of the poset $(T_2,\le)$ (see \cite{BM11}).
}
\end{remark}
We are ready to prove completeness results that are similar to the ones proved in Section~\ref{BinaryTreeSection} but involve ${\bf L}_2$. For this we will take advantage of Kremer's theorem that $\T_2^+$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of ${\bf L}_2^+$ \cite[Lem.~6.4]{Kre13}.
\begin{lemma}\label{RefuteOneFormInGenSpOnL_2}
Let $L$ be a logic above ${\bf S4}$. If $\varphi\notin L$, then there is a general space over ${\bf L}_2$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{RefuteOneFormInGenFrmOnT2}, there is a general frame $(\T_2,\mathcal P)$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi$. By \cite[Lem.~6.4]{Kre13}, $\T_2^+$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of ${\bf L}_2^+$, so $\mathcal P$ is isomorphic to some $\mathcal Q\in{\bf S}({\bf L}_2^+)$. Thus, there is a general space $({\bf L}_2,\mathcal Q)$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{OneLogicOneGenSpaceOnL2Scott}
Let $L$ be a normal modal logic. The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4}.
\item There is a general space over a Scott open subspace of ${\bf L}_2$ whose logic is $L$.
\item There is a closure algebra $\mathfrak A\in{\bf SH}({\bf L}_2^+)$ such that $L=L(\mathfrak A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2): Let $\{\varphi_n:n\in\omega\}$ be an enumeration of the non-theorems of $L$. By Lemma~\ref{RefuteOneFormInGenSpOnL_2}, for each $n\in\omega$, there is a general space over ${\bf L}_2$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi_n$. Let $\X_n=(X_n,\mathcal P_n)$ be a copy of this general space, and without loss of generality we assume that $X_n\cap X_m=\varnothing$ whenever $n\ne m$. Thus, the sum $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ of the general spaces $\X_n$ is a general space whose logic is $L$. The proof will be complete provided that $X$ is homeomorphic to a Scott open subspace of ${\bf L}_2$. Consider $a_n$ as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{CountableDisUnionT2inItself}. Then $\{{\uparrow}a_n:n\in\omega\}$ is a pairwise disjoint family of subsets of $L_2$ such that each ${\uparrow}a_n$ is isomorphic to $\LL_2$. To see the isomorphism, extend the map $f$ defined in the proof of Lemma~\ref{CountableDisUnionT2inItself} to $L_2-T_2$ by setting $f(a)=\sup\{f(a|_{\downarrow n}):n\in\omega\}$. Since $a_n\in T_2$, we see that $\bigcup_{n\in\omega}{\uparrow}a_n$ is Scott open in ${\bf L}_2$. As $X$ is homeomorphic to $\bigcup_{n\in\omega}{\uparrow}a_n$, we conclude that $X$ is homeomorphic to a Scott open subspace of ${\bf L}_2$, thus finishing the proof.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3): Suppose $L=L(X,\mathcal P)$, where $X$ is a Scott open subspace of ${\bf L}_2$. Then $L=L(\mathcal P)$, $\mathcal P\in{\bf S}(X^+)$, and $X^+\in{\bf H}({\bf L}_2^+)$. Thus, there is a closure algebra $\mathcal P\in{\bf SH}({\bf L}_2^+)$ such that $L=L(\mathcal P)$.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1): This is obvious since $\mathfrak A$ is a closure algebra.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $L$ be a logic above {\bf S4}. The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is well-connected.
\item There is a general space over ${\bf L}_2$ whose logic is $L$.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}({\bf L}_2^+)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1)$\Rightarrow$(3): By Theorem~\ref{WellConLogAndT2}, $L=L(\mathfrak B)$ for some $\mathfrak B\in{\bf S}(\T_2^+)$. By \cite[Lem.~6.4]{Kre13}, $\mathfrak B$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra $\mathfrak A$ of ${\bf L}_2^+$. Thus, $L=L(\mathfrak B)=L(\mathfrak A)$.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1): Since ${\bf L}_2^+$ is a well-connected closure algebra, it follows that every $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}({\bf L}_2^+)$ is also well-connected. Thus, $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ is a well-connected logic.
Consequently, (1) and (3) are equivalent, and obviously (2) and (3) are equivalent.
\end{proof}
\section{Completeness for general spaces over $\mathbf C$}\label{CantorSection}
The key ingredient in proving that each logic above {\bf S4} is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf Q$ is that each countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame is an interior image of $\mathbf Q$. This is no longer true if we replace $\mathbf Q$ by the Cantor space $\mathbf C$ or the real line $\mathbf R$ \cite[Sec.~6]{BG02}. In this section we show that nevertheless there is an interior map from $\mathbf C$ onto ${\bf L}_2$, and utilize this fact to prove that each logic above {\bf S4} is the logic of some general space over $\mathbf C$.
In fact, we prove that ${\bf L}_\alpha$ is an interior image of ${\bf C}$ for each nonzero $\alpha\in\omega+1$. This we do by first constructing an onto interior map $f:L_2\rightarrow L_\alpha$. Then restricting $f$ to $L_2-T_2$ and applying Lemma~\ref{CantorInL2} realizes each $\mathbf L_\alpha$ as an interior image of ${\bf C}$. That ${\bf L}_2$ is an interior image of $\mathbf C$ also follows from Kremer's result \cite[Lem 8.1]{Kre13} that $\mathbf L_2$ is an interior image of any complete dense-in-itself metric space. However, our proof is different. Our approach utilizes the way that ${\bf C}$ sits inside the DCPO structure of $\LL_2$ and the aforementioned $f:L_2\to L_\alpha$ is defined by utilizing the supremum of directed sets. Whereas Kremer's method decomposes ${\bf C}$ (or any complete dense-in-itself metric space) into equivalence classes that are indexed by $L_2$ so that mapping each point in an equivalence class to the corresponding index gives an interior map onto ${\bf L}_2$.
We use the proof of Lemma~\ref{ImagesOfT2} to label the nodes of $\T_2$ by the nodes of $\T_\alpha$. Recall that we denote the labeling of $a\in T_2$ by $L(a)$, and that for each $b\in T_\alpha$ we have an onto map $\theta_b:\omega\rightarrow {\uparrow}b$. Then the root $\mathrm{r}_2$ of $\T_2$ is labeled by the root $\mathrm{r}_\alpha$ of $\T_\alpha$, and we write $L(\mathrm{r}_2)=\mathrm{r}_\alpha$. Also, if $L(a)$ is defined, then for $n\in\omega$, we have $L(l^n(a))=L(a)$ and $L(r(l^n(a)))=\theta_{L(a)}(n)$. Therefore, for each $a\in L_2-T_2$, the sequence $\{L(a|_{\downarrow n}):n\in\omega\}$ is increasing in $\T_\alpha$, and hence also increasing in the DCPO $\LL_\alpha$. Set
$$
f(a)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
L(a)&\mbox{ if }a\in T_2,\\
\sup\{L(a|_{\downarrow n}):n\in\omega\}&\mbox{ if }a\in L_2-T_2.
\end{array}\right.
$$
Then $f$ is a well-defined map from $L_2$ to $L_\alpha$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LalphaOntoL2}
$f$ is an interior map from ${\bf L}_2$ onto ${\bf L}_\alpha$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof consists of three claims.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim 1:} $f$ is open.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Proof:} We show $f({\uparrow}a)={\uparrow}f(a)$ for each $a\in T_2$. Let $b\in {\uparrow}a$. If $b\in T_2$, then an inductive argument based on the labeling scheme gives $f(a)=L(a) \le L(b)=f(b)$. If $b\in L_2-T_2$, then $b|_{\mathrm{dom}(a)}=a$, and so $f(a)=L(a)=L(b|_{\mathrm{dom}(a)}) \le \sup\{L(b|_{\downarrow n})\}=f(b)$. Therefore, $f({\uparrow}a)\subseteq {\uparrow}f(a)$.
Conversely let $b\in {\uparrow}f(a)$. Then $L(a)=f(a) \le b$. If $b\in T_\alpha$, then $\theta_{L(a)}(n)=b$ for some $n\in\omega$ and $r(l^n(a))\in {\uparrow}a$ with
$$
f(r(l^n(a)))=L(r(l^n(a)))=\theta_{L(a)}(n)=b.
$$
Suppose $b\in L_\alpha-T_\alpha$. We build an increasing sequence $\{a_n\}$ such that $a_n\in {\uparrow}a\cap T_2$ for each $n\in\omega$ and $c=\sup\{a_n\}\in L_2-T_2$ satisfies $f(c)=b$. Let $a_0=a$. Set $b_0=f(a)$. Let $b_{n+1}\in{\downarrow}b$ be such that
$$
\mathrm{dom}(b_{n+1})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\downarrow}(m+1) & \text{if } \mathrm{dom}(b_n)={\downarrow}m,\\
{\downarrow}0 & \text{if } \mathrm{dom}(b_n)=\varnothing.
\end{array}\right.
$$
Then $b_{n}=b|_{\mathrm{dom}(b_{n})}$ and $b_n\in T_\alpha$ for each $n\in\omega$. Furthermore, $\sup\{b_n\}=b$ and
$$
L(a)=b_0 \le b_n \le b_{n+1}.
$$
There is $m_n$ such that $\theta_{b_n}(m_n)=b_{n+1}$. Let $a_{n+1}=r(l^{m_n}(a_n))$. Clearly $L(a_0)=L(a)=f(a)=b_0$, and assuming $L(a_n)=b_n$ it follows that
$$
L(a_{n+1})=L(r(l^{m_n}(a_n)))=\theta_{L(a_n)}(m_n)=\theta_{b_n}(m_n)=b_{n+1}.
$$
Thus, for $c=\sup\{a_n\}$, we have
$$
b=\sup\{b_n\}=\sup\{L(a_n)\} \le \sup\{L(c|_{\downarrow n})\}=f(c),
$$
giving $f(c)=b$ since $b$ is a leaf of $\LL_\alpha$. As $c\in{\uparrow}a$, we have shown $f({\uparrow}a)\supseteq {\uparrow}f(a)$.
Lastly since each $a\in T_2$ is labeled by an element of $T_\alpha$, we have that $f(a)\in T_\alpha$ whenever $a\in T_2$, giving that $f({\uparrow}a)={\uparrow}f(a)\in \tau$. Thus, $f$ sends basic opens of ${\bf L}_2$ to basic opens of ${\bf L}_\alpha$, hence $f$ is open.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim 2:} $f$ is onto.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Proof:} $f(L_2)=f({\uparrow}\mathrm{r}_2)={\uparrow}f(\mathrm{r}_2)={\uparrow}L(\mathrm{r}_2)={\uparrow}\mathrm{r}_\alpha=L_\alpha$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim 3:} $f$ is continuous.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Proof:} We show $f^{-1}({\uparrow}b)=\bigcup\{{\uparrow}a:b\le L(a)\}$ for each $b\in T_\alpha$. Let $c\in f^{-1}({\uparrow}b)$. Then $b \le f(c)$. If $c\in T_2$, then $b \le f(c)=L(c)$ and $c\in {\uparrow}c$, giving that $c\in\bigcup\{{\uparrow}a:b\le L(a)\}$. Suppose $c\in L_2-T_2$. Then $\sup\{L(c|_{\downarrow n})\}=f(c)\in {\uparrow}b$. Since $b\in T_\alpha$, we have ${\uparrow}b$ is Scott open, so there is $n\in\omega$ such that $f(c|_{\downarrow n})=L(c|_{\downarrow n})\in {\uparrow}b$. Therefore, $b \le L(c|_{\downarrow n})$ and $c\in {\uparrow}(c|_{\downarrow n})$. Thus, $c\in \bigcup\{{\uparrow}a:b\le L(a)\}$, showing that $f^{-1}({\uparrow}b)\subseteq\bigcup\{{\uparrow}a:b\le L(a)\}$.
Conversely, let $c\in\bigcup\{{\uparrow}a:b\le L(a)\}$. Then there is $a\in T_2$ such that $b \le L(a)$ and $c\in {\uparrow}a$. Therefore,
$$
f(c)\in f({\uparrow}a)={\uparrow}f(a)={\uparrow}L(a)\subseteq {\uparrow}b.
$$
Thus, $c\in f^{-1}({\uparrow}b)$, giving $f^{-1}({\uparrow}b)\supseteq\bigcup\{{\uparrow}a:b\le L(a)\}$. This proves that $f$ is continuous.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{LalphaInteriorImgCantor}
For each nonzero $\alpha\in\omega+1$, the space ${\bf L}_\alpha$ is an interior image of ${\bf C}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{CantorInL2}, ${\bf C}$ is homeomorphic to the subspace $L_2-T_2$ of ${\bf L}_2$. So it is enough to show that $g=f|_{L_2-T_2}$ is an onto interior map, where $f:L_2\to L_\alpha$ is the map of Lemma~\ref{LalphaOntoL2}. Clearly $g$ is continuous since it is the restriction of a continuous map. That $g$ is onto and open follows from the next claim since $f({\uparrow}a)={\uparrow}f(a)$ for each $a\in T_2$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim:} For each $a\in T_2$, we have $g\left({\uparrow}a\cap (L_2-T_2)\right)=f({\uparrow}a)$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Proof:} Clearly $g\left({\uparrow}a\cap (L_2-T_2)\right)=f\left({\uparrow}a\cap (L_2-T_2)\right)\subseteq f({\uparrow}a)$. Let $b\in f({\uparrow}a)$. Then there is $c\in {\uparrow}a$ such that $f(c)=b$. If $c\in L_2-T_2$, then there is nothing to prove. Suppose $c\in T_2$. Define $d\in L_2-T_2$ by $d(n)=c(n)$ when $n\in\mathrm{dom}(c)$ and $d(n)=0$ otherwise. So $d$ is the limit of the sequence $\{l^n(c):n\in\omega\}$ of the left ancestors of $c$. Then $d\in {\uparrow}a$ and since $L(l^n(c))=L(c)$, we have
$$
g(d)=f(d)=\sup\{L(d|_{\downarrow n})\}=\sup\{L(l^n(c))\}=\sup\{L(c)\}=L(c)=f(c)=b.
$$
Thus, $g\left({\uparrow}a\cap (L_2-T_2)\right)\supseteq f({\uparrow}a)$, and equality follows.
\end{proof}
As an immediate consequence, we obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{L2InteriorImgCantor}
The space ${\bf L}_2$ is an interior image of ${\bf C}$.
\end{corollary}
In order to prove the main result of this section, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{RefuteOneFormInGenSpOnC}
Let $L$ be a logic above ${\bf S4}$. If $\varphi\notin L$, then there is a general space over $\mathbf C$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{RefuteOneFormInGenSpOnL_2}, there is a general space $({\bf L}_2,\mathcal P)$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi$. By Corollary~\ref{L2InteriorImgCantor}, ${\bf L}_2$ is an interior image of $\mathbf C$, so ${\bf L}_2^+$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $\mathbf C^+$. Therefore, $\mathcal P$ is isomorphic to some $\mathcal Q\in{\bf S}(\mathbf C^+)$. Thus, there is a general space $(\mathbf C,\mathcal Q)$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi$.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{CompletenessForAnyLwrtCantor}
Let $L$ be a normal modal logic. The following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4}.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general space over ${\bf C}$.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}({\bf C}^+)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2): Suppose $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4}. Let $\{\varphi_n:n\in\omega\}$ be an enumeration of the non-theorems of $L$. By Lemma~\ref{RefuteOneFormInGenSpOnC}, for each $n\in\omega$, there is a general space over $\mathbf C$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi_n$. Let $\X_n=(X_n,\mathcal P_n)$ be a copy of this general space, and without loss of generality we assume that $X_n\cap X_m=\varnothing$ whenever $n\not= m$. Let $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ be the sum of the $\X_n$. Then $L(\X)=\bigcap_{n\in\omega}L(\X_n)=L$. Although $X$ is not homeomorphic to $\mathbf C$, the one-point compactification of $X$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbf C$ (see, e.g., \cite[Lem.~7.2]{BG11}).\footnote{We may realize $X$ geometrically as $\bigcup\nolimits_{n\in\omega}X_n$, where $X_n=\mathbf C\cap\left[\frac{2}{3^{n+1}},\frac{1}{3^n}\right]$. Note each $X_n$ is the portion of ${\bf C}$ that is contained in the right closed third of the iteration of constructing ${\bf C}$ as the `leftovers' of removing open middle `thirds' and hence each $X_n$ is homeomorphic to ${\bf C}$. The only point of ${\bf C}$ not in $X$ is $0$, which is clearly a limit point of $X$ as viewed as a subset of $\mathbf R$ (depicted below). So it is intuitively clear that the one-point compactification of the sum of $\omega$ copies of ${\bf C}$ is homeomorphic to ${\bf C}$.
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(270,15)(0,0)
\put(270,5){\makebox(0,0){$]$}}
\put(270,-10){\makebox(0,0){$1$}}
\put(180,5){\makebox(0,0){$[$}}
\put(180,-10){\makebox(0,0){$\frac23$}}
\put(225,15){\makebox(0,0){$X_0$}}
\put(180,5){\dashbox(90,0){}}
\put(90,5){\makebox(0,0){$]$}}
\put(90,-10){\makebox(0,0){$\frac13$}}
\put(60,5){\makebox(0,0){$[$}}
\put(60,-10){\makebox(0,0){$\frac29$}}
\put(75,15){\makebox(0,0){$X_1$}}
\put(60,5){\dashbox(30,0){}}
\put(30,5){\makebox(0,0){$]$}}
\put(30,-10){\makebox(0,0){$\frac19$}}
\put(20,5){\makebox(0,0){$[$}}
\put(20,-10){\makebox(0,0){$\frac2{27}$}}
\put(25,15){\makebox(0,0){$X_2$}}
\put(20,5){\dashbox(10,0){}}
\put(10,5){\makebox(0,0){$\dots$}}
\put(0,5){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(0,-10){\makebox(0,0){$0$}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
}
Let $\alpha X=X\cup\{\infty\}$ be the one-point compactification of $X$. Then $\alpha X$ is homeomorphic to ${\bf C}$. Define $\mathcal Q$ on $\alpha X$ by $A\in\mathcal Q$ iff $A\cap X_n\in\mathcal P_n$ and either $\infty\notin A$ and $\{n\in\omega:A\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}$ is finite or $\infty\in A$ and $\{n\in\omega:A\cap X_n\ne X_n\}$ is finite.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim 1:} $\mathcal Q$ is a closure algebra.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Proof:} Let $A,B\in \mathcal Q$. Then $A\cap X_n,B\cap X_n\in \mathcal P_n$ for each $n\in\omega$. Clearly we have $(A\cap B)\cap X_n=(A\cap X_n)\cap (B\cap X_n)\in \mathcal P_n$. Suppose $\infty\not\in A$ or $\infty\not\in B$. Then $\infty\not\in A\cap B$ and
$$
\{n:(A\cap B)\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}\subseteq\{n:A\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}\cap\{n:B\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}
$$
is finite since either $\{n:A\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}$ is finite or $\{n:B\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}$ is finite. Suppose $\infty\in A$ and $\infty \in B$. Then $\infty\in A\cap B$ and
$$
\{n:(A\cap B)\cap X_n\ne X_n\}\subseteq\{n:A\cap X_n\ne X_n\}\cup\{n:B\cap X_n\ne X_n\}
$$
is finite since both $\{n:A\cap X_n\ne X_n\}$ and $\{n:B\cap X_n\ne X_n\}$ are finite. Thus, $\mathcal Q$ is closed under $\cap$.
For complement, we clearly have $(-A)\cap X_n=X_n-(A\cap X_n)\in\mathcal P_n$. For every $C\in\mathcal Q$, we have
$$
\{n:(-C)\cap X_n\ne X_n\}=\{n:C\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}.
$$
So if $\infty\not\in A$, then $\infty\in-A$ and $\{n:(-A)\cap X_n\ne X_n\}$ is finite since $\{n:A\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}$ is finite. On the other hand, if $\infty\in A$, then $\infty\not\in -A$ and $\{n:(-A)\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}$ is finite as $\{n:A\cap X_n\ne X_n\}$ is finite. Thus, $\mathcal Q$ is closed under complement.
Let {\bf c} be closure in $\alpha X$. It is left to show that $\mathcal Q$ is closed under {\bf c}. For $A\subseteq\alpha X$, we show that $\mathbf c(A)\cap X_n=\mathbf c_n(A\cap X_n)$, where $\mathbf c_n$ is closure in $X_n$. As $\mathbf c_n(A\cap X_n)=\mathbf c(A\cap X_n)\cap X_n$, one inclusion is clear. For the other inclusion, let $x\in\mathbf c(A)\cap X_n$ and let $U$ be an open neighborhood of $x$ in $X_n$. Since $X_n$ is a clopen subset of $\alpha X$, we see that $U$ is open in $\alpha X$. As $x\in\mathbf c(A)$, we have $A\cap U\ne\varnothing$. Therefore, $(A\cap X_n)\cap U=A\cap(U\cap X_n)=A\cap U\ne\varnothing$, and so $x\in\mathbf c_n(A\cap X_n)$. Now, since $\mathbf c_n(A\cap X_n)\in\mathcal P_n$, we see that $\mathbf c(A)\cap X_n\in\mathcal P_n$. Suppose $\infty\not\in A$. Then $\{n:\mathbf c(A)\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}=\{n:A\cap X_n\ne\varnothing\}$ is finite, and $\infty\not\in\mathbf c(A)$ because $\{\infty\}\cup\bigcup_{\{n:A\cap X_n=\varnothing\}}X_n$ is an open neighborhood of $\infty$ disjoint from $A$. Suppose $\infty\in A$. Then $\{n:A\cap X_n\ne X_n\}$ is finite. Clearly $\infty\in\mathbf c(A)$. Since $\{n:\mathbf c(A)\cap X_n\ne X_n\}\subseteq\{n:A\cap X_n\ne X_n\}$, it follows that $\{n:\mathbf c(A)\cap X_n\ne X_n\}$ is finite. Thus, $\mathbf c(A)\in\mathcal Q$, and hence $\mathcal Q$ is a closure algebra.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim 2:} $\mathcal Q$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of the closure algebra $\mathcal P$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Proof:} Define $\eta:\mathcal Q\to\mathcal P$ by $\eta(A)=A\cap X=A-\{\infty\}$. Note that $\eta$ is the identity map when $\infty\not\in A$. Clearly $\eta$ is well defined. Let $A,B\in \mathcal Q$. Then
$$
\eta(A\cap B)=(A\cap B)\cap X=(A\cap X)\cap(B\cap X)=\eta(A)\cap\eta(B).
$$
Moreover,
$$
\eta(\alpha X-A)=(\alpha X-A)\cap X=X-A=X-(A\cap X)=X-\eta(A).$$
Therefore, $\eta$ is a Boolean homomorphism. We recall that {\bf c} is closure in $\alpha X$. Let ${\bf c}_X$ be closure in $X$. If $\infty\not\in A$, then $A\subseteq X$ and ${\bf c}(A)={\bf c}_X(A)$, so
$$
\eta(\mathbf c(A))=\eta(\mathbf c_X(A))=\mathbf c_X(A)=\mathbf c_X(A\cap X)=\mathbf c_X\eta(A).
$$
Suppose $\infty\in A$. Then $\mathbf c(A)=\mathbf c_X(A\cap X)\cup\{\infty\}$. Therefore,
$$
\eta(\mathbf c(A))=\eta\left(\mathbf c_X(A\cap X)\cup\{\infty\}\right)=\mathbf c_X(A\cap X)=\mathbf c_X(\eta(A)).
$$
Thus, $\eta$ is a closure algebra homomorphism.
To see that $\eta$ is an embedding, let $\eta(A)=X$. Then $\{n:A\cap X_n\ne X_n\}=\varnothing$, so $\infty\in A$, and hence $A=\alpha X$. Thus, $\eta:\mathcal Q\to\mathcal P$ is a closure algebra embedding, and so $\mathcal Q$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $\mathcal P$.
\medskip
Now, since $\mathcal P$ validates $L$, we have that $\mathcal Q$ validates $L$. Furthermore, since $\alpha_n:\mathcal Q\to\mathcal P_n$ given by $\alpha_n(A)=A\cap X_n$ is an onto closure algebra homomorphism, each $\mathcal P_n$ is a homomorphic image of $\mathcal Q$. Thus, $\mathcal Q$ refutes each $\varphi_n$, and hence $L=L(\mathcal Q)$. Consequently, $L$ is the logic of the general space $(\alpha X,\mathcal Q)$, and as $\alpha X$ is homeomorphic to ${\bf C}$, we conclude that $L$ is the logic of a general space over {\bf C}.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3): If $L=L(\mathbf C,\mathcal Q)$, then $L=L(\mathcal Q)$ and $\mathcal Q\in{\bf S}({\bf C}^+)$.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1): This is obvious since $L$ is the logic of a closure algebra.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\em
The closure algebra $\mathcal Q$ constructed in the proof of Theorem~\ref{CompletenessForAnyLwrtCantor} is a weak product \cite[Appendix, \S 3]{Esa85} of the closure algebras $\mathcal P_n$.
}
\end{remark}
Most of the remainder of the paper is dedicated to logics associated with the real line $\mathbf R$.
\section{Completeness for general spaces over open subspaces of $\mathbf R$}\label{SecOpenSubspacesOfRealLine}
As we have seen, general spaces over both $\mathbf Q$ and $\mathbf C$ characterize all logics above {\bf S4}. This is no longer true for $\mathfrak T_2$ and ${\bf L}_2$. In fact, general frames over $\mathfrak T_2$ and general spaces over ${\bf L}_2$ characterize all well-connected logics above {\bf S4}, and in order to characterize all logics above {\bf S4}, we need to work with general frames over generated subframes of $\mathfrak T_2$ or general spaces over open subspaces of ${\bf L}_2$. In this section we show that a similar result is also true for the reals. Namely, we prove that a normal modal logic is a logic above {\bf S4} iff it is the logic of a general space over an open subspace of $\mathbf R$. In the next section we address the logics above {\bf S4} that arise from general spaces over $\mathbf R$ and show that each connected logic arises this way.
We recall that in proving that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf Q$, we enumerated all the non-theorems of $L$ as $\{\varphi_n:n\in\omega\}$, used the CGFP to find a countable rooted general {\bf S4}-frame $\mathfrak F_n=(W_n,R_n,\mathcal P_n)$ for $L$ that refuted $\varphi_n$, and obtained each $\mathfrak F_n$ as an interior image of $\mathbf Q$ via an onto interior map $f_n:\mathbf Q\to\mathfrak F_n$. We then used $f_n^{-1}$ to obtain $\mathcal Q_n\in{\bf S}(\mathbf Q^+)$ isomorphic to $\mathcal P_n$, thus producing a general space $(\mathbf Q,\mathcal Q_n)$. Finally, we took the sum of disjoint copies of the general spaces $(\mathbf Q,\mathcal Q_n)$ to obtain a general space whose underlying topological space was homeomorphic to $\mathbf Q$, and whose logic was indeed $L$.
What can go wrong with this technique when we switch to the reals? One obvious obstacle is that the sum of countably many copies of $\mathbf R$ is no longer homeomorphic to $\mathbf R$ because it is no longer connected. However, even before this `summation' stage, we have no guarantee that a rooted countable {\bf S4}-frame is an interior image of $\mathbf R$. Quite the contrary, it is a consequence of the Baire category theorem that rooted {\bf S4}-frames with infinite ascending chains cannot be obtained as interior images of the reals \cite[Sec.~6]{BG02}. We overcome this obstacle by switching from general frames $\F_n$ to general spaces over ${\bf L}_2$. This can be done as follows. As we saw in Section~\ref{BinaryTreeSection}, we can realize each $\F_n$ as a general frame over $\mathfrak T_2$. By Kremer's result \cite[Lem.~6.4]{Kre13}, $\mathfrak T_2^+$ is embeddable in ${\bf L}_2^+$, hence each general frame over $\mathfrak T_2$ can be realized as a general space over ${\bf L}_2$. We next build an interior map from any (non-trivial) real interval onto ${\bf L}_2$. Such maps have already appeared in the literature; see \cite{Lan12,Kre13}. The sum of disjoint open intervals produces an open subspace $X$ of $\mathbf R$ and a general space over $X$ whose logic is $L$. Thus, general spaces over open subspaces of $\mathbf R$ give rise to all logics above {\bf S4}.
In realizing ${\bf L}_2$ as an interior image of a non-trivial real interval $I$, our method differs from both Kremer's \cite{Kre13} and Lando's \cite{Lan12} methods. Kremer utilizes a decomposition of $I$ (indeed of any complete dense-in-itself metrizable space) into equivalence classes indexed by $L_2$, and maps each element in a class to its index. Lando defines an interior mapping of $I$ onto ${\bf L}_2$ by successively labeling and relabeling the points of $I$ by points in $L_2$. Our construction is similar to Lando's construction in that we utilize a labeling scheme; although we make a sequence of labels that form a directed set. In line with earlier comments in Section~\ref{CantorSection}, our method utilizes the DCPO structure of $\mathfrak L_2$. All three methods are similar in that each utilizes a dissection of intervals into nowhere dense `borders' that separate two collections of intervals to be used in the next stage of the construction.
We start by recalling the construction of the Cantor set in a (non-trivial) real interval $I\subseteq\mathbf R$ with endpoints $x<y$ (note $I$ may be closed, open, or neither).
\smallskip
{\bf Step $0$:} Set $C_{0,1}=I$.
\smallskip
{\bf Step $n>0$:} Start with $2^{n-1}$ intervals $C_{n-1,1},\dots,C_{n-1,2^{n-1}}$, each of which is a closed subset of $I$ of length $\frac{y-x}{3^{n-1}}$. For each $m\in\{1,\dots,2^{n-1}\}$, remove the open middle third $U_{n-1,m}$ of $C_{n-1,m}$. Thus, we end step $n$ with $2^{n-1}$ removed open intervals $U_{n-1,1},\dots,U_{n-1,2^{n-1}}$, each of length $\frac{y-x}{3^n}$, and the remaining portion of $I$, specifically $2^n$ intervals $C_{n,1},\dots,C_{n,2^n}$, each of which is closed in $I$ and of length $\frac{y-x}{3^n}$.
\smallskip
The Cantor set in $I$ is
$$
{\bf C}^I=\bigcap\limits_{n\in\omega}\bigcup\limits_{m=1}^{2^n}C_{n,m}.
$$
Note that ${\bf C}={\bf C}^{[0,1]}$ and, as subspaces of $\mathbf{R}$, $\mathbf{C}^I$ is homeomorphic to ${\bf C}$ whenever $I$ is closed. When we need to keep track of $I$, we write $C^I_{n,m}$ and $U^I_{n,m}$ for the intervals involved in the construction of ${\bf C}^I$.
We now define a map $f:[0,1]\rightarrow L_2$. The technique is similar to that of Section~\ref{CantorSection}, when we built an interior map from the Cantor space $\mathbf C$ onto ${\bf L}_2$. For each $x\in[0,1]$, define recursively a strictly increasing (but possibly finite) sequence in $\T_2$; we refer to the values in the sequence as labels and write $\{L_n(x)\}$ for the sequence of labels associated with $x$. The following generalizes the main construction of \cite{BG05a}.
\smallskip
{\bf Step $0$:} For $x\in[0,1]$, set $L_0(x)$ equal to the root of $\T_2$, $\mathcal C_0=\{{\bf C}^{[0,1]}\}$, and
$$
\mathcal U_0=\{U^{[0,1]}_{i,j}:i\in\omega,j=1,\dots,2^i\}.
$$
\smallskip
{\bf Step $n+1$:} For $x\in\bigcup\mathcal U_n$, set
$$
L_{n+1}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
lL_n(x) & \text{if } x\in U^I_{i,j}\text{ for some }U^I_{i,j}\in\mathcal U_n \text{ with }j\text{ even},\\
rL_n(x) & \text{if } x\in U^I_{i,j}\text{ for some }U^I_{i,j}\in\mathcal U_n \text{ with }j\text{ odd}.
\end{array}\right.
$$
Note that $L_{n+1}(x)$ is undefined if $x\not\in\bigcup\mathcal U_n$. Set $\mathcal C_{n+1}=\{{\bf C}^I:I\in\mathcal U_n\}$, and
$$
\mathcal U_{n+1}=\{U^I_{i,j}:I\in\mathcal U_n,\ i\in\omega, j=1,\dots,2^i\}.
$$
We define $f:[0,1]\rightarrow L_2$ by $f(x)=\sup\{L_n(x)\}$. By the construction, $L_{n+1}(x)$ is a child of $L_n(x)$ (whenever $L_{n+1}(x)$ is defined), so $\{L_n(x)\}$ is a strictly increasing (possibly finite) sequence in $\T_2$. Since $\LL_2$ is a DCPO, it follows that $f$ is a well-defined map.
The following is the intuitive idea of the construction. We send the Cantor set to the root of $\T_2$. In the remaining open intervals, we send `half' of the Cantor set occuring in these intervals to the left child of the root and the other `half' to the right child. In the next remaining open intervals, we again send the Cantor set to appropriate left or right children. So any point occurring in one of these Cantor sets is sent to an element of $T_2$. But there are only countably many such Cantor sets and by the Baire category theorem, there must be something left over in $[0,1]$ (see Fact~4 below). This `left over' portion of the interval is sent to $L_2-T_2$.
We present some useful facts concerning the construction. The proof is straightforward.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Facts:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\forall n\in\omega$, $\mathcal U_n$ is a countable pairwise disjoint family of open intervals and the maximum length of an interval in $\mathcal U_n$ is $\frac{1}{3^{n+1}}$.
\item $\forall n\in\omega$, $\forall C\in\mathcal C_{n+1}$, $\exists I\in\mathcal U_n$, $C\subset I$.
\item $\mathcal C=\{C:\exists n\in\omega,\ C\in\mathcal C_n\}$ is a countable pairwise disjoint family.
\item $\bigcap\nolimits_{n\in\omega}\left(\bigcup\mathcal U_n\right)=[0,1]-\bigcup\mathcal C$.
\item $\{L_n(x)\}$ is an infinite sequence iff $x\in \bigcap\nolimits_{n\in\omega}\left(\bigcup\mathcal U_n\right)$ iff $x\not\in \bigcup\mathcal C$ iff $f(x)\in L_2-T_2$.
\item $\{L_n(x)\}$ is a finite sequence iff $x\in \bigcup\mathcal C$ iff $f(x)\in T_2$.
\item $\forall x\in[0,1]$, if $L_n(x)$ is defined, then $L_n(x)\in T_2$ is a sequence in $\{0,1\}$ consisting of $n$ values; more specifically, $\mathrm{dom}(L_0(x))=\varnothing$ and $\forall n\in\omega$, $\mathrm{dom}(L_{n+1}(x))=\downn$.
\item $\forall x\in[0,1]$, if $\{L_n(x)\}$ is infinite, then for all $n\in\omega$ there is a unique $I_{x,n}\in\mathcal U_n$ such that $x\in I_{x,n}$ and the length of $I_{x,n}$ is at most $\frac{1}{3^{n+1}}$.
\item $\forall x\in[0,1]$, if $\{L_n(x)\}$ is infinite, then $\{I_{x,n}:n\in\omega\}$ is a local basis for $x$.
\item The set $\bigcup\mathcal C$ is dense in $[0,1]$.
\end{enumerate}
\smallskip
\begin{lemma}\label{RealsOntoL2isOpen}
The map $f$ into $\mathbf L_2$ is open.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $U\subseteq[0,1]$ be an open interval. First we show that $f(U)$ is an $\le$-upset. Let $x\in U$, $a\in L_2$, and $f(x)\le a$. We show that $a\in f(U)$. If $f(x)\in L_2-T_2$, then $a=f(x)\in f(U)$. So assume that $f(x)\in T_2$. Then the sequence of labels $\{L_n(x)\}$ is finite, so $f(x)=L_n(x)$, where $n$ is the largest integer for which $L_n(x)$ is defined. Therefore, there is a unique $I\in\mathcal U_{n-1}$ (note $I=[0,1]$ in case $n=0$) such that $x\in{\bf C}^I=\bigcap\nolimits_{i\in\omega}\bigcup\nolimits_{j=1}^{2^i}C^I_{i,j}$. Thus, there are $i\in\omega$ and $j\in\{1,\dots,2^i\}$ such that $x\in C^I_{i,j}\subseteq U$.
Assume $a\in L_2-T_2$. Put $a_n=a|_{\downarrow(n-1)}$ (note if $n=0$, then $a_n$ is the root). Then $a_n=f(x)=L_n(x)$. Define recursively a sequence of open intervals $\{I_m:m\in\omega\}$. Let $x_0<y_0$ be the endpoints of $C^I_{i,j}$ and put $I_0=(x_0,y_0)$. There is an odd $k\in\{1,\dots,2^{i+1}\}$ such that $U^I_{i+1,k},U^I_{i+1,k+1}$ are the open middle thirds removed in the two closed thirds $C^I_{i+1,k},C^I_{i+1,k+1}\subset C^I_{i,j}$ which remain after removing $U^I_{i,j}$ from $C^I_{i,j}$. Set
$$
I_1=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
U^I_{i+1,k}&\mbox{ if }a_{n+1}=ra_n,\\
U^I_{i+1,k+1}&\mbox{ if }a_{n+1}=la_n.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
For $m\ge 1$, set
$$
I_{m+1}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
U^{I_m}_{1,1}&\mbox{ if }a_{n+m+1}=ra_{n+m},\\
U^{I_m}_{1,2}&\mbox{ if }a_{n+m+1}=la_{n+m}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
It follows by induction that for $m\ge 0$, we have $I_{m+1}\in\mathcal U_{n+m}$ and for all $y\in I_m$, we have $L_{n+m}(y)=a_{n+m}$. Therefore, for $m\ge 1$, we have $f(y)=a_{n+m}$ for all $y\in {\bf C}^{I_m}\subset U$. Moreover, if $y\in\bigcap\nolimits_{m\in\omega}I_m$, then
$$
f(y)=\sup\{L_i(y):i\in\omega\}=\sup\{L_{n+m}(y):m\in\omega\}=\sup\{a_{n+m}:m\in\omega\}=a.
$$
To see that $\bigcap\nolimits_{m\in\omega}I_m\not=\varnothing$, let $x_m<y_m$ be the endpoints of $I_m$. Set
$$
K_m=\left[x_m+\frac{y_m-x_m}{9},y_m-\frac{y_m-x_m}{9}\right].
$$
Then $I_{m+1}\subset K_m\subset I_m$. Since $\{K_m:m\in\omega\}$ is a strictly decreasing family of closed intervals,
$$
\{y\}=\bigcap\limits_{m\in\omega}K_m\subset\bigcap\limits_{m\in\omega}I_m\subset I_0\subset U
$$
for some $y\in[0,1]$. Thus, $a,a_{n+m}\in f(U)$ for all $m\in\omega$. Now, since for all $b\in {\uparrow}f(x)\cap T_2$ there is $a\in L_2-T_2$ such that $b\le a$ (and hence $b=a_{n+m}$ for some $m$), it follows that $f(U)$ is an $\le$-upset.
Next, if $f(x)\in L_2-T_2$, then there is $b\in f(U)\cap T_2$ such that $b\le f(x)$. To see this, since $\{I_{x,n}\in\mathcal U_n:n\in\omega,\ x\in I_{x,n}\}$ is a local basis for $x$, there is $n\in\omega$ such that $I_{x,n}\subset U$. By the construction, each $y\in I_{x,n}$ has the same $(n+1)^{\text{th}}$-label, namely $L_{n+1}(y)=L_{n+1}(x)$. Taking $y\in{\bf C}^{I_{x,n}}(\not=\varnothing)$, we get $y\in U$, $f(y)=L_{n+1}(y)=L_{n+1}(x)\le f(x)$, and $f(y)\in T_2$. Thus, $f(U)$ is Scott open, which completes the proof that $f$ is an open map.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{RealsOntoL2}
The map $f$ is onto.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $U$ be an open subset of $[0,1]$ with $U\cap{\bf C}\not=\varnothing$. Then the root of $L_2$ belongs to $f(U)$. By the proof of Lemma~\ref{RealsOntoL2isOpen}, $f(U)$ is an $\le$-upset. Thus, $f(U)=L_2$, and so $f$ is onto.
\end{proof}
Let $I\in\mathcal U_n$ for some $n\in\omega$. Since each $x\in I$ has the same label, namely $L_{n+1}(x)$, setting $L(I)=L_{n+1}(x)$ for some $x\in I$ is well defined. An inductive argument gives that for all $a\in T_2$ except the root, there is $n\in\omega$ such that $\mathrm{dom}(a)=\downn$ and there is $I\in\mathcal U_n$ such that $L(I)=a$. (In fact, $\mathrm{dom}(L(I))=\downn$ iff $I\in\mathcal U_n$.)
\begin{lemma}\label{fImgIinUn}
For each $n\in\omega$ and $I\in \mathcal U_n$, we have $f(I)={\uparrow}L(I)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $I$ is an open interval containing ${\bf C}^I$ and $f(x)=L_{n+1}(x)=L(I)$ for each $x\in{\bf C}^I$, we have $L(I)\in f(I)$. Lemma~\ref{RealsOntoL2isOpen} gives that $f(I)$ is an $\le$-upset, hence ${\uparrow}L(I)\subseteq f(I)$. Conversely, $L(I)=L_{n+1}(x)\le f(x)$ for every $x\in I$. Thus, $f(I)\subseteq {\uparrow}L(I)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{RealsOntoL2isCTS}
The map $f$ onto $\mathbf L_2$ is continuous.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is sufficient to show that $f^{-1}({\uparrow}a)$ is open for each $a\in T_2$. If $a$ is the root, then $f^{-1}({\uparrow}a)=[0,1]$. Therefore, we may assume that $a$ is not the root. Then $\mathrm{dom}(a)=\downn$ for some $n\in\omega$. We show that
$$
f^{-1}({\uparrow}a)=\bigcup\{I\in\mathcal U_n:L(I)=a\}.
$$
The $\supseteq$ direction follows from Lemma~\ref{fImgIinUn} as
\begin{eqnarray*}
f\left(\bigcup\{I\in\mathcal U_n:L(I)=a\}\right) &=& \bigcup\{f(I):I\in\mathcal U_n \ \& \ L(I)=a\}\\
&=&\bigcup\{{\uparrow}L(I): I\in\mathcal U_n \ \& \ L(I)=a\}\\
&=& {\uparrow}a.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $x\in f^{-1}({\uparrow}a)$. Then $a\le f(x)$ (and so $f(x)$ extends $a$), which gives $\mathrm{dom}(f(x))\supseteq\downn$ and $f(x)|_{\downarrow n}=a$, giving $L_{n+1}(x)=a$. Since $L_{n+1}(x)$ is defined, $x\in\bigcup\mathcal U_n$. So there is $I\in\mathcal U_n$ such that $x\in I$. Furthermore, $L(I)=L_{n+1}(x)=a$. So $x\in\bigcup\{I\in\mathcal U_n:L(I)=a\}$, and the $\subseteq$ direction holds. Thus, $f$ is continuous.
\end{proof}
Putting together Lemmas~\ref{RealsOntoL2isOpen}, \ref{RealsOntoL2}, and~\ref{RealsOntoL2isCTS} yields:
\begin{theorem}\label{L2isIntrImageR}
$\mathbf L_2$ is an interior image of any (non-trivial) interval in $\mathbf R$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $f$ sends the entire Cantor set ${\bf C}^{[0,1]}$ to the root of $\LL_2$, it is straightforward that both $f|_{(0,1)}$ and $f|_{[0,1)}$ are interior maps from $(0,1)$ and $[0,1)$ onto $\mathbf L_2$, respectively. The result follows since any (non-trivial) real interval is homeomorphic to either $(0,1)$, $[0,1)$, or $[0,1]$.
\end{proof}
In order to prove the main result of this section, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{RefuteOneFormInGenSpOnR}
Let $L$ be a logic above ${\bf S4}$. If $\varphi\notin L$, then there is a general space over any (non-trivial) interval in $\mathbf R$ validating $L$ and refuting $\varphi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{RefuteOneFormInGenSpOnL_2}, there is a general space $({\bf L}_2,\mathcal P)$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi$. By Theorem~\ref{L2isIntrImageR}, ${\bf L}_2$ is an interior image of any (non-trivial) interval $I$ in $\mathbf R$, so ${\bf L}_2^+$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $I^+$. Therefore, $\mathcal P$ is isomorphic to some $\mathcal Q\in{\bf S}(I^+)$. Thus, there is a general space $(I,\mathcal Q)$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi$.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{OneLogicOneGenSpaceInSubsOfReals}
For a normal modal logic $L$, the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4}.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general space over an open subspace of $\mathbf R$.
\item There is a closure algebra $\mathfrak A\in{\bf SH}(\mathbf R^+)$ such that $L=L(\mathfrak A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2): Let $L$ be a logic above {\bf S4}, and let $\{\varphi_n:n\in\omega\}$ be an enumeration of the non-theorems of $L$. By Lemma~\ref{RefuteOneFormInGenSpOnR}, for each $n\in\omega$, there is a general space $\X_n=((n,n+1),\mathcal P_n)$ for $L$ refuting $\varphi_n$. Taking the sum of $\X_n$ gives the general space $\X=(\bigcup_{n\in\omega}(n,n+1),\mathcal P)$, where $A\in\mathcal P$ iff $A\cap(n,n+1)\in\mathcal P_n$. Clearly $\bigcup_{n\in\omega}(n,n+1)$ is an open subspace of $\mathbf R$ and $L(\X)=L$.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3): Suppose that $X$ is an open subspace of $\mathbf R$, $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ is a general space over $X$, and $L=L(\X)$. Since $X$ is an open subspace of $\mathbf R$, we have $X^+\in{\bf H}(\mathbf R^+)$. As $\mathcal P$ is a subalgebra of $X^+$, we have $\mathcal P\in{\bf SH}(\mathbf R^+)$. Finally, $L=L(\X)$ yields $L=L(\mathcal P)$.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1): This is clear since $\mathfrak A$ is a closure algebra and $L=L(\mathfrak A)$.
\end{proof}
Putting together what we have established so far yields:
\begin{corollary}
Let $L$ be a normal modal logic. The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4}.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}(\mathbf Q^+)$.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak B)$ for some $\mathfrak B\in{\bf S}({\bf C}^+)$.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak C)$ for some $\mathfrak C\in{\bf SH}(\mathbf R^+)$.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak D)$ for some $\mathfrak D\in{\bf SH}({\bf L}_2^+)$.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak E)$ for some $\mathfrak E\in{\bf SH}(\T_2^+)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
In the proof of Theorem \ref{OneLogicOneGenSpaceInSubsOfReals}, instead of taking $X=\bigcup_{n\in\omega}(n,n+1)$, we could have taken $X$ to be larger. But in general, the `largest' $X$ can get is a countably infinite union of pairwise disjoint open intervals that is dense in $\mathbf R$. In the next section we characterize the logics above {\bf S4} that arise from general spaces over the entire real line.
\section{Connected logics and completeness for general spaces over $\mathbf R$}\label{SecRealLineAndConnLogs}
In this section we characterize the logics above {\bf S4} that arise from general spaces over $\mathbf R$. Since $\mathbf R^+$ is connected, so is each subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$, so if $L$ is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf R$, then $L$ is connected. In \cite{BG11} it was shown that if $L$ is a connected logic above {\bf S4} that has the FMP, then $L$ is the logic of some subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$. We strengthen this result by proving that a logic $L$ above {\bf S4} is connected iff $L$ is the logic of some general space over $\mathbf R$, which is equivalent to $L$ being the logic of some subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$. This is the main result of the paper and solves \cite[p.~306, Open Problem 2]{BG11}. The proof requires several steps. For a connected logic $L$, we show that each non-theorem $\varphi_n$ of $L$ is refuted on a general space over an interior image $X_n$ of ${\bf L}_2$. For this we use the CGFP and Kremer's embedding of $\T_2^+$ into ${\bf L}_2^+$. We also utilize that ${\bf L}_2$ is an interior image of $\mathbf R$, which allows us to obtain each $X_n$ as an interior image of $\mathbf R$. We generalize the technique of `gluing' from \cite{BG11} to glue the $X_n$ accordingly, and design an interior map from $\mathbf R$ onto the glued copies of the $X_n$, which yields a general space over $\mathbf R$ whose logic is $L$.
For the readers' convenience, we first state the main result and provide the sketch of the proof. The various technical tools that are utilized in the proof, as well as the rigorous definitions of some of the constructions are provided later in the section.
\begin{theorem}[Main Result]\label{MainTheorem}
Let $L$ be a logic above ${\bf S4}$. The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is connected.
\item $L$ is the logic of a countable path-connected general {\bf S4}-frame.
\item $L$ is the logic of a countable connected general space.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf R$.
\item $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some $\mathfrak A\in{\bf S}(\mathbf R^+)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Some of the implications of the Main Result are easy to prove. Indeed, to see that (2)$\Rightarrow$(3), if $(W,R,\mathcal P)$ is a general {\bf S4}-frame, then $(W,\tau_R,\mathcal P)$ is a general space. Now since $(W,\tau_R)$ is connected iff $(W,R)$ is path-connected (see, e.g., \cite[Lem.~3.4]{BG11}), the result follows. The implications (3)$\Rightarrow$(1) and (5)$\Rightarrow$(1) are clear because a subalgebra of a connected closure algebra is connected and $X^+$ is connected iff $X$ is connected \cite[Thm.~3.3]{BG11}. The equivalence (4)$\Leftrightarrow$(5) is obvious. Thus, to complete the proof of the Main Result it is sufficient to establish (1)$\Rightarrow$(2) and (1)$\Rightarrow$(5). Below we give an outline of the proof of these implications. Full details are given in Sections~\ref{ss:1->2} and~\ref{ss:1->5}. In both proof sketches we will distinguish two cases depending on whether the logic $L$ is above ${\bf S4.2}$ or not, where we recall that ${\bf S4.2}={\bf S4}+\Diamond\Box\varphi\to\Box\Diamond\varphi$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Proof sketch of (1)$\Rightarrow$(2):}
Since $L$ is connected, it is the logic of a connected closure algebra $\mathfrak A$. Let $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ be the dual descriptive frame of $\mathfrak A$. In general, $\F$ does not have to be path-connected \cite[Sec.~3]{BG11}.
\smallskip
\noindent\underline{{\bf Case 1:} $L$ is above ${\bf S4.2}$.}
\smallskip
\textbf{Step 1.1:} Show that $\F$ contains a unique maximal cluster accessible from each point of~$W$, so $\F$ is path-connected.
\textbf{Step 1.2:} Extract a countable path-connected general frame $\G$ from $\F$ by using a modified version of the CGFP alluded to in Remarks~\ref{EnlargingV0forL} and \ref{EnlargingV0forCountableSet} so that $L=L(\G)$.
\smallskip
\noindent\underline{{\bf Case 2:} $L$ is not above ${\bf S4.2}$.} In this case $\F$ may not be path-connected, so we employ a different strategy.
\smallskip
\textbf{Step 2.1:} Introduce a family of auxiliary frames, which we refer to as forks; see Figure~\ref{f:forks}.
\textbf{Step 2.2:} Choose a countable family of countable rooted `refutation frames' for $L$ via the modification of CGFP that yields for each non-theorem $\varphi_n$ of $L$ a countable rooted general {\bf S4}-frame $\mathfrak G_n$ for $L$ that refutes $\varphi_n$ at a root and contains a maximal cluster.
\textbf{Step 2.3:} For each refutation frame $\G_n$ there is a corresponding fork that has a maximal cluster isomorphic to a maximal cluster of $\G_n$. Gluing the two frames along the maximal clusters gives a countable family of `attached frames', say $\HH_n$; see Figure~\ref{f:glue-1}.
\textbf{Step 2.4:} Each of the attached frames $\HH_n$ has a maximal point. Gluing the family $\HH_n$ along their maximal points yields a countable path-connected general frame $\HH$ such that $L=L(\HH)$; see Figure~\ref{f:gluing-2}.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Proof sketch of (1)$\Rightarrow$(5):}
We utilize the frames occurring in the proof sketch of (1)$\Rightarrow$(2).
\smallskip
\noindent\underline{{\bf Case 1:} $L$ is above ${\bf S4.2}$.} Let $\G$ be as in Step 1.2 of (1)$\Rightarrow$(2).
\smallskip
\textbf{Step 1.1:} For each non-theorem $\varphi_n$, select a rooted generated subframe $\G_n$ of $\G$ so that $\G_n$ refutes $\varphi_n$.
\textbf{Step 1.2:} Construct an interior image $X_n$ of ${\bf L}_2$ so that there is a general space $\X_n=(X_n,\mathcal Q_n)$ satisfying $L(\X_n)=L(\G_n)$. Gluing the family $\X_n$ yields a general frame $\X$ whose logic is $L$.
\textbf{Step 1.3:} Realize each $X_n$ as an interior image of any non-trivial real interval.
\textbf{Step 1.4:} Produce an interior map $f:\mathbf R\to\X$ via the interior mappings of Step 1.3 and, utilizing $f^{-1}$, obtain a subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$ whose logic is $L$.
\smallskip
\noindent\underline{{\bf Case 2:} $L$ is not above ${\bf S4.2}$.} Let $\G_n$ be as in Step 2.2 of (1)$\Rightarrow$(2).
\smallskip
\textbf{Step 2.1:} Build general spaces $\X_n$ as described in Step 1.2 so that $L(\X_n)=L(\G_n)$.
\textbf{Step 2.2:} Gluing $\X_n$ with the corresponding fork gives the general space $\Y_n$. Gluing the $\Y_n$ along the appropriate isolated points yields the general space $\Y$ whose logic is $L$.
\textbf{Step 2.3:} Produce an interior map $f:\mathbf R\to\Y$ using that each $\X_n$ and each fork is an interior image of any non-trivial real interval and, utilizing $f^{-1}$, obtain a subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$ whose logic is $L$.
\medskip
The next two subsections are dedicated to developing in full detail the two proof sketches just presented. We end the section with an easy but useful corollary of the Main Result.
\subsection{Proof of (1)$\Rightarrow$(2)}\label{ss:1->2}
Let $L$ be a connected logic above {\bf S4}. Then $L=L(\mathfrak A)$ for some connected closure algebra $\mathfrak A$. Let $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ be the dual descriptive frame of $\mathfrak A$. We distinguish two cases.
\smallskip
\noindent\underline{{\bf Case 1:} $L$ is above {\bf S4.2}.}
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 1.1:} We show that in this case $\F$ contains a unique maximal cluster. It is important that $L$ is connected and above {\bf S4.2}.
\begin{lemma}\label{ConnectedAboveS42}
$\F$ has a unique maximal cluster.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $C_1$ and $C_2$ are distinct maximal clusters of $\F$. As $\F$ is a descriptive {\bf S4}-frame, $C_1,C_2$ are closed, and $R(C_1)\cap R^{-1}(C_2)=\varnothing$, there is an $R$-upset $U\in\mathcal P$ such that $C_1\subseteq U$ and $U\cap C_2=\varnothing$. Since $\mathfrak A$ is connected and $U$ is neither $\varnothing$ nor $W$, it cannot be simultaneously an $R$-upset and an $R$-downset. As $U$ is an $R$-upset, $U$ then is not an $R$-downset. Set $\nu(p)=U$. Since $U$ is an $R$-upset, we have $\nu(\Box p)=U$, so $\nu(\Diamond\Box p)=R^{-1}(U)$. On the other hand, $C_1\subseteq R^{-1}(U)$ and $C_2\cap R^{-1}(U)=\varnothing$ imply that $R^{-1}(U)$ is neither $\varnothing$ nor $W$. Therefore, as $R^{-1}(U)$ is an $R$-downset, $R^{-1}(U)$ is not an $R$-upset. Thus, since $\nu(\Box\Diamond p)$ is the largest $R$-upset contained in $R^{-1}(U)$, it is strictly contained in $R^{-1}(U)$. Consequently, $\Diamond\Box p\rightarrow\Box\Diamond p$ is refuted in $\F$, and hence in $\mathfrak A$. The obtained contradiction proves that $\F$ has a unique maximal cluster.
\end{proof}
Since the unique maximal cluster of $\F$ is accessible from every point of $\F$, it follows that $\F$ is path-connected.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 1.2:} As indicated in the proof sketch, we develop the modified version of the CGFP (Theorem~\ref{CGFP}) outlined in Remarks~\ref{EnlargingV0forL} and \ref{EnlargingV0forCountableSet}.
\begin{theorem}\label{LowSklWithSet}
Let $L$ be a normal modal logic, $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ be a general frame for $L$, and $U$ be a countable subset of $W$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\F$ refutes a non-theorem $\varphi$ of $L$, then there is a countable general frame $\G=(V,S,\mathcal Q)$ such that $\G$ is a subframe of $\F$, $U\subseteq V$, $\G$ is a frame for $L$, and $\G$ refutes~$\varphi$.
\item If $L=L(\F)$, then $\G$ may be selected so that $U\subseteq V$ and $L=L(\G)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1) The proof of the CGFP given in Theorem~\ref{CGFP} needs to be adjusted only slightly. Since $\varphi$ is refuted in $\F$, there is a valuation $\nu$ and $w\in W$ such that $w\not\in\nu(\varphi)$. Now proceed as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{CGFP} but set the starting set $V_0$ to be equal to $U\cup\{w\}$. The resulting countable general frame $\G=(V,S,\mathcal Q)$ is a subframe of $\F$, $U\subseteq V$, $\G$ is a frame for $L$, and $\G$ refutes $\varphi$. Thus, (1) is established.
(2) For each non-theorem $\varphi_n$ of $L$, there is a valuation $\nu_n$ and $w_n\in W$ such that $w_n\notin\nu_n(\varphi_n)$. We use Lemma~\ref{revariablizing} to make the propositional letters occurring in substitution instances of $\varphi_n$ and $\varphi_m$ distinct whenever $n\neq m$. This gives the set $\{\widehat{\varphi_n}:n\in\omega\}$. Let $\nu$ be a single valuation that refutes all the $\widehat{\varphi_n}$, and let $V_0=\{w_n\in W:w_n\notin\nu(\widehat{\varphi_n})\}\cup U$. Then proceed precisely as in the proof of (1) to obtain a countable general frame $\G=(V,S,\mathcal Q)$ such that $\G$ is a subframe of $\F$, $U\subseteq V$, and $\G$ is a frame for $L$. To see that each $\varphi_n$ is refuted in $\G$, note that by our construction, $\widehat{\varphi_n}$ is refuted in $\G$, and $\widehat{\varphi_n}$ is obtained from $\varphi_n$ by substituting propositional letters with other propositional letters. By a straightforward adjustment of the valuation according to the substitution, we obtain a refutation of $\varphi_n$. Thus, $L=L(\G)$.
\end{proof}
We use the modified CGFP. Take any point $m$ from the unique maximal cluster of $\F$ provided by Lemma~\ref{ConnectedAboveS42}, and set $U=\{m\}$. By Theorem~\ref{LowSklWithSet}(2), there is a countable general frame $\G$ such that $\G$ is a subframe of $\F$, it contains $U$, and its logic is $L$. Moreover, $\G$ is path-connected since $m$ is accessible from every point of $\G$, thus finishing the proof of Case~1.
\medskip
\noindent\underline{{\bf Case 2:} $L$ is not above {\bf S4.2}.}
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 2.1:} We introduce some very simple auxiliary frames that will be used later on for gluing refutation frames for $L$ into one connected general frame whose logic is $L$. Let $\alpha\in\omega+1$ be nonzero. We let $\mathfrak C_\alpha=(W,R)$ denote the {\em $\alpha$-cluster}; that is, $\mathfrak C_\alpha$ is the {\bf S4}-frame consisting of a single cluster of cardinality $\alpha$, so $W=\{w_n:n\in\alpha\}$ and $R=W\times W$. We also let $\F_\alpha=(W_\alpha,R_\alpha)$ denote the {\em $\alpha$-fork}; that is, the {\bf S4}-frame obtained by adding two points to $\mathfrak C_\alpha=(W,R)$, a root below the cluster and a maximal point unrelated to the cluster. So $W_\alpha=\{r_\alpha,m_\alpha\}\cup W$ and
$$
R_\alpha=\{(r_\alpha,r_\alpha),(m_\alpha,m_\alpha),(r_\alpha,m_\alpha),(r_\alpha,w_n),(w_n,w_m):n,m\in\alpha\}.
$$
How $\mathfrak C_\alpha$ sits inside $\F_\alpha$ is depicted in Figure~\ref{f:forks} below.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[rounded corners] (-4,2) rectangle (-3,1.5);
\node (C0) at (-3.5,1.75) {\tiny $\mathfrak C_{\alpha}$};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (r1) at (-2.5,0) {};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (m) at (-1.5,1.5) {};
\node at (-2.5,-0.4) {\small $r_\alpha$};
\node (mnew) at (-1.5,1.8) {\small $m_\alpha$};
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r1) -- (m);
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r1) -- (-3.5,1.47);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The $\alpha$-fork $\F_\alpha$}\label{f:forks}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:8.6}
Let $L$ be a logic above {\bf S4}, $\F=(W,R,\mathcal P)$ be a descriptive {\bf S4}-frame for $L$, and $\F$ have an infinite maximal cluster $\mathfrak C$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak C_n\models L$ for each nonzero $n\in\omega$.
\item $\mathfrak C_\omega\models L$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) Since $\mathfrak C$ is a maximal cluster of $\F$, it is clear that $\mathfrak C$ is an $R$-upset of $\F$. In fact, $\mathfrak C=R(w)$ for each $w$ in $\mathfrak C$, and as $R(w)$ is closed, $\mathfrak C$ is a closed $R$-upset of $\F$. Therefore, $\mathfrak C$ is a descriptive {\bf S4}-frame for $L$ (see, e.g, \cite[Lem.~III.4.11]{Esa85}). Since $\mathfrak C$ is an infinite Stone space, for each nonzero $n\in \omega$, there is a partition of $\mathfrak C$ into $n$-many clopens $U_0,\dots,U_{n-1}$. Define $f:\mathfrak C\to\mathfrak C_n$ by sending all points of the clopen $U_i$ to $w_i$ in $\mathfrak C_n$. It is straightforward to verify that $f$ is a p-morphism. Thus, as $\mathfrak C\models L$, we have $\mathfrak C_n\models L$.
(2) If $\mathfrak C_\omega\not\models L$, then there are $\varphi\in L$, $n\in\omega$, and a valuation $\nu$ on $\mathfrak C_\omega$ such that $w_n\not\in\nu(\varphi)$. Define an equivalence relation $\equiv$ on $\mathfrak C_\omega$ by
$$
w_i\equiv w_j\text{ iff }(\forall\psi\in\mathrm{Sub}\varphi)\left(w_i\in\nu(\psi)\Leftrightarrow w_j\in\nu(\psi)\right),
$$
where $\mathrm{Sub}\varphi$ is the set of subformulas of $\varphi$. Since $\mathrm{Sub}\varphi$ is finite, so is the set of equivalence classes, and we let $\{C_k:k\in m\}$ be this set. Then $f:\mathfrak C_\omega\rightarrow\mathfrak C_m$, given by $f(w_i)=w_k$ whenever $w_i\in C_k$, is an onto p-morphism. Moreover, $\mathfrak C_m$ refutes $\varphi$ at $f(w_n)$ under the valuation $\mu=f\circ\nu$. But this contradicts (1), completing the proof of (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{OmegaFork}
Let $L$ be a logic above ${\bf S4}$. If $\F_k\models L$ for each $k\in\omega$, then $\F_\omega\models L$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\F_\omega\not\models L$. Then there are $\varphi\in L$, a valuation $\nu$, and $v\in W_\omega$ such that $v\not\in\nu(\varphi)$. Let ${\equiv}$ be the equivalence relation on $\mathfrak C_\omega$ defined in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:8.6}(2), and let $\{C_k:k\in n\}$ be the set of $\equiv$-equivalence classes. Define $f:\F_\omega\rightarrow\F_n$ by
$$f(w)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
r_n&\mbox{ if }w=r_\omega,\\
m_n&\mbox{ if }w=m_\omega,\\
w_k&\mbox{ if }w\in C_k.
\end{array}\right.
$$
Then $f$ is an onto p-morphism. Moreover, $\F_n$ refutes $\varphi$ at $f(v)$ under the valuation $\mu=f\circ\nu$. This contradicts to $\F_n\models L$. Thus, $\F_\omega\models L$.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 2.2:} For each non-theorem $\varphi_n$ of $L$, there is a valuation $\nu_n$ and $w_n\in W$ such that $w_n\notin\nu_n(\varphi_n)$. Let $m_n\in R(w_n)$ be a maximal point of $\F$. (Such $m_n$ exists because $\F$ is a descriptive {\bf S4}-frame; see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~III.2]{Esa85}.) By Theorem~\ref{LowSklWithSet}(1), there is a countable general frame $\G_n=(W_n,R_n,\mathcal P_n)$ containing $\{w_n,m_n\}$ that validates $L$ and refutes $\varphi_n$. Clearly $w_n$ is a root of $\G_n$. Let $C_n$ be the maximal cluster of $\G_n$ generated by $m_n$. If $\alpha_n$ is the cardinality of $C_n$, then we identify $C_n$ with $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$. Let $C$ be the maximal cluster of $\F$ from which $C_n$ was selected. If $C$ is finite, then $C\models L$, so $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}\models L$. If $C$ is infinite, then as $\alpha_n\in\omega+1$ is nonzero, by Lemma~\ref{lem:8.6}, $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}\models L$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 2.3:} Since $L$ is not above {\bf S4.2}, it is well known (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~6.1]{ZWC01}) that $\F_1\models L$. If $\alpha_n$ is finite, \cite[Lem.~4.2]{BG11} gives that $\F_{\alpha_n}\models L$. If $\alpha_n=\omega$, we get that $\mathfrak C_m\models L$ for each nonzero $m\in\omega$ because each $\mathfrak C_m$ is a p-morphic image of $\mathfrak C_\omega$. By \cite[Lem.~4.2]{BG11}, each $\F_m\models L$. Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{OmegaFork}, $\F_\omega\models L$. Thus, $\F_{\alpha_n}\models L$.
For our next move, we need to introduce the operation of gluing for general {\bf S4}-frames, which generalizes the gluing of finite {\bf S4}-frames introduced in \cite{BG11}. However, later on we will also need to glue general spaces. Because of this, we introduce the operation of gluing for general spaces, which is similar to the operation of \emph{attaching space} or \emph{adjunction space}, a particular case of which is the \emph{wedge sum}. Both constructions are used in algebraic topology. Since general {\bf S4}-frames are a particular case of general spaces, we will view gluing of general {\bf S4}-frames as a particular case of gluing of general spaces. We start by defining gluing of topological spaces.
\begin{definition}\label{def:gluing}
{\em
Let $X_i$ be a family of topological spaces indexed by $I$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $\{X_i:i\in I\}$ is pairwise disjoint. Let $Y$ be a topological space disjoint from each $X_i$ and such that for each $i\in I$ there is an open subspace $Y_i$ of $X_i$ homeomorphic to $Y$. Let $f_i:Y\to Y_i$ be a homeomorphism. Define an equivalence relation $\equiv$ on $\bigcup_{i\in I}X_i$ by
$$
x\equiv z\text{ iff } x=z \text{ or } x\in Y_i, \ z\in Y_j, \text{ and } (\exists y\in Y)(x=f_i(y) \text{ and } z=f_j(y)).
$$
We call the quotient space $X=\bigcup_{i\in I}X_i/{\equiv}$ the {\em gluing of the $X_i$ along $Y$}.
}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:gluing}
Let the $X_i$ and $Y$ be as in Definition~\ref{def:gluing}, and let $X$ be the gluing of the $X_i$ along $Y$. We let $\rho:\bigcup_{i\in I}X_i\to X$ be the quotient map. Then $\rho$ is an onto interior map.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since a quotient map is always continuous and onto, we only need to check that $\rho$ is open. By \cite[Cor.~2.4.10]{Eng89}, it is sufficient to show that $\rho^{-1}\rho(U)$ is open in $\bigcup_{i\in I}X_i$ for each $U$ open in $\bigcup_{i\in I}X_i$. We have $U=\bigcup_{i\in I}U_i$, where each $U_i$ is open in $X_i$. Therefore, $U_i\cap Y_i$ is open in $Y_i$, and hence $f_i^{-1}(U_i\cap Y_i)$ is open in $Y$. Thus, $V=\bigcup_{i\in I} f_i^{-1}(U_i\cap Y_i)$ is open in $Y$. This implies $V_i=f_i(V)$ is open in $X_i$, yielding $\rho^{-1}(\rho(U))=\bigcup_{i\in I}(U_i\cup V_i)$. This shows that $\rho$ is indeed open.
\end{proof}
We note in passing that the gluing operation is actually a pushout in the category of topological spaces with interior maps as morphisms. We next generalize Definition~\ref{def:gluing} to general spaces.
\begin{definition}\label{def:gluing1}
{\em
Let $\X_i=(X_i,\mathcal P_i)$ be a family of general spaces indexed by $I$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $\{X_i:i\in I\}$ is pairwise disjoint. Let $\Y=(Y,\mathcal Q)$ be a general space such that $Y$ is disjoint from each $X_i$ and for each $i\in I$ there is an open subspace $\Y_i=(Y_i,\mathcal Q_i)$ of $\X_i$ homeomorphic to $\Y$. Suppose $f_i:Y\to Y_i$ is a homeomorphism. Let $X$ be the gluing of the $X_i$ along $Y$, and let $\rho:\bigcup_{i\in I}X_i\to X$ be the quotient map. Define $\mathcal P=\{A\subseteq X:\rho^{-1}(A)\cap X_i\in\mathcal P_i \ \ \forall i\}$. Lemma~\ref{lem:gluing} yields that $\mathcal P$ is a subalgebra of $X^+$, hence $\X=(X,\mathcal P)$ is a general space. We call $\X$ the {\em gluing of the $\X_i$ along $\Y$}.
}
\end{definition}
We now produce a new frame by gluing $\F_{\alpha_n}$ and $\G_n$ along the cluster $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$. Since $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$ is a maximal cluster in both $\G_n$ and $\mathfrak F_{\alpha_n}$, if we view $\G_n$ and $\mathfrak F_{\alpha_n}$ as general Alexandroff spaces, $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$ becomes an open subspace of both. Let $\HH_n$ be the general {\bf S4}-frame obtained by gluing $\G_n$ and $\mathfrak F_{\alpha_n}$ along $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$; see Figure~\ref{f:glue-1}. Then $\HH_n$ is a p-morphic image of the disjoint union of $\G_n$ and $\mathfrak F_{\alpha_n}$. As both validate $L$, so does $\HH_n$. Also, since $\G_n$ is (isomorphic to) a generated subframe of $\HH_n$ and $\G_n$ refutes $\varphi_n$, so does $\HH_n$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=1mm, y=1mm, inner xsep=0pt, inner ysep=-1.2pt]
\path[line width=0mm] (34.79,-254.01) rectangle +(121.81,37.12);
\definecolor{L}{rgb}{0,0,0}
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L] (114.04,-223.49) -- (123.18,-242.61) -- (132.29,-223.49) -- cycle;
\definecolor{F}{rgb}{1,1,1}
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (127.93,-224.82) .. controls (127.93,-225.10) and (128.15,-225.32) .. (128.43,-225.32) .. controls (131.60,-225.32) and (131.60,-225.32) .. (134.77,-225.32) .. controls (135.05,-225.32) and (135.27,-225.10) .. (135.27,-224.82) .. controls (135.27,-223.28) and (135.27,-223.28) .. (135.27,-221.73) .. controls (135.27,-221.46) and (135.05,-221.23) .. (134.77,-221.23) .. controls (131.60,-221.23) and (131.60,-221.23) .. (128.43,-221.23) .. controls (128.15,-221.23) and (127.93,-221.46) .. (127.93,-221.73) .. controls (127.93,-223.28) and (127.93,-223.28) .. (127.93,-224.82) -- cycle;
\draw(129.11,-224) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{7.4}{10.24}\selectfont $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$\strut};
\definecolor{F}{rgb}{0,0,0}
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (149.80,-224.23) circle (0.40mm);
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (140.99,-241.81) circle (0.40mm);
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L] (140.26,-240.91) -- (132.78,-225.81);
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (132.78,-225.81) -- (132.69,-227.21) -- (132.78,-225.81) -- (133.94,-226.59) -- (132.78,-225.81) -- cycle;
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L] (141.67,-240.91) -- (149.15,-225.81);
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (149.15,-225.81) -- (147.99,-226.59) -- (149.15,-225.81) -- (149.24,-227.21) -- (149.15,-225.81) -- cycle;
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L] (37.74,-223.49) -- (46.89,-242.61) -- (55.99,-223.49) -- cycle;
\definecolor{F}{rgb}{1,1,1}
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (51.63,-224.98) .. controls (51.63,-225.26) and (51.86,-225.48) .. (52.13,-225.48) .. controls (55.31,-225.48) and (55.31,-225.48) .. (58.48,-225.48) .. controls (58.76,-225.48) and (58.98,-225.26) .. (58.98,-224.98) .. controls (58.98,-223.44) and (58.98,-223.44) .. (58.98,-221.89) .. controls (58.98,-221.61) and (58.76,-221.39) .. (58.48,-221.39) .. controls (55.31,-221.39) and (55.31,-221.39) .. (52.13,-221.39) .. controls (51.86,-221.39) and (51.63,-221.61) .. (51.63,-221.89) .. controls (51.63,-223.44) and (51.63,-223.44) .. (51.63,-224.98) -- cycle;
\draw(52.82,-224) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{7.4}{10.24}\selectfont $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$\strut};
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (62.97,-224.98) .. controls (62.97,-225.26) and (63.19,-225.48) .. (63.47,-225.48) .. controls (66.64,-225.48) and (66.64,-225.48) .. (69.82,-225.48) .. controls (70.09,-225.48) and (70.32,-225.26) .. (70.32,-224.98) .. controls (70.32,-223.44) and (70.32,-223.44) .. (70.32,-221.89) .. controls (70.32,-221.61) and (70.09,-221.39) .. (69.82,-221.39) .. controls (66.64,-221.39) and (66.64,-221.39) .. (63.47,-221.39) .. controls (63.19,-221.39) and (62.97,-221.61) .. (62.97,-221.89) .. controls (62.97,-223.44) and (62.97,-223.44) .. (62.97,-224.98) -- cycle;
\draw(64.35,-224) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{7.4}{10.24}\selectfont $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$\strut};
\definecolor{F}{rgb}{0,0,0}
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (84.84,-224.39) circle (0.40mm);
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (76.03,-241.97) circle (0.40mm);
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L] (75.30,-241.07) -- (67.82,-225.97);
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (67.82,-225.97) -- (67.73,-227.37) -- (67.82,-225.97) -- (68.98,-226.75) -- (67.82,-225.97) -- cycle;
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L] (76.71,-241.07) -- (84.20,-225.97);
\path[line width=0.30mm, draw=L, fill=F] (84.20,-225.97) -- (83.03,-226.75) -- (84.20,-225.97) -- (84.29,-227.37) -- (84.20,-225.97) -- cycle;
\path[line width=0.15mm, draw=L, dash pattern=on 0.60mm off 0.50mm] (49.00,-224.96) .. controls (49.00,-226.63) and (50.33,-227.96) .. (52.00,-227.96) .. controls (60.90,-227.96) and (60.90,-227.96) .. (69.79,-227.96) .. controls (71.46,-227.96) and (72.79,-226.63) .. (72.79,-224.96) .. controls (72.79,-223.43) and (72.79,-223.43) .. (72.79,-221.90) .. controls (72.79,-220.23) and (71.46,-218.90) .. (69.79,-218.90) .. controls (60.90,-218.90) and (60.90,-218.90) .. (52.00,-218.90) .. controls (50.33,-218.90) and (49.00,-220.23) .. (49.00,-221.90) .. controls (49.00,-223.43) and (49.00,-223.43) .. (49.00,-224.96) -- cycle;
\path[line width=0.1mm, draw=L] (36.79,-246.97) -- (59.12,-246.98);
\path[line width=0.1mm, draw=L][->] (36.87,-247.01) -- (36.87,-245.10);
\path[line width=0.1mm, draw=L][->] (59.03,-247.06) -- (59.03,-245.15);
\path[line width=0.1mm, draw=L] (62.97,-246.86) -- (85.30,-246.87);
\path[line width=0.1mm, draw=L][->] (63.05,-246.90) -- (63.05,-244.98);
\path[line width=0.1mm, draw=L][->] (85.21,-246.95) -- (85.21,-245.04);
\draw(46.16,-251) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{9}{10.24}\selectfont $\mathfrak G_n$\strut};
\draw(74.94,-251.36) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{9}{10.24}\selectfont $\mathfrak F_{\alpha_n}$\strut};
\draw(130,-251.14) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{9}{10.24}\selectfont $\mathfrak H_n$\strut};
\path[line width=0.15mm, draw=L] (114.89,-246.52) -- (150.02,-246.55);
\path[line width=0.15mm, draw=L][->] (114.96,-246.56) -- (114.96,-244.65);
\path[line width=0.15mm, draw=L] (149.89,-246.61) -- (149.89,-244.70);
\path[line width=0.15mm, draw=L][->] (149.89,-246.56) -- (149.89,-244.65);
\draw(75.20,-245) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{9}{13.66}\selectfont $r_{\alpha_n}$\strut};
\draw(86.39,-223.43) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{9}{13.66}\selectfont $m_{\alpha_n}$\strut};
\draw(151.49,-223.33) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{9}{13.66}\selectfont $m_{\alpha_n}$\strut};
\draw(140.30,-245) node[anchor=base west]{\fontsize{9}{13.66}\selectfont $r_{\alpha_n}$\strut};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Gluing of $\mathfrak G_n$ and $\mathfrak F_{\alpha_n}$}\label{f:glue-1}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 2.4:} In this final step we glue the $\HH_n$ along the maximal element $m_{\alpha_n}$ as depicted in Figure~\ref{f:gluing-2}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\tikzstyle{trigl}=[
isosceles triangle,
draw,
shape border rotate=90,
inner sep=8,
font=\small\sffamily\bfseries,
shape border rotate =-90,
isosceles triangle apex angle=45,
isosceles triangle stretches,
text depth=-3ex]
\tikzstyle{cluster}=[
fill=white,
draw,
inner sep=5,
rounded corners]
\tikzstyle{pnt}=[
circle,
inner sep=1,
fill]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node [trigl, anchor=right side] (f1) at (16, 0) {$\mathfrak H_0$};
\node[cluster, right of=f1, xshift=-14, yshift=5](c1) {$\ \ \ $ };
\node[pnt, right of=f1, xshift=5, yshift=-25] (r1) {};
\node[pnt, right of=f1, xshift=25] (m1) {};
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r1) -- (m1);
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r1) -- (c1);
\node [trigl, anchor=right side] (f2) at (16, -2) {$\mathfrak H_1$};
\node[cluster, right of=f2, xshift=-14, yshift=5](c2) {$\ \ \ $ };
\node[pnt, right of=f2, xshift=5, yshift=-25] (r2) {};
\node[pnt, right of=f2, xshift=25] (m2) {};
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r2) -- (m2);
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r2) -- (c2);
\node [trigl, anchor=right side] (f3) at (16, -4) {$\mathfrak H_2$};
\node[cluster, right of=f3, xshift=-14, yshift=5](c3) {$\ \ \ $ };
\node[pnt, right of=f3, xshift=5, yshift=-25] (r3) {};
\node[pnt, right of=f3, xshift=25] (m3) {};
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r3) -- (m3);
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r3) -- (c3);
\node[draw=none, rectangle] at (17,-5.3) {$\vdots$};
\node[draw=none, rectangle] at (18.2,-4.3) {$\vdots$};
\draw[dashed, rounded corners] (17.7,-6) -- (17.7,1) -- (18.5,1) -- (18.5,-6);
\node[draw=none, rectangle] at (19.5,-2.3) {$\twoheadrightarrow$};
\begin{scope}[xshift=140]
\node [trigl, anchor=right side] (f1) at (16, 0) {$\mathfrak H_0$};
\node[cluster, right of=f1, xshift=-14, yshift=5](c1) {$\ \ \ $ };
\node[pnt, right of=f1, xshift=5, yshift=-25] (r1) {};
\node[pnt, right of=f1, xshift=45] (m1) {};
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r1) -- (m1);
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r1) -- (c1);
\node [trigl, anchor=right side] (f2) at (16, -2) {$\mathfrak H_1$};
\node[cluster, right of=f2, xshift=-14, yshift=5](c2) {$\ \ \ $ };
\node[pnt, right of=f2, xshift=5, yshift=-25] (r2) {};
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r2) -- (m1);
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r2) -- (c2);
\node [trigl, anchor=right side] (f3) at (16, -4) {$\mathfrak H_2$};
\node[cluster, right of=f3, xshift=-14, yshift=5](c3) {$\ \ \ $ };
\node[pnt, right of=f3, xshift=5, yshift=-25] (r3) {};
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r3) -- (m1);
\draw[->, shorten <=1pt, shorten >=1pt] (r3) -- (c3);
\node[draw=none, rectangle] at (17,-5.3) {$\vdots$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{f:gluing-2} Gluing of the frames $\HH_n$}
\end{figure}
This gluing is analogous to the wedge sum in algebraic topology. The resulting general {\bf S4}-frame $\HH$ is countable and path-connected. Moreover, since disjoint unions and p-morphic images of general frames preserve validity, $\HH$ validates $L$; and as each $\HH_n$ is a generated subframe of $\HH$, we see that $\HH$ refutes $\varphi_n$. Consequently, $L=L(\HH)$. This finishes the proof of (1)$\Rightarrow$(2).
\subsection{Proof of (1)$\Rightarrow$(5)}\label{ss:1->5}
As before we consider two cases.
\smallskip
\noindent\underline{{\bf Case 1:} $L$ is above ${\bf S4.2}$.}
\smallskip
Let $\G$ be the countable general {\bf S4}-frame constructed in Step 1.2 of the proof of (1)$\Rightarrow$(2). Then $\G$ has a unique maximal cluster $C$, which is accessible from each point $w$ in $\G$, and the logic of $\G$ is $L$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 1.1:} For each non-theorem $\varphi_n$ of $L$, there are a valuation $\nu_n$ and a point $w_n$ in $\G$ such that $w_n\not\in\nu_n(\varphi_n)$. Let $\G_n=(W_n,R_n,\mathcal P_n)$ be the subframe of $\G$ generated by $w_n$. Then $\G_n$ is a general frame for $L$ that refutes $\varphi_n$. Furthermore, $\G_n$ has $C$ as its unique maximal cluster and $R_n(w)$ contains $C$ for each point $w$ in $\G_n$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 1.2:}\label{SSsectionQuotientOfL2} For each $\G_n$ we construct a general space $\X_n=(X_n,\mathcal Q_n)$ such that $X_n$ is an interior image of $\mathbf L_2$ and $\mathcal P_n$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal Q_n$, yielding $L(\mathcal\G_n)=L(\X_n)$.
Consider a countable rooted {\bf S4}-frame, say $\F=(W,R)$, with a maximal cluster, say $C$. By Lemma~\ref{ImagesOfT2}, there is a p-morphism $f$ from $\T_2$ onto $\F$. Let $\alpha:\T_2^+\rightarrow{\bf L}_2^+$ be the closure algebra embedding defined in \cite[Lem~6.4]{Kre13}. We forego recalling the full details for $\alpha$ since we only need the existence of the embedding and the properties that $U\subseteq \alpha(U)$ and $\alpha(U)-U\subseteq L_2-T_2$ for each $U\subseteq T_2$. Since $C$ is a maximal cluster of $\F$, we have $f^{-1}(C)$ is an upset in $\T_2$. Therefore, $\alpha(f^{-1}(C))$ is open in ${\mathbf L}_2$. Consider the equivalence relation $\equiv$ on $L_2$ given by
$$
a\equiv b\mbox{ iff }a=b\mbox{ or }(\exists w\in C)(a,b\in\alpha(f^{-1}(w)).
$$
Let $X$ be the quotient space $\mathbf L_2/\equiv$ and let $\rho:L_2\rightarrow X$ be the quotient map.
\bigskip
\begin{figure}[h]
\definecolor{cffffff}{RGB}{255,255,255}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[y=0.80pt,x=0.80pt,yscale=-0.9,xscale=0.9, inner sep=0pt, outer sep=0pt]
\path[cm={{0.30752719,0.0,0.0,0.30866997,(31.799472,126.05593)}},draw=black,line
join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line width=1pt]
(90.9137,343.4126) -- (11.2284,205.3937) -- (-68.4568,67.3747) --
(90.9137,67.3747) -- (250.2843,67.3747) -- (170.5990,205.3936) -- cycle;
\path[draw=black,fill=cffffff,line join=round,line cap=butt,miter
limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=0.965pt,rounded corners=0.1145cm]
(70.9756,136.7431) rectangle (116.3476,162.1076);
\path[cm={{0.84624856,0.0,0.0,0.80799141,(-1.9317919,48.086333)}},draw=black,fill=black,line
join=round,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=1.229pt]
(111.6218,119.7389)arc(0.000:180.000:2.273)arc(-180.000:0.000:2.273) -- cycle;
\path[cm={{0.84624856,0.0,0.0,0.80799141,(-2.0042748,57.37054)}},draw=black,fill=black,line
join=round,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=1.229pt]
(111.6218,119.7389)arc(0.000:180.000:2.273)arc(-180.000:0.000:2.273) -- cycle;
\path[cm={{0.84624856,0.0,0.0,0.80799141,(-13.117196,57.574588)}},draw=black,fill=black,line
join=round,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=1.229pt]
(111.6218,119.7389)arc(0.000:180.000:2.273)arc(-180.000:0.000:2.273) -- cycle;
\path[cm={{0.84624856,0.0,0.0,0.80799141,(-13.117196,48.273968)}},draw=black,fill=black,line
join=round,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=1.229pt]
(111.6218,119.7389)arc(0.000:180.000:2.273)arc(-180.000:0.000:2.273) -- cycle;
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line
width=0.844pt] (250.9597,233.8577) -- (226.4543,191.2554) --
(201.9489,148.6531) -- (250.9597,233.7413) -- (299.9704,148.6531) --
(275.4651,191.2554) -- cycle;
\path[draw=black,fill=cffffff,dash pattern=on 2.65pt off 0.66pt,line
join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line width=0.662pt]
(202.2338,147.1808) -- (300.1130,147.1808);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.662pt]
(219.9717,180.0327) -- (251.6008,179.8286) -- (258.6532,147.1809);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.662pt]
(229.1612,147.7930) -- (229.1612,179.6246);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.662pt]
(241.7701,147.9971) -- (241.7701,179.8287);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.617pt]
(224.6214,162.0764) -- (255.0721,162.0764);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line
width=0.829pt] (427.6714,236.1755) -- (451.3511,193.5732) --
(475.0308,150.9709) -- (427.6714,236.0592) -- (380.3119,150.9709) --
(403.9916,193.5732) -- cycle;
\path[draw=black,fill=cffffff,dash pattern=on 2.60pt off 0.65pt,line
join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line width=0.650pt]
(474.7555,149.4987) -- (380.1742,149.4987);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.650pt]
(457.6153,182.3506) -- (427.0518,182.1465) -- (420.2370,149.4987);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.650pt]
(448.7353,150.1109) -- (448.7353,181.9425);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.650pt]
(436.5513,150.3149) -- (436.5513,182.1465);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.606pt]
(453.1222,164.3943) -- (423.6975,164.3943);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line
width=1.951pt] (476.6576,145.1716) -- (379.5981,145.1716);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line
width=0.844pt] (579.8185,233.6369) -- (555.3131,191.0346) --
(543.1992,169.7864) -- (579.8185,233.5206) -- (628.8293,148.4323) --
(604.3239,191.0346) -- cycle;
\path[draw=black,fill=cffffff,dash pattern=on 1.46pt off 0.37pt,line
join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line width=0.366pt]
(575.0293,146.9601) -- (629.1609,146.9601);
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line
width=1.771pt] (573.3031,143.6532) -- (630.1193,143.6532);
\path[draw=black,fill=cffffff,line join=round,line cap=butt,miter
limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=0.965pt,rounded corners=0.1145cm]
(529.5215,144.2608) rectangle (574.8935,169.6253);
\path[cm={{0.84624856,0.0,0.0,0.80799141,(456.61414,55.604038)}},draw=black,fill=black,line
join=round,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=1.229pt]
(111.6218,119.7389)arc(0.000:180.000:2.273)arc(-180.000:0.000:2.273) -- cycle;
\path[cm={{0.84624856,0.0,0.0,0.80799141,(456.54166,64.888246)}},draw=black,fill=black,line
join=round,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=1.229pt]
(111.6218,119.7389)arc(0.000:180.000:2.273)arc(-180.000:0.000:2.273) -- cycle;
\path[cm={{0.84624856,0.0,0.0,0.80799141,(445.42874,65.092294)}},draw=black,fill=black,line
join=round,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=1.229pt]
(111.6218,119.7389)arc(0.000:180.000:2.273)arc(-180.000:0.000:2.273) -- cycle;
\path[cm={{0.84624856,0.0,0.0,0.80799141,(445.42874,55.79167)}},draw=black,fill=black,line
join=round,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,nonzero rule,line width=1.229pt]
(111.6218,119.7389)arc(0.000:180.000:2.273)arc(-180.000:0.000:2.273) -- cycle;
\path[draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line
width=0.198pt] (342.1361,133.2458) -- (349.4800,146.9768) --
(342.1361,159.4835) -- (349.3807,172.0850) -- (342.3391,186.8508) --
(349.2815,199.6461) -- (342.2094,212.0623) -- (349.3074,223.2747) --
(342.4642,235.2786) -- (349.3333,249.1539);
\path[->>][draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,miter limit=4.00,line
width=0.662pt] (190.1526,190.5842) -- (133.9375,190.5842);
\path[->>][draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.662pt]
(479.0860,195.2013) -- (528.0476,195.2013);
\path[->][draw=black,line join=miter,line cap=butt,line width=0.425pt]
(276.4395,78.7641) .. controls (276.4395,78.7641) and (339.7083,43.4858) ..
(412.7464,78.7641);
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (50,200) node[above
right] (text4186) {${\mathfrak F}$ };
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (155,190) node[above
right] (text4186) {${f}$ };
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (490,190) node[above
right] (text4186) {$\rho$ };
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (332,58) node[above
right] (text4186) {$\alpha$ };
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (241.32503,101.13189) node[above
right] (text4186) {${\mathfrak T}_2^+$ };
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (410,102.24284) node[above
right] (text4186-2) {${\bf L}_2^+$ };
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (236.11348,200) node[above
right] (text4186-3) {${\mathfrak T}_2$ };
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (404.31546,199.76852) node[above
right] (text4186-3-1) {${\bf L}_2$ };
\path[xscale=1.023,yscale=0.977,fill=black] (561.07819,192.6808) node[above
right] (text4186-3-3) {$X$ };
\path[fill=black] (99.621376,151.17986) node[above right] (text4080) {... };
\path[fill=black] (210.92415,163.40961) node[above right] (text4080-1) {...
};
\path[fill=black] (455.50732,165.80872) node[above right] (text4080-4) {...
};
\path[fill=black] (556.27002,157.60123) node[above right] (text4080-9) {... };
\node (C0) at (95,125) {$C$};
\node (C1) at (230,130) {$f^{-1}(C)$};
\node (C2) at (448,130) {\small$\alpha(f^{-1}(C))$};
\node (C3) at (553,130) {\small$\rho(\alpha(f^{-1}(C)))$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{f:space_subst_for_frame} Constructing $X$ and $\rho:{\bf L}_2\to X$}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
\begin{lemma}\label{QuotOfL2isIntrImage}
The space $X$ is an interior image of $\mathbf L_2$ under $\rho$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since a quotient map is always continuous and onto, we only need to show that $\rho$ is open. It is sufficient to show that $U\in\tau$ implies $\rho^{-1}(\rho(U))\in\tau$. Let $U\in\tau$. If $U\cap \alpha(f^{-1}(C))=\varnothing$, then $\rho^{-1}(\rho(U))=U\in\tau$. Suppose that $U\cap \alpha(f^{-1}(C))\not=\varnothing$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim:} $U\cap \alpha(f^{-1}(w))\not=\varnothing$ for each $w\in C$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Proof:} Since $\varnothing\not=U\cap \alpha(f^{-1}(C))\in\tau$, there is $a\in U\cap \alpha(f^{-1}(C)) \cap T_2$. As both $U$ and $\alpha(f^{-1}(C))$ are upsets in $\LL_2$, we have ${\uparrow}a\cap T_2 \subset {\uparrow}a\subseteq U\cap \alpha(f^{-1}(C))\subseteq \alpha(f^{-1}(C))$. Since $a\in \alpha(f^{-1}(C))$, there is $w\in C$ such that $a\in \alpha(f^{-1}(w))$. Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha(f^{-1}(w))\cap T_2&=&\left(f^{-1}(w)\cup\left(\alpha(f^{-1}(w))-f^{-1}(w)\right)\right)\cap T_2\\
&=&\left(f^{-1}(w)\cap T_2\right)\cup\left(\left(\alpha(f^{-1}(w))-f^{-1}(w)\right)\cap T_2\right)\\
&=&f^{-1}(w)\cup\varnothing=f^{-1}(w).
\end{eqnarray*}
So $a\in f^{-1}(w)$, which implies that $a\in f^{-1}(C)$. Therefore, $f({\uparrow}a\cap T_2)\subseteq C$. In fact, $f({\uparrow}a\cap T_2)=C$ because $C$ is a cluster, ${\uparrow}a\cap T_2$ is an upset in $\T_2$, and $f$ is a p-morphism. Since ${\uparrow}a\cap T_2 \subset {\uparrow}a\subseteq U$, we see that $U\cap f^{-1}(v)\ne\varnothing$ for each $v\in C$. Thus, as $f^{-1}(v)\subseteq\alpha(f^{-1}(v))$, we conclude that $U\cap \alpha(f^{-1}(v))\ne\varnothing$ for each $v\in C$, proving the claim.
\medskip
Consequently, $\rho^{-1}(\rho(U))=U\cup\alpha(f^{-1}(C)) \in \tau$, completing the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{SubaglebraOfQuotOfL2}
Let $\F$ and $X$ be as above. Then $\F^+$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $X^+$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since both $f^{-1}:\F^+\rightarrow \T_2^+$ and $\alpha:\T_2^+\rightarrow\mathbf L_2^+$ are closure algebra embeddings, $\alpha\circ f^{-1}:\F^+\rightarrow\mathbf L_2^+$ is a closure algebra embedding. By Lemma~\ref{QuotOfL2isIntrImage}, $\rho:L_2\to X$ is an onto interior map. Therefore, $\rho^{-1}:X^+\to\mathbf L_2^+$ is a closure algebra embedding. We show that if $A\in\F^+$, then $\rho^{-1}(\rho(\alpha(f^{-1}(A))))=\alpha(f^{-1}(A))$. Clearly $\alpha(f^{-1}(A))\subseteq\rho^{-1}(\rho(\alpha(f^{-1}(A))))$. For the converse, recalling that $C$ is a maximal cluster of $\F$, since $A=(A\cap C)\cup (A-C)$, we have
$$
f^{-1}(A)=f^{-1}(A-C)\cup\bigcup\{f^{-1}(w):w\in A\cap C\}.
$$
Therefore,
$$
\alpha(f^{-1}(A))=\left(\alpha(f^{-1}(A))-\alpha(f^{-1}(C))\right)\cup\bigcup\{\alpha(f^{-1}(w)):w\in A\cap C\}.
$$
Now suppose $a\in\rho^{-1}(\rho(\alpha(f^{-1}(A))))$. Then there is $b\in \alpha(f^{-1}(A))$ such that $\rho(a)=\rho(b)$. If $\rho(a)$ is a singleton, then $b=a$, so $a\in \alpha(f^{-1}(A))$. If $\rho(a)$ is not a singleton, then there is $w\in A\cap C$ such that $b\in\alpha(f^{-1}(w))$. Therefore, $a\in\alpha(f^{-1}(w))$. Since $w\in A$, it follows that $a\in \alpha(f^{-1}(A))$. Thus, $\rho^{-1}(\rho(\alpha(f^{-1}(A))))=\alpha(f^{-1}(A))$.
Consequently, $\alpha\circ f^{-1}$ embeds $\F^+$ into the image of $X^+$ under $\rho^{-1}$. This implies that the image of $\F^+$ under $\alpha\circ f^{-1}$ is a subalgebra of the image of $X^+$ under $\rho^{-1}$. Thus, $\F^+$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $X^+$.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[description/.style={fill=white,inner sep=2pt}]
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em,
column sep=2.5em, text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{ & \mathbf L_2^+ & \\
\F^+ & & X^+ \\ };
\path[-,font=\scriptsize]
(m-2-1) edge[right hook->] node[auto] {$ \alpha\circ f^{-1} $} (m-1-2)
(m-2-3) edge[left hook->] node[above] {$\ \ \ \ \rho^{-1} $} (m-1-2)
(m-2-1) edge[right hook->, dashed] node[below] {Lemma~\ref{SubaglebraOfQuotOfL2}} (m-2-3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{An embedding of $\F^+$ into $X^+$\label{f:diagram_for_X+_F+}}
\end{figure}
By the above construction, we may associate an interior image $X_n$ of ${\bf L}_2$ with each $\G_n$. Let $f_n:\T_2\to\G_n$ be the onto p-morphism used in defining $X_n$, and let $\rho_n:{\bf L}_2\to X_n$ be the quotient map. By Lemma~\ref{SubaglebraOfQuotOfL2}, each $\mathcal P_n$ is isomorphic to a subalgebra $\mathcal Q_n$ of $X_n^+$. So $\X_n=(X_n,\mathcal Q_n)$ is a general space satisfying $L(\G_n)=L(\X_n)$, and hence $\X_n$ is a general space for $L$ refuting $\varphi_n$. Moreover, the maximal cluster $C$ of $\G_n$ is realized as the open set $\rho_n(\alpha\circ f_n^{-1}(C))\subseteq X_n$. Note that since $L$ is above {\bf S4.2}, $C$ is a unique maximal cluster accessible from each point of $\G_n$, so the closure of $\rho_n(\alpha\circ f_n^{-1}(C))$ is $X_n$. We now perform the gluing of $\X_n$ along $\rho_n(\alpha\circ f_n^{-1}(C))$ to yield a general space $\X=(X,\mathcal Q)$. Since sums and interior images preserve validity, $\X\models L$. Moreover, since each $\X_n$ is an open subspace of $\X$ refuting $\varphi_n$, it follows that $\X$ refutes $\varphi_n$. Thus, $L=L(\X)$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 1.3:} We next show that each $\X_n$ is an interior image of any non-trivial real interval.
\begin{lemma}\label{XisIntrImgOfClosedInterval}
Let $X$ be an interior image of ${\bf L}_2$ constructed above and let $I$ be a non-trivial interval in $\mathbf R$. Then there is an onto interior map $f:I\to X$ such that $f$ maps the endpoints of $I$ (if present) to the root of $X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{L2isIntrImageR}, $\mathbf L_2$ is an interior image of $I$ and the endpoints get mapped to the root. By~Lemma~\ref{QuotOfL2isIntrImage}, $X$ is an interior image of $\mathbf L_2$, and the root of $\LL_2$ is mapped to the root of $X$. Taking the composition yields that $X$ is an interior image of $I$, and the endpoints are mapped to the root of $X$.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 1.4:} As the final step, we produce an interior map from $\mathbf R$ onto $X$. Since $\X$ is obtained by gluing along the image of $C$ in $X_n$, we may identify $C$ as an open subset of $X$ that is countable.
\begin{lemma}\label{AlphaClusterAndForkIntrImgOfInvl}
Let $I$ be a non-trivial interval in $\mathbf R$ and let $\alpha\in\omega+1$ be nonzero. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak C_\alpha$ is an interior image of $I$.
\item $\F_\alpha$ is an interior image of $I$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) The case where $\alpha$ is finite is well known. If $\alpha=\omega$, then take any partition $\{Z_n:n\in\omega\}$ of $I$ into $\omega$-many dense and nowhere dense sets. It is routine to check that $f:I\rightarrow \mathfrak C_\omega$ is an onto interior map, where $f(x)=w_n$ whenever $x\in Z_n$; see \cite[Lem.~4.3]{JLB13}.
(2) Again the case where $\alpha$ is finite is well known. Let $\alpha=\omega$. Choose $z$ in $I$ such that $z$ is not an endpoint of $I$. Let $I_0=\{x\in I:x>z\}$. By (1), there is an onto interior mapping $f_0:I_0\rightarrow \mathfrak C_\omega$.
Define $f:I\rightarrow\F_\omega$ by
$$
f(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
m_\omega&\mbox{ if }x<z,\\
r_\omega&\mbox{ if }x=z,\\
f_0(x)&\mbox{ if }x>z.
\end{array}\right.
$$
It is straightforward to check that $f$ is an onto interior map.
\end{proof}
For each $n\in\omega$, Lemma~\ref{AlphaClusterAndForkIntrImgOfInvl}(1) gives an onto interior map $f_n:(2n,2n+1)\rightarrow C$. By Lemma~\ref{XisIntrImgOfClosedInterval}, there is an onto interior map $g_n:[2n+1,2(n+1)]\rightarrow X_n$ that sends the endpoints $2n+1$ and $2(n+1)$ to the root of $X_n$. Define $f:(0,\infty)\rightarrow Y$ by
$$
f(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
f_n(x)&\mbox{ if }x\in(2n,2n+1),\\
g_n(x)&\mbox{ if }x\in[2n+1,2(n+1)].
\end{array}\right.
$$
\begin{lemma}\label{Case2IntrOntoX}
The map $f:\mathbb (0,\infty)\rightarrow Y$ is an onto interior map.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since each $g_n$ is onto, $f$ is onto. For an open interval $I\subseteq (0,\infty)$, we have
$$
f(I)=\bigcup\limits_{n\in\omega}\left(f_n(I\cap (2n,2n+1))\cup g_n(I\cap [2n+1,2(n+1)])\right).
$$
Each $f_n(I\cap (2n,2n+1))$ is either $C$ or $\varnothing$, both of which are open in $X_n$, and hence open in $X$. Since $I\cap [2n+1,2(n+1)]$ is open in $[2n+1,2(n+1)]$, we see that $g_n(I\cap [2n+1,2(n+1)])$ is open in $X_n$, and hence open in $X$. Thus, $f$ is open.
The basic open sets in $X$ arise from sets in $X_n$ of the form $\rho_n({\uparrow}a)$, where $a\in T_2$. We have
\begin{equation}\label{Eqn}
f^{-1}(\rho_n({\uparrow}a))=g_n^{-1}(\rho_n({\uparrow}a))\cup\bigcup\limits_{k\in\omega}(2k,2k+1) \cup \bigcup\limits_{k\in\omega} g_k^{-1}(C).
\end{equation}
Either $g_n^{-1}(\rho_n({\uparrow}a))$ is a proper subset of $[2n+1,2(n+1)]$ or not. If $g_n^{-1}(\rho_n({\uparrow}a))$ is proper, then the root of $X_n$ is not in $\rho_n({\uparrow}a)$, giving $g_n^{-1}(\rho_n({\uparrow}a))$ is open in $(2n+1,2(n+1))$, and hence $g_n^{-1}(\rho_n({\uparrow}a))$ is open in $(0,\infty)$. If $g_n^{-1}(\rho_n({\uparrow}a))=[2n+1,2(n+1)]$, then we may replace $g_n^{-1}(\rho_n({\uparrow}a))$ by $(2n,2(n+1)+1)$ in Equation~\ref{Eqn} and equality remains. Similarly, for each $k\in\omega$, either $g_k^{-1}(C)$ is a proper subset of $[2k+1,2(k+1)]$ or not. If $g_k^{-1}(C)$ is proper, then the root of $X_k$ is not in $C$, giving $g_k^{-1}(C)$ is open in $(2k+1,2(k+1))$, and hence $g_k^{-1}(C)$ is open in $(0,\infty)$. If $g_k^{-1}(C)=[2k+1,2(k+1)]$, then we may replace $g_k^{-1}(C)$ by $(2k,2(k+1)+1)$ in Equation~\ref{Eqn} and retain equality. Since $(2j,2(j+1)+1)$ is open in $(0,\infty)$ for any $j\in \omega$, when replacing as prescribed, we get that $f$ is continuous. Thus, $f$ is an onto interior map.
\end{proof}
Since $\X$ is an interior image of $(0,\infty)$ and $(0,\infty)$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbf R$, it follows that $\X$ is an interior image of $\mathbf R$. Since $L=L(\X)$ and $\X$ is an interior image of $\mathbf R$, the proof for the case $L\supseteq{\bf S4.2}$ is completed by applying Lemma~\ref{GenTopFromGFAndIntMap}.
\medskip
\noindent\underline{{\bf Case 2:} $L$ is not above {\bf S4.2}.} For each non-theorem $\varphi_n$ of $L$, let $\G_n=(W_n,R_n,\mathcal P_n)$ be the countable rooted general {\bf S4}-frame which was constructed in Step 2.2 of the proof of (1)$\Rightarrow$(2). Recall that $\G_n$ is a general frame for $L$ that refutes $\varphi_n$ at a root and that $\G_n$ has a maximal cluster $C_n$ that is isomorphic to $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 2.1:} By the construction in Step 1.2 (of (1)$\Rightarrow$(5)) and Lemma ~\ref{SubaglebraOfQuotOfL2}, there is a general space $\X_n=(X_n,\mathcal Q_n)$ such that $X_n$ is an interior image of $\mathbf L_2$ arising from $\G_n$ and $L(\X_n)=L(\G_n)$. Thus, $\X_n$ is a general space for $L$ refuting $\varphi_n$. We point out the maximal cluster $C_n$ of $\G_n$ is realized as the open subset $\rho_n(\alpha\circ f_n^{-1}(C_n))$, which we identify with $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 2.2:} We view the $\alpha_n$-fork $\F_{\alpha_n}$ as a general space. Let $\Y_n$ be the result of gluing $\X_n$ and $\F_{\alpha_n}$ along $\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$. In each $\Y_n$ there is the isolated point $m_{\alpha_n}$ coming from $\F_{\alpha_n}$. Let $\Y=(Y,\mathcal Q)$ be obtained by gluing the $\Y_n$ along a homeomorphic copy of $\{m_{\alpha_n}\}$. Then each $\Y_n$ is open in $\Y$ and hence $\Y$ refutes each $\varphi_n$. Moreover, since $\mathfrak F_{\alpha_n}\models L$ and $\Y_n\models L$ for each $n$, we have that $\Y\models L$. It follows that $L=L(\Y)$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Step 2.3:} Lastly, we need to observe that $Y$ is an interior image of $\mathbf R$.
\begin{lemma}\label{GluedForksIntrImgOfInterval}
Let $\F$ be obtained by gluing the forks $\F_\alpha$ and $\F_\beta$ along their maximal points $m_\alpha$ and $m_\beta$. Let $I$ be a non-trivial interval and $y<z$ in $I$ be such that neither $y$ nor $z$ is an endpoint of $I$. There is an onto interior map $f:I\rightarrow \F$ such that $f(x)\in\mathfrak C_\alpha$ when $x<y$ and $f(x)\in\mathfrak C_\beta$ when $x>z$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[rounded corners] (-4,2) rectangle (-3,1.5);
\node (C0) at (-3.5,1.75) {\tiny $\mathfrak C_{\alpha}$};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (r1) at (-2.5,0) {};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (m) at (-1,1.5) {};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (r2) at (0.5,0) {};
\node at (-2.5,-0.5) {\small $r_\alpha$};
\node (mnew) at (-1,1) {\small $m$};
\node at (0.5,-0.5) {\small $r_\beta$};
\draw[rounded corners] (2,2) rectangle (1,1.5);
\node (C1) at (1.5,1.75) {\tiny $\mathfrak C_{\beta}$};
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r1) -- (m);
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r2) -- (m);
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r1) -- (-3.5,1.47);
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r2) -- (1.5,1.47);
\node (l) at (-4,4) {\bf (};
\node (b1) at (-2.5,4) {$\bullet$};
\node at (-2.5,4.3) {\small $y$};
\node (b2) at (0.5,4) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.5,4.3) {\small $z$};
\node (r) at (2,4) {\bf )};
\node (I0) at (-3.5,4.3) {\small $I_0$};
\node (M) at (-1,4.3) {\small $(y,z)$};
\node (I1) at (1.5,4.3) {\small $I_1$};
\draw[shorten <=-8pt, shorten >=-8pt, thick] (l) -- (r);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=-2pt, shorten >=43pt ] (b1) -- (r1);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=-2pt, shorten >=43pt] (b2) -- (r2);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=0pt, shorten >=13pt ] (I0) -- (C0);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=0pt, shorten >=13pt ] (I1) -- (C1);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=0pt, shorten >=28pt ] (M) -- (mnew);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{f:mapping_to_W} Mapping $I$ to $\F$}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
Let $I_0=\{x\in I:x<y\}$ and $I_1=\{x\in I:x>z\}$. By Lemma~\ref{AlphaClusterAndForkIntrImgOfInvl}(1), there are interior mappings $f_0:I_0\rightarrow \mathfrak C_\alpha$ and $f_1:I_1\rightarrow \mathfrak C_\beta$. Let $m\in \F$ be the image of $m_\alpha$ and $m_\beta$. Define $f:I\rightarrow \F$ by
$$
f(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
m&\mbox{ if }x\in(y,z),\\
r_\alpha&\mbox{ if }x=y,\\
r_\beta&\mbox{ if }x=z,\\
f_i(x)&\mbox{ if }x\in I_i.
\end{array}\right.
$$
It is easy to check that $f$ is an onto interior map. Clearly $f(I_0)=\mathfrak C_\alpha$ and $f(I_1)=\mathfrak C_\beta$.
\end{proof}
We are ready to show that there is an interior map from {\bf R} onto $Y$. For each $n\in\omega$ we consider $I_{n,0}=(2n,2n+1)$ and $I_{n,1}=[2n+1,2(n+1)]$. Let $f_{0,0}:I_{0,0}\rightarrow \F_{\alpha_0}$ be the interior mapping as defined in Lemma~\ref{AlphaClusterAndForkIntrImgOfInvl}(2) with $z=\frac23$. For $n\in\omega-\{0\}$, let $f_{n,0}$ be the interior mapping of the interval $I_{n,0}$ onto the frame obtained by gluing $\F_{\alpha_{n{-}1}}$ and $\F_{\alpha_{n}}$ along the maximal point that is defined in the proof of Lemma~\ref{GluedForksIntrImgOfInterval}, where $y=2n+\frac13$ and $z=2n+\frac23$, such that $f_{n,0}(2n,2n+\frac13)=\mathfrak C_{\alpha_{n-1}}$ and $f_{n,0}(2n+\frac23,2(n+1))=\mathfrak C_{\alpha_n}$. Let $f_{n,1}:I_{n,1}\rightarrow X_n$ be given by Lemma~\ref{XisIntrImgOfClosedInterval}. Then the endpoints of $I_{n,1}$ are sent to the root of $X_n$. Define $f:(0,\infty)\rightarrow Y$ by $f(x)=f_{n,k}(x)$ when $x\in I_{n,k}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[rounded corners] (-4,2) rectangle (-3,1.5);
\node at (-3.5,1.75) {};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (r1) at (-2.5,0) {};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (m) at (-1,1.5) {};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (r2) at (0.5,0) {};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (prer1) at (-2.5,4) {};
\node[circle, fill, inner sep=1.5] (prer2) at (0.5,4) {};
\draw[rounded corners] (2,2) rectangle (1,1.5);
\node at (1.5,1.75) {};
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r1) -- (m);
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r2) -- (m);
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r1) -- (-3.5,1.47);
\draw[->=latex, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt] (r2) -- (1.5,1.47);
\path[draw] (-4.75,1.75) -- (-5.75,0) -- (-6.75,1.75) -- (-4.75,1.75);
\draw[rounded corners, fill=white] (-5.25,2) rectangle (-4.25,1.5);
\path[draw] (2.75,1.75) -- (3.75,0) -- (4.75,1.75) -- (2.75,1.75);
\draw[rounded corners, fill=white] (2.25,2) rectangle (3.25,1.5);
\node (2n-2) at (-7,4) {\bf [};
\node at (-4.2,4) {\bf ]};
\node at (-4.16,4) {\bf (};
\node at (2.06,4) {\bf )};
\node at (2.1,4) {\bf [};
\node (2n+2) at (5,4) {\bf ]};
\draw[shorten <=-6pt, shorten >=-6pt, thick] (2n-2) -- (2n+2);
\node (In1) at (-5.75,4.3) {\small $I_{n,1}$};
\node (Xn) at (-5.75,1) {\small $\mathfrak X_n$};
\node (In+10) at (-1.05,4.3) {\small $I_{n+1,0}$};
\node (In+11) at (3.75,4.3) {\small $I_{n+1,1}$};
\node (Xn+1) at (3.75,1) {\small $\mathfrak X_{n+1}$};
\node (XnCn) at (-4.75,1.75) {\small $\mathfrak C_n$};
\node (Cn) at (-3.5,1.75) {\small $\mathfrak C_n$};
\node (preCn) at (-3.5,4) {};
\node (Cn+1) at (1.5,1.75) {\small $\mathfrak C_{n+1}$};
\node (preCn+1) at (1.5,4) {};
\node (Xn+1Cn+1) at (2.75,1.75) {\small $\mathfrak C_{n+1}$};
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=0pt, shorten >=28pt ] (In1) -- (Xn);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=-4pt, shorten >=18pt ] (preCn) -- (Cn);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=0pt, shorten >=28pt ] (prer1) -- (r1);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=0pt, shorten >=28pt ] (In+10) -- (m);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=0pt, shorten >=28pt ] (prer2) -- (r2);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=-4pt, shorten >=18pt ] (preCn+1) -- (Cn+1);
\draw[dashed, ->, shorten <=0pt, shorten >=28pt ] (In+11) -- (Xn+1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{f:mapping_intervals} Depiction of $f$}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}\label{Case1IntrOntoX}
The map $f:\mathbb (0,\infty)\rightarrow Y$ is an onto interior map.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $f$ is onto since $f|_{I_{n,0}}=f_{n,0}$ is onto $\F_{\alpha_n}$ and $f|_{I_{n,1}}=f_{n,1}$ is onto $X_n$. Let $I\subseteq \mathbb (0,\infty)$ be open. Then $I\cap I_{n,k}$ is open in $I_{n,k}$, and hence $f(I\cap I_{n,k})=f_{n,k}(I\cap I_{n,k})$ is open in $f_{n,k}(I_{n,k})$. Therefore, $f(I\cap I_{n,k})$ is open in $Y$. Thus,
$$
f(I)=\bigcup\limits_{n\in\omega}f_{n,0}(I\cap I_{n,0})\cup f_{n,1}(I\cap I_{n,1})
$$
is open in $Y$. This implies that $f$ is an open map.
Let $U\subseteq Y$ be open. Then
\begin{equation}\label{fIsCon}f^{-1}(U)=\bigcup\limits_{n\in\omega}(f_{n,0})^{-1}(U\cap \F_{\alpha_n})\cup\bigcup\limits_{X_n\not\subseteq U}(f_{n,1})^{-1}(U\cap X_n)\cup\bigcup\limits_{X_n\subseteq U}(f_{n,1})^{-1}(U\cap X_n).\end{equation}
We have each $(f_{n,0})^{-1}(U\cap \F_{\alpha_n})$ is open in $(2n,2n+1)$ and hence open in $(0,\infty)$. For $X_n\not\subseteq U$ we have each $(f_{n,1})^{-1}(U\cap X_n)$ is open in $(2n+1,2n+2)$ and hence open in $(0,\infty)$. When $X_n\subseteq U$ we can replace the closed interval $(f_{n,1})^{-1}(U\cap X_n)$ by the open interval $(2n+1-\frac13,2n+2+\frac13)$ in Equation \ref{fIsCon} and still retain equality. This shows $f$ is continuous.
\end{proof}
Since $(0,\infty)$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbf R$, it follows that $Y$ is an interior image of $\mathbf R$. Applying Lemma~\ref{GenTopFromGFAndIntMap} finishes the proof of (1)$\Rightarrow$(5), and hence the proof of the Main Result.
We conclude this section by mentioning the following useful consequence of the Main Result. Recall that ${\bf S4.1}={\bf S4}+\Box\Diamond\varphi\to\Diamond\Box\varphi$. By \cite[Thm.~5.3]{BG11}, each logic above {\bf S4.1} is connected. Also, ${\bf S4.1}\subseteq{\bf S4.Grz}$, where ${\bf S4.Grz}={\bf S4}+\Box(\Box(\varphi\to\Box\varphi)\to\varphi)\to\varphi$ is the Grzegorczyk logic. As an immediate consequence of the Main Result, we obtain:
\begin{corollary}
If $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4.1}, then $L$ is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf R$ or equivalently $L$ is the logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf R^+$. In particular, if $L$ is a logic above {\bf S4.Grz}, then $L$ is the logic of a general space over $\mathbf R$ or equivalently $L$ is the logic of a subalgebra of~$\mathbf R^+$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Intermediate logics}\label{SecIntLogs}
In this section we apply our results to intermediate logics. We recall that intermediate logics are the logics that are situated between the intuitionistic propositional calculus {\bf IPC} and the classical propositional calculus {\bf CPC}; that is, $L$ is an intermediate logic if ${\bf IPC}\subseteq L\subseteq{\bf CPC}$. There is a dual isomorphism between the lattice of intermediate logics and the lattice of non-degenerate varieties of Heyting algebras, where we recall that a Heyting algebra is a bounded distributive lattice $A$ equipped with an additional binary operation $\to$ that is residual to $\wedge$; that is, $a\wedge x\le b$ iff $x\le a\to b$.
There is a close connection between closure algebras and Heyting algebras. Each closure algebra $\mathfrak A=(A,\Box)$ gives rise to the Heyting algebra $\HH(\mathfrak A)=\{a\in A:a=\Box a\}$ of open elements of $\mathfrak A$, and each Heyting algebra $\HH=(H,\to)$ generates the closure algebra $\mathfrak A(\HH)=(B(H),\Box)$, where $B(H)$ is the free Boolean extension of $H$ and for $x\in B(H)$, if $x=\bigwedge_{i=1}^n(\neg a_i\vee b_i)$, then $\Box x=\bigwedge_{i=1}^n(a_i\to b_i)$ \cite{MT46}. Also, if $(W,R,\mathcal P)$ is a general {\bf S4}-frame and $R$ is a partial order, then $(W,R,\mathcal P_R)$ is a general intuitionistic frame, where we recall that $\mathcal P_R=\{A\in\mathcal P:A$ is an $R$-upset$\}$, and there is an isomorphism between partially ordered descriptive {\bf S4}-frames and descriptive intuitionistic frames (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~8]{CZ97}).
This yields the well-known correspondence between intermediate logics and logics above {\bf S4}. Namely, each intermediate logic can be viewed as a fragment of a consistent logic above {\bf S4}, and this can be realized through the G\"odel translation (which translates each formula $\varphi$ of the language of {\bf IPC} to the modal language by adding $\Box$ to every subformula of $\varphi$). Then the lattice of intermediate logics is isomorphic to an interval in the lattice of logics above {\bf S4}, and the celebrated Blok-Esakia theorem states that this interval is exactly the lattice of consistent logics above {\bf S4.Grz} (see, e.g., \cite[Sec.~9]{CZ97}).
An element $a$ of a Heyting algebra $\HH$ is \emph{complemented} if $a\vee\neg a=1$, and $\HH$ is \emph{connected} if $0,1$ are the only complemented elements of $\HH$. Also, $\HH$ is \emph{well-connected} if $a\vee b=1$ implies $a=1$ or $b=1$. Then it is easy to see that a closure algebra $\mathfrak A$ is connected iff the Heyting algebra $\HH(\mathfrak A)$ is connected, and that $\mathfrak A$ is well-connected iff $\HH(\mathfrak A)$ is well-connected.
An intermediate logic $L$ is \emph{connected} if $L=L(\HH)$ for some connected Heyting algebra $\HH$, and $L$ is \emph{well-connected} if $L=L(\HH)$ for some well-connected Heyting algebra $\HH$. By \cite[Thm.~8.1]{BG11}, each intermediate logic is connected. Since a Heyting algebra $\mathfrak A$ is well-connected iff its dual descriptive intuitionistic frame is rooted (\cite{Esa79,BB08}), by \cite[Thm.~15.28]{CZ97}, $L$ is well-connected iff $L$ is Hallden complete, where we recall that $L$ is Hallden complete provided $\varphi\vee\psi\in L$ and $\varphi,\psi$ have no common propositional letters imply that $\varphi\in L$ or $\psi\in L$.
For a topological space $X$, let $\Omega(X)$ denote the Heyting algebra of open subsets of $X$. Similarly, for a partially ordered frame $\F=(W,\le)$, let $\mathrm{Up}(\F)$ denote the Heyting algebra of upsets of $\F$. For a general space $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$, recall that $\mathcal P_\tau=\mathcal P\cap\tau$. Then $\mathcal P_\tau$ is a Heyting algebra, and for each Heyting algebra $\HH$, there is a descriptive space $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$ such that $\HH$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal P_\tau$. For a general space $(X,\tau,\mathcal P)$, we call $(X,\tau,\mathcal P_\tau)$ a \emph{general intuitionistic space}.
The Blok-Esakia theorem together with the results obtained in this paper yield the following theorems.
\begin{theorem}
The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is an intermediate logic.
\item $L$ is the logic of a countable path-connected general intuitionistic frame.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general intuitionistic space over $\mathbf R$.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general intuitionistic space over $\mathbf Q$.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general intuitionistic space over $\mathbf C$.
\item $L$ is the logic of a Heyting subalgebra of the Heyting algebra $\Omega(\mathbf R)$.
\item $L$ is the logic of a Heyting subalgebra of the Heyting algebra $\Omega(\mathbf Q)$.
\item $L$ is the logic of a Heyting subalgebra of the Heyting algebra $\Omega(\mathbf C)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
Let $L$ be an intermediate logic. The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is well-connected.
\item $L$ is Hallden complete.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general intuitionistic frame over $\T_2$.
\item $L$ is the logic of a general intuitionistic frame over $\LL_2$.
\item $L$ is the logic of a Heyting subalgebra of the Heyting algebra $\mathrm{Up}(\T_2)$.
\item $L$ is the logic of a Heyting subalgebra of the Heyting algebra $\mathrm{Up}(\LL_2)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgement:} The first two authors acknowledge the support of the grant \# FR/489/5-105/11 of the Rustaveli Science Foundation of Georgia.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\def\cprime{$'$}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]
\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\chapter{Computing Frontier: Distributed Computing and Facility Infrastructures}
\label{chap:mag}
\begin{center}\begin{boldmath}
\input authorlist.tex
\end{boldmath}\end{center}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:comp-intro}
The field of particle physics has become increasingly reliant on large-scale computing resources to address the challenges of analyzing large datasets, completing specialized computations and simulations, and allowing for wide-spread participation of large groups of researchers. For a variety of reasons, these resources have become more distributed over a large geographic area, and some resources are highly specialized computing machines.
In this report for the Snowmass Computing Frontier Study, we consider several questions about distributed computing and facility infrastructures that could impact future resource requirements and research directions. Two other efforts to understand these issues during the past year have been major resources for this report. One was a review conducted by NERSC in November 2012 to determine HEP community computing and storage needs through 2017~\cite{bib:NERSCreport}. Another was a panel discussion on the future of grid computing held at the Open Science Grid All-Hands Meeting in March 2013~\cite{bib:OSGpanel}. We thank all of the participants in these discussions for their contributions.
\section{Current HEP Use of the U.S. National Computing Infrastructure}
Different computational problems in particle physics are naturally suited for different kinds of computing facilities. In general, there are two paradigms. One is HTC, which is implemented in standard commodity computers and can address problems that are ``embarrassingly parallel,'' i.e., those that can be computed independently with the results combined afterward. The other is HPC, which uses supercomputers to solve large problems by distributing computational work among many processors and using specialized high-speed, low-latency networks to communicate partial results among processors during execution of the job.
Historically, HPC machines for open science have been located at specialized national centers funded by the
Department of Energy and the National
Science Foundation. These supercomputers were designed and built to solve large-scale computational problems,
typically tightly coupled simulations requiring fast processors, a high-speed internal network, and sometimes a
fast I/O subsystem. In recent years a need for HTC has quickly grown in the science community. Part of this demand has arisen from
the data-driven science (e.g. LHC data analysis) and part has from the simulation community's need to perfom
massive numbers of ensemble runs to explore paramater space and test and validate codes.
In response to this demand, national centers have been developing capabilities geared towards supporting the HTC paradigm.
For example, NERSC hosts and operates systems that run HTC workflows for genomics, high energy and nuclear physics,
astronomy, and materials science. Software has also been developed to support these workflows on the largest HPC systems.
Thus, the centers are in a stronger position to support a wider variety of computing tasks, and it is possible that both HPC- and HTC- driven science can find a home at these national centers. Some successful examples are mentioned later in this report.
The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) is an HTC resource that is the main computational resource used by the LHC experiments, of which ATLAS and CMS have the largest computing needs. As the name implies, the WLCG is an example of a grid infrastructure, which is described in much more detail in Section~\ref{sec:grid}. There are over 170 facilities connected to the WLCG, distributed over 36 countries. Fifteen of those sites are located in the United States, and they tend to have more resources than the average WLCG site. The WLCG is organized into a tiered hierarchy of sites, in which sites at each tier have different computational responsibilities and service levels, and thus different hardware configurations. The Tier-0 center is at CERN; it is responsible for prompt reconstruction of detector data, some calibration and alignment tasks and keeping a custodial copy of the raw data. There are currently twelve Tier-1 sites, which keep a second custodial copy of the raw data, reprocess older data with improved calibration and alignment constants, perform skims of large data samples, and archive simulated datasets. Both Tier-0 and Tier-1 centers operate tape libraries and have 24/7 system support. The remaining sites are Tier-2 sites, which host data samples for physics analysis and generate simulated datasets. Tier-2 centers typically only have business-hours support within their time zone. The facilities are composed of large clusters of commodity machines powered by x86-style processors, which are accessed through batch scheduling systems.
The computational problems of the LHC experiments are well matched to the structure of the WLCG. Computations are centered around individual, statistically independent collision events, and this embarrassingly parallel regime works well for the HTC systems that the WLCG provides. This scheme has served the LHC experiments very well. The current resources of the WLCG are 2 MHS06 of CPU and 190 PB of disk. CMS and ATLAS used about 300,000 cores continuously during 2012, resulting in about 2.6 billion CPU hours. These resources, along with robust middleware and a strong effort in operations, have allowed the experiments to turn around physics results very quickly. The workflows for the experiments, be they for data processing, calibration, simulation or user analysis, have performed as expected, and any concerns about scaling with the expected increase in resources should be able to be addressed in the course of normal operations. There is a good window for this work during the current LHC shutdown. It should also be noted that the specific assignments of particular workflows to particular tiers of the infrastructure is expected to evolve in the coming years, to make the most efficient use of all available resources.
As discussed below, whether the WLCG will continue to serve the needs of the LHC experiments depends very much on how WLCG capacity evolves, and how efficiently the experiments can make use of it. This is an important question, given the anticipated growth in LHC luminosity (from $7 \times 10^{33}$ to $1 \times 10^{34}$/cm$^2$/s), event complexity due to pileup (from a typical 20 extra interactions per event in the previous LHC run to 25 in the 2015 run), and trigger rate to maintain sensitivity to the Higgs boson and new-physics signatures (from 300 Hz to perhaps 1 kHz). However, any changes to the WLCG usage can be made in an evolutionary fashion, and the underlying paradigm of HTC should continue to work.
Because of the sheer scale of the existing WLCG resources, we anticipate that the WLCG will remain the main resource for LHC experiment computations. However, the use of other facilities, such as those described below, should be explored to see if they can successfully perform the same computations and thus augment the LHC computing capacity.
Intensity Frontier experiments have a diverse set of needs, but in aggregate they have large data and analysis requirements. While these experiments are generally served by HTC facilities, a number of existing experiments have successfully taken advantage of HPC centers' interest in enabling data-driven scientific discovery through data-intensive HTC computing. For example, analysis for the Daya Bay experiment was conducted at DOE's NERSC center, which also served as the Tier 1 data center. DOE HPC centers have also supported KAMLAND, IceCube, BaBar, SNO, ALICE, ATLAS, and Palomar PTF data analysis.
National High Performance Computing centers are used and required in a number of HEP areas of research, including
\begin{itemize}
\item Lattice QCD (Energy Frontier)
\item Accelerator design and R\&D (Energy and Intensity Frontiers)
\item Data analysis and creations of synthetic maps (Cosmic Frontier)
\item N-body and hydrodynamic cosmology simulations (Cosmic Frontier)
\item Supernova modeling (Cosmic Frontier)
\end{itemize}
A great need for HPC computing, driven by the needs of LQCD and computational cosmology but required by other fields as well, will outpace even the historical trend (see Figure \ref{fig:NERSC-Computational-Hours}), even as extrapolation of those trends becomes uncertain due to power and technology limitations.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{2013-NERSC-Usage-HEP.png}
\caption{Historical normalized computing hours used at NERSC (green line) and just for HEP projects (blue line). Results from NERSC requirements reviews with HEP scientists and DOE program managers (large blue crosses) show a need for computing greater than what will be supplied by extrapolating the trend.}
\label{fig:NERSC-Computational-Hours}
\end{figure}
One effort, Perturbative QCD, that has largely relied on HTC computing to date has already started using HPC centers and expects to
expand those efforts to be able to complete the calculation of important background and signal reactions at the
LHC.
They have determined that it would be beneficial to make the national DOE HPC
facilities
generally accessible to particle theorists and
experimentalists in order to enable the use of existing
calculational tools for experimental studies involving extensive
multiple runs without depending on the computer power and manpower
available to the code authors. Access to these facilities will also
allow prototyping the next generation of parallel computer programs
for QCD phenomenology and precision calculations.
\section{Future Availability of Resources}
The needed computing resources for Energy Frontier experiments are currently set by the needs of the CMS and ATLAS experiments. Both of these experiments have had several years of running experience and have developed the tools to predict future resource needs as a function of experimental parameters such as the trigger rate, pileup distribution, event size, number of reprocessing and analysis passes per year and so forth. These models have been shown to be reasonably predictive~\cite{bib:CHEPresources}.
It currently appears that the needs will be met for the foreseeable ($\sim$10 year) future as long as several conditions are satisfied. So far, the funding for the WLCG has been roughly constant, allowing resource growth to continue with Moore's Law. Experiments have been able to adjust their computing models to adapt to the available growth in resources along with the growth in data sets. While Moore's Law does not seem to hold as well as it used to, resources should still grow over time, although not as quickly as before. Near-constant WLCG funding will be necessary for the experiments to keep up with growing datasets and event complexity.
Meanwhile, computing architectures are changing, and the experiments' software bases must evolve to keep up with them. Adapting the software to take advantage of many-core and multicore processor architectures is also critical for LHC experiments to meet their computing needs. The experiments will also need to find greater efficiencies in resource usage, for both processing and disk resources. Currently both ATLAS and CMS distribute many datasets to their computing sites that are subsequently rarely or never used; this is then a waste of storage. The experiments will also need to proactively pursue and take advantage of a variety of resources beyond the WLCG. These include opportunistic resources that might be available at universities, laboratories and NSF and DOE computing centers, and paid resources that might be available through commercial clouds. Fortunately, both CMS and ATLAS are actively pursuing many of these measures, which are an important part of the development plans underway during the current LHC shutdown.
Intensity Frontier experiments have relatively modest computing needs, at least in comparison to those of the Energy Frontier experiments. Any single such experiment is expected to produce ``only'' a petabyte of data over its entire lifetime, compared to CMS or ATLAS which will produce several petabytes per year. Thus it should not be difficult to provide the needed scale of computing resources for these experiments as long as sufficient funds are available. These experiments too will be able to help themselves by actively pursuing opportunistic resources and operational efficiencies as the Energy Frontier experiments are.
Cosmic Frontier experiments have well-defined storage needs, and these become competitive with those of CMS and ATLAS in future years. The Dark Energy Survey should produce ``only'' a petabyte of data by 2016 (well within current capabilities), but LSST could produce 100 PB by 2030. The Square Kilometer Array could produce as much as 1500 PB/year when it is operational in the 2020's. In addition, these experiments could have very different access and processing patterns than those of the accelerator-based experiments.
The large increase in survey data means that statistical noise will no longer determine the accuracy to which cosmological parameters are
measured. The control and correction of systematic uncertainties will determine the scientific impact of any cosmological survey.
Achieving the goals of current and planned experiments will, therefore, require the processing and analysis of experimental data streams,
the development of techniques and algorithms for identifying cosmological signatures and for mitigating systematic uncertainties,
and detailed cosmological simulations for use in interpreting systematic uncertainties within these data.
There are three primary computational tasks associated with sky surveys: image generation, image processing, and cosmological simulation. The first
is primarily an HTC task, the second is alredy running in HPC mode using up to thousands of processors, and the third uses cutting-edge HPC applications. The computing requirements for image simulation and image processing will increase greatly over the next five years and, while substantial
on the order of 100 million hour, are expected to be accomodated at DOE and NSF centers. The HPC hours needed for cosmological simulations are extreme, however, reaching 10s of billions of hours by 2017~\cite{bib:NERSCreport}. The current outlook
makes it unlikely that HPC centers have adequate capacity to meeting these needs for cosmological
simulations on this time scale.
Likewise, researchers performing Lattice QCD theory calculations
-- which are essential for interpretation of many experiments done in high-energy and nuclear physics --
face an expected deficit in computing cycles. In in a recent report~\cite{bib:NERSCreport} LQCD researchers estimate needing 10s of billions of hours in 2017, much more than will be available
for LQCD if historical trends hold.
HPC needs for accelerator research and design are growing, too, but are expected to be accommodated by planned HPC center capacity and capability increases~\cite{bib:NERSCreport}.
\section{Will Distributed Computing Models Be Adequate?}
\label{sec:grid}
Because of their unique scales, particle physics experiments require unique computing solutions. A modern experimental collaboration such as the ATLAS or CMS experiments includes thousands of scientists who are truly distributed over the whole world, spanning all the easily habitable continents. They all need access to computing resources to perform their work and make scientific discoveries. Meanwhile, the LHC experiments produce petabyte-scale datasets each year, and millions of CPU hours are needed for the processing and analysis of the data. Historically, all of the computing resources for an experiment were hosted by the laboratory that operated the experiment, with some smaller installations at collaborating institutes. However, this model has become less feasible as both experimental collaborations and recorded datasets have grown. The necessary resources have large aggregate power and cooling demands, making it difficult to operate them all at one site. While communities of researchers are generally willing to invest in the needed computing resources, they are reluctant to place them at a remote site. Thus, a more distributed solution is necessary.
The current solution for distributed computing is grid computing. A simple definition of a computing grid is an infrastructure that allows different administrative domains to share access to services, processors and storage with a select set of users and groups of users. It is assumed that each organization participating in the grid provides its own computing resources. The processors and storage can be distributed over a very wide geographic area, and are typically organized as clusters of computers that accept processing jobs through a batch system. The computing clusters that are members of a grid provide a uniform environment for user batch jobs, even if each cluster has some unique local configuration. As a result, any user job can, in principle, be executed at any site on the grid with little user customization required.
This fits the paradigm of experimental particle physics especially well. The paradigm is that of high-throughput computing (as opposed to high-performance computing); most of the computational problems are embarrassingly parallel, as each data event recorded is statistically independent of the others. Any data-processing task can thus be distributed across many batch jobs and many grid-computing sites, with the results being straightforwardly combined when all of the processing is done.
Distributing the computing resources across many locations has a number of advantages over consolidating them at one site. It is possible to leverage local infrastructure and local expertise at each site, leading to greater engagement in the projects by individual institutions. Computing clusters at sites such as universities are more likely to be multi-purpose, with many different researchers and scientific domains participating. This allows greater resource sharing -- the peak processing time for one scientific domain may be different for that of another, and thus an active project can make opportunistic use of the resources provided by a temporarily less active project. While each community does bring its own resources to the grid, it has access to the resources of others. The ultimate result is a larger amount of computing available for any scientist's peak needs. The tradeoff for this increased computing power is the challenge of managing a computing facility that is distributed over many different organizations, cultures and time zones, and of maintaining good throughput for users over such a system.
A computing grid has several ingredients. There must be a set of individual computing facilities, each of which maintains some sort of batch-job submission system for scheduling access to particular resources in the cluster. The resources in question are typically CPU's, but in the future one could imagine the scheduling of memory or network bandwidth. The specific scheduler used at a given facility is irrelevant. The facility is made available on the grid through a ``computing element'' (CE) that serves as a gateway for remote job submission. It provides a uniform interface to the heterogeneous systems at each site, so that users wishing to use the site don't need to know the underlying details for job submission.
For cybersecurity purposes, this gateway needs to verify that a given user is allowed to use the local resources. Thus, an elaborate system of user credentialing is needed. Each user is a member of a ``virtual organization'' (VO) that validate user identities and issue credentials known as ``grid certificates'' that can be attached to a batch job when it is submitted to a grid resource. These credentials allow for the tracking of batch jobs back to individual users. In an HEP context, a VO is typically comprised of the participants of a single experiment. Each computing site defines which VOs it is willing to accept jobs from, and often the site will need to implement a particular environment that the VO needs for its jobs to execute correctly, such as the software base of a given experiment. When a user job is presented to a CE, the CE examines the grid certificate, decides whether the job will be allowed to run, and assigns it to the appropriate batch queue on the basis of the user identity.
Users need tools to submit jobs to grid sites. These tools are known as middleware and are developed and maintained by the grid operators. Users can use tools such as HTCondor and Bosco to submit jobs from their desktop computers. HEP experiments usually provide some sort of wrapper around the middleware that serves as an interface with other services, such as data catalogues. One growing means of job submission is through pilot systems. In such a system, several computers serve as a factory for pilot jobs that are submitted to many grid sites. The initial task of a pilot job is simply to hold on to a batch slot at a site. Each pilot job can last for a long time on the host machine. After determining the available environment on the machine, the pilot job can request a user job from a central task queue. This allows for good matching between the available environment and the available work, and also allows a VO to use the central task queue to set priorities across the entire grid (rather than only at individual sites). Any pilot job can take on multiple user jobs during its lifetime. This saves the trouble of each user job having to authenticate at a site; only the pilot job needs to be authenticated when it begins.
Data storage and management is a challenge for grid systems. While batch jobs can come and go and easily return resources to the grid for use by others, data tends to be more static. What grid sites a given job can run on is often limited by the need to have a particular set of data files at the site. This situation is evolving through the development of federated storage systems, in which files at one site can be made available for reading at another site straightforwardly. For placing data at a site, there are tools such as SRM that provide a generic interface to the heterogeneous storage systems available at sites.
The success of grid systems depends on robust wide-area networking for both the submission of the job (which typically requires a small data transfer) and the retrieval of job results (which sometimes requires a much larger data transfer, depending on the nature of the output). In addition, any infrastructure of such a scale needs good monitoring and accounting systems, to make sure that the grid is continually functioning and to understand usage patterns.
Different grids are operated by different national or regional entities. These grids have grown organically, each with their own middleware that serves as the interface to the computing resources. In the United States, the grid infrastructure used for particle physics is operated by the Open Science Grid (OSG). The OSG provides much of the infrastructure needed for particle-physics experiments to run their workflows, such as the grid middleware, and supplies operational support through its Grid Operations Center. Because of the need for a US-based grid infrastructure, the US HEP community helped develop and launch the OSG and continues to derive great benefit from it. The OSG currently has about 120 affiliated sites and supports about 30 VOs.
Figure \ref{fig:OSG-growth} shows the steady growth in OSG usage over the past six and a half years. While most of the activity and most of the growth has come from the LHC experiments (as discussed below), a large number of VOs have made substantial use of the grid, and the grid computing community continues to diversify. Science areas such as protein structure studies, anti-earthquake engineering, and brain research have made excellent use of OSG resources. This makes the OSG an excellent example of a project started by particle physicists that has had broader impact on the general scientific community.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{vo_hours_bar_smry.png}
\caption{Growth in OSG usage over the past six and half years.}
\label{fig:OSG-growth}
\end{figure}
For Energy Frontier experiments such as CMS and ATLAS, with aggregate datasets in the tens of petabytes, the grid is the default location for most of the computing activity. The LHC experiments are unusual in the history of particle physics in that it was planned from the very beginning that most of the computing activity would take place away from the host laboratory. About 5/6 of the total CPU and disk available to the experiments is not at CERN but at distributed sites. The CERN facility is only responsible for a first-pass reconstruction of the data shortly after they are recorded, plus some calibration and alignment activities. Everything else required to perform a physics measurement -- re-processing with improved calibration and alignment, skimming to produce datasets more concentrated in events of interest, Monte Carlo simulation production and archiving, and final-stage user data analysis -- is conducted over the grid. Most of the workflows described above are centrally managed by operations teams who decide which grid resources are used for which workflows. The exception to this is user analysis, which is in the hands of individual physicists. Historically, users have been constrained to submit their jobs to grid sites have a copy of the data sample that they wish to analyze. However, this constraint has recently been relaxed through the deployment of Xrootd data access over the wide-area network, as discussed below.
Figure \ref{fig:OSG-usage} below shows OSG usage by virtual organization over the past year. We see that ATLAS and CMS dominate the OSG, using about six million CPU hours per week. Contrariwise, it should be noted that US-based grid computing resources play an outsized role in LHC computing, relative to the US-based fraction of the experimental collaborations. For instance, on CMS the US grid sites provided about 40\% of the CPU time over the past year, while only about 1/3 of CMS membership is from the US. The equivalent numbers for ATLAS are about 30\% of the CPU time and about 20\% of the collaboration. Besides being the biggest customer of CPU time, the LHC experiments are also the largest provider of processing resources, which can be opportunistically available to other VOs. Thus we can see that the LHC experiments, the Open Science Grid and the US LHC users are all interdependent on each other for their success.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{vo_hours_bar_smry_1.png}
\caption{OSG usage by vitual organization.}
\label{fig:OSG-usage}
\end{figure}
Since the data processing and analysis of the LHC experiments is dependent on grid computing, it is fair to say that grid computing is a key technology for discovery in particle physics. Looking back to the Higgs boson observation of July 2012, we can see that ATLAS and CMS were able to turn around their data analyses very quickly. Events recorded just a few weeks beforehand were included in the analysis. The significant computing resources available through the WLCG, and their efficient and straightforward usage, made it possible to analyze this data quickly, to compute the significance of the observations and the strength of limits, and (perhaps most importantly) to prepare the necessary simulation samples that were needed to understand the data. In his remarks at the end of the CERN seminar announcing the Higgs observation, CERN Director General Rolf Heuer explicitly recognized the role of the WLCG in the work.
At the very least, since the LHC experiments plan on relying on grid computing resources for the foreseeable future, we can anticipate that any future LHC discoveries will depend on the success of distributed computing. While exactly how distributed computing is used may change in the future (as discussed by the Energy Frontier group), and while grid computing may not always be its implementation, we expect that distributed computing is here to stay, as the model has proven to be successful and it will be a great challenge to concentrate all computing resources for a single experiment in one location in the future. It will be important to sustain and further develop our distributed-computing infrastructures.
\subsection{Research and development in grid infrastructures}
While grid computing has been a very successful technology for modern particle-physics experiments, especially those at the LHC, our operational experience has exposed a number of issues that should be addressed in the future if grids are to continue to serve the needs of the field. Many of these can be addressed with either small-scale R\&D efforts, or through the promotion of best practices that are already known but not widely adopted. In the end, none of these issues should be seen as show-stoppers for the long-term growth of distributed computing, but these developments should be pursued to improve efficiency and ease of use.
\subsubsection{Identity management}
The need for grid certificates has been the bete noir for many a particle physicist. These certificates are used for identity management, and the process of obtaining a certificate can be quite convoluted, possibly requiring the use of multiple Web browsers and a number of utility programs to put the issued credentials in a form that can be used when a grid job is submitted. Indeed, the Snowmass physics studies that were done on the grid brought many new users (mostly theorists) into the grid system, and they resisted the process of obtaining certificates.
However, just about every university campus already has some form of single sign-on that can be used to validate a user's identity for campus computing resources; campuses could then vouch for the identity of their users to the outside world. The CILogon service (http://cilogon.org) uses this campus-level vetting to generate grid certificates through a simple Web-page username and password login. A number of grid computing sites will accept these certificates, but their usage needs to become more widespread.
Of course a better solution still would be to eliminate the use of certificates altogether, or to at least make them invisible to ordinary users. This can be achieved through pilot-based submission systems, where it is the pilot jobs that are authenticated rather than the user jobs that the pilots subsequently execute. But the pilot jobs must still be able to provide traceability back to the user whose job is being run, so that sites can identify users if the need arises. The OSG is currently studying the matter of traceability. The use of pilot jobs is discussed further below.
\subsubsection{Streamlining operations}
As it currently stands, the operation of the computing grid for particle-physics experiments is very labor intensive; it is not very different from the operation of a complete multi-purpose particle detector. Human effort is required nearly 24/7, with multiple people monitoring multiple layers of the system. Many of the people who do this work are non-expert physicists in the collaboration who serve as computing shifters. They observe symptoms of a problem at a particular computing site, but the root cause may not be a site problem; experts must intervene to untangle what is going on. A large contingent of full-time experts are regularly busy solving infrastructure problems and optimizing resource usage. CMS has 30 FTE (from 60 people) working on computing operations, while ATLAS operates with a somewhat smaller team. This is in addition to the teams of people who are actually operating the grid infrastructures themselves, which is about 10 FTE for the OSG. As in so many cases, staffing costs are a significant element of the computing budgets for the experiments and the grids.
How can all of these operational tasks be performed with fewer people? We should look to develop self-learning systems that can monitor the infrastructure and the computational work to be done, figure out the resource requirements for the work, and optimize the scheduling of the work. These systems could identify problems on the infrastructure and make sure that work isn't scheduled into those problems. Related to this is a need for self-healing systems that can solve the problems themselves, or at least flag them for intervention by a human. Research in this sort of machine learning might be funded through DOE ASCR or NSF OCI programs, and we should not hesitate to look towards industry for solutions, as Internet companies are also running very large distributed computing infrastructures.
\subsubsection{Storage management}
Batch jobs are naturally suited for the grid -- each job is short-lived and when it is finished, the processing resource is freed up and can be used by a different job. At the moment, the grid is not as well suited for data storage. Stored data does not clean itself up when it has outlived its usefulness, and indeed users tend to be paranoid about holding on to obsolete data. How to store and access data in the grid environment is perhaps the largest unsolved problem of grid computing.
Storage management has two main forms: the management of large-scale datasets that are of use by large groups within an experimental collaboration, and the management of small-scale datasets owned by particular users. The former issue is discussed by the Storage and Data Management group; we only note here that there is some debate within the community whether there will be a scaling problem or not as LHC datasets grow. In any case, it is expected that experiments will continue to take responsibility for developing management systems for their own data.
Small-scale user storage is a more general issue for grid infrastructures, as many communities beyond HEP want to manage small (compared to HEP) datasets. Over the past few years, we have seen the emergence of the ``dropbox'' model, in which a particular set of files can be placed ``in the cloud'' and then made accessible on any computer. The file set can be managed by each user in the way he or she desires, with a set of straightforward API's. It will be useful for distributed-computing infrastructures to develop their own dropboxes, so that users can have access to their data anytime and anywhere in the system. The first forms of such global data access have now emerged in the form of CMS's ``Any Data, Anytime, Anywhere'' (AAA) project and ATLAS's ``Federating ATLAS storage systems using Xrootd'' (FAX) project, both of which rely on Xrootd as their underlying technology. [add references] These systems are already giving experiments and individual users greater flexibility in how and where they run their workflows by making data more globally available for access. Potential issues with bandwidth can be solved through optimization and prioritization. The further development of such systems should be encouraged.
\subsubsection{Simplification and scaling of job submission}
As the grid currently works, each new job that starts in a batch slot must be authenticated by a site's grid gatekeeper by checking the user's credentials. Given that a user may submit hundreds or even thousands of jobs at time, the same credentials are checked over and over again. This is obviously an inefficient process. One solution that is already being deployed is the use of pilot jobs. A pilot job can be authenticated once at a site and then pull in and execute multiple individual user jobs in sequence from an external task queue. In this case, the validation of the credentials of the individual jobs must fall to the pilot system. A drawback to this scheme that needs further exploration is that it can be difficult to trace the origins of a given job submitted through a pilot system back to the user who submitted it. Solutions such as glexec exist, but these need more widespread deployment and testing.
\subsubsection{Dynamic scheduling}
Historically, the only resource that a batch job needed to have scheduled for it was a CPU. Other resources were more static in nature and could be used (or not used) at any time without concern. However, batch jobs are now requiring a more diverse set of resources. Some jobs may have special memory requirements or wish to use the wide-area network in a real-time fashion. As a result, job scheduling mechanisms will have to be able to schedule a more heterogeneous set of resources. HTCondor is already starting to move in this direction; these efforts should continue to be supported.
\subsubsection{Clouds vs. grids}
The cloud computing paradigm presents users with a virtual machine that requires extensive configuration by the user. In contrast, grid computing sites usually have the appropriate environment already set up. The largest cloud-computing providers are commercial entities, such Amazon, which charge for the use of CPU time, storage, and inbound and outbound network bandwidth. To date, there have been several small experiments in using cloud facilities for HEP applications. CMS has configured machines from the Amazon cloud to appear as an extension of an existing Tier-2 cluster, running the jobs on the cloud but reading data from dedicated CMS sites with the Xrootd protocol. ATLAS has performed a number of large workflows with both Amazon and Google clouds, some of which was paid for with a grant from Google. These tests used from hundreds to thousands of CPU’s and ran from one to six months in duration.
While these tests were quite successful, we do not believe that commercial clouds are currently a viable option for large-scale particle-physics computing. This is largely due to costs; it is currently cheaper to operate a Tier-2 center at a university rather than to buy equivalent cloud resources. Costs are a particular concern with respect to data, as the cost of hosting data in the Amazon cloud is \$0.10/GB/month. Data can be read in over the WAN at no charge, but transferring data out to a user’s home computer can cost as much as \$0.12/GB. The output files must be staged out over the network, which also has a cost. In addition, the computing sites operated for HEP often have specially-tuned infrastructures that support the particular needs of these computational tasks and that are not readily available for generic cloud resources.
That being said, the costs of commercial clouds could well fall over time, and we expect that more academic computing centers will be setting up cloud interfaces to their clusters. Given how rapidly clouds have emerged in commercial markets, the development of opportunistic clouds could come quickly. Thus we should still develop the capabilities to fully use computing clouds, should conditions become more economically favorable in the future.
\subsection{Conclusions on grid infrastructures}
The fundamental paradigm of using grid computing for the embarrassingly-parallel problem of HEP event data processing seems to be sound. The distributed computing approach should be able to scale up appropriately, especially with the developments that have been envisioned and in some cases are currently underway. Many of the issues are about how to make the grid easier to use, both for users and for operators, more than about any fundamental issues of scale.
There has been a major push to involve a wide range of sciences in grid computing, with some notable successes in non-HEP science domains. But HEP has always been, and still is, by far the largest consumer of grid resources, as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:OSG-usage}. If we believe that distributed computing will remain a cornerstone of computing for particle physics, we must be prepared to take the lead on investing in developing this technology; we cannot assume that anyone else will step up and do it for us.
\section{What role will national computing centers play in computations for HEP?}
The U.S. national HPC centers run by the Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Science Foundation have traditionally served the particle physics and high energy physics (HEP) communities by enabling and supporting large simulations in Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics (LQCD), accelerator research and design, cosmology, and supernova physics. The astrophysics community has also used HPC centers to produce mock catalogs in support of satellite and ground-based sky surveys.
Over the next fine to ten years HPC centers are expected to continue their roles with these traditional communities. However, the computational and storage resources needed to support upcoming initiatives in part sponsored by the Department of Energy Office of Science -- including the LHC upgrade and the Large Synoptic Sky Survey -- will stress the ability of HPC centers, even if they are able to continue the traditional HPC growth rate of 1.8-2.0 X per year.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Top500-plot.png}
\caption{Performance of the Top 500 supercomputers as compiled by Top500.org. Computational power doubles about every 14 months. An exascale system in the U.S. may be achieved sometime around 2020-2023, depending on funding and the rate of technology advances needed to control power consumed by such a system.}
\label{fig:Top-500}
\end{figure}
The National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC)-- the production HPC center for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science -- has conducted two reviews with the HEP community to determine their computing and storage needs. The first review, in 2009, targeted needs for 2014, while the second, in 2012, targeted 2017. The findings reveal a shortage of anticipated resources needed to support DOE HEP mission needs.
The shortage is largely driven by the LQCD and cosmological simulation communities.
In addition to the resources needed by the traditional HEP HPC community, funding agencies
-- in particular the DOE HEP office -- are becoming increasingly cognizant of the computing
needs of all sections of the HEP research community. In part this is due to the awareness
by the traditional HTC communities that they too find HPC center resources valuable.
Some of these groups -- most notably HEP theorists carrying out Monte Carlo simulations that
are used by experimentalists -- are beginning to use HPC centers(1) \textcolor{red}{Needs a reference?}.
For example, the DOE Offices of HEP and Advanced Scientific Computing (ASCR) have started a joint partnership to transform the GEANT-4 code into an efficient parallel code that can take advantage of multicore and HPC platforms. In parallel, the Energy Frontier experimental community and major Cosmic Frontier experiments are preparing to use HPC facilities.
The upcoming LHC run at a center-of-mass energy near 14 TeV will strain the computing capacity of the ATLAS and CMS experiments, as described earlier. The higher energies, luminosities and trigger rates expected in the LHC high energy run starting in 2015 require substantial increases in computing capacity to handle them, and given the end of Moore's Law scaling it will be difficult for computing resources to keep pace with demand by simply maintaining a flat computing budget. While HEP experiment data rates have traditionally been limited by trigger bandwidth and the throughput of DAQ systems, they are now limited by the available computing capacity (both for processing and storage), and scientific results are in some case limited by the rate at which simulated samples can be created.
An attractive solution to the latter problem of simulation is to port elements of ATLAS and CMS software (Monte Carlo event generators such as Alpgen and simulation of events using the Geant4 toolkit appears to be the best starting points) to run on HPC resources that are at existing DOE resources, opening up the availability of supercomputers for what have traditionally been HTC applications. ALTAS is already developing a front-end cluster to allow it to interact with these computers via the Open Science Grid.
Using supercomputers for HEP experiments such as ATLAS and CMS has these benefits:
\begin{enumerate}
\item{By increasing the resources for simulation, the discovery reach of the experiment is substantially increased.}
\item{Because leadership computers have very large capacity and is a shared resource across DOE, the experiments will be better able accommodate large fluctuations in resource needs typical of HEP experiments.}
\item{The availability of supercomputing resources to HEP physicists will speed up the development of software that takes advantage of new computation architectures in a way that is broadly applicable to the new generation of commodity hardware.}
\end{enumerate}
HPC centers have a number of additional attractive features.
\begin{itemize}
\item{They can play a facilitating role in helping particle physicists make the transition to new computing architectures by providing access to prototype architectures, HPC consulting, and training classes.}
\item{The facilities are run by computing experts, with 24x7 monitoring and response to problems}
\item{Centralized problem tracking and solutions}
\item{Consulting and account support}
\item{Centralized repositories of software and data}
\item{A traditional sustained growth rate of resources (~2X/year computing, 1.7X/year storage)}
\item{State of the art networking (e.g., NERSC has advanced, secure, and open network access; all access to NERSC now goes through a state-of-the-art 100 G network that includes advanced security monitoring and completely open and transparent access for science teams. ).}
\item{State of the art hardware and software technologies}
\item{Access to the large storage, high I/O capabilities, and networking are available. Access to computational resources ``close'' to the data to be analyzed reduces the need move large data sets many times over the network.}
\end{itemize}
From the standpoint of the HPC centers, there are challenges to accommodating an expanded workload. The addition of traditional HTC workflows, and those currently using the WLCG in particular, onto
national HPC centers will require integrating them into job scheduling systems already in place.
A workload containing many serial compute jobs, which characterize most of WLCG computing,
is not a good fit with large parallel computational systems with expensive node interconnects.
Identity management and data ownership and management pose other obstacles. Finally, providing
computing, storage, and services to a new community requires an additional resources from
funding agencies either through the normal resource allocations processes or through outside
funding from the community to augment the HPC centers' base programs.
Meeting these challenges is not completely new to HPC centers. For exanmple,
NERSC has a long history of supporting ``non-traditional HPC'' HEP research.
NERSC hosts the PDSF cluster (which has its origins in the Superconducting Supercollider),
which is the Tier 1 site for the Daya Bay neutrino experiment and
a Tier 3 site for ATLAS. PDSF is also currently used by ALICE, STAR, and CUORE.
NERSC also hosts the Lattice Connection and Deep Sky web data-driven science gateways for
LQCD field configurations and supernova discovery.
NERSC's HPC systems were used to calculate the more than 100,000 simulated realizations of the
early universe needed to process results from the Planck CMB satellite mission.
\subsection{HPC Center Growth Rates and Plans}
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:NERSC-Computational-Hours} above the projected need for HEP production computing within DOE will outpace even the traditional Moore's Law increase of approximately 2X per year. The red line in the plot connects the stated requirements with 2012 usage and shows that just the traditional HPC HEP computing community has needs that far exceed the traditional trend lines.
We are at a critical time for HPC computing. To continue the historic, Moore's Law-like, growth in HPC computing power, the HPC community must adapt to build (with HPC vendors) and use new energy-efficient technologies. The path forward will require use of low-power, simple fundamental processing units. The current leading architectural candidates are systems that incorporate NVIDIA GPUs (Graphical Processing Units), the Intel Phi ``many-core'' processor, processors based on AMD's APU technology, and units integrating ARM-based technology.
This pressing need for resources and innovation comes at a time of uncertain budgetary forecasts. The DOE exascale initiative targets enabling an exascale compute system by 2022-2023 -- with the actual timeframe dependent on funding and technology advances -- through the Fast Forward (processor design) and Design Forward (system design) partnerships with HPC vendors. The Exascale Initiative includes partnerships with government, the computer industry, DOE laboratories, and academia. Goals include
\begin{itemize}
\item{1,000 times more performance than a Petaflop system}
\item{Capability to execute 1 billion degrees of concurrency}
\item{20 MW power consumption or less}
\item{200 cabinets or less (space constraint)}
\item{Development and execution time productivity improvements}
\end{itemize}
[Other plans? EXCEDE / NSF .]
While the past focus on HPC centers has largely been on massive parallel computations, the need for, and ability to facilitate handling of, accompanying data has quietly grown over the years.
All the DOE Office of Science HPC centers have drafted plans to accomodate data-driven science and
there is a proposal for a Virtual Data Center with DOE to address data issues.
[Other plans? NSF?]
\section{What coordination will be required across facilities and research teams, and are new models of computing required for it?}
The scale of computing facilities and resources has greatly increased over the past few decades of HEP research, as the size of experimental datasets and the sophistication of theoretical calculations and simulations has grown. It has reached the point where large organizations are now needed to interact with the computing providers in order to get the most use out of them. A fair amount of expertise is required to design, optimize and then operate the workflows on the most modern infrastructures.
Larger experiments, like those at the LHC, do have the resources to make full use of infrastructures such as that of grid computing. But many smaller projects simply lack the available effort to do so. This seems to be especially true for the projects in the Intensity Frontier area, which typically have many fewer physicists working on them compared to CMS or ATLAS. This is a clear case where additional coordination between the research teams could be beneficial. Fermilab, as the host laboratory for many of these experiments, is already trying to play a coordinating role, at least at the level of providing uniform event-processing frameworks across many experiments. This model should be extended even further, to help the Intensity Frontier projects have a uniform approach to computing that can take advantage of the efficiencies of scale that come from working together. We suggest that an Intensity Frontier Computing Consortium could be formed to advocate for the computing needs of the Intensity Frontier experiments. Given that the funding for research at the Intensity Frontier is coordinated through one program at DOE HEP, it might be possible to find the funds to help support the computing efforts of multiple experiments there.
As the quest for computing resources takes researchers away from their current ``natural'' computing homes of distributed HTC on the grid and HPC at specialized shared facilities, it will become more important for users to be able to move between the different computing paradigms easily. The ability to make seamless transitions will rely on work that is both technical, such as creating uniform systems of identity management and job submission, and political, such as coordinating between entities such as the OSG, XSEDE, and national centers such as NERSC. It would be useful for the leaders of those organizations to discuss how they could start to build a computing infrastructure that can truly serve all the members of the HEP community.
Engineering and technology advancements will enable energy-efficient, performant processors and systems, but the
programming paradigms employed by the application developer will likely become more complex, for both HPC and HTC
applications.
Code development on these new architectures will pose a serious challenge.
The programming strategy, in practice since the late 1990s, of optimizing code to minimize CPU cycles and
inter-node communication must be replaced with a paradigm that stresses minimizing data movement at all levels
(from on-chip cache, to on-node shared memory, to storage media) and maximizing SIMD (vector)
processing operating on contiguous data, and use of light-weight threads of execution.
Most HPC software may have to be modified significantly or rewritten to execute acceptably well
(or at all in some cases) on these architectures. Programming models for their architectures are
nascent and/or proprietary to a particular vendor's architecture. Some science communities have
embraced one technology or another, while others are waiting to see which programming model
and/or language ``wins out.'' In either case, a significant investment in code development will be required.
This issue is relevant to those applications that currently use the WLCG.
Although traditional multi-core processors and systems will continue to exist for some time,
growth in computing power will come from ``massively multi-core'' processors. If the HEP community does not adapt codes
to run in parallel (using fine-grained parallelism ({\it e.g.} GPUs) and possibly
coarse-grained parallelism ({\it e.g.} MPI)) it will be precluding itself from using a vast source
of computational power in a time of greater need.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:comp-summary}
Powerful distributed computing and robust facility infrastructures are essential to the continued progress of particle physics across the Energy, Intensity, and Cosmic Frontiers. Those approaches, and the theoretical work needed to support them, require a combination of both HTC and HPC systems. The dominant consumers of HTC are the LHC experiments, who have been well served by it and should be in the future also. Most Intensity Frontier experiments can be supported by HTC also. HPC is needed for applications such as lattice QCD, accelerator design and R\&D, data analysis and synthetic maps, N-body and hydro-cosmology simulations, supernova modeling, and more recently perturbative QCD. HPC tasks have historically been carried out at national centers that have focused primarily on HPC facilities, but these centers have begun to embrace the problems that are addressed by HTC and are interested in attracting scientists who want to work at these centers.
Energy Frontier experiments face a growth in data that will make it a challenge to supply the needed computing resources. Doing so is possible as long as certain conditions are in place and specific steps are taken to keep up with evolving technologies. It requires near-constant funding of the WLCG, greater efficiencies in resource usage, and the evolution of software to take advantage of multicore processor architectures. These experiments should also pursue and take advantage of opportunistic resources, be they in commercial clouds (which are not currently viable as purchased resources), universities, DOE centers or elsewhere. The experiments would also benefit from further engagement with national HPC centers, which have resources available to HEP experiments and can support efforts to make use of HPC systems that have not traditionally been used for HTC applications for applications such as detector simulations.
Intensity Frontier experiments have smaller computing needs in comparison, and there is nothing technically that prevents them from being met. Such experiments should be aware of the existence of resources available to them through the OSG or at national computing centers, and they could benefit from a coordinated effort amongst them to gain access to resources and share software and training.
Cosmic Frontier experiments and the simulations needed to interpret them are among the drivers of a need for growth in HPC resources in the coming years, along with lattice QCD and accelerator design. Indeed, demand for access to HPC across HEP is expected to exceed the expected availability.
Such computations are critically needed to interpret results from a number of important experiments and realize scientific returns from national investments in those experiments. The NERSC report on HEP computing needs indicates a shortage of HPC resources needed for HEP by a factor of four by 2017. While funding and technology development needed to sustain traditional HPC growth rates are uncertain, they must be maintained to support HEP science.
Distributed computing infrastructures, which have been critical to the success of the LHC experiments, should continue to be able to serve these and other applications even as they grow in scale. There are no show-stoppers seen in increasing scale, but various developments should be purused to improve efficiency and ease of use. Keeping sufficient staff support at a reasonable cost is a continuing concern; finding operational efficiencies could help address this. Given that HEP is the largest user of distributed scientific computing, currently in the form of grid computing, members of the field must continue to take a leadership role in its development.
National centers play an important role in some aspects of computing, and HEP might be able to take advantage of an expanded role. It is already used in many of the applications listed above. While there are not enough resources dedicated to HEP available at the centers to rival those of the WLCG, experiments should explore the use of the centers as part of their efforts to diversify their computing architectures. These centers do have access to large, state-of-the-art resources, operational support and expertise in many areas of computing.
We expect that distributed computing and facility infrastructures will continue to play a vital role in enabling discovery science.
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1987, the Bieri-Neumann-Strebel (BNS) geometric invariant $\Sigma^1(G)$ was introduced for a discrete group $G$. The invariant is an open subset of the character sphere $S(G)$ which carries considerable algebraic and geometric information. It determines whether or not a normal subgroup with abelian quotient is finitely generated; in particular, the commutator subgroup of $G$ is finitely generated if and only if $\Sigma^1(G) = S(G)$. If $M$ is a smooth compact manifold and $G = \pi_1(M)$, then $\Sigma^1(G)$ contains information on the existence of circle fibrations of $M$. Additionally, if $M$ is a $3$-manifold, then $\Sigma^1(G)$ can be described in terms of the Thurston norm. Other aspects of the rich theory of BNS-invariant can be found in \cite{bieri}.
Although $\Sigma^1(G)$ has proven quite difficult to compute in general, it has been computed in the case that $G$ is a right-angled Artin group \cite{meier}, and in the case that $G$ is the pure symmetric automorphism group of a free group \cite{orlandi}. In the present article we generalize the result of \cite{orlandi} by computing $\Sigma^1(G)$ when $G$ is the pure symmetric automorphism group of a right-angled Artin group. The outcome of the computation is recorded in Theorem \ref{Theorem:MainA}, to be found in \S~\ref{main-a} below.
We also provide an application of our computation. It was shown in \cite{charney} that if $A$ is the right-angled Artin group determined by a graph $\Gamma$ that has no separating intersection of links (no SILS), then the corresponding group of pure symmetric automorphisms $P\Sigma(A)$ is itself a right-angled Artin group. We prove the converse by observing that when $\Gamma$ has a SIL, the BNS-invariant of $P\Sigma(A)$ does not have a certain distinctive property that the BNS-invariant of a right-angled Artin group must satisfy. Thus we prove:
\setcounter{mainthm}{1}
\begin{mainthm}\label{Theorem:MainB}
The group $P\Sigma(A)$ is isomorphic to a right-angled Artin group if and only if the defining graph $\Gamma$ contains no SILs.
\end{mainthm}
Theorem~\ref{Theorem:MainB} is indicative of a dichotomy within the family of groups $\{P\Sigma(A)\}$ determined by whether or not $\Gamma$ has a SIL. Certain algebraic manifestations of this dichotomy were proved in \cite{gutierrez}. It would be interesting to understand more geometric manifestations. Since right-angled Artin groups are CAT(0) groups, we are lead to ask the following question:
\begin{ques}\label{Question:SILsImplyCAT(0)}
If the defining graph $\Gamma$ contains a SIL, is $P\Sigma(A)$ a CAT(0) group?
\end{ques}
This paper is organized as follows: in \S~\ref{BNS} and \S~\ref{psa}, we define the BNS-invariant $\Sigma^1(G)$ and the pure symmetric automorphism group, respectively, and record some useful facts which inform the arguments to follow. We prove Theorem~\ref{Theorem:MainA} in \S~\ref{main-a}. This proof involves two cases with the first handled in \S~\ref{typeI} and the second in \S~\ref{typeII}. In \S~\ref{sils}, we prove Theorem~\ref{Theorem:MainB}.
\section{The BNS-invariant}\label{BNS}
Let $G$ be a finitely generated group. A {\it character} $\chi$ of $G$ is a homomorphism from $G$ to the additive reals. The set of all characters of $G$, denoted Hom$(G,\mathbb{R})$, is an $n$-dimensional real vector space where $n$ is the $\mathbb{Z}$-rank of the abelianization of $G$. Two non-zero characters $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ are equivalent if there is a real number $r > 0$ such that $\chi_1 = r\chi_2$. The set of equivalence classes $S(G) = \{ [\chi]~|~\chi \in {\rm Hom}(G,\mathbb{R}) - \{0\} \}$ is called the {\it character sphere of $G$}, and this is homeomorphic to an $(n-1)$-dimensional sphere. The BNS invariant $\Sigma^1(G)$, a subset of $S(G)$, may be described in terms of either the geometry of Cayley graphs (see \cite{bieri}), or $G$-actions on $\mathbb{R}$-trees (see \cite{Brown}). For our purposes the latter is more convenient, and we now describe $\Sigma^1(G)$ from that point of view.
Suppose $G$ acts by isometries on an $\mathbb{R}$-tree,
$T$, and let $\ell:G \to \mathbb{R}^+$ be the corresponding length function. For each $g \in G$,
let $C_g$ be the characteristic subtree of $g$. If $\ell(g) = 0$, then $g$ is elliptic, and $C_g$ is its fixed point set;
if $\ell(g) \neq 0$, then $g$ is hyperbolic, and $C_g$ is the axis of $g$. The action is {\it non-trivial} if at least one element of $G$ is hyperbolic, and \emph{abelian} if every element of $[G,G]$ is elliptic. A non-trivial abelian action on an $\mathbb{R}$-tree must fix either one or two ends of the tree, and is considered {\it exceptional} if it fixes only one end. To each non-trivial abelian action, and each fixed end $e$, we associate the character $\chi$ such that $|\chi(g)| = \ell(g)$, and $\chi(g)$ is positive if and only if $g$ is a hyperbolic isometry which translates its axis away from the fixed end $e$.
We say $g$ is \emph{$\chi$-elliptic} if $\chi(g)=0$, and \emph{$\chi$-hyperbolic} otherwise.
We are now able to give Brown's formulation of $\Sigma^1(G)$: An equivalence class $[\chi] \in S(G)$ is contained in $\Sigma^1(G)$ unless there exists an $\mathbb{R}$-tree $T$ equipped with an exceptional non-trivial abelian $G$-action associated to $\chi$.
To demonstrate that $[\chi] \in \Sigma^1(G)$, it suffices to show that in any $\mathbb{R}$-tree $T$ equipped
with a non-trivial abelian $G$-action associated to $\chi$, there exists a line $X$ such that $X \subseteq C_g$ for all $g \in G$.
For this purpose, the following facts about characteristic subtrees are invaluable (see \cite{orlandi}:
\begin{description}
\item [Fact A] If $[g, h]=1$ and $h$ is hyperbolic, then $C_h \subseteq C_g$.
\item [Fact B] If $[g, h]=1$, then $C_g \cap C_h \subseteq C_{gh}$.
\end{description}
Essentially, we work with a fixed finite generating set of $G$, we consider an arbitrary non-trivial abelian $G$-action on an arbitrary $\mathbb{R}$-tree $T$, we let $X \subseteq T$ denote the axis of one $\chi$-hyperbolic generator $s$, and we use Facts A and B to demonstrate that $X \subseteq C_t$ for every other generator $t$. For this approach to be successful we typically need a sufficient number of commuting relations in $G$.
To demonstrate that $[\chi] \in \Sigma^1(G)^c$, it is often convenient to make use of the following well-known facts.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:Complement}
Let $\chi \in {\rm Hom}(G,\mathbb{R})- \{0\}$. Suppose there is an epimorphism $\phi:G \to H$ and
a character $\psi \in {\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb{R})$ such that $\chi = \psi \circ \phi$.
If $[\psi] \in \Sigma^1(H)^c$, then $[\chi] \in \Sigma^1(G)^c$.
\end{lem}
\begin{cor}\label{Corollary:FreeProduct}
If $A$ and $B$ are non-trivial finitely-generated groups, and $\chi \in {\rm Hom}(G,\mathbb{R})- \{0\}$ factors through an epimorphism $G \to A \ast B$, then $[\chi] \in \Sigma^1(G)^c$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemma \ref{Lemma:Complement}, and the fact that $\Sigma^1(A \ast B) = \emptyset$.
\end{proof}
\section{Right-angled Artin groups and their pure symmetric automorphisms}\label{psa}
Throughout we fix a simplicial graph $\Gamma$, with vertex set $V$ and edge set $E$. For each vertex $a \in V$, the \emph{link of $a$} is the set
$\Link{a} = \{b \in V \; | \; \{a, b\} \in E\}$, and the \emph{star of $a$} is the set $\Star{a} = \Link{a} \cup \{a\}$. For a set of vertices $W \subseteq V$, we write $\Gamma \setminus W$ for the full subgraph spanned by the
vertices in $V \setminus W$.
Let $A = A(\Gamma)$ denote the right-angled Artin group determined by $\Gamma$.
We shall not distinguish between the vertices of $\Gamma$ and the generators of $A$, thus
$A$ is the group presented by
$$\langle V \; | \; ab = ba \text{ for all } a, b \in V \text{ such that } \{a, b\} \in E \rangle.$$
For each vertex $a \in V\setminus Z$, and each connected component $K$ of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{a}$, the map
$$v \mapsto \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a^{-1} v a & \text{if } v \in K,\\
v & \text{if } v \in V\setminus K, \\
\end{array}
\right.
$$ extends to an automorphism $\gen{a}{K}\!:\! A \to A$. We say $\gen{a}{K}$ is the \emph{partial conjugation (of $A$) with acting letter
$a$ and domain $K$}. We write $\partialconjugations$ for the set comprising the partial conjugations.
The \emph{pure symmetric automorphism group}, $P\Sigma(A)$, comprises those automorphisms $\alpha\!:\! A \to A$ which map each vertex to a conjugate of itself. Laurence proved that $P\Sigma(A)$ is generated by $\partialconjugations$ \cite{Laurence}.
We let $Z = \{a \in V \; | \; \Star{a} = V\}$,
and we may assume $Z \neq \emptyset$ for the following reason: it follows immediately from Laurence's result, together with the observation that enriching $\Gamma$ with a new vertex $w$ adjacent to all other vertices does not introduce new partial conjugations, and does not change the domain of any existing partial conjugation. Let $d\!:\! V \times V \to \{0, 1, 2\}$ denote the
combinatorial metric on $V$.
We now record three results, paraphrased from existing literature, which make working with $\partialconjugations$ tractable.
A proof of the first is included because it is so brief; the second follows immediately from the first.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:TwoGens}\cite[Lemma 4.3]{gutierrez}
If $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L} \in \partialconjugations$ and $d(a, b) = 2$ and $b \not \in K$, then either $K \cap L = \emptyset$ or $K \subseteq L$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L} \in \partialconjugations$ and $d(a, b) = 2$ and $b \not \in K$. For the sake of contradiction, suppose $\emptyset \neq K \cap L \neq K$.
Let $u \in K \cap L$ and $v \in K \setminus L$. Since $K$ is connected, there exists a path $\alpha$ in $K$ from $u$ to $v$. Since $u \in L$ and $v \not \in L$, $\alpha$ passes
through a vertex $w \in \Star{b}$. Since $d(b, w) \leq 1$ and $w \in K$ and $b \in \Gamma \setminus \Star{a}$, $b \in K$---a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:PCCases}\cite[Corollary 4.4 and Lemma 4.7]{gutierrez}
For each pair of partial conjugations $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L}) \in \partialconjugations \times \partialconjugations$, exactly one of the following six cases holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] $d(a, b) \leq 1$;
\item [(2)] $d(a, b) = 2$, $a \in L$, and $b \in K$;
\item [(3)] $d(a, b) = 2$, $K \cap L = \emptyset$, and either $a \in L$ or $b \in K$;
\item [(4)] $d(a, b) = 2$, and either $\{a\} \cup K \subset L$ or $\{b\} \cup L \subset K$;
\item [(5)] $d(a, b) = 2$, and $\bigl(\{a\} \cup K\bigr) \cap (\{b\} \cup L) = \emptyset$;
\item [(6)] $d(a, b) = 2$, and $K = L$.
\end{enumerate}
The relation $[\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L}] = 1$ holds only in the cases (1), (4) and (5).
\end{lem}
\begin{thm}\label{Thm:Presentation}\cite[Chapter 3]{toinet}
Every relation between partial conjugations is a consequence of the following relations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $[\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L}] = 1$ if $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L})$ falls into one of the cases (1), (4), (5) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases};
\item \label{DeltaRelation} $[\gen{a}{K} \gen{a}{L}, \gen{b}{L}] = 1$ if $K \neq L$ and $b \in K$.\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
It is convenient to introduce notation for certain products of partial conjugations with the same acting letter. We write $\genprod{a}{K}{L}$ for the product $\gen{a}{K}\gen{a}{L}$, provided $K \neq L$. We write $\inner{a}$ for the inner automorphism $w \mapsto a^{-1} w a$ for all $w \in A$, and we note $\inner{a}$ is simply the product of all partial conjugations with acting letter $a$.
Next we record some useful facts about the behavior of partial conjugations.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:NewPC}
If $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L} \in \partialconjugations$ are such that $a \not \in L$ and $b \in K$ and $K \cap L = \emptyset$, then $\gen{a}{L} \in \partialconjugations$ and $[\genprod{a}{K}{L}, \gen{b}{L}] = 1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L} \in \partialconjugations$ are such that $a \not \in L$ and $b \in K$ and $K \cap L = \emptyset$. Let $K'$ denote the connected component of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{a}$ such that $K' \cap L \neq \emptyset$.
Since $d(a, b) = 2$ and $a \not \in L$ and $b \not \in K'$ and $K' \cap L \neq \emptyset$, the pair $(\gen{a}{K'}, \gen{b}{L})$ falls into case (6) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}. Thus $K' = L$. The relation $[\genprod{a}{K}{L}, \gen{b}{L}] = 1$ is (2) in Theorem~\ref{Thm:Presentation}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{Cor:CommutingRuleForInners}
If $a \in V \setminus Z$ and $\gen{b}{L} \in \partialconjugations$, then $[\inner{a}, \gen{b}{L}]=1$ if and only if $a \not \in L$.
\end{cor}
\section{The BNS-invariant of $P\Sigma(A)$}\label{main-a}
Throughout this section we consider an arbitrary non-trivial character $\chi\!:\! P\Sigma(A) \to \mathbb{R}$. We write $\Sigma$ for $\Sigma^1(P\Sigma(A))$, and $\Sigma^c$ for the complement of $\Sigma$ in $S(P\Sigma(A))$.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:AtMostTwo}
Let $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{a}{L} \in \partialconjugations$ with $K \neq L$.
If $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{a}{L}$ and $\genprod{a}{K}{L}$ are $\chi$-hyperbolic, then $[\chi] \in \Sigma$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{a}{L}$ and $\genprod{a}{K}{L}$ are $\chi$-hyperbolic. Consider a $P\Sigma (A)$-action on an $\mathbb{R}$-tree $T$ that realizes $\chi$.
Let $X = C_{\gen{a}{K}} = C_{\gen{a}{L}} = C_{\genprod{a}{K}{L}}$. Let $\gen{c}{M}$ be an arbitrary partial conjugation. If
$[\gen{a}{K}, \gen{c}{M}] =1$ or $[\gen{a}{K}, \gen{c}{M}] = 1$, then $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$ by Fact A; thus we may assume
$[\gen{a}{K}, \gen{c}{M}] \neq 1$
and $[\gen{a}{K}, \gen{c}{M}] \neq 1$. It follows that $d(a, c) = 2$. Since $K \cap L = \emptyset$, we may assume without loss of generality that $c \not \in K$. Since $d(a, c) = 2$ and $c \not \in K$ and $[\gen{a}{K}, \gen{c}{M}] \neq 1$, the pair $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{c}{M})$ falls into
case (3) or (6) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}.
First consider the case that $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{c}{M})$ falls into
case (3). Then $a \in M$. By Lemma \ref{Lemma:NewPC}, $\gen{c}{K} \in \partialconjugations$ and $[\genprod{c}{K}{M}, \gen{a}{K}]=1$. By Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\genprod{c}{K}{M}}$. If $c \in L$, then $[\genprod{a}{K}{L}, \gen{c}{K}]=1$ and $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{K}}$ by Fact A. By Fact B, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$. If $c \not\in L$, then the pair $(\gen{a}{L},\gen{c}{K})$ falls into case (5) of Lemma~\ref{Lemma:PCCases} which implies $[\gen{a}{L},\gen{c}{K}]=1$. By Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{K}}$ which implies $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$ by Fact B.
Now consider the case that $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{c}{M})$ falls into case (6). Then $a \not \in M$, $c \not \in K$ and $M = K$. Since $M \cap L = K \cap L = \emptyset$ and $a \not \in M$ and $[\gen{a}{L}, \gen{c}{M}] \neq 1$, the pair $(\gen{a}{L}, \gen{c}{M})$ falls into case (3) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}. Thus $c \in L$.
Since $c \in L$ and $M =K$, $[\genprod{a}{K}{L}, \gen{c}{M}] =1$, and by Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{Cor:ZeroOneOrTwo}
If $[\chi] \in \Sigma^c$, then the following properties hold for each vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There are at most two $\chi$-hyperbolic partial conjugations with acting letter $a$.
\item \label{Property:HypInnerMeansOne} The inner automorphism $\inner{a}$ is $\chi$-hyperbolic if and only if there is exactly one $\chi$-hyperbolic partial conjugation with acting letter $a$.
\item \label{Property:CancelOut} If $\gen{a}{K}$ and $\gen{a}{L}$ are distinct $\chi$-hyperbolic partial conjugations, then $\chi(\gen{a}{K}) = - \chi(\gen{a}{L})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:Inner}
Let $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{a}{L} \in \partialconjugations$ with $K \neq L$, and let $b \in V$. If $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{a}{L}$ and $\inner{b}$ are $\chi$-hyperbolic, then $[\chi] \in \Sigma$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{a}{L}$ and $\inner{b}$ are $\chi$-hyperbolic. If $a = b$, then $[\chi] \in \Sigma$ by Corollary~\ref{Cor:ZeroOneOrTwo}(\ref{Property:CancelOut}). Thus we may assume $b \neq a$.
Let $T$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-tree equipped with a $P\Sigma(A)$-action that realizes $\chi$.
Let $X = C_{\gen{a}{K}} = C_{\gen{a}{L}}$.
Since $\inner{b}$ is $\chi$-hyperbolic, there exists a connected component $M$ of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{b}$ such that $\gen{b}{M}$ is $\chi$-hyperbolic.
If $b \not \in K$, then $$[\gen{a}{K}, \inner{b}]=[\inner{b}, \gen{b}{M}] = 1;$$
if $b \in K$, then $b \not \in L$ and $$[\gen{a}{L}, \inner{b}]=[\inner{b}, \gen{b}{M}] = 1;$$ in either case, Fact A yields
$$C_{\gen{a}{L}} = C_{\inner{b}} = C_{\gen{b}{M}} = X.$$
Let $\gen{c}{N}$ be an arbitrary partial conjugation. The lemma is proved if we show $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{ N}}$, for then the $P\Sigma(A)$-action fixes
$X$ setwise and is therefore not exceptional. If $\gen{c}{N}$ commutes with any of the automorphisms $\gen{a}{K}, \gen{a}{L}, \gen{b}{M}$ or $\inner{b}$, then $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{N}}$ by Fact A. Thus we may
assume $\gen{c}{N}$ commutes with none of these automorphisms. It follows that $d(a, c) = d(b, c) = 2$ and $b \in N$. Since $K \cap L = \emptyset$, we may assume
without loss of generality that $c \not \in L$.
We now consider cases based on whether or not $N$ contains $a$.
First we consider the case $a \in N$. Since $b \in N$ and $c \not \in L$ and $[\gen{c}{N}, \gen{b}{L}] \neq 1$, the pair $(\gen{c}{N}, \gen{b}{L})$ falls into case (3) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}; thus $N \cap L = \emptyset$. By Lemma \ref{Lemma:NewPC}, $\gen{c}{L}$ is a partial conjugation, and $[\gen{a}{L}, \genprod{c}{L}{N}] = 1$. By Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\genprod{c}{L}{N}}$. Since $b \in N$, $b \not \in L$, and by Corollary \ref{Cor:CommutingRuleForInners}, $[\inner{b}, \gen{c}{L}] = 1$. By Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{L}}$.
By Fact B, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{N}}$.
Next we consider the case $a \not\in N$. Since $a \not\in N$ and $c \not\in L$ and $[\gen{a}{L}, \gen{c}{N}] \neq 1$, the pair $(\gen{a}{L}, \gen{c}{N})$ falls into case (6) of
Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}; thus $N = L$. Let $N^{\prime}$ be the component of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{c}$ such that $a \in N^{\prime}$. Therefore, $[\gen{a}{L}, \genprod{c}{N}{N^{\prime}}]=1$. By Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\genprod{c}{N}{N^{\prime}}}$.
Since $b \in N$, $b \not \in N^{\prime}$, and by Corollary \ref{Cor:CommutingRuleForInners}, $[\inner{b}, \gen{c}{N^{\prime}}] = 1$.
By Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{N^{\prime}}}$. By Fact B, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{N}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{Cor:TypeIandTypeII}
If $[\chi] \in \Sigma^c$, then exactly one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(I)] For each vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$, there is at most one $\chi$-hyperbolic
partial conjugation with acting letter $a$.
\item [(II)] For each vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$, $\inner{a}$ is $\chi$-elliptic and there are either zero or two $\chi$-hyperbolic
partial conjugations with acting letter $a$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
Motivated by the corollary above, we classify characters depending on which case, if any, they fall into.
\begin{defn}
We say $\chi$ is \emph{type I} if for each vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$, there is at most one $\chi$-hyperbolic
partial conjugation with acting letter $a$. We say $\chi$ is \emph{type II} if for each vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$, $\inner{a}$ is $\chi$-elliptic and there are either zero or two $\chi$-hyperbolic
partial conjugations with acting letter $a$.
\end{defn}
\subsection{Characters of Type I}\label{typeI}
\begin{defn}[p-set]
A set of partial conjugations $\mathcal{Q} \subseteq \partialconjugations$ is a \emph{p-set} (or a \emph{partionable} set) if $\mathcal{Q}$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$, $\mathcal{Q}$ contains at most one partial conjugation with acting letter $a$.
\item The set $\mathcal{Q}$ admits a non-trivial partition $\{\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2\}$ with the property that $a \in L$ and $b \in K$ for each pair $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L}) \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \times \mathcal{Q}_2$.
\end{enumerate}
We say $\{\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2\}$ is an \emph{admissible partition} of $\mathcal{Q}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
In the definition above, the first property is implied by the second. In this instance we have preferred transparency to brevity.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{Remark:ConstructPSet}
An arbitrary maximal p-set $\mathcal{Q}$, and an admissible partition $\{\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2\}$ may be constructed as follows. Begin with a partial conjugation $\gen{a}{K}$. Let $b_1, \dots, b_n$ be the vertices of $K$. For $j = 1, \dots, n$, let
$L_j$ be the connected component of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{b_j}$ such that $a \in L_j$. Let $a = a_1, a_2, \dots, a_m$ be the vertices of $\bigcap_{j=1}^n L_j \neq \emptyset.$
For $i = 1, 2, \dots, m$, let $K_i$ be the connected component of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{a_i}$ such that $b_1 \in K_i$. Let
$$\mathcal{Q}_1 = \{\gen{a_1}{ K_1}, \dots, \gen{a_m}{ K_m}\}, \mathcal{Q}_2 = \{\gen{b_1}{ L_1}, \dots, \gen{b_n}{ L_n}\}, \text{ and } \mathcal{Q} = \mathcal{Q}_1 \cup \mathcal{Q}_2.$$
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:ComplementIffPSet}
Suppose $\chi$ is type I and let $\mathcal{H}$ denote the set of $\chi$-hyperbolic partial conjugations. Then $[\chi] \in \Sigma^c$ if and only if $\mathcal{H}$ is contained in some p-set $\mathcal{Q}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\chi$ is type I and $\mathcal{H}$ is contained in a p-set $\mathcal{Q}$. Let $\{\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2\}$ be an admissible partition of $\mathcal{Q}$, with $$\mathcal{Q}_1 = \{\gen{a_1}{ K_1}, \dots, \gen{a_m}{ K_m}\} \text{ and } \mathcal{Q}_2 = \{\gen{b_1}{ L_1}, \dots, \gen{b_n}{ L_n}\}.$$ Let $G_1$ be the free abelian group with basis $\{u_1, \dots, u_m\}$, let $G_2$ be the free abelian group with basis $\{v_1, \dots, v_n\}$,
and let $G = G_1 \ast G_2$. Consider a map such that: $\gen{a_i}{ K_i} \mapsto u_i$ for $i = 1 \dots, m$; $\gen{b_j}{ L_j} \mapsto v_j$ for $j = 1, \dots, n$; and all other partial conjugations are mapped to the identity.
It follows from Theorem \ref{Thm:Presentation} that this map determines an epimorphism $\phi\!:\! P\Sigma(A) \to G$. Since $\chi$ factors through $\phi$, by Corollary~\ref{Corollary:FreeProduct}, $[\chi] \in \Sigma^c$.
Now suppose $\chi$ is type I and there is no p-set containing $\mathcal{H}$. Let $T$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-tree equipped with a $P\Sigma(A)$-action that realizes $\chi$.
Let $\gen{a}{K} \in \mathcal{H}$, and let $X=C_{\gen{a}{K}}$. To prove the lemma it suffices to prove that $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$ for an arbitrary partial conjugation
$\gen{c}{M}$, because then we have that the action fixes $X$ setwise and hence is not exceptional. If $\gen{c}{M}$ commutes with $\gen{a}{K}$, Fact A gives that $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$. Thus we may assume that $\gen{c}{M}$ does not commute with $\gen{a}{K}$.
Next we show that the elements of $\mathcal{H}$ share the axis $X$. Let $$\mathcal{I} = \{\gen{b}{L} \in \mathcal{H} \; | \; X \subseteq C_{\gen{b}{L}}\}.$$
Suppose $\mathcal{H} \neq \mathcal{I}$, and let $\gen{b}{L} \in \mathcal{H} \setminus I$. Since $X \not \nsubseteq C_{\gen{b}{L}}$, we have that $[\gen{b}{L}, \inner{a}] \neq 1$, and $[\gen{a}{K}, \inner{b}] \neq 1$. By Corollary \ref{Cor:CommutingRuleForInners} we have $a \in L$ and $b \in K$.
It follows that $(\mathcal{I}, \mathcal{H} \setminus \mathcal{I})$ is an admissible partition, and $\mathcal{H}$ is a p-set---a contradiction which proves $\mathcal{H} =\mathcal{I}$.
Now consider an arbitrary partial conjugation such that $\gen{c}{M}$ does not commute with
$\gen{b}{L}$ or $\inner{b}$ whenever $\gen{b}{L} \in \mathcal{H}$. It follows that $d(b, c) = 2$ for all $\gen{b}{K} \in \mathcal{H}$. Since $\gen{c}{M}$ does not commute
with $\inner{b}$, $b \in M$ for each $\gen{b}{L} \in \mathcal{H}$.
Since $\mathcal{H} \cup \{\gen{c}{M}\}$ is not a p-set, $\{\{\gen{c}{M}\}, \mathcal{H}\}$ is not an admissible partition. Thus there exists $\gen{b}{L} \in \mathcal{H}$ such that $c \not \in L$.
Since $d(b, c) = 2$ and $b \in M$ and $c \not \in L$ and $[\gen{c}{M}, \gen{b}{L}] \neq 1$, Lemma \ref{Lemma:NewPC} gives that $\gen{c}{L}$ is a partial conjugation. Since $[\genprod{c}{L}{M}, \gen{b}{L}]=1$, Fact A gives $X \subseteq C_{\genprod{c}{L}{M}}$. By Corollary \ref{Cor:CommutingRuleForInners}, $[\gen{c}{L}, \inner{b}]=1$. By Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{L}}$. By Fact B, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Characters of Type II}\label{typeII}
\begin{defn}[$\delta$-p-set]
A set of partial conjugations $\mathcal{Q} \subseteq \partialconjugations$ is a \emph{$\delta$-p-set} if $\mathcal{Q}$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$, $\mathcal{Q}$ contains either zero or two partial conjugations with acting letter $a$.
\item The set $\mathcal{Q}$ admits a non-trivial partition $\{\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2\}$ such that $a \in L$ or $b \in K$ or $K = L$ for each pair $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L}) \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \times \mathcal{Q}_2$.
\end{enumerate}
We say $\{\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2\}$ is an \emph{admissible $\delta$-partition} of $\mathcal{Q}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}\label{Remark:EquivalentDelta}
It follows from the definitions that if $\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_{-1}} \in \mathcal{Q}$ and $K_1 \neq K_{-1}$, then either $\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_{-1}} \in \mathcal{Q}_1$ or
$\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_{-1}} \in \mathcal{Q}_2$. Further, for each quadruple
$$(\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_{-1}}, \gen{b}{L_1}, \gen{b}{L_{-1}}) \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \times \mathcal{Q}_1 \times \mathcal{Q}_2 \times \mathcal{Q}_2,$$ $a \in L_i$ and $b \in K_j$ and $K_{-i} = L_{-j}$
for some $i, j \in \{-1, 1\}$.
\end{rem}
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:PairsInC}
Let $\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_2}, \gen{b}{L_1}, \gen{b}{L_2} \in \partialconjugations$ be distinct partial conjugations. Then
$[\gen{a}{K_i}, \gen{b}{L_j}] \neq 1$ for all $i, j \in \{1, 2\}$ if and only if $\{ \gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_2},$ $\gen{b}{L_1}, \gen{b}{L_2} \}$ is a $\delta$-p-set.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume $[\gen{a}{K_i}, \gen{b}{L_j}] \neq 1$ for all $i, j \in \{1, 2\}$. Without loss of generality, assume $a \not \in L_2$ and $b \not \in K_2$.
Since $a \not \in L_2$ and $b \not \in K_2$ and $[\gen{a}{K_2}, \gen{b}{L_2}] \neq 1$, the pair $(\gen{a}{K_2}, \gen{b}{L_2})$ falls into case (6) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}; thus $K_2 = L_2$.
Since $b \not \in K_2$ and $K_2 \cap L_1 = L_2 \cap L_1 = \emptyset$ and $[\gen{a}{K_2}, \gen{b}{L_1}] \neq 1$, the pair $(\gen{a}{K_2}, \gen{b}{L_1})$ falls into case (3) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}; thus $a \in L_1$.
Since $a \not \in L_2$ and $K_1 \cap L_2 = K_1 \cap K_2 =\emptyset$ and $[\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{b}{L_2}] \neq 1$, the pair $(\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{b}{L_2})$ falls into case (3) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}; thus $b \in K_1$. Thus $\bigl\{\{ \gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_2}\}, \{\gen{b}{L_1}, \gen{b}{L_2} \}\bigr\}$ is an admissible $\delta$-partition of $\{ \gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_2}, \gen{b}{L_1}, \gen{b}{L_2} \}$. The converse follows immediately from the definitions and Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:HyperbolicPair}
Let $\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_2},\gen{c}{M}$ be distinct partial conjugations, and let $T$ be a $\mathbb{R}$-tree equipped with a $P\Sigma(A)$-action that realizes $\chi$. If $\gen{a}{K_1}$ and $\gen{a}{K_2}$ are $\chi$-hyperbolic, $c \not \in K_1$ and $C_{\gen{a}{K_1}} \nsubseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$, then
$c \in K_2$ and $\gen{c}{K_1} \in \partialconjugations$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\gen{a}{K_1}$ and $\gen{a}{K_2}$ are $\chi$-hyperbolic and $c \not \in K_1$. Let $T$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-tree equipped with a $P\Sigma(A)$-action that realizes $\chi$, and suppose $C_{\gen{a}{K_1}} \nsubseteq C_{\gen{c}{M}}$. It follows that $d(a, c) = 2$.
Since $c \not \in K_1$ and $[\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{c}{M}] \neq 1$, the pair $(\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{c}{M})$ falls into either case (3) or case (6) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}.
If $(\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{c}{M})$ falls into case (3), $a \in M$. By Lemma \ref{Lemma:NewPC}, $\gen{c}{K_1} \in \partialconjugations$. Since $[\genprod{c}{K_1}{M}, \gen{a}{K_1}] = 1$, but Fact B cannot be used, we must have that
$[\gen{c}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_2}] \neq 1$; thus $(\gen{c}{K_1}, \gen{a}{K_2})$ falls into case (3) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}, and $c \in K_2$.
If $(\gen{a}{K_1}, \gen{c}{M})$ falls into case (6), we have $a \not \in M$ and $M = K_1$. But then since $a \not \in M$ and $M \cap K_2 = \emptyset$ and $[\gen{a}{K_2}, \gen{c}{M}] \neq 1$,
the pair $(\gen{a}{K_2}, \gen{c}{M})$ falls into case (3) of Lemma \ref{Lemma:PCCases}. Thus $c \in K_2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:ComplementIffDelta}
Suppose $\chi$ is type II and let $\mathcal{H}$ denote the set of $\chi$-hyperbolic partial conjugations. Then $[\chi] \in \Sigma^c$ if and only if $\mathcal{H}$ is contained in some $\delta$-p-set $\mathcal{Q}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\mathcal{H}$ is contained in some $\delta$-p-set $\mathcal{Q}$. Let $\{ \mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2 \}$ be an admissible partition of $\mathcal{Q}$ with $$\mathcal{Q}_1 = \{ \gen{a_1}{K_1},\gen{a_1}{L_1}, \ldots, \gen{a_m}{K_m},\gen{a_m}{L_m} \} \text{ and } \mathcal{Q}_2 = \{ \gen{b_1}{M_1},\gen{b_1}{N_1}, \ldots, \gen{b_n}{M_n}, \gen{b_n}{N_n} \}.$$ Let $G_1$ be the free abelian group with basis $\{ u_1, \ldots, u_m \}$, $G_2$ be the free abelian group with basis $\{ v_1, \ldots, v_n \}$, and $G = G_1 \ast G_2$. Define $\phi:P\Sigma(A) \to G$ by $\gen{a_i}{K_i} \mapsto u_i$ and $\gen{a_i}{L_i} \mapsto u_i^{-1}$ for $i = 1, \ldots, m$, $\gen{b_j}{M_j} \mapsto v_j$ and $\gen{b_j}{N_j} \mapsto v_j^{-1}$ for $j = 1, \ldots, n$, and all other generators map to the identity. For $\gen{a_i}{K_i} \in \mathcal{Q}_1$ and $\gen{b_j}{M_j} \in \mathcal{Q}_2$, we have either $a_i \in M_j$ or $K_i = M_j$, and in either case, $[\gen{a_i}{ K_i},\gen{b_j}{M_j}] \neq 1$. Thus, $\phi$ is a well-defined epimorphism. Since $\chi$ factors through this map, by Corollary~\ref{Corollary:FreeProduct}, we have $[\chi] \in \Sigma^c$.
Suppose $\mathcal{H}$ is not contained in some $\delta$-p-set $\mathcal{Q}$. Let $T$ be an $\mathbb{R}$-tree equipped with an $P\Sigma(A)$-action that realizes $\chi$. Since $\chi$ is type II, we have $\pi_{a,K}, \pi_{a,L} \in \mathcal{H}$ for some vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$. Let $X = C_{\gen{a}{K}} = C_{\gen{a}{L}}$.
First we will show $X = C_{\gen{b}{M}}$ for each $\gen{b}{M} \in \mathcal{H}$. Define $\mathcal{I} = \{ \gen{b}{M} \in \mathcal{H}~|~X = C_{\gen{b}{M}} \}$. Assume $\mathcal{H} \neq \mathcal{I}$, and let $\gen{b}{M} \in \mathcal{H} \setminus \mathcal{I}$. Since $\gen{b}{M} \in \mathcal{H}$, there exists $\gen{b}{N} \in \mathcal{H}$ where $M \neq N$, and clearly $\gen{b}{N} \in \mathcal{H} \setminus \mathcal{I}$. Let $\gen{c}{Q} \in \mathcal{I}$. Again, there must be $\gen{c}{R} \in \mathcal{I}$ such that $Q \neq R$. By Lemma~\ref{Lemma:PairsInC}, $(\mathcal{I},\mathcal{H} \setminus \mathcal{I})$ is an admissible $\delta$-partition which is a contradiction, so $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{I}$.
Now let $\gen{b}{M}$ be an arbitrary element of $\partialconjugations$, and let
$$\mathcal{H} = \{ \gen{a_1}{K_1}, \gen{a_1}{L_1}, \ldots, \gen{a_m}{K_m}, \gen{a_m}{L_m} \}.$$
By Lemma~\ref{Lemma:HyperbolicPair},
either $X \subseteq C_{\gen{b}{M}}$ or without loss of generality, $b \in K_i$ and $\gen{b}{L_i} \in \partialconjugations$ for each $i = 1, \ldots, m$. Assume the latter is true, so either $a_i \not\in M$ for some $i \in \{1, \ldots, m \}$ or $a_i \in M$ for each $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, m \}$. If $a_i \not\in M$, then $\gen{b}{M}$ commutes with $\gen{a_i}{L_i}$ which implies by Fact A that $X \subseteq C_{\gen{b}{M}}$. Suppose for each $i = 1, \ldots, m$, $a_i \in M$. If $L_i \cap L_j = \emptyset$ for some $i \neq j$, then $[\gen{b}{L_i},\gen{a_j}{L_j}]=1$ which implies $X \subseteq C_{\gen{b}{L_i}}$. Since $a \in M$ and $b \not\in L_i$ and $L_i \cap M = \emptyset$, we have $[\genprod{b}{L_i}{M}, \gen{a_i}{L_i}]=1$. By Fact A, $X \subseteq C_{\genprod{b}{L_i}{M}}$, and by Fact B, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{b}{M}}$. Suppose $L_i \cap L_j \neq \emptyset$ for each pair $(i,j)$. Then $L_i = L_j$ for each pair $(i,j)$ since these are connected components of $\Gamma \setminus st(b)$. Denote by $L$ this connected component. Then $(\{ \gen{b}{M}, \gen{b}{L} \}, \mathcal{H})$ is an admissible partition of the $\delta$-p-set $\mathcal{H} \cup \{ \gen{b}{M}, \gen{b}{L} \}$
which is a contradiction. Therefore, $X \subseteq C_{\gen{b}{M}}$, and $[\chi] \in \Sigma$.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{Prop:ComplementIffPSet} and Proposition~\ref{Prop:ComplementIffDelta} prove our first main theorem.
\setcounter{mainthm}{0}
\begin{mainthm}\label{Theorem:MainA}
Let $\chi:P\Sigma(A) \to \mathbb{R}$ be a character, and let $\mathcal{H}$ denote the set of $\chi$-hyperbolic partial conjugations. Then $[\chi] \in \Sigma^c$ if and only if $\mathcal{H}$ is contained in a set of partial conjugations $\mathcal{Q}$ such that either:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The set $\mathcal{Q}$ admits a partition $\{\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2\}$ with the property that $a \in L$ and $b \in K$ for each pair $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L}) \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \times \mathcal{Q}_2$; or
\item For each vertex $a \in V \setminus Z$, $\inner{a}$ is $\chi$-elliptic, and $\mathcal{Q}$ contains either zero or two partial conjugations with acting letter $a$; and $\mathcal{Q}$ admits a partition $\{\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2\}$ with the property that $a \in L$ or $b \in K$ or $K=L$ for each pair $(\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L}) \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \times \mathcal{Q}_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{mainthm}
\begin{exam}\label{Example:RAAG}
Let $A = \langle a, b, c, d, e~|~[a,b], [b,c], [c,d], [c,e] \rangle$. The pure symmetric automorphism group $P\Sigma(A)$ is generated by the set $$\{ \gen{a}{\{c,d,e\}}, \gen{b}{\{d\}}, \gen{b}{\{e\}}, \gen{c}{\{a\}}, \gen{d}{\{a,b\}}, \gen{d}{\{e\}}, \gen{e}{\{a,b\}}, \gen{e}{\{d\}}\},$$ so $S(P\Sigma(A))$ is a $7$-dimensional sphere. The maximal p-sets are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{Q}_1 = \{ \gen{a}{\{c,d,e\}}, \gen{c}{\{a\}}, \gen{d}{\{a,b\}}, \gen{e}{\{a,b\}} \}$ with admissible partition $\{ \gen{a}{\{c,d,e\}} \}$ and $\{ \gen{c}{\{a\}}, \gen{d}{\{a,b\}}, \gen{e}{\{a,b\}} \}$,
\item $\mathcal{Q}_2 = \{ \gen{a}{\{c,d,e\}}, \gen{b}{\{d\}}, \gen{d}{\{a,b\}} \}$ with admissible partition $\{ \gen{a}{\{c,d,e\}}, \gen{b}{\{d\}} \}$ and $\{ \gen{d}{\{a,b\}} \}$,
\item $\mathcal{Q}_3 = \{ \gen{a}{\{c,d,e\}}, \gen{b}{\{e\}}, \gen{e}{\{a,b\}} \}$ with admissible partition $\{ \gen{a}{\{c,d,e\}}, \gen{b}{\{e\}} \}$ and $\{ \gen{e}{\{a,b\}} \}$, and
\item $\mathcal{Q}_4 = \{ \gen{d}{\{e\}}, \gen{e}{\{d\}}\}$
\end{enumerate}
The only maximal $\delta$-p-set is $\{ \gen{b}{\{d\}}, \gen{b}{\{e\}}, \gen{d}{\{a,b\}}, \gen{d}{\{e\}}, \gen{e}{\{a,b\}}, \gen{e}{\{d\}}\}$ with admissible partition $\{ \gen{b}{\{d\}}, \gen{b}{\{e\}} \}$ and $\{ \gen{d}{\{a,b\}}, \gen{d}{\{e\}}, \gen{e}{\{a,b\}}, \gen{e}{\{d\}}\}$. Therefore, $\Sigma^c$ consists of the characters $[\chi]$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\chi$ sends all generators to zero except maybe those generators in $\mathcal{Q}_i$ for some $1 \leq i \leq 4$, or
\item $\chi(\gen{b}{\{d\}}) = -(\gen{b}{\{e\}}), \chi(\gen{d}{\{a,b\}}) = -\chi(\gen{d}{\{e\}}), \chi(\gen{e}{\{a,b\}}) = -\chi(\gen{e}{\{d\}})$, and $\chi$ sends all other generators to zero.
\end{enumerate}
\end{exam}
\section{Right-angled Artin groups with separating intersecting links}\label{sils}
A graph $\Gamma$ has a separating intersection of links (SIL) if there exists a pair $a, b$ of distinct non-adjacent vertices such that $\Gamma\setminus (\Link{a} \cap \Link{b})$ has a connected component $M$ containing neither $a$ nor $b$.
The following proposition was proven in \cite{charney}, and we state the result in terms of our particular circumstance.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:NoSILs}\cite[Theorem 3.6]{charney}
If the defining graph $\Gamma$ contains no SILs, then $P\Sigma(A)$ is isomorphic to a right-angled Artin group.
\end{prop}
In this section we prove the converse to Proposition \ref{Prop:NoSILs}, which completes the proof of Theorem \ref{Theorem:MainB}. We continue to use the notation described above.
Given a non-trivial character $\psi:A \to \mathbb{R}$, we write $\Gamma_{\psi}$ for the full subgraph of $\Gamma$ spanned by the set of $\psi$-hyperbolic vertices. The subgraph $\Gamma_\psi$ is called \emph{dominating} if every vertex in $\Gamma$ is either in, or adjacent to a vertex in, $\Gamma_{\psi}$. It was shown in \cite{meier} that:
\begin{thm}\label{Theorem:SigmaRAAGs}\cite[Theorem 4.1]{meier}
Suppose $[\psi] \in S(A)$. Then $[\psi] \in \Sigma^1(A)$ if and only if $\Gamma_{\psi}$ is connected and dominating.
\end{thm}
For each set of vertices $U \subseteq V$, we write $S(U)$ for the sub-sphere
$$\{[\psi] \in S(A) \; | \; \psi(v) = 0 \text{ for all } v \in V \setminus U\}.$$
We note that $S(U)$ is a sub-sphere of dimension $|U|-1$ (we consider $S(\emptyset)$ to be a sub-sphere of dimension $-\!1$). We say $S(U)$ is a \emph{missing sub-sphere} if $S(U) \subseteq \Sigma(A)^c$, and we note this holds exactly when the full subgraph spanned by $U$ is disconnected or non-dominating. If $U$ spans a subgraph of $\Gamma$ which is non-dominating, then every subset of $U$ spans a subset of $\Gamma$ which is non-dominating; if $U$ spans a subgraph of $\Gamma$ which is disconnected, then every subset of $U$ spans a subset of $\Gamma$ which is disconnected or non-dominating.
It follows that if $S(U)$ and $S(W)$ are missing sub-spheres, then $S(U \cap W)$ is a missing sub-sphere. It also follows that $\Sigma^1(A)$ is constructed from $S(A)$ by removing the maximal missing sub-spheres. Viewing the construction of $\Sigma^1(A)$ in this distinctive way, we observe the following:
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:CountingDimensions}
If $A$ is a right-angled Artin group, and $S_1, \dots, S_p \subseteq S(A)$ are the maximal missing sub-spheres, then
\begin{multline*}
\rank(A/[A,A]) - \rank(Z(A))= 1 + \sum_{i} \dim(S_i) - \sum_{i < j} \dim(S_i \cap S_j) \\ + \sum_{i<j<k} \dim(S_i \cap S_j \cap S_k) - \dots+ (-1)^{n-1} \dim(S_1 \cap \dots \cap S_p).
\end{multline*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\rank(A/[A,A]) = |V|$, and $\rank(Z(A)) = |Z|$, the lemma is proved if we show that the right-hand side of the equation sums to $|V \setminus Z|$. It follows from Theorem \ref{Theorem:SigmaRAAGs} that, for each $i$, $S_i = S(U_i)$ for some maximal set of vertices $U_i$ which spans a disconnected or non-dominating subgraph of $\Gamma$. For each vertex $v \in V \setminus Z$, the singleton set $\{v\}$ spans a non-dominating subgraph of $\Gamma$, and hence $v$ is contained in at least one set $U_i$. Any set of vertices containing an element of $Z$ spans a connected and dominating subgraph of $\Gamma$. Thus we have $V \setminus Z = U_1 \cup U_2 \cup \dots \cup U_p$. Now the Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion, together with the identity $\sum_{i=1}^p (-\!1)^{i-1}{p \choose i} = 1$, gives:
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & |U_1 \cup U_2 \cup \dots \cup U_p|\\ &&\\
& = & \sum_{i} |U_i| - \sum_{i < j} |U_i \cap U_j| + \sum_{i<j<k} |U_i \cap U_j \cap U_k| - \dots \\
&& \ldots + (-1)^{n-1} |U_1 \cap \dots \cap U_p|\\&&\\
& = & \sum_{i} \bigl(\dim(S_i)+1\bigr) - \sum_{i < j} \bigl(\dim(S_i \cap S_j)+1\bigr) \\
&& + \sum_{i<j<k} \bigl(\dim(S_i \cap S_j \cap S_k)+1\bigr) - \ldots \\
&& \dots+ (-1)^{n-1} \bigl(\dim(S_1 \cap \dots \cap S_p)+1\bigr)\\&&\\
&=& 1+ \sum_{i} \dim(S_i) - \sum_{i < j} \dim(S_i \cap S_j) \\
&& + \sum_{i<j<k} \dim(S_i \cap S_j \cap S_k) - \dots+ (-1)^{n-1} \dim(S_1 \cap \dots \cap S_p).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Next we characterize the maximal missing sub-spheres in $S(A)$ by a property which makes no reference to the canonical generating set of $A$, thereby allowing us to identify the only candidates for maximal missing sub-spheres in $S(G)$ when we do not yet know whether or not $G$
is a right-angled Artin group.
A normal subgroup $K$ in a finitely-generated group $G$ is a \emph{complement kernel} if $K = \ker(\psi)$ for some $[\psi] \in \Sigma(G)^c$. For such $K$, the set $$\{[\psi] \in \Sigma^1(G)^c \; | \; K \subseteq \ker(\psi)\}$$ is the \emph{complement subspace determined by $K$}.
\begin{lem}
For each subset $S \subseteq S(A)$, $S$ is a maximal missing sub-sphere if and only if $S$ is the complement subspace determined by some minimal complement kernel $K$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $S = S(U)$ is a maximal missing sub-sphere in $S(A)$, with $U = \{u_1, \dots, u_p\}$. Let $\psi_U\!:\! A \to \mathbb{R}$ denote the character such that $$\psi_U(v) = 0 \text{ for } v \in V \setminus U, \text{ and } \psi_U(u_i) = \pi^i \text{ for } i = 1, \dots, p.$$
Since $\pi$ is transcendental, $K_U = \ker(\psi_U)$ consists of those elements $a \in A$ with zero exponent sums in each of the vertices $u_1, \dots, u_p$. It follows that $[\psi_U] \in S(U)$, and $K_U \subseteq \ker(\psi)$ for every $[\psi] \in S(U)$. Thus $S(U)$ is the complement subspace determined by $K_U$.
The maximality of $U$, together with Theorem \ref{Theorem:SigmaRAAGs}, implies that $K_U$ is minimal amongst the kernels of characters in $\Sigma^1(A)^c$. It also follows from Theorem \ref{Theorem:SigmaRAAGs} that every minimal complement kernel arises in this way.
\end{proof}
We now have an approach for showing that a finitely-generated torsion-free group $G$ is not a right-angled Artin group: we identify the minimal complement kernels $K_1, \dots, K_p$ in $G$; use these to identify the corresponding complement subspaces $S_1, \dots, S_p$ in $S(G)$; then show that Lemma \ref{Lem:CountingDimensions} fails. We carry out this plan for $P\Sigma(A)$ when $\Gamma$ contains a SIL.
\begin{lem}
If $S$ is the complement subspace corresponding to a minimal complement kernel $K$ in $P\Sigma(A)$, then either:
$$\displaystyle S = \{[\chi] \in S(P\Sigma(A)) \; | \; \chi(\gen{a}{K}) = 0 \text{ for all } \gen{a}{K} \in \partialconjugations \setminus \mathcal{Q}\}$$ for some maximal p-set $\mathcal{Q}$, in which case $\dim(S) = |\mathcal{Q}|-1$; or
$$\displaystyle S = \{[\chi] \in S(A) \; | \; \chi(\gen{a}{K}) = 0 \text{ for all } \gen{a}{K} \in \partialconjugations \setminus \mathcal{Q}, \text{ and } \chi(\inner{v}) = 0 \text{ for all } v \in V\}$$ for some maximal $\delta$-p-set $\mathcal{Q}$, in which case $\dim(S) = |\mathcal{Q}|/2-1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $S$ is the complement subspace corresponding to a minimal complement kernel $K$ in $P\Sigma(A)$, and let $\chi\!:\! P\Sigma(A) \to \mathbb{R}$ be a character with kernel $K$. By Corollary \ref{Cor:TypeIandTypeII}, $\chi$ is type I or type II.
Consider first the case that $\chi$ is type I. By Proposition \ref{Prop:ComplementIffPSet}, the $\chi$-hyperbolic vertices comprise a p-set $\mathcal{Q}$. The minimality of $K$ implies that $\mathcal{Q}$ is not contained in a larger p-set. That $S$ is as described follows immediately.
Now consider the case that $\chi$ is type II. By Proposition \ref{Prop:ComplementIffDelta}, the $\chi$-hyperbolic vertices comprise a $\delta$-p-set $\mathcal{Q}$. The minimality of $K$ implies that $\mathcal{Q}$ is not contained in a larger $\delta$-p-set. That $S$ is as described follows immediately.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:CountingInPSigmaA}
If $\mathcal{Q}_1, \dots, \mathcal{Q}_p$ are the maximal p-sets in $P\Sigma(A)$, and $S_1, \dots, S_p$ the corresponding complement subspaces, then
\begin{multline*}
\rank(P\Sigma(A)/[P\Sigma(A), P\Sigma(A)])= 1 + \sum_{i} \dim(S_i) - \sum_{i < j} \dim(S_i \cap S_j) \\ + \sum_{i<j<k} \dim(S_i \cap S_j \cap S_k) - \dots+ (-1)^{n-1} \dim(S_1 \cap \dots \cap S_p).
\end{multline*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It follows from Theorem \ref{Thm:Presentation} that $\rank\bigl(P\Sigma(A)/[P\Sigma(A), P\Sigma(A)]\bigr) = |\partialconjugations|$. Suppose $\gen{a}{K} \in \partialconjugations$. Let $b$ be a vertex in $K$, and let $L$ be the connected component of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{b}$ such that $a \in L$. Then $\{\gen{a}{K}, \gen{b}{L}\}$ is a p-set. Thus every partial conjugation is contained in at least one p-set. Now, as in the proof of Lemma \ref{Lem:CountingDimensions}, the lemma follows from the Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion and the identity $\sum_{i=1}^p (-\!1)^{i-1}{p \choose i} = 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{Cor:NoTypeII}
If $P\Sigma(A)$ is isomorphic to a right-angled Artin group, then $\Sigma^1(P\Sigma(A))^c$ contains no characters of type II.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $P\Sigma(A)$ is isomorphic to a right-angled Artin group, and assume the notation of Lemma \ref{Lem:CountingInPSigmaA}. It follows from Theorem \ref{Lem:CountingDimensions} and
Lemma \ref{Lem:CountingInPSigmaA}, that $S_1, \dots, S_p$ is the complete list of complement subspaces corresponding to minimal complement kernels (and $P\Sigma(A)$ has no center). Thus $S_1, \dots, S_p$ is the complete list of maximal missing sub-spheres in $S(P\Sigma(A))$, and
$$\Sigma^1(P\Sigma(A))^c = \bigcup_{i=1}^p S_i.$$
Since each character in each $S_i$ is type I, and by Corollary \ref{Cor:TypeIandTypeII} no character is type I and type II, we conclude that $\Sigma^1(P\Sigma(A))^c$ contains no characters of type II.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:Converse}
If $\Gamma$ contains a SIL, then $P\Sigma(A)$ is not isomorphic to a right-angled Artin group.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\Gamma$ contains a SIL. Let $a, b$ and $M$ be as in the definition of a SIL, let $K$ be the connected component of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{a}$ that contains $b$, and let $L$ be the connected component of $\Gamma \setminus \Star{b}$ that contains $a$. The set $\{\gen{a}{K}, \gen{a}{M}, \gen{b}{L}, \gen{b}{M}\}$ is a $\delta$-p-set. In particular, $\Sigma^1(P\Sigma(A))$ contains at least one character of type II. By Corollary \ref{Cor:NoTypeII}, $P\Sigma(A)$ is not isomorphic to a right-angled Artin group.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{Prop:Converse} and \cite[Theorem 3.6]{charney} prove Theorem~\ref{Theorem:MainB}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Iterative systems naturally arise in wireless networks, parallel processors or in game-theoretic applications when multiple
independent agents or nodes update their parameters based on their observations of the system. In a \emph{synchronized} system, all nodes perform these updates in every iteration. Conversely, we define an \emph{asynchronous system}, where either (i) only a subset of nodes will update in an iteration, or (ii) all nodes may update but the adaptation of some nodes is based on stale system information based on a previous iteration. Either situation may arise due to random feedback delays on receiving the system state information.
It is well-known that if the spectral radius of the underlying iterative matrix (which determines the interference or interaction between each pair of nodes) is less than one then the synchronized system converges to a \emph{fixed point}. In the following discussion, we provide a proof for convergence of an asynchronous iterative system. This proof is based on showing that the product of the effective matrices within any $T$ iterations has a spectral radius is less than one even though the spectral radii of individual matrices may be one. Finally, we also show convergence of the system given estimation error as long as (i) the error is independent of the nodal updates, and (ii) the error projects the iterative matrix into a new matrix which still satisfies the inequality on its spectral radius.
\section{System Description}
Suppose a linear system comprising $n$ nodes which are all independently updating some parameter. Each node updates its parameter $P_i$ based on its received information regarding the state of the system from its vantage point $E_i$. The nodes update their parameters in iterations $k \in \{1,2,\cdots, \infty\}$. In iteration $k$, we define:
\begin{equation}
E_i(k) = \sum_{j\neq i} g_{i,j}P_j(k),
\end{equation}
where $g_{i,j}$ captures the cross-talk or interference effect between node $i$ and node $j$ where in general $g_{j,i}\neq g_{i,j}$. The update of each node $i$ is such that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P_i(k+1) &= D_i + E_i(k)\\
&= D_i + \sum_{j\neq i} g_{i,j}P_j(k).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other hand $D_i$ represents some fixed parameter particular to node $i$. We let $\bf{D}$ be $n \times 1$ vector where element $i$ such that ${\bf{D}}(i)= D_i$ and define an $n \times n$ matrix ${\bf{F}}$ such that its element in row $i$ and column $j$ given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\bf{F}}(i,j) = g_{i,j}. \label{matrix}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that depending on the system, the $i^{th}$ diagonal entry in the above matrix may be typically be zero (i.e. ${\bf{F}}(i,i)=0$) when there is no auto-feedback for the node $i$. Each node $i$, which is assumed to know its current state in terms of $E_i(k)$, updates its paramter $P_i$ based on this observation. Note that $P_i(k+1)$ denotes its updated value for iteration $k+1$. In vector notation, we can describe the system state alternatively as
\begin{equation}\label{cutoff_thre}
{\bf{E}}(k)= {\bf{FP}}(k)
\end{equation}
and the adaptations or updates by the nodes equivalently as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\bf{P}}(k+1) &= {\bf{D}}+ {\bf{E}}(k)\\
&={\bf{D}} +{\bf{FP}}(k). \label{matrixadapt}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\section{Synchronous Convergence}
Let ${\bf{I}}$ denote the identity matrix and $\rho({\bf{Q}})$ be the spectral radius of a $n \times n$ matrix ${\bf{Q}}$.
\begin{lemma}
If $\rho({\bf{F}})<1$, then a unique feasible fixed point for the nodal updates is $\left[{\bf{I+F}}\right]^{-1}{\bf{D}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is well-known that the evolution of the updates in \eqref{matrixadapt} is such that:
\begin{equation}\label{powerseries}
\begin{split}
{\bf{P}}(k+1)&={\bf{D}}-{\bf{F}}\left({\bf{D}} + {\bf{F}}\left({\bf{D}}+{\bf{F}}\left(\cdots {\bf{P}}(0) \right) \right)\right) \\
&={[}{\bf{I}} + {\bf{F}}+{\bf{F}}^2 + {\bf{F}}^3+\cdots\\
&+(-1)^{k-1}{\bf{F}}^{(k-1)}{]}{\bf{D}}+(-1)^k{\bf{F}}^k{\bf{P}}(0)\\
\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{P}}(k+1)&=\left[{\bf{I+F}}\right]^{-1}{\bf{D}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf{P}}(0)$ represents the initial values chosen by the $n$ nodes. Since the maximum absolute eigenvalue of $\bf{F}$ is less than one then, by definition, the term $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}^k{\bf{P}}(0)$ will disappear to an all zeros vector \cite[pg. 618, 7.10.10]{meyer04}.
Finally, as the converged transmit power vector does not depend on the initial transmit powers, the fixed point above is also unique.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
If $\max\limits_{{\bf{F}}}|\lambda_{{\bf{F}}}|<1$ then $\max\limits_{-{\bf{F}}}|\lambda_{-{\bf{F}}}|<1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition ${\bf{Fx}}= \lambda{\bf{x}}$ where for a given eigenvalue $\lambda$, $\bf{x}$ is the associated eigenvector. Multiplying the equation by $-1$ would yield $(-{\bf{F}}){\bf{x}}= (-\lambda){\bf{x}}$. Since this does not change the absolute value of $-\lambda$
hence $|\lambda_{(-{\bf{F}})}|=|\lambda_{{\bf{F}}}|$.
\end{proof}
\qedhere
We know from \cite[p 184]{lancaster} that when all the eigenvalues of a square matrix $\bf{Q}$ satisfy the condition $|\lambda_{\bf{Q}}|<1$ then the matrix series ${\bf{I}}+{\bf{Q}}+{\bf{Q}}^2+\cdots = [{\bf{I}}-{\bf{Q}}]^{-1}$. We can therefore substitute ${\bf{Q}}=-{\bf{F}}$ when the spectral radius of $\bf{F}$ is less than one, to get $\left[{\bf{I}} - {\bf{F}}+{\bf{F}}^2+\cdots\right]=[{\bf{I}} +{\bf{F}} ]^{-1}$. Thus, convergence is not affected whether the eigenvalues are positive or negative as long as their absolute value remain bounded by 1.
\section{Asynchronous Systems}
Thus far, we have assumed that in every iteration all $n$ nodes update their values. Now suppose that only a subset of the $n$ nodes will update in an iteration. Moreover, the subset of updating nodes may change from iteration to iteration.
\subsection*{Binary Diagonal Random Matrices}
A matrix may be considered \emph{random} if its entries consist of random numbers from some specified distribution \cite{anderson_random_matrices}. We define a binary diagonal random matrix ${\bf{A}}(k)= diag[a_1(k), \cdots, a_n(k)]$ as an $n \times n$ diagonal matrix where $a_i(k) \in \{1,0\}$. If node $i$ updates in iteration $k$ then $a_i(k)=1$, otherwise $a_i(k)=0$. The probability mass function of the values of $a_i(k), \forall i, k$ could be arbitrary.
Given ${\bf{A}}(k)$, the asynchronous iterative system can be described as:
\begin{eqnarray}\
\begin{split} \label{asynclocaladapt}
{\bf{P}}(k+1) &= [{\bf{I}}-{\bf{A}}(k)]{\bf{P}}(k) + {\bf{A}}(k)[{\bf{D}} + {\bf{F}}{\bf{P}}(k)] \\
& = {\bf{D}}(k) + {\bf{F}}(k){\bf{P}}(k)
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
{\bf{D}}(k) = {\bf{A}}(k){\bf{D}}
\end{equation}
and the modified random iterative matrix ${\bf{F}}(k)$ as
\begin{equation}
{\bf{F}}(k) = {\bf{A}}(k){\bf{F}}+[{\bf{I}}-{\bf{A}}(k)]. \label{FK}
\end{equation}
Note that ${\bf{F}}(k)$ can be considered a \emph{random matrix} since its entries are based on any any arbitrary delay distribution in the nodes' update.
In \eqref{asynclocaladapt}, a node updates in iteration $k$ or maintains its value from the previous iteration $P_i(k+1) = P_i(k)$. If all nodes update in iteration $k$ then ${\bf{A}}(k)={\bf{I}}$ and we have ${\bf{P}}(k+1)={\bf{D}}+{\bf{F}}{\bf{P}}(k)$. Conversely, no node updates in the iteration then ${\bf{A}}(k)=0.{\bf{I}}$ and thus ${\bf{P}}(k+1)={\bf{P}}(k)$ (all other cases being intermediate situations).
\begin{lemma}
If $\rho({\bf{F}})<1$ then $\rho({\bf{F}}(k))=1$ if $a_i(k)=0$ for any node $i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We are given that ${\bf{F}}(k)={\bf{A}}(k){\bf{F}} +[{\bf{I}}-{\bf{A}}(k)]$ and the spectral radius of the matrix is such that $\rho({\bf{F}})<1$. Therefore, if $a_i(k)=0$, then row $i$ in matrix ${\bf{F}}(k)$ will all have zeros elements except for the diagonal element ${\bf{F}}(k)(i,i)=1$. As per Gershgorin circle theorem \cite{meyer04}, by definition the matrix ${\bf{F}}(k)$ now has an eigenvalue of $1$ (i.e. $\rho({\bf{F}}(k))=1$).
\end{proof}
In other words, if any node does not update in iteration $k$ then this renders the spectral radius of matrix ${\bf{F}}(k)$ equal to one.
Next assume that each node updates at least once within any $T$ consecutive iterations. This constraint can be captured as $\sum_{t = k-T}^k{\bf{A}}(t) \geq {\bf{I}}$ where the diagonal indicates the total number of times each node has updated between the current iteration $k$ and the preceding $T$ iterations (i.e. interval $t \in \{k, k-1, \cdots, k-T+1\}$). Such a constraint can be considered as a bound on the random delays in the updates.
\begin{theorem}
If $\rho(\bf{F})<1$, and $\sum_{t = k-T}^k{\bf{A}}(t) \geq {\bf{I}}$ then $\rho\left(\prod^k_{t=k-T+1}{\bf{F}}(t)\right)<1$. \label{jointSpecRad}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If the spectral radius of $\bf{F}$ is less than one (i.e. $|\lambda_{\bf{F}}|<1$) then $\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}^k = 0. {\bf{I}}$ \cite[pg. 618]{meyer04}.
Recall that ${\bf{F}}(t) = {\bf{A}}(t){\bf{F}}+[{\bf{I}}-{\bf{A}}(t)]$ where $k-T+1\leq t\leq k$.
Next, note that column $i$ of the matrix $\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}_t^k$ will converge to an all zeros vector if $a_i(t) = {\bf{A}}(t)(i,i)=1$. Conversely, if $a_i(t)={\bf{A}}_t(i,i)=0$, then column $i$ of $\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}_t^k$ will not converge to a zeros vector (see \cite[pg. 630]{meyer04} for a detailed discussion).
Next consider the constraint that link $i$ adapt within $T$ iterations. If the diagonal entry ${\bf{A}}(t)(i,i) = 0$, then there must be some other ${\bf{A}}(u)(i,i) = 1$ where $u \in \{t,t+1, \cdots t+T\}: u \neq t$. Thus, column $i$ of the corresponding matrix $\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}_u^k$ would be an all zeros vector. Consequently, over $T$ iterations, we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}(t)^k\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}({t-1})^k\cdots \lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}({t-T})^k = 0. {\bf{I}}\\
\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}(t)^k{\bf{F}}({t-1})^k\cdots {\bf{F}}({t-T})^k = 0. {\bf{I}}\\
\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} \left({\bf{F}}(t){\bf{F}}({t-1})\cdots {\bf{F}}({t-T})\right)^k = 0. {\bf{I}}\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By definition, the spectral radius of a matrix is less than one if its power taken to infinite results an all zeros matrix (i.e. $\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} \left({\bf{F}}(t){\bf{F}}({t-1})\cdots {\bf{F}}({t-T})\right)^k = 0. {\bf{I}}$) \cite[pg. 618]{meyer04}. Thus, for any consecutive $T$ iterations, the spectral radius of the corresponding matrix ${\bf{F}}(t){\bf{F}}({t-1})\cdots{\bf{F}}({t-T})$ is strictly less than one. This also implies that as $k \gg T$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{F}}(k){\bf{F}}({k-1})\cdots {\bf{F}}(1) &=
\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} \left({\bf{F}}(k)\cdots {\bf{F}}({k-T})\right)\left({\bf{F}}({k-T-1})
\cdots {\bf{F}}({k-2T-1})\right)\cdots\\
&= 0.{\bf{I}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
In above, if each node updates at least once in every $T$ consecutive iterations then the product of matrices has a spectral radius less than one. Next, we show convergence of the matrix series in \eqref{asynclocaladapt} based on Theorem~\ref{jointSpecRad}.
\begin{theorem}
If $\rho\left({\bf{F}}\right)<1$, and each node updates at least once in every $T$ consecutive iterations, then the system converges. \label{convProof}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We can expand the series in (\ref{asynclocaladapt}) as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split} \label{asynseries}
{\bf{P}}(k+1) &={\bf{D}}(k)+{\bf{F}}({k-1}){\bf{D}}({k-1})+{\bf{F}}({k}){\bf{F}}({k-1}){\bf{D}}({k-2})\\
&+{\bf{F}}({k}){\bf{F}}({k-1}){\bf{F}}({k-2}){\bf{D}}({k-3})+\cdots\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
To show convergence of the series in (\ref{asynseries}), we take the \emph{absolute convergence} test \cite[pg. 181]{pugh2002}. That is, an infinite series of real numbers $\sum_{t}^{\infty} f_t$ will converge if the absolute of all its terms $\sum_t^{\infty} |f_t|$ converges. We first show the convergence of
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\bf{D}}(k) +|{\bf{F}}({k-1})|{\bf{D}}({k-1}) +|{\bf{F}}({k}){\bf{F}}({k-1})|{\bf{D}}({k-2})+\\
|{\bf{F}}({k}){\bf{F}}({k-1}){\bf{F}}({k-2})|{\bf{D}}({k-3})+\cdots
\end{split}\label{asynproof}
\end{equation}
where, the terms ${\bf{D}}({k-i})$ can be separated out.
Let us now consider a couple of intermediate steps in our proof. Firstly, a series of non-negative real numbers $\sum_{t}^{\infty}|f_t|$ will converge if a bounding series $\sum_t^{\infty} |q_t|$ such that $|q_t|\geq |f_t| \geq 0$ converges \cite[pg. 180]{pugh2002}. Secondly, a matrix series of the type ${\bf{I}}+{\bf{Q}}+{\bf{Q}}^2 + \cdots+ {\bf{Q}}^k$ converges if $\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\bf{Q}}^k = 0.{\bf{I}}$ \cite[pg. 126]{meyer04}. For some finite $T: T <k$
$$
\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow\infty}
|{\bf{F}}({k}){\bf{F}}({k-1})\cdots {\bf{F}}({1})| = 0.{\bf{I}}.
$$
Thus, for some arbitrary non-negative valued ${\bf{Q}}$ and ${\bf{R}}$ of dimensions $n \times n$ and $n \times 1$ respectively we will have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\lim\limits_{k \rightarrow\infty}{\bf{R}}+{\bf{Q}}{\bf{R}}+{\bf{Q}}^2{\bf{R}} + \cdots {\bf{Q}}^k{\bf{R}} &\geq \lim\limits_{k \rightarrow\infty} {\bf{D}}({k}) +|{\bf{F}}({k-1})|{\bf{D}}({k-1}) + \cdots \\
&|{\bf{F}}({k}){\bf{F}}({k-1})\cdots {\bf{F}}({1}) |{\bf{D}}({0}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus this implies that the series in (\ref{asynproof}) will converge and so will the series in (\ref{asynseries}) as per the absolute convergence test.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Estimation Error}
In practical systems, there may be an estimation error that renders node's knowledge about the system state as imperfect \cite{Medard2000}. The updates will thus be based on inaccurate state information.
Essentially, the estimation error will project ${{E}}(k)$ into $\widehat{E_i}(k)= \sum_{j\neq i} {\widehat{g_{i,i}}} P_j(k)$. Consequently, the matrix of the whole system can be denoted as $\widehat{\bf{F}}$ due to the imperfect or faulty state information remains constant over the time interval if the estimates are independent of the parameter updates. In that case, if we have $\rho(\widehat{\bf{F}})<1$ the system still convergences as Theorems~\ref{jointSpecRad} and ~\ref{convProof} still hold.
\section{Rate of Convergence}
We let the probability mass function of the random variables $a_i(k)$ be based on an ergodic process and as follows:
\begin{equation}
a_i(k)=
\begin{cases}
0 \mbox{, $p_{ik}$,}\\
1 \mbox{, $1-p_{ik}$}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $p_{ik}$ denotes the probability that node $i$ will update in iteration $k$. We define
\begin{equation}
\gamma = \underset{i,k}{\min} p_{ik}
\end{equation}
that denotes the lowest probability of an update by any node over the ergodic process. Therefore, the lower bound on the probability, denoted as $\lambda$, that in a $T$ iteration interval, all nodes will update at least once is
\begin{equation}
\lambda = \mbox{Prob($\sum_{t = k-T}^k{\bf{A}}(t) \geq {\bf{I}}$)}\geq (1-(1-\gamma)^T)^n
\end{equation}
given that the nodes are independent. The \emph{rate of convergence} $R$ may be described as the effective spectral radius over the $T$ iteration interval (i.e. a measure of $\frac{{\bf{P}}(k)-{\bf{P}}(k-T)}{T}$). Formally, it is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
R &:= \rho({\bf{F}})\frac{\lambda}{T}\\
&= \rho({\bf{F}})\frac{(1-(1-\gamma)^T)^n}{T}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Alternatively, if it is certain that each node will update in every iterations $T$, but the randomness is limited to the exact number of updates that each node will perform (i.e. ${\bf{I}} \leq \sum_{t = k-T}^k{\bf{A}}(t) \leq T.{\bf{I}}$), then the convergence rate is simply
\begin{equation}
R := \frac{\rho({\bf{F}})}{T}
\end{equation}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.